Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoderma
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Ecological intensification with soil health practices demonstrates positive

impacts on multiple soil properties: A large-scale farmer-led experiment
Fernanda Souza Krupek a, *, Daren Redfearn a, Kent M. Eskridge b, Andrea Basche a
a
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
b
Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Ingrid Kögel-Knabner Improving soil health is critical to reversing trends of soil degradation and is of increasing interest to a range of
stakeholders including policymakers, agricultural industry leaders, food companies, and farmers. Crop and soil
Keywords: management practices focused on ecological functions can be effective in restoring fundamental biological,
Soil health practices chemical and physical soil properties. The call for ecological intensification of agricultural systems has the po­
Soil properties
tential to improve soil health and input-use efficiency. In this study, we developed a framework to classify spatial
Ecological intensification
and temporal ecological intensification with soil health practices: tillage, crop rotation, cover crop, organic
Soil management
On-farm study amendment, and crop-livestock integration. We applied this framework in a statewide soil health project
Cover crop featuring collaboratively designed on-farm research. We found that ecological intensification affected all prop­
erties commonly used in soil health assessments, but the sensitivity of different practices to impact changes
varied among the soil physical, chemical and biological properties. The use of cover crops had the greatest
impact on driving changes in soil properties, in particular those closely related to organic matter and carbon (C)
and nitrogen (N) dynamics. Soil-test biological activity and its association with soil-test predicted N release in
cropping systems intensified with cover crop use was found to reduce predicted nutrient fertility needs sub­
stantially compared to less intensified systems. Evaluating the potential of existing agricultural systems to un­
dergo ecological intensification at a farm scale provides insights about management options to enhance soil
health, particularly in regards to nutrient cycling, biological activity, and input-use efficiency.

1. Introduction ecological processes, improve the production capacity of agricultural

lands, and reverse trends in soil degradation (Delgado et al., 2011).
The dominant Midwestern U.S. agricultural production systems are Ecological intensification is proposed as a related approach to land
highly specialized and input-dependent, most often focusing on high- management that incorporates “ecological processes into soil and crop
productivity while neglecting ecological processes such as nutrient management strategies to enhance ecosystem service delivery and
and water cycling (Prokopy et al., 2020; Gliessman, 2014). These pro­ reduce external inputs” (Bender et al., 2016).
duction systems not only contribute to the deterioration of fundamental Enhancing ecological intensification spatially (e.g., diversified crop
properties of soils (Evans et al., 2020) but have also shown to be fragile rotations) or temporally (e.g., long-standing cover cropping, no-tilling)
and vulnerable to shocks such as extreme weather events and market has been found to provide beneficial effects on ecosystem processes
fluctuations, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 global pandemic (Hart (Bender et al., 2016). Also, incorporating principles of soil health pro­
et al., 2020; NOAA, 2020a, 2020b; Westhoff et al., 2020). Incorporating vides farmers with strategies to maintain productivity while reducing
principles of soil health – maximizing aboveground diversity, providing negative environmental impacts. For example, cover crops can reduce
continuous roots and cover of the soil, and minimizing soil disturbance – off-site nutrient flow and increase infiltration (Basche et al., 2019;
is another approach to land management; utilizing these principles on Taylor et al., 2016), diverse crop rotations can interrupt weed growth
agricultural lands is widely recognized as an opportunity to recouple cycles lowering pesticide use (MacLaren et al., 2019), and prescribed

Abbreviations: CCU, cover crop use; CDI, crop diversity index; YWSD, years without soil disturbance; OAI, organic amendment index; CL, crop-livestock inte­
gration; HSHT, Haney soil health tool; MLRA, Major Land Resource Area.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F.S. Krupek).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115594
Received 29 April 2021; Received in revised form 25 October 2021; Accepted 9 November 2021
Available online 26 November 2021
0016-7061/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

grazing practices, such as adding legumes and avoiding overgrazing, can Recent data analyses from on-farm studies considering multiple soil
protect soil and water resources (Rakkar and Blanco-Canqui, 2018; health practices concluded that crop diversity, tillage reduction, and the
DeLonge and Basche, 2018). use of organic amendments are key practices for building soil health
There is increasing interest in promoting soil health as a solution to (Williams et al., 2020). However, there is a need to refine future studies
many agri-environmental challenges from a diverse group of stake­ by including a broader spectrum of management practices, particularly
holders, including policymakers, agricultural industry leaders, food at the farm-scale.
companies, and farmers (Sherwood and Uphoff, 2000). Some of the In this research, we developed a framework to classify spatial and
recent movements and agro-environmental initiatives across the US temporal ecological intensification of management practices included in
supporting soil health include the creation of the Soil Health Institute a series of farmer-led soil health experiments. By using the concept of
(Soil Health Institute, 2018), the initiation of the Soil Health Division by ecological intensification, we described agronomic management prac­
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the formation of tices (e.g., tillage, crop rotation, cover crop, organic amendment, and
the “Healthy Soils – Thriving Farms Challenge Area” by the Foundation crop-livestock integration) based on their potential to promote crop
for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) as well as numerous other growth and reduce soil disturbance (Caudle et al., 2013). We then
state, local and NGO soil health incentive programs (Karlen et al. 2019). employed this framework with a dataset of soil biological, chemical and
Despite increasing enthusiasm for and attention toward soil health physical properties from a statewide soil conservation program
related practices, utilization of soil health practices are still low; for featuring collaboratively designed on-farm research to evaluate the
example it is estimated that<30% of cropland acres in the U.S. utilize impacts of management systems intended to improve soil health.
no-till management and 4–5% utilize cover crops (Seifert et al., 2018; Our research questions include:
USDA-NASS, 2019). Thus, this limited adoption rate raises opportunities
for further advancement in research to understand the opportunity for 1) What is the relationship between ecological intensification and soil
management to improve key soil health related functions. properties?
Emerging interest in soil health has increased the urgency to un­ 2) How does ecological intensification influence physical, chemical,
derstand the potential benefits of farmers transitioning from conven­ and biological soil properties?
tional towards more ecologically-based production systems. This 3) What is the relationship between nutrient recommendation and
transition to soil health related practices can be identified in a contin­ savings and ecological intensification?
uum, ranging from annual crop systems with highly disturbed soils (i.e.,
intensive tillage, limited crop diversity) to perennially-based systems 2. Materials and methods
with less-disturbed soils (i.e., pasture, restored prairie) (Karlen et al.,
2019). Further, farmers adopting conservation practices generally work 2.1. Study sites and soil management systems description
in a whole-farm systems approach, fine-tuning and incorporating mul­
tiple elements of crop and soil management practices (Church et al., This study was part of a state-wide partnership to monitor changes of
2020). In addition, innovative farmers are interested in more systems- soil properties through the adoption of conservation practices including
level experiments that incorporate multiple factors of management reduced tillage, cover crops, diversified crop rotations, and crop-
practices (e.g., crop rotation, cover crop, tillage methods, fertilizer livestock integration. This collaborative project was launched in 2016
application rate, time and placement) and the manner in which if one through a partnership between the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
factor is implemented it influences the outcome from each of the other (UNL) On-Farm Research Network and the U.S. Department of Agri­
factors (Basche and Roesch-McNally, 2017). This suggests that culture Natural Resources Conservation Service, and 17 farmer collab­
analyzing soil properties in the traditional manner (i.e., individual orators (Krupek et al., 2019a; Krupek et al., 2019b). In the first year of
measurement responses to single treatment factor) using small plot farm enrollment, NRCS field officer and UNL extension personnel
research are not optimal, because they have trouble evaluating more worked with the farmer to select the field, the soil health management
than two or three factors at once. Thus, new agronomic research practice to be trialled, and to design the trial. Trials require at least an 8-
methods are in need to scale up farmer’s adoption of soil health hectare field (to obtain at least a 0.3-hectare minimum plot size), and the
practices. most common layout was an 8-strip or 12-strip format (n = 4 or n = 6 for
Changes in physical, chemical, and biological soil properties are each treatment). The treatment strips were designed in completely
complex and variable. For example, soil aggregate stability, infiltration randomized blocks or alternated between treatments across the field.
rates, and microbial indicators quantified by meta-analysis are shown to Farmers participating in the project compared at least two contrasting
be very responsive (1–3 years for changes detection) to changes in cover soil management practices for 5 years. The selection of treatment
crop and no-tillage adoption (Stewart et al., 2018). Other soil indicators, comparisons was based on research questions generated by the farmer
such as organic carbon accumulation, might require over five years to based on their resource concern. Guidelines followed the “farmer-initi­
detect significant changes due to management interventions that reverse ated” approach to research, which is commonly used in on-farm research
soil degradation (Angers & Eriksen-Hamel, 2008). In addition, the lack programs (Thompson et al., 2019).
of studies jointly analyzing a range of agricultural management prac­ Ten on-farm study sites were included from the counties of Greeley,
tices, particularly beyond small field-experiment scales, has hampered Howard, Merrick, Colfax, Otoe, Nemaha, Knox, Dodge, Stanton, and
the development of a holistic approach to land management, which is Seward in Nebraska (Fig. 1). Sites fall within five different Major Land
important to intervene with protection and conservation strategies. To Resource Area Map Unit (MLRA), which are geographically associated
this point, a growing body of research examining current soil health land resource units according to USDA-NRCS (1981) classification. On-
assessments addresses one soil or crop practice (e.g., tillage, cover crop, farm sites were located in areas with a varied range of soil textures
organic production) at a time (de Paul Obade and Lal, 2016; Roper et al., (Fig. 2), classified predominantly as Mollisols and a few sites as Entisols
2017; Villamil et al. 2008; Xue et al., 2019; Zuber et al, 2017). Studies and Alfisols (Supplementary Table S1) (Soil Survey Staff, 1999). Field
trying to differentiate among the effects of various soil management history represented a range of soil health management practices in terms
practices suggest results are inconclusive or site-specific (Roper et al., of cash crop diversity, cover crop use, soil disturbance, application of
2017; Chahal and Van Eerd. 2018; Morrow et al., 2016). However, the organic amendments, and mixed livestock and cropping enterprises.
effect of management on soil health, which is crucial for multiple soil Such practices fall within the principles of soil health, which emphasizes
functions, are mostly derived from highly controlled experiments, which reducing soil disturbance, extending periods of living roots in the soil, as
tend to be over-simplified in terms of system complexity (Whalen et al., well as maximizing crop and livestock diversity (USDA–NRCS, 2018).
2003; Congreves et al., 2015; Alhameid et al., 2017; Nunes et al., 2018). The main cash crop species included in the on-farm experiments

2
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Fig. 1. Map of on-farm trials located in five Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) in Nebraska. Farm locations are indicated by pin signs.

crop rotation, soil management practice comparison, organic amend­

ment, tillage use, and crop-livestock integration was collected annually
for each field through a research participation form (Supplementary
Table S1).

2.2. Classification indexes for ecological intensification of soil health

practices

The diversity of soil health practices applied at the on-farm experi­

ments reflects a continuum of management from less to more ecologi­
cally intensified cropping systems as defined in Bender’s et al. (2016)
framework (Fig. 3). For each field-site treatment, we quantified the in­
cremental changes, in space and time, of soil health practices such as
crop diversity, frequency of mechanical soil disturbance, cover crop and
organic amendment use, and crop-livestock integration proposed by
Williams et al. (2020) and Tiemann et al. (2015). Across all sites, time of
cover crop use varied from zero to up to twelve years and years without
soil disturbance varied from zero to up to thirty years. Regarding the
number of different plant species in a 5-year rotation, fields varied from
Fig. 2. Soil texture for each of the soils sampled in this analysis, displayed in a
two to eighteen. The crop diversity index (CDI) was calculated as a ratio
texture triangle.
between the number of different crop species used and the maximum
number of crop species used across all field-site treatments considering a
were corn (Zea Mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Different
full cycle of crop rotation (5 years). The CDI included cash crops, cover
small grain crops were included in some the fields, such as wheat, trit­
crops, and forage crops. The cover crop use (CCU) and years without soil
icale, millet, and oats, which functioned as either cash crops, as non-
disturbance indexes (YWSD) were quantified based on the number of
grazed cover crops (with seed harvested for income), or as forage
years farmers were cover cropping and no-tilling, respectively. Finally,
crops grazed by cattle depending on the operation. In some fields where
we defined organic amendment use (OAI) and crop-livestock integration
crop-livestock integration was not part of the main treatment compari­
(CL) as the number of applications of organic amendment and frequency
son, cattle grazed corn and wheat residues during autumn to reduce high
of livestock grazing crop residue and cover crops during the past five
residue loads that can hinder planting and early seedling growth in
years. Each index (i.e., a proxy for either length of time or intensity of
subsequent crops. All fields were managed by the farmers according to
soil health management) was defined to represent a progression to a
best management practices, resulting in variation in cattle stocking rates
more ecologically intensified cropping system due to the adoption of soil
and organic and chemical inputs used between rotations and over time.
health management practices (Table 1). Higher index values represent
Cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop was commonly used in sites
higher the number of different plant species in the rotation, greater the
testing single species cover crops as a treatment. However, the majority
number of years with continuous living roots, the fewer number of years
of farmers used mixtures (5 + species) of cool-season small grain cereals,
with tillage operation, increased number of organic amendment appli­
legumes, brassicas, and warm-season summer annual grasses based on
cations, and more frequent integration of livestock into cropping
NRCS cover crop guidelines (USDA-NRCS, 2011). Information regarding
systems.

3
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Fig. 3. Representation of the soil health practices used in the ecological intensification framework. Practices included in this analysis were no-till, crop rotation,
organic amendment, crop-livestock integration, and cover crop. Spatial or temporal intensification of these practices could lead to changes in soil physical, chemical,
and biological properties. Possible changes in soil physical properties are represented through porosity or compaction (distribution of soil aggregates) and water
infiltration (depth of water in the soil profile). Possible changes in soil chemical properties are represented through the addition of nutrients represented in the soil
coloration (higher organic matter in darker soil) and circles representing available carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Possible changes in soil biological
properties are represented through the addition of bacteria, fungi, and earthworms in the soil profile. Cover cropping was found to be the most impactful of the
practices on soil properties in our analysis and is represented by darker soil color, lower compaction and larger soil aggregates, higher nutrient availability, and larger
number of soil microbes. This could be a result of cover crops offering continuous living roots relative to the other practices and driving changes in water movement,
organic matter, soil biological activity, and carbon and nitrogen dynamics as reported by this analysis. Sequence represents increases in relative importance of soil
health practices averaged across all physical, chemical and biological properties included in the multiple linear regression analysis. Artwork by Lana Koepke Johnson.

located at least 6 m apart from each other, were collected and

Table 1
composited for Haney test soil analysis, using soil sampler of a core
Maximum, minimum, mean, and median for the crop diversity index (CDI),
diameter of 32 mm diameter model PN012, JMC Backsaver N-2 handle
cover crop use (CCU), years without soil disturbance (YWSD), OAI (organic
amendment index), and crop-livestock integration (CL).
(JMC Soil samplers, Newton, IA, USA). In fields with a history of banded
fertilizer application, soil cores were collected from a transect perpen­
CDIa CCU YWSD OAI CL
dicular to the row crop, and if banding fertilizer was not practiced
Maximum 1 1 1 0.2 1 samples were collected adjacent to the cash crop row or near the rooting
Minimum 0.11 0 0 0 0 structure (Franzen, 2017). A total of 148 individual soil composite
Mean 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.04 0.23
Median 0.36 0.33 0.33 0 0
samples from 0 to 15 cm depth were collected across 30 site-soil health
management comparisons. Total sampling area was 267 ha. Soil samples
a
Soil management index calculation of the ith field and the maximum were stored in sealed plastic bags and transported in an ice-filled cooler
CDIi CCUi
measured value within our dataset:CDI = , CCU = , YWSD = to the laboratory for refrigeration at 4 ◦ C until being shipped for labo­
CDImax CCUmax
YWSDi OAI i CLi ratory analysis.
, OAI = , CL =
YWSDmax OAI max CLmax
2.4. Assessment of soil properties

2.3. Soil sampling Soils were analyzed for 21 field and laboratory measurements of
physical, chemical, and biological indicators. Field measurements
Fields included in the analysis ranged from 10 to 40 ha with plot sizes included in the NRCS assessment protocol (USDA-NRCS, 2020) were soil
ranging between 0.25 and 4.75 ha, depending on the farm field. All temperature, soil porosity, and a measure of initial water infiltration
fields were sampled from a 0–15 cm depth in autumn 2019, two or three using the method described by Smith (1999). Bulk density was deter­
years after the initiation of the on-farm experiment (experiments initi­ mined using the core method (Blake & Hartge, 1986). Gravimetric soil
ated either in 2016 or in 2017). Samples from the same field were moisture content was determined using methods described by Gardner
collected on the same day to avoid moisture or temperature fluctuations (1986).
between sampling locations. Each sampling point was geo-located using The remaining chemical and biological properties were analyzed
a global positioning system (GPS). using protocol from the Haney soil health test (HSHT), including soil
Sampling points for soil properties analysis (conducted either in the respiration and nutrient testing (Zuber and Kladivko, 2018). Soil-test
field or in laboratory) were selected on a representative basis from the biological activity (e.g., soil respiration, flush of CO2) was determined
soil type, plot size, and replication (Supplementary Table S2). There was from the flush of CO2-C following rewetting of dried soil with 24-h
at least one sampling location within a replicate strip. To minimize aerobic incubation at 50% water-filled pore space and 25 ◦ C. For anal­
spatial soil variation within a sampling location, a 6 m × 24 m area ysis, 40 g of soil samples in 0.25-L glass jars were wetted and CO2-C was
located at least 5 m away from the plot boundaries was designated for determined by infrared gas analyzer of headspace (Franzluebbers,
soil measurements (Supplementary Figure S1). Ten bulk soil samples, 2021). Soil organic matter content was analyzed by mass loss on ignition

4
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

(LOI) at 500 ◦ C for two hours and expressed as percent LOI (Nelson and software version 4.0.4 (R Core Team, 2018). Because multiple soil
Sommers, 1996). Nutrient testing for essential plant nutrients such as properties were measured from the same on-farm sites, there may be
inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and ammonium), inorganic, organic, and correlations among the variables, errors, and responses. Therefore, the
total phosphorus relied on the H3A soil extractant, a weak acid con­ first step in the analysis was to perform Pearson correlation analysis and
taining organic plant root exudates typically associated with plant observe how the soil properties were correlated to each other (Supple­
nutrient uptake from soil (Haney et al., 2006; Haney et al., 2010). HSHT mentary Figure S2). Given the moderate to high correlation among
also includes results of water-extractable organic C and N, measures of variables, which supports the usefulness of a multivariate approach, the
the pool of organic carbon and nitrogen readily available to the mi­ next step was to perform a principal component analysis (PCA) to
crobes. Water extractable C fractions are the most active SOC com­ analyze the variation in soil properties and ecological intensification
pounds comprised of mainly carbohydrate derived from plant roots, indexes as affected by field location. This analysis was performed based
microorganisms, amino acids and humid substances (Kalbitz and Kaiser, on correlation matrix, rather than the covariance matrix, because the
2008; Ćirić et al. 2016). Thus, these fractions can contribute to SOC soil health indicators included in the data set have different units and
changes due to management, being a suitable indicator for soil health variances (Supplementary Table S3). All individual variables were
assessment (Ghani et al. 2003). Other routine soil measurements checked for normality, confirming approximate multivariate normality
included total elemental potassium, calcium, aluminum, sulfur, man­ and suitable use of linear ordination methods. We also performed mul­
ganese, magnesium, and sodium analysis using inductively coupled tiple linear regression to analyze the influence of ecological intensifi­
argon plasma (ICAP) atomic emission spectroscopy. cation of soil health practices (i.e., classification indexes) on soil
Soil health score, soil-test predicted nitrogen release, and nutrient properties according to the model: y = CDI + CCU + YWSD + OAI + CL.
recommendations for the subsequent cash crop were HSHT-based cal­ Variance inflation factor and collinearity diagnosis were performed to
culations included in this analysis. Soil health score was calculated confirm the absence of a strong correlation among the management
based on values of soil-test biological activity, water-extractable organic indexes used as predictors (Supplementary Tables S4 and S5). Residuals
C and N (Eq. (1)). Soil-test predicted N release is the total amount of N of all regression models were checked for normality and homogeneity of
being released through microbial activity from the organic N pools. It is variance. Log transformation of the dependent variable was used for
the product of water-extractable organic N and microbial-available C infiltration and sulfur. Relative importance analysis was performed to
expressed in ppm (Eq. (2) and (3)). The soil-test predicted N release understand the extent to which each soil health management index
calculation is built on the assumptions that (i) water-extracted C and soil drives the prediction of soil properties. Relative importance (RI) was
respiration represent the total potential food source and the potentially calculated and considering the R2 contribution averaged over orderings
mineralizable C, the C accessible to microbes in 24-h incubation among repressors (lmg metrics) and expressed as percentage, according
(including physically bound C active to microbes), respectively; (ii) soil to Chevan and Sutherland (1991). The explained multiple regression
microorganisms use a similar proportion of water-extracted C and model variance was partitioned among the predictors to understand the
water-extracted N, (iii) during the growing season N is released in the role played by each soil health management index in the regression
soil, on average, four times after significant precipitation and (iv) the equation. The PCA, multiple regression models, and relative importance
soil-test predicted N release cannot exceed the water-extracted organic analysis were performed using the functions prcomp in the package
N (Haney interpretation guide, 2021). These HSHT calculations are stats, stepAIC in the package MASS, and relimp in the package relaimpo
evolving, but those presented here were used as of February 2020, by (Grömping and Lehrkamp, 2015), respectively. Simple linear regression
Ward Laboratories (Kearney, Nebraska). was used to understand the relationship between the variables soil-test
predicted N release and soil-test biological activity as well as corn and
CO2 − C WEOC WEON
SH score = + + (1) wheat N recommendation.
10 50 10

Soil − test predicted N release = WEON*MAC*4 (2) 3. Results

CO2 − C Soil physical, chemical and biological properties showed great

MAC = (3)
WEOC variability across sites and ecological intensification with different soil
health practices (Fig. 4). The first two principal components (PC)
where CO2-C is the soil-test biological activity, WEOC is water- explained 35% of the total variability within the dataset. The first PC
extractable organic C, WEON is water-extractable organic N, and MAC primarily described the variation due to physical versus biological and
is microbially active C. chemical soil properties. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 as the physical soil
Nutrient recommendations from HSHT for the subsequent cash crop, properties (e.g., bulk density, soil temperature, infiltration, volumetric
expressed on a per-area basis, were calculated based on nutrient con­ water content) have low PC1 scores while biological and chemical
centrations extracted from soil analysis and yield goals of 10.7 and 4.0 properties (e.g., soil-test biological activity, soil health score, water
ton/ha for corn and wheat, respectively. Recommendations were extractable organic and total N) have high PC1 scores. Fields with higher
developed based on calibrations from the University of Nebraska and intensification in crop diversity (CDI) were associated with greater
Kansas State University (R. Ward, personal communications, November infiltration and soil porosity, couple with reduced bulk density since the
4, 2020 and January 20, 2021). Yield goal values were selected to angle between CDI and these soil properties is either very small pointing
represent an average attainable yield for a typical farm in Nebraska towards the same direction (positive correlation) or in opposite direc­
considering both irrigated and rainfed systems (USDA-NASS, 2019). tion (negative correlation) (Fig. 4). Likewise, higher intensification in
Finally, soil-test hypothetical N savings were calculated based on the cover crop use (CCU) was associated with greater water extractable
difference (kg/ha) in N measured using the HSHT (using water- organic C (WEOC), soil-test biological activity, SH score, calcium,
extractable C and N pools) and traditional soil testing using residual magnesium and reduced bulk density. Intensification in organic
nitrate and considering an N price of $0.91/ kg N. amendment (OAI) was mainly associated with greater organic matter
and soil-test biological activity. Fields with higher years without soil
2.5. Statistical analysis disturbance (YWSD) were associated with greater soil volumetric water
content, coupled with reduced potassium, organic phosphorus and
In order to examine the research questions of interest, we analyzed a inorganic nitrogen. Fields intensified with crop-livestock integration
dataset comprised of 148 observations (i.e., composite samples) (CL) were associated with greater soil temperature and reduced levels of
collected from ten farms. Statistical analyses were performed using the R potassium, organic P and inorganic N (Fig. 4). There was a clear

5
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Fig. 4. Biplot obtained from principal components analysis based on the correlation matrix, showing the two first principal components (explaining 21% and 14%,
respectively). Each point represents samples collected in different fields (n = 148), loadings indicate soil properties and ecological intensification indexes. De­
scriptors: CDI = crop diversity index, CCU = cover crop use, OAI = organic amendment index, YWSD = years without soil disturbance, CL = crop-livestock inte­
gration, Vol. water content = volumetric water content, Inorg. N = inorganic nitrogen, Inorg. P = inorganic phosphorus, Org. P = organic phosphorus.

separation between soil samples from the Central Nebraska Loess Hills ecological intensification indexes presented here (not shown). Addi­
and the rest of the MLRA. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, as the PC scores of tionally, we tested but did not add interactions to the model because
Central Nebraska Loess Hills were primarily in the upper quadrants interactions could produce results that were not grounded in biological
while the other MRLA data points were located mostly in the lower processes or meaning, but rather a result of the varied indices across all
quadrants. The loading for PC2 indicate that organic matter, volumetric experiments (not every index/soil health practice was included at every
water content, potassium, organic P and inorganic N were helpful in site). Thus, we considered it impractical to include all potential in­
separating the MRLA regions. PC1 was a contrast of high positive teractions knowing that the biological meaning of this inclusion was
loadings of CDI, CCU, water extractable organic N, organic P, potassium limited.
and soil health score against the negative loading of bulk density Results from multiple linear regression analysis showed that soil
(Supplementary Table S6). PC2 consisted of negative loadings of CCU, physical, chemical and biological properties were all significantly
YWSD, and soil health score and high positive loading of potassium affected by site-specific ecological intensification, but the effects of
(Supplementary Table S6). Taken together, results from the principal ecological intensification on soil property improvements were practice-
component (PC) analysis provided evidence that the different experi­ specific (Table 2). Soil properties were either positively or negatively
mental sites, located in different regions and MLRAs, were diverse with related to different ecological intensification, and the regressions yiel­
regard to soil properties and intensification in CDI, CCU, YWSD, OAI, ded multiple R2 values between 0.07 and 0.79 (Table 2). For example, as
and CL (Fig. 4). In addition, improvements in soil health through soil intensification in CCU and OAI increased, soil water infiltration, organic
aggregation (reduced compaction and improved porosity and infiltra­ matter content, soil respiration (i.e., microbial activity), organic and
tion) and nutrient cycling, primarily organic C and N, were influenced inorganic P, and soil health score increased. Conversely, some soil health
by ecological intensification, particularly in CDI, CCU and OAI (Fig. 4, indicators were negatively correlated to intensification in soil manage­
Supplementary Table S6). ment. For example, a high YWSD was associated with improvements in
To further explore our dataset and understand the PCA results, we soil water infiltration but decreases in soil organic matter, water-
performed multiple regression analysis to identify the combination of extractable organic C and N, and soil respiration (Table 2). Further,
practices that perform best (i.e., most important factors leading to im­ analysis of regression equation coefficients showed that soil properties
provements in soil properties), when ecological intensification in were influenced via different paths by intensification in soil health
various soil health practices is assessed simultaneously. This overcomes management. For example, CCU was the most important and only soil
the constraints of previous research studies that usually evaluate only management practice identified by the multiple regression analysis that
two to three management factor at once (such as no-till vs. conventional lead to increases in both organic (i.e., water-extractable organic and
tillage, continuous corn vs. crop rotation or moderate vs. intensive vs. no total N) and inorganic N (Table 2).
grazing). We tested different random effect models to account for the The contribution of management intensification to the different soil
three main sources of random variation in our study block, farm location properties was quantified with relative importance analyses (Fig. 5).
and region (MLRA), but this did not significantly change the regression With respect to soil properties that are closely related to C and N dy­
coefficient, slopes or the relationships between soil properties and namics such as soil respiration, organic matter, water-extractable

6
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Table 2
Average coefficients for the predictors of changes in soil properties based on multiple linear regression model y = CDI + CCU + YWSD + OAI + CL, as well as the R2, i.
e., the variance that explained by the regression model. Intercept is the intercept of the linear mixed-effect regression model; CDI, CCU, YWSD, OAI, CL are the
ecological intensification indexes for crop diversity index, years of cover crop use, years without soil disturbance, organic amendment index, and crop and livestock
integration.
Soil properties Soil ecological intensification indexa

Intercept CDI CCU YWSD OAI CL R2

NRCS Slope coefficients

Infiltration (mm/hour-1)b 2.87*** 1.08* 1.64*** 0.27ns − 4.44** − 0.07ns 0.20***
Soil porosity (%) 55.27*** 0.40ns 2.85ns − 1.90ns 4.77ns − 4.29*** 0.19***
Soil temperature (◦ C) 3.07*** − 0.48ns − 1.60** 2.65*** 7.97*** 5.11*** 0.79***
Volumetric water content (%) 20.21*** 8.29*** − 0.23ns 10.30*** − 12.14* − 3.44* 0.32***
Bulk density (g cm− 3) 1.21*** − 0.04ns − 0.09ns 0.01ns − 0.16ns 0.13*** 0.17***
HSHT
Water-extractable Organic N (ppm) 12.96*** − 5.16*** 7.68*** − 5.23*** − 0.51ns − 1.25ns 0.62***
Water-extractable Organic C (ppm) 162.20*** − 37.16* 45.04** − 46.38** 57.35ns 9.74ns 0.08**
Water-extractable Total N (ppm) 22.25*** − 9.52*** 19.59*** − 5.60** − 8.29ns − 5.81*** 0.59***
Organic matter (% LOI) 3.07*** − 0.50ns 1.81*** − 0.56ns 3.43*** 0.66** 0.27***
Soil-test biological activity (ppm CO2) 38.27*** − 4.84ns 43.90*** − 19.59* 88.34*** 6.94ns 0.22***
Inorganic N (ppm) 11.12*** − 1.12ns 8.01*** − 1.65ns − 12.51* − 5.79*** 0.37***
Inorganic P (ppm) 13.53*** − 5.22ns 16.06*** − 4.12ns 45.56*** − 9.80** 0.32***
Organic P (ppm) 5.76*** − 1.41*** 0.74ns − 2.29*** 3.55** − 1.43*** 0.60***
Potassium (ppm) 115.35*** 11.42ns –22.48ns − 12.16ns − 119.23* − 27.94* 0.13***
Calcium (ppm) 459.06*** − 70.93* 7.89ns − 59.63* 538.87*** 167.92*** 0.46***
Aluminum (ppm) 219.20*** − 64.10*** 61.33*** − 54.47*** 286.97*** − 0.50ns 0.46***
Sodium (ppm) 18.28*** 1.70ns − 2.41** − 3.77*** 4.03ns − 0.02ns 0.51***
Manganese (ppm) 3.05*** 1.56ns − 2.99*** 7.51*** − 15.64*** − 0.01ns 0.56***
Magnesium (ppm) 92.94*** − 5.90ns 66.60*** − 48.91*** 148.08*** 18.81* 0.30***
Sulfur (ppm)b 1.79*** 0.40ns − 0.38* − 0.07ns 3.73*** − 0.91*** 0.48***
Soil health score 8.10*** − 1.98* 6.38*** − 2.96*** 9.48*** 1.06ns 0.31***
a
CDI, CCU, YWSD, OAI, CL are the crop diversity index, years of cover crop use, years without soil disturbance, organic amendment index, and crop and livestock
integration.
b
Regression coefficients presented for infiltration and sulfur are based on relationship between the regression predictors and log transformed response variable.
ns
,*,**,*** indicates not significant and significant regression coefficients at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001 respectively.

organic C, N, total N, and soil health score, CCU explained 67, 68, 34, 39, Finally, our results of soil-test hypothetical N savings showed that
59, and 70% of the total variance, respectively (Fig. 5). The highest fields adopting cover crops for over eight years (CCU ≥ 0.66) could save
relative importance of CDI was observed for soil water infiltration and on average $44/ha in N application (Fig. 6d). Likewise, fields with low
volumetric water content, with 77% and 23% respectively, CCU was intensification in CCU (CCU < 0.66) could save less than intensified
observed for soil respiration and organic matter with 78 and 68%, fields, on average $32/ha (Fig. 6d). These values represent the potential
respectively. Likewise, the highest relative contribution of YWSD was amount ($/ha) saved on N application based on the difference in the N
observed for manganese with 62%; OAI was observed for sulfur and results between HSHT (using organic N pools) and traditional soil test
aluminum with 57% and 46%, respectively; and CL was observed for (using nitrate). Taken together, these results suggest that predicted N
bulk density and soil porosity, contributing to up to 59% of the variance fertilizer recommendations could be reduced when organic N pools are
explained. Averaged across all soil physical, chemical and biological considered as a way to capture a greater potential nutrient pool than
properties, CCU was the most important and contributed 31% to the standard soil testing. The addition of a cover crop was also found to
overall influence of all assessed properties, followed by YWSD, CL, OAI, enhance carbon inputs and facilitate biologically active N cycling.
and CDI (Fig. 5). Considering all the ecological intensification indexes Farmers adopting intensified management practices to improve soil
used in this analysis, CCU is the only one that features continuous living health, particularly related to long-term cover cropping, can lead to
cover and roots in the soil with cover cropping. lower requirements for predicted N fertilizer input and higher savings
As a hypothetical estimate of soil N supply, soil-test predicted N when organic nutrient pools are considered in fertilizer
release (mineralizable N considering a 24-h soil incubation) was highly recommendations.
associated with soil respiration (Fig. 6a). Further, our analysis showed
that intensification in CCU resulted in greater soil-test biological activity 4. Discussion
and soil-test predicted N release (Fig. 6a). The results of the relationship
between HSHT calculations of plant-available N show that organic N 4.1. Describing variation and association between ecological
release was found to be negatively correlated to corn and wheat N rec­ intensification and physical, chemical, and biological soil properties
ommendations (Fig. 6b and c). Organic N release is an overall N credit
the HSHT measures from the soil that the more conventional fertility Our study included on-farm trials with a diversity of soil health
tests utilizing only nitrate or ammonium do not account for. Because management practices that are possible alternatives to the shift from
organic N release is the amount of N being released through microbial conventional to more ecologically-based production systems in Mid­
activity from organic N pool, this value typically increases as the soil western U.S (Fig. 3). Cropping systems have changed throughout the
system gets healthier. In our analysis, we found that in healthy and high most recent decades in our study region; landscape complexity shifted
functioning biologically active soils, particularly those with high from high diversity in the 1950 s and 1960 s, with corn (Zea mays L.),
intensification in CCU, this organic N release credit could be above 10 sorghum (Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.),
ppm and reduce N fertility needs substantially. On the other hand, this wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), oats (Avena sativa L.), and soybean (Glycine
credit can also be minimal and may not have an impact on the amount of max [L.] Merr.) to maize-dominated systems comprising the current
fertilizer required in soils that are deemed as less healthy, for example, landscape (Hiller et al., 2009). However, farmers in our study region
those with low intensification in CCU (Fig. 6b and c). have shown increased interest and adoption of soil health management

7
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Fig. 5. The relative importance of crop diversity index (CDI), years of cover crop use (CCU), years without soil disturbance (YWSD), organic amendment index (OAI),
and crop-livestock integration (CL) on physical, chemical and biological properties used in the multiple linear regressions shown in Table 2. Descriptors: Soil temp. =
soil temperature, Vol. water content = volumetric water content, Soil-test bio. acty. = soil-test biological activity, WEON = water-extractable organic nitrogen,
WEOC = water-extractable organic carbon, WETN = water-extractable total nitrogen, OM = organic matter, SH score = soil health score, Inorg. N = inorganic
nitrogen, Inorg. P = inorganic phosphorus, Org. P = organic phosphorus.

practices such the addition of cool-season cash crops, no-till, and cover farming inputs. The results presented and discussed in the following
crops in the last decades (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Baumgart-Getz sections are informative from a scientific perspective as it offers greater
et al., 2012). The wide adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops contrib­ potential for enhancement of farmer’s knowledge of the soil system and
uted to the increase in no-till or reduced-till systems in Midwestern US could be beneficial for making improvements in farm management de­
(Givens et al., 2009). Additionally, over the last decade, intensification cisions (Rhymes et al., 2021).
of the corn-soybean rotation has occurred through drilling multi-species Agricultural management gradients representing incremental
mix cover crop after main crop harvest or interseeding cover crop prior changes in soil health-promoting practices are often more difficult to
to main crop harvest (Oliveira et al., 2019). There are, therefore some evaluate (i.e., detect treatment differences) than those involving sharply
distinct differences in farmer’s adoption timing for soil health practices contrasting practices. However, understanding soil processes and
between our study and studies carried out in other parts of the world. quantifying changes in these transitions to more ecologically-based
Low crop diversity in our study is represented by 1–2 different crops production systems are critical steps to provide farmers information to
(primarily corn and soybeans) whereas a high crop diversity meant up to support their management decisions and to quantify the benefits of these
six different species within a five-year rotation. Cover crops on farms for soil conservation practices. Research in soil health traditionally has
over a decade represent a long amount of time for farms in eastern focused only on one management practice at a time comparing highly
Nebraska. Farmers in our study region using no-till systems for two to contrasting treatments under controlled conditions (Rojas et al., 2016;
three decades, particularly after the introduction of glyphosate-resistant de Paul Obade and Lal, 2016, Campbell et al., 1998). This approach of
crops in 1996 (Duke and Powles, 2008), is common. using traditional replicated field experiments often ignores the role of
This study was conducted using a dataset of soil biological, chemical farmers’ preference for management practices and/or implementation
and physical properties from a statewide soil conservation program timelines and raises questions on less contrasting situations reflecting an
featuring collaboratively designed on-farm research. We did not agricultural management gradient towards ecologically-based farming
compare two to three management factors at once (no-till vs. conven­ practices. The PCA demonstrates the variables and soil processes that are
tional tillage, continuous corn vs. crop rotation or moderate vs. intensive more impactful in differentiating the transition toward ecologically-
vs. no grazing) as many previous traditional replicated field experiments intensified soil management practices (Fig. 4). The relatively low per­
using standard statistical designs. Instead, our proposed ecological centage of the variance explained by the first two PCs underscore the
intensification framework assessed various soil health practices simul­ complexity of the system in this transition to utilizing more soil health
taneously to identify the combination of practices that leads to im­ related practices, with many possible feedback loops derived from soil
provements in soil properties. The on-farm design of the study and function and processes. This also implies the existence of other factors
farmer-reported soil testing also made it possible to include evolving that could affect soil properties in ecological intensification.
calculations linking soil biology with soil fertility, soil health and CCU, CDI, and OAI were the indexes featuring temporal

8
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

Fig. 6. Relationship between soil-test biological activity and soil-test predicted nitrogen release (A), soil-test predicted nitrogen release and corn N recommendation
(B), soil-test predicted nitrogen release and wheat N recommendation (C), and cover crop use index (CCU) and soil-test hypothetical N savings (D). Nutrient
recommendation, variables calculated in the HSHT, considered a yield goal of 11.71 and 4.44 US ton/ha for corn and wheat respectively. N savings is the difference
in the amount of N (kg/ha) measured between the Haney Test (HSHT) and traditional soil test using nitrate and considers a price of $0.91/kg N. N savings for a given
CCU indicated by the same lower-case letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05 level. Circle size represents cover crop use (CCU) index, a higher CCU
represents greater number of years of cover crop adoption.

intensification in continuous living cover and roots in the soil, spatial (2014a), the influence of crop rotation on soil health varies according to
diversification in quantity and quality of the crop residue, and addition the specific crop species selected in the rotation. The high association
of external organic inputs over time, respectively. Physical soil proper­ between CCU and CDI and chemical properties such as sodium, calcium,
ties such as infiltration and bulk density were strongly related to CCU, magnesium, organic C, and N are most likely associated with the
CDI, and OAI (Fig. 4). The soil-test biological activity, organic matter, quantity and quality of the crop residue and the fertilizer management
and water-extractable organic C and N were also indicators associated program adopted depending on the species in the rotation (Fig. 4). The
with these indexes and very important for soil biological activity and C observed association between OAI and soil properties such as soil
and N dynamics. These results are consistent with previous findings porosity, organic matter, water-extractable organic C and N was asso­
including meta-analyses documenting increases in soil carbon, micro­ ciated with improved soil structure and nutrient retention (Fig. 4). As
bial biomass, and organic matter dynamics in response to cover crops observed in previous findings, manure application increases aggregate
and crop rotation (McDaniel et al., 2014a, 2014b; Poeplau and Don, stability and retention of applied nitrogen (Gardner and Drinkwater,
2015). Improvements in water cycling with the adoption of cover crops, 2009; Jiao et al., 2006; Wortmann and Shapiro, 2008). In addition, the
which maximize soil cover and period with roots in the system, was also high C and N loads in the PC was also observed by Rojas et al. (2016),
found in a meta-analysis evaluating infiltration rates with different soil where total organic C and N were found to be the most sensitive
health related practices (Basche et al., 2019). Another important finding chemical soil properties when using multivariate statistical techniques
in our analysis is the negative loading of high bulk density being dis­ in deforested areas for agricultural use. Organic C and N are related to
played in the opposite direction of the indexes CCU, CDI, and OAI multiple soil properties such as soil texture, pH, cationic exchange ca­
(Fig. 4). Low bulk density with increased intensification with cover crop, pacity, soil aggregation, nutrient storage and supply, being critical in
crop diversity and organic amendment is possibly attributed to the high multiple soil processes and commonly used as a soil health indicator
organic matter and the presence of continuous roots in soils, with (Reynolds et al. 2002; Govaerts et al., 2006).
reduced disturbance and maximized periods without roots (Rojas et al., The YWSD index describes the temporal soil disturbance through
2016). tillage operations. Regular soil disturbance caused by tillage practices
As previously described by Zuber et al. (2017) and McDaniel et al. causes direct changes on soil structure and pore space, which alter soil

9
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

hydrologic properties (Pires et al., 2017; Kay and VandenBygaart, importance of standardized sampling depths when considering multiple
2002). For example, improvements in aggregate stability, saturated soil properties and the need for deeper soil sampling to fully understand
hydraulic conductivity, and available water capacity have been quan­ the impact of soil disturbance on soil organic C dynamics.
tified by meta-analyses in response to conservation tillage practices such Our results show that regression models considering multiple prac­
as no-till, ridge-till, and mulch-till (Li et al., 2019). We found that tices could explain as much as 79% of the variation in our data (Table 2).
volumetric water content, soil temperature, and organic matter were Our results are consistent with findings reported by Williams et al.
strongly related to YWSD, suggesting a change in soil structure and (2020) using on-farm data from outside the USA and considering a range
organic C dynamics with intensification in YWSD (Fig. 4). Recent study of soil health-building practices. Some of the remaining variations in our
using X-ray computer tomography, a cutting-edge technology to access dataset could be a result of other factors such as climate (precipitation
soil pore space, found that conventional tillage reduces near-surface and mean annual temperature), dry mass above-ground plant residue
(0–5 cm) soil organic matter by increasing pore anisotropy (i.e., de­ retained, or other soil management that were not included in the
gree of dissimilarity in orientation) and total macroporosity. Conversely, analysis.
in the same study, no-tillage increased near-surface (0–5 cm) soil
organic matter by increasing soil aggregate stability and pore connec­ 4.2. Cover crop effects on biological properties and nutrient use efficiency
tivity (Guo et al., 2020). Macropores play a role in water infiltration and
drainage (Ferro et al., 2013). The pattern observed in the PCA suggests a Despite variation in sensitivity of how ecological intensification
combination of near (0–5 cm) and below (>5 cm) surface effects of low affected soil properties, cover crop use (CCU) was found to be the most
YWSD on soil organic matter and hydrological properties once soil impactful soil health practice, particularly on properties that are closely
natural permeability is altered by mechanically disturbed fields (Parra related to organic matter and C and N dynamics (Fig. 5). The identifi­
et al., 2011; Sanzano et al., 2005). cation of soil management practices that not only improve crop yield but
The multiple regression analysis takes a different approach in eval­ also enhance ecosystem efficiency is critical for the determination of soil
uating how incremental changes of the practices - crop diversity, health (Arshad and Martin, 2002; Lal, 2013). Practices that promote
avoidance of mechanical soil disturbance, use of cover crop, application continuous living roots into the soil, such as the use of cover crops, can
of organic amendments, and crop-livestock integration - impact on soil help to capture nitrogen in the soil and reduce nitrate leaching in ground
properties (Table 2). Our results show that the effects of these different and surface water. This response is attributed to mechanisms such as a
management practices do not always follow the same trend in terms of reduction in water drainage volume, reduction in nitrate concentration
their impacts on soil health, indicating that combining the effects into a in the leachate, and microbial immobilization from C inputs (Quemada
single index may not be appropriate to understand its effects on soil et al., 2013; Valkama et al., 2015; Thapa et al., 2018). Improvements in
properties. In addition, as highlighted by Williams et al (2020) in their soil aggregation upon adoption of soil health practices may also decrease
approach, knowledge of the interaction between soil health manage­ soil compaction and water saturation (e.g., anaerobic soil conditions),
ment and soil properties is lost when focusing on a single soil manage­ reducing the potential for N losses following intense precipitation or
ment composite index. irrigation events. A recent meta-analysis found that continuous living
By studying multiple soil management practices and not integrating roots in the system with the use of cover crops improve soil structure and
the practices into a single index via the multiple linear regression enhance water cycling through increased water infiltration rates (Basche
models, our results show slightly different patterns than other studies et al., 2019). Thus, the observed improved soil infiltration, organic
based on long-term plot experiments with highly contrasting treatments. matter content, water-extractable organic C and N and soil health score
For example, YWSD was negatively related to soil-test biological activity in fields with incremental additions of continuous soil cover with the use
(CO2-C), organic matter, total N, and water-extractable organic C and N, of cover crop corroborate with findings from previous studies (Table 2).
indicating that the longer the years without soil disturbance by tillage There is growing interest in the U.S. Midwest in the implementation
practices, the lower the values for these soil properties related to organic of conservation practices to reduce nutrient losses from farmland and
matter and C and N dynamics (Table 2). In contrast to our findings, improve fertilizer management of high-input demanding crops such as
studies across soil textural classes found that no or reduced tillage in­ corn and wheat (García et al., 2016). Because soil biological properties
crease near-surface (0–5 cm) stocks of organic C and N and respired CO2- are often overlooked in traditional nutrient recommendations, we
C (soil respiration) in the long term (>20 years) (Mikha & Rice, 2004; analyzed not only data on soil physical, chemical and biological prop­
Hermle et al., 2008; Kaiser et al., 2014). These reported near-surface erties, but also the plant-available nutrient and fertilizer rate recom­
increases were associated with a great amount of crop residue in the mendation portions of the HSHT for sites with incremental changes in
soil surface, improved physical protection of OM against microbial cover crop use over time (Fig. 6). A unique aspect of the HSHT nutrient
decomposition due to occlusion in aggregates, increase OM minerali­ recommendation, particularly for N, is the subtraction of the plant
zation, and greater microbial abundance under no-tillage systems available N from the expected yield (Yost et al., 2018). This credit ac­
(Balota et al., 2004; Kaiser et al., 2014). counts not only for the residual inorganic N (nitrate and ammonium),
The most likely explanation for the contradictory results between our commonly available in traditional soil fertility tests, but also estimates of
findings and the literature is related to the sampling depth adopted in mineralizable N during a 24-h aerobic incubation, an additional credit,
our soil health assessment (0–15 cm depth), which may have caused a termed organic N release, that traditional fertility tests do not account
dilution effect for C and N on the surface and sub-surface under long for.
term reduced soil disturbance. Also, our approach did not differentiate In our analysis, greater organic nitrogen credits (organic N release)
between tillage types (e.g., mouldboard ploughing, chisel ploughing, were obtained from fields with higher intensification in CCU, which
disc harrowing) or accounted for tillage depths (e.g., various forms of lowered the requirements for fertilizer inputs for both corn and wheat
reduced tillage). As opposed to near-surface, greater CO2-C emissions (Fig. 6). A recent study evaluating the HSHT for corn N recommenda­
and labile organic C and N pools were observed under conventional tions across eight Midwest states found that the plant-available N
tillage for sub-surface soil (5–25 cm). This corroborates our findings and portion of the HSHT recommendation accounted for up to 49% of the
can be explained by the transfer and redistribution of fresh plant resi­ variation in economically optimum N rate (EONR) and could potentially
dues from the soil surface to greater soil depths under conventional be used, with other factors, to better estimate EONR for corn in the
tillage and also by the percolation of dissolved OM from the surface into Midwest (Yost et al., 2018). Similarly, a study including 111 fields
the sub-surface soils (Kaiser et al. 2014). Thus, tillage effects on soil adopting minimum tillage, multi-species cover cropping, and amend­
functions related to organic matter dynamics are soil depth-specific ment with animal manures as soil health practices found a strong as­
(Kaiser et al., 2014; Blanco-Canqui et al., 2021), suggesting the sociation between both HSHT variables, soil-test biological activity, and

10
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

N mineralization, and corn EONR (Franzluebbers, 2020). Another recent credits in cropping systems intensified with cover crop use can reduce
large-scale study using data from multiple N rate trials across central and nutrient fertility needs substantially as opposed to less intensified sys­
eastern Corn Belt found that biological indicators of soil health (e.g., tems, in which organic nutrient credits are minimal and may not have an
permanganate oxidizable C, soil protein, and mineralizable C) accoun­ impact on the amount of N fertilizer required. The data presented here
ted for approximately 20% of N fertilizer effects (Wade et al., 2020). demonstrate the importance of understanding how ecologically based
Although understanding site-specific effects of cover cropping on EONR intensification of agricultural systems affects soil properties. Reported
for corn and wheat needs further experimental work (cover crop findings are informative and beneficial for promoting soil health man­
decomposition experiments, for example), and HSHT fertilizer recom­ agement practices, better-informing farmers about management strate­
mendations need further testing and calibration which was beyond the gies that foster healthier soils and represent steps forward in land
scope of our study, our results suggest the importance of accounting for stewardship.
soil biological activity and its association with nutrient credits as in­
dicators of soil health to increase profit and reduce environmental im­
Declaration of Competing Interest
pacts. Taken together, these recent efforts in understating soil biology to
fine-tune nutrient fertilizer recommendations along with the results
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
from our study suggest that soil health-promoting practices can provide
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
a greater supply of N which can be used to reduce nutrient fertilizer costs
the work reported in this paper.
and improve system input-use efficiency.

Acknowledgments
4.3. Limitations of the framework and uncertainties

We thank the farmers for their engagement in the Nebraska Soil

Due to the distribution of sites, farmer-selected management prac­
tices and protocol analysis (HSHT) to study, there were some limitations Health Initiative and for sharing the information available in this study.
Special thanks to Aaron Hird, NRCS field staff, and UNL extension ed­
with our data and analytic approach. First, ecological intensification via
the use of organic amendment was not well represented in our data – we ucators for help with communication with farmers, soil sampling, and
field assessments. We also thank Laura Thompson and Nathan Mueller
only considered a 5-year frequency of organic amendment in the crop­
ping system. The quantity and type of organic amendments were also for the support of the UNL On-Farm Research Network. We would also
like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for the detailed, thought­
not included because of uncertainties regarding the exact composition or
the amount applied. Second, the data is essentially agroecosystem- ful, and supportive comments that helped improve and clarify this
manuscript. Funding for this project was provided by the Natural Re­
focused, and extrapolation of our results to natural ecosystems may
not be possible. For example, organic matter and infiltration changes sources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) under agreement no. 68-
6526-17-005. Additional program funding support was provided by
might be more difficult to detect in natural ecosystems than in agro­
ecosystems. However, the effect of intensification of soil health related the Robert R. Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute (DWFI) at the
practices on soil properties should be robust regardless of ecosystem University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
types, which share the same soil formation mechanisms. Third, HSHT
analytical procedures use unique soil extractants to measure microbial- Appendix A. Supplementary data
available C and N pools, which require further data calibration for
comparisons to traditional soil test labs. Additionally, the measured C Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
and N pools are constantly replenished and rapidly changed by plant org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115594.
root exudates and dead microbial cells. In this paper, we focused on
trends in the comparison of different soil health management systems References
over absolute values when interpreting HSHT results. Despite these
Alhameid, A., Ibrahim, M., Kumar, S., Sexton, P., Schumacher, T.E., 2017. Soil organic
limitations, the novelty in this effort is to account for the often-
carbon changes impacted by crop rotational diversity under no-till farming in South
overlooked role that field management history plays when analyzing Dakota, USA. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81 (4), 868–877. https://doi.org/10.2136/
data from participatory, on-farm research (Supplementary Table S1). sssaj2016.04.0121.
Angers, D.A., Eriksen-Hamel, N.S., 2008. Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon
This allowed us to propose a classification framework of ecological
distribution in soil profiles: a meta-analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72 (5), 1370–1374.
intensification that considers multiple soil health management https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0342.
practices. Arshad, M.A., Martin, S., 2002. Identifying critical limits for soil quality indicators in
agro-ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88 (2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0167-8809(01)00252-3.
5. Conclusions Balota, E.L., Colozzi Filho, A., Andrade, D.S., Dick, R.P., 2004. Long-term tillage and crop
rotation effects on microbial biomass and C and N mineralization in a Brazilian
This study was conducted on working farmlands, allowing us to Oxisol. Soil Tillage Res. 77 (2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2003.12.003.
consider a large variation in soil management decisions and field (e.g., Basche, A.D., Roesch-McNally, G.E., 2017. Research topics to scale up cover crop use:
crop sequence and species selection, avoidance of mechanical distur­ reflections from innovative Iowa farmers. J. Soil Water Conserv. 72 (3), 59A–63A.
bance, application of organic amendment, elimination of fallow periods, https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.72.3.59A.
Basche, A.D., DeLonge, M.S., Sihi, D., 2019. Comparing infiltration rates in soils
and crop-livestock integration) in the dataset. The intensified cropping managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: a meta-analysis. PLoS
systems included in our study are possible alternatives to the conven­ ONE 14 (9), e0215702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215702.
tional farming practices (input-intensive, maize-dominated rotations Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., 2012. Why farmers adopt best management
practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J. Environ.
with limited diversity) in Midwestern U.S. (Fig. 3). Overall, our results Manage. 96 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006.
indicate that (i) ecological intensification affected all properties Bender, S.F., Wagg, C., van der Heijden, M.G., 2016. An underground revolution:
commonly used in soil health assessments, but the sensitivity of the biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 31 (6), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.016.
impacts of management varied among the physical, chemical and bio­
Blake, G., Hartge, K., 1986. Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical
logical soil properties; (ii) the feature of continuous living cover and methods. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Bulk density. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 363–375.
roots in the soil was reflected by the variable CCU index – the frequency Blanco-Canqui, H., Shapiro, C., Jasa, P., Iqbal, J., 2021. No-till and carbon stocks: is deep
of cover crop use in the rotation system. Relative importance showed soil sampling necessary? Insights from long-term experiments. Soil Tillage Res. 206,
104840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104840.
that intensification in CCU was the most important management factor Campbell, C.A., McConkey, B.G., Biederbeck, V.O., Zentner, R.P., Curtin, D., Peru, M.R.,
influencing changes in soil properties; and (iii) soil-test hypothetical N 1998. Long-term effects of tillage and fallow-frequency on soil quality attributes in a

11
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

clay soil in semiarid southwestern Saskatchewan. Soil Tillage Res. 46 (3-4), Haney interpretation guide, 2021. Wards Laboratories. https://www.wardlab.com/wp-
135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(98)00027-0. content/uploads/2020/02/Haney-Rev-1.0-Interpretation-Guide-PDF-1.pdf
Caudle D., DiBenedetto, J., Karl, M., Sanchez, H., Talbot, C., 2013. Interagency (accessed 2 March 2021).
ecological site handbook for rangelands. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Hart, C.E., Hayes, D. J., Jacobs, K. L., Schulz, L. L., Crespi, J. M., 2020. The Impact of
Land Management. https://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/jornada.nmsu.edu/files/Intera COVID-19 on Iowa’s Corn, Soybean, Ethanol, Pork, and Beef Sectors. Center for
gencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf (accessed 2 March 2021). Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. CARD Policy Brief 20-PB
Chahal, I., Van Eerd, L.L., 2018. Evaluation of commercial soil health tests using a 28. https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/20pb28.pdf (accessed
medium-term cover crop experiment in a humid, temperate climate. Plant Soil 427 2 March 2021).
(1-2), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3653-2. Hermle, S., Anken, T., Leifeld, J., Weisskopf, P., 2008. The effect of the tillage system on
Chevan, A., Sutherland, M., 1991. Hierarchical Partitioning. Am. Statistician 45 (2), soil organic carbon content under moist, cold-temperate conditions. Soil Tillage Res.
90–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1991.10475776. 98 (1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.10.010.
Church, S.P., Lu, J., Ranjan, P., Reimer, A.P., Prokopy, L.S., 2020. The role of systems Hiller, T.L., Powell, L.A., McCoy, T.D., Lusk, J.J., 2009. Long-term agricultural land-use
thinking in cover crop adoption: Implications for conservation communication. Land trends in Nebraska, 1866–2007. Great Plains Res. 19, 225–237.
Use Policy 94, 104508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104508. Jiao, Y., Whalen, J.K., Hendershot, W.H., 2006. No-tillage and manure applications
Ćirić, V., Belić, M., Nešić, L., Šeremešić, S., Pejić, B., Bezdan, A., Manojlović, M., 2016. increase aggregation and improve nutrient retention in a sandy-loam soil. Geoderma
The sensitivity of water extractable soil organic carbon fractions to land use in three 134 (1-2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.08.012.
soil types. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 62 (12), 1654–1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Kaiser, M., Piegholdt, C., Andruschkewitsch, R., Linsler, D., Koch, H.-J., Ludwig, B.,
03650340.2016.1165345. 2014. Impact of tillage intensity on carbon and nitrogen pools in surface and sub-
Congreves, K.A., Hayes, A., Verhallen, E.A., van Eerd, L.L., 2015. Long-term impact of surface soils of three long-term field experiments. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65 (4), 499–509.
tillage and crop rotation on soil health at four temperate agroecosystems. Soil Tillage https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.2014.65.issue-410.1111/ejss.12146.
Res. 152, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.03.012. Kalbitz, K., Kaiser, K., 2008. Contribution of dissolved organic matter to carbon storage
de Paul Obade, V., Lal, R., 2016. Towards a standard technique for soil quality in forest mineral soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 171 (1), 52–60. https://doi.org/
assessment. Geoderma 265, 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.1002/(ISSN)1522-262410.1002/jpln.v171:110.1002/jpln.200700043.
geoderma.2015.11.023. Karlen, D.L., Veum, K.S., Sudduth, K.A., Obrycki, J.F., Nunes, M.R., 2019. Soil health
Delgado, J.A., Groffman, P.M., Nearing, M.A., Goddard, T., Reicosky, D., Lal, R., assessment: Past accomplishments, current activities, and future opportunities. Soil
Kitchen, N.R., Rice, C.W., Towery, D., Salon, P., 2011. Conservation practices to Tillage Res. 195, 104365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104365.
mitigate and adapt to climate change. J. Soil Water Conserv. 66 (4), 118A–129A. Kay, B.D., VandenBygaart, A.J., 2002. Conservation tillage and depth stratification of
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A. porosity and soil organic matter. Soil Till. Res. 66 (2), 107–118. https://doi.org/
DeLonge, M., Basche, A., 2018. Managing grazing lands to improve soils and promote 10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00019-3.
climate change adaptation and mitigation: a global synthesis. Renewable Agric. Food Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a
Syst. 33 (3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000588. review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32 (1), 25–48. https://doi.org/
Duke, S.O., Powles, S.B., 2008. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manage. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003.
Sci.: formerly Pesticide Science 64 (4), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1518. Krupek, F.S., Basche, A., Redfearn, D., Thompson, L., 2019a. Farmers Find Solutions
Evans, D.L., Quinton, J.N., Davies, J.A.C., Zhao, J., Govers, G., 2020. Soil lifespans and Through Nebraska Soil Health Initiative. CropWatch article. (accessed 2 March
how they can be extended by land use and management change. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021) https://cropwatch.unl.edu/2019/farmers-find-solutions-through-nebraska-
15 (9), 0940b2. soil-health-initiative.
Ferro, N.D., Charrier, P., Morari, F., 2013. Dual-scale micro-CT assessment of soil Krupek, F.S., Basche, A., Redfearn, D., Thompson, L., 2019b. Why Growers are Adopting
structure in a long-term fertilization experiment. Geoderma 204–205, 84–93. Practices to Build Soil Health. CropWatch article. (accessed 2 March 2021) http
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.04.012. s://cropwatch.unl.edu/2019/farmers-on-soil-health-practices.
Franzen, D.W., 2017. Soil variability and fertility management. In: Shannon, D.K., Lal, R., 2013. Climate-strategic agriculture and the water-soil-waste nexus. J. Plant Nutr.
Clay, D.E., Kitchen, N. (Eds.), Precision agriculture basics. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Soil Sci. 176 (4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201300189.
Madison, WI. Li, Y., Li, Z., Cui, S., Jagadamma, S., Zhang, Q., 2019. Residue retention and minimum
Franzluebbers, A.J., 2020. Soil-test biological activity with the flush of CO2: V. tillage improve physical environment of the soil in croplands: a global meta-analysis.
Validation of nitrogen prediction for corn production. Agron. J. 112 (3), 2188–2204. Soil Tillage Res. 194, 104292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.06.009.
https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.v112.310.1002/agj2.20094. MacLaren, C., Storkey, J., Strauss, J., Swanepoel, P., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Marini, L.,
Franzluebbers, A., 2021. Assessment and Interpretation of Soil-Test Biological Activity, 2019. Livestock in diverse cropping systems improve weed management and sustain
in: Karlen, D.L., Stott, D. E., Mikha, M. M. (EDs.), Laboratory Methods for Soil Health yields whilst reducing inputs. J. Appl. Ecol. 56 (1), 144–156. https://doi.org/
Analysis, Vol. 2. Madison, WI: SSSA, pp. 126-151. 10.1111/jpe.2019.56.issue-110.1111/1365-2664.13239.
García, A.M., Alexander, R.B., Arnold, J.G., Norfleet, L., White, M.J., Robertson, D.M., McDaniel, M.D., Grandy, A.S., Tiemann, L.K., Weintraub, M.N., 2014a. Crop rotation
Schwarz, G., 2016. Regional effects of agricultural conservation practices on nutrient complexity regulates the decomposition of high and low quality residues. Soil Biol.
transport in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (13), Biochem. 78, 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.07.027.
6991–7000. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03543. McDaniel, M.D., Tiemann, L.K., Grandy, A.S., 2014b. Does agricultural crop diversity
Gardner, W.H., 1986. Water content. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol.
Physical and mineralogical methods. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 493–544. Appl. 24 (3), 560–570. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0616.1.
Gardner, J.B., Drinkwater, L.E., 2009. The fate of nitrogen in grain cropping systems: a Mikha, M.M., Rice, C.W., 2004. Tillage and manure effects on soil and aggregate-
meta-analysis of 15N field experiments. Ecol. Appl. 19 (8), 2167–2184. https://doi. associated carbon and nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68 (3), 809–816. https://doi.
org/10.1890/08-1122.1. org/10.2136/sssaj2004.8090.
Ghani, A., Dexter, M., Perrott, K., 2003. Hot-water extractable carbon in soils: a sensitive Morrow, J.G., Huggins, D.R., Carpenter-Boggs, L.A., Reganold, J.P., 2016. Evaluating
measurement for determining impacts of fertilisation, grazing and cultivation. Soil measures to assess soil health in long-term agroecosystem trials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
Biol. Biochem. 35 (9), 1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(03)00186- 80 (2), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.08.0308.
X. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2020b. U.S. Billion-
Givens, W.A., Shaw, D.R., Kruger, G.R., Johnson, W.G., Weller, S.C., Young, B.G., Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
Wilson, R.G., Owen, M.D.K., Jordan, D., 2009. Survey of tillage trends following the (accessed 26 January 2020).
adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 23 (1), 150–155. https://doi. Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., 1996. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. SSSA Book Series,
org/10.1614/WT-08-038.1. Madison, pp. 961–1010.
Gliessman, S., 2014. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd ed. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2020a. State of the
Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton. Climate: National Climate Report for 2019. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/nation
Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., Deckers, J., 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality al/201913/supplemental/page-1 (accessed 26 January 2020).
assessment of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil Tillage Res. Nunes, M.R., van Es, H.M., Schindelbeck, R., Ristow, A.J., Ryan, M., 2018. No-till and
87 (2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.03.005. cropping system diversification improve soil health and crop yield. Geoderma 328,
Grömping, U., Lehrkamp, M., 2015. Package ‘relaimpo’: Relative importance of 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.04.031.
regressors in linear models. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/relaimpo/ Oliveira, M.C., Butts, L., Werle, R., 2019. Assessment of cover crop management
(accessed 2 March 2021). strategies in Nebraska, US. Agriculture 9 (6), 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Guo, Y., Fan, R., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., McLaughlin, N., Zhang, S., Chen, X., agriculture9060124.
Jia, S., Liang, A., 2020. Tillage-induced effects on SOC through changes in aggregate Parra, B.J., Becker, A.R., Cantú, M.P., 2011. Condición física de suelos en diferentes
stability and soil pore structure. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134617. https://doi.org/ sistemas de manejo agrícolas del centro sur de Córdoba. Ciencia del suelo 29 (2),
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134617. 241–251.
Haney, R.L., Haney, E.B., Hossner, L.R., Arnold, J.G., 2006. Development of a new soil Pires, L.F., Borges, J.A., Rosa, J.A., Cooper, M., Heck, R.J., Passoni, S., Roque, W.L.,
Extractant for simultaneous phosphorus, ammonium, and nitrate analysis. Commun. 2017. Soil structure changes induced by tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res. 165, 66–79.
Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 37 (11–12), 1511–1523. https://doi.org/10.1080/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.07.010.
00103620600709977. Poeplau, C., Don, A., 2015. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of
Haney, R.L., Haney, E.B., Hossner, L.R., Arnold, J.G., 2010. Modifications to the new soil cover crops–a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41. https://doi.org/
extractant H3A–1: a multinutrient extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 41 (12), 10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024.
1513–1523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2010.482173. Prokopy, L.S., Gramig, B.M., Bower, A., Church, S.P., Ellison, B., Gassman, P.W., et al.,
2020. The urgency of transforming the Midwestern US landscape into more than

12
F.S. Krupek et al. Geoderma 409 (2022) 115594

corn and soybean. Agric. Hum. Value 37 (3), 537–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Tiemann, L.K., Grandy, A.S., Atkinson, E.E., Marin-Spiotta, E., McDaniel, M.D.,
s10460-020-10077-x. Hooper, D., 2015. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and
Quemada, M., Baranski, M., Nobel-de Lange, M.N.J., Vallejo, A., Cooper, J.M., 2013. functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18 (8), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural ele.2015.18.issue-810.1111/ele.12453.
systems and their effects on crop yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 174, 1–10. https:// USDA-NASS, 2019. 2017 Census of Agriculture, Summary and State Data. U.S.
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.018. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.
USDA-NRCS, 2011. Planting Specification Guide: Cover Crop NH-340. U.S. Department nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US
of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ /usv1.pdf (accessed 19 February 2021).
Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1081555.pdf (accessed 19 January 2021). USDA-NRCS, 1981. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United
R Core Team, 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https:// States (USDA Handbook 296). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
www.R-project.org/ (accessed 2 March 2021). USDA–NRCS, 2018. Soil health. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Rakkar, M.K., Blanco-Canqui, H., 2018. Grazing of crop residues: impacts on soils and Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/main/soils
crop production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 258, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. /health/ (accessed 4 May 2020).
agee.2017.11.018. USDA-NRCS, 2020. Soil health technical note No. 450-06. Cropland in-field soil health
Reynolds, W.D., Bowman, B.T., Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Lu, X., 2002. Indicators of good assessment guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
soil physical quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma 110 (1–2), 131–146. Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/assess
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00228-8. ment/ (accessed 19 February 2021).
Rhymes, J.M., Wynne-Jones, S., Prysor Williams, A., Harris, I.M., Rose, D., Chadwick, D. Valkama, E., Lemola, R., Känkänen, H., Turtola, E., 2015. Meta-analysis of the effects of
R., Jones, D.L., 2021. Identifying barriers to routine soil testing within beef and undersown catch crops on nitrogen leaching loss and grain yields in the Nordic
sheep farming systems. Geoderma 404, 115298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 203, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2021.115298. agee.2015.01.023.
Rojas, J.M., Prause, J., Sanzano, G.A., Arce, O.E.A., Sánchez, M.C., 2016. Soil quality Villamil, M.B., Miguez, F.E., Bollero, G.A., 2008. Multivariate analysis and visualization
indicators selection by mixed models and multivariate techniques in deforested areas of soil quality data for no-till systems. J. Environ. Qual. 37 (6), 2063–2069. https://
for agricultural use in NW of Chaco, Argentina. Soil Tillage Res. 155, 250–262. doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.08.010. Wade, J., Culman, S.W., Logan, J.A.R., Poffenbarger, H., Demyan, M.S., Grove, J.H.,
Roper, W.R., Osmond, D.L., Heitman, J.L., Wagger, M.G., Reberg-Horton, S.C., 2017. Soil et al., 2020. Improved soil biological health increases corn grain yield in N fertilized
health indicators do not differentiate among agronomic management systems in systems across the Corn Belt. Sci. Rep. 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-
North Carolina soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81 (4), 828–843. https://doi.org/10.2136/ 60987-3.
sssaj2016.12.0400er. Westhoff, P., Meyer, S., Binfield, J., Gerlt, S., 2020. Early Estimates of the Impacts of
Sanzano, G.A., Corbella, R.D., García, J.R., Fadda, G.S., 2005. Degradación física y COVID-19 on U.S. Agricultural Commodity Markets, Farm Income and Government
química de un Haplustol típico bajo distintos sistemas de manejo de suelo. Ciencia Outlays. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, University of Missouri.
del suelo 23 (1), 93–100. FAPRI-MU Report #02–20. https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/FAPRI-
Seifert, C.A., Azzari, G., Lobell, D.B., 2018. Satellite detection of cover crops and their Report-02-20.pdf (accessed 2 March 2021).
effects on crop yield in the Midwestern United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (6), Whalen, J.K., Hu, Q., Liu, A., 2003. Compost applications increase water-stable
064033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4c8. aggregates in conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67 (6),
Sherwood, S., Uphoff, N., 2000. Soil health: research, practice and policy for a more 1842–1847. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.1842.
regenerative agriculture. Appl. Soil Ecol. 15 (1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Williams, H., Colombi, T., Keller, T., 2020. The influence of soil management on soil
S0929-1393(00)00074-3. health: an on-farm study in southern Sweden. Geoderma 360, 114010. https://doi.
Smith, R.E., 1999. Technical note: rapid measurement of soil sorptivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114010.
J. 63 (1), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.03615995006300010009x. Wortmann, C.S., Shapiro, C.A., 2008. The effects of manure application on soil
Soil Health Institute, 2018. Conference on the Connections Between Soil Health and aggregation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 80 (2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Human Health. https://soilhealthinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SH- s10705-007-9130-6.
HH-post-conference-report-Final-030519.pdf (accessed 24 March 2020). Xue, R., Wang, C., Liu, M., Zhang, D., Li, K., Li, N., 2019. A new method for soil health
Soil Survey Staff, 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making assessment based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and meta-analysis. Sci. Total
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Environ. 650, 2771–2777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.049.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Yost, M.A., Veum, K.S., Kitchen, N.R., Sawyer, J.E., Camberato, J.J., Carter, P.R., et al.,
Stewart, R.D., Jian, J., Gyawali, A.J., Thomason, W.E., Badgley, B.D., Reiter, M.S., 2018. Evaluation of the Haney Soil Health Tool for corn nitrogen recommendations
Strickland, M.S., 2018. What we talk about when we talk about soil health. Agric. across eight Midwest states. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73 (5), 587–592. https://doi.org/
Environ. Lett. 3 (1), 180033. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2018.06.0033. 10.2489/jswc.73.5.587.
Taylor, S.D., He, Y., Hiscock, K.M., 2016. Modelling the impacts of agricultural Zuber, S.M., Kladivko, E., 2018. How to understand and interpret soil health tests.
management practices on river water quality in Eastern England. J. Environ. Purdue Extension. (accessed 19 January 2021) https://www.extension.purdue.
Manage. 180, 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.002. edu/extmedia/ay/ay-366-w.pdf.
Thapa, R., Mirsky, S.B., Tully, K.L., 2018. Cover crops reduce nitrate leaching in Zuber, S.M., Behnke, G.D., Nafziger, E.D., Villamil, M.B., 2017. Multivariate assessment
agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. J. Environ. Qual. 47 (6), 1400–1411. of soil quality indicators for crop rotation and tillage in Illinois. Soil Tillage Res. 174,
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.03.0107. 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.07.007.
Thompson, L.J., Glewen, K.L., Elmore, R.W., Rees, J., Pokal, S., Hitt, B.D., 2019. Farmers
as researchers: in-depth interviews to discern participant motivation and impact.
Agron. J. 111 (6), 2670–2680. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.09.0626.

13