Soil health: an overview of concepts and monitoring methods

Abstract

The concept of "soil health" has gained significant popularity in scientific literature as a key framework for ensuring ecosystem sustainability. However, the meaning of this term remains ambiguous, and universal assessment criteria are lacking. The aim of this article is to analyze contemporary definitions of "soil health" proposed by domestic and international soil scientists and to review methods for its evaluation. Emphasis is placed on indicators and monitoring systems that claim a degree of universality in diagnosing soil health. According to the European conceptual framework, the term "soil health" should reflect the broad influence of soil cover on ecosystems, including traditionally recognized aspects such as crop productivity, water and air quality regulation, climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and the provision of social and cultural ecosystem services. In 2021, the European Union adopted a soil development strategy aimed at achieving healthy conditions for all EU soils by 2050. The term "soil health" is expected to be formalized with the adoption of the Soil Monitoring and Resilience Law, which will establish soil health standards. Researchers from Cornell University (USA) have proposed a similar methodology for comprehensive soil health assessment, termed CASH (Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health). Both systems – CASH and the Soil Monitoring and Resilience Law – are examined in detail in the article. Additionally, the search for a universal soil health indicator continues; the article discusses metrics such as organic matter content, the soil organic carbon-to-clay ratio (SOC:Clay), and its alternatives (Observed/Typical SOC ratio, SOC/SOCexp). A literature review reveals that the rationale for introducing the term "soil health" remains questionable. In practice, "soil health" is almost universally interpreted as a combination of physical and chemical properties that potentially influence soil fertility. Moreover, practices aimed at restoring "soil health" primarily focus on maintaining agronomic soil properties. In this regard, the indicators and methods for assessing "soil health" differ little from those used to evaluate "soil quality". Russian studies tend to explore fundamental aspects of soil system resilience, emphasizing the biological origins and biodynamic essence of soil. Proposed assessment methods are also based on microbiological indicators: thermodynamic characterization of microbial systems, the heterotrophic parameter of soil health, the self-sufficiency parameter for biophilic elements, phytosanitary soil status indicators, and enzymatic activity. The reviewed indicators and monitoring systems demonstrate potential for comprehensive soil diagnostics. However, their universality is limited by variability in soil-climatic conditions and land-use types.

References

1. Брескина Г.М., Масютенко Н.П., Чуян Н.А. Биопрепараты как средство восстановления здоровья черноземных почв // Вестн. Ульяновской гос-ой сельскохозяйственной академии. 2022. Т. 204, № 2(58). С. 25–31. https://doi.org/10.18286/1816-4501-2022-2-25-31 2. Гордеева К.А., Кольцова Т.Г., Кулагина В.И. и др. Влияние различных систем земледелия на агрохимические и биохимические показатели серой лесной почвы // Российский журнал прикладной экологии. 2024. Т. 3, № 39. С. 34–38. 3. Иванцова Е.А., Водолазко А.Н. Качество почв земель сельскохозяйственного назначения сухостепной почвенной зоны Волгоградской области // Известия Нижневолжского агроуниверситетского комплекса: наука и высшее профессиональное образование. 2018. Т. 2, № 50. С. 1–8. 4. Казеев К.Ш., Колесников С.И. Биодиагностика почв: методология и методы исследований. Ростов-на-Дону, 2012. 260 с. 5. Кожевин П.А. Показатели почвенного «здоровья» в оценке почв (обзор) // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Сер. 17. Почвоведение. 2023. Т. 78, № 2. С. 16–25. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0137-0944-17-2023-78-2-16-25 6. Кольцова Т.Г., Кулагина В.И., Сунгатуллина Л.М. и др. Оценка ферментативной активности серых лесных почв в органических и традиционных агроценозах Предкамья Республики Татарстан // Российский журнал прикладной экологии. 2022. Т. 3, № 31. С. 34–42. 7. Кулагина В.И., Сунгатуллина Л.М., Рязанов С.С. и др. Информативность микробиологических и биохимических параметров для мониторинга почв при органическом земледелии // Региональные геосистемы. 2021. Т. 45, № 4. С. 459–470. https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2021-45-4-459-470 8. Курманбаев А.А., Сундет Т.Р. Концепция почвенного здоровья и современные индикаторы здоровья почв // Почвоведение и агрохимия. 2024. Т. 2. С. 91–106. https://doi.org/10.51886/1999-740Х_2023_2_91 9. Москвичев А.Ю., Карпова Т.Л., Константинова Т.В. и др. Фитосанитарный контроль растений: Учебное пособие. Волгоград, 2015. 132 с. 10. Оленьев В.В., Грешневиков А.Н., Грачев В.А. и др. Проект Федерального закона № 83224-3. Об охране почв [Текст]. Парламент Российской Федерации, 2005. 11. Семенов А.М., Семенов В.М., Ван Бругген А.Х.К. Диагностика здоровья и качества почвы // Агрохимия. 2011. Т. 12. С. 4–20. 12. Семенов А.М., Глинушкин А.П., Соколов М.С. Здоровье почвенной экосистемы: от фундаментальной постановки к практическим решениям // Известия ТСХА. 2019. Т. 1. С. 5–18. 13. Семенов А.М., Глинушкин А.П., Соколов М.С. Органическое земледелие и здоровье почвенной экосистемы // Достижения науки и техники АПК. 2016. Т. 30, № 8. С. 5–8. 14. Смагин А.В. Физическое качество почв: подходы, модели, показатели, основные проблемы // Экологический вестник Северного Кавказа. 2020. Т. 16, № 3. С. 12–32. 15. Соколов М.С., Марченко А.И., Санин С.С. и др. Здоровье почвы агроценозов как атрибут ее качества и устойчивости к биотическим и абиотическим стрессорам // Известия ТСХА. 2009. Т. 1. С. 13–22. 16. Соколов М.С., Семенов А.М., Спиридонов Ю.Я. и др. Здоровая почва – условие устойчивости и развития агро- и социосфер (проблемно-аналитический обзор) // Известия РАН. Серия биологическая. 2020. Т. 1. С. 12–21. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0002332920010142 17. Соколов М.С. Здоровье почвы – залог сохранения урожая и социального благополучия страны // Плодоводство и ягодоводство России. 2015. Т. 43. С. 184–190. 18. Столбовой В.С., Гребенников А.М. Индикаторы качества почв пахотных угодий РФ // Бюллетень Почвенного института им. В.В. Докучаева. 2020. № 104. С. 31–67. https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2020-104-31-67 19. Стратегия развития производства органической продукции в Российской Федерации до 2030 года. Утверждена распоряжением Правительства Российской Федерации от 4 июля 2023 г. № 1788-р. Правительство Российской Федерации, 2023. 20. Сычев В.Г., Аристархов А.Н., Державин Л.М. и др. Методические указания по проведению комплексного мониторинга плодородия почв земель сельскохозяйственного назначения / Ред. Л.М. Державин, Д.С. Булгаков. М., 2003. 240 с. 21. Торопова Е.Ю. Диагностика здоровья почвы // Защита и карантин растений. 2019. Т. 4. С. 19–22. 22. Торопова Е.Ю., Кириченко А.А. Фитосанитарный экологический мониторинг: Метод. указания к лаб.-практ. занятиям и контрольной работе. Новосибирск, 2012. 38 с. 23. Хазиев Ф.Х. Экологические связи ферментативной активности почв // Экобиотех. 2018. Т. 1, № 2. С. 80–92. https://doi.org/10.31163/2618-964X-2018-1-2-80-92 24. Яковлев А.С., Евдокимова М.В., Терехова В.А. и др. Перспективы экологической оценки и нормирования качества почв и земель и управления их качеством // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Сер.17. Почвоведение. 2023. Т. 78, № 4. С. 55–62. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0137-0944-17-2023-78-4-55-62 25. Annexes to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law). European Commission, 2023. 16 p. 26. Annual European Union Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2022 and Inventory Document 2024. EEA/PUBL/2024/046. European Environment Agency, 2024. 556 p. 27. Baveye P.C. Soil health at a crossroad // Soil Use and Management. 2021. Vol. 37, No. 2. P. 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12703 28. Begill N., Don A., Poeplau C. No detectable upper limit of mineral‐associated organic carbon in temperate agricultural soils // Global Change Biology. 2023. Vol. 29, No. 16. P. 4662–4669. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16804 29. Bonfante A., Basile A., Bouma J. Targeting the soil quality and soil health concepts when aiming for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the EU Green Deal // SOIL. 2020. Vol. 6, No. 2. P. 453–466. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-6-453-2020 30. Cardoso E.J.B.N., Vasconcellos R.L.F., Bini D. et al. Soil health: looking for suitable indicators. What should be considered to assess the effects of use and management on soil health? // Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.). 2013. Vol. 70, No. 4. P. 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162013000400009 31. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Soil Strategy for 2030. Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate. European Commission, 2021. 32. Desertification and Land Degradation [Электронный ресурс]. 2025. URL: https://www.fao.org/in-action/action-against-desertification/overview/desertification-and-land-degradation/en/ (дата обращения: 27.02.2025). 33. Dexter A.R., Richard G., Arrouays D. et al. Complexed organic matter controls soil physical properties // Geoderma. 2008. Vol. 144, No. 3–4. P. 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.022 34. Feeney C.J., Bentley L., De Rosa D. et al. Benchmarking soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration provides more robust soil health assessment than the SOC/clay ratio at European scale // Science of the Total Environment. 2024. Vol. 951. P. 175642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175642 35. Fine A.K., Van Es H.M., Schindelbeck R.R. Statistics, scoring functions, and regional analysis of a Comprehensive Soil Health Database // Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017. Vol. 81, No. 3. P. 589–601. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.09.0286 36. Garg A., Kwakye S., Cates A. et al. Integrated soil health management influences soil properties: Insights from a US Midwest study // Geoderma. 2025. Vol. 455. P. 117214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117214 37. Global Soil Partnership [Электронный ресурс]. 2025. URL: https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/about/why-the-partnership/en/ (дата обращения: 27.02.2025). 38. Global Soil Partnership. Action Framework 2022-2030. FAO, Rome, 2022. 39. Hassink J. The capacity of soils to preserve organic C and N by their association with clay and silt particles // Plant and Soil. 1997. Vol. 191, No. 1. P. 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004213929699 40. Hatano R., Mukumbuta I., Shimizu M. Soil Health Intensification through Strengthening Soil Structure Improves Soil Carbon Sequestration // Agriculture. 2024. Vol. 14, No. 8. P. 1290. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081290 41. Janzen H.H., Janzen D.W., Gregorich E.G. The ‘soil health’ metaphor: Illuminating or illusory? // Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2021. Vol. 159. P. 108167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108167 42. Johannes A., Matter A., Schulin R. et al. Optimal organic carbon values for soil structure quality of arable soils. Does clay content matter? // Geoderma. 2017. Vol. 302. P. 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.04.021 43. Hu Y., Cross A., Shen Z. et al. On soil health and the pivotal role of proximal sensing // EGUsphere. 2025. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3939 44. Karlen D.L., Andrews S.S., Doran J.W. Soil quality: Current concepts and applications // Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier, 2001. Vol. 74. P. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(01)74029-1. ISBN: 978-0-12-000792-9 45. Lehmann J., Bossio D.A., Kögel-Knabner I. et al. The concept and future prospects of soil health // Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020. Vol. 1, No. 10. P. 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8 46. Loveland P., Webb J. Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricultural soils of temperate regions: a review // Soil and Tillage Research. 2003. Vol. 70, No. 1. P. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00139-3 47. Mäkipää R., Menichetti L., Martínez-García E. et al. Is the organic carbon-to-clay ratio a reliable indicator of soil health? // Geoderma. 2024. Vol. 444. P. 116862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.116862 48. Moebius-Clune B.N., Moebius-Clune D.J., Gugino B.K. et al. Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health: The Cornell Framework manual. 3rd ed. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 2016. 124 p. 49. Oldfield E.E., Wood S.A., Palm C.A., et al. How much SOM is needed for sustainable agriculture? // Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015. Vol. 13, No. 10. P. 527–527. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-13.10.527 50. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law) (COM(2023) 416 final — 2023/0232 (COD)) (Текст). Official Journal of the European Union, 2024. 51. Panagos P., Montanarella L., Barbero M. et al. Soil priorities in the European Union // Geoderma Regional. 2022. Vol. 29. P. e00510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2022.e00510 52. Pellant M., Shaver P.L., Pyke D.A. et al. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 5. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 2020. 186 p. 53. Pieper S., Frauenstein J., Ginzky H. et al. The upcoming European Soil Health Law – chances and challenges for an effective soil protection. Scientific opinion paper (Текст). German Environment Agency, 2023. 37 p. 54. Poeplau C., Don A. A simple soil organic carbon level metric beyond the organic carbon‐to‐clay ratio // Soil Use and Management. 2023. Vol. 39, No. 3. P. 1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12921 55. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilence (Soil Monitoring Law) (Текст). European Commission, 2023. 22 p. 56. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration [Текст]. European Commission, 2022. 79 p. 57. Prout J.M., Shepherd K.D., McGrath S.P. et al. What is a good level of soil organic matter? An index based on organic carbon to clay ratio // Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021. Vol. 72, No. 6. P. 2493–2503. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13012 58. Pulido‐Moncada M., Thorsøe M.H., Miranda‐Vélez J.F. et al. Soil health and challenges to sustainable soil management in Denmark: Stakeholder Perceptions // Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2025. Vol. 76, No. 1. P. e70038. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.70038 59. Smith C.W. Effects of Implementation of Soil Health Management Practices on Infiltation, Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat), and Runoff. Review of the Literature Posted to the NRCS Soil Health Literature Review Library as of January 2015. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, 2016. 38 p. 60. Soil Health. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [Электронный ресурс]. 2012. URL: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ (дата обращения: 11.03.2025). 61. Wenzel W.W., Golestanifard A., Duboc O. SOC: clay ratio: A mechanistically-sound, universal soil health indicator across ecological zones and land use categories? // Geoderma. 2024. Vol. 452. P. 117080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.117080 62. Xing Y., Wang X., Mustafa A. Exploring the link between soil health and crop productivity // Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2025. Vol. 289. P. 117703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.117703 63. Zamanian K., Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi R., Tao J. et al. Acidification of European croplands by nitrogen fertilization: Consequences for carbonate losses, and soil health // Science of the Total Environment. 2024. Vol. 924. P. 171631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171631