IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0105981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Soil Quality Index Using Three Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Atanu Mukherjee
  • Rattan Lal

Abstract

Assessment of management-induced changes in soil quality is important to sustaining high crop yield. A large diversity of cultivated soils necessitate identification development of an appropriate soil quality index (SQI) based on relative soil properties and crop yield. Whereas numerous attempts have been made to estimate SQI for major soils across the World, there is no standard method established and thus, a strong need exists for developing a user-friendly and credible SQI through comparison of various available methods. Therefore, the objective of this article is to compare three widely used methods to estimate SQI using the data collected from 72 soil samples from three on-farm study sites in Ohio. Additionally, challenge lies in establishing a correlation between crop yield versus SQI calculated either depth wise or in combination of soil layers as standard methodology is not yet available and was not given much attention to date. Predominant soils of the study included one organic (Mc), and two mineral (CrB, Ko) soils. Three methods used to estimate SQI were: (i) simple additive SQI (SQI-1), (ii) weighted additive SQI (SQI-2), and (iii) statistically modeled SQI (SQI-3) based on principal component analysis (PCA). The SQI varied between treatments and soil types and ranged between 0–0.9 (1 being the maximum SQI). In general, SQIs did not significantly differ at depths under any method suggesting that soil quality did not significantly differ for different depths at the studied sites. Additionally, data indicate that SQI-3 was most strongly correlated with crop yield, the correlation coefficient ranged between 0.74–0.78. All three SQIs were significantly correlated (r = 0.92–0.97) to each other and with crop yield (r = 0.65–0.79). Separate analyses by crop variety revealed that correlation was low indicating that some key aspects of soil quality related to crop response are important requirements for estimating SQI.

Suggested Citation

  • Atanu Mukherjee & Rattan Lal, 2014. "Comparison of Soil Quality Index Using Three Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105981
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105981
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105981&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0105981?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Prapasiri Tongsiri & Wen-Yu Tseng & Yuan Shen & Hung-Yu Lai, 2020. "Comparison of Soil Properties and Organic Components in Infusions According to Different Aerial Appearances of Tea Plantations in Central Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Stevens, Andrew W., 2018. "Review: The economics of soil health," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Lucia Santorufo & Valeria Memoli & Speranza Claudia Panico & Giorgia Santini & Rossella Barile & Antonella Giarra & Gabriella Di Natale & Marco Trifuoggi & Anna De Marco & Giulia Maisto, 2021. "Combined Effects of Wildfire and Vegetation Cover Type on Volcanic Soil (Functions and Properties) in a Mediterranean Region: Comparison of Two Soil Quality Indices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Valero, Antonio & Palacino, Bárbara & Ascaso, Sonia & Valero, Alicia, 2022. "Exergy assessment of topsoil fertility," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 464(C).
    5. Zakir Hussain & Limei Deng & Xuan Wang & Rongyang Cui & Gangcai Liu, 2022. "A Review of Farmland Soil Health Assessment Methods: Current Status and a Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Mohamed K. Abdel-Fattah & Elsayed Said Mohamed & Enas M. Wagdi & Sahar A. Shahin & Ali A. Aldosari & Rosa Lasaponara & Manal A. Alnaimy, 2021. "Quantitative Evaluation of Soil Quality Using Principal Component Analysis: The Case Study of El-Fayoum Depression Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Laís Coutinho Zayas Jimenez & Hermano Melo Queiroz & Maurício Roberto Cherubin & Tiago Osório Ferreira, 2022. "Applying the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) to Assess Mangrove Soil Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Arenas-Calle, Laura N. & Ramirez-Villegas, Julian & Whitfield, Stephen & Challinor, Andrew J., 2021. "Design of a Soil-based Climate-Smartness Index (SCSI) using the trend and variability of yields and soil organic carbon," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    9. Deepesh Goyal & Varun Joshi & Neha Gupta & Marina M. S. Cabral-Pinto, 2022. "Soil Quality Assessment in a Landslide Chronosequence of Indian Himalayan Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    11. Xiaopeng Shi & Xin Song & Guibin Zhao & Qifeng Yang & Lynette K. Abbott & Fengmin Li, 2022. "Manure Application Is the Key to Improving Soil Quality of New Terraces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Salman A. H. Selmy & Salah H. Abd Al-Aziz & Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta & Francisco Jesús García-Navarro & Mohamed E. Fadl, 2021. "Soil Quality Assessment Using Multivariate Approaches: A Case Study of the Dakhla Oasis Arid Lands," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    13. Pasquale Napoletano & Claudio Colombo & Erika Di Iorio & Valeria Memoli & Speranza Claudia Panico & Anna Gabriella Ruggiero & Lucia Santorufo & Giulia Maisto & Anna De Marco, 2021. "Integrated Approach for Quality Assessment of Technosols in Experimental Mesocosms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    14. Park, Dojin, 2021. "The Valuation of Soil Health Improvements and Ecosystem Services among Crop Producers in the U.S," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 314032, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Zeyu Shi & Zhongke Bai & Donggang Guo & Meijing Chen, 2021. "Develop a Soil Quality Index to Study the Results of Black Locust on Soil Quality below Different Allocation Patterns," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Collins-Sowah, Peron A. & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2019. "Risk management and its implications on household incomes," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2019-05, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    17. Mostafa A. Abdellatif & Ahmed A. El Baroudy & Muhammad Arshad & Esawy K. Mahmoud & Ahmed M. Saleh & Farahat S. Moghanm & Kamal H. Shaltout & Ebrahem M. Eid & Mohamed S. Shokr, 2021. "A GIS-Based Approach for the Quantitative Assessment of Soil Quality and Sustainable Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, December.
    18. Pushpanjali & Josily Samuel & Prabhat Kumar Pankaj & Konda Srinivas Reddy & Karunakaran Karthikeyan & Ardha Gopala Krishna Reddy & Jagriti Rohit & Kotha Sammi Reddy & Vinod Kumar Singh, 2023. "Fodder Grass Strips: An Affordable Technology for Sustainable Rainfed Agriculture in India," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    19. Aldrin Martin Perez-Marin & Jhony Vendruscolo & Jhonatan Rafael Zárate-Salazar & Heithor Alexandre De Araújo Queiroz & Daniel Lima Magalhães & Rômulo S. C. Menezes & Izaias Médice Fernandes, 2022. "Monitoring Desertification Using a Small Set of Biophysical Indicators in the Brazilian Semiarid Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, August.
    20. David B Lobell & George Azzari & Marshall Burke & Sydney Gourlay & Zhenong Jin & Talip Kilic & Siobhan Murray, 2020. "Eyes in the Sky, Boots on the Ground: Assessing Satellite‐ and Ground‐Based Approaches to Crop Yield Measurement and Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 202-219, January.
    21. Maurício R Cherubin & Douglas L Karlen & Carlos E P Cerri & André L C Franco & Cássio A Tormena & Christian A Davies & Carlos C Cerri, 2016. "Soil Quality Indexing Strategies for Evaluating Sugarcane Expansion in Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.