Examining links between soil management, soil health, and public benefits in agricultural landscapes: an Australian perspective
Abstract
Public expectations of soil management are gradually expanding beyond traditional primary production requirements to include diverse ecosystem services. In Australia, as in many other countries, the accommodation of these new expectations will require shifts in the practice of private land managers. In turn, this may require public intervention and the expenditure of public funds. However, public net benefits from soil management interventions are rarely established, in part due to a lack of understanding of the conceptual links between management changes, soil health, and associated services and benefits. This paper uses an ecosystem services-based approach to examine these links from an Australian perspective. Entrenchment of the popular soil health concept in field-based assessments of agricultural production potential was found to limit the concept's applicability to questions of broader public benefit. Without expanding soil health to include more ecological indicators, the concept risks remaining peripheral to contemporary visions of multiple-outcome soil management in Australia. Conceptual and case study links were examined between soil properties and processes, soil-based services, and private and public net benefits. In this framework, benefits were produced from services, and were considered a more tangible point for public understanding and valuation than services. The qualitative case study highlighted many knowledge gaps relating to non-agricultural services and benefits from soils, particularly in the scaling-up of sub-paddock measurements, and in the form and constancy of relationships among services and benefits. Criteria for identifying priority public benefits from soil management were examined, namely, likelihood, degree, consequence, scale, direction, time lag, and valuation. Assumptions about these criteria require rigorous testing so that the what, where, when, and how of public benefits from changed soil management can be more clearly defined.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The soil functions in Fig. 2 equate almost entirely to the intermediate services defined by Bennett et al. (2010), which are similar to the soil processes presented by Schwilch et al. (2016).
“The soil functions in Fig. 2 equate almost entirely to the ' intermediate services ' de fi ned by Bennett et al. (2010), which are similar to the soil processes presented by Schwilch et al. (2016).”
From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Bennett et al. (2010)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 96 · Cited by 100
- Authors
- Bennett, L. T., Mele, P. M., Annett, S., & Kasel, S.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Bennett, Lauren T.
- Venue
- Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992246801
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Keywords
- soil health, soil management, ecosystem services, agricultural landscapes, private land management, Australia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review