Soil Health Analysis, Set Douglas L.

Karlen
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/soil-health-analysis-set-douglas-l-karlen/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Soil And Plant Analysis Rahul Dev Behera

https://ebookmass.com/product/soil-and-plant-analysis-rahul-dev-
behera/

Behavioral Forensics: Using Applied Behavior Analysis

in Psychological Court Evaluations Douglas Ruben

https://ebookmass.com/product/behavioral-forensics-using-applied-
behavior-analysis-in-psychological-court-evaluations-douglas-
ruben/

Guidelines for Analysis and Description of Soil and

Regolith Thin Sections, 2nd Edition Georges Stoops

https://ebookmass.com/product/guidelines-for-analysis-and-
description-of-soil-and-regolith-thin-sections-2nd-edition-
georges-stoops/

Dental Care and Oral Health Sourcebook: Health

Reference Series Angela L. Williams

https://ebookmass.com/product/dental-care-and-oral-health-
sourcebook-health-reference-series-angela-l-williams/
Applied Soil Chemistry Inamuddin

https://ebookmass.com/product/applied-soil-chemistry-inamuddin/

Health Policy Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Approach

3rd Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/health-policy-analysis-an-
interdisciplinary-approach-3rd-edition/

Health Policy Analysis 3rd Edition – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/health-policy-analysis-3rd-edition-
ebook-pdf-version/

Introductory CIrcuIt AnalysIs, 14th Global Edition

Robert L. Boylestad

https://ebookmass.com/product/introductory-circuit-analysis-14th-
global-edition-robert-l-boylestad/

Encyclopedia of Environmental Health [6 Volume Set] 2nd

Edition Jerome O. Nriagu

https://ebookmass.com/product/encyclopedia-of-environmental-
health-6-volume-set-2nd-edition-jerome-o-nriagu/
0005091939.INDD 12 7/7/2021 12:52:37 PM
 Soil Health Series: Volume 1 Approaches
to Soil Health Analysis

0005091937.INDD 1 7/12/2021 4:43:49 PM

 EDITORS Institute; Ranjith P. Udawatta, University of
Douglas L. Karlen, Diane E. Stott, and Maysoon Missouri; Kristen S. Veum, USDA-Agricultural
M. Mikha Research Service; Jordon Wade, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Skye Wills,
CONTRIBUTORS USDA-NRCS, Soil Survey Center; Alyssa
Verónica Acosta-Martínez, USDA-Agricultural M. Zearley, The Ohio State University;
Research Service; Yaakov Anker, Ariel University, Michael Zilberbrand, Ariel University, Israel
Israel; Nicholas T. Basta, The Ohio State
University; Dennis Chessman, USDA Natural REVIEWERS
Resources Conservation Service; Steve Francisco Arriaga, University of Wisconsin –
W. Culman, The Ohio State University; Madison; Maurício Cherubin, Universidade de
Mriganka De, Minnesota State University; São Paulo (USP); Mriganka De, Minnesota State
Richard P. Dick, The Ohio State University; Alan University; Lisa M. Durso, USDA-Agricultural
J. Franzluebbers, USDA-Agricultural Research Research Service; Nick Goeser, CEO – ASA,
Service; Grizelle González, USDA Forest Service; CSSA, SSSA, ASF; William R. Horwath,
Jonathan J. Halvorson, USDA-Agricultural University of California; Jane M.F. Johnson,
Research Service; Alison K. Hamm, USDA- USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Marshall
Agricultural Research Service; Jeffory A. Hattey, D. McDaniel, Iowa State University; Jennifer
The Ohio State University; C. Wayne Honeycutt, Moore-Kucera, USDA-Agricultural Research
Soil Health Institute; Tunsisa T. Hurisso, Lincoln Service; Jeff M. Novak, USDA-Agricultural
University of Missouri; James A. Ippolito, Research Service; Márcio Renato Nunes,
Colorado State University; Jalal D. Jabro, USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Daniel
USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Jane C. Oak, USDA-Agricultural Research Service;
Johnson, USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Gyles W. Randall, University of Minnesota (retired)
Douglas L. Karlen, USDA-Agricultural Research
Service (retired); R. Michael Lehman,
USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Chenhui Li, EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE
University of Missouri; Mark A. Liebig, USDA- American Society of Agronomy
Agricultural Research Service; James Lin, Kansas Crop Science Society of America
State University; Roberto Luciano, USDA Soil Science Society of America
Natural Resources Conservation Service; Daniel 5585 Guilford Road, Madison, WI 53711-58011, USA
K. Manter, USDA-Agricultural Research Service;
Marshall D. McDaniel, Iowa State University; SOCIETY PRESIDENTS
Maysoon M. Mikha, USDA-Agricultural Jeffrey J. Volenec (ASA)
Research Service; Vladimir Mirlas, Ariel P. V. Vara Prasad (CSSA)
University, Israel; Bianca N. Moebius-Clune, April Ulerey (SSSA)
USDA-NRCS, Soil Health Division (SHD);
Jeennifer Moore-Kucera, USDA-Agricultural SOCIETY EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Research Service; Cristine L.S. Morgan, Soil Kathleen M. Yeater (ASA)
Health Institute; Márcio R. Nunes, USDA- C. Wayne Smith (CSSA)
Agricultural Research Service; John F. Obrycki, David D. Myrold (SSSA)
USDA-Agricultural Research Service; Adi Oren,
Arlel University, Israel; Deborah S. Page-
BOOK AND MULTIMEDIA PUBLISHING
Dumroese, USDA Forest Service; Lumarie
COMMITTEE
Girisha Ganjegunte, Chair
Pérez-Guzmán, USDA-Agricultural Research
Fugen Dou
Service; Charles (Hobie) Perry, USDA Forest
David Fang
Service; Carlos B. Pires, Kansas State University;
Shuyu Liu
Charles W. Rice, Kansas State University; Felipe
Gurpal Toor
G. Sanchez, USDA Forest Service; Marcos
V. M. Sarto, Kansas State University; Steven
DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS
R. Shafer, Soil Health Institute (retired); Diane
Matt Wascavage
E. Stott, USDA-NRCS Soil Health Division
(retired); Ken A. Sudduth, USDA-Agricultural BOOKS STAFF
Research Service; Paul W. Tracy, Soil Health Richard Easby, Managing Editor

0005091937.INDD 2 7/12/2021 4:43:50 PM

 Soil Health Series: Volume 1 Approaches
to Soil Health Analysis

Edited by Douglas L. Karlen, Diane E. Stott,

and Maysoon M. Mikha

0005091937.INDD 3 7/12/2021 4:43:50 PM

 Copyright © 2021 © Soil Science Society of America, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copublication by © Soil Science Society of America, Inc. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning,
or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to reuse material from this title is
available at http://wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Douglas L. Karlen, Diane E. Stott, and Maysoon M. Mikha to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make
no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy of completeness of the contents
of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties or merchantability of fitness
for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or
written sales materials. The publisher is not providing legal, medical, or other professional
services. Any reference herein to any specific commercial products, procedures, or services by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement,
recommendation, or favored status by the SSSA. The views and opinions of the author(s)
expressed in this publication do not necessarily state or reflect those of SSSA, and they shall not
be used to advertise or endorse any product.

Editorial Correspondence:
Soil Science Society of America, Inc.
5585 Guilford Road, Madison, WI 53711-58011, USA
soils.org

Registered Offices:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley
products, visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some
content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other
formats.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for

Paperback: 9780891189800
doi: 10.2136/soilhealth.vol1

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: © Joshua Miller, DPH, PhD, Steve Culman, Timothy Clough, Pedro Ferrari
Machado, Negar Tafti

Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Straive, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0005091937.INDD 4 7/12/2021 4:43:50 PM

 v

Dedication

These books are dedicated to Dr. John W. Doran,

a retired USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research
Service) Research Soil Scientist whose pro-
found insight provided international inspira-
tion to strive to understand the capacity of our
fragile soil resources to function within eco-
system boundaries, sustain biological produc-
tivity, maintain environmental quality, and
promote plant and animal health.
Understanding and quantifying soil health is
a journey for everyone. Even for John, who early
in his career believed soil quality was too
abstract to be defined or measured. He initially
thought soil quality was simply too dependent
on numerous, uncontrollable factors, including
land use decisions, ecosystem or environmental interactions, soil and plant man-
agement practices, and political or socioeconomic priorities. In the 1990s, John
pivoted, stating he now recognized and encouraged the global soil science com-
munity to move forward, even though perceptions of what constitutes a good soil
vary widely depending on individual priorities with respect to soil function.
Continuing, he stated that to manage and maintain our soils in an acceptable state
for future generations, soil quality (soil health) must be defined, and the definition
must be broad enough to encompass the many facets of soil function.
John had profound impact on our careers and many others around the World.
Through his patient, personal guidance he challenged everyone to examine soil
biological, chemical, and physical properties, processes, and interactions to
understand and quantify soil health. For Diane, this included crop residue and
soil enzyme investigations, and for Maysoon, interactions between soil physical
and biological processes mediated by water-filled pore space. Recognizing my

0005091937.INDD 5 7/12/2021 4:43:51 PM

 vi Dedication

knowledge of soil testing and plant analysis on Midwestern soils, as well as root-
limiting, eluviated horizons and soil compaction in Southeastern U.S. soils, John
encouraged me to develop a strategy to evaluate and combine the biological,
chemical, and physical indicators that have become pillars for soil quality/health
assessment. The Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) was the first
generation outcome of this challenge.
Throughout his life, John endeavored to involve all Earth’s people, no matter
their material wealth or status, in translating their lifestyles to practices that
strengthen social equity and care for the earth we call home. Through develop-
ment of the “soil quality test kit” John fostered transformation of soil quality into
soil health by taking his science to farmers, ranchers, and other land managers.
These two volumes have been prepared with that audience in mind to reflect the
progress made during the past 25 years. Special thanks are also extended to John’s
life mate Janet, daughter Karin, son-in-law Michael, grandchildren Drew and
Fayth, and all of his friends for their encouragement, patience and support as he
continues his search for the “holy grail” of soil health. Without John’s inspiration
and dedication, who knows if science and concern for our fragile soil resources
would have evolved as it has.
Thank you, John – you are an inspiration to all of us!

0005091937.INDD 6 7/12/2021 4:43:51 PM

 vii

Contents

Foreword ix
Preface xiii

1 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes 1

Douglas L. Karlen, Diane E. Stott, Maysoon M. Mikha, and
Bianca N. Moebius-Clune

2 Evolution of the Soil Health Movement 21

Douglas L. Karlen, Mriganka De, Marshall D. McDaniel, and Diane E. Stott

3 The Utility and Futility of Soil Health Assessment 49

John F. Obrycki and Lumarie Pérez-Guzmán

4 Metadata: An Essential Component for Interpreting Soil Health

Measurements 70
Jane M.-F. Johnson and Maysoon M. Mikha

5 Soil Health Assessment of Agricultural Lands 79

Diane E. Stott, Brian Wienhold, Harold van Es, and Jeffrey E. Herrick

6 Soil Health Assessment of Forest Soils 100

Deborah S. Page-Dumroese, Felipe G. Sanchez, Ranjith P. Udawatta,
Charles (Hobie) Perry, and Grizelle González

7 A Risk-Based Soil Health Approach to Management of Soil Lead 139

Nicholas T. Basta, Alyssa M. Zearley, Jeffory A. Hattey, and Douglas L. Karlen

0005091938.INDD 7 7/12/2021 4:30:10 PM

 viii Contents

8 The Future of Soil Health Assessments: Tools and Strategies 169

Kristen S. Veum, Marcio R. Nunes, and Ken A. Sudduth

Epilogue 199

0005091938.INDD 8 7/12/2021 4:30:10 PM

 ix

Foreword

­Soil science receives increasing attention by the international policy arena and
publication of this comprehensive “Soil Health” book by the Soil Science Society
of America (SSSA) and Wiley International is therefore most welcome at this
point in time. Striving for consensus on methods to assess soil health is important
in positioning soil science in a societal and political discourse that, currently, only
a few other scientific disciplines are deeply engaged in. Specifically, increasing the
focus on sustainable development provides a suitable “point on the horizon” that
provides a much needed focus for a wide range of activities. Sustainable develop-
ment has long been a likeable, but still rather abstract concept. The United Nations
General Assembly acceptance of seventeen Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) by 193 Governments in 2015 changed the status of sustainable develop-
ment by not only specifying the goals but also defining targets, indicators, and
seeking commitments to reach those goals by 2030 (https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment-goals). In Europe, the Green Deal, accepted in 2019, has
targets and indicators corresponding to those of the SDGs (https://ec.europa.eu/
info/strategy/european-green-dealsoil).
So far, soil scientists have not been actively engaged in defining SDG targets,
which is unfortunate considering soil functions contribute significantly to ecosys-
tem services that, in turn, contribute to the SDGs. The connections are all too
obvious for soil scientists, but not necessarily so for scientists in other disciplines,
politicians, or the public at large. For example, adequate production of food
(SDG2) is impossible without healthy soil. Ground- and surface-water quality
(SDG6) are strongly influenced by the purifying and infiltrative capacities of soils.
Carbon capture through increases in soil organic carbon (SOC) is a major mecha-
nism contributing to the mitigation of an increasingly variable climate (SDG13)
and living soils as an integral part of living landscapes are a dominant source of
biodiversity (SDG15) (Bouma, 2014; Bouma et al., 2019). With complete certainty,
we can show that healthy soils make better and more effective contributions to
ecosystem services than unhealthy ones! This also applies when considering the

0005091939.INDD 9 7/7/2021 12:52:37 PM

 x Foreword

recently introduced Soil Security concept, which articulates the 5 C’s: soil capabil-
ity, condition, capital, connectivity, and codification (Field et al., 2017). A given
soil condition can be expressed in terms of soil health, whereas soil capability
defines potential conditions, to be achieved by innovative soil management, thus
increasing soil health to a characteristically attainable level for that particular soil.
Healthy soils are a capital asset for land users; connectivity emphasizes interac-
tions among land users, citizens, and politicians that are obviously important,
especially when advocating measures to increase soil health that may initially
lack societal support. Finally, codification is important because future land use
rules and regulations could benefit by being based on quantitative soil health cri-
teria, thus allowing a reproducible comparison between different soils.
These volumes provide an inspiring source of information to further evaluate
the soil health concept, derive quantitative procedures that will allow more effec-
tive interaction among land users, and information needed to introduce soil sci-
ence into laws and regulations. The introductory chapters of Volume 1 present a
lucid and highly informative overview of the evolution of the soil health move-
ment. Other chapters discuss data needs and show that modern monitoring and
sensing techniques can result in a paradigm shift by removing the traditional data
barriers. Specifically, these new methods can provide large amounts of data at
relatively low cost. The valuable observation is made that systems focusing only
on topsoils cannot adequately represent soil behavior in space and time. Subsoil
properties, expressed in soil classification, have significant and very important
effects on many soil functions. Numerous physical, chemical and biological meth-
ods are reviewed in Volume 2. Six chapters deal with soil biological methods, cor-
rectly reflecting the need to move beyond the traditional emphasis on physical
and chemical assessment methods. After all, soils are very much alive!
The book Soil Health nicely illustrates the “roots” of the soil health concept
within the soil science profession. It also indicates the way soil health can provide
“wings” to the profession as a creative and innovative partner in future environ-
mental research and innovation.
Johan Bouma
Emmeritus Professor of Soil Science
Wageningen University
The Netherlands

0005091939.INDD 10 7/7/2021 12:52:37 PM

 Foreword xi

­References

Bouma, J. (2014). Soil science contributions towards Sustainable Development Goals

and their implementation: Linking soil functions with ecosystem services. J. Plant
Nutr. Soil Sci. 177(2), 111–120. doi:10.1002/jpln.201300646
Bouma, J., Montanarella, L., and Vanylo, G.E. (2019). The challenge for the soil
science community to contribute to the implementation of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Soil Use Manage. 35(4), 538–546. doi:10.1111/sum.12518
Field, D.J., Morgan, C.L.S., and Mc Bratney, A.C., editors. (2017). Global soil security.
Progress in Soil Science. Springer Int. Publ., Switzerland.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43394-3

0005091939.INDD 11 7/7/2021 12:52:37 PM

0005091939.INDD 12 7/7/2021 12:52:37 PM
 xiii

Preface

This two-volume series on Soil Health was written and edited during a very unique
time in global history. Initiated in 2017, it was intended to simply be an update for
the “Blue” and “Green” soil quality books entitled Defining Soil Quality for a
Sustainable Environment and Methods for Assessing Soil Quality that were pub-
lished by the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) in the 1990s. In reality, the
project was completed in 2020 as the United States and world were reeling from
the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, wide-spread protest against discriminatory
racial violence, and partisan differences between people concerned about eco-
nomic recovery versus protecting public health.
Many factors have contributed to the global evolution of soil health as a focal
point for protecting, improving, and sustaining the fragile soil resources that are
so important for all of humanity. Building for decades on soil conservation princi-
ples and the guidance given by Hugh Hammond Bennett and many other leaders
associated with those efforts, soil health gradually is becoming recognized by
many different segments of global society. Aligned closely with soil security,
improving soil health as a whole will greatly help the United Nations (UN) achieve
their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Consistent with soil health goals,
the SDGs emphasize the significance of soil resources for food production, water
availability, climate mitigation, and biodiversity (Bouma, 2019).
The paradox of completing this project during a period of social, economic, and
anti-science conflicts associated with global differences in response to Covid-19, is
that the pandemic’s impact on economic security and life as many have known it
throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries is not unique. Many of the same
contentious arguments could easily be focused on humankind’s decisions regard-
ing how to use and care for our finite and fragile soil resources. Soil conservation
leaders such as Hugh Hammond Bennett (1881–1960), “Founder of Soil
Conservation,” W. E. (Bill) Larson (1921–2013) who often stated that soil is “the
thin layer covering the planet that stands between us and starvation,” and many
current conservationists can attest that conflict regarding how to best use soil

0005091940.INDD 13 7/7/2021 12:56:03 PM

 xiv Preface

resources is ancient. Several soil science textbooks, casual reading books, and
other sustainability writings refer to the Biblical link between soil and human-
kind, specifically that the very name “Adam” is derived from a Hebrew noun of
feminine gender (adama) meaning earth or soil (Hillel, 1991). Furthermore,
Xenophon, a Greek historian (430–355 BCE) has been credited with recording the
value of green-manure crops, while Cato (234–149 BCE) has been recognized for
recommending the use of legumes, manure, and crop rotations, albeit with inten-
sive cultivation to enhance productivity. At around 45 CE, Columella recom-
mended using turnips (perhaps tillage radishes?) to improve soils (Donahue
et al., 1971). He also suggested land drainage, application of ash (potash), marl
(limestone), and planting of clover and alfalfa (N fixation) as ways to make soils
more productive. But then, after Rome was conquered, scientific agriculture, the
arts, and other forms of culture were stymied.
Advancing around 1500 yr, science was again introduced into agriculture
through Joannes Baptista Van Helmont’s (1577–1644 CE) experiment with a wil-
low tree. Although the initial data were misinterpreted, Justice von Liebig
(1803–1873 CE) eventually clarified that carbon (C) in the form of carbon dioxide
(CO2) came from the atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen from air and water, and
other essential minerals to support plant growth and development from the soil.
Knowledge of soil development, mineralogy, chemistry, physics, biology, and bio-
chemistry as well as the impact of soil management (tillage, fertilization, amend-
ments, etc.) and cropping practices (rotations, genetics, varietal development,
etc.) evolved steadily throughout the past 150 yr. SO, what does this history have
to do with these 21st Century Soil Health books?
First, in contrast to the millennia throughout which humankind has been fore-
warned regarding the fragility of our soil resources, the concept of soil health
(used interchangeably with soil quality) per se, was introduced only 50 yr ago
(Alexander, 1971). This does not discount outstanding research and technological
developments in soil science such as the physics of infiltration, drainage, and
water retention; chemistry of nutrient cycling and availability of essential plant
nutrients, or the biology of N fixation, weed and pest control. The current empha-
sis on soil health in no way implies a lack of respect or underestimation of the
impact that historical soil science research and technology had and have for solv-
ing problems such as soil erosion, runoff, productivity, nutrient leaching, eutroph-
ication, or sedimentation. Nor, does it discount contributions toward understanding
and quantifying soil tilth, soil condition, soil security, or even sustainable develop-
ment. All of those science-based accomplishments have been and are equally
important strategies designed and pursued to protect and preserve our fragile and
finite soil resources. Rather, soil health, defined as an integrative term reflecting
the “capacity of a soil to function, within land use and ecosystem boundaries, to
sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote

0005091940.INDD 14 7/7/2021 12:56:03 PM

 Preface xv

plant animal, and human health” (Doran and Parkin, 1994), is another attempt to
forewarn humanity that our soil resources must be protected and cared for to
ensure our very survival. Still in its infancy, soil health research and our under-
standing of the intricacies of how soils function to perform numerous, and at
times conflicting goals, will undoubtedly undergo further refinement and clarifi-
cation for many decades.
Second, just like the Blue and Green books published just twenty years after the
soil health concept was introduced, these volumes, written after two more dec-
ades of research, continue to reflect a “work in progress.” Change within the soil
science profession has never been simple as indicated by Hartemink and Anderson
(2020) in their summary reflecting 100 yr of soil science in the United States. They
stated that in 1908, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA) established a com-
mittee on soil classification and mapping, but it took 6 yr before the first report
was issued, and on doing so, the committee disbanded because there was no con-
sensus among members. From that perspective, progress toward understanding
and using soil health principles to protect and preserve our fragile soil resources is
indeed progressing. With utmost gratitude and respect we thank the authors,
reviewers, and especially, the often-forgotten technical support personnel who are
striving to continue the advancement of soil science. By developing practices to
implement sometimes theoretical ideas or what may appear to be impossible
actions, we thank and fully acknowledge all ongoing efforts. As the next genera-
tion of soil scientists, it will be through your rigorous, science-based work that
even greater advances in soil health will be accomplished.
Third, my co-authors and I recognize and acknowledge soil health assessment
is not an exact science, but there are a few principles that are non-negotiable.
First, to qualify as a meaningful, comprehensive assessment, soil biological,
chemical, and physical properties and processes must all be included. Failure to
do so, does not invalidate the assessment, but rather limits it to an assessment of
“soil biological health”, “soil physical health”, “soil chemical health”, or some
combination thereof. Furthermore, although some redundancy may occur, at
least two different indicator measurements should be used for each indicator
group (i.e., biological, chemical, or physical). To aid indicator selection, many sta-
tistical tools are being developed and evaluated to help identify the best combina-
tion of potential measurements for assessing each critical soil function associated
with the land use for which an evaluation is being made.
There is also no question that any soil health indicator must be fundamentally
sound from all biological, chemical, physical and/or biochemical analytical per-
spectives. Indicators must have the potential to be calibrated and provide mean-
ingful information across many different types of soil. This requires sensitivity to
not only dynamic, management-induced forces, but also inherent soil properties
and processes reflecting subtle differences in sand, silt, and clay size particles

0005091940.INDD 15 7/7/2021 12:56:04 PM

 xvi Preface

derived from rocks, sediments, volcanic ash, or any other source of parent ­material.
Soil health assessments must accurately reflect interactions among the solid
­mineral particles, water, air, and organic matter contained within every soil. This
includes detecting subtle changes affecting runoff, infiltration, and the soil’s ability
to hold water through capillarity– to act like a sponge; to facilitate gas exchange so
that with the help of CO2, soil water can slowly dissolve mineral particles and
release essential plant nutrients– through chemical weathering; to provide water
and dissolved nutrients through the soil solution to plants, and to support exchange
between oxygen from air above the surface and excess CO2 from respiring roots.
Some, perhaps many, will disagree with the choice of indicators that are
included in these books. Right or wrong, our collective passion is to start some-
where and strive for improvement, readily accepting and admitting our errors,
and always being willing to update and change. We firmly believe that starting
with something good is much better than getting bogged down seeking the pre-
fect. This does not mean we are discounting any fundamental chemical, physical,
thermodynamic, or biological property or process that may be a critical driver
influencing soil health. Rather through iterative and ongoing efforts, our sole
desire is to keep learning until soil health and its implications are fully understood
and our assessment methods are correct. Meanwhile, never hesitate to hold our
feet to the refining fire, as long as collectively we are striving to protect and
enhance the unique material we call soil that truly protects humanity from starva-
tion and other, perhaps unknown calamities, sometimes self-induced through
ignorance or failing to listen to what our predecessors have told us.
Douglas L. Karlen (Co-Editor)

­References

Alexander, M. (1971). Agriculture’s responsibility in establishing soil quality criteria

In: Environmental improvement– Agriculture’s challenge in the Seventies.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. p. 66–71.
Bouma, J. (2019). Soil security in sustainable development. Soil Systems. 3:5.
doi:10.3390/soilsystems3010005
Donahue, R. L., J. C. Shickluna, and L. S. Robertson. 1971). Soils: An introduction to
soils and plant growth. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., and Stewart, B.A., editors. (1994).
Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. Soil Science Society of America
(SSSA) Special Publication No. 35. Madison, WI: SSSA Inc.
Doran, J.W., and Parkin, T.B. (1994). Defining and assessing soil quality. In:
J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.F. Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart, editors, Defining soil

0005091940.INDD 16 7/7/2021 12:56:04 PM

 Preface xvii

quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA Special Publication No. 35. Madison,
WI: SSSA. p. 3–21. doi:10.2136/sssaspecpub35
Doran, J.W., and Jones, A.J. (eds.). (1996). Methods for assessing soil quality. Soil
Science Society of America (SSSA) Special Publication No. 49. Madison, WI:
SSSA Inc.
Hartemink, A. E. and Anderson, S.H. (2020). 100 years of soil science society in the
U.S. CSA News 65(6), 26–27. doi:10.1002/csann.20144
Hillel, D. (1991). Out of the earth: Civilization and the life of the soil. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.

0005091940.INDD 17 7/7/2021 12:56:04 PM

0005091940.INDD 18 7/7/2021 12:56:04 PM
 1

Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These

Volumes
Douglas L. Karlen*, Diane E. Stott, Maysoon M. Mikha,
and Bianca N. Moebius-Clune

­Synopsis of Two-Volume Book

Farmers and ranchers, private sector businesses, non-governmental organiza-

tions (NGOs), academic-, state-, and federal-research projects, as well as state
and federal soil conservation, water quality and other environmental programs
have begun to adopt soil health as a unifying goal and promote it through work-
shops, books, and public awareness meetings and campaigns. The driver is an
increased awareness that soil resources are crucial for not only meeting global
demand for high-quality food, feed, and fiber but also to help mitigate more
extreme weather events and to protect water and air quality, wildlife habitat, and
biodiversity.
Volume 1 briefly reviews selected “Approaches to Soil Health Analysis” includ-
ing a brief history of the concept, challenges and opportunities, meta-data and
assessment, applications to forestry and urban land reclamation, and future soil
health monitoring and evaluation approaches.
Volume 2 focuses on “Laboratory Methods for Soil Health Analysis” including
an overview and suggested analytical approaches intended to provide meaningful,
comparable data so that soil health can be used to guide restoration and protection
of our global soil resources.

* Disclaimer: Mention of names or commercial products in this document does not imply
­recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Soil Health Series: Volume 1 Approaches to Soil Health Analysis, First Edition.
Edited by Douglas L. Karlen, Diane E. Stott, and Maysoon M. Mikha.
© 2021 Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

0005091961.INDD 1 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 2 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

­Introduction

Soil health research, books, workshops, websites, press releases, and other
forms of technology transfer materials have made rural and urban producers
and consumers of all ages more aware of soil resources and the services they
provide. Innovative farmers and ranchers, the private sector, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), academic, state, and federal researchers, and policymak-
ers around the world are becoming more aware of how properly functioning
soils more effectively respond to: (1) changing climate patterns and more
extreme weather events (Paustian et al., 2016); (2) increasing demands for abun-
dant, high-quality food, feed, and fiber to meet needs of an increasing global
population (Doran, 2002), and (3) the need to protect water, air, wildlife, plant,
and microbial biodiversity (Andrén & Balandreau, 1999; Havlicek &
Mitchell, 2014).
Enhancing global soil health will improve humankind’s capacity to maintain or
increase crop yield, achieve better yield stability, reduce purchased input costs,
and enhance critical ecosystem services (Boehm & Burton, 1997). Striving for
improved soil health is not only important for croplands, but also for pastures,
native rangelands, orchards, and forests (Herrick et al., 2012; Chendev et al., 2015;
Gelaw et al., 2015; Vitro et al., 2015). Yet, there is still a lot of confusion and uncer-
tainty regarding soil health in the U.S. and around the world. One reason is that
soils are complex and perform many different functions that respond to changes
in the same properties and processes in different and sometimes conflicting ways.
For example, what may be considered good soil health characteristics for crop
productivity (e.g., well aggregated, porous with good water infiltration, efficient
nutrient cycling) may not be optimum for water quality if high infiltration rates
and/or macropores result in rapid transport of contaminants to surface or subsur-
face water resources. Similarly, no-tillage as a single practice may improve soil
health by increasing soil organic carbon (SOC), but improper management deci-
sions (e.g., timing, equipment size, lack of living roots) or unanticipated weather
patterns (e.g., multiple freeze–thaw cycles) may increase compaction and runoff
compared to using a moderate fall tillage operation. For those reasons, soil health
assessment and management must always be holistic, striving to balance trade-
offs, and accounting for biological, chemical, and physical property and process
changes to be useful and meaningful for regenerative and sustainable soil man-
agement and protection of our fragile resources.
The concept of soil health is not new (see Figure 2.1 of Chapter 2). It has evolved
from both indigenous knowledge derived over millennia through trial and error,
and over a century of soil and agronomic research focused on soil management,

0005091961.INDD 2 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 ­Introductio  3

soil conservation, soil condition, soil quality, soil tilth, soil security, and similar
topics. Fundamental roots of soil health principles can be traced to the time of
Plato (Hillel, 1991) and Columella, a prominent writer about agriculture within
the Roman Empire (~40 to 60 BCE). Current soil health efforts reflect the enor-
mous efforts given by people such as Hugh Hammond Bennett, founder of the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) now known as the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). Soil health activities can be traced to soil conservation efforts
implemented in response to the Dust Bowl and other natural events. As a result,
it has become a mantra to focus people’s attention on the soil beneath their feet
(Carter et al., 1997; Montgomery, 2007). Unfortunately, as acknowledged 25 yr
ago (Doran and Jones, 1996), soil health was and continues (Chapter 3) to be a
controversial topic.
Many current soil health activities began to emerge in the 1970s (Alexander, 1971).
In part, they were accelerated by the 1973 U.S. oil embargo which increased
energy and nitrogen (N) fertilizer prices (Warkentin & Fletcher, 1977). Escalating
N fertilizer prices led to renewed interest among soil and agronomic researchers
regarding how the soil microbial community might be enhanced to help supply
crop-available N rather than continuing to depend on costly fertilizer inputs
(Gregorich & Carter, 1997; Tilman, 1998). The Food Security Act of 1985 also
introduced new incentives to encourage producers to implement minimum- or
no-tillage conservation practices to reduce soil erosion, thus increasing farmer
and society focus on the importance of soils for producing the food and fiber
humans need and. For maintaining the ecosystems on which all life ultimately
depends (National Research Council, 1993).
In contrast to soil quality efforts during the 1990s and early 2000s, a major
driver of soil health projects from 2011 to 2020 has been investment by private
industry. This can be partially explained by the rapid increase in corporate social
responsibility reporting between 2011 and 2020 (Sustainability Reports, 2019).
Consumer demand and sustainable, responsible shareholder investment pres-
sures have driven this increase in reporting—which has created a corporate need
for transparency in the environmental impact from agricultural production
systems.
Increased public awareness of soil health has opened avenues to productive
partnerships between industry, governmental, grower and conservation organiza-
tions due to the ability to create win-win-win scenarios between farm economic,
environmental improvement (e.g., water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biodi-
versity) and social outcomes (e.g., AgSolver and EFC Systems development of
‘Profit Zone Manager’ and its incorporation into the FieldAlytics platform for
field data management; ANTARES– Enabling Sustainable Landscape Design

0005091961.INDD 3 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 4 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

project linking soil health and the continual improvement of sustainable operating
bioenergy supply systems).
A leader in building public-private-partnerships focused on soil was the Soil
Renaissance which was initiated to reawaken public interest and awareness of
the importance of soil health in vibrant, profitable and sustainable natural
resource systems. Founded as a Farm Foundation and Noble Research Institute
collaboration, it sought to make maintenance and improvement of soil health
(https://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/the-soil-renaissance-knowledge-to-
sustain-earths-most-valuable-asset-1873-d1/) the cornerstone of land use man-
agement. The Soil Health Partnership (SHP) (https://www.soilhealthpartnership.
org/science/) initiated by the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA),
Walton Family Foundation, Monsanto (Bayer), Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 2014 was another leader. Soil
Renaissance endeavors have been carried on through the formation of the Soil
Health Institute which has provided leadership for a North American project to
evaluate soil health measurements (Norris et al., 2020). Meanwhile, the SHP has
focused on using science and data to work directly with farmers to adopt practi-
cal agricultural practices including (i) cover crops, (ii) conservation tillage, and
(iii) advanced nutrient management to improve the economic and environmen-
tal sustainability of the farm. Administered by the NCGA, the partnership has
more than 220 working farms enrolled in 15 states and one Canadian province.
Collectively SHP, SHI, and other regional, state and local partnerships have cre-
ated an exponential increase in recognition and adoption of soil and crop man-
agement practices that can protect, improve, and sustain our fragile soil, water,
and air resources.
Many additional soil health projects, partnerships, and investment opportuni-
ties have arisen across the United States (e.g., The Wells Fargo Innovation
Incubator, or IN2, The Soil Coalition initiated by Rabobank, a.s.r. and Vitens, and
S2G Ventures). The IN2, a technology incubator and platform co-administered by
the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
was initiated with six startups focused on agriculture technology solutions, while
S2G’s portfolio companies are on a mission to better align the food system to meet
changing consumer demands. Collectively, these partnerships and projects have
sent farmer and consumer market demand signals across the entire agricultural
supply chain. Subsequently, soil health products and services have followed the
market demand signals. For example: General Mills now brands products with
information regarding soil health and carbon sequestration (General Mills, 2020);
BASF began focusing on soil health when they launched Poncho Votivo 2.0 a
treatment designed to protect corn seeds and increase microbial activity in the soil
(BASF, 2020); and Nutrien Ltd, an agricultural retail company that distributes

0005091961.INDD 4 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 ­Introductio  5

potash, nitrogen, and phosphate products worldwide for agricultural, industrial,

and feed customers. Nutrien which serves the agriculture industry worldwide,
purchased Waypoint Analytical, Inc.—a soil science company—in 2018 to expand
soil health analyses for farmers (Nutrien Ltd., 2018). These investments as well as
those by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Midwest Row Crop Collaborative
(MWRCC), National Wheat Foundation, Foundation for Food and Agriculture
Research (FFAR), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Minnesota
Corn Growers Association, and Iowa Corn Growers Association at the regional,
state and local level have created partnerships supporting an exponential increase
in recognition and adoption of soil and crop management practices that can pro-
tect, improve, and sustain our fragile soil, water, and air resources.
Historically, a significant soil health development during the 1980s and 1990s
was the Canadian publication entitled “The Health of Our Soil” (Acton &
Gregorich, 1995) which was one of the first broad-scale, organized efforts to pro-
vide land managers information on implementing SH-improving practices.
Following those Canadian efforts, several U.S. soil scientists developed a defini-
tion of soil quality and recommended assessment methods to characterize how
tillage and other crop management decisions were affecting soil resources (e.g.,
Doran et al., 1994; Doran & Jones, 1996; Karlen et al., 1997). The importance of
soil biology was recognized as integral to improving the understanding and meas-
urement of soil quality, but optimum methods to assess soil microbial communi-
ties were still being developed (Pankhurst et al., 1997). As the capacity to quantify
soil biology indicators improved, discussions of SQ were replaced by the term soil
health which was used to communicate to both producers and consumers the
importance of understanding and managing soil as a living ecosystem. Consistent
with that messaging, the NRCS ultimately defined soil health as “the continued
capacity of the soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that supports plants,
animals, and humans” (USDA-NRCS, 2019a).
The purpose and scope for this two-volume series (I. Approaches to Soil Health
Analysis and II. Laboratory Methods for Soil Health Assessment) are to review
advancements in soil health since Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable
Environment (Doran et al., 1994) and Methods for Assessing Soil Quality (Doran
& Jones, 1996) were published 25 yr ago. Our goal for Volume 1 is to provide agri-
cultural and conservation communities an update that will help identify appropri-
ate soil health indicators for various soil processes important for agriculture,
forest, and reclamation functions. Volume 2 provides standardized, science-based
guidelines for sampling and procedures for assessing soil organic carbon (SOC),
aggregate stability and compaction, pH and salinity, nutrient availability, as well
as microbial processes, diversity, and community structure. Numerous scientific
publications and technical outreach activities have contributed to the evolution of

0005091961.INDD 5 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 6 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

soil health and are cited in the various chapters. Four relatively recent examples
are Basche and DeLonge (2017) who focus on soil hydrologic effects of continuous
living covers, Congreves et al. (2015) who reported on long-term impacts of tillage
and crop rotations on soil health, McDaniel et al. (2014) who used a meta-analysis
to examine crop diversity effects on soil microbial biomass and soil organic matter
(SOM) dynamics, and Turmel et al. (2015) who quantified crop residue manage-
ment effects on soil health. Collectively, the information in those publications and
numerous others can and will be used to produce consistent meaningful guide-
lines that can be understood and used by producers to improve their long-term
soil and crop management practices. This two-volume series is also intended to
help producers and land managers more fully understand their soil’s response to
human management. This is essential to move beyond current, broadly available
soil-testing methods that generally focus only on chemical extractions to assess
nutrient status and make nutrient management recommendations.

Why is Soil Health Important?

Investing in regenerating, improving, or sustaining soil health will result in a
broad array of benefits for producers and the public. Those benefits include: car-
bon sequestration and potential mitigation of and adaptation to climate change;
increased soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks; increased water infiltration, storage,
and availability to plants; reduced runoff, water-induced soil erosion, and flood-
ing; more efficient nutrient cycling and pest suppression; reduced need for agri-
cultural inputs; protection of groundwater, surface water, and air resources,
including reduced dust storm events; increased biodiversity and resilience; long-
term economic viability; and perhaps most importantly, food security, defined as
sustained, reliable productivity needed to provide the food, feed, fiber, and fuel
resources for an increasing world population (Glæsner et al., 2014; DeLong
et al., 2015; Lal, 2015).
Aggressively pursuing continued advancement of publicly available soil
health testing is critical because current chemical-based soil-testing approaches
do not provide a complete view of the soil physical, chemical, and biological
interactions and constraints that influence overall soil function. Fortunately,
over the last four decades, laboratory methods have been developed and
refined for studying, quantifying, and monitoring biological and physical indi-
cators. This makes it possible to use a combination of field observations and
laboratory tests to identify factors affecting a variety of soil, water, air, and
plant resource concerns.
Many new biological and physical soil health assessment methods are still
being refined and validated by the research community, but several indicators
and laboratory methods are gradually becoming available through agricultural

0005091961.INDD 6 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 ­Introductio  7

soil testing laboratories for assessing how well soil processes are functioning.
Technical Note 450–03 (USDA-NRCS, 2019b) was published by NRCS to pro-
vide recommendations reflecting current best available methods compiled
through meetings and working groups involving more than 100 scientists who
collaborated in multiorganizational workshops co-organized by USDA-NRCS
Soil Health Division and members of the Soil Renaissance effort. The Technical
Note laboratory methods are used as part of the Conservation Innovation
Grants Soil Health Demonstration Trials minimum dataset and in a newly
available Soil Testing Conservation Activity (CA 216) standard (USDA-
NRCS, 2020c). Standardization of methods enables nationwide baseline meas-
urements to be obtained that can be used for monitoring, and to guide soil and
crop management when combined with a soil health assessment framework
that provides soil and climate adapted interpretations of raw laboratory values.
These book volumes are intended to summarize current best available methods
and to identify gaps in our current understanding of soil health measurement
and assessment. They are also intended to facilitate and increase in public
awareness of soil health assessment and to provide insight and science-based
methods for those evaluations. Furthermore, by encouraging soil health assess-
ments, we hope these volumes will ultimately result in compilation of a
national dataset that can be used to support multiple public and private soil
health goals and document the value of public and private investments in such
assessments.
While qualitative or semi-quantitative field observations can be used for pre-
liminary identification of soil health constraints or to improve soil and crop
management practices, identifying specific underlying causes and/or the man-
agement practices needed to address them, often requires quantitative labora-
tory analysis. We anticipate information in these volumes will be used by a wide
group of stakeholders including producers, consultants, technical service pro-
viders, conservation planners, and other private and public agricultural service
providers, conservation groups, researchers, industry, policymakers, and the
general public. Uses will include: (1) identifying soil health problems and plan-
ning and implementing soil health management systems; (2) innovating, moni-
toring, and continually improving soil health management systems and their
outcomes; and (3) leveraging diverse partnerships and efforts across multiple
organizations and geographical scales for further research and innovation in
soil health assessment and management at local, regional, national, and global
scales through standardized datasets and sharing information for agricultural
lands. Having meaningful, science-based soil health assessments is also impor-
tant for planning, implementing, and managing conservation projects, estab-
lishing baselines, and documenting soil property and process changes over time
to quantify outcomes of such projects.

0005091961.INDD 7 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 8 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

Soil Health Indicators and Methods

Four main criteria have been developed by the soil health community of researchers,
agricultural service providers, and practitioners to select indicators and methods
for high-through-put soil test laboratories (Larson & Pierce, 1991; Mausbach &
Seybold, 1998; Doran & Zeiss, 2000; Moebius et al., 2007; Norris et al., 2020):
1) Soil Health Indicator Effectiveness (short-term sensitivity to management,
usefulness)
2) Production Readiness (ease of use, cost effectiveness for labs and producers)
3) Measurement Repeatability
4) Interpretability for agricultural management decisions (directionally under-
stood, management influence known, regional potential ranges known, out-
come thresholds).
These were developed using scientific literature and robust discussions in a
series of workshops coordinated by the Farm Foundation and Noble Research
Institute through the Soil Renaissance program between 2014 and 2016 (https://
www.farmfoundation.org/projects/the-soil-renaissance-knowledge-to-sustain-
earths-most-valuable-asset-1873-d1/). Understanding that soil health is a dynamic
and evolving component of soil science, we recognize that both the indicators and
methods recommended within these two volumes could change. Potential factors
leading to changes may include identification of: (1) new or different critical soil
processes, (2) more-responsive SH indicators, and/or (3) better methods of assess-
ment. Furthermore, because of the dynamic nature of soil health assessment, we
suggest information in these volumes be reviewed in three to 5 yr or a decade
at most.

Need for Standardization

Once a suite of soil health indicators has been selected, standard methods for
­collecting and handling samples in the field, processing them in the laboratory,
analyzing them, and interpreting the data are needed for monitoring and making
appropriate comparisons (Doran & Parkin, 1994). This is especially true for bio-
logical assays which can be more sensitive to how soil samples are collected and
processed prior to analysis than to subtle differences in the analytical methods
themselves. Currently, soil health measurement protocols vary widely and can
therefore lead to inconsistent results and slow progress toward widely validated
interpretation. This challenge is best addressed by standardization of a minimum
dataset of methods used across organizations that collaborate nationally to make
progress on interpretation and science-based management recommendations
(USDA-NRCS, 2019b). Thus, ongoing efforts among public-sector and commer-
cial laboratories are needed to ensure preanalytical soil processing (i.e., degree of

0005091961.INDD 8 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 ­Introductio  9

aggregation, sieving, grinding, etc.) and analytical methods are standardized. As

with all soil chemical measurements (e.g., pH, salinity, extractable N, phosphorus,
and potassium), biological and physical indicators generally have large spatial and
temporal variation. Care thus needs to be taken not only with sampling (i.e., com-
positing enough subsamples to make inferences about a sampled area) but also
sampling methods (soil volume and depth), timing of collection (seasonal or
annual), and the statistical methods used for interpretation.
Volume 2 is also intended to help reduce analytical variation in the measure-
ment of soil health indicators. This is important because, as previously shown by
the standardization of NRCS inherent soil property characterization methods,
standardization makes large-scale data integration and comparisons feasible.
Without rigorous standardization of soil health methods, variation among labora-
tories will hinder evaluation of changes over time and space and development of
interpretations for various soil types and climate scenarios. This will in turn make
regional and national compilations of soil health data very difficult to interpret.
Standardization of methods and protocols, along with appropriate proficiency
testing, will facilitate collection of high-quality data with a high degree of inter-
pretability, which is needed to facilitate development and use of regionally-
appropriate interpretation functions (i.e., scoring algorithms). Those algorithms
are needed to transform raw laboratory data into unitless (0 to 1) values that shows
how well a specific soil is performing a production or environmental function.
Such ratings can then be used for on farm management decision making. Private
and public soil testing laboratories that use broadly standardized methods will
therefore have the advantage of being able to offer broadly validated soil health
testing and interpretation using functions and recommendations developed from
a large dataset achieved through multiorganization public-private partnership
contributions.

Interpretation of Soil Health Information

Several nationally appropriate tools, including the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE), Soil Conditioning Index (SCI), Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP), Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS), AgroEcosystem
Performance Assessment Tool (AEPAT), and Soil Management Assessment
Framework (SMAF), have been developed to help interpret soil health related
data (USDA-NRCS, 2019b). RUSLE2 estimates soil loss due to rill and inter-rill
erosion caused by rainfall on cropland (Renard et al., 2011; USDA-ARS, 2015).
The SCI combines information from the soil tillage intensity rating tool (STIR), a
N-leaching index, and Version 2 of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE2) to provide information to producers regarding how their management
decisions are affecting their soil resources and is widely used in NRCS

0005091961.INDD 9 7/7/2021 9:29:21 AM

 10 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

conservation planning. AEPAT is a research-oriented index methodology that

ranks agroecosystem performance among management practices for chosen func-
tions and indicators (Liebig et al., 2004; Wienhold et al., 2006). Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP) is a process-based, distributed parameter, continuous
simulation, erosion prediction model for use on personal computers (USDA-
ARS, 2017); Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) predicts many forms of soil
erosion by wind including saltation-creep and suspension (USDA-ARS, 2018).
Without question, wind-, water-, and anthropogenic-induced soil erosion contin-
ues to be a global problem (Karlen & Rice, 2015) and must be the first factor miti-
gated to truly improve soil health, as it is an advanced symptom of degradation
including loss of soil organism habitat, stable aggregation, and other critical soil
functions.
Soil health indicator measurements, when coupled with an available assess-
ment framework, complement soil erosion tools as they can directly and more
definitively detect less advanced symptoms of soil health degradation across
diverse management systems. Laboratory data, without field-level information
can be difficult to interpret or use for management decisions, and should only be
used when supplemented with qualitative, in-field assessments of SH and an
understanding of the past and current management system in use.
Data collected over time from the same field can be used to monitor soil health,
but this may take a long time to be of value to producers or organizations, as it
requires establishing a baseline and sampling over a number of years. Use of soil
health assessment frameworks allow single field indicator measurements to be
interpreted and used for decision making by leveraging a wealth of research con-
ducted over the last 50 yr and continued targeted data collection. The first such
framework (SMAF;) was developed collaboratively between ARS and NRCS
(Andrews et al., 2004). Stott et al. (2010) and Wienhold et al. (2009) improved the
SMAF by providing additional indicator scoring curves, thus improving its utility
for both crop and pasture lands. SMAF uses broad soil taxonomic groups (subor-
ders) as a foundation for assessment and allows curve modification based on
inherent soil suborder characteristics. This is often essential as a contextual basis
for indicator interpretation.
By design, SMAF assessments are soil- and site-specific, because they depend
on soil, climate, and human values such as intended land use, management goals,
and environmental sensitivity. A purported SMAF strength is that all of those fac-
tors can be manipulated by the user (primarily researchers). This will cause subtle
changes in the scoring curves, causing some to argue that is not an advantage
because it makes the process too complex for producers and their service provid-
ers. The approach taken by the SMAF was thereafter adapted for high throughput,
public laboratory soil health testing in New York State by Idowu et al. (2008). The
Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH) was designed to evaluate soil

0005091961.INDD 10 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 ­Introductio  11

functioning with respect to crop production and environmental impact and

­provide producers with a soil health status report similar to soil fertility reports
commonly provided by soil testing labs. Most scores are effectively percentile rat-
ings, comparing a measured value to the known population distribution in a soil
textural group. CASH was based on the SMAF but used indicator methods with
faster analytical procedures to accommodate a high-throughput lab setting.
Furthermore, CASH was originally developed solely for New York, so scoring
functions varied by texture, but were not adjusted for any other inherent soil char-
acteristics associated with taxonomic classification or climate.
The framework approach for interpreting measured soil health data is further
discussed in Volume 1 (Chapter 5). In summary, both SMAF and CASH provide
efficient comparisons of similar soils under diverse management and estimates
regarding the level of functioning of a particular field within the overall soil health
continuum (van Es & Karlen, 2019). The key to robust interpretations is being
able to compare soil samples from both agricultural and non-agricultural ecosys-
tems, as well as for different soil and crop management practices, using consist-
ent, standard, methods.

Utilizing Soil Health Assessments to Inform Soil Management Decisions

It was stated in the Foreword to Doran et al. (1994) that “scientists and lay persons
have long recognized that the quality of two great natural resources– air and
water– can be degraded by human activity. Unfortunately, few people have con-
sidered that the quality of soil can also be affected by differing uses and manage-
ment practices. Interest in soil quality has heightened during the past 3 yr as a
small cadre of soil scientists became more concerned about the role of soils in
sustainable production systems and the linkages between soil characteristics and
plant-human health.” This reflects just one early step in the exponential progress
made during the past three decades that has led from soil quality being a research
niche to broad awareness of the critical importance of healthy soils to agriculture
and societies in general.
Soil health considerations are currently being incorporated across the activities
of many agriculture-serving organizations nationally. For example, it has been
incorporated into NRCS conservation planning and implementation programs.
New soil health resource concerns, or constraints that can be documented by con-
servation planners, were published (USDA-NRCS, 2020a). These are also being
embedded into key Conservation Practice Standards (USDA-NRCS, 2020b), a
series of documents describing which constraints structural and agronomic con-
servation management practices can address, as well as the criteria for how to
implement these practices to facilitate resolving identified constraints. Guidance
is being updated to further reflect the current science on the importance of

0005091961.INDD 11 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 12 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

systems approaches as well, starting with crop lands, with plans to expand
guidance available for other land uses. Standardization of measures is being
undertaken across multiple organizations to build basic capacity to better inform
management decisions and to quantify transition times and outcomes of soil
health management systems implementation (USDA-NRCS, 2019b; Norris
et al., 2020).
To fully address resource concerns and build fully functional soils, by improving
organic matter quantity or quality, reversing soil organism habitat degradation,
alleviating compaction, or improving soil aggregate stability, an agricultural
annual cropping system that properly incorporates more than one soil health-
targeted conservation practice is usually needed (Basche & DeLonge, 2017;
Congreves et al., 2015; McDaniel et al., 2014; Turmel et al., 2015; USDA-
NRCS, 2019a). Through the NRCS conservation planning process, conservation
practices (USDA-NRCS, 2020b) for cover crops (340), crop rotation (328), and
reduced- or no-tillage (345 and 329) are regularly employed by conservation plan-
ners to address various resource concerns since the methods of soil and crop man-
agement they represent are important contributors to sustainable agricultural
production systems. However, if used in isolation, it is unlikely that a single prac-
tice will provide lasting SH benefits through improved SOM or the critical soil
functions associated with SOM. For example, incorporating a cereal rye cover
crop into a two-crop rotation that is dependent on frequent tillage may provide
some weed suppression benefits or help reduce erosion, but it is unlikely that soil
aggregate stability will be improved. Realizing improvement in soil function
through management changes will typically require the strategic and simultane-
ous use of multiple practices. To better understand potential interactions among
practices it may be helpful to think of their roles with regard to each of four
broadly applicable NRCS soil health principles: minimizing soil disturbance,
maximizing soil cover, maximizing biodiversity, and maximizing the presence of
living roots. Each principle can be implemented using soil and crop management
practices designed to address existing soil health concerns and maintain soil func-
tion. Depending on the cropping system, each soil health principle can be achieved
through appropriate use of one or more conservation practices. Achieving all four
principles by thoughtfully implementing and adaptively integrating multiple,
complimentary conservation practices known to address identified constraints or
concerns is the best way to ensure that soil health constraints are alleviated
through synergistic effects as illustrated below.

Minimizing Soil Disturbance

In some cropping systems, physical, chemical, or biological soil disturbance is an
inevitable consequence of crop production (Schjønning et al., 2004). However,
advances in agronomic research, farm equipment design, and technology have

0005091961.INDD 12 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 ­Introductio  13

created the potential for most annual cropland acres to be managed with reduced- or
often no-tillage practices. Inappropriate use of nutrients and pesticides can also
cause soil ecosystem disturbance (Ellert et al., 1997; Frey et al., 1999; West &
Post, 2002). Reducing disturbance helps slow carbon losses, minimizes physical
destruction of aggregates, and maintains habitat for soil organisms (Larson
et al., 1994). In addition to reduced- or no-tillage (345 and 329), Conservation
Cover (327), IPM (595), Nutrient Management (590), and Prescribed Grazing
(528) can also be implemented to minimize soil disturbance.

Maximizing Soil Cover

Crop residue and other organic materials such as mulch and compost, when they
are left on the soil surface, provide a protective barrier between the soil and the
destructive force of raindrops. They also moderate extremes in soil temperature
and reduce evaporative losses from the soil. Soil cover can also be provided by
leaves of growing plants. Keeping the soil covered throughout the year helps
maintain soil aggregate integrity, protect habitat and provide food for soil organ-
isms. Conservation practices that can be used to maximize cover include
Conservation Cover (327), Cover Crop (340), Forage & Biomass Planting (512),
Mulching (484), Prescribed Grazing (528) and Residue/Tillage Management
(329/345).

Maximizing Biodiversity
It is well known that crop rotations are an important tool for managing plant pests
(Altieri, 1991a, 1991b). What has been less appreciated until recently is that plants,
primarily through their roots, affect the kinds and abundance of soil microorgan-
isms, thus influencing soil biology and biological processes (Doran & Zeiss, 2000).
Different plant species, and even cultivars, are typically associated with distinct
soil microbial communities (Dick, 1997). In addition, since plant root architecture
often differs among species, effects on soil function are also different (Brussaard
et al., 2004). Above ground plant and animal diversity also encourages diversity in
soil biology by increasing SOM levels, providing food and habitat for diverse soil
communities, promoting greater aggregate stability, and helping alleviate compac-
tion. Conservation practices that can be used to maximize biodiversity include
Conservation Cover (327), Conservation Crop Rotation (328), Cover Crop (340),
Forage & Biomass Planting (512), and Prescribed Grazing (528).

Maximizing the Presence of Living Roots

The area around plant roots is typically where the highest number and greatest
diversity of soil microorganisms are found (Hornby & Bateman, 1997; Grayston
et al., 1998; Ladygina & Hedlund, 2010; Singh et al., 2004). The rhizosphere is a
very important ecological zone for SH improvement because living plant roots

0005091961.INDD 13 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 14 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

exude numerous carbon compounds as they grow and steadily slough dead cells
from their surfaces. These contributions from roots add organic carbon to the
ecosystem and help feed soil organisms. Plant roots are also involved in complex
biochemical communication among soil microbes whereby beneficial organ-
isms are “recruited” by plants while pathogenic organisms are often deterred.
Plant roots also physically enmesh soil particles thus helping to create and pre-
serve soil aggregates. Conservation practices that can be used to maximize the
presence of living roots in the soil include Conservation Cover (327),
Conservation Crop Rotation (328), Cover Crop (340), Forage & Biomass Planting
(512), Mulching (484) and Prescribed Grazing (528). These selected practices are
just some of the ways soil biological processes can be enhanced by SH manage-
ment systems. Producers and those who work with them on establishing new
management adaptations continue to innovate. The remaining chapters provide
additional information and examples illustrating how continued implementa-
tion of known soil health promoting practices and new innovations can be
assessed for their effects on critical soil functions by measuring appropriate SH
indicators.

­Summary and Conclusion

Efforts to build agricultural resilience through high functioning soil resources

are still in their infancy, as documented by national adoption rates for soil
health associated practices, and especially soil health management systems
across entire human-managed landscapes (Karlen & Rice, 2015; Wade
et al., 2015). Fortunately, federal, state, NGO and private-sector organizations
and individuals are working diligently to advance awareness of soil health and
the management practices that improve it. Through increased research, on
farm implementation, and policy changes progress is inevitable. The focus in
“Approaches to Soil Health Analysis” is to build standardized, basic capacity
to better inform management decisions and quantify outcomes of soil health
management system implementation.
Soil health developments during the past three decades have been progressive,
provocative, and are thus still under debate. As such, this two-volume contribu-
tion in no way is conceived as providing any final answers, but is envisioned as a
step toward incorporating soil health into mainstream soil, water, and environ-
mental science programs, and more importantly into every day agricultural man-
agement. Hopefully, they will also open new doors and stimulate additional study
and education needed to encourage humankind to recognize the truth in Larson’s
often quoted statement that soil is “the thin layer covering the planet that stands
between us and starvation” (Karlen et al., 2014).

0005091961.INDD 14 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

   ­Reference 15

­References

Acton, D. F., & Gregorich, L. J. (1995). The health of our soils: Toward sustainable
agriculture in Canada. Pub. No. 1906/E Centre for Land and Biological Resources
Research. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.
title.58906
Alexander, M. (1971). Agriculture’s responsibility in establishing soil quality criteria.
In Environmental improvement: Agriculture’s challenge in the seventies (pp. 66–71).
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Altieri, M. A. (1991a). How best can we use biodiversity in agroecosystems. Outlook
Agricultre, 20, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/003072709102000105
Altieri, M. A. (1991b). Increasing biodiversity to improve insect pest management
in agro-ecosystems. In D. L. Hawksworth (Ed.), The biodiversity of microorganisms
and invertebrates: Its role in sustainable agriculture (pp. 165–182). UK: CAB
International.
Andrén, O., & Balandreau, J. (1999). Biodiversity and soil functioning: From black
box to can of worms? Applications in Soil Ecology, 13, 105–108. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0929-1393(99)00025-6
Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Cambardella, C. A. (2004). The soil management
assessment framework: A quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 68, 1945–1962. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.1945
Basche, A., & DeLonge, M. (2017). The impact of continuous living cover on soil
hydrologic properties: A meta-analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
81(5), 1179–1190. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.03.0077
Boehm, M., & Burton, S. (1997). Socioeconomics in soil-conserving agricultural
systems: Implications for soil quality. In E. G. Gregorich & M. R. Carter (Eds.), Soil
quality for crop production and ecosystem health (pp. 293–312). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2481(97)
80040-2
Brussaard, L., Kuyper, T. W., Didden, W. A. M., de Goede, R. G. M., & Bloem,
J. (2004). Biological soil quality from biomass to biodiversity – Importance and
resilience to management stress and disturbance. In P. Schjønning, S. Elmholt, &
B. T. Christensen (Eds.), Managing soil quality: Challenges in modern agriculture
(pp. 139–161). Wallingford, U.K: CABI Publishing.
BASF. 2020. Poncho Votivo 2.0 Seed Treatment System. https://agriculture.basf.us/
crop-protection/products/poncho-votivo-2-0.html (verified 13 July 2020).
Carter, M. C., Gregorich, E. G., Anderson, D. W., Doran, J. W., Janzen, H. H., &
Pierce, F. J. (1997). Concepts of soil quality and their significance. In
E. G. Gregorich & M. R. Carter (Eds.), Soil quality for crop production and
ecosystem health (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2481(97)80028-1

0005091961.INDD 15 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 16 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

Chendev, Y. G., Sauer, T. J., Ramirez, G. H., & Burras, C. L. (2015). History of East
European Chernozem soil degradation: Protection and restoration by tree
windbreaks in the Russian Steppe. Sustainability, 7(1), 705–724. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su7010705
Congreves, K. A., Hayes, A., Verhallen, E. A., & Van Eerd, L. L. (2015). Long-term
impact of tillage and crop rotation on soil health at four temperate agroecosystems.
Soil Tillage Research, 152, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.03.012
DeLong, C., Cruse, R., & Wiener, J. (2015). The soil degradation paradox:
Compromising our resources when we need them the most. Sustainability, 7(1),
866–879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7010866
Dick, R. P. (1997). Soil enzyme activities as integrative indicators of soil health. In
C. Pankhurst, B. M. Doube, & V. V. S. R. Gupta (Eds.), Biological indicators of soil
health (pp. 121–156). New York: CAB International.
Doran, J. W., Coleman, D. C., Bezdicek, D. F., & Stewart, B. A. (Eds.) (1994). Defining
soil quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA Special Publication No. 35.
Madison, WI: SSSA.
Doran, J. W., & Parkin, T. B. (1994). Defining and assessing soil quality. In
J. W. Doran, D. C. Coleman, D. F. Bezdicek, & B. A. Stewart (Eds.), Defining soil
quality for a sustainable environment (pp. 3–21). SSSA Special Publication No. 35.
Madison, WI: SSSA. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub35
Doran, J. W., & A. J. Jones (Eds.) (1996). Methods for assessing soil quality. SSSA
special Publication No. 49. Madison, WI: SSSA.
Doran, J. W., & M. R. Zeiss. (2000). Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic
component of soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology, 15, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0929-1393(00)00067-6
Doran, J. W. (2002). Soil health and global sustainability: Translating science into
practice. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment, 88(2), 119–127. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00246-8
Ellert, B. H., Clapperton, M. J., & Anderson, D. W. (1997). An ecosystem perspective
of soil quality. In E. G. Gregorich & M. R. Carter (Eds.), Soil quality for crop
production and ecosystem health (pp. 115–141). Elsevier Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2481(97)80032-3
Frey, S. D., Elliott, E. T., & Paustian, K. (1999). Bacterial and fungal abundance and
biomass in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems along two climatic
gradients. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 31(4), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0038-0717(98)00161-8
Gelaw, A. M., Singh, B. R., & Lal, R. (2015). Soil quality indices for evaluating
smallholder agricultural land uses in northern Ethiopia. Sustainability, 7(3),
2322–2337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032322
General Mills. (2020). Regenerative Agriculture. https://www.generalmills.com/
Responsibility/Sustainability/Regenerative-agriculture (verified 13 July 2020).

0005091961.INDD 16 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

   ­Reference 17

Glæsner, N., Helming, K., & de Vries, W. (2014). Do current European policies
prevent soil threats and support soil functions. Sustainability, 6(12), 9538–9563.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129538
Grayston, S. J., Wang, S., Campbell, C. D., & Edwards, A. C. (1998). Selective
influence of plant species on microbial diversity in the rhizosphere. Soil Biology &
Biochemistry, 30(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00124-7
Gregorich, E. G., & Carter, M. R. (Eds.) (1997). Soil quality for crop production and
ecosystem health. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Havlicek, E., & Mitchell, E. A. (2014). Soils supporting biodiversity. In J. A. Krumins
& J. Dighton (Eds.), Interactions in soil: Promoting plant growth (pp. 27–58).
Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8890-8_2
Herrick, J. E., Brown, J. R., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Andrews, S. S., Baldi, G., Davies, J.,
Duniway, M., Havstad, K. M., Karl, J., Karlen, D. L., Peters, D. P. C., Quinton, J. N.,
Riginos, C., Shaver, P. L., Steinaker, D., & Twomlow, S. (2012). Revolutionary land
use change in the 21st century: Is (rangeland) science relevant? Rangeland Ecology
& Management, 65, 590–598. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-11-00186.1
Hillel, D. (1991). Out of the earth: Civilization and the life of the soil. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
Hornby, D., & Bateman, G. L. (1997). Potential use of plant root pathogens as
bioindicators of soil health. In C. Pankhurst, B. M. Doube, & V. V. S. R. Gupta
(Eds.), Biological indicators of soil health (pp. 179–200). New York: CAB
International.
Idowu, O. J., van Es, H. M., Abawi, G. S., Wolfe, D. W., Ball, J. I., Gugino, B. K.,
Moebius, B. N., Schindelbeck, R. R., & Bilgili, A.V. (2008). Farmer-oriented
assessment of soil quality using field, laboratory, and VNIR spectroscopy methods.
Plant & Soil, 307, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9521-0
Karlen, D. L., Mausbach, M. J., Doran, J. W., Cline, R. G., Harris, R. F., & Schuman,
G. E. (1997). Soil quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 61, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.
03615995006100010001x
Karlen, D. L., Peterson, G. A., & Westfall, D. G. (2014). Soil and water conservation:
Our history and future challenges. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78,
1493–1499. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2014.03.0110
Karlen, D. L., & Rice, C.W. (2015). Soil degradation: Will humankind ever learn?
Sustainability, 7, 12490–12501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912490
Lal, R. (2015). Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability, 7,
5875–5895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875
Larson, W. E., & Pierce, F. J. (1991). Conservation and enhancement of soil quality.
Evaluation for sustainable land management in the developing world. In IBSRAM
Conference Proc. 12th. Int. Board for Soil Research and Management, Jatujak
Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand. p. 175–203.

0005091961.INDD 17 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 18 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

Larson, W. E., Eynard, A., Hadas, A., & Lipiec, J. (1994). Control and avoidance of
soil compaction in practice. In B. D. Soanee & C. van Ouwerkerk (Eds.), Soil
compaction in crop production (pp. 597–625). Developments in Agricultural
Engineering 11. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-444-88286-8.50033-7
Ladygina, N., & Hedlund, K. (2010). Plant species influence microbial diversity and
carbon allocation in the rhizosphere. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 42(2), 162–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.10.009
Liebig, M. A., Miller, M. E., Varvel, G. E., Doran, J. W., & Hanson, J. D. (2004).
AEPAT: Software for assessing agronomic and environmental performance of
management practices in long- term agroecosystem experiments. Agronomy
Journal, 96, 109–115. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0109
Mausbach, M. J., & Seybold, C. A. (1998). Assessment of soil quality. In R. Lal (Ed.),
Soil quality and agricultural sustainability (pp. 33–43). Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.
McDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K., & Grandy, A. S. (2014). Does agricultural crop
diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A
meta-analysis. Ecological Applications, 24(3), 560–570. https://doi.
org/10.1890/13-0616.1
Moebius, B. N., van Es, H. M., Schindelbeck, R. R., Idowu, O. J., Thies, J. E., & Clune,
D. J. (2007). Evaluation of laboratory-measured soil properties as indicators of soil
physical quality. Soil Science, 172, 895–912. https://doi.org/10.1097/
ss.0b013e318154b520
Montgomery, D. R. (2007). Dirt: The erosion of civilizations. Berkley, CA: University of
California Press.
National Research Council. (1993). Soil and water quality: An agenda for agriculture.
Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Norris, C. E., Bean, G. M., Cappellazzi, S. B., Cope, M., Greub, K. L. H., Liptzin, D.,
Rieke, E. L., Tracy, P. W., Morgan, C. L. S., & Honeycutt, C. W. (2020). Introducing
the North American project to evaluate soil health measurements. Agronomy
Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20234
Nutrien Ltd. (2018). Nutrien Announces Agreement to Purchase Waypoint
Analytical, a Leading U.S. Agricultural Lab and Soil Science Company. https://
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nutrien-announces-agreement-to-purchase-
waypoint-analytical-a-leading-us-agricultural-lab-and-soil-science-
company-300677498.html (verified 13 July 2020).
Pankhurst, C. E., Doube, B. M., & Gupta, V. V. S. R. (1997). Biological indicators of
soil health: Synthesis. In C. E. Pankhurst, B. M. Doube, & V. V. S. R. Gupta (Eds.),
Biological indicators of soil health (pp. 419–435). New York: CAB International.
Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016).
Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532(7597), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature17174

0005091961.INDD 18 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

   ­Reference 19

Renard, K. G., Yoder, D. C., Lightle, D. T., & Dabney, S. M. (2011). Universal soil loss
equation and revised universal soil loss equation. In R. P. C. Morgan &
M. A. Nearing (Eds.), Handbook of erosion modelling (pp. 137–167). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing.
Schjønning, P., Elmholt, S., & Christensen, B. T. (2004). Soil quality management–
Concepts and terms. In P. Schjønning, S. Elmholt, & B. T. Christensen (Eds.),
Managing soil quality: Challenges in modern agriculture (pp. 1–15). Wallingford,
UK: CABI Publishing.
Singh, B. K., Millard, P., Whiteley, A. S., & Murrell, J. C. (2004). Unravelling
rhizosphere–microbial interactions: Opportunities and limitations. Trends in
Microbiology, 12(8), 386–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2004.06.008
Stott, D. E., Andrews, S. S., Liebig, M. A., Wienhold, B. J., & Karlen, D. L. (2010).
Evaluation of β- glucosidase activity as a soil quality indicator for the soil
management assessment framework (SMAF). Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 74, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0029
Sustainability Reports. (2019). 86% of S&P 500 Index Companies Publish
Sustainability / Responsibility Reports in 2018. https://www.sustainability-reports.
com/86-of-sp-500-index-companies-publish-sustainability-responsibility-
reports-in-2018/
Tilman, D. G. (1998). The greening of the green revolution. Nature, 396, 211–212.
doi:10.1038/24254
Turmel, M. S., Speratti, A., Baudron, F., Verhulst, N., & Govaerts, B. (2015). Crop
residue management and soil health: A systems analysis. Agricultural Systems, 134,
6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.009
USDA-ARS. (2015). Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, Version 2 (RUSLE2).
USDA National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. https://data.nal.usda.gov/
dataset/revised-universal-soil-loss-equation-version-2-rusle2 (verified
12 June 2020).
USDA-ARS. (2017). Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). USDA Agricultural
Research Service. Washington, DC. https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/water-
erosion-prediction-project-wepp (verified 12 June 2020).
USDA-ARS. (2018). Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS). USDA ARS
Engineering & Wind Erosion Research Unit. Washington, DC. https://data.nal.
usda.gov/dataset/wind-erosion-prediction-system-weps (verified 12 June 2020).
USDA-NRCS. (2019a). The Basics of Addressing Resource Concerns with
Conservation Practices within Integrated Soil Health Management Systems on
Cropland, by D. Chessman, B.N. Moebius-Clune, B.R. Smith, and B. Fisher. Soil
Health Technical Note No. 450-04. Available on NRCS Electronic Directive System.
Washington, DC. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov (verified 12 June 2020).
USDA-NRCS. (2019b). Recommended Soil Health Indicators and Associated
Laboratory Procedures, by D.E. Stott. Soil Health Technical Note No. 430-03.

0005091961.INDD 19 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 20 Soil Health: An Overview and Goals for These Volumes

Available on NRCS Electronic Directive System. Washington, DC. https://

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov (verified 12 June 2020).
USDA-NRCS. (2020a). Electronic Directive, National Bulletin. NB 450-20-1 Field
Office Technical Guide Resource Concerns and Planning Criteria List and Update
(Title 450). Washington, DC. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ (verified
12 June 2020).
USDA-NRCS. (2020b). Electronic Directive, National Handbook of Conservation
Practices (Title 450), Part 620, Subpart C, National Practice Standards. Washington,
DC https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/(verified 6-12-2020).
USDA-NRCS. (2020c). NRCS Conservation Activity Soil Testing (Code 216).
Washington, DC. https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ (verified 12 June 2020).
van Es, H. M., & Karlen, D. L. (2019). Reanalysis confirms soil health indicator
sensitivity and correlation with long-term crop yields. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 83, 721–732. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.09.0338
Vitro, I., Imaz, M. J., Fernández-Ugalde, O., Gartzia-Bengoetxea, N., Enrique, A., &
Bescansa, P. (2015). Soil degradation and soil quality in Western Europe: Current
situation and future perspectives. Sustainability, 7(1), 313–365. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su7010313
Wade, T., Claassen, R., & Wallander, S. (2015). Conservation-practice adoption rates
vary widely by crop and region. Economic Information Bulletin (EIB) No.147,
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS).
Washington, DC.
Warkentin, B. P., & Fletcher, H. F. (1977). Soil quality for intensive agriculture. In
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Soil Environment and Fertilizer
Management in Intensive Agriculture. Society of Science of Soil and Manure,
Japan. p. 594–598.
West, T. O., & Post, W.M. (2002). Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and
crop rotation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66(6), 1930–1946. https://doi.
org/10.2136/sssaj2002.1930
Wienhold, B.J., Pikul, J. L., Liebig, M. A., Mikha, M. M., Varvel, G. E., Doran, J. W., &
Andrews, S.S. (2006). Cropping system effects on soil quality in the Great Plains:
Synthesis from a regional project. Renewable Agricultural Food Systems, 21, 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1079/RAF2005125
Wienhold, B. J., Karlen, D. L., Andrews, S. S., & Stott, D.E. (2009). Protocol for soil
management assessment framework (SMAF) soil indicator scoring curve
development. Renewable Agricultural Food Systems, 24, 260–266. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1742170509990093

0005091961.INDD 20 7/7/2021 9:29:22 AM

 21

Evolution of the Soil Health Movement

Douglas L. Karlen, Mriganka De, Marshall D. McDaniel, and
Diane E. Stott

Soil Health, during the second decade of the 21st Century, has become a familiar
term to both rural and urban audiences. Some may think the concept is new, but
as outlined herein, the projects, workshops, books, and all other activities address-
ing this topic are built on a solid foundation reflecting numerous research, educa-
tion, and technology contributions such as soil conservation, soil condition, soil
tilth, soil carbon management, soil quality, soil security, or simply prevention of
soil degradation. We have broken the evolution of soil health activities into four
stages: (i) pre-­20th Century contributions, (ii) soil tilth and conservation activities
between ~1900 and 1970, (iii) introduction and initial soil quality activities, and
(iv) acceptance, promotion, and adoption of soil health per se. Recognizing some
contributions have been missed, we hope the presentation will provide a reason-
able foundation for many different readers.

­Introduction

As the second decade of the 21st Century ends, the term “soil health” has become
an accepted phrase, embedded globally in technical and non-­technical writings.
Federal and state government, non-­government organizations, foundations, insti-
tutes, college and university curricula, public-­private-­partnerships, and numer-
ous other entities have embraced the concept and thus embedded the term into
the vernacular of many groups (Figure 2.1). For those who have spent recent dec-
ades striving to encourage adoption of soil health principles and the management
practices required to implement them, global recognition and acceptance of soil
health is gratifying, but we fully acknowledge that our small and humble

Soil Health Series: Volume 1 Approaches to Soil Health Analysis, First Edition.
Edited by Douglas L. Karlen, Diane E. Stott, and Maysoon M. Mikha.
© 2021 Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

0005091962.INDD 21 7/7/2021 9:34:29 AM

 22 Evolution of the Soil Health Movement
Frequency of Phrase in Printed Sources (%)

Soil Tilth

Frequency of Phrase in Literature (%)

4×10–6 4×10–5
Soil Quality
for Soil Tilth and Soil Health

Soil Health

3×10–6 3×10–5
The Dust Bowl

for Soil Quality

2×10–6 2×10–5

10–6 10–5

0 0
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Year

Figure 2.1 An exponential increase in the use of soil quality and soil tilth in published
literature. (Developed by M.D. McDaniel using https://books.google.com/ngrams [Michel
et al., 2011]).

c­ ontributions were built on foundations laid by many before us. Some may regard
the concept as new and unique, but soil health per se evolved from several soil
­management focus areas including soil condition, soil tilth, soil management, soil
conservation, soil care, soil quality, soil productivity, soil resilience, soil security,
and soil degradation.
Advocates for the care and wise use of soil have been warning humankind since
before the common era (BCE) that soil (a.k.a. Land) is the foundation for everything
we do or share (e.g., food security; water infiltration, retention and release; environ-
mental buffering; biodiversity). Many pioneers, including H. H. Bennett who in
response to the American Dust Bowl and many other improper soil management
decisions successfully established the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), dedicated
their lives to protecting and improving soils (Bennett, 1950). But, without question,
something unique happened during the 1970s and 1980s (Figure 2.1) that spurred interest
and resulted in an exponential increase in the words soil quality and soil health in
titles, keywords, and abstracts from which literature search databases are built.
We cannot identify any single event (e.g., The Dust Bowl) or explain why the
importance of soil resources was finally recognized and publically discussed.
Perhaps, it was the establishment of “Earth Day” in 1970 which significantly
increased awareness of unintended environmental impacts associated with
post-­World War II industrial developments (e.g., non-­point pollution; surface-­
and ground-­water contamination and depletion; wind-­, tillage-­ and water-­
induced soil erosion; acid rain; increased emission of greenhouse gases).

0005091962.INDD 22 7/7/2021 9:34:29 AM

 ­Introductio  23

None-­the-­less, soil resources, some 40 years after the U.S. Dust Bowl, were once
again being recognized as fragile and in need of appropriate care and manage-
ment to sustain them. During that era, our now deceased mentor, colleague, and
friend, W. E. (Bill) Larson, often described soil as “the thin layer covering the
planet that stands between us and starvation” (Karlen et al., 2014a). This quote
parallels writings by two other soil science pillars whom we suggest indirectly
helped lay a foundation for soil health. The first is W.C. Lowdermilk (1953), who
summarized his personal experiences in 1938 and 1939 in an often-­reproduced
publication entitled "Conquest of the Land through 7,000 Years." His writings
began by recognizing that human civilizations literally wrote their records on
the land. He used those experiences to help raise public awareness of soil ero-
sion problems occurring within the United States and globally. The second is
Hillel (1991) who in his book “Out of the Earth: Civilization and the Life of the
Soil” included a treatise in which Plato has Critias deliver a proclamation com-
paring degraded land and soil resources to an abandoned, emaciated person.
Science-­based principles influencing or even controlling overall soil health and
the critical functions healthy soils provide for humankind can be traced to Aristo-
tle or van Helmont, who provided some of the first insight and understanding of
how plants obtain their nutrients from soils. Carter et al. (1997) quoted Colu-
mella, a prominent writer about agriculture within the Roman Empire, to illus-
trate his early (~40 to 60 BCE) guidance on how soil resources differ, the impact of
terrain or landscape position, and how to manage them using virtues of good soil
husbandry [management], such as optimizing soil moisture status, incorporating
plant residues and/or manure to restore (“grow fat”) the soil. Bennett (1950) in his
report on American Land emphasized that “we can’t keep our present standard of
living if we lose much more [soil].” He continued stating that “more waste of good
land would amount to a national crime on the part of those who are responsible –
meaning ourselves.”
Another soil science pioneer, Hans Jenny (1980) stressed interrelationships
between soil type and soil properties, while in the 1990s Warkentin (1995) empha-
sized how tillage energy as well as irrigation, drainage, and fertilizer inputs are all
factors affecting the quality of soil for crop production. Carter et al. (1997) have
also provided many details regarding the history and evolution of the soil quality
concept, which we consider to closely parallel those of soil health and thus use the
terms interchangeably throughout these two volumes. Carter et al. (1997) does,
however, provide excellent insight regarding subtle differences between the two
terms. The soil quality concept emerged as efforts were made to place a value on
soil resources for providing specific functions, serving a specific purpose, or sup-
porting a specific use. But, in contrast to water and air quality for which their
functions can be directly related to human or animal consumption, soil functions
are generally more diverse and usually cannot be directly linked to human health.

0005091962.INDD 23 7/7/2021 9:34:29 AM

 24 Evolution of the Soil Health Movement

One of the few situations that do closely link soil and human health is the func-
tion of filtering and buffering, especially if the heavy metals, radionuclotides,
and/or toxic organic compounds can enter surface and groundwater resources or
the food chain. This issue, specifically with regard to lead (Pb) is addressed in
Chapter 7 of this volume.
More recently, Jared Diamond (2005) and David Montgomery (2007) inspired
public awareness of the fragility of soil resources in their books entitled “Col-
lapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” and “Dirt: The Erosion of Civi-
lizations”, respectively. Building on the foundations laid by those writers and
numeerous agricultural scientists and engineers, our objective for this chapter is
to briefly summarize and acknowledge the insight, passion, and selected contri-
butions that have contributed to soil health evolution during the two decades
since publication of the soil quality books edited by Doran et al (1994) and
Doran and Jones (1996).

­Pre-­20th Century Soil Awareness

Soil health is built upon a solid foundation reflecting numerous agronomic and
soil science publications and advancements in knowledge. We would be remise
not to mention classic scientists, like Darwin and Dukochaev, that spearheaded
not only the modern scientific revolution but also our understanding of soil devel-
opment and biology (e.g., Brevik and Hartemik, 2010; Johnson and Schaetzl, 2015;
Ghilarov, 1983). Likewise, it’s imparitive to acknowledge the indigenous ecologi-
cal knowledge on soil health acquired by non-­colonial cultures over thousands of
years (Pawluk, 1992; Raji, 2006). Those roots of soil health are critical, but beyond
the focus of this chapter. Therefore, we start with the late 20th Century and in the
United States, where the concept of tilth (Warkentin 2008; Karlen 1990) is consid-
ered a key driver for what is now recognized as soil health. One example, provided
in a review of past, present, and future soil tilth issues (Karlen et al. 1990) is a 1523
book by Fitzherbert, entitled “Boke of Husbandry.” Therein, Fitzherbert wrote
that to grow peas (Pisum sativum L.) or beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) the soil was
not ready to be planted “if it synge or crye, or make any noise under thy fete”
whereas “if it make no noyse and wyll beare they horses, thane sowe in the name
of God” (Keen, 1931). A similar quote from Fream (1890) described “good” soil as
being “open, free-­working, mellow or in good heart” and “non-­productive” soil as
“hungry, stubborn, still, cold, or unkind.” For some, these descriptions of “good”
and “non-­productive” soils cause them to recall the Biblical connection between
soil and life described by Hillel (1991) or even the New Testament parable wherein
Jesus describes people and their actions as being similar to one for the four soil
categories.

0005091962.INDD 24 7/7/2021 9:34:29 AM

 ­From 1900 to 197  25

­From 1900 to 1970

Examples of influential publications include one by Yoder (1937), who concluded

poor soil structure was a major factor limiting various soil functions because of its
influence on processes including granulation (aggregation); wetting, drying,
freezing and thawing cycles; organic matter accumulation and decomposition
rates; biological activities, plant root development, as well as tillage and crop rota-
tion response. This remains relevant because the work led to development of the
“Yoder” water-­stable aggregate method that is currently being used for many soil
health assessment projects. Another is Waksman and Starkey (1924) who meas-
ured CO2 emissions as an indicator of the “decomposing power of soils” – using
procedures similar to those associated with the Haney test (Haney et al., 2006).
Wilson and Browning (1945) emphasized soil aggregation and documented sig-
nificant differences for a corn (Zea mays L.) – oat (Avena sativa L.) -­meadow rota-
tion versus continuous corn. They also reported that after only four years of
continuous corn aggregation levels created by either alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) or
bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) was decreased to levels below that found for the
­corn-­oat-­meadow rotation. Conversely, implementing the corn-­oat-­meadow rota-
tion after 11 years of continuous corn increased aggregation. Another pioneer was
Selma Waksman, who is more famous for the discovery of streptomycin, con-
ducted early work on understanding the nature of soil organic matter (SOM),
including the decomposition of plant components by soil microorganisms and
preservation of nitrogen (N) in the SOM (Waksman and Hutchings, 1935). Waks-
man and colleagues also focused on the formation of soil aggregates during the
microbial decomposition process (Martin and Waksman, 1939, 1941). In another
review, Whiteside and Smith (1941) documented the importance of measuring
SOM and total N, two factors important for soil health. They concluded that since
the origin of agriculture per se soil productivity had gradually been depleted due
to crop production. Similarly, Van Bavel and Schaller (1950) showed that both
cropping systems and soil erosion influenced SOM content. They reported that 11
years of continuous alfalfa increased SOM, but 11 years of bluegrass did not. They
also found that although a corn-­oat-­meadow rotation did not maintain SOM lev-
els, although the decrease was “small and probably not significant.”
Post-­World War II soil management studies gradually began to focus more on
soil physical and chemical manipulation than biology, primarily because equip-
ment manufacturing and fertilizer development technologies advanced rapidly,
while biological theories (e.g., discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA]), meth-
ods of analysis, and modern instrumentation took additional decades to evolve.
The importance of soil biology was not overlooked, as confirmed by Lyon et al
(1950) who concluded plowing and cultivation should be used to loosen the soil
with a minimum of soil aggregate destruction. Similarly, Browning and Norton

0005091962.INDD 25 7/7/2021 9:34:29 AM

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The scene now shifts back to Kashgar, where the Chinese garrison
surrendered and was enrolled in the army of Yakub Beg as “New
Mussulman”; but the Amban, imitating the fine example of his
colleague at Yarkand, blew up himself and his followers in the fort.
Yakub Beg married the beautiful daughter of the Chinese general,
and was much influenced by this wife, who bore him many children.
For a short time it seemed as if all would go well, but the Tunganis
who had surrendered decided on a final bid for power at Yarkand
and treacherously attacked Yakub Beg. Buzurg Khan, too, at this
juncture deserted his general, whose position appeared desperate;
but again Yakub Beg’s remarkable courage saved the situation. He
imposed his will on the Tunganis by attacking and capturing
Yarkand; then, marching on Kashgar, he defeated Buzurg Khan, who
had declared him a rebel. As a sequel to this victory Buzurg Khan
was deposed and finally expelled, and Yakub Beg assumed the
powers of his master. His position was recognized by the Amir of
Bokhara, who in 1866 conferred upon him the title of Atalik Ghazi or
the “Champion Father”; but, on the other hand, he had to reckon with
the constant jealousy and hostility of neighbouring Khokand, which
was continually inflamed by Russia. The capture of Khotan, which
followed in 1867, ended his first successful period of action, during
which, in spite of inadequate means, he had accomplished much.
While Yakub Beg was establishing his power in Kashgar, Yarkand
and Khotan, his chances of success were being increased by events
in the districts to the north of the range. The Taiping rebellion, which
raged from 1850 to 1864, had laid waste the richest provinces of
China. In 1855, apart from this convulsion, a fierce Moslem
insurrection broke out in Yunnan; and in 1862 there was a rebellion
among the Moslems of Shensi and Kansu, which gradually spread
across the desert to the Ili province, where the Tarantchis combined
with the Tunganis against the Chinese authorities. This rebellion was
successful, and Ili was seized in January 1866, when a Tungani-
Tarantchi Government was formed, which remained in power until
the occupation of the province by Russia in 1871.
We now turn to Yakub Beg’s campaigns to the east of Kashgar. The
Tunganis and Khojas of Aksu were not supported to any material
extent from Ili, and he therefore had mainly to deal with an already
defeated force when he commenced operations in 1867. Aksu,
although naturally a strong position, offered but slight resistance, and
the Atalik marched on to Kucha, which he also captured. After
receiving the submission of Karashahr, Turfan, Hami, and Urumchi
he returned in triumph to Kashgar. He subsequently annexed the
upland district of Sarikol, carrying off its inhabitants and filling their
place with Yarkandis and Kirghiz.
It is probable that Yakub Beg was induced to resume operations
against the Tunganis as much by the difficulty of feeding and paying
his army as by ambition. In the autumn of 1869 he passed farther
east to Korla, which fell, and the series of campaigns was continued,
generally with success, until 1873, the Kashgar troops penetrating as
far east as Chightam, a small town to the east of Turfan. Little regard
was paid to the wretched inhabitants, who were plundered without
mercy and sometimes massacred, in accordance with the usual
practice in Central Asia. The Atalik thus achieved military success,
but he failed to organize his conquests against the day when the
slow-moving Chinese Government should attempt to regain its lost
provinces. On the other hand, he probably could not control his
troops, who would have deserted had looting been forbidden. In any
case his constant military successes produced a great impression in
the neighbouring states and spread his fame far and wide.
Yakub Beg’s power was based on a mercenary force which was
remarkable for its heterogeneous composition. Just as his palace,
which was built and organized on the lines of barracks, was full of
cannon of every description, ranging from ancient Chinese pieces to
modern artillery, so his army included men from every neighbouring
province. The most trustworthy and efficient soldiers were
Khokandis, who, being strangers in the land, would naturally be loyal
to their chief and fellow-countryman, whereas the local peasantry
made indifferent fighters. An element numerically important, but for
the most part of untrustworthy quality, was the Tunganis, who served
mainly from fear. There were also a number of Indian and Afghan
adventurers, some of the former being deserters from the Indian
army. The Chinese troops were never used for distant campaigns.
The men above mentioned, who constituted the regular troops, were
divided into mounted infantry, artillery and infantry, the force being
increased by levies of Kirghiz, Dulanis and other irregulars of
doubtful military value. It is now believed that Yakub Beg had never
more than 20,000 trustworthy men in his service, although
exaggerated accounts of his strength were generally credited. His
troops, owing to his somewhat remarkable personality and many
victories, were of better fighting value than those of Khokand and
Bokhara; but, as the event proved, they were unable to cope with
Chinese troops trained on European lines, nor would they have
withstood equal numbers of Russian troops.
His government was based on the Moslem law, and was very
onerous. It must be recollected that he maintained a court and a
large army, mainly at the expense of perhaps a million poverty-
stricken peasants, who, in addition to paying the heavy taxes of
nominally one-tenth of all produce, were ground down by the unjust
tax-collectors until their condition was pitiable. Moreover, he kept a
huge body of town police and also a large force of secret police,
whose united activities must have added considerably to the general
misery. The fact that he was a strong ruler implied the imposition of
heavier burdens on his unhappy subjects. Moreover, during the
period of his rule, trade with China entirely ceased, to the great loss
of the merchants, who had but little commercial intercourse with
Russia or India.
The relations of Yakub Beg with Russia were of primary importance
to him until the Celestial army re-entered Chinese Turkestan, and it
is consequently desirable to summarize them briefly. The Atalik’s
defence of Ak Masjid and his action before Tashkent have already
been mentioned and were not forgotten by the Russians, who in
1866 dismembered Khokand and defeated Bokhara. The
establishment of his power at Kashgar caused the Russians much
anxiety, and their frontier officials were at first instructed not to
recognize Yakub Beg, but, at the same time, to be conciliatory, in the
illusive hope that this line of action would induce the Atalik to make
overtures.
In pursuance of this fatuous policy the Russians requested sanction
to bridge the river Narin and to construct a road to Kashgar; but,
needless to say, these concessions were categorically refused. By
way of marking their displeasure the Muscovites began to construct
a strong fort at Narin; but their hands were tied by attempts on the
part of the Central Asian Khanates to throw off their hated
domination. Yakub Beg, openly at any rate, preserved neutrality, and
for five years the struggle continued, with the result that the Russian
yoke was riveted more firmly than before on Khokand and Bokhara.
To these preoccupations the Atalik probably owed his safety for the
time being, as the construction of Fort Narin was avowedly intended
as a preliminary to an attack on Kashgar, and it appears that an
expedition destined for that task in 1870 was at the last hour diverted
against Khokand, which unexpectedly revolted.
Later on the Russian authorities exchanged their somewhat
menacing policy for one of peaceful penetration and attempted to
gain an entry into Chinese Turkestan through their merchants. They
also sent a young officer to discuss various questions with Yakub
Beg, who in turn despatched one of his nephews to Russia. As,
however, his envoy was accorded no official recognition, little
progress was made in developing relations, and the Atalik
maintained towards his formidable rival an uncompromising attitude,
which convinced the Russians that his power was much greater than
was actually the case.
Accordingly, in 1872, although military preparations were continued,
an accredited envoy, Baron Kaulbars, was entrusted with the difficult
task of opening up official relations with the Atalik. He was received
by the gratified ruler with the extravagant expression of Oriental
hyperbole: “Sit on my knees, on my bosom, or where you like, for
you are guests sent to me from heaven.” For the first time complete
freedom was accorded to the envoy, and two Russian merchants
who accompanied the mission were granted every facility for visiting
Yarkand and Khotan. Baron Kaulbars was so fully impressed with a
sense of the power of his host that he regarded him as a potentate
ranking with the Amir of Afghanistan; and, owing to these
impressions, a treaty of commerce, satisfactory to both parties, was
drawn up, Russian goods being subjected to a maximum charge of
2½ per cent ad valorem. The envoy, who had learnt a good deal
about the country and had certainly scored a great personal
success, returned to Tashkent with glowing accounts of the Atalik
and his dominions.
Another nephew of Yakub Beg’s, Haji Tora by name, who had
travelled widely, was next despatched to Russia, where he was
received with much honour and entertained by the Tsar. From the
court of the Northern Power he went on to visit Constantinople,
where he conducted negotiations by which Yakub Beg, in return for
an acknowledgment of his independence, accepted the suzerainty of
the Sultan and issued coins bearing his effigy. Furthermore, as a
mark of high favour, the Atalik was gazetted an Amir, with the title of
Amin-ul-Muminin or “The Trusted One of the Believers.”
The Russian authorities in Central Asia naturally took umbrage at an
alliance which united a leading Moslem power with their hereditary
foe. Moreover, relations with Yakub Beg were not developing
smoothly; for, realizing that his state would be overrun by Russian
merchants, the Amir decided to go back on the spirit of the treaty of
commerce and to discourage all Russian intruders. In the case of the
first important caravan to reach Kashgar, he kept the owners under
surveillance although he purchased their goods at a fair rate through
one of his agents. But, as the payment was made in debased
coinage the merchant stood to lose, and finally did lose, in spite of
strenuous official Russian support. A year later Yakub again changed
his mind and invited another Russian merchant to visit Kashgar. He
received better treatment, with the result that trade gradually
increased. The chief aim of Russia was to be permitted to appoint an
Agent at Kashgar, whereas Yakub Beg would only allow a
Caravanbashi or Superintendent of caravans (a man of little standing
or education) to reside at the capital. In 1874 a Russian official was
sent to arrange this question, but Yakub Beg, relying on the support
of Great Britain, was entirely unyielding on the subject; indeed, his
attitude towards Russia became almost menacing. So much was this
the case that in the autumn of the same year the Russian authorities
decided to break his power. They had massed twenty thousand
troops on the frontiers, when a revolt in Khokand forced General
Kaufmann to divert his forces. Had Yakub Beg been a great man he
would have seized the opportunity to aid Khokand, and would
thereby, in all probability, have given a serious set-back to the Power
which had resolved on his destruction. His inaction on this occasion
stamps him as an Oriental adventurer who kept the kingdom he had
won rather by good fortune than by signal capacity.
The relations of Yakub Beg with the Indian Empire were of little
permanent importance from the political point of view, but are of
considerable interest to the geographer and to the student of politics
and commerce. In the middle of the nineteenth century the British
representative in Ladak heard vague accounts of affairs in Chinese
Tartary, as it was then termed, from merchants, but gained little or no
accurate information, although the veil was lifted somewhat in 1857
by Adolph Schlagintweit, the first European to travel from India to
Yarkand and Kashgar. Unfortunately for him, Wali Khan was
besieging the Chinese cantonment of Kashgar at that time, and by
his orders the German explorer was murdered. Eight years later, in
1865, Johnson,[14] an English surveyor, crossed the Kuen Lun to
Khotan, where he was received with much hospitality by its chief; but
to Robert Shaw belongs the credit of being the first Englishman to
explore this unknown land and open up relations with its ruler and
people.
While he was living at Ladak an agent of Yakub Beg passed through,
bound for the Punjab, under orders from his master to report on the
neighbouring land. Shaw mentioned to this agent his intense desire
to visit Yarkand and Kashgar for the purpose of paying his respects
to its celebrated ruler. This proposal was almost immediately agreed
to, and late in 1868 Shaw crossed the Kara Koram and reached
Yarkand safely. His courage and resolution were evidently combined
with considerable tact, as throughout his journey he created an
excellent impression both on Yakub Beg and on his officials. The
inopportune arrival of another Englishman, Hayward, who was an
explorer and also a trader, aroused suspicions in the mind of the
Oriental, and both men were treated for a while as honoured state
prisoners; but in the end they were sent back to Ladak, thoroughly
pleased with their reception.
Shaw’s reports excited intense interest, and created exaggerated
ideas both as to the power of Yakub Beg and as to the richness of
the prospective market. He had suggested to the Atalik the
appointment of an agent for Chinese Turkestan at Lahore. This
suggestion was accepted, and the agent was the bearer of a cordial
invitation to the Government of India to despatch an official for the
purpose of establishing friendly relations and opening up trade.
Forsyth, a capable Indian civilian, was appointed to carry out this
mission, and, accompanied by Shaw, he reached Yarkand in 1870;
but unfortunately the Atalik had just started off to his distant eastern
frontier, and Forsyth returned to India without accomplishing his
object.
Yakub Beg was as much disappointed as the British envoy at this
fiasco, and through the insistence of his agent Forsyth was again
appointed in 1873 to head a mission, which was of greater size than
its predecessor. Under him were Lieut.-Colonel Gordon, Captain
Chapman and Captain Trotter, who have all had distinguished
careers. The caravan, consisting of 400 animals, required elaborate
supply preparations, and great difficulty was experienced in crossing
one of the passes, the last hundred feet of which was a wall of ice.
But in due course Kargalik was reached, and thenceforward the
mission was treated with friendliness and sumptuous hospitality. In
December 1873 the party reached Kashgar, and Forsyth describes
his reception as follows:
“According to etiquette we dismounted at about forty paces from the
gateway, and walked slowly along with the Head Chamberlain going
ahead. In the outer gateway soldiers were seated on a daïs with their
firearms laid on the ground before them, their arms folded and their
eyes on the ground. We then passed through a second gateway
filled with soldiers, and crossed another court, on all sides of which
soldiers in gay costumes were ranged seated. From this court we
passed into the penetralia, a small court in which not a soul was
visible, and everywhere a deathlike silence prevailed. At the further
end of this court was a long hall, with several window-doors. The
Chamberlain then led us in single file, with measured tread, to some
steps at the side of the hall, and entering almost on tiptoe looked in,
and returning, beckoned with his hand to me to advance alone. As I
approached the door he made a sign for me to enter, and
immediately withdrew. I found myself standing at the threshold of a
very common-looking room; looking about I saw enter at a doorway
on the opposite side a tall stout man, plainly dressed. He beckoned
with his hand, and I advanced, thinking it must be a chamberlain who
was to conduct me to ‘The Presence.’ Instinctively, however, I made
a bow as I advanced, and soon found myself taken by both hands
and saluted with the usual form of politeness, and I knew that I was
standing before the far-famed ruler of Eastern Turkestan.”
This interesting description shows that Forsyth took Yakub Beg very
much at his own valuation, and the fact that the British envoy agreed
to dismount at a distance from the gateway must, at any rate, have
raised the Atalik in the eyes of his subjects.
At the formal interview a few days later the gifts, consisting mainly of
munitions, were presented, but Yakub Beg was chiefly pleased with
the autograph letter from Her Majesty, which was enclosed in a
magnificent casket. After exclaiming “Praise to Allah!” several times
he proceeded to declare his friendship for the British, referring to the
Queen as the sun “in whose genial rays such poor people as I
flourish.”
The mission remained four months at Kashgar, its labours
culminating in a treaty of commerce which was concluded in
February 1874. By its terms a 2½ per cent ad valorem tax was to be
levied on goods imported from India, British trade thus being placed
on the same favourable footing as Russian.[15]
In addition to important surveys made along the main road, Gordon
led a party to the Pamirs, which were explored to some extent.
Indeed the Forsyth mission was a distinct success, if only because
these surveys proved beyond doubt that India could not be seriously
invaded from the Pamirs or from Chinese Turkestan. Moreover, it
enlarged the horizon of the authorities in India, and by the
establishment of friendly relations with Chinese Turkestan
inaugurated a small but profitable trade.
Yakub Beg, however, regarded the mission far otherwise, as to him it
signified an alliance, granting British protection against Russian
hostility, and, had he retained his power, constant appeals for aid
would have been received at Calcutta. As matters turned out, both
Yakub Beg and his family were destined to disappear from the stage
of Central Asia, and that speedily.
While the Atalik was entertaining the Forsyth mission the Chinese
Government, having restored order at home, was preparing a
formidable force for the reconquest of its lost possessions beyond
the Gobi. The task was very difficult, owing to the width of the desert,
estimated at about 1200 miles, but the Chinese army was well
disciplined, well equipped, and well led, the difficulty as to supplies
being successfully overcome in a very simple manner. The advanced
guard sowed crops in one of the rare oases, and an abundant
harvest was thus provided in the following autumn.
As soon as this was gathered in, an army 50,000 strong advanced
without encountering any serious opposition, until in the spring of
1876 it reached the neighbourhood of Urumchi. The capture of this
town in August, followed by that of Manas, fully re-established
Chinese authority to the north of the Tian Shan.
The Celestials were now free to deal with Yakub Beg, whose position
had become unenviable. His refusal to aid Khokand in her last
desperate struggle with Russia must have lowered his prestige,
while his hostility to that power must have weakened his position; it
was clear, too, that Great Britain had no intention of supporting him
with troops or money. Apart from this, his heterogeneous force was
no match for the veteran Chinese army, to which, moreover, it was
far inferior in numbers and equipment.
In the spring of 1877 the Chinese main force marched on Turfan,
crossing the Tian Shan by the Devanchi Pass; while a second force,
10,000 strong, moved west from Hami in co-operation. Yakub Beg
had placed his main body for the defence of the Devanchi Pass, but
while it was holding this position news was received of the capture of
Turfan by the Hami column. A panic ensued, and, although the Atalik
fought a rearguard action to the west of Turfan, he was obliged to
retreat to Karashahr, and later to Korla. Before this defeat Yakub Beg
had sought aid from Russia, but in vain, partly because Kuropatkin
(then a captain) had visited his camp and reported most
unfavourably on his position.
For some unexplained reason, probably from lack of supplies, the
Chinese army remained immobile for several months, while events
were moving fast in the enemy camp, where the star of Yakub Beg
was setting in gloom. After losing the eastern part of his territory the
Atalik became morose and a danger to his courtiers. According to
trustworthy information gained by me in Kashgar, the actual cause
that led up to his death was a savage flogging, inflicted without any
adequate reason, on one of his officials. This alarmed Niaz Hakim
Beg, one of his principal followers, who poisoned him.
Thus died Yakub Beg, who for a period of twelve years had played a
leading rôle on the stage of Central Asia. He was fortunate, as one of
his titles of Bedolat signified, inasmuch as he quitted Khokand just
before its fall and successfully founded a state only a few marches
off. He was fortunate in his dealings with Russia, which would have
crushed him, but for more serious tasks which stayed her hand, and
finally he was fortunate in being killed just as his kingdom was falling
from his grasp. Among the chiefs of Central Asia he was a man of
capacity, and he was undoubtedly brave and resolute; but his
outlook was narrow, as was inevitable from his environment. He
remained alert and virile to the end, and was not addicted to the vice
or self-indulgence that ruins many members of the upper classes in
Central Asia. Although the stage he trod was circumscribed, Yakub
Beg is the only Moslem of the nineteenth century in Central Asia
whose name will live.
The death of the Atalik was followed by a period of confusion. One of
his sons escorted his father’s corpse to Kashgar. There he was
murdered by his elder brother Beg Kuli Beg, who succeeded to the
throne, but not unchallenged, as a certain Hakim Khan Torah was
able to seize Karashahr and Korla, and there were also outbreaks at
Khotan. The new ruler in the end overcame his rivals, but in the
effort exhausted his resources to a dangerous extent and made the
way still easier for the Chinese.
The final operations for the recovery of Kashgar and Yarkand were
conducted on somewhat the same lines as the first. The main force
assembled to the north of the Tian Shan and, using a little-known
pass, descended in overwhelming strength on Aksu, while a second
column drove the Moslems before it to Karashahr and on to Kucha,
where a hard-fought battle was won by the Chinese; and in
December 1877 the campaign was brought to a successful
conclusion by the capture of Kashgar.
The Celestials showed moderation in the hour of victory. They
deprived the population of their horses, to prevent a fresh rising, but
they appointed Moslem headmen and also recognized the religious
law of Islam. Their strong position was acknowledged by Russia in
1881, when, by the Treaty of St. Petersburg, that Power restored
Kulja to the Chinese, receiving in return the post of Irkeshtam, two
stages on the eastern side of the Tian Shan. By the same treaty
freedom of trade was secured, and this agreement is still in force.
In the last two decades of the nineteenth century great forward
strides were made in the direction of Chinese Turkestan both by
Great Britain and by Russia. The former Power, thanks to the energy
and activity of Younghusband (a nephew of Robert Shaw) and other
travellers, realized the importance of exploring the passes through
which India could be threatened, if not invaded, from Russian
Turkestan. A second aim was the control of the No Man’s Land
which lay between the fertile valley of Kashmir and the plain of
Chinese Turkestan. To this end British Political officers were
stationed at Gilgit and Chitral, supported by the Imperial Service
troops of the Maharaja of Kashmir.
During this period Russia also displayed considerable activity in the
exploration and occupation of the No Man’s Land bordering on
Russian Turkestan. One of her most active agents, Captain
Grombchevsky, visited the hill state of Hunza in 1888, meeting
Younghusband in the following year on the upper reaches of the
Yarkand River. In 1891 Younghusband travelled in Wakhan, and at
the stage of Bozai Gumbaz met Colonel Yonoff, who had issued a
proclamation that the Pamirs (with the sole exception of the
Taghdumbash Pamir) were Russian territory. That officer
subsequently received instructions to escort Younghusband back to
Chinese territory. He showed good feeling about his disagreeable
task, and as Younghusband agreed, under protest, to proceed to
Chinese Turkestan, he waived the instructions relating to escort.
Upon this incident being reported, the Russian Government
apologized for Yonoff’s act, and the two Powers finally decided to
despatch a commission to settle their respective claims in a country
visited hitherto merely by a few travellers. In 1895 the commission
met, and by its findings the narrow strip of Wakhan was awarded to
the Amir of Afghanistan, with the result that the boundary of the
British Empire was drawn in this section some thirty miles to the
north of the crest line of the Hindu Kush.
The great revolution which had broken out in China in 1911 began to
make itself felt in its remote western provinces in the following
spring. The first outbreak occurred in the district of Ili, where a young
officer entered into a conspiracy against the Tartar general, with
whom he had a private quarrel. The conspiracy was entirely
successful, and resulted not only in the murder of the general, but in
the capture of the machinery of government. As the revolution
progressed in China, the republic was proclaimed in Ili, and after the
defeat of a force despatched from Urumchi the Ili rebels became
undisputed rulers of the surrounding country.
The unrest soon affected Urumchi itself, where Chinese rowdies,
members of a secret society which existed for the sake of loot and
blackmail, began to demonstrate in favour of the republican cause
and to show their sympathy by acts of robbery and incendiarism. The
governor, however, was no weakling, and realizing that the loyalty of
the regular troops was very doubtful, he enlisted Tunganis in
considerable numbers, through whose instrumentality he was able to
control the situation for a time. Subsequently he dealt so mercilessly
with every one suspected of being a member of the secret society,
slowly slicing to death innocent and guilty alike, that the Chinese
population rose and drove him out of Urumchi.
In April of this year the outward calm hitherto maintained in Kashgar
was rudely disturbed by the murder of the Taotai and the Prefect of
Aksu. Upon the arrival of the telegram announcing this deed, the
Kashgar Taotai immediately cut off his queue and issued a
proclamation advising the Chinese to follow his example. Moreover,
he had a scroll prepared with the inscription, “Long live the Chinese
Republic!” which he hung up in his yamen. After some hesitation the
leading Chinese officials followed the example of the governor, the
commander-in-chief of the province not only cutting off his queue
and flying the flag of the Republic, but donning a nondescript
European cap. The united officials then solemnly changed their
chronological system from the fourth year of Hsuang-tang, the boy-
emperor, to the first year of the Chinese Republic, an act which
possessed tremendous significance in their eyes. The soldiers were
by no means ready to follow the lead of their superior officers, but
maintained a sullen and resentful attitude, which boded ill for the
safety of the higher officials, military and civil alike.
Meanwhile Yuan-Shih-Kai had been informed by telegram of the
adherence of the New Dominion to the Republic and had appointed
the governor of Kashgar to Urumchi, hoping by this means to end
the state of hostility which still existed between Ili and Urumchi. The
governor of Kashgar at first refused the appointment, pleading his
age and weak health, but in the end accepted it. The actual position,
therefore, was that the Republic had been acknowledged throughout
the province, and that the Chinese officials were all obeying the
instructions of Yuan-Shih-Kai. It might have been supposed that the
crisis had passed without bloodshed, but this was not so. At night a
band of fifty Chinese, members of a secret society, forced their way
into the yamens of the governor and of the city magistrate. The
governor, who was awake, was greeted with the ironical
exclamation,“Greetings to Your Excellency,” and both he and his wife
were cut to pieces. The magistrate was also killed and the republican
flags in the two yamens were cut down and destroyed.
In the morning the gamblers, as they were termed, were harangued
by the commander of the garrison at the head of a few soldiers. They
insisted on being armed and formed into a new regiment under the
command of a ruffian, a pork-butcher by trade; and when this was
done they appointed new officials to succeed the murdered men.
The soldiers in the New City killed two of their officers and a panic
ensued in Kashgar, but the disturbances and looting were confined
to the New City. The administration was now controlled by the gang
of gamblers, who appointed all officials and took advantage of their
power to levy blackmail, mainly on Chinese officials. In the other
centres there were murders. The governor of Yarkand, among
others, was singled out for assassination; but an exceptionally
violent storm, which turned day into night, suggested to the Chinese
gamblers that heaven forbade the deed—and the official still lives to
tell the tale.
In consequence of the unrest and lack of security caused by these
deeds of violence, the Russian Government despatched a force 800
strong to protect Russian subjects. For some weeks after its arrival
there was no friction or cause of alarm, but the celebration of a
Chinese rite nearly gave rise to most serious consequences. On the
day of the Festival of the Departed Spirits it is the custom of the
Chinese to burn paper-money before the temples in order to ensure
financial ease for their deceased relatives. One of the temples in
Kashgar was the scene of this ceremonial, and a rumour reached
the Russian consulate that the bazar was on fire. Help was
immediately despatched in the shape of fifteen Cossacks, who,
misunderstanding the situation, forcibly put out the fires in which the
paper-money was being burnt. While this was being done some of
the Cossack horses broke loose and galloped back to the consulate,
where considerable anxiety was felt. The city gate was shut at the
usual hour of 8 p.m., and, upon its arrival, the Russian main body,
under the impression that their detachment had been cut off, blew it
up with dynamite, and marching through the opening found the
Cossacks perfectly safe.
Not long after this the “Gambler” regiment was ordered to Urumchi,
and the officer commanding the Cossacks, who was disappointed at
the entirely peaceful attitude of the Chinese, decided to attack it, his
plan being to carry out night manœuvres to the east of the city
across the line of march—and to create a “regrettable incident.” But
he reckoned without Sir George Macartney, who, getting wind of this
typically Russian scheme, which received confirmation from the
sudden departure of the Cossacks, induced the Chinese authorities
at the very last minute to change the line of march from due east to
north-west, with a wide detour afterwards to the north. Thanks to this
action by our able representative the trap was set in vain. The
regiment, which had obeyed its orders with deep reluctance, finally
reached Urumchi with its numbers much diminished by desertion,
and the ruffianly pork-butcher was subsequently put to death. The
Russian troops were shortly afterwards withdrawn from Kashgar, and
that city once again settled down to its habitual drowsiness.
In conclusion, the old-world policy of China was to surround her
fertile empire with buffer states. At the end of the eighteenth century
these included Annam, Siam, Burma, Assam, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal,
Ladak, Kashmir and Khokand, together with the maritime provinces
of Siberia. But the nineteenth century, which saw the advance of
Russia, the rise of Japan, and also powerful strangers from the west
thundering at the watergates of the Middle Kingdom, brought heavy
territorial losses to China, and to-day her system of buffer states has
been swept away by the new powers. Great Britain has shown
considerable activity and has occupied or gained political
ascendency over many of these states, and at the present time
marches with the Chinese Empire not only on the confines of Burma
to the south, but also on the borders of Ladak and Kashmir.
Russia, on her side, has made a great advance, and now occupies
Khokand, Andijan and the Khanates generally, together with the
Pamirs to the west of Chinese Turkestan; to the north the Russian
province of Semirechia, through which is being constructed a railway
that will attract much of its commerce, overshadows the province of
Chinese Turkestan.
Thus the old order of isolation, on which China relied, is passing, and
the new order, which includes modern methods of communication, is
coming into force, hastened by the desire for progress which is
affecting large sections of mankind in Asia.
The future of Chinese Turkestan is not finally settled, but the World
War which has temporarily broken up the Russian Empire will
undoubtedly stimulate China to move along the path of progress. If
so, there is hope that the condition of this outlying province of her
empire may benefit, more especially by improved communications.
At the same time there are many parts of Asia which have reason to
envy the peace and plenty enjoyed by the inhabitants of Chinese
Turkestan.
 CHAPTER XVI
A KASHGAR FARMER
La latitude assez basse du Turkestan chinois combinée avec son altitude
considérable, la sécheresse de son atmosphère et ses saisons nettement
tranchées rendent le pays propre à des cultures très diverses, à celles qui
se contentent d’un climat tempéré comme à celles qui exigent des
chaleurs fortes et prolongées; mais excluent les plantes qui craignent les
froids hivernaux ou réclament une grande humidité.—Grenard, La Haute
Asie, ii. 173.

The cultivator, who is the backbone of Chinese Turkestan, depends

entirely on irrigated crops, as there is no regular rainfall in the
country. Rain, termed the “mercy of Allah” in Persia, is considered to
be the opposite in Kashgar, partly because of the utter irregularity of
its incidence. If there be a heavy fall in the spring, the soil cakes and
the young plants cannot force their way through, and this
necessitates a fresh sowing. Rain at harvest time, or when the
melons ripen, is equally unwelcome, and when there is a heavy
rainfall the farmer exclaims, “What great crime has been committed
that we suffer such a calamity?” Snow is regarded with less
disfavour. As a rule there is plenty of water for every one in the
Kashgar oasis, and fights for it occur only in the spring, when each
cultivator wishes to water his land first, in order to secure an early
crop for the market.
Owing to the abundance of water and the absence of hail-storms or
other serious climatic drawbacks, agriculture, except for rust and
blight, which are seldom experienced, is a certainty, in complete
contrast to the reputation it bears in countries that depend on the
rainfall for their crops. The life of the oasis, where every acre is
cultivated and where the agricultural population is comparatively
dense, is quite unlike that of Persia, where each village is
surrounded by square miles of uncultivated land, which furnishes
grazing, fodder and fuel. There are a few isolated villages, or groups
of villages, in Chinese Turkestan, but the country generally consists
of extensive oases set in a lifeless desert.
The chief crops are millet, rice, maize, wheat, barley, cotton, lucerne
clover, hemp, linseed, turnips, carrots and tobacco. Millet and rice
are regarded as the best-paying crops, the former occupying one-
half of the total area cultivated.
Of fruits and vegetables, apricots, grapes, peaches, nectarines,
quinces, cherries, figs, apples, pears, mulberries, pomegranates and
melons grow in great profusion, and pumpkins, which are the staple
vegetable, are supplemented by carrots, turnips, onions, cucumbers,
garlic and fennel.
The upper classes are less civilized than in Persia, partly because
they do not mix socially with the European colonies; good fruit trees
and seeds have therefore not been introduced. This state of affairs
reflects little credit on the merchants from Andijan, who could easily
introduce the magnificent fruit trees which are now grown at
Tashkent.
The Chinese of the New City farm much better than the native
Moslems, and have introduced the curious plum-cherry, with its blue,
white and red varieties of fruit, beans of various kinds, beetroot,
cabbages, including kohl rabi, lettuces, potatoes, tomatoes and
spinach; but there is little contact between the Chinese and Moslem
farmers, so that the latter do not learn much from the efficient
Celestials.
The trees in the Kashgar Oasis, other than fruit trees, include the
Lombardy and the spreading poplar, the latter growing to a great
size, and the Turkestan elm, of which a grafted species grows in a
pyramidal shape. The common willow and the Babylonian willow of
two species—one with an edible fruit resembling the Bohemian olive
—are planted along every irrigation channel and serve as fuel.
Next to agriculture the most important industry is the raising of live-
stock—horses, donkeys, camels, cattle, sheep and goats. The
horses bred by the Kalmucks around Karashahr are the best, being
stronger than the Kirghiz ponies, because the Kalmucks do not drink
mare’s milk. They are usually geldings, standing about fourteen
hands, and are ideal for transport purposes. The Kirghiz pony is
hardy and enduring, but not strong or up to much weight. The
Yarkandi, especially a roan, was a favourite mount in India in the last
century, and is mentioned in Anglo-Indian novels of the period; it is
still exported in small numbers.

A LOAD OF CLOVER FROM ISA HAJI’S FARM.

Page 302.
Donkeys are found in thousands and take the place of the
wheelbarrow and the cart in England, besides carrying the bulk of
the internal trade. Camels, of the two-humped or Bactrian species,
are highly esteemed, especially by the Kirghiz, as they are not
affected by cold or deep snow, and can cross rivers that ponies have
to swim. Cattle-breeding is carried on mainly in the mountains and in
the wooded tracts along the courses of the rivers. The animals are
small, and are bred for milk and for ploughing. Sheep are usually of
the fat-tailed species, but in the southern districts there is also a
short-haired breed. All animals, as a rule, are miserably thin owing to
the almost entire absence of grazing.
I think it may be useful to select a typical farmer and study his life
closely; for by this means we shall get down to the bed-rock of
definite fact, which is preferable to vague generalizations about
agriculture. Isa Haji, the subject of this sketch, was a farmer, aged
75, who lived not far from the city wall. Helped by two of his five
sons, aged 18 and 16 respectively, he farmed 40 mows, or about six
acres of land, which is the average size of a farm close to Kashgar.
Here the manure obtained from the city enables the whole of the
land to be cultivated at once, whereas farther off, where little manure
is available, the farms are larger because a part of the land must
always be allowed to lie fallow. One half of the Haji’s land was
devoted to lucerne clover, the remainder being sown with millet,
wheat, rice, cotton, melons and linseed. As a rule only one crop a
year was taken off the land; but millet, carrots and turnips were sown
after the wheat crop; in this case the millet did not ripen, but was
valuable as green forage; the clover was cut four times in the year. In
one corner of the farm were willow trees, which were pollarded every
four years to serve as fuel for the owners. Isa Haji, being an old man,
merely assisted in watering the fields, while his sons did all the
ploughing, harvesting and threshing. His two eldest sons kept a
grain-shop in Russian Turkestan, the third was a bricklayer, and the
others, when not at work on the farm, earned sixpence a day as
labourers. The Haji owned a yoke of plough-oxen and four donkeys,
the former being fed on cotton-seed and the latter on millet. His
agricultural implements included a primitive plough, a harrow,
mattocks of two sizes, sickles, zambils or hurdles for carrying earth,