Soil functions and ecosystem services in conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. A review

International audienceAbstractSoil tillage, crop residue management, nutrient management, and pest management are among the core farming practices. Each of these practices impacts a range of soil functions and ecosystem services, including water availability for crops, weed control, insect and pathogen control, soil quality and functioning, soil erosion control, soil organic carbon pool, environmental pollution control, greenhouse gas refuse, and crop yield productivity. In this study, we reviewed relevant bibliography and then developed a simple conceptual model, in which these soil functions and ecosystem services were scored and compared between conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. Using this conceptual model revealed that the overall agro-environmental score, excluding crop yield productivity, is largest for conservation systems (71.9 %), intermediate for integrated systems (68.8 %), and the smallest for conventional systems (52.1 %). At the same time, the crop yield productivity score is largest for integrated systems (83.3 %), intermediate for conventional systems (66.7 %), and the smallest for conservation systems (58.3 %). This study shows the potential of moderate-intensity and integrated farming systems in carrying on global food security while adequately sustaining environmental quality and ecosystem services

Soil fungal abundance and plant functional traits drive fertile island formation in global drylands

Dryland vegetation is characterized by discrete plant patches that accumulate and capture soil resources under their canopies. These “fertile islands” are major drivers of dryland ecosystem structure and functioning, yet we lack an integrated understanding of the factors controlling their magnitude and variability at the global scale.EEA BarilocheFil: Ochoa-Hueso, Raúl. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Department of Ecology; EspañaFil: Eldridge, David J. University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences; AustraliaFil: Delgado-Baquerizo, Manuel. University of Colorado. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences; Estados Unidos. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Soliveres, Santiago. University of Bern. Institute of Plant Sciences; SuizaFil: Bowker, Matthew A. Northern Arizona University. School of Forestry; Estados UnidosFil: Gross, Nicolás. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; España. Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique; Francia. Université La Rochelle. Centre d’étude biologique de Chizé; FranciaFil: Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Yoann. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Quero, José L. Universidad de Córdoba. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica y de Montes. Departamento de Ingeniería Forestal: EspañaFil: García-Gómez, Miguel. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Valencia, Enrique. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Arredondo, Tulio. Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica. División de Ciencias Ambientales; MéxicoFil: Beinticinco, Laura. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: Bran, Donaldo Eduardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Cea, Alex. Universidad de La Serena. Departamento de Biología; ChileFil: Coaguila, Daniel. Instituto de Ensino Superior de Rio Verde; BrasilFil: Dougill, Andrew J. University of Leeds. School of Earth and Environment; Gran BretañaFil: Espinosa, Carlos I. Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. Departamento de Ciencias Naturales; EcuadorFil: Gaitan, Juan Jose. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Guuroh, Reginald T. University of Cologne. Botanical Institute. Range Ecology and Range Management Group; Alemania. CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of Ghana; GhanaFil: Guzmán, Elizabeth. Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. Departamento de Ciencias Naturales; EcuadorFil: Gutiérrez, Julio R.. Universidad de La Serena. Departamento de Biología; Chile. Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas (CEAZA); Chile. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad; ChileFil: Hernández, Rosa M. Universidad Experimental Simón Rodríguez. Centro de Agroecología Tropical. Laboratorio de Biogeoquímica; VenezuelaFil: Huber-Sannwald, Elisabeth. Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica. División de Ciencias Ambientales; MéxicoFil: Jeffries, Thomas. Western Sydney University. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment; AustraliaFil: Linstädter, Anja. University of Cologne. Botanical Institute. Range Ecology and Range Management Group; AlemaniaFil: Mau, Rebecca L. Northern Arizona University. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society: Estados UnidosFil: Monerris, Jorge. Université du Québec à Montréal. Pavillon des Sciences Biologiques. Département des Sciences Biologiques; CanadáFil: Prina, Anibal. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: Pucheta, Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Stavi, Ilan. Dead Sea and Arava Science Center, IsraelFil: Thomas, Andrew. Aberystwyth University. Department of Geography and Earth Sciences; Gran BretañaFil: Zaady, Eli. Agricultural Research Organization. Gilat Research Center. Natural Resources; IsraelFil: Singh, Brajesh K. Western Sydney University. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment; Australia. Western Sydney University. Global Centre for Land-Based Innovation; AustraliaFil: Maestre, Fernando T. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; Españ

The global distribution and environmental drivers of the soil antibiotic resistome

Background: Little is known about the global distribution and environmental drivers of key microbial functional traits such as antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Soils are one of Earth’s largest reservoirs of ARGs, which are integral for soil microbial competition, and have potential implications for plant and human health. Yet, their diversity and global patterns remain poorly described. Here, we analyzed 285 ARGs in soils from 1012 sites across all continents and created the first global atlas with the distributions of topsoil ARGs. Results: We show that ARGs peaked in high latitude cold and boreal forests. Climatic seasonality and mobile genetic elements, associated with the transmission of antibiotic resistance, were also key drivers of their global distribution. Dominant ARGs were mainly related to multidrug resistance genes and efflux pump machineries. We further pinpointed the global hotspots of the diversity and proportions of soil ARGs. Conclusions: Together, our work provides the foundation for a better understanding of the ecology and global distribution of the environmental soil antibiotic resistome.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 702057 (CLIMIFUN), a Large Research Grant from the British Ecological Society (agreement no. LRA17\1193; MUSGONET), and from the European Research Council (ERC grant agreement no. 647038, BIODESERT). M. D. B. was also supported by a Ramón y Cajal grant (RYC2018-025483-I). M.D-B. also acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for the I+D+i project PID2020-115813RA-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. M.D-B. is also supported by a project of the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and the Consejería de Transformación Económica, Industria, Conocimiento y Universidades of the Junta de Andalucía (FEDER Andalucía 2014-2020 Objetivo temático “01 - Refuerzo de la investigación, el desarrollo tecnológico y la innovación”) associated with the research project P20_00879 (ANDABIOMA). FTM acknowledges support from Generalitat Valenciana (CIDEGENT/2018/041). J. Z. H and H. W. H. are financially supported by Australian Research Council (DP210100332). We also thank the project CTM2015-64728-C2-2-R from the Ministry of Science of Spain. C. A. G. and N. E. acknowledge funding by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the German Research Foundation (FZT 118). TG was financially supported by Slovenian Research Agency (P4-0107, J4-3098 and J4-4547)

The global contribution of soil mosses to ecosystem services

Soil mosses are among the most widely distributed organisms on land. Experiments and observations suggest that they contribute to terrestrial soil biodiversity and function, yet their ecological contribution to soil has never been assessed globally under natural conditions. Here we conducted the most comprehensive global standardized field study to quantify how soil mosses influence 8 ecosystem services associated with 24 soil biodiversity and functional attributes across wide environmental gradients from all continents. We found that soil mosses are associated with greater carbon sequestration, pool sizes for key nutrients and organic matter decomposition rates but a lower proportion of soil-borne plant pathogens than unvegetated soils. Mosses are especially important for supporting multiple ecosystem services where vascular-plant cover is low. Globally, soil mosses potentially support 6.43 Gt more carbon in the soil layer than do bare soils. The amount of soil carbon associated with mosses is up to six times the annual global carbon emissions from any altered land use globally. The largest positive contribution of mosses to soils occurs under a high cover of mat and turf mosses, in less-productive ecosystems and on sandy and salty soils. Our results highlight the contribution of mosses to soil life and functions and the need to conserve these important organisms to support healthy soils.The study work associated with this paper was funded by a Large Research Grant from the British Ecological Society (no. LRB17\1019; MUSGONET). D.J.E. is supported by the Hermon Slade Foundation. M.D.-B. was supported by a Ramón y Cajal grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC2018-025483-I), a project from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for the I + D + i (PID2020-115813RA-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033a) and a project PAIDI 2020 from the Junta de Andalucía (P20_00879). E.G. is supported by the European Research Council grant agreement 647038 (BIODESERT). M.B. is supported by a Ramón y Cajal grant from Spanish Ministry of Science (RYC2021-031797-I). A.d.l.R is supported by the AEI project PID2019-105469RB-C22. L.W. and Jianyong Wang are supported by the Program for Introducing Talents to Universities (B16011) and the Ministry of Education Innovation Team Development Plan (2013-373). The contributions of T.G. and T.U.N. were supported by the Research Program in Forest Biology, Ecology and Technology (P4-0107) and the research projects J4-3098 and J4-4547 of the Slovenian Research Agency. The contribution of P.B.R. was supported by the NSF Biological Integration Institutes grant DBI-2021898. J. Durán and A. Rodríguez acknowledge support from the FCT (2020.03670.CEECIND and SFRH/BDP/108913/2015, respectively), as well as from the MCTES, FSE, UE and the CFE (UIDB/04004/2021) research unit financed by FCT/MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC)

Biogenic factors explain soil carbon in paired urban and natural ecosystems worldwide

12 páginas.- 4 figuras.- 49 referencia.- Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01646-z .- Full-text access to a view-only version (Acceso a texto completo de sólo lectura en este enlace) https://rdcu.be/c8vZiUrban greenspaces support multiple nature-based services, many of which depend on the amount of soil carbon (C). Yet, the environmental drivers of soil C and its sensitivity to warming are still poorly understood globally. Here we use soil samples from 56 paired urban greenspaces and natural ecosystems worldwide and combine soil C concentration and size fractionation measures with metagenomics and warming incubations. We show that surface soils in urban and natural ecosystems sustain similar C concentrations that follow comparable negative relationships with temperature. Plant productivity’s contribution to explaining soil C was higher in natural ecosystems, while in urban ecosystems, the soil microbial biomass had the greatest explanatory power. Moreover, the soil microbiome supported a faster C mineralization rate with experimental warming in urban greenspaces compared with natural ecosystems. Consequently, urban management strategies should consider the soil microbiome to maintain soil C and related ecosystem services.This study was supported by a 2019 Leonardo Grant for Researchers and Cultural Creators, BBVA Foundation (URBANFUN), and by BES Grant Agreement No. LRB17\1019 (MUSGONET). M.D-B., P.G-P., J.D. and A.R. acknowledge support from TED2021-130908B-C41/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ Unión Europea NextGenerationEU/PRTR. M.D.-B. also acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for the I + D + i project PID2020-115813RA-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. M.D.-B. was also supported by a project of the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and the Consejería de Transformación Económica, Industria, Conocimiento y Universidades of the Junta de Andalucía (FEDER Andalucía 2014-2020 Objetivo temático ‘01 - Refuerzo de la investigación, el desarrollo tecnológico y la innovación’) associated with the research project P20_00879 (ANDABIOMA). D.J.E. was supported by the Hermon Slade Foundation. J.P.V. thanks the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) (EEQ/2021/001083, SIR/2022/000626) and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India (DST/INT/SL/P-31/2021) and Banaras Hindu Univeristy-IoE (6031)-incentive grant for financial assistance for research in plant-microbe interaction and soil microbiome. J.D. and A. Rodríguez acknowledge support from the FCT (2020.03670.CEECIND and SFRH/BDP/108913/2015, respectively), as well as from the MCTES, FSE, UE and the CFE (UIDB/04004/2021) research unit financed by FCT/MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC).Peer reviewe

Global hotspots for soil nature conservation

19 páginas.- 5 figuras.- 98 referencias.- Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05292-xSoils are the foundation of all terrestrial ecosystems1. However, unlike for plants and animals, a global assessment of hotspots for soil nature conservation is still lacking2. This hampers our ability to establish nature conservation priorities for the multiple dimensions that support the soil system: from soil biodiversity to ecosystem services. Here, to identify global hotspots for soil nature conservation, we performed a global field survey that includes observations of biodiversity (archaea, bacteria, fungi, protists and invertebrates) and functions (critical for six ecosystem services) in 615 composite samples of topsoil from a standardized survey in all continents. We found that each of the different ecological dimensions of soils—that is, species richness (alpha diversity, measured as amplicon sequence variants), community dissimilarity and ecosystem services—peaked in contrasting regions of the planet, and were associated with different environmental factors. Temperate ecosystems showed the highest species richness, whereas community dissimilarity peaked in the tropics, and colder high-latitudinal ecosystems were identified as hotspots of ecosystem services. These findings highlight the complexities that are involved in simultaneously protecting multiple ecological dimensions of soil. We further show that most of these hotspots are not adequately covered by protected areas (more than 70%), and are vulnerable in the context of several scenarios of global change. Our global estimation of priorities for soil nature conservation highlights the importance of accounting for the multidimensionality of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services to conserve soils for future generations.This project received funding from the British Ecological Society (agreement LRA17\1193; MUSGONET). C.A.G. and N.E. were funded by DFG–FZT 118, 202548816; C.A.G. was supported by FCT-PTDC/BIA-CBI/2340/2020; M.D.-B. was supported by RYC2018-025483-I, PID2020-115813RA-I00\MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and P20_00879. M.A.M.-M. and S.A. were funded by FONDECYT 1181034 and ANID-PIA-Anillo INACH ACT192057. J.D. and A.R. acknowledge support from IF/00950/2014, 2020.03670.CEECIND, SFRH/BDP/108913/2015 and UIDB/04004/2020. Y.-R.L. was supported by 2662019PY010 from the FRFCU. L.T. was supported by the ESF grant PRG632. F.B. and J.L.M. were supported by i-LINK+2018 (LINKA20069) funded by CSIC. C.T.-D. was supported by the Grupo de Biodibersidad & Cambio Global UBB–GI 170509/EF. C.P. was supported by the EU H2020 grant agreement 101000224. H.C. was supported by NSFC32101335, FRFCU2412021QD014 and CPSF2021M690589. J.P.V. was supported by DST (DST/INT/SL/P-31/2021) SERB (EEQ/2021/001083) and BHU-IoE (6031).Peer reviewe

Publisher Correction: Soil contamination in nearby natural areas mirrors that in urban greenspaces worldwide

Correction to: Nature Communications, published online 27 March 2023 In the version of this article originally published, the current affiliation 25, “CEAZA, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile,” initially appeared as the last affiliation, offsetting all author footnotes from 25-39. The affiliation order has been restored in the article.Peer reviewe

Tree Belts for Decreasing Aeolian Dust-Carried Pesticides from Cultivated Areas

The aim of this study was to investigate the function of tree belts in reducing the aeolian transport of dust particles carrying pesticides. The study examined the importance of the buffer zones created by commonly planted trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Pinus halepensis (pine) and Ceratonia siliqua (carob)). The methods include analyzing the quantity and the chemical composition of pesticides carried by aeolian dust particles from the intensively cultivated fields and orchards, where pesticides were applied, towards the tree belts nearby. Eighteen different chemicals used as insecticides, fungicides and herbicides, were found both in the agricultural fields and in the adjacent tree belts, suggesting an important function of the trees. This ecological service has rarely been taken into consideration by management policies of tree plantings in farmland areas. To integrate this service into agriculture, especially in the case of agricultural fields and orchards, which are adjacent to populated areas, planting tree belts should be positively considered as a means for reducing aeolian dust and air pollution, mainly in order to reduce leakage of pesticides, which are a cause for significant health concerns