1. Introduction
For centuries, agriculture has been a product of population needs and the cultivation techniques available. Populations determine the demand for food, fibre, and other materials. An increasing human population and its needs have boosted agricultural production. According to the FAO [1], by 2050, the global population will reach almost 10 billion. However, food demand is increasing faster than the population. Between 2000 and 2020, the world’s population increased by almost 28% [2]. At the same time, food consumption increased by more than 37% [1], so to fulfil humanity’s global food needs, production requires a 70% increase by 2050 [3,4]. This is where the second determinant of agricultural development comes in—technology. Techniques, fertilization, and cultivation equipment and machinery have improved over time, making it possible to meet this challenge [5]. However, the “Green Revolution” of the last century not only contributed to increased yields but also deteriorated soil and water properties [6].
Therefore, in recent years, the environment has emerged as a hitherto-neglected third determinant of agricultural development. Excessive use of environmental resources and pollution can be limiting factors for human development [7,8]. The kind of agriculture that provides for growing population needs as well as protecting the environment and its resources can be called a sustainable agriculture [9]. There is a growing awareness that some of the Earth’s resources are finite. These include not only oil but also soil—the foundation of agriculture. The unique role of the soil is recognized, and not only as a carrier of fertilizer [10]. It has only recently become clear that, besides mineral fertilization, there are other ways to improve soil fertility, especially since synthetic fertilizers bear environmentally negative side effects. Therefore, the importance of soil health, microbial activity, soil organic matter content, sorption capacity, and the correct elemental ratio are recognized as particularly important [11,12,13,14]. Only by implementing innovative soil management, which will optimize all these factors, can modern agriculture achieve high yields while defending the environment, making sustainable use of natural resources, and protecting the soil, which is a non-renewable resource. Generally, agrifood systems constitute a significant driver of the depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, and the rise of greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes, climate change, and the pollution of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [15]. Moreover, more than 40% of food production is being destroyed worldwide due to inadequate protection against insects, pests, and plant pathogens [3]. We have only recently become aware of all these environmental threats, which have resulted in new national and international legislation, such as the European Union (EU) Green Deal.
The goal of the EU Green Deal is to make Europe the world’s first climate-neutral continent through a clean and circular economy [16], and it includes the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F). The Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy is a comprehensive initiative of the European Commission aimed at creating a sustainable, fair, and healthy food system in the European Union based on sustainable agriculture. It aims to create a chain of sustainable practices in food production, processing, transportation, and consumption, thereby reducing food loss and waste [17]. The F2F defines 27 initiatives designed to reshape the EU’s agrifood system until 2030. These include a minimum 20% reduction in the use of fertilizers, especially those containing nitrogen and phosphorus; a 50% reduction in the application of chemical pesticides and their consequent risk; a 50% reduction in the application of highly harmful pesticides; a reduction of nutrient loss of at least 50%, simultaneously ensuring that soil fertility is not impaired; a significant increase in organic aquaculture, with the transformation of at least 25% of EU agricultural land into organic farming; and a 50% reduction in the sale of antimicrobials to farm and aquaculture animals [18]. The Farm to Fork Strategy promotes sustainable soil management through reduced chemical use, organic farming, precision agriculture, and integrated policy measures, all of which are crucial for maintaining healthy and resilient soils [18].
Achieving sustainable agriculture is a challenging task, especially from a global perspective. However, the latest developments in science and technology are helpful, such as precision agriculture (PA), nanosubstances, and increased knowledge of soil health [19,20,21], as well as new concepts, such as organic farming [22]. These are new ways of managing soil, providing alternatives to traditional farming, which very often treated soil as a renewable resource. Still, significant threats like climate change, economic and technological limitations, or slower agricultural development exist of some parts of the world [23,24]. Agriculture is somehow both a victim (droughts, extreme weather events, high temperatures) and a cause (high greenhouse gas emissions, land transformation and degradation) of the changing climate [25,26]. Some technologies and solutions still need to be advanced, especially concerning fertilization and plant protection alternatives. Developing countries need technological and economic support to implement new agricultural solutions [27].
The common element of factors developing and limiting sustainable agriculture is soil. Therefore, the aim of this article is to review the most important aspects of modern sustainable agriculture in the context of soil management. The paper discusses tools that can facilitate the process of transforming traditional farming into sustainable agriculture. The most important scientific and utilitarian contribution of this review is to provide detailed information on the following:
The advantages of precision agriculture over traditional agriculture
The importance of soil management for improving soil health
The role of organic farming in ensuring food security
The advantages and threats of using nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture
Mutual relations between soil management and climate change.
The latest trends in the pursuit of sustainable soil management are discussed, and attention is drawn to the threats to soil and agriculture resulting from climate change, as well as the lack of uniform legal regulations regarding the use of nanomaterials.
2. Materials and Methods
This study sets out to describe current state-of-the art on the topic on soil management in sustainable agriculture. We adopted a narrative review concept described by Ferrari [28]. The search was carried out on Google Scholar, and included papers and government documents in English published between 2015 and 2024. For each chapter, a different set of key words was used to identify relevant articles (Table 1). Over 1600 texts were initially screened, and 250 were selected for further analysis and discussion.
3. Soil Management in Precision Agriculture
Soil is one of the most valuable environmental resources; however, it is highly variable. Its properties depend on factors including weather conditions, climate, topography, and land use. All these factors influence soil fertility, and require cultivation methods, ultimately influencing crop growth and yield [29]. Precision agriculture (PA) is the answer to soil spatial variability—it optimizes cultivation parameters to obtain the maximum yield while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Traditional agriculture applies a field-uniform approach, where the whole area is treated as homogeneous regarding soil quality. It distributes inputs uniformly, ignoring soil spatial variability [29,30,31]. While this approach is cheap and easy, it does not use resources (i.e., soil, fertilizers, seeds) effectively, bringing hidden economic, social, and environmental costs [32,33]. Excess nutrients migrate into the environment, entering the water and atmosphere. High loads of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds cause eutrophication, which has serious consequences, such as the reduction of drinking water supply, decline of plant and animal species and biodiversity in general, and limitations in the recreational use of water bodies. Some compounds dissolved in water, like nitrates, can cause human health problems, including cancer [34,35]. At the same time, the production, transportation, and use of synthetic fertilizers cause atmospheric emissions of both CO2 and N2O. According to Menegat et al. [36], the supply chain of nitrogen fertilizers is responsible for 2.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, it is imperative to use agricultural resources responsibly and precisely.
Performing cultivation precisely requires detailed information on spatial variability and the dynamics of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil [37]. PA employs various sensors and software, which allow farmers to analyze soil quality and provide crops with what they need, ensuring sustainability and optimized productivity [38]. There are many tools and sources of data: soil sampling and laboratory analysis, ground sensors, yield monitors, satellite images, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS, commonly known as GPS), near-infrared sensing (NIR), geographic information systems (GIS), drones, radars, and so on (Figure 1) [27,39]. However, the most detailed and reliable information on soil quality is given based on laboratory analysis or data gathered by ground sensors. Even so, soil sampling in the field is time-consuming, expensive, and labour-intensive. Moreover, there are no standard sampling procedures for time and spatial frequency; usually, it is once every few years per a few hectares, which is not enough for the purposes of PA [40,41]. On the other hand, laboratory analysis gives the broadest spectrum of information about soil [42].
3.1. Ground Sensors
Soil ground sensors are cheaper, and much faster, than traditional analysis. They are designed for collecting information in situ—sensors are placed in the ground, giving direct information about soil properties in real time. These includes moisture, pH, temperature, electrical conductivity, salinity, organic matter, some nutrients (total nitrogen, NO3−, NH4− K, and PO43−) and some pollutants [6,30,42,43,44,45,46]. Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are used to collect data from sensors in the field and transmit the data to users [47,48]. Therefore, sensors allow for a rapid response to changing soil and weather conditions, e.g., by regulating irrigation or fertilization, or sending resources (water, fertilizers) in precise quantities and exactly where they are required. This permits a significant increase in cultivation efficiency [27,38]. It also restricts negative environmental impacts—water and fertilizers are used rationally, and washing out excess nutrients from soil is minimized. However, the application of soil sensors also has restraints. The most common (and cheap) are sensors measuring pH, moisture (based on other soil properties, such as dielectric constant, electrical resistance, etc.), and temperature. It is more difficult to measure nutrients or pollutants. For example, ion-selective electrodes and transistors are very precise tools for analysing the content of nitrogen compounds. However, such measurement requires preparing a soil solution, which causes delays, and renders electrochemical nitrogen-sensing tools unsuitable for online applications, at least for now [44,49]. Moreover, precise information on required nitrogen and phosphorus loads is staple data for developing a sustainable, nature-conservating PA.
3.2. Remote Sensing
Remote sensing is the most effective tool for gaining high-resolution data on soil spatial and temporal variability. It employs satellites or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)/drones as platforms to monitor soil and crops through imaging spectroscopy [29,50,51]. Multispectral and hyperspectral cameras capture various environmental features using a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Remote sensing uses the differences in absorption and reflection of electromagnetic radiation by various elements in different states, for example, dry and wet soil, and healthy and infected plants. Based on their response, for example, the reflectance on the infrared radiation, it is possible to gather detailed information on the spatial and temporal variability of soil and crop quality [31,52]. The technology is fast and accurate, and may reduce costs as some data are available free-of-charge (satellite images) and the range of application is very wide [52,53,54]. On the other hand, there are disadvantages. Remote sensing requires knowledge of image-processing; the process itself consumes time and can be slow if working with large datasets; and multispectral cameras and drones are still expensive and may be out of reach for small farmers [29,55]. Nonetheless, the possibilities created by remote sensing are a foundation of modern PA. The data could be used to develop hydrological, soil, and vegetation maps and indices [51].
The most popular soil properties that can be assessed with remote sensing data are moisture, temperature, organic carbon, and soil compaction [31,53,56,57]. Some soil qualities might be established indirectly, for example, by analysing weather conditions or vegetation properties. The latter is an excellent indicator of soil quality. Shortage of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium, as well as high contaminant content are immediately shown in changing plant conditions [31,42,53]. Analyzing a reflectance of visible and near infrared radiation is an easy, fast, non-invasive, cost-saving, and precise method of analyzing the general condition and also the chemical composition of plants [58,59]. Knowing vegetation responses to various stressors can provide information about soils [31]. Parameters that can be established indirectly are nitrogen and phosphorus demand, soil compaction, and irrigation needs [37,53,60]. Still, while remote sensing technologies are intensively developed, the best results are obtained by combining them with traditional soil sampling and laboratory analysis or at least in situ sensor data [53,60]. This can widely expand the range of soil properties that can be monitored and modelled. Combined data can be used to precisely assess soil phosphorus content, texture, and soil contamination [61,62,63].
3.3. GNSS (GPS)
Another way of collecting soil data is through the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), commonly called GPS. GPS is the name of an American system, while GNSS is a broader term that includes all global navigation satellite systems (American, European, Chinese, and Russian) [64]. GNSS technology serves to establish a position in real time, so it does not bring direct information about the soil. However, combining GNSS, cultivation equipment, and various sensors can give precise details about some soil properties [65]. Agricultural equipment, such as harvesters, can precisely record the quantity of yield and the three-dimensional position of the data registration point. This provides accurate yield maps used, for example, to plan fertilization—in places with lower yields, a larger amount of fertilizer would be applied. On the other hand, the most important aspect of GNSS is the high precision of cultivation treatments: sowing, spraying, fertilizing, and reducing skipping and overlapping [66,67]. It allows for the reduction of seeds required, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, optimizes the costs of fuel, and automates the process [66,68,69].
3.4. Perspectives and Limitations
There is no single, universal, and precise source of information about soil and crops. Only the combination of the described technologies, namely laboratory analysis, sensors, satellites, drones, radars, and GNSS, provides the maximum scope of data necessary for the application and development of PA. Even though these technologies are still being developed, PA already brings many benefits, especially in the context of sustainable agriculture. The main goal of the PA is to bring site-specific information on soil, plants, and cultivation, in contrast to the previous traditional approach to cultivation, which was based on perceiving a field as a homogeneous area [70]. This new approach helps to make better use of resources. PA optimizes the use of water, which is becoming increasingly scarce. Doses of applied nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are adjusted according to the soil nutrient content, allowing for the reduction of fertilizers. Fertilizers are responsible for water pollution and excessive greenhouse gas emissions [29]. Automated guidance systems reduce fuel consumption and allow for the precise application of pesticides, which, when used in excess, may cause environment pollution and a deterioration of the biological properties of soil [71]. Reduced exploitation of natural resources and lower environmental pollution bring economic and social benefits. Improved efficiency of agriculture and reduced environmental impacts lead to a better quality of life. Human needs (for food, fibre, etc.) are met while nature is protected.
The main limitations of PA are high costs and high technical requirements. Modern advanced equipment and software, as well as properly trained operators, are necessary to use PA. This significantly limits the use of PA in developing countries, where agricultural productivity is low and food insecurity is high. However, efficient, sustainable agriculture is needed there the most [24,27]. In addition to efforts to continuously improve PA technology, scientists and decisionmakers should focus on the possibilities of introducing PA in developing overpopulated countries. While these countries are the ones that need efficient cultivation technologies the most, they are, at the same time, having a significant negative impact on the environment, including global warming [24,72]. It is important to develop modern sustainable agriculture not only locally, in developed countries, but worldwide. That way, its positive effects, such as food security and environmental protection, will reach a global audience. Furthermore, PA is a method of efficient and sustainable soil management. It offers previously unknown possibilities for accurate and rapid soil analysis. It provides opportunities for scientists to study soil on a previously unknown scale and, as a result, to minimize the negative impact of agriculture on the environment, use resources in a more sustainable way, and protect the soil.
4. Soil Health
4.1. Term and Context
The concept of “soil health” has become more discussed in recent decades, especially with the increased focus on sustainable agricultural practices and environmental protection. The exact origin of the term is hard to identify, but it is widely recognized that the idea started to develop in the late 20th century. The term “soil health” is often linked to an understanding of soil as a living ecosystem [73].
During that period of the late 20th century, scientists highlighted a holistic approach to soil management, considering soil’s interconnected biological, chemical, and physical properties within a healthy ecosystem and the significance of the role of soil biodiversity in ecosystem functions [74,75]. Over time, the concept has expanded to include a deeper understanding of the capacity of soil to act as a life-supporting system, promoting plant growth, regulating water, and filtering pollutants [74]. Also, this concept has been recognized as relevant to global climate change and food security [76].
According to one of the most used databases [77], “Google Scholar”, which provides the broadest range of academic literature, including articles, dissertations, books, conference proceedings, and reports, the number of sources mentioning “Soil health” increased nearly 270 times between 1990 and 2023 (Figure 2) [78]. The increase spurts were especially noticeable in 2006 and 2020.
This is likely related to the European Commission’s Soil Thematic Strategy, initiated in 2006, and growing understanding of the general importance of the topic. This strategy aimed to create a comprehensive framework for soil protection, proposing a Soil Framework Directive that would establish legally compulsory measures for soil health. However, this directive faced significant opposition from several countries and was cancelled in 2014 [79]. As the number of publications continues to grow, this topic has been further developed, and there is an increasing realization of its relevance in preparing for future challenges. The updated EU Soil Strategy, adopted in 2021, aimed to provide a policy framework that includes establishing a Soil Health Law, which is expected to ensure legal protection for soil across Europe [80]. It has received increased attention following the EU Green Deal [81,82,83].
The European Union has recognized the significance of establishing strong soil monitoring systems. One of the primary objectives of international soil monitoring systems is to set up standardized protocols and indicators for evaluating soil health. These systems are frameworks created to evaluate, manage, and safeguard soil health in different regions worldwide. They use various methodologies, technologies, and data collection strategies to monitor soil conditions and assess changes over time. Technological advancements have also considerably improved the capabilities of soil monitoring systems [73].
Projects such as the European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) [84] and the European Soil Observatory [85] are working towards gathering and sharing data on soil conditions in member states [86]. These efforts and ongoing large-scale international contribution research on different soil systems (Best4soil, EJP SOIL, LUCAS) [87] could help implement the EU Soil Strategy’s objectives [88]. Medium-term objectives include developing and implementing strategies to restore degraded land and soil, achieving an EU net greenhouse gas removal of 310 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year for the land use, land use change, and forestry sectors, and reducing nutrient losses by at least 50%, overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 50%, and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 50% by 2030. Long-term objectives are more ambitious: soil pollution should be reduced to levels no longer considered harmful to human health and natural ecosystems, thus creating a toxic-free environment; achieving a climate-neutral Europe and a climate-resilient society, fully adapted to the unavoidable impacts of climate change by 2050.
The importance of soil health has also focused attention on other globally significant policy agreements and strategies. It is a part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, for example—Goal 2: Zero Hunger: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, help maintain ecosystems, strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding, and other disasters, and progressively improve land and soil quality” [89]. The Paris Climate Agreement (2015) recognizes soil as a critical carbon sink and highlights its role in mitigating climate change through improved soil management [90].
The United States Department of Agriculture has correspondingly disseminated its Soil Health Principles, whose most important ideas are minimizing soil disturbance, maximizing plant diversity, keeping soil covered, and maintaining living roots year-round to ensure soil quality [91]. It is also worth mentioning that the African Union’s Agenda 2063, Goal 5 emphasizes that improved soil health enhances agricultural productivity and resilience against climate change [92]. Further, the Latin American Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change (2019) hints that improving soil quality is a way to increase resilience against the impacts of climate change [93].
We have mentioned only a few significant agreements and declarations here. Many countries have assumed strategies to implement these joint goals, considering soil health to be one of the cornerstones of food security, ecosystem sustainability, and climate change mitigation. Many of these documents agree that establishing indicators for soil quality and health is essential to monitoring processes and identifying areas needing intervention [94,95]. However, achieving the expected outcomes depends on managing weaknesses in the Common Agricultural Policy and prioritizing environmental objectives over economic interests [96]. Interdisciplinary collaboration is also important. Engaging policymakers, scientists, educators, and agricultural professionals can promote the adoption of soil health indicators and innovative technologies that support sustainable practices [97].
4.2. Soil Health Indicators
After years of debate that began in the late 20th century, the question “How to measure soil health?” remains relevant. Despite extensive research and accumulated knowledge, debate on this topic has no end [98]. Soil health estimation is complex and involves considering various indicators that reflect the biological, chemical, and physical properties of soil. These indicators are essential for assessing soil’s ability to support agricultural productivity and ecosystem services [99].
Despite minor differences, publications generally refer to the same soil health indicators and their impact on ecosystem services (Figure 3). The benefits of healthy soil for agriculture are also well established and widely acknowledged in various publications [99,100,101,102].
Soil organic carbon is acknowledged as the primary indicator of soil health. It significantly impacts soil functions, including nutrient cycling, water retention, and microbial activity. Evaluating SOC content in conjunction with other soil properties, such as clay content, provides valuable insights into soil structure and fertility and prevents erosion [103]. It is vital to practical agriculture because of the link between SOC amount and increased crop yields, especially in nitrogen-fertilized systems [104]. Organic matter also enhances the cation exchange capacity, which is vital for nutrient retention and plant availability [105].
The decomposition of organic materials contributes to forming stable organic matter fractions for SOC accumulation in the soil [106]. Still, the first stage of this process is the formation of labile organic matter pools, which are sensitive indicators of soil quality and can respond rapidly to changes in management practices [107].
Recently, more scientists have discussed microorganisms as an essential and volatile indicator of soil health. Management practices significantly influence microorganism community structures and activity, thereby having an impact on overall biological soil health [108]. From the perspective of the present day, more studies are needed to focus on microorganisms as indicators, especially in soil restoration contexts [109].
Physical properties are also significant in assessing soil health. Soil structure is a crucial physical indicator and refers to the arrangement of soil particles and the spaces between them. Healthy soil usually has good aggregation, which improves water infiltration and retention, prevents erosion, and supports root growth [110,111]. Another physical indicator, especially relevant in agriculture, is soil compaction. Caused by intensive tillage and heavy machinery, soil compaction can severely restrict root growth and water movement. Soil porosity also affects the ability of the soil to hold water and air, which is critical for plant and microbial life [110,112]. Soil moisture-retention capacity is emphasized in the face of climate change and water scarcity. Soil that can effectively retain moisture can better support plant growth during dry periods. Techniques such as mulching, cover cropping, and adding organic amendments can improve soil moisture retention by enhancing the structure of soil and reducing evaporation [113].
All indicator groups and soil health benefits mentioned here are related, in one way or another, to the increase of organic matter in the soil and its recycling [106]. In addition to technical practices, such as reducing soil disturbance or adding organic amendments (organic fertilizers, residues) [114], another effective strategy for improving these processes is to use diverse cropping systems, especially those that include perennial multicomponent plants. These systems can significantly enhance soil biological health by increasing nutrient levels and stabilizing soil carbon, particularly with combined livestock systems [115]. Cover cropping has also been proven to improve soil structure and fertility, promote microbial diversity and activity, and correspond to SOC accumulation [116,117].
Living roots are a part of the soil ecosystem, and they are significant for SOC sequestration. One of the primary ways living roots contribute to SOC is by releasing root exudates, which are organic compounds secreted by roots into the soil. Exudates are a carbon source for soil microorganisms and stimulate their activity. They can also enhance microbial metabolism and enzyme production, leading to increased SOC decomposition rates and SOC stabilization in mineral-associated organic carbon pools [118,119]. The rhizosphere priming effect, where live roots change the speed at which organic matter in the soil breaks down, is also important. This effect can either speed up or slow down decomposition, depending on factors like the quantity of roots and the types of microbes in the soil [118,120]. Research also indicates that different mycorrhizal types can change the quantity and quality of root-derived carbon inputs [121,122]. Mycorrhizal fungi contribute to the formation of stable SOC through the decomposition of organic residues and the stabilization of organic matter in soil aggregates [123]. Root structural characteristics, such as fine root biomass, are particularly effective in contributing to soil carbon stocks, as they have a higher turnover rate and are more likely to decompose into stable organic matter than coarse roots [124]. Environmental factors, for example, soil moisture and nutrient availability, influence the accumulation of SOC, which can also affect root growth and exudation patterns [125,126].
4.3. What Next?
Based on the issues discussed above, it can be concluded that there is currently intensive accumulating, systematizing, and sharing of knowledge about soil health. Technological capabilities lead to the collection and processing of an ever-increasing amount of data. These circumstances encourage us to expect an imminent breakthrough in the availability and practical use of aggregated data. However, solutions to the highlighted problems require effort and resources.
Table 2 shows methods for improving soil health frequently referenced in the literature and many good soil management guidelines. Yet, these also have certain application limitations or are not always suitable. The examples presented in the table suggest the goals of future science: in the aim of interdisciplinary cooperation, to apply combinations of already known sustainable agricultural methods to specific geographical areas and crop systems while ensuring the smooth functioning of the entire ecosystem.
These needs and challenges are particularly evident when analyzing the situation of developing countries and their possibilities for creating sustainable agriculture and ensuring soil health. One of the primary challenges is dependence on traditional agricultural practices, which often lead to low productivity and soil degradation. Adopting sustainable agricultural practices has been shown to significantly enhance productivity, but many farmers remain uncertain about the transition due to a lack of resources and knowledge [145,146].
5. Soil in Organic Farming
Undoubtedly, agricultural production is vital because agricultural development is one of the most potent tools for feeding a growing number of people worldwide. However, it contributes to many environmental problems, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and soil degradation [147]. In contrast, it is widely believed that organic agriculture (OA) causes fewer negative environmental externalities than conventional agriculture, which is also why many governments subsidize the OA sector [5]. Producing healthy organic products in agriculture is strongly associated with environmental sustainability.
There are many explanations and definitions for organic agriculture (OA), but all converge to state that it is a system that relies on ecosystem management rather than external agricultural inputs [148]. Organic farming (OF) is a sustainable agricultural system that emphasizes using ecologically based pest controls, biological fertilizers derived from animal and plant waste materials, and nitrogen-fixing cover crops. It was developed as a response to the environmental damage caused by the chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers used in conventional agriculture. According to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 [149] “Organic (ecological) farming is an agriculture system characterized by sustainable crop and animal production which ought to combine environmentally friendly practices, support high biodiversity, take advantage of natural processes and ensure animal well-being” [150]. OF is characterized by its avoidance of synthetic inputs, which leads to reduced chemical runoff, decreased soil erosion, and lower nitrate leaching into water sources. OF is an agricultural method for producing food and feed using natural substances and processes. The Common Agricultural Policy acknowledges its key contribution to a more sustainable agriculture.
An action plan for developing organic production in the EU was adopted in 2021 to support both production and consumption and to enhance further sustainability, in line with the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy, and the Biodiversity Strategy. From 2012 to 2020, the share of EU agricultural land under OF increased by more than 50%, with an annual increase of 5.7%. In 2020, 9.1% of the EU’s agrarian area was farmed organically [151]. In 2022, 13.4% more OF were certified in Lithuania than in 2020, and organic production areas accounted for 8% of the total farmland. By 2027, 13% of agricultural land in the EU is expected to be used for organic farming, and 15% in 2030 (
The objectives set out in the Strategic Plan thus coincide with the EU’s Green Deal target of allocating at least 25% of EU agricultural land to OF by 2030. OF systems utilize carbon-based amendments, diverse crop rotations, and cover crops to build soil fertility. As the share of OF increases, its impact on soil and environmental sustainability will also likely develop. OF practices support biologically available soil organic matter and beneficial soil microbe and invertebrate activities, improve soil physical properties, reduce disease potential, and increase plant health. OF practices usually also increase the organic matter content of soil. This is due to using organic fertilizers: compost, manure, and cover crops, which contribute to the buildup of organic material. Higher organic matter content improves soil structure, water retention, and nutrient availability. As organic matter accumulates in soil, the amount of organic carbon also increases, which can serve as carbon sequestration. These processes are essential for soil fertility and sustainability. Therefore, according to Kunlanit et al. [152], agricultural soils have considerable potential to sink atmospheric C. In addition, the accumulation of C in agricultural soils increases their fertility and sustainability.
OF is one of the fastest growing agriculture sectors, contributing up to 1% of the world’s agriculture by area. It is a farming system that uses fertilizers of organic origin, such as compost manure and green manure, and emphasizes techniques such as crop rotation and companion planting [22]. The increasing popularity of OF is determined by an opportunity to produce high-quality, healthy agricultural products. It is also an important tool for increasing sustainability. OF is an environmentally friendly method that guarantees sustainable development; preserves and maintains soil fertility, provides employment; and assures long-term incomes and thus promises better livelihoods to farmers [148,153]. The sustainability of OA, however, is less well understood, primarily under long-term management [154].
OA enhances nutrient cycling through the use of organic inputs like compost and “green manure”. There are requirements for the fertilizers used in OF, and science is continuously looking for opportunities to expand the list of permitted fertilizers. One such option is to use the biomass of crops called “green fertilizer” [155] (Table 3). For this task, in Lithuania, the aboveground mass of perennial grass was mulched on the soil surface two to four times during the period of vegetation: it was cut, chopped, and spread to use the biological nitrogen bound by legumes more efficiently. In the autumn, which is favourable for the mineralization of organic materials, the incorporated mulch of the underground mass of plants or mulch of perennials with a low C:N ratio determines the increase of the mineral nitrogen content in the soil. The mulch of perennials affects soil mineral nitrogen content more in spring than in autumn.
Research data show that the soil of old semi-natural pastures was the most sustainable: the comparable amount of labile and recalcitrant SOC fractions determined soil fertility, sequestration, and protection of SOC from decomposition (Table 3). The study of Slepetiene [156] showed that multi-component swards exerted a more considerable effect on SOM accumulation than mono-component swards.
OA standards involve prohibited or restricted activities and other required or recommended activities [5]. Among the suggested activities are balanced crop rotations, including legumes; recycling nutrients (e.g., through mixed farming); and using organic fertilizers. While conventional crop rotations have been simplified over the last 50 years, OA is thought to promote crop diversification [157] to and use multi-component swards to increase biodiversity and soil sustainability [156].
Forage legumes in OA crop rotations may positively affect topsoil SOC stocks [154]. Feiziene et al. [158] and Lorenz and Lal [159] reported that OA crop rotations involving red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Lithuania had higher SOC sequestration and soil net CO2 emissions than those involving other legumes or rotations without legumes (Table 3). Specifically, red clover was associated with the highest soil mesoporosity, the lowest microporosity, the best supply of plant-available water, high soil resistance to dry conditions, and increases in soil N and K reserves compared to other legumes.
Table 3Value of perennials and swards in OA.
| OF System | Main Finding or Recommendation Related to Soil Sustainability | References |
|---|---|---|
| Swards grown under organic management | Perennial plants influenced SOC content. | [160] |
| “Green manure” (mulching) in the crop rotation | The recommendation is to apply the aboveground mass of perennials in a combined manner. | [155] |
| Organically grown agricultural swards and their mixtures | It is recommended to increase biodiversity by establishing organically grown multi-component long-lived swards. | [156] |
| Organic crop rotation with legumes | Red clover created more favourable environmental conditions in the soil. | [158,159] |
| Forage legumes in OA | Positive effect on topsoil SOC stocks. | [161] |
OA practices may result in lower primary soil C inputs from plants because of lower yields than conventional farming, often by about 25% [162]. This may contribute to lower steady-state equilibrium SOC stocks than those for the same eco-region under other practices [5]. However, practices such as returning plant residues and manures from livestock to the soil and/or integrating perennial plants, mainly grass–legume mixtures, in the OA rotation can also result in higher soil C inputs than conventional agricultural systems. This trend may lead to higher levels of SOC and a net reduction of atmospheric CO2 in OA systems. However, there is debate over whether adding external OM to soil should be considered SOC sequestration [163].
Further research is needed, supplemented by new studies of regions where no data or insufficient data from farming systems are available. Studies on SOC changes and sequestration of agricultural soils are being intensively conducted but these studies still need to be included in the OA. It is essential to consider not only the overall dynamics of carbon levels but also changes in the quantity of individual carbon compound groups, carbon fractions, and different carbon lability in OF. Evaluating these indicators in OF will make it possible to recommend measures to improve soil properties and, generally, environmental sustainability in the agricultural sector.
6. Nanoparticles (NPs) in Sustainable Agriculture
6.1. General Characteristics of NPs
Nanotechnology is a field of science and engineering that deals with the design, production and use of structures, devices, and systems by manipulating atoms and molecules at the nanoscale [137]. Only in the last quarter century has it become possible to actively and purposefully modify molecules and structures at the nanoscale. Controlling actions at the nanometer scale distinguishes nanotechnology from other fields of technology. The term “nano” is derived from the Greek word for “dwarf”; it is used as a prefix for many units of measurement and means one trillionth or 10−9. Nanoparticles (NPs) are small particles, usually in the range of 1–100 nm (nanometres) in at least one dimension [164,165]. NPs, based on their fundamental composition, are divided into two main groups: inorganic and organic. Inorganic nanoparticles include metals (Au, Ag, Al, Bi, Co, Cu, Fe, In, Mo, Ni, Sn, Ti, W, and Zn), metal oxides (Al2O3, Cu2O, CuO, CeO2, In2O3, La2O3, NiO, MgO, TiO2, SnO2, ZnO, ZrO2), quantum dots (QDs), and nanorods. Organic NPs, on the other hand, include, inter alia, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [165]. NPs have a high surface-to-volume ratio, which allows them to interact more effectively with soil and plant components. Due to their small size and unique physical and chemical properties, nanoparticles are an innovative tool in sustainable agriculture and soil management as well as ensuring biosecurity [3]. Nanotechnology is undoubtedly one of the fastest growing fields of science, and its application in sustainable agriculture has gained vast popularity in recent years.
Ensuring soil sustainability requires intelligently delivering nutrients to crops without any losses [166]. Therefore, in agriculture, including crop production and crop protection, NPs have found many applications, such as nanofertilizers, nanopesticides, nanobiosensors or as remediation agents for contaminated soil and water. Nanotechnology shows greater potential to increase nutrient uptake by soil and plants than traditional strategies, as well as reducing the need for traditional agrochemicals and mitigating the effects of environmental stress on crops. Moreover, NPs also reduce the negative environmental impact of agrochemicals by minimizing their release [167].
6.2. Advantages of Using NPs in Sustainable Agriculture
Today, agriculture faces threats to food security and other challenges, including biotic stresses caused by fungi, pests, bacteria and viruses, and abiotic stresses such as climate change, drought, metal toxicity, and expansive human activities. NPs have the potential to revolutionize agriculture and promote sustainability by mitigating the negative effects of these stressors, improving the efficiency of agricultural practices, reducing the environmental impact of agrochemicals and increasing crop productivity [165,168]. One of the potential benefits of using nanotechnology in agriculture is improving the efficiency of agricultural practices and soil management.
NPs affect the physical properties of soil such as structure, texture, porosity, and bulk density. Nanoparticles can improve water drainage and soil aeration by creating voids and channels between soil aggregates. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) can improve the aggregation of sandy–clayey soil by 35%. NPs are used to improve soil water properties, which help plants cope with water loss and drought stress [166].
NPs can potentially improve soil quality and crop productivity by influencing various soil processes and properties. The use of NPs can positively influence the uptake and absorption of essential nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Se, Mn, Zn, Fe, Cu, Mo) and increase photosynthesis while controlling the application time of nanofertilizers and reducing their losses from the soil and migration to other environmental elements. This leads to higher crop productivity and improved yield quality, as well as other economic and environmental benefits [165,166].
Traditional fertilizers appear to be ineffective, as only a small percentage of the applied fertilizer is taken up by plants. Consequently, this leads to an excess of nutrients in soil and water, which can cause environmental problems such as eutrophication of water bodies. In contrast, nanotools have transformed traditional farming methods into precision farming. Nanofertilizers work by delivering nutrients to plants in an accurate, precise way. They can be created to release nutrients slowly over time, reducing the need for frequent application. NPs can also be designed to deliver nutrients directly to root or leaf cells, ensuring efficient absorption and utilization of nutrients. Nanofertilizers are delivered where they are needed, reducing the required dose of fertilizer and minimizing nutrient loss to the environment. Such fertilizers are processed down to the nanometre size [169]. When the particle size of the nanofertilizer is smaller than the pores of the cell wall, the NPs can penetrate plant cells directly [170,171]. This may solve the problem of nutrient deficiencies in plants [165]. The second group of nanofertilizers are NPs, which can improve the performance of traditional fertilizers but do not directly deliver nutrients to crops. In this case, NPs are fertilizer carriers—either to reach the designated target or to control the release of fertilizers [169]. The type, structure, dose, and application method of nanofertilizers determine the uptake, transport, transformation, and bioaccumulation of NPs in plant roots or leaves [172], which determines the nutritional quality of the crop [173].
In addition to NPs’ effects on crop growth, yield, and quality, research has also looked at the potential of NPs to control agrophages, i.e., pathogens, pests and weeds that reduce crop yields. It is estimated that more than 4 million tonnes of pesticides are used annually for food production worldwide [168], of which 40% are herbicides, 30% insecticides, and 20% fungicides [174]. Traditional pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides) have low application efficiencies and only about 30–40% of applied pesticides improve crop quality and crop production. More than 90% of pesticides enter the environment and accumulate in agricultural products in the application process [3]. Pesticide losses and large amounts of organic solvents in the composition of pesticides cause many ecological and environmental problems and also harm human health [3,175]. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to develop more effective methods of delivering the active ingredients of pesticides. The most crucial advantage of NPs is the ability to control the release of nanopesticides. The nanopesticide delivery control system facilitates the balanced release of active ingredients at a targeted concentration over an extended period, increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of targeted pesticide delivery to targets of action such as insects, pathogens, and weeds [3,176]. Many nanomaterials, in the form of nanosuspensions, nanoemulsions, dendrimers, or nanocapsules, are used in the delivery of active ingredients of pesticides [177,178].
Nanoparticles are also an alternative method of controlling plant pathogens such as fungi [3]. NPs are effective against both mycelial growth and spore germination [179]. Silica nanoparticles (Si-NPs) can be used to produce extended-release nanopesticides by changing their structure and shape [169]. Si-NPs have been used for the slow release of fungicides and antifungal essential oils [180]. NPs containing silver (Ag-NPs), copper (Cu-NPs, CuO-NPs) and zinc (ZnO-NPs) are used as antifungal and antimicrobial agents against foliar and soil-borne plant diseases, which can be a serious economic threat [181]. NPs are an environmentally friendly alternative to current synthetic fungicides, and it is believed that they will play an important role in future control of plant diseases [182].
NPs are used in insecticides as well. The NPs can reduce substances’ ecotoxicity and increase insecticides’ solubility. Many scientists have shown that nano-imidacloprid is more effective than bulk formulations of insecticide against the bird cherry-oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi) [183], lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica) [184], grain weevil (Sitophilus granarius) [185], and desert locust, (Schistocerca gregaria) [186]. Moreover, Sabry et al. [187] showed that nano-indoxacarb and nano-imidacloprid were twelve and four times more effective, respectively, than conventional formulations of these preparations against African cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis) larvae in the second developmental stage.
Recently, nanoherbicides, or nanosubstances that control weeds and unwanted grasses, have been introduced into sustainable agriculture. Nanoherbicides are characterized by better spreading and adhesion and longer contact time with leaves, and can control the release of active substances [188]. Inorganic nanoherbicides containing silica (Si-NPs), mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MS-NPs), metale (np. Ag), Mg-Al-layered double hydroxide, and Zn-Al-layered double hydroxide are widely used because they can delay the leaching of herbicides into the soil and improve the transport of active ingredients into the plant [189,190,191]. MS-NPs are used as herbicide carriers due to their pH response and strong electrostatic interactions [189]. In turn, the clay minerals can form nano-enabled herbicides because they are inexpensive, biocompatible, and have good scalability [192]. Gao et al. [193] have demonstrated that herbicide-bound hydrotalcite nanoparticles have better physico–chemical stability and herbicidal activity than the conventional formulation.
In addition to promoting plant growth, improving crop quality, and controlling pests and pathogens, NPs may have many other applications in sustainable agriculture. NPs can provide crop protection against harmful UV-B radiation and ozone depletion. TiO2, Ag, and Si-NPs can reduce UV-B stress in plants, as they act as a shield, preventing damage to plant cells and reducing the negative effects of these stress factors. NPs increase flavonoid accumulation, stimulate photosynthesis, reduce oxidative stress and prevent changes in microtubule structure in plant cells. The impact of NPs on plants depends on the concentration used, the type, physico–chemical characteristics and application method of NPs, the plant species, and the level and duration of UV-B exposure [194,195]. NPs can also mitigate the effects of abiotic stresses such as salinity, heavy-metal contaminants, drought and temperature extremes. Studies have shown that they can increase soil water-holding capacity, regulate moisture levels, and improve plant tolerance to harsh environmental conditions [196]. NPs can help to reduce uptake and bioaccumulation of toxic heavy metals (As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg, Pb, and Zn) by plants. NPs can bind to these metals in the soil, thus preventing their uptake by plant roots and minimizing their risk of entering the trophic chain [165,196]. Moreover, research has been conducted on the use of TiO2 NPs to reduce the bioaccumulation of arsenic [197] and lead [198] and Au-NPs to mitigate the hazardous effects caused by Cd in rice (Oryza sativa L.) [199].
NPs are used for remediation and bioremediation of contaminated water and soil [165]. Due to their unique surface properties, NPs absorb and/or adsorb a wide range of pollutants and catalyze reactions, reducing the energy required for their decomposition.
With the help of NPs (FeO-NPs, Fe3O4 NPs, Si-NPs, CaO2-NPs, perovskite (LaFeO3)-NPs, graphene oxide nanoparticles), degradation or removal processes can be improved. With the help of NPs, the degradation or removal processes of pollutants (Cr, Ni, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cu, As, and persistent organic pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, agrochemicals) can be improved, thereby increasing the potential scope of remediation [200].
Recent research has shown that using nanoparticles improves the soil’s biological properties [182,201]. The activity of soil enzymes is one of the most important indicators of soil health. Carbon NPs showed a stimulative impact on soil enzymatic activities (urease, phosphatases, and dehydrogenases) [182]. However, conflicting data regarding the effects of nanoparticles on soil biological activity are available. The meta-analysis by Lin et al. [202] showed that the effect of NPs on soil enzymes depended on the type of nanoparticle. Ag-NPs and Cu-NPs had a negative effect on soil enzyme activity. In contrast, Zn-NPs had no negative impact on enzyme activity except for dehydrogenase activity. Fe-NPs stimulated acid phosphatase activity. The study by Jośko et al. [201] showed a varied effect of NPs on the microbiological and enzymatic activity of the soil, which depended on the type of NPs, soil type, and exposure time. In most cases, low concentrations of NPs caused a stimulating effect on the population size of microorganisms and enzymatic activity. The stimulating effect of other NPs results from the role of metal ions (Zn, Cu, Ni) in the structure and function of soil enzymes [201].
Nanotechnology improves soil and plant health by strengthening the microbiome and reducing losses by increasing crop resilience and productivity [166]. Due to their unique properties, NPs have been hailed as “magic bullets” in the agricultural sector, offering huge benefits [165]. They have the potential to improve the productivity and sustainability of agriculture. However, as with any new technology, concerns about their potential negative impact on the environment and people’s health exist.
6.3. Nanoparticles and Their Potential Ecological Effects
The widespread use of nanotechnologies in agriculture and the lack of specific regulation have raised concerns about their potential environmental and health risks. The nanotechnology-based industry is constantly developing, resulting in a significant increase in the discharge and environmental burden of NPs. Innovation in nanotechnology is progressing rapidly. New products are often proprietary, and the characteristics of NPs used in nanomaterials are often unknown [203]. In addition, assessment of the ecological risk of NPs released into the environment is still underdeveloped and estimation of the concentrations of nanoparticles (NPs) in the environment remains difficult [204,205]. Further, trade secrets associated with proprietary products make the hazard and risk associated with NPs even more difficult to accurately quantify [206].
NPs can enter the environment from various sources, not only from agriculture but also from industrial activities and consumer products. NPs then travel through air and water and accumulate in biota, soil, and sediments [204,205]. Due to their small size and unique properties, NPs may have different ecotoxicological effects to conventional substances [182,205]. NPs can have toxic effects on living organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms. Factors causing toxic effects of nanoparticles in agriculture include inappropriate composition, concentration, physico–chemical properties, specific size, surface area, application method, exposure time, nanoparticle stability, pore size, bioavailability, and species of living organisms and development stage [204,205].
NPs accumulate in soil, sediment, water, and living organisms, including plants and animals, and have the potential to infiltrate the food chain [207]. Studies have shown that certain NPs, Ag-NPs, Se-NPs, CuO-NPs and others, can accumulate in fish tissues and cause oxidative stress, changes in reproductive capacity, and lead to death. Ag-NPs can induce toxic changes in common molly with negative effects on the reproductive system [208]. Data analysis by Kumah et al. [206] showed toxic effects of NPs (zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, silver, and carbon nanotubes) including oxidative stress generation, DNA damage, apoptosis, inflammation and cell death. Soybean seeds, Daphnia magna neonates, soil samples, zebrafish larvae, and fish were used as biomarkers to assess the environmental impact of NPs. Shukla et al. [165] noted that the phytotoxicity of NPs leads to adverse plant effects such as delayed seed germination, reduced root and shoot growth, delayed flowering, impaired seed formation, necrosis, genotoxicity, chlorophyll reduction, damaged chloroplast, reduced photosynthesis, and others. The cited authors report that particles such as Si-NPs, TiO2-NPs, CeO2-NPs, VO2-NPs, Ag-NPs, ZnO-NPs, Cu(OH)2, and Fe2O3 exhibit biochemical, physiological, and developmental effects towards plants.
NPs cause changes in nutrient concentrations as they adsorb nutrients such as N, P, and K, reducing their availability to plants. Consequently, plant growth and productivity and agroecosystem functioning are affected. Shah et al. [209] demonstrated the toxicity of NiO-NPs on soil nutrient availability and plant nitrogen uptake from poultry manure. Imprecise, careless, and excessive use of NPs can disrupt the soil ecosystem, and the presence of NPs in the soil can potentially leach into groundwater, causing water pollution. NPs can also impact soil and water quality, which can affect ecosystem functioning [205]. To mitigate the ecotoxicological effects of nanoparticles, it is important to develop a strategy for the safe and responsible use of nanotechnology.
As has been shown, there are many uncertainties regarding the use of NPs in agriculture. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop coherent legal regulations regarding the use of nanotechnology in agriculture and food in Europe and worldwide. Furthermore, to protect the environment and human health while developing the nanotechnology industry in a sustainable manner, greater integration of technological innovation with risk assessment is necessary. Continuous research is needed to fill knowledge gaps and to apply the precautionary principle wisely [203].
7. Climate Change
Climate change is a global problem, affecting every ecosystem on Earth and disrupting every aspect of human life. It includes soil. Achieving sustainable agriculture must take into account the changing climate, which has a significant impact on both crops and soils. And without healthy soils, there can be no healthy and effective agrifood systems. On the other hand, faulty soil management is a cause of accelerating climate change. This mutual relationship is very complex, and scientists need to constantly expand knowledge about the effects of climate change on soil properties and processes, as well as the impact of soil on climate change.
7.1. Salinity
In many regions of the world, climate change means increased air, water, and soil temperatures and reduced or disrupted rainfall. Both these factors lead to droughts and drying of the soil. One of the main problems caused by disturbed water conditions is increased soil salinity, especially in arid, semi-arid, and coastal regions. The main climate factors contributing to soil salinity are drought; irregular precipitation; sea level rise; factors connected to human activities, such as excess irrigation and irrigation with high salt water; poor drainage; and natural factors like groundwater salinity [210,211,212]. According to Eswar et al. [212], there is 1060.1 Mha of soils affected by salinization, and this area is gradually increasing; some predict that by 2050 about 50% of agricultural land will be affected by salinity, the main reason being climate change [213]. Salinization harms soil quality, which detrimentally affects the agricultural productivity of soils. This phenomenon is known as salinity stress. This common name conceals many changes in soil properties, namely the disruption of soil structure, decline of hydraulic properties, changes to pH (high alkalinity) and exchangeable ions, decreased soil organic matter and microbial biomass, reduced nutrient mobilization, osmotic stress, ionic toxicity, and hormonal imbalance. High levels of salts can lead to physiological drought and inhibit carbon fixation [213,214,215].
Changes in soil quality result in changes in plant’s biochemical, physiological, and molecular features, damaging plant metabolism and nutrition. Soil salinity restricts the growth of roots and plant’s aboveground parts, causes leaf browning/burning, inhibits flowering, reduces vigour, causes dehydration of plant cells, and, in some cases, the death of species less tolerant to salinity stress [213,214]. This poses a major challenge to securing the necessary agricultural productivity, as salinity decreases crop yields. The crops most sensitive to salinity are vegetables, but also sweet potato, maize, and wheat. Depending on the soil salinity level, the yield of maize and wheat can decrease by even 50%. Some crops are better adapted to salinity, i.e., barley and cotton [210,216,217,218]. However, it is worth mentioning that salt sensitivity varies during the plant life cycle. For cereals, the seeding and reproductive phases are the most sensitive [219].
Given the increase in the human population and its needs, it is necessary to look for ways to combat or at least reduce salinity, as well as ways to use saline soils in farming. These include sustainable irrigation, conservation agriculture, drainage and land-use strategies, cultivation of salt-tolerant species, application of amendments, and phyto- and bioremediation [214,220]. Reclamation techniques include drip irrigation and sub-surface drip irrigation, new sowing strategies such as direct seeded rice, and the implementation of tolerant microorganisms and plant genotypes. These techniques can alleviate the soil salinity problem, provide global food security, conserve natural resources, and increase carbon sequestration [210,220].
7.2. Erosion
Climate change is a major cause of soil erosion globally. Both heavy rainfall and droughts result in the degradation of the top, most fertile part of the soil, which plays a pivotal role in agricultural productivity and food security [221]. According to the FAO [222], each year, 75 billion tonnes of soil are removed globally from arable land due to erosion. Wind erosion mainly causes the loss of clay, organic carbon, and nutrients from the topsoil, and these are the most important to fertility. Moreover, these particles cause air pollution. Approximately 3000 million tonnes of soil dust enter the atmosphere each year, including particles smaller than 10 μm (PM10), which are especially harmful to human health [223]. Arid and semi-arid regions are most affected by wind erosion [224]. However, dust storms are becoming more frequent and stronger in other parts of the world, including central Europe [225,226]. Soils devoid of vegetation are the most sensitive to wind erosion, especially during dry periods. In colder regions, snow cover used to protect bare freezing/thawing soils, though now, with snow cover becoming less frequent and of shorter duration, wind erosion is increasing in the winter season [226]. Water is the most common cause of soil erosion, responsible for 50% of this process [227]. It is estimated that by 2050, water erosion will increase by 15.7–25.5% [228] and the most affected will be areas of South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia—struggling, developing parts of the world [229]. One reason for the increasing role of water is the higher frequency of extreme rainfall events. Extreme rainstorms, and thus concentrated flow, cause huge losses of agricultural lands due to bare soil being most vulnerable [230].
All types of erosion cause soil loss, texture changes, reduced water and nutrient soil capacity, reduced phosphorus content, loss of organic matter, disrupted biogeochemical cycles, and reduction of diversity and functions of the soil microbiome [221,231,232,233]. One of the reasons for soil erosion is climate change—strong winds, heavy rainfall, droughts, high air temperatures, and more frequent extreme events [234]. But there are other mechanics contributing to soil loss, like unsustainable agriculture, tillage, overgrazing, leaving the soil without plant cover, and deforestation [225,229]. Protecting the soil from erosion requires applying processes to reverse its causes: no-tillage systems, micro basin tillage, wind breaks, mulching, intercropping, cover crops, catch crops, contour farming, contour terraces, and cultivating grass, geo-textiles, and bunds [224,235].
7.3. Soil Biodiversity
The soil microbiome plays a key role in global carbon and nitrogen cycles. Carbon mineralization and stabilization, as well as binding and releasing greenhouse gases, depend on the soil microbiome. A healthy soil microbiome balances terrestrial and atmospheric carbon stocks [25,236]. However, unsustainable soil management along with the recent changes in climate conditions have directly and indirectly affected the biological properties of soil. Transformation of soil’s physical and chemical properties, like salinity, water content, mobility, and the availability of some compounds, leads to disturbed soil biological quality. Excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, monocultures, and inappropriate cultivation practices lead to massive soil biodiversity loss. On the other hand, there are changes connected with the climate: high air temperatures and disrupted water regimes directly change the abundance and composition of the soil microbiome (bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, archaea) and enzymes [25]. High temperatures initially cause an enhanced growth and respiration of the soil microbiome, which results in higher CO2 emissions and, consequently, in the reduction of substrates and biomass and limited microbial activity [237]. Higher temperatures enhance the growth of the bacteria and fungi responsible for fixing nitrogen, solubilizing phosphorus, and generating enzymatic activity [238]. Generally, microbial responses to changing temperatures are complex and require time to adapt to new conditions [239]. The study by Zhou et al. [240] showed that soil communities needed 10 years to adapt and change their composition and model of substrate use.
Another climatic factor is increased air CO2 levels. Elevated CO2 can enhance carbon transport to the roots and soil microbiome [25]. Similarly to changes in temperature, high soil exposure to CO2 results in changes in the abundance and species composition of the soil microbial community. Some studies show an increase in microbial genes associated with nitrogen and carbon fixation, nitrogen mineralization, denitrification, decomposition, and CH4 metabolism [240,241,242]. Drought is another factor important for soil biodiversity. Drought causes a decline in soil water content, which results in decreased microbial productivity and slower soil organic carbon decomposition and respiration [25,243]. Limited respiration can reduce carbon loss [244]. Droughts, especially prolonged ones, also change plant species, e.g., in meadows and pastures, which also affect the quantity and quality of microbiological populations [245].
Furthermore, the soil microbiome is also a factor contributing to climate change. The effect of many changes to the climate is increased greenhouse gas emissions. Elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, fires, seawater intrusions, increased precipitation, permafrost thawing and increased air temperature—all these factors lead to an increased release of CO2 from the soil. Increased precipitation and permafrost thawing can contribute to the increased release of CH4, which is an especially potent greenhouse gas [25]. Some regions of the world are predicted to experience increased precipitation, and wetter anaerobic conditions result in enhanced methanogenesis and denitrification processes [246]. Amid a changing climate, a dichotomous role of the soil microbiome has emerged; it is both a victim and a cause of these changes. This undoubtedly impacts agriculture, as agroecosystems’ productivity is determined by soil microbiota and its functions. Therefore, it is essential to find and implement concepts protecting and enhancing biodiversity, for example, practices supporting biomass production and its accumulation in the soil, reduction of the usage of mineral fertilizers and pesticides, and promoting organic farming and no-tillage systems. Expanding our knowledge of the changes taking place in the biological properties of soil and its ability to adapt to new conditions is essential to maintaining soil health and improving crop quality [247]. This is a paramount goal, as the microbiome is a foundation for all higher trophic life forms [239].
Due to its global reach, climate change affects agriculture in every part of the world. We must look for techniques to mitigate and adapt to these changes. Traditional agriculture transform and focus on sustainable and nature-friendly solutions. Otherwise, conventional farming methods will exacerbate the problems of soil salinization, erosion, loss of biodiversity, and destabilization of soil carbon storage.
8. Conclusions
The 21st century is a time for fundamental transformation of agriculture. We must move away from the uncontrolled use of natural resources, as it brings disastrous environmental, economic, and social consequences. Both science and technology face a considerable challenge: protect Earth’s natural resources while meeting society’s needs and ensuring healthy food and a healthy environment. The only way forward is a worldwide transition from traditional to sustainable farming. However, the proposed solutions must be well thought out so that society’s food needs are not lost from sight in the pursuit of environmental protection. Implemented pro-environmental solutions must go hand in hand with technological changes. Introducing limitations, e.g., to the use of fertilizers or pesticides, without providing an alternative solution may lead to a destabilization of food security. And food security is critical during times of political instability and armed conflicts, especially now in Russia and Ukraine, leaders in food production.
The aim of the modern soil management is to provide food security, the principal goal of agriculture, while protecting the environment and soil itself, which is a non-renewable resource. Only these two aspects combined can provide for the current and future populations’ needs.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. The leading indicators of soil health most often mentioned in the scientific literature, practical ways to improve these rates, and their impact on terrestrial ecosystems. Compiled based on the sources reviewed in this publication. C—carbon, N—nitrogen, pH—acidity, EC—electrical conductivity, CEC—cation-exchange capacity, SOM—soil organic matter, SOC—soil organic carbon.
The keywords used in the search.
| Chapter | Keywords |
|---|---|
| Introduction | Soil management and sustainable agriculture |
| Soil management in precision agriculture | Precision agriculture, sustainable agriculture and soil management |
| Soil health | Soil quality, the term Soil health, the concept |
| Soil in organic farming | Organic agriculture, organic farming, environmental sustainability, ecosystem management, soil management |
| Nanoparticles (NPs) in sustainable agriculture | Nanotechnology, nanoparticles, nanoscale |
| Climate change | Climate change, sustainable agriculture and soil management |
Primary methods for improving soil health and examples of their limitations.
| Method | Description | Recommended for These Main Benefits | Examples of Their Disadvantages and Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cover Cropping | Growing crops like legumes and grasses during the off-season to cover soil. | Reduces erosion, improves water retention, adds organic matter, and fixes nitrogen. | In water-limited environments, cover crops can deplete soil moisture and lead to reduced yields in subsequent crops [ |
| Crop Rotation | Alternating different crops in the same area across growing seasons. | Breaks pest cycles, reduces diseases, enhances nutrient cycling. | The reliance on specialized equipment and inputs associated with diverse crop rotations [ |
| Conservation Tillage | Minimizing soil disturbance by reducing or eliminating tilling. | Reduces erosion, maintains soil structure, increases organic matter retention. | Conservation tillage systems often lead to higher weed dissemination [ |
| Organic Amendments | Adding compost, manure, or plant residues. | Enhances organic matter, improves nutrient availability, promotes microbial activity. | Organic amendments can provide nutrients at a slower rate, while in regions with poor soil quality, rapid nutrient uptake is crucial [ |
| Green Manure | Growing plants to be plowed into the soil. | Increases organic matter, enhances nitrogen levels, improves soil structure. | In some agricultural systems, the costs associated with green manure cultivation have been found to outweigh the benefits [ |
| Biochar Application | Adding charred organic matter (biochar) to the soil. | Enhances soil structure, increases water retention, reduces nutrient leaching. | Biochars derived from contaminated feedstocks may contain elevated levels of hazardous substances [ |
| Mulching | Covering soil with organic or inorganic materials. | Conserves moisture, adds organic matter. | Mulch can create habitats conducive to pest populations [ |
| Integrating Livestock | Rotational grazing of livestock to naturally fertilize soil. | Adds organic nutrients, stimulates root growth, improves nutrient cycling. | Livestock grazing can increase soil bulk density [ |
| Adding Beneficial Microbes | Introducing microorganisms like mycorrhizal fungi or nitrogen-fixing bacteria. | Enhances nutrient availability, improves root health, promotes disease resistance. | Certain beneficial microbes can lead to a decrease in microbial diversity [ |
| Reducing Chemical Inputs | Minimizing the use of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. | Preserves microbial health, reduces toxic compounds formation, promotes long-term soil fertility. | Financial risk can deter farmers from these practices [ |
References
1. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Drivers and Triggers for Transformation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en]
2. World Population Clock: 8.2 Billion People (LIVE, 2024)—Worldometer. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#table-historical (accessed on 16 September 2024).
3. Yousef, H.A.; Fahmy, H.M.; Arafa, F.N.; Abd Allah, M.Y.; Tawfik, Y.M.; El Halwany, K.K.; El-Ashmanty, B.A.; Al-anany, F.S.; Mohamed, M.A.; Bassily, M.E. Nanotechnology in Pest Management: Advantages, Applications, and Challenges. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci.; 2023; 43, pp. 1387-1399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42690-023-01053-z]
4. Farmery, A.K.; Allison, E.H.; Andrew, N.L.; Troell, M.; Voyer, M.; Campbell, B.; Eriksson, H.; Fabinyi, M.; Song, A.M.; Steenbergen, D. Blind Spots in Visions of a “Blue Economy” Could Undermine the Ocean’s Contribution to Eliminating Hunger and Malnutrition. One Earth; 2021; 4, pp. 28-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.002]
5. Meemken, E.M.; Qaim, M. Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.; 2018; 10, pp. 39-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023252]
6. Viscarra Rossel, R.A.; Bouma, J. Soil Sensing: A New Paradigm for Agriculture. Agric. Syst.; 2016; 148, pp. 71-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.07.001]
7. Zhao, J.; Zhou, N. Impact of Human Health on Economic Growth under the Constraint of Environment Pollution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2021; 169, 120828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120828]
8. Jahanger, A.; Usman, M.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. The Linkages between Natural Resources, Human Capital, Globalization, Economic Growth, Financial Development, and Ecological Footprint: The Moderating Role of Technological Innovations. Resour. Policy; 2022; 76, 102569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569]
9. Muhie, S.H. Novel Approaches and Practices to Sustainable Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res.; 2022; 10, 100446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100446]
10. Clunes, J.; Valle, S.; Dörner, J.; Martínez, O.; Pinochet, D.; Zúñiga, F.; Blum, W.E.H. Soil Fragility: A Concept to Ensure a Sustainable Use of Soils. Ecol. Indic.; 2022; 139, 108969. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108969]
11. Krol, D.J.; Forrestal, P.J.; Wall, D.; Lanigan, G.J.; Sanz-Gomez, J.; Richards, K.G. Nitrogen Fertilisers with Urease Inhibitors Reduce Nitrous Oxide and Ammonia Losses, While Retaining Yield in Temperate Grassland. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 725, 138329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138329]
12. Paungfoo-Lonhienne, C.; Redding, M.; Pratt, C.; Wang, W. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Increase the Efficiency of Fertilisers While Reducing Nitrogen Loss. J. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 233, pp. 337-341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.052]
13. Popović, T.; Mijović, S.; Pajović Šćepanović, R.; Raičević, D. Analysis of Possibilities of Reducing the Quantity of Mineral Fertilizer Application Using Different Types of Organic Fertilizers in Cardinal Grape Variety. Agric. For.; 2020; 66, 261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.66.1.24]
14. Dhaliwal, S.S.; Naresh, R.K.; Mandal, A.; Singh, R.; Dhaliwal, M.K. Dynamics and Transformations of Micronutrients in Agricultural Soils as Influenced by Organic Matter Build-up: A Review. Environ. Sustain. Indic.; 2019; 1–2, 100007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2019.100007]
15. Springmann, M.; Clark, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Wiebe, K.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Lassaletta, L.; de Vries, W.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Herrero, M.; Carlson, K.M. et al. Options for Keeping the Food System within Environmental Limits. Nature; 2018; 562, pp. 519-525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0]
16. EUR-Lex—52022DC0230—EN—EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A230%3AFIN (accessed on 16 September 2024).
17. Schebesta, H.; Bernaz, N.; Macchi, C. The European Union Farm to Fork Strategy: Sustainability and Responsible Business in the Food Supply Chain. Eur. Food Feed. Law. Rev.; 2020; 15, pp. 420-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3809931]
18. EUR-Lex—52020DC0381—EN—EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381 (accessed on 19 September 2024).
19. Goyal, V.; Rani, D.; Ritika,; Mehrotra, S.; Deng, C.; Wang, Y. Unlocking the Potential of Nano-Enabled Precision Agriculture for Efficient and Sustainable Farming. Plants; 2023; 12, 3744. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants12213744] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37960100]
20. Zain, M.; Ma, H.; Ur Rahman, S.; Nuruzzaman, M.; Chaudhary, S.; Azeem, I.; Mehmood, F.; Duan, A.; Sun, C. Nanotechnology in Precision Agriculture: Advancing towards Sustainable Crop Production. Plant Physiol. Biochem.; 2024; 206, 108244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108244]
21. Ndaba, B.; Roopnarain, A.; Rama, H.; Maaza, M. Biosynthesized Metallic Nanoparticles as Fertilizers: An Emerging Precision Agriculture Strategy. J. Integr. Agric.; 2022; 21, pp. 1225-1242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63751-6]
22. Gamage, A.; Gangahagedara, R.; Gamage, J.; Jayasinghe, N.; Kodikara, N.; Suraweera, P.; Merah, O. Role of Organic Farming for Achieving Sustainability in Agriculture. Farming Syst.; 2023; 1, 100005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100005]
23. Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Sargani, G.R.; Ihtisham, M.; Khayyam, M.; Ismail, S. Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 4883. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13094883]
24. Takahashi, K.; Muraoka, R.; Otsuka, K. Technology Adoption, Impact, and Extension in Developing Countries’ Agriculture: A Review of the Recent Literature. Agric. Econ.; 2020; 51, pp. 31-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12539]
25. Jansson, J.K.; Hofmockel, K.S. Soil Microbiomes and Climate Change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2019; 18, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0265-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31586158]
26. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031318]
27. Placidi, P.; Morbidelli, R.; Fortunati, D.; Papini, N.; Gobbi, F.; Scorzoni, A. Monitoring Soil and Ambient Parameters in the Iot Precision Agriculture Scenario: An Original Modeling Approach Dedicated to Low-Cost Soil Water Content Sensors. Sensors; 2021; 21, 5110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21155110]
28. Ferrari, R. Writing Narrative Style Literature Reviews. Med. Writ.; 2015; 24, pp. 230-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329]
29. Argento, F.; Anken, T.; Abt, F.; Vogelsanger, E.; Walter, A.; Liebisch, F. Site-Specific Nitrogen Management in Winter Wheat Supported by Low-Altitude Remote Sensing and Soil Data. Precis. Agric.; 2021; 22, pp. 364-386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09733-3]
30. Monteiro, A.; Santos, S.; Gonçalves, P. Precision Agriculture for Crop and Livestock Farming—Brief Review. Animals; 2021; 11, 2345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11082345]
31. Sishodia, R.P.; Ray, R.L.; Singh, S.K. Applications of Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture: A Review. Remote Sens.; 2020; 12, 3136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs12193136]
32. Bramley, R.G.V.; Ouzman, J.; Gobbett, D.L. Regional Scale Application of the Precision Agriculture Thought Process to Promote Improved Fertilizer Management in the Australian Sugar Industry. Precis. Agric.; 2019; 20, pp. 362-378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11119-018-9571-8]
33. Thompson, N.M.; Bir, C.; Widmar, D.A.; Mintert, J.R. Farmer perceptions of precision agriculture technology benefits. J. Agric. Appl. Econ.; 2019; 51, pp. 142-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/aae.2018.27]
34. Devlin, M.; Brodie, J. Nutrients and Eutrophication. Geogr. Environ.; 2023; 4, pp. 75-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10127-4_4]
35. Picetti, R.; Deeney, M.; Pastorino, S.; Miller, M.R.; Shah, A.; Leon, D.A.; Dangour, A.D.; Green, R. Nitrate and Nitrite Contamination in Drinking Water and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Environ. Res.; 2022; 210, 112988. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112988] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35217009]
36. Menegat, S.; Ledo, A.; Tirado, R. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Production and Use of Nitrogen Synthetic Fertilisers in Agriculture. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 14490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18773-w]
37. Pradipta, A.; Soupios, P.; Kourgialas, N.; Doula, M.; Dokou, Z.; Makkawi, M.; Alfarhan, M.; Tawabini, B.; Kirmizakis, P.; Yassin, M. Remote Sensing, Geophysics, and Modeling to Support Precision Agriculture—Part 1: Soil Applications. Water; 2022; 14, 1158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w14071158]
38. Shafi, U.; Mumtaz, R.; García-Nieto, J.; Hassan, S.A.; Zaidi, S.A.R.; Iqbal, N. Precision Agriculture Techniques and Practices: From Considerations to Applications. Sensors; 2019; 19, 3796. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19173796]
39. Shaheb, M.d.R.; Sarker, A.; Shearer, S.A.; Shaheb, M.d.R.; Sarker, A.; Shearer, S.A. Precision Agriculture for Sustainable Soil and Crop Management. Soil Science—Emerging Technologies, Global Perspectives and Applications; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.101759]
40. Ahmadi, A.; Emami, M.; Daccache, A.; He, L.; Barbero, F. Soil Properties Prediction for Precision Agriculture Using Visible and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030433]
41. Huuskonen, J.; Oksanen, T. Soil Sampling with Drones and Augmented Reality in Precision Agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric.; 2018; 154, pp. 25-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.08.039]
42. Yin, H.; Cao, Y.; Marelli, B.; Zeng, X.; Mason, A.J.; Cao, C.; Yin, H.; Mason, A.J.; Cao, C.; Cao, Y. et al. Soil Sensors and Plant Wearables for Smart and Precision Agriculture. Adv. Mater.; 2021; 33, 2007764. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.202007764] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33829545]
43. Akhtar, M.N.; Shaikh, A.J.; Khan, A.; Awais, H.; Bakar, E.A.; Othman, A.R. Smart Sensing with Edge Computing in Precision Agriculture for Soil Assessment and Heavy Metal Monitoring: A Review. Agriculture; 2021; 11, 475. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11060475]
44. Guerrero, A.; De Neve, S.; Mouazen, A.M. Current Sensor Technologies for in Situ and On-Line Measurement of Soil Nitrogen for Variable Rate Fertilization: A Review. Adv. Agron.; 2021; 168, pp. 1-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/BS.AGRON.2021.02.001]
45. Higgins, S.; Schellberg, J.; Bailey, J.S. Improving Productivity and Increasing the Efficiency of Soil Nutrient Management on Grassland Farms in the UK and Ireland Using Precision Agriculture Technology. Eur. J. Agron.; 2019; 106, pp. 67-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.04.001]
46. Smolka, M.; Puchberger-Enengl, D.; Bipoun, M.; Klasa, A.; Kiczkajlo, M.; Śmiechowski, W.; Sowiński, P.; Krutzler, C.; Keplinger, F.; Vellekoop, M.J. A Mobile Lab-on-a-Chip Device for on-Site Soil Nutrient Analysis. Precis. Agric.; 2017; 18, pp. 152-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9452-y]
47. Križanović, V.; Grgić, K.; Spišić, J.; Žagar, D. An Advanced Energy-Efficient Environmental Monitoring in Precision Agriculture Using LoRa-Based Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors; 2023; 23, 6332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23146332] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37514629]
48. Thakur, D.; Kumar, Y.; Kumar, A.; Singh, P.K. Applicability of Wireless Sensor Networks in Precision Agriculture: A Review Abbreviations APTEEN Adaptive Periodic Threshold-Sensitive Energy Efficient Sensor Network Protocol AMSR-E Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System. Wirel. Pers. Commun.; 2019; 107, pp. 471-512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11277-019-06285-2]
49. Rogovska, N.; Laird, D.A.; Chiou, C.P.; Bond, L.J. Development of Field Mobile Soil Nitrate Sensor Technology to Facilitate Precision Fertilizer Management. Precis. Agric.; 2019; 20, pp. 40-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11119-018-9579-0]
50. Mukherjee, A.; Misra, S.; Raghuwanshi, N.S. A Survey of Unmanned Aerial Sensing Solutions in Precision Agriculture. J. Netw. Comput. Appl.; 2019; 148, 102461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2019.102461]
51. Phang, S.K.; Chiang, T.H.A.; Happonen, A.; Chang, M.M.L. From Satellite to UAV-Based Remote Sensing: A Review on Precision Agriculture. IEEE Access; 2023; 11, pp. 127057-127076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3330886]
52. Singh, P.; Pandey, P.C.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Pavlides, A.; Srivastava, P.K.; Koutsias, N.; Deng, K.A.K.; Bao, Y. Hyperspectral Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture: Present Status, Challenges, and Future Trends. Hyperspectral Remote Sensing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 121-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102894-0.00009-7]
53. Khanal, S.; Kushal, K.C.; Fulton, J.P.; Shearer, S.; Ozkan, E. Remote Sensing in Agriculture—Accomplishments, Limitations, and Opportunities. Remote Sens.; 2020; 12, 3783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs12223783]
54. Liu, J.; Xiang, J.; Jin, Y.; Liu, R.; Yan, J.; Wang, L. Boost Precision Agriculture with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing and Edge Intelligence: A Survey. Remote Sens.; 2021; 13, 4387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13214387]
55. Martos, V.; Ahmad, A.; Cartujo, P.; Ordoñez, J. Ensuring Agricultural Sustainability through Remote Sensing in the Era of Agriculture 5.0. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 5911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11135911]
56. Angelopoulou, T.; Tziolas, N.; Balafoutis, A.; Zalidis, G.; Bochtis, D. Remote Sensing Techniques for Soil Organic Carbon Estimation: A Review. Remote Sens.; 2019; 11, 676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs11060676]
57. Paustian, K.; Collier, S.; Baldock, J.; Burgess, R.; Creque, J.; DeLonge, M.; Dungait, J.; Ellert, B.; Frank, S.; Goddard, T. et al. Quantifying Carbon for Agricultural Soil Management: From the Current Status toward a Global Soil Information System. Carbon Management; Taylor and Francis Ltd.: Abingdon, UK, 2019; pp. 567-587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1633231]
58. Louw, A.S.; Chen, X.; Avtar, R. Assessing the Accuracy of an Infrared-Converted Drone Camera with Orange-Cyan-NIR Filter for Vegetation and Environmental Monitoring. Remote Sens. Appl.; 2024; 35, 101229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2024.101229]
59. Lu, M.; Wang, H.; Xu, J.; Wei, Z.; Li, Y.; Hu, J.; Tian, S. A Vis/NIRS Device for Evaluating Leaf Nitrogen Content Using K-Means Algorithm and Feature Extraction Methods. Comput. Electron. Agric.; 2024; 225, 109301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2024.109301]
60. Amanor, I.N.; Ricardo, O.A.; Noguchi, N. Assessment of Remote Sensing in Measuring Soil Parameters for Precision Tillage. J. Terramechanics; 2024; 113–114, 100973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2024.100973]
61. Gholizadeh, A.; Kopačková, V. Detecting Vegetation Stress as a Soil Contamination Proxy: A Review of Optical Proximal and Remote Sensing Techniques. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 16, pp. 2511-2524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02310-w]
62. Sahabiev, I.; Smirnova, E.; Giniyatullin, K. Spatial Prediction of Agrochemical Properties on the Scale of a Single Field Using Machine Learning Methods Based on Remote Sensing Data. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 2266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112266]
63. Shahriari, M.; Delbari, M.; Afrasiab, P.; Pahlavan-Rad, M.R. Predicting Regional Spatial Distribution of Soil Texture in Floodplains Using Remote Sensing Data: A Case of Southeastern Iran. Catena; 2019; 182, 104149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104149]
64. Nijak, M.; Skrzypczyński, P.; Ćwian, K.; Zawada, M.; Szymczyk, S.; Wojciechowski, J. On the Importance of Precise Positioning in Robotised Agriculture. Remote Sens.; 2024; 16, 985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs16060985]
65. Perez-Ruiz, M.; Martínez-Guanter, J.; Upadhyaya, S.K. High-Precision GNSS for Agricultural Operations. GPS and GNSS Technology in Geosciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 299-335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818617-6.00017-2]
66. Kowalczyk, W.Z.; Hadas, T. A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Various GNSS Positioning Concepts Dedicated to Precision Agriculture. Rep. Geod. Geoinform.; 2024; 117, pp. 11-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/rgg-2024-0002]
67. Lange, A.F.; Peake, J. Precision Agriculture. Position, Navigation, and Timing Technologies in the 21st Century; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; Volume 2, pp. 1735-1747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119458555.CH56]
68. Tayebi, A.; Gómez, J.; Fernández, M.; de Adana, F.S.; Gutiérrez, O. Low-Cost Experimental Application of Real-Time Kinematic Positioning for Increasing the Benefits in Cereal Crops. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng.; 2021; 14, pp. 194-199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20211403.5812]
69. Barna, R.; Tóth, K.; Nagy, M.Z.; Solymosi, K. Technical Characteristics of Global Navigation Satellite Systems and Their Role in Precision Agriculture. J. Agric. Inform.; 2020; 11, pp. 52-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17700/jai.2020.11.1.573]
70. Radočaj, D.; Jurišić, M.; Gašparović, M. The Role of Remote Sensing Data and Methods in a Modern Approach to Fertilization in Precision Agriculture. Remote Sens.; 2022; 14, 778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs14030778]
71. Wołejko, E.; Jabłońska-Trypuć, A.; Wydro, U.; Butarewicz, A.; Łozowicka, B. Soil Biological Activity as an Indicator of Soil Pollution with Pesticides—A Review. Appl. Soil Ecol.; 2020; 147, 103356. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.09.006]
72. Maja, M.M.; Ayano, S.F. The Impact of Population Growth on Natural Resources and Farmers’ Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change in Low-Income Countries. Earth Syst. Environ.; 2021; 5, pp. 271-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00209-6]
73. Lehmann, J.; Bossio, D.A.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Rillig, M.C. The Concept and Future Prospects of Soil Health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.; 2020; 1, pp. 544-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8]
74. Powlson, D.S. Is ‘Soil Health’ Meaningful as a Scientific Concept or as Terminology?. Soil Use Manag.; 2021; 37, 403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12721]
75. Baveye, P.C. Soil Health at a Crossroad. Soil Use Manag.; 2021; 37, 215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12703]
76. Lal, R.; Rattan Lal, C. Managing Soils for Resolving the Conflict between Agriculture and Nature: The Hard Talk. Eur. J. Soil Sci.; 2020; 71, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12857]
77. Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A Multidisciplinary Comparison of Coverage via Citations. Scientometrics; 2021; 126, pp. 871-906. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4]
78. “Google” Mokslinčius. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed on 1 September 2024).
79. Chen, Y. Withdrawal of European Soil Framework Directive: Reasons and Recommendations. J. Sustain. Dev.; 2019; 13, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v13n1p1]
80. Zeiss, R.; Eisenhauer, N.; Orgiazzi, A.; Rillig, M.; Buscot, F.; Jones, A.; Lehmann, A.; Reitz, T.; Smith, L.; Guerra, C.A. Challenges of and Opportunities for Protecting European Soil Biodiversity. Conserv. Biol.; 2022; 36, e13930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13930]
81. Panagos, P.; Broothaerts, N.; Ballabio, C.; Orgiazzi, A.; De Rosa, D.; Borrelli, P.; Liakos, L.; Vieira, D.; Van Eynde, E.; Arias Navarro, C. et al. How the EU Soil Observatory Is Providing Solid Science for Healthy Soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci.; 2024; 75, e13507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13507]
82. Veenstra, J.; Coquet, Y.; Melot, R.; Walter, C. A European Stakeholder Survey on Soil Science Skills for Sustainable Agriculture. Eur. J. Soil Sci.; 2024; 75, e13449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13449]
83. Fetting, C. The European Green Deal. ESDN Report. 2020; Available online: https://www.newcaets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NATF-France-July-2021.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2024).
84. ESDAC—European Commission. Available online: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed on 27 August 2024).
85. EUSO—ESDAC—European Commission. Available online: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/euso (accessed on 27 August 2024).
86. Panagos, P.; Van Liedekerke, M.; Borrelli, P.; Köninger, J.; Ballabio, C.; Orgiazzi, A.; Lugato, E.; Liakos, L.; Hervas, J.; Jones, A. et al. European Soil Data Centre 2.0: Soil Data and Knowledge in Support of the EU Policies. Eur. J. Soil Sci.; 2022; 73, e13315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13315]
87. European Soil Partnership: European Soil Partnership. Available online: https://www.europeansoilpartnership.org/ (accessed on 31 August 2024).
88. Soil Strategy—European Commission. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/soil-and-land/soil-strategy_en (accessed on 31 August 2024).
89. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://Sdgs.Un.Org/Goals/Goal2 (accessed on 23 October 2024).
90. The Paris Climate Agreement. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2024).
91. The United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Health Principles. Available online: https://Www.Usda.Gov/Peoples-Garden/Soil-Health (accessed on 23 October 2024).
92. The African Union Agenda 2063. Available online: https://au.int/en/agenda2063/overview (accessed on 23 October 2024).
93. The Latin American Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. Available online: https://www.mockcop.org/the-latin-american-declaration-is-here/ (accessed on 23 October 2024).
94. Van Leeuwen, J.P.; Saby, N.P.A.; Jones, A.; Louwagie, G.; Micheli, E.; Rutgers, M.; Schulte, R.P.O.; Spiegel, H.; Toth, G.; Creamer, R.E. Gap Assessment in Current Soil Monitoring Networks across Europe for Measuring Soil Functions. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2017; 12, 124007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5c]
95. Panagos, P.; Montanarella, L.; Barbero, M.; Schneegans, A.; Aguglia, L.; Jones, A. Soil Priorities in the European Union. Geoderma Reg.; 2022; 29, e00510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2022.e00510]
96. Pe’er, G.; Bonn, A.; Bruelheide, H.; Dieker, P.; Eisenhauer, N.; Feindt, P.H.; Hagedorn, G.; Hansjürgens, B.; Herzon, I.; Lomba, Â. et al. Action Needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to Address Sustainability Challenges. People Nat.; 2020; 2, pp. 305-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10080]
97. Handayani, I.P.; Hale, C. Healthy Soils for Productivity and Sustainable Development in Agriculture. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2022; 1018, 012038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1018/1/012038]
98. Hu, Y.; Zhao, T.; Guo, Y.; Wang, M.; Brachhold, K.; Chu, C.; Hanson, A.; Kumar, S.; Lin, R.; Long, W. et al. 100 Essential Questions for the Future of Agriculture. Mod. Agric.; 2023; 1, pp. 4-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/moda.5]
99. Lal, R. Soil Health and Carbon Management. Food Energy Secur.; 2016; 5, pp. 212-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fes3.96]
100. Lehman, R.M.; Cambardella, C.A.; Stott, D.E.; Acosta-Martinez, V.; Manter, D.K.; Buyer, J.S.; Maul, J.E.; Smith, J.L.; Collins, H.P.; Halvorson, J.J. et al. Understanding and Enhancing Soil Biological Health: The Solution for Reversing Soil Degradation. Sustainability; 2015; 7, pp. 988-1027. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7010988]
101. Vasu, D.; Tiwary, P.; Chandran, P.; Singh, S.K. Soil Quality for Sustainable Agriculture. Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 41-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8660-2_2]
102. Lal, R.; Rattan Lal, C. Digging Deeper: A Holistic Perspective of Factors Affecting Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2018; 24, pp. 3285-3301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14054]
103. Poeplau, C.; Don, A. A Simple Soil Organic Carbon Level Metric beyond the Organic Carbon-to-Clay Ratio. Soil Use Manag.; 2023; 39, pp. 1057-1067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sum.12921]
104. Wade, J.; Culman, S.W.; Logan, J.A.R.; Poffenbarger, H.; Demyan, M.S.; Grove, J.H.; Mallarino, A.P.; McGrath, J.M.; Ruark, M.; West, J.R. Improved Soil Biological Health Increases Corn Grain Yield in N Fertilized Systems across the Corn Belt. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 3917. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60987-3]
105. Dewi, R.K.; Fukuda, M.; Takashima, N.; Yagioka, A.; Komatsuzaki, M. Soil Carbon Sequestration and Soil Quality Change between No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage Soil Management after 3 and 11 Years of Organic Farming. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.; 2022; 68, pp. 133-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2021.1997552]
106. Cotrufo, M.F.; Lavallee, J.M. Soil Organic Matter Formation, Persistence, and Functioning: A Synthesis of Current Understanding to Inform Its Conservation and Regeneration. Adv. Agron.; 2022; 172, pp. 1-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2021.11.002]
107. Laik, R.; Kumara, B.H.; Pramanick, B.; Singh, S.K.; Nidhi,; Alhomrani, M.; Gaber, A.; Hossain, A. Labile Soil Organic Matter Pools Are Influenced by 45 Years of Applied Farmyard Manure and Mineral Nitrogen in the Wheat—Pearl Millet Cropping System in the Subtropical Condition. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 2190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112190]
108. Mhuireach, G.A.; Dietz, L.; Gillett, T. One or Many? Multi-Species Livestock Grazing Influences Soil Microbiome Community Structure and Antibiotic Resistance Potential. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2022; 6, 926824. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.926824]
109. Kimmell, L.B.; Fagan, J.M.; Havrilla, C.A. Soil Restoration Increases Soil Health across Global Drylands: A Meta-Analysis. J. Appl. Ecol.; 2023; 60, pp. 1939-1951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14459]
110. Nunes, M.R.; Karlen, D.L.; Moorman, T.B. Tillage Intensity Effects on Soil Structure Indicators—A US Meta-Analysis. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12052071]
111. Loaiza Puerta, V.; Pujol Pereira, E.I.; Wittwer, R.; van der Heijden, M.; Six, J. Improvement of Soil Structure through Organic Crop Management, Conservation Tillage and Grass-Clover Ley. Soil Tillage Res.; 2018; 180, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.02.007]
112. Ye, R.; Parajuli, B.; Szogi, A.A.; Sigua, G.C.; Ducey, T.F. Soil Health Assessment after 40 Years of Conservation and Conventional Tillage Management in Southeastern Coastal Plain Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.; 2021; 85, pp. 1214-1225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20246]
113. Mulatu, G. Influence of Conservation Agriculture on Certain Soil Qualities Both Physical and Chemical in Relation to Sustainable Agriculture Practices a Review. Int. J. Biochem. Biophys. Mol. Biol.; 2024; 9, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijbbmb.20240901.11]
114. Krauss, M.; Berner, A.; Perrochet, F.; Frei, R.; Niggli, U.; Mäder, P. Enhanced Soil Quality with Reduced Tillage and Solid Manures in Organic Farming—A Synthesis of 15 Years. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 4403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61320-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32157154]
115. Sprunger, C.D.; Martin, T.; Mann, M. Systems with Greater Perenniality and Crop Diversity Enhance Soil Biological Health. Agric. Environ. Lett.; 2020; 5, e20030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20030]
116. Sellami, M.H.; Lavini, A. Advancements in Soil and Sustainable Agriculture. Soil Syst.; 2023; 7, 98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7040098]
117. Pandao, M.R.; Jejal, A.D.; Shukla, E.P.; Prabhumitrareddy, S.; Rout, S.; Baral, K.; Bhadani, M. Unlocking the Benefits of Carbon Sequestration for Enhancing Soil Health. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Chang.; 2023; 13, pp. 1349-1359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i123803]
118. Jackson, R.B.; Lajtha, K.; Crow, S.E.; Hugelius, G.; Kramer, M.G.; Piñeiro, G. The Ecology of Soil Carbon: Pools, Vulnerabilities, and Biotic and Abiotic Controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.; 2017; 48, pp. 419-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234]
119. Lei, X.; Shen, Y.; Zhao, J.; Huang, J.; Wang, H.; Yu, Y.; Xiao, C. Root Exudates Mediate the Processes of Soil Organic Carbon Input and Efflux. Plants; 2023; 12, 630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants12030630]
120. Sokol, N.W.; Kuebbing, S.E.; Karlsen-Ayala, E.; Bradford, M.A. Evidence for the Primacy of Living Root Inputs, Not Root or Shoot Litter, in Forming Soil Organic Carbon. New Phytol.; 2019; 221, pp. 233-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.15361]
121. Keller, A.B.; Brzostek, E.R.; Craig, M.E.; Fisher, J.B.; Phillips, R.P. Root-Derived Inputs Are Major Contributors to Soil Carbon in Temperate Forests, but Vary by Mycorrhizal Type. Ecol. Lett.; 2021; 24, pp. 626-635. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.13651]
122. Dijkstra, F.A.; Zhu, B.; Cheng, W. Root Effects on Soil Organic Carbon: A Double-Edged Sword. New Phytol.; 2021; 230, pp. 60-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.17082] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33197279]
123. Wei, L.; Vosátka, M.; Cai, B.; Ding, J.; Lu, C.; Xu, J.; Yan, W.; Li, Y.; Liu, C. The Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Fungi in the Decomposition of Fresh Residue and Soil Organic Carbon: A Mini-Review. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.; 2019; 83, pp. 511-517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.05.0205]
124. Yao, Y.; Dai, Q.; Gao, R.; Yi, X.; Wang, Y.; Hu, Z. Characteristics and Factors Influencing Soil Organic Carbon Composition by Vegetation Type in Spoil Heaps. Front. Plant Sci.; 2023; 14, 1240217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1240217] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37900766]
125. Su, J.; Xu, F. Root, Not Aboveground Litter, Controls Soil Carbon Storage under Grazing Exclusion across Grasslands Worldwide. Land. Degrad. Dev.; 2021; 32, pp. 3326-3337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4008]
126. Sun, G.; Zhu-Barker, X.; Chen, D.; Liu, L.; Zhang, N.; Shi, C.; He, L.; Lei, Y. Responses of Root Exudation and Nutrient Cycling to Grazing Intensities and Recovery Practices in an Alpine Meadow: An Implication for Pasture Management. Plant Soil; 2017; 416, pp. 515-525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3236-7]
127. Holman, J.D.; Obour, A.K.; Assefa, Y. Fallow Replacement Cover Crops in a Semi-Arid High Plains Cropping System. Crop Sci.; 2021; 61, pp. 3799-3814. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20543]
128. Shekoofa, A.; Safikhan, S.; Raper, T.B.; Butler, S.A. Allelopathic Impacts of Cover Crop Species and Termination Timing on Cotton Germination and Seedling Growth. Agronomy; 2020; 10, 638. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050638]
129. Gütschow, M.; Bartkowski, B.; Felipe-Lucia, M.R. Farmers’ Action Space to Adopt Sustainable Practices: A Study of Arable Farming in Saxony. Reg. Environ. Chang.; 2021; 21, 103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01848-1]
130. Chen, S.; Wang, L.; Gao, J.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Qi, J.; Peng, Z.; Chen, B.; Pan, H.; Wang, Z. et al. Agricultural Management Drive Bacterial Community Assembly in Different Compartments of Soybean Soil-Plant Continuum. Front. Microbiol.; 2022; 13, 868307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.868307]
131. Gagliardi, L.; Sportelli, M.; Fontanelli, M.; Sbrana, M.; Luglio, S.M.; Raffaelli, M.; Peruzzi, A. Effects of Conservation Agriculture Practices on Tomato Yield and Economic Performance. Agronomy; 2023; 13, 1704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071704]
132. Li, X.; Storkey, J.; Mead, A.; Shield, I.; Clark, I.; Ostler, R.; Roberts, B.; Dobermann, A. A New Rothamsted Long-Term Field Experiment for the Twenty-First Century: Principles and Practice. Agron. Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 43, 60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00914-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37637434]
133. Guan, X.; Cheng, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhao, R.; Guo, Z.; Zhao, T.; Huang, L.; Qiu, C.; Shi, W. et al. Mixed Organic and Inorganic Amendments Enhance Soil Microbial Interactions and Environmental Stress Resistance of Tibetan Barley on Plateau Farmland. J. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 330, 117137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117137] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36584462]
134. Ray, R.L.; Griffin, R.W.; Fares, A.; Elhassan, A.; Awal, R.; Woldesenbet, S.; Risch, E. Soil CO2 Emission in Response to Organic Amendments, Temperature, and Rainfall. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 5849. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62267-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32246078]
135. Bosco, S.; Volpi, I.; Antichi, D.; Ragaglini, G.; Frasconi, C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Soil Cultivated with Vegetables in Crop Rotation under Integrated, Organic and Organic Conservation Management in a Mediterranean Environment. Agronomy; 2019; 9, 446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9080446]
136. Flesch, F.; Berger, P.; Robles-Vargas, D.; Santos-Medrano, G.E.; Rico-Martínez, R. Characterization and Determination of the Toxicological Risk of Biochar Using Invertebrate Toxicity Tests in the State of Aguascalientes, México. Appl. Sci.; 2019; 9, 1706. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9081706]
137. Lieke, T.; Zhang, X.; Steinberg, C.E.W.; Pan, B. Overlooked Risks of Biochars: Persistent Free Radicals Trigger Neurotoxicity in Caenorhabditis Elegans. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2018; 52, pp. 7981-7987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01338]
138. Antal, G.; Szabó, S.; Szarvas, P.; Holb, I.J. Yield and Cost–Benefit Analyses for Apple Scab Sanitation Practices in Integrated and Organic Apple Management Systems. Plants People Planet; 2024; 6, pp. 470-489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10460]
139. Long, B.; Li, F.; Wang, K.; Huang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Xie, D. Impact of Plastic Film Mulching on Microplastic in Farmland Soils in Guangdong Province, China. Heliyon; 2023; 9, e16587. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16587] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37292288]
140. Lulandala, L.; Bargués-Tobella, A.; Masao, C.A.; Nyberg, G.; Ilstedt, U. Excessive Livestock Grazing Overrides the Positive Effects of Trees on Infiltration Capacity and Modifies Preferential Flow in Dry Miombo Woodlands. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2022; 33, pp. 581-595. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4149]
141. Zhang, Z.W.; Li, Q.; Zhang, H.Y.; Hu, Y.Y.; Hou, S.L.; Wei, H.W.; Yin, J.X.; Xiao-Tao, L. The Impacts of Nutrient Addition and Livestock Exclosure on the Soil Nematode Community in a Degraded Grassland. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2019; 30, pp. 1574-1583. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3344]
142. Wang, X.; Ji, C.; Song, X.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Li, H.; Gao, Q.; Li, C.; Zheng, R.; Han, X. et al. Biocontrol of Two Bacterial Inoculant Strains and Their Effects on the Rhizosphere Microbial Community of Field-Grown Wheat. Biomed Res. Int.; 2021; 2021, 8835275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8835275] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33506038]
143. Ashwin, R.; Bagyaraj, D.J.; Mohan Raju, B. Ameliorating the Drought Stress Tolerance of a Susceptible Soybean Cultivar, MAUS 2 through Dual Inoculation with Selected Rhizobia and AM Fungus. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol.; 2023; 10, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40694-023-00157-y]
144. Christopher, J. Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices in the United States: A Study on Farmer Behavior. Int. J. Agric.; 2024; 9, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47604/ija.2533]
145. Dubbert, C.; Abdulai, A.; Mohammed, S. Contract Farming and the Adoption of Sustainable Farm Practices: Empirical Evidence from Cashew Farmers in Ghana. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy; 2023; 45, pp. 487-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13212]
146. Sikandar, F.; Erokhin, V.; Xin, L.; Sidorova, M.; Ivolga, A.; Bobryshev, A. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Poverty Eradication in Pakistan: The Role of Foreign Aid and Government Policies. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 14751. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142214751]
147. Dubey, P.K.; Singh, A.; Chaurasia, R.; Pandey, K.K.; Bundela, A.K.; Dubey, R.K.; Abhilash, P.C. Planet Friendly Agriculture: Farming for People and the Planet. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain.; 2021; 3, 100041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100041]
148. Manono, B.O.; Moller, H.; Benge, J.; Carey, P.; Lucock, D.; Manhire, J. Assessment of Soil Properties and Earthworms in Organic and Conventional Farming Systems after Seven Years of Dairy Farm Conversions in New Zealand. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2019; 43, pp. 678-704. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1570997]
149. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products and Repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/834/oj (accessed on 23 October 2024).
150. Antczak, E. Analyzing Spatiotemporal Development of Organic Farming in Poland. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 10399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su131810399]
151. Organic Farming in the EU. A Decade of Organic Growth. In Agricultural Market Brief. N°20; January 2023. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/news/organic-farming-eu-decade-growth-2023-01-18_en (accessed on 23 October 2024).
152. Kunlanit, B.; Butnan, S.; Vityakon, P. Land–Use Changes Influencing C Sequestration and Quality in Topsoil and Subsoil. Agronomy; 2019; 9, 520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090520]
153. Soni, R.; Gupta, R.; Agarwal, P.; Mishra, R. Organic Farming: A Sustainable Agricultural Practice. Vantage J. Themat. Anal.; 2022; 3, pp. 21-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52253/vjta.2022.v03i01.03]
154. Williams, D.M.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Francis, C.A.; Galusha, T.D. Organic Farming and Soil Physical Properties: An Assessment after 40 Years. Agron. J.; 2017; 109, pp. 600-609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.06.0372]
155. Arlauskiene, A.; Jablonskyte-Rasce, D.; Slepetiene, A. Effect of Legume and Legume-Festulolium Mixture and Their Mulches on Cereal Yield and Soil Quality in Organic Farming. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.; 2020; 66, pp. 1058-1073. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1652816]
156. Slepetiene, A. Ecologically Grown Agricultural Swards as Factor for the Biodiversity and SOC Increasing. JOJ Wildl. Biodivers.; 2023; 4, 555648.
157. Barbieri, P.; Pellerin, S.; Nesme, T. Comparing Crop Rotations between Organic and Conventional Farming. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 13761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14271-6]
158. Feiziene, D.; Feiza, V.; Povilaitis, V.; Putramentaite, A.; Janusauskaite, D.; Seibutis, V.; Slepetys, J. Soil Sustainability Changes in Organic Crop Rotations with Diverse Crop Species and the Share of Legumes. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil. Plant Sci.; 2016; 66, pp. 36-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2015.1063683]
159. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Organic Agriculture and Climate Change; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17215-1]
160. Kühnel, A.; Garcia-Franco, N.; Wiesmeier, M.; Burmeister, J.; Hobley, E.; Kiese, R.; Dannenmann, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Controlling Factors of Carbon Dynamics in Grassland Soils of Bavaria between 1989 and 2016. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.; 2019; 280, pp. 118-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.036]
161. Peigné, J.; Casagrande, M.; Payet, V.; David, C.; Sans, F.X.; Blanco-Moreno, J.M.; Cooper, J.; Gascoyne, K.; Antichi, D.; Bàrberi, P. et al. How Organic Farmers Practice Conservation Agriculture in Europe. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2016; 31, pp. 72-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170514000477]
162. Adamchak, R. Organic Farming. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/organic-farming (accessed on 20 September 2024).
163. Guenet, B.; Camino-Serrano, M.; Ciais, P.; Tifafi, M.; Maignan, F.; Soong, J.L.; Janssens, I.A. Impact of Priming on Global Soil Carbon Stocks. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2018; 24, pp. 1873-1883. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14069] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29365210]
164. Brüngel, R.; Rückert, J.; Müller, P.; Babick, F.; Friedrich, C.M.; Ghanem, A.; Hodoroaba, V.D.; Mech, A.; Weigel, S.; Wohlleben, W. et al. NanoDefiner Framework and E-Tool Revisited According to the European Commission’s Nanomaterial Definition 2022/C 229/01. Nanomaterials; 2023; 13, 990. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano13060990]
165. Shukla, K.; Mishra, V.; Singh, J.; Varshney, V.; Verma, R.; Srivastava, S. Nanotechnology in Sustainable Agriculture: A Double-edged Sword. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2024; 104, pp. 5675-5688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.13342]
166. Sharma, R.; Kumar, V. Nano Enabled Agriculture for Sustainable Soil. Waste Manag. Bull.; 2024; 2, pp. 152-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2024.01.002]
167. Usman, M.; Farooq, M.; Wakeel, A.; Nawaz, A.; Cheema, S.A.; ur Rehman, H.; Ashraf, I.; Sanaullah, M. Nanotechnology in Agriculture: Current Status, Challenges and Future Opportunities. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 721, 137778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137778] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32179352]
168. Wang, D.; Saleh, N.B.; Byro, A.; Zepp, R.; Sahle-Demessie, E.; Luxton, T.P.; Ho, K.T.; Burgess, R.M.; Flury, M.; White, J.C. et al. Nano-Enabled Pesticides for Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security. Nat. Nanotechnol.; 2022; 17, pp. 347-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41565-022-01082-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35332293]
169. Sun, Y.; Zhu, G.; Zhao, W.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Q.; Rui, Y.; Zhang, P.; Gao, L. Engineered Nanomaterials for Improving the Nutritional Quality of Agricultural Products: A Review. Nanomaterials; 2022; 12, 4219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano12234219]
170. Tripathi, D.K.; Shweta,; Singh, S.; Singh, S.; Pandey, R.; Singh, V.P.; Sharma, N.C.; Prasad, S.M.; Dubey, N.K.; Chauhan, D.K. An Overview on Manufactured Nanoparticles in Plants: Uptake, Translocation, Accumulation and Phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol. Biochem.; 2017; 110, pp. 2-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.07.030]
171. Liu, R.; Lal, R. Potentials of Engineered Nanoparticles as Fertilizers for Increasing Agronomic Productions. Sci. Total Environ.; 2015; 514, pp. 131-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.104]
172. Ebbs, S.D.; Bradfield, S.J.; Kumar, P.; White, J.C.; Musante, C.; Ma, X. Accumulation of Zinc, Copper, or Cerium in Carrot (Daucus Carota) Exposed to Metal Oxide Nanoparticles and Metal Ions. Environ. Sci. Nano; 2016; 3, pp. 114-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5EN00161G]
173. Joshi, A.; Kaur, S.; Dharamvir, K.; Nayyar, H.; Verma, G. Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes Applied through Seed-priming Influence Early Germination, Root Hair, Growth and Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2018; 98, pp. 3148-3160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8818] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29220088]
174. Rojas, S.; Rodríguez-Diéguez, A.; Horcajada, P. Metal-Organic Frameworks in Agriculture. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces; 2022; 14, pp. 16983-17007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c00615]
175. Liu, B.; Fan, Y.; Li, H.; Zhao, W.; Luo, S.; Wang, H.; Guan, B.; Li, Q.; Yue, J.; Dong, Z. et al. Control the Entire Journey of Pesticide Application on Superhydrophobic Plant Surface by Dynamic Covalent Trimeric Surfactant Coacervation. Adv. Funct. Mater.; 2021; 31, 2006606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202006606]
176. Hayles, J.; Johnson, L.; Worthley, C.; Losic, D. Nanopesticides: A Review of Current Research and Perspectives. New Pesticides and Soil Sensors; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 193-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804299-1.00006-0]
177. Feng, J.; Shi, Y.; Yu, Q.; Sun, C.; Yang, G. Effect of Emulsifying Process on Stability of Pesticide Nanoemulsions. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp.; 2016; 497, pp. 286-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.03.024]
178. Liu, X.; He, B.; Xu, Z.; Yin, M.; Yang, W.; Zhang, H.; Cao, J.; Shen, J. A Functionalized Fluorescent Dendrimer as a Pesticide Nanocarrier: Application in Pest Control. Nanoscale; 2015; 7, pp. 445-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C4NR05733C]
179. Malandrakis, A.A.; Kavroulakis, N.; Chrysikopoulos, C.V. Use of Copper, Silver and Zinc Nanoparticles against Foliar and Soil-Borne Plant Pathogens. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 670, pp. 292-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.210] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30903901]
180. Zhao, X.; Meng, Z.; Wang, Y.; Chen, W.; Sun, C.; Cui, B.; Cui, J.; Yu, M.; Zeng, Z.; Guo, S. et al. Pollen Magnetofection for Genetic Modification with Magnetic Nanoparticles as Gene Carriers. Nat. Plants; 2017; 3, pp. 956-964. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41477-017-0063-z]
181. Worrall, E.A.; Hamid, A.; Mody, K.T.; Mitter, N.; Pappu, H.R. Nanotechnology for Plant Disease Management. Agronomy; 2018; 8, 285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8120285]
182. Rajput, V.D.; Singh, A.; Minkina, T.; Rawat, S.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; Shuvaeva, V.; Nazarenko, O.; Rajput, P.; Komariah, et al. Nano-Enabled Products: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture. Plants; 2021; 10, 2727. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10122727]
183. Abd Elwahab, H.M.; Darwish, Y.A.; Ezz El-Din, H.E.-D.A.; Othman, A.A.; Abdu-Allah, G.M. Comparison between the Toxicity of Nano and Bulk Formulations of Imidacloprid against Wheat Aphid, Bird Cherry-Oat Aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi L. J. Phytopathol. Dis. Manag.; 2020; 7, pp. 31-42.
184. Sabbour, M.M.A. Pathogenicity of Imidacloprid and Its Nano against Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) under Laboratory and Store Conditions. IOBC/WPRS Bull.; 2018; 130, pp. 185-191.
185. Sabbour, M.M.A. The Effect of Imidacloprid and Nano-Imidacloprid against Sitophilus granarius under Laboratory and Store Conditions. IOBC/WPRS Bull.; 2018; 130, pp. 192-198.
186. Sabbour, M.M.; Abdel-Raheem, M.A. Nano Imidacloprid Efficacy against the Desert Locust, Schistocerca Gregaria under Laboratory and Semi Field Conditions. Der Pharma Chem.; 2016; 8, pp. 133-136.
187. Sabry, A.H.; Salem, H.A.-N.; Metwally, H.M. Development of Imidacloprid and Indoxacarb Formulations to Nanoformulations and Their Efficacy against Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd). Bull. Natl. Res. Cent.; 2021; 45, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42269-020-00477-8]
188. Peixoto, S.; Henriques, I.; Loureiro, S. Long-Term Effects of Cu(OH)2 Nanopesticide Exposure on Soil Microbial Communities. Environ. Pollut.; 2021; 269, 116113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116113] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33261963]
189. Cao, L.; Zhou, Z.; Niu, S.; Cao, C.; Li, X.; Shan, Y.; Huang, Q. Positive-Charge Functionalized Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles as Nanocarriers for Controlled 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid Sodium Salt Release. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2018; 66, pp. 6594-6603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01957] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28640597]
190. Rebitski, E.P.; Darder, M.; Aranda, P. Layered Double Hydroxide/Sepiolite Hybrid Nanoarchitectures for the Controlled Release of Herbicides. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.; 2019; 10, pp. 1679-1690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.10.163]
191. Forini, M.M.L.; Pontes, M.S.; Antunes, D.R.; de Lima, P.H.C.; Santos, J.S.; Santiago, E.F.; Grillo, R. Nano-Enabled Weed Management in Agriculture: From Strategic Design to Enhanced Herbicidal Activity. Plant Nano Biol.; 2022; 1, 100008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plana.2022.100008]
192. de Lima, P.H.C.; Tavares, A.A.; de Lima Silva, S.M.; de Moura, M.R.; Aouada, F.A.; Grillo, R. Recent Advances on Nanohybrid Systems Constituting Clay–Chitosan with Organic Molecules—A Review. Appl. Clay Sci.; 2022; 226, 106548. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106548]
193. Gao, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, X.; Tian, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, X.; Yu, X.; Cao, Y. Controlled Release of Herbicides by 2,4-D-, MCPA-, and Bromoxynil-Intercalated Hydrotalcite Nanosheets. Green Chem.; 2021; 23, pp. 4560-4566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1GC01349A]
194. Wang, J.; Li, M.; Feng, J.; Yan, X.; Chen, H.; Han, R. Effects of TiO2-NPs Pretreatment on UV-B Stress Tolerance in Arabidopsis Thaliana. Chemosphere; 2021; 281, 130809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130809]
195. Soni, S.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Sharma, P. Application of Nanoparticles for Enhanced UV-B Stress Tolerance in Plants. Plant Nano Biol.; 2022; 2, 100014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plana.2022.100014]
196. Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Kumari, A.; Harish,; Singh, V.K.; Verma, K.K.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; Srivastava, S.; Keswani, C. Coping with the Challenges of Abiotic Stress in Plants: New Dimensions in the Field Application of Nanoparticles. Plants; 2021; 10, 1221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10061221]
197. Wu, X.; Hu, J.; Wu, F.; Zhang, X.; Wang, B.; Yang, Y.; Shen, G.; Liu, J.; Tao, S.; Wang, X. Application of TiO2 Nanoparticles to Reduce Bioaccumulation of Arsenic in Rice Seedlings (Oryza sativa L.): A Mechanistic Study. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2021; 405, 124047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124047]
198. Cai, F.; Wu, X.; Zhang, H.; Shen, X.; Zhang, M.; Chen, W.; Gao, Q.; White, J.C.; Tao, S.; Wang, X. Impact of TiO2 Nanoparticles on Lead Uptake and Bioaccumulation in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). NanoImpact; 2017; 5, pp. 101-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2017.01.006]
199. Jiang, M.; Dai, S.; Wang, B.; Xie, Z.; Li, J.; Wang, L.; Li, S.; Tan, Y.; Tian, B.; Shu, Q. et al. Gold Nanoparticles Synthesized Using Melatonin Suppress Cadmium Uptake and Alleviate Its Toxicity in Rice. Environ. Sci. Nano; 2021; 8, pp. 1042-1056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D0EN01172J]
200. Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Kumari, A.; Ranjan, A.; Mandzhieva, S.; Sushkova, S.; Singh, R.K.; Verma, K.K. Nanotechnology in the Restoration of Polluted Soil. Nanomaterials; 2022; 12, 769. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano12050769]
201. Jośko, I.; Oleszczuk, P.; Dobrzyńska, J.; Futa, B.; Joniec, J.; Dobrowolski, R. Long-Term Effect of ZnO and CuO Nanoparticles on Soil Microbial Community in Different Types of Soil. Geoderma; 2019; 352, pp. 204-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.010]
202. Lin, J.; Ma, K.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.; Xing, B. Influence of Different Types of Nanomaterials on Soil Enzyme Activity: A Global Meta-Analysis. Nano Today; 2022; 42, 101345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2021.101345]
203. Lead, J.R.; Batley, G.E.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Croteau, M.; Handy, R.D.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Judy, J.D.; Schirmer, K. Nanomaterials in the Environment: Behavior, Fate, Bioavailability, and Effects—An Updated Review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.; 2018; 37, pp. 2029-2063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.4147]
204. Singh, D.; Gurjar, B.R. Nanotechnology for Agricultural Applications: Facts, Issues, Knowledge Gaps, and Challenges in Environmental Risk Assessment. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 322, 116033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116033]
205. Tran, T.K.; Nguyen, M.K.; Lin, C.; Hoang, T.D.; Nguyen, T.C.; Lone, A.M.; Khedulkar, A.P.; Gaballah, M.S.; Singh, J.; Chung, W.J. et al. Review on Fate, Transport, Toxicity and Health Risk of Nanoparticles in Natural Ecosystems: Emerging Challenges in the Modern Age and Solutions toward a Sustainable Environment. Sci. Total Environ.; 2024; 912, 169331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169331]
206. Kumah, E.A.; Fopa, R.D.; Harati, S.; Boadu, P.; Zohoori, F.V.; Pak, T. Human and Environmental Impacts of Nanoparticles: A Scoping Review of the Current Literature. BMC Public Health; 2023; 23, 1059. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15958-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37268899]
207. Bundschuh, M.; Filser, J.; Lüderwald, S.; McKee, M.S.; Metreveli, G.; Schaumann, G.E.; Schulz, R.; Wagner, S. Nanoparticles in the Environment: Where Do We Come from, Where Do We Go To?. Environ. Sci. Eur.; 2018; 30, 6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0132-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29456907]
208. Vali, S.; Majidiyan, N.; Yalsuyi, A.M.; Vajargah, M.F.; Prokić, M.D.; Faggio, C. Ecotoxicological Effects of Silver Nanoparticles (Ag-NPs) on Parturition Time, Survival Rate, Reproductive Success and Blood Parameters of Adult Common Molly (Poecilia Sphenops) and Their Larvae. Water; 2022; 14, 144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w14020144]
209. Shah, G.A.; Ahmed, J.; Iqbal, Z.; ul Hassan, F.; Rashid, M.I. Toxicity of NiO Nanoparticles to Soil Nutrient Availability and Herbage N Uptake from Poultry Manure. Sci. Rep.; 2021; 11, 11540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91080-y]
210. Cheng, M.; Wang, H.; Fan, J.; Wang, X.; Sun, X.; Yang, L.; Zhang, S.; Xiang, Y.; Zhang, F. Crop Yield and Water Productivity under Salty Water Irrigation: A Global Meta-Analysis. Agric. Water Manag.; 2021; 256, 107105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107105]
211. Corwin, D.L. Climate Change Impacts on Soil Salinity in Agricultural Areas. Eur. J. Soil Sci.; 2021; 72, pp. 842-862. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13010]
212. Eswar, D.; Karuppusamy, R.; Chellamuthu, S. Drivers of Soil Salinity and Their Correlation with Climate Change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.; 2021; 50, pp. 310-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.10.015]
213. Kumar, A.; Singh, S.; Gaurav, A.K.; Srivastava, S.; Verma, J.P. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria: Biological Tools for the Mitigation of Salinity Stress in Plants. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 523350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01216]
214. Syed, A.; Sarwar, G.; Shah, S.H.; Muhammad, S. Soil Salinity Research in 21st Century in Pakistan: Its Impact on Availability of Plant Nutrients, Growth and Yield of Crops. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.; 2021; 52, pp. 183-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1854294]
215. Zhang, W.W.; Chong, W.A.N.G.; Rui, X.U.E.; Wang, L.J. Effects of Salinity on the Soil Microbial Community and Soil Fertility. J. Integr. Agric.; 2019; 18, pp. 1360-1368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62077-5]
216. Ghazouani, H.; Rallo, G.; Mguidiche, A.; Latrech, B.; Douh, B.; Boujelben, A.; Provenzano, G. Effects of Saline and Deficit Irrigation on Soil-Plant Water Status and Potato Crop Yield under the Semiarid Climate of Tunisia. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 2706. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11092706]
217. Khatun, M.; Shuvo, M.A.R.; Salam, M.T.B.; Rahman, S.M.H. Effect of Organic Amendments on Soil Salinity and the Growth of Maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Sci. Today; 2019; 6, pp. 106-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14719/pst.2019.6.2.491]
218. Zörb, C.; Geilfus, C.M.; Dietz, K.J. Salinity and Crop Yield. Plant Biol.; 2019; 21, pp. 31-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/plb.12884] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30059606]
219. Alkharabsheh, H.M.; Seleiman, M.F.; Hewedy, O.A.; Battaglia, M.L.; Jalal, R.S.; Alhammad, B.A.; Schillaci, C.; Ali, N.; Al-Doss, A. Field Crop Responses and Management Strategies to Mitigate Soil Salinity in Modern Agriculture: A Review. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 2299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112299]
220. Mukhopadhyay, R.; Sarkar, B.; Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Bolan, N.S. Soil Salinity under Climate Change: Challenges for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. J. Environ. Manag.; 2021; 280, 111736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111736]
221. Eekhout, J.P.C.; de Vente, J. Global Impact of Climate Change on Soil Erosion and Potential for Adaptation through Soil Conservation. Earth Sci. Rev.; 2022; 226, 103921. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103921]
222. Global Soil Partnership Endorses Guidelines on Sustainable Soil Management|Global Soil Partnership|Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/highlights/detail/en/c/416516/ (accessed on 19 September 2024).
223. Katra, I. Soil Erosion by Wind and Dust Emission in Semi-Arid Soils Due to Agricultural Activities. Agronomy; 2020; 10, 89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010089]
224. Zhang, H.; Gao, Y.; Sun, D.; Liu, L.; Cui, Y.; Zhu, W. Wind Erosion Changes in a Semi-Arid Sandy Area, Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11010188]
225. Hojan, M.; Rurek, M.; Wiecław, M.; Krupa, A. Effects of Extreme Dust Storm in Agricultural Areas (Poland, the Greater Lowland). Geosciences; 2019; 9, 106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9030106]
226. Středová, H.; Spáčilová, B.; Podhrázská, J.; Chuchma, F. A Universal Meteorological Method to Identify Potential Risk of Wind Erosion on Heavy-Textured Soils. Morav. Geogr. Rep.; 2015; 23, pp. 56-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2015-0011]
227. Guo, Y.; Peng, C.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, M.; Wang, H.; Peng, S.; He, H. Modelling the Impacts of Climate and Land Use Changes on Soil Water Erosion: Model Applications, Limitations and Future Challenges. J. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 250, 109403. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109403]
228. Panagos, P.; Ballabio, C.; Himics, M.; Scarpa, S.; Matthews, F.; Bogonos, M.; Poesen, J.; Borrelli, P. Projections of Soil Loss by Water Erosion in Europe by 2050. Environ. Sci Policy; 2021; 124, pp. 380-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.012]
229. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Fleischer, L.R.; Lugato, E.; Ballabio, C.; Alewell, C.; Meusburger, K.; Modugno, S.; Schütt, B.; Ferro, V. et al. An Assessment of the Global Impact of 21st Century Land Use Change on Soil Erosion. Nat. Commun.; 2017; 8, 2013. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7]
230. Han, J.; Ge, W.; Hei, Z.; Cong, C.; Ma, C.; Xie, M.; Liu, B.; Feng, W.; Wang, F.; Jiao, J. Agricultural Land Use and Management Weaken the Soil Erosion Induced by Extreme Rainstorms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.; 2020; 301, 107047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107047]
231. Alewell, C.; Ringeval, B.; Ballabio, C.; Robinson, D.A.; Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P. Global Phosphorus Shortage Will Be Aggravated by Soil Erosion. Nat. Commun.; 2020; 11, 4546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18326-7]
232. Lackóová, L.; Pokrývková, J.; Dufková, J.K.; Policht-latawiec, A.; Michałowska, K.; Dąbrowska, J. Long-Term Impact of Wind Erosion on the Particle Size Distribution of Soils in the Eastern Part of the European Union. Entropy; 2021; 23, 935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/e23080935]
233. Qiu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, H.; Reich, P.B.; Banerjee, S.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Sadowsky, M.J.; Ishii, S.; Jia, X.; Shao, M. et al. Erosion Reduces Soil Microbial Diversity, Network Complexity and Multifunctionality. ISME J.; 2021; 15, pp. 2474-2489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00913-1]
234. Li, J.; Ma, X.; Zhang, C. Predicting the Spatiotemporal Variation in Soil Wind Erosion across Central Asia in Response to Climate Change in the 21st Century. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 709, 136060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136060]
235. Nasir Ahmad, N.S.B.; Mustafa, F.B.; Muhammad Yusoff, S.Y.; Didams, G. A Systematic Review of Soil Erosion Control Practices on the Agricultural Land in Asia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.; 2020; 8, pp. 103-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.04.001]
236. Wu, H.; Cui, H.; Fu, C.; Li, R.; Qi, F.; Liu, Z.; Yang, G.; Xiao, K.; Qiao, M. Unveiling the Crucial Role of Soil Microorganisms in Carbon Cycling: A Review. Sci. Total Environ.; 2024; 909, 168627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168627]
237. Walker, T.W.N.; Kaiser, C.; Strasser, F.; Herbold, C.W.; Leblans, N.I.W.; Woebken, D.; Janssens, I.A.; Sigurdsson, B.D.; Richter, A. Microbial Temperature Sensitivity and Biomass Change Explain Soil Carbon Loss with Warming. Nat. Clim. Chang.; 2018; 8, pp. 885-889. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0259-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30288176]
238. Kaur, J.; Gosal, S.K.; Kaur, P. Effects of Climate Change on Plant Associated Microbial Communities and Enzyme Activities. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.; 2014; 8, pp. 3087-3093. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2014.6750]
239. Cavicchioli, R.; Ripple, W.J.; Timmis, K.N.; Azam, F.; Bakken, L.R.; Baylis, M.; Behrenfeld, M.J.; Boetius, A.; Boyd, P.W.; Classen, A.T. et al. Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: Microorganisms and Climate Change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2019; 17, pp. 569-586. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0222-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31213707]
240. Zhou, J.; Deng, Y.; Shen, L.; Wen, C.; Yan, Q.; Ning, D.; Qin, Y.; Xue, K.; Wu, L.; He, Z. et al. Temperature Mediates Continental-Scale Diversity of Microbes in Forest Soils. Nat. Commun.; 2016; 7, 12083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12083] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27377774]
241. Tu, Q.; He, Z.; Wu, L.; Xue, K.; Xie, G.; Chain, P.; Reich, P.B.; Hobbie, S.E.; Zhou, J. Metagenomic Reconstruction of Nitrogen Cycling Pathways in a CO2-Enriched Grassland Ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem.; 2017; 106, pp. 99-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.12.017]
242. Yu, H.; Deng, Y.; He, Z.; Van Nostrand, J.D.; Wang, S.; Jin, D.; Wang, A.; Wu, L.; Wang, D.; Tai, X. et al. Elevated CO2 and Warming Altered Grassland Microbial Communities in Soil Top-Layers. Front. Microbiol.; 2018; 9, 396056. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01790]
243. Schimel, J.P. Life in Dry Soils: Effects of Drought on Soil Microbial Communities and Processes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.; 2018; 49, pp. 409-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062614]
244. Phillips, C.L.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Desai, A.R.; Lavoie, M.; Risk, D.; Tang, J.; Todd-Brown, K.; Vargas, R. The Value of Soil Respiration Measurements for Interpreting and Modeling Terrestrial Carbon Cycling. Plant Soil; 2017; 413, pp. 1-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3084-x]
245. de Vries, F.T.; Griffiths, R.I.; Bailey, M.; Craig, H.; Girlanda, M.; Gweon, H.S.; Hallin, S.; Kaisermann, A.; Keith, A.M.; Kretzschmar, M. et al. Soil Bacterial Networks Are Less Stable under Drought than Fungal Networks. Nat. Commun.; 2018; 9, 3033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05516-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30072764]
246. Chowdhury, T.R.; Lee, J.-Y.; Bottos, E.M.; Brislawn, C.J.; Richard Allen White, I.; Bramer, L.M.; Brown, J.; Zucker, J.D.; Kim, Y.-M.; Jumpponen, A. et al. Metaphenomic Responses of a Native Prairie Soil Microbiome to Moisture Perturbations. mSystems; 2019; 4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00061-19]
247. Dubey, A.; Malla, M.A.; Khan, F.; Chowdhary, K.; Yadav, S.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, S.; Khare, P.K.; Khan, M.L. Soil Microbiome: A Key Player for Conservation of Soil Health under Changing Climate. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2019; 28, pp. 2405-2429. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01760-5]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Gmitrowicz-Iwan, Joanna 1
; Skersienė, Aida 2
; Šlepetienė, Alvyra 2
; Parašotas, Irmantas 2
1 Institute of Soil Science, Environment Engineering and Management, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczyńskiego St. 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland;
2 Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, LT-58344 Akademija, Lithuania;