Dr Suryakant Patil et al. - 2019 - Social Innovation through Precision Farming An IoT Based Precision Farming System for Examining and.pdf
2;6;12
India; Solapur district, Maharashtra, North Solapur, South Solapur, Akkalkot, Mohol, Barshi, Madha, Karmala, Malshiras, Pandharpur, Sangola, Mangalwedha
Soil fertility; Crop yield; Fertilizer management; Water management; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Precision farming
Agricultural Solution 2: IoT based system for monitoring soil health
Agricultural Solution 3: Sensors (soil moisture sensor, temperature sensor, humidity sensor, water level sensor, NPK sensors, pH sensor)
Agricultural Solution 4: Monitoring of soil nutrients
Agricultural Solution 5: Electrochemical sensor for soil nutrient detection
Agricultural Solution 6: Use of IoT to improve the efficient use of inputs like fertilizers, soil nutrients, pesticides, water etc.
Non-agricultural solution 1: Information Technology (IT)
Non-agricultural solution 2: Use of IT concepts and tools for increasing automation
Non-agricultural solution 3: Cloud Computing
Non-agricultural solution 4: Suggesting the crop to be planted, based on soil mineral contents.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Analyses/reviews the problems related to the soil health (soil fertility), which is a main obstacle in the crop production;Focused on the issues of soil fertility and crop production;Monitoring soil health plays an important role;Effective crop production the nutrient level has to be monitored frequently;Monitoring the field and providing proper fertilizers depending on the soil nutrients is main factor of agriculture business;Soil monitoring system using sensors is used to measure the parameter of soil such as temperature, moisture, NPK, light, pH value etc.;According to the challenges we are giving focus on soil health, which is decreasing day by day with non-appropriate management of water, fertilizers, pesticides etc.;The main aim of this review is to analyze the use of IoT in smart agriculture for increasing yields and maintaining the health of soil;To collect and enlist the parameters which plays an important role in increasing the yield and maintaining the health of soil;Majority of the farmers doesn’t check which particular fertilizer is required for both soil and plant for the proper growth of plant;Day by day the use of fertilizers is increasing, but on the other hand the health of soil is degrades; check the requirement of fertilizer before its actual use for both soil and plant;check soil health and its actual requirement;the health of soil frequently in less time;Soil fertility is the ability of soil to sustain plant growth and optimize crop yield;checking the soil nutrients in the soil, improving soil fertility;checks soil minerals in less time that will be helpful to farmers to take necessary and corrective action.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Which results in the efficient and effective outcome of agriculture i.e. higher yields;The production efficiency can be increased significantly with technological advancement in agriculture;Agriculture provides most of the world’s food and fabrics. It also helps to reduce the poverty, raise income and improve food security;Farmers should get accurate information about which particular factor he has to deal with or work with for getting the maximum production;Monitoring the field and providing proper fertilizers depending on the soil nutrients is main factor of agriculture business;IoT can play crucial role for solving the problems like climate change, temperature, rainfall, ground level etc;The IoT can suggest if pH rate of soil is lower than the normal one then which pesticides are needs to be used to improve cultivation and increase the productivity;It is expected to reduce wastage and improve profit margins remarkably;Monitoring environmental factors/conditions is major issue for improving yield;identifying and maintaining the soil health frequently in less time;checking the nutrients in the soil, improving soil fertility;The results shown in this paper promotes the use of IoT or similar technology for achieving the goal in precision farming.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Use of Information Technology (IT) concepts and tools wherever possible for increasing automation in the agriculture business;Internet of Things (IoT) is a novel design approach for precision farming;By using various smart agriculture gadgets, farmers have gained better control over the process of raising the growing crops and livestocks;Use of IoT in agriculture business for monitoring soil health plays an important role;IoT gives the energy for agriculture business for empowering the agriculturists;Monitoring the field and providing proper fertilizers depending on the soil nutrients is main factor of agriculture business;Agriculture development using IoT technology is very much helpful in cultivation;IoT has the capability to modernize agriculture and initiate exponential growth in the sector;The use of IoT-based devices allows better management of farm activities.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The effective use of inputs helps in reducing wastage and thus, decreases costs incurred.;Use of IoT can be extended to improve the efficient ise of inputs in agriculture like fertilizers, soil nutrients, pesticides, water etc.;Losses due to diseases and infections can be reduced, by continuous and real-time crop monitoring.
Effective use of inputs reduces wastage and decreases costs incurred (No quantative evidence);;The use of IoT-based devices allows better management of farm activities (No quantative evidence)
Higher yields (No quantitative evidence);Increased productivity (No quantitative evidence);Increased production efficiency (No quantitative evidence);Effective use of inputs (No quantitative evidence);Improved profit margins (No quantitative evidence)
Checking soil health and its actual requirement (No quantitative evidence); Identifying and maintaining soil health frequently in less time (No quantitative evidence); Monitoring soil health (soil fertility) (No quantitative evidence)
Improved Soil Fertility and Soil Health (No quantitative evidence); Analyzing soil nutrient content present in soil at real time and suggesting improvements (No quantitative evidence); Checking soil health and its actual requirement (fertilizers) (No quantitative evidence); Checking soil nutrients/minerals in less time (No quantitative evidence); Maintaining the health of soil frequently in less time (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Dr S Natarajan - 2020 - Organic manure enhanced in soil health and productivity - A review.pdf
India; Nigeria
2; 15; 12
India, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore; Nigeria, Ebonyi State
Soil fertility; Crop yield; Soil health; Environmental degradation; High cost of fertilizers
Solution Package 1:
Organic manures (vermicompost, farmyard manure, Goat manures, Poultry manure, Pressmud and green manure) + Integrated plant nutrient supply system + Biofertilizers + Organic farming
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Application of organic manures help in mitigating multiple nutrient deficiencies at the same time provides better environment for growth and development by improving in physical, chemical and biological properties of soil;The high cost of fertilizers and unstable crop production call for substituting part of the inorganic fertilizers by locally available low cost organic sources like FYM, Vermicompost, Goat manure, Sheep manure, Poultry and Green manure in an integrated manner for sustainable production and to maintain soil health; Application of organic manures increased the organic carbon status of soil; Addition of organic matter in the form of green manure balanced the physical condition and water retention capacity of the soil and reduced the leaching of nutrients through its impact on chemical and biological properties and the overall impact in increasing crop yield; Panneer selvam and Christopher Lourduraj (1998) [27] and Khatik and Dikshit (2001) [18] indicated that the application of organic manures helped to sustain crop productivity besides maintaining the soil health.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Integrated plant nutrient supply system is the only possible way, which can reduce the dependency on chemical fertilizers to attain the sustainable and profitable production without causing detrimental effects on soil and environment; Higher grain and straw yields were obtained when FYM was applied on 30 days before sowing in rice wheat rotation
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Increased grain yield (42.8 percent); Increased productivity/yield (55 percent increased over control); Registered grain yield (5.29 t ha-1); Increased productive tiller m-2, filled grains per panicle, panicle length, finally grain yield and straw of rabi rice (No quantitative evidence); Increased grain yield of rice (No quantitative evidence)
Increased organic matter content (effectively build up vs loss of 15 to 40% in control); Increased grain yield (increased by 42.8 percent); Increased yield (55 percent increased over control); Increased water holding capacity (No quantitative evidence); Decreased bulk density (No quantitative evidence)
Build up organic matter content (vs 15 to 40% loss of organic carbon in control plot); Increased water holding capacity (No quantative evidence); Reduced bulk density (No quantative evidence); Increased nutrient availability (No quantative evidence); Enhances activities of useful soil organism (No quantative evidence)
Effectively build up the organic matter content of different soils (No quantitative evidence); Increased the organic carbon status of soil (No quantitative evidence); Enhances activities of useful soil organism (No quantitative evidence); Positive effect on soil micro organisms (No quantitative evidence); Enriches the soil with organic carbon (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Douglas L Karlen et al. - 2017 - On-farm soil health evaluations Challenges and opportunities.pdf
Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Minnesota; Missouri; Nebraska; Ohio; North Dakota; Wisconsin
2;15;3
United States of America; Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, North Dakota, Wisconsin
Brazil
Soil degradation; Food security; Environmental protection; Water quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops + reduced tillage
Non-agricultural Solutions: Economic (financial support, stipends, compensation), Policy (Farm Bill), Social (addressing rural economic, environmental, and social problems) + Market (commercialization of soil health test kits).
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops
Non-agricultural Solutions: Social (farmer-led initiative), Market (soil health test kits), Policy (Farm Bill) + Economic (compensation).
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: penetration of roots between soil aggregates and peds that can disrupt compacted areas and gradually improve soil structure; provision of root exudates and other carbon (C) sources that can serve as food for earthworms and other soil macro- and microfauna; decreased soil loss through wind and water erosion by keeping the ground covered for longer periods of time; capture of nutrients thus preventing their loss through runoff and/or leaching; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
no evidence found
Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence);;Capture of nutrients (No quantitative evidence);;Provision of root exudates and other carbon (C) sources that can serve as food for earthworms and other soil macro- and microfauna (No quantitative evidence);;Decreased soil loss through wind and water erosion (No quantitative evidence)
No content found meeting the specified criteria.
Food for earthworms and other soil macro- and microfauna (No quantative evidence); Provision of root exudates and other carbon (C) sources (No quantative evidence)
Open
Dr S Krishnaprabu - 2020 - Liquid microbial consortium A potential tool for sustainable soil health.pdf
India
2;11;15
India; Brazil; US (Hawaii); Europe (Spain, Argentina); Asia (China, Vietnam)
Soil degradation; Food security; Environmental pollution; Economic loss; Water contamination
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Liquid microbial consortium (LMC)
Agricultural Solution: Liquid Biofertilizer Technology
Agricultural Solution: Nitrogen Fixing Microbes (NFM)
Agricultural Solution: Phosphorus Solubilizing Microbes (PSM) and Phosphate Mobilizing Microbes (VAM)
Agricultural Solution: Potash Mobilizing Microbes (Frateuria aurantia)
Agricultural Solution: Zinc and Sulphur Solubilizing Bacteria (Thiobacillus spp.)
Agricultural Solution: Manganese solubilizer (Penicillium citrine)
Non-agricultural solution: State and Central Government popularizing biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solution: Judicious combination of chemical fertilizers and biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solution: Commercial production and distribution by private agencies and NGO’s.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Use of agriculturally important microorganisms in different combinations i.e. Liquid microbial consortium (LMC) is the only solution for restoration of soil health; Liquid biofertilizers are believed to be the best alternative for the conventional carrier based biofertilizers in the modern agriculture research community witnessing the enhanced crop yields, regaining soil health and sustainable global food production;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The density of nodules occupied, dry weight of nodules, dry weight of plant and the grain yield per plant influenced by the multi strain inoculants was highly promising; Increase micro nutrient content in soil like Mn, Mg, Fe, Mo, B, Zn, Cu etc., and make them available to the plant parts; stimulates formation of fats, convertible starches and healthy seeds; Inoculants of phosphate solubilizing bacteria as fertilizer increases P uptake by the plant and enhance crop yield.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Growing concern about environmental hazards, increasing threat to sustainable agriculture are some of the other reliable reasons for the biofertilizer promotion.
Acetobacter: It is known to increase cane yield 10-20 ton/acre and sugar content by 10-15 percent.
Reduced potash chemical fertilizers usage (50 to 60%); Saved phosphatic fertilizers (Nearly 25 to 50%); Saved chemical nitrogen fertilizer (25-30%); Increased cane yield (10-20 ton/acre); Achieved high yield without any chemical nitrogen fertilizer (182 to 244 tons per hectare)
Restoration of soil health (No quantitative evidence);Reduced chemical phosphorus fertilizer usage (Up to 30-50 kg/ha P2O5 can be saved;; Nearly 25 to 50% phosphatic fertilizers can be saved);Reduced chemical potassium fertilizer usage (50 to 60% potash chemical fertilizers usage can be reduced);Reduced chemical nitrogen fertilizer usage (25- 30% chemical nitrogen fertilizer can be saved);Increased plant yield (Up to 40% production increase observed with Azospirillum;; Increase cane yield 10-20 ton/acre with Acetobacter)
Rhizobium fixes N (40-250 kg N/ha/year);;Azospirillum fixes N (20-40 kg N/ha);;PSM save P2O5 (up to 30-50 kg/ha);;AMF save phosphatic fertilizers (Nearly 25 to 50%);;KMB save potash chemical fertilizers (50 to 60%)
Reduced use of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (saved 25-30%);;Reduced use of phosphatic fertilizers (save P2O5 up to 30-50 kg/ha);;Reduced use of potash chemical fertilizers (reduced 50-60% usage)
Open
Dr Nagaraja Poojari and Mr Abhinandahan Jain - 2025 - The Analysis of the Impact of Soil Health and Land Fertility through Green Manuring in Organic Farmi.pdf
India
2;11;15
India, Karnataka, DK district, Belthangady taluk
Soil health degradation; Environmental protection; Sustainable agriculture; Food security; Climate change mitigation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Green manuring
Agricultural Solution 2: Organic farming
Non-agricultural solution 1: Economic benefits of organic farming
Non-agricultural solution 2: Environmental protection
Non-agricultural solution 3: Soil health and land fertility awareness
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Enhances soil structure, water retention, and reduces erosion; Boosts microbial diversity, leading to increased nutrient cycling and a reduction in soil borne diseases; Great influence on availability of important plant nutrients such as Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, micronutrients and also increases the water holding capacity of soil; Improves soil fertility, structure, and nutrient content; Increase soil organic matter content, which in turn helps to improve soil structure, water-holding capacity, and aeration; Improves soil condition by increasing soil physical, chemical and biological properties such as organic matter, availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium and also improves soil structure by preventing soil erosion, increasing water holding capacity etc.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Plays a pivotal role in carbon sequestration, contributing to climate change mitigation by storing carbon in the soil; Reduced carbon dioxide & global warming.
Increasing organic matter and soil humus (67.1 per cent (53 out of 79) respondents are unhappy on usages of chemical fertilisers);;
Erosion & disease control (74.5 per cent (41 out of 55) respondents are unhappy over the inconvenience of erosion & disease control);;
Buildup the soil structure to provide a food source for soil micro-organisms (77.08 per cent (74 out of 96) of respondents are unhappy usages of chemical fertiliser);;
Increased soil water holding capacity to improve the soil's ability to retain moisture (81.9 per cent (59 out of 72) respondents are unhappy on usages of chemical fertiliser);;
Improved the porosity and structure of the quality soil (68.9 per cent (41 out of 61) respondents are unhappy over lack of trust in the usages of chemical fertiliser)
Minimizing cost of inorganic fertilizers (No quantative evidence);Increasing organic matter and soil humus (No quantative evidence);Erosion & disease control (No quantative evidence);Increased soil water holding capacity (No quantative evidence);Improved the porosity and structure of the quality soil (No quantative evidence)
Increasing organic matter and soil humus (No quantative evidence);Buildup the soil structure to provide a food source for soil micro-organisms (No quantative evidence);Increased soil water holding capacity to improve the soil's ability to retain moisture (No quantative evidence);Improved the porosity and structure of the quality soil (No quantative evidence);Erosion & disease control (No quantative evidence)
Increasing organic matter and soil humus (No quantitative evidence);Increased availability of plant nutrients (No quantitative evidence);Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence);Increased soil water holding capacity to improve the soil's ability to retain moisture (No quantitative evidence);Buildup the soil structure to provide a food source for soil micro-organisms (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced carbon dioxide & global warming (No quantitative evidence);Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence);Boosts microbial diversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Douglas L Karlen and John F Obrycki - 2019 - Measuring Rotation and Manure Effects in an Iowa Farm Soil Health Assessment.pdf
United States; Canada
15;2;13
Canada; United States of America, Boone County, IA
Soil degradation; Agricultural sustainability; Climate change; Soil health; Environmental quality
Solution Package 1:
Tillage + Crop Rotation + Nutrient Applications + Land Management Practices + Economic Evaluations + Labor Evaluations + Soil Morphology and Crop Yield Evaluations + Soil Test Evaluations
Solution Package 2:
No-till systems + Crop rotation + Residue Management + Soil health assessment tools
Solution Package 3:
Crop rotation + Tillage Practices + Weed Control + Manure/biosolids application + Economic Evaluations + Labor Evaluations + Soil Morphology and Crop Yield Evaluations + Soil Test Evaluations
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Tillage, crop rotation, nutrient applications, and other land management practices influence soil health by modifying near-surface (0–15 cm) dynamic properties such as soil organic carbon (SOC), bulk density, and aggregate stability;Farms with known management histories contribute to soil health research;Rotation effects were more noticeable than manure effects on soil health groupings;Soil health indicators are a product of inherent and dynamic soil properties;Collecting soil physical, chemical, and biological indicator data from multiple sites and types of experiments is important;Crop selection and rotation are important factors affecting soil health indicators;Primary objective for this study was to quantify and compare several soil health indicators, including soil organic carbon stocks, under different management practices that had been followed for over 20 yr on a well-characterized farm in central Iowa;This study provides a novel contribution to these previous studies by measuring a broader range of soil health indicators;Evaluate surface and profile soil properties
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Results suggest extended rotation systems or those with cover crops may increase SOC 8 ± 4 g kg–1 compared to corn–soybean rotations (33 vs. 25 g kg–1);Farmers implementing a new soil or crop management practice at the field-scale within the Des Moines Lobe could easily cross different soils with SOC levels ranging from 15 to 78 g kg–1;Using either the 5- or 8-yr rotation could be increasing soil organic carbon relative to soils that do not have as long of a crop rotation;soil organic carbon stocks may increase (Delate et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2015)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: In spring the fields were disked twice, corn was planted and a rotary hoe was used for early-season weed control;The planting, rotary hoe, cultivation, and ridge-building operations collectively provided weed control for the row-crops (National Research Council, 1989);Weeds were not considered a problem in the oat crop since they were cut and baled with the straw (Karlen et al., 2002);In general, crop residues remained on the soil surface and were redistributed during the crop harvest and ridge rebuilding processes.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
no evidence found
Soil organic carbon increase from extended rotations or cover crop treatments compared to short-term rotations (8 ± 4 g kg–1 higher; averaged 33 mg SOC kg–1 vs 25 mg SOC kg–1); Soil organic carbon increase from rye cover crops (increase from 29 to 33 g SOC kg–1); Increase in field capacity water content and plant available water from winter rye cover crop (10–11% increase in field capacity water content; 21–22% increase in plant available water); Increased water stable aggregates from no-till (48% vs 30% compared to moldboard plowing); Increased microbial biomass carbon from no-till (504 vs 179 μg g–1 compared to moldboard plowing)
Increase SOC (8 ± 4 g kg–1 compared to corn–soybean rotations (33 vs. 25 g kg–1)); Maintained surface SOC levels (average 32 g kg–1 measured vs. 34 g kg–1 expected from Soil Survey values); Lower organic carbon under moldboard plowing (20 vs. 30 g kg–1); Fewer water stable aggregates under moldboard plowing (30% vs. 48%); Decreased microbial biomass carbon under moldboard plowing (179 vs. 504 μg g–1)
Increased soil organic carbon under extended rotations or cover crop treatments (8 ± 4 g kg–1 higher than short-term rotations; extended rotations averaged 33 g SOC kg–1 vs short-term 25 g SOC kg–1); Maintenance of soil organic carbon levels by 5- and 8-yr rotations (Measured average 32 g kg–1 vs expected 34 g kg–1); Lower soil organic carbon under moldboard plowing compared to no-till (20 vs. 30 g kg–1); Increased soil organic carbon from cover crops (increase from 29 to 33 g SOC kg–1); Decreased microbial biomass carbon under moldboard plowing compared to no-till (179 vs. 504 μg g–1)
Open
Doroteja Vidmar and Andreja Pucihar - 2019 - Systematic Literature Review Effects of Digital Technology on Business Models and Sustainability.pdf
None
9;12;17
United Kingdom; Slovenia
Sustainability; Wealth inequality; Resource efficiency
Solution Package 1:
Digitalization + Business Model Innovation + Market Regulation
Solution Package 2:
Product-Service Systems (PSS) + Circular Economy (CE) + Economic Sustainability + Environmental Sustainability + Social Sustainability
Solution Package 3:
Internet of Things (IoT) + Economic Sustainability + Environmental Sustainability + Social Sustainability
Solution Package 4:
Big Data + Economic Sustainability + Environmental Sustainability + Social Sustainability
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Environmental perspective of sustainability is understood as triple bottom line perspective environmental, social and economic gains or as ecological/environmental perspective.
The name of the reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" are:
A new electronic service for UK theses: access transformed by EThOS (No quantative evidence);;Increased digitalization is seen to provide multiple value creation mechanisms and possibilities by enhancing the more effective use of resources (No quantative evidence)
Reduced energy consumption (No quantitative evidence);;Resource-efficiency (No quantitative evidence);;More effective use of resources (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Resource-efficiency (No quantative evidence);Reducing the consumption of energy (No quantative evidence);Increasing energy-efficiency of technologies (No quantative evidence)
Open
Donna Morgan - 2019 - Evaluation of Soil Type and Seeding Rate on Winter Cover Crop Species in a Soybean Production System.pdf
Louisiana
15; 2; 12
Here are the countries the solutions are researched in, based on your requirements:
United States of America;
Societal problems addressed:
Soil degradation; Water quality; Crop yield
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage radish (Raphanus sativus var. L) + Agricultural Solution 2: Cereal rye (Secale cereale) + Agricultural Solution 3: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) + non-agricultural solution 1: Economic net return estimates
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cereal rye (Secale cereale) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) + non-agricultural solution 1: Weed suppression + non-agricultural solution 2: Biomass accumulation
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage radish (Raphanus sativus var. L) + Agricultural Solution 2: Cereal rye (Secale cereale) + Agricultural Solution 3: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health + non-agricultural solution 2: Soybean production (plant height, plant population, grain yield)
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cereal rye (Secale cereale) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health + non-agricultural solution 2: Soybean production (plant height, plant population, grain yield)
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage radish (Raphanus sativus var. L) + Agricultural Solution 2: Cereal rye (Secale cereale) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil NO3- leaching reduction + non-agricultural solution 2: Alleviation of soil compaction
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) + non-agricultural solution 1: N fixation + non-agricultural solution 2: Increase summer crop yields
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cereal rye (Secale cereale) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil organic matter increase + non-agricultural solution 2: Weed Suppression + non-agricultural solution 3: Reducing nitrate (NO3--N) leaching
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage radish (Raphanus sativus var. L) + non-agricultural solution 1: P cycling + non-agricultural solution 2: Alleviate soil compaction
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Soybean yield was different by soil type and year, with Coushatta silt loam plots yielding 41% higher than Moreland clay (3,504 and 2,079 kg ha-1, respectively).; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Although production year 2017 (3,434 kg ha-1) yielded 39% greater than 2018 (2,147 kg ha-1), cover crop seeding rate had no impact on soybean yield in this study.; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Initial chemical analysis (fall of 2016) of specific soil parameters indicated the different characteristics of each soil type and indicate how this may have affected nutrient availability throughout the course of this study
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belongs to the category in the provided full text.
Economic net return (Low rate cereal rye in Moreland clay soil) ($383 ha-1 compared to fallow at $354 ha-1)
Greater tillage radish biomass at low seeding rates compared to high seeding rates (1812 kg ha-1 compared with 807 kg ha-1); Lower weed biomass for cereal rye compared with crimson clover and fallow (56 kg ha-1 compared with 525 kg ha-1 and 472 kg ha-1, respectively); Lower weed biomass for tillage radish low and medium rates compared with high rate (18 and 65 kg ha-1 compared with 323 kg ha-1); Greater cereal rye biomass compared to crimson clover (1456 kg ha-1 compared with 460 kg ha-1); Greater tillage radish biomass compared to crimson clover (1310 kg ha-1 compared with 460 kg ha-1)
no evidence found
Weed biomass significantly reduced compared to fallow (Cereal rye reduced weed biomass to 18 kg ha-1 compared to 1186 kg ha-1 in fallow);; Cover crop carbon accumulation (Greatest in cereal rye at 1044 kg ha-1)
Open
Cristine L.S Morgan - 2020 - Assessing Soil Health Soil Water Cycling.pdf
15;2;6
There is no specific location mentioned for the research in the document. The document presents general information about soil health.
Drought resiliency; Erosion risk; Water quality and quantity; Trafficability; Nutrient use efficiency
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Reduced tillage + Cover cropping + Increasing soil organic matter + Returning residue to the soil surface + Livestock integration + Soil armor + Plant diversity + Diverse crop rotations
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Surface Infiltration Rate Improvement;;Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Improvement (Ksat) (No quantative evidence)
An extra 0.25-inch of water was available to the crop during the month of July (an extra 0.25-inch of water was available to the crop during the month of July);Water use efficiency (No quantitative evidence);Nutrient use efficiency (No quantitative evidence);Drought resiliency (No quantitative evidence)
Enhanced drought resilience (No quantitative evidence); Greater plant-available water (No quantitative evidence); Reduced erosion risk (No quantitative evidence); Improved surface infiltration (No quantitative evidence); Ameliorate compaction (No quantitative evidence)
Capacity of soil to support cropping systems (No quantative evidence); Improved soil structure (No quantative evidence); Long term soil productivity (No quantative evidence); Drought resiliency (No quantative evidence); Erosion risk (lessened) (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil organic carbon content (No quantative evidence)
Open
David R Montgomery and Anne Biklé - 2021 - Soil Health and Nutrient Density Beyond Organic vs. Conventional Farming.pdf
United States of America; France; India; New Zealand; South Africa; Brazil; Italy; Spain; Denmark; Germany; Ethiopia; Pakistan
2; 3; 15
United States; France; India; New Zealand; South Africa; Brazil; Australia; Pakistan; Italy; Spain; Denmark; Sweden; Ethiopia; Germany; China
Soil degradation; Soil health; Micronutrient deficiencies; Pesticide exposure
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial inoculants + Agricultural Solution 2: compost + Agricultural Solution 3: mulch + non-agricultural solution 1: increase crop micronutrient and phytochemical content.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: tillage + non-agricultural solution 1: soil organic matter degradation + non-agricultural solution 2: disruption of soil life + non-agricultural solution 3: reduction in crop mineral uptake and phytochemical production.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: organic farming + Agricultural Solution 2: tillage + non-agricultural solution 1: soil organic matter degradation + non-agricultural solution 2: disruption of soil life + non-agricultural solution 3: reduction in crop mineral uptake and phytochemical production
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: conventional farming + Agricultural Solution 2: tillage + non-agricultural solution 1: soil organic matter degradation + non-agricultural solution 2: disruption of soil life + non-agricultural solution 3: reduction in crop mineral uptake and phytochemical production
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: cover crops + Agricultural Solution 2: crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: increased soil organic matter + non-agricultural solution 2: increased soil health
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: no-till + Agricultural Solution 2: cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: increased soil organic matter + non-agricultural solution 2: increased soil health
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: synthetic nitrogen fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: reduced the abundance and diversity of mycorrhizal fungi + non-agricultural solution 2: lower mineral uptake.
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: decreased nitrogen availability + non-agricultural solution 1: generally increases the content of defensive compounds in crops, enhancing disease resistance at the expense of growth.
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution 1: reduced tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: cover cropping + non-agricultural solution 1: greatly increased mycorrhizal colonization of crop roots
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution 1: minimal-till or no-till methods + non-agricultural solution 1: increase microbial biomass and enzyme activity
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution 1: crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: affects the diversity and composition of mycorrhizal fungi
Solution Package 12:
Agricultural Solution 1: organic practices + Agricultural Solution 2: conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 3: cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: organic amendments + non-agricultural solution 1: greatly enhanced soil health through increased soil organic matter and microbial biomass
Solution Package 13:
Agricultural Solution 1: livestock manure + non-agricultural solution 1: enhances soil health and crop growth
Solution Package 14:
Agricultural Solution 1: clover as green manure + Agricultural Solution 2: nitrogen fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: improved soil health + non-agricultural solution 2: grain yields + non-agricultural solution 3: grain nutritional content
Solution Package 15:
Agricultural Solution 1: diverse cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: enhance soil health
Solution Package 16:
Agricultural Solution 1: compost + non-agricultural solution 1: suppress soil-borne plant pathogens
Solution Package 17:
Agricultural Solution 1: conservation agriculture practices + Agricultural Solution 2: no-till methods + Agricultural Solution 3: grass cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: increased soil life
Solution Package 18:
Agricultural Solution 1: synthetic nitrogen fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: reduce the amount of phenolic compounds in foliage
Solution Package 19:
Agricultural Solution 1: intercropping diverse plants + non-agricultural solution 1: increase mineral density in crops
Solution Package 20:
Agricultural Solution 1: organic practices + non-agricultural solution 1: higher phytochemical levels
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health;sub outcomes/benefits : enhanced soil health and conventional practices degrade it, relying on tillage for weed control on both organic and conventional farms degrades soil organic matter and can disrupt soil life in ways that reduce crop mineral uptake and phytochemical production.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies
I am sorry, based on the text you provided, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs." that are specifically mentioned as a direct result of the solutions and solution packages discussed in the text.
Healthy earthworm populations boost crop yields (average of 25 percent)
Increased zinc content in wheat (20% higher); Increased quercetin in tomatoes (79% higher); Increased kaempferol in tomatoes (97% higher); Crop yields boosted by earthworm populations (average of 25 percent); Increased microbial biomass carbon (41% higher)
Increased microbial biomass (41 and 51% higher microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen; 30–70% increase in microorganisms);;Increased microbial activity (32–74% more microbial enzyme activity);;Increased earthworm abundance and biomass (two to twenty-fivefold increase in visible soil life; conventionally tilled fields had virtually no worms);;Increased soil organic matter levels (significantly increased);;Increased plant-available minerals in soil (greater levels of plant-available zinc; increased amount of plant-available iron; higher levels of plant-available iron and zinc)
Increased soil microbial biomass and activity under organic farming (Microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen were 41 and 51% higher, respectively, and microbial enzyme activity was 32–74% more);; Increased abundance and biomass of soil life under conservation agriculture and organic farming (Visible soil life (earthworms and arthropods) increased two to twenty-fivefold and microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) increased by 30–70%);; Increased soil organic matter and carbon sequestration under soil health building practices like organic farming, conservation tillage, and cover cropping (Significantly increased);; Increased earthworm populations under no-till farming (Almost as many worms as found in unplowed pasture compared to virtually no worms under conventional tillage);; Minimal-till or no-till methods increase microbial biomass and enzyme activity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Sommer Dilly and Aida Jimenez Esquilin - 2019 - Effects of Sargassum amendment in soil health parameters in a West Virginia agricultural soil.pdf
United States of America
14; 12; 15
United States of America, West Virginia
Odor pollution; Ecological problems; Economic problem; Soil health; Plant growth
Solution Package 1:
Sargassum seaweed amendment + improved soil health + potential for reuse as a fertilizer
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil respiration relates to higher microbial activity, and increased protease activity relates to an increase in N availability; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
no evidence found
Increased soil respiration (soils without amendment showed statistically significant lower respiration (p=0.002); 50% amendment showed the highest increase);;Increased protease activity (soils without amendment showed statistically significant lower ... protease activities (p<0.001); 50% amendment showed the highest increase)
Increased soil respiration (p=0.002);Increased protease activity (p<0.001);Increase in N availability (p<0.001 via protease activity);Stimulation of the soil microbial community (p=0.002 via respiration);Potential to help ameliorate N limitation (p<0.001 via N availability)
Higher microbial activity (statistically significant increase in respiration (p=0.002); 50% amendment showed highest increase)
Open
Yoshihiro Hashiguchi et al. - 2017 - Economic shocks and changes in global production structures.pdf
Australia; Austria; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hong Kong, SAR; Hungary; Croatia; Iceland; Indonesia; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Korea; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malaysia; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Slovak Republic; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom; United States
8; 9; 17
Here is the analysis of the geographies researched, based on the provided text:
* **Argentina**
* **Australia**
* **Austria**
* **Belgium**
* **Bulgaria**
* **Brazil**
* **Brunei Darussalam**
* **Canada**
* **Switzerland**
* **Chile**
* **China**
* China Domestic sales only
* China Processing
* China Non processing goods exporters
* **Colombia**
* **Costa Rica**
* **Cyprus**
* **Czech Republic**
* **Germany**
* **Denmark**
* **Spain**
* **Estonia**
* **Finland**
* **France**
* **United Kingdom**
* **Greece**
* **Hong Kong SAR**
* **Croatia**
* **Hungary**
* **Indonesia**
* **Ireland**
* **Israel**
* **Iceland**
* **India**
* **Italy**
* **Japan**
* **Cambodia**
* **Korea**
* **Lithuania**
* **Luxembourg**
* **Latvia**
* **Malta**
* **Malaysia**
* **Mexico**
* Mexico Global Manufacturing
* Mexico Non-Global Manufacturing
* **Netherlands**
* **Norway**
* **New Zealand**
* **Philippines**
* **Poland**
* **Portugal**
* **Romania**
* **Russian Federation**
* **Saudi Arabia**
* **Singapore**
* **Slovak Republic**
* **Slovenia**
* **Sweden**
* **Thailand**
* **Turkey**
* **Tunisia**
* **Chinese Taipei**
* **United States**
* **Viet Nam**
* **South Africa**
Societal Problems:
Economic shocks; Economic downturns; International trade; Production structure instability; Unemployment.
Here's the breakdown of solution packages, extracted from the provided text:
**Solution Package 1:**
* **Agricultural Solution 1:** (Implied - The document focuses on economic resilience and doesn't specifically mention agricultural solutions. However, changes in the production structure, which includes agriculture, are analyzed).
* **Agricultural Solution 2:** (Implied - Similar to above, the document indirectly addresses agricultural changes as part of overall production shifts.)
* **Non-agricultural solution 1:** Domestic service sector (plays a key role in temporarily containing the negative feedback from final demand shocks).
* **Non-agricultural solution 2:** Increase in the dependence on domestic services demand (contributes to containing domestic economic losses).
* **Non-agricultural solution 3:** During an economic slowdown, decrease the dependence on both domestic goods demand and foreign final demand.
* **Non-agricultural solution 4:** Public sector agents are expected to increase public final expenditure and investment, to support private investment by changing interest rates, to stimulate household consumption and/or to provide tax incentives and subsidies for production.
* **Non-agricultural solution 5:** Firms are expected to change the amount of mixed income, labour and capital inputs, labour-capital ratio and/or procurement patterns.
* **Economic solution:** Shift from goods to services sectors to help prevent a steep decline in economic performance.
* **Policy Solution**: Countries that are able to prop up the economy through the domestic service sectors instead of domestic goods and foreign sectors are more resilient to negative shocks.
* **Economic Solution**: (In reference to labor compensation) Labor compensation is more resilient to the final demand shocks.
Here's the analysis of the provided text in relation to the specified KPIs:
This document does not contain specific information related to the KPIs you provided. Therefore, I cannot specify the number and name of sub-outcomes/benefits for each KPI based on this text.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category.
Resilience of domestic services value-added during slowdowns due to structural change (-0.0639);Resilience of domestic services labour compensation during slowdowns due to structural change (-0.0864);Increased overall structural resilience to negative final demand shocks over time (Change in coefficient from 0.0532 to -0.0139)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Sommer Dilly and Aida Jimenez Esquilin - 2019 - Effects of Sargassum amendment in soil health parameters in a West Virginia agricultural soil.pdf
United States of America
14; 15; 12
United States of America, West Virginia
Odor pollution; Ecological problems; Economic problems
Solution Package 1:
Sargassum amendment in soil + use of Sargassum seaweed as a fertilizer + none -agricultural solutions mentioned in the text.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil respiration relates to higher microbial activity, and increased protease activity relates to an increase in N availability; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
No relevant outcomes found in the text.
no evidence found
Increased soil respiration (p=0.002 difference compared to no amendment); Increased protease activity (p<0.001 difference compared to no amendment); Higher microbial activity (No quantitative evidence); Increased N availability (No quantitative evidence)
Increased soil respiration (p=0.002);Increased protease activity (p<0.001)
None
Open
Sommer Dilly and Aida Jimenez Esquilin - 2019 - Effects of Sargassum amendment in soil health parameters in a West Virginia agricultural soil.pdf
United States of America
14; 12; 15
United States of America, West Virginia
Odor pollution; Economic problems; Ecological problems
Solution Package 1:
Sargassum amendment + tourism economy (economic solution)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Increased soil respiration relates to higher microbial activity, and increased protease activity relates to an increase in N availability.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the provided text.
Helps plant growth (No quantative evidence)
Increased protease activity (p<0.001);Increased soil respiration (p=0.002);Increased N availability (No quantative evidence);Higher microbial activity (No quantative evidence);Potential to ameliorate N limitation (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil respiration (statistically significant (p=0.002) compared to no amendment, 50% amendment showed the highest increase);Increased protease activity (statistically significant (p<0.001) compared to no amendment, 50% amendment showed the highest increase);Increased N availability (No quantative evidence);Higher microbial activity (No quantative evidence);Potential to ameliorate N limitation (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Donal Brown et al. - 2021 - Conceptualising domestic energy service business models A typology and policy recommendations.pdf
Europe
7; 13; 11
Europe; Finland, Helsinki; Greece, Athens; United Kingdom, London; Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia; France, Paris, Schiltigheim; Netherlands; Spain, Barcelona; Portugal, Lisbon; Belgium, Leuven
Climate change mitigation; Reducing household energy demand; Energy efficiency; Heat decarbonisation; Renewable energy.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
- Energy service business models (ESBMs)
- Energy supply contracts (ESC)
- Energy service financing (ESF)
- Energy performance contracts (EPC)
- Energy services agreements (ESA)
- Energy as a service (EaaS)
- Managed energy services agreements (MESA)
- District heating systems
- Solar-as-a-service
- Heat-as-a-service (HaaS)
- Municipal ESCOs
- Performance-based energy economy
- Financing
- Long-term contracts
- Smart appliances
- Smart home devices
- Machine learning
- Prosumer business models
- Standardised contracts
- Procurement frameworks
- Aggregator platform
- Community fund
- Insurance-backed performance guarantees
- Low-cost ‘smart home’ devices
- Remote monitoring devices
- Big data
- Government loan guarantees
- Public engagement programs
- Minimum energy performance standards
- Grant funding
- Financing packages
- Public financial institutions
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
- Performance-based compliance in building regulations
- Performance-based retrofits
- Building fabric improvements
- HVAC systems
- Building regulations
- Accreditation of ESCO contractors
- Consumer protections
- Electricity wholesale
- Electricity balancing market designs
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
- Low-cost capital
- Green stimulus
- COVID recovery packages
- Training and skills programs for the low carbon housing sector
- Minimum energy efficiency standards (MEES)
- Value Added Tax (VAT) fiscal policies
- Performance-based compliance
- Municipal planning policy
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
- Design, build and operate contracts
- Onsite renewables
- District heat networks
- Smart heating control
- Storage
- Dynamic electricity network charges
- Cost reflective electricity network charges
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
- Performance based retrofit
- Whole cost of living approach
- Combined rent and service charge
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
Solar-as-a-service models, for example, help households to become prosumers without the upfront cost (No quantative evidence);;Increasing examples of these models being used for district heating provision from low carbon sources, such as GSHP (I#29–37), usually serving new housing developments (I#20, I#21) (No quantative evidence);;Residents receive a reliable power and heat supply with the ESCO optimising the system to secure the best revenues and balance between import and export, using the large battery to contract into flexibility markets through an aggregator for additional revenues (No quantative evidence)
Customer savings from Energy Performance Contracts (€500/year)
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health." mentioned in the provided Full text content.
no evidence found
ICF Habitat average heat demand reduction (143 kWh/m2/a (68%));Energies POSIT’IF guaranteed energy savings (average 47%);Energies POSIT’IF meets French energy performance standard (104 kWh/m2/a);Energiesprong ‘net zero energy’ retrofit (several thousand homes)
Open
Yili Meng - 2022 - Effect of Forage Management Strategies and Land Use Change on Nitrogen Budget and Soil Health Parame.pdf
United States of America
15
United States of America, Louisiana, Baker
Societal problems addressed:
1. Greenhouse gas emission
2. Environmental pollution
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Dicyandiamide (DCD) + Nitrification Inhibitor
Agricultural Solution 2: 3,4 dimethyl pyrazole phosphate (DMPP) + Nitrification Inhibitor
Non-agricultural solution 1: Forage Management Strategies
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Urea + Nitrogen Fertilizer
Non-agricultural solution 1: Forage Management Strategies
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: White clover (Trifolium repens) + Winter Cover Crops
Non-agricultural solution 1: Tillage
Non-agricultural solution 2: Legume/grass vegetations
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improved total microbial biomass with urea application;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
The full text does not provide specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs."
Increased biomass yield (Clover: 9.34 Mg ha-1 vs Control: 1.61 Mg ha-1);Increased nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) (Clover: 43.4% vs Control: Not applicable; comparable to Urea: 42.2%)
Increased soil aggregate stability (>0.25 mm) (proportion... significantly higher than that in no-till control... by 11%); Increased total microbial biomass (47% higher compared to the no-till control); Increased soil aggregate stability (MWD) (significantly higher MWD for No-till (0.90 mm) than Tillage (0.66 mm)); Improved total microbial biomass (doubled the TMB comparing to urea-only treatment); Increased AMF relative abundance (significantly higher with white clover (5.9%) compared to no-till control (3.8%))
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:
Reduced nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (two-year average seasonal cumulative N2O emission was significantly reduced by 76% with DCD addition and 67% with DMPP treatment compared to the urea treatment); Reduced nitrate-N loss through leaching (potential NO3- loss was reduced by 89% with DCD and 94% with DMPP when compared to the urea treatment in 2017); Reduced nitrate-N loss through runoff (NO3- in runoff was reduced by 84% with DCD and 65% with DMPP compared to the urea treatment in 2017); Reduced cumulative NH4+-N runoff load (cumulative NH4+-N loads from NT WU (283 g ha-1) were significantly lower than from NT Urea treatments (668 g ha-1)); Reduced cumulative NO3--N runoff load (cumulative NO3--N loads from NT WU (181 g ha-1) were significantly lower than from NT Urea treatments (455 g ha-1))
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:
Increased soil aggregate stability (Increased mean weight diameter to 2.03 mm in NT WC and 1.90 mm in NT WU treatments compared to 1.57 mm in NT Control and 1.48 mm in NT Urea treatments); Increased total microbial biomass (TMB was significantly higher in NT WC (261.4 nmol g-1) and NT WU (259.4 nmol g-1) treatments than in NT Urea (186.8 nmol g-1) treatment, and NT WC also had significantly higher TMB than NT Control (219.4 nmol g-1)); Increased total microbial biomass (Urea DCD10 (247.7 nmol g-1) and Urea DMPP1 (222.4 nmol g-1) significantly increased total microbial biomass compared to Urea (114.0 nmol g-1)); Reduced microbial environmental stress (cy/pre ratio was significantly increased in urea treatment (0.66) compared to the control (0.58), but such stress induced by urea was significantly reduced by DCD10 (0.49) or DMPP1 (0.57) addition); Increased bacterial biomass (Total bacterial biomass significantly increased from 93.2 nmol g-1 in Urea treatment to 201.5 nmol g-1 in Urea DCD10 and 178.4 nmol g-1 in Urea DMPP1 treatments)
Reduced nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (two-year average seasonal cumulative N2O emission was significantly reduced by 76% with DCD addition and 67% with DMPP treatment, as compared to the urea treatment);Increased total microbial biomass (WCL plots exhibited significantly higher soil microbial biomass (1,158 nmol g-1 soil) than BG plots (829 nmol g-1 soil), showing a 40% increase);Increased total soil organic carbon (TSOC was 10.81 g kg-1 in NT and 9.48 g kg-1 in CT, showing a 14% increase under NT);Reduced nitrate-N loss through leaching (addition of NIs greatly reduced the potential NO3- loss to 283 g N ha-1 by DCD and 157 g N ha-1 by DMPP, representing reduction of 89% and 94%, respectively, when compared to the urea treatment (Fig. 3.4d));Increased water stable aggregates (WSA was 58.8% in NT and 42.1% in CT, showing a 40% increase under NT)
Open
Aysha Tapp Ross - 2022 - How do cover crops change soil health in a no-till system.pdf
United States
15; 2; 13
United States of America, Kentucky
Soil health; Climate change; Nutrient runoff; Soil erosion; Soil biodiversity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover Crops + Agricultural Solution 2: No-Till + non-agricultural solution 1: Policy (The Growing Climate Solutions Act, Kentucky's comprehensive soil health bill, and state-level soil health initiatives in California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Oklahoma)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rye Cover Crop + Agricultural Solution 2: No-Till + non-agricultural solution 1: Policy (Encouraging the utilization of conservation practices to influence agricultural carbon markets and other climate related policy programs)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the KPI "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies." in the provided full text. The text discusses potential effects on yield based on external research and discusses factors that *could* influence yield but does not report higher yields or incomes as a result of the specific treatments studied within this text.
Increased abundance of fungal family Diversisporaceae (statistically significant differences in cereal rye than the other treatments (p=0.001)); Higher Volumetric Water Content (VWC) at 2” soil depth (significant difference between both rye and bare soils (p=.0001), and rye and annuals (p=.000001))
Higher volumetric water content at 2" soil depth (p=.0001; p=.000001);;Higher number of organisms in the fungal family Diversisporaceae (p=.001; p=.017);;Bacterial community composition differed from annual plots (No quantitative evidence);;Higher number of organisms in the fungal family Pleosporaceae (p=.002; p=.002);;Higher number of organisms in the fungal family Helotiales Incertae sedis (p=.0002; p=.0002)
Specific fungal families showing increased organisms in cereal rye soils (Diversisporaceae (p=.002); Pleosporaceae (p=.006); Helotiales Incertae sedis (p=.002)); Bacterial community composition differed between treatments (Figure 13); No significant differences in fungal diversity measures (Shannon (p=0.546); Richness (p=0.882); Evenness (p=0.611); Total organisms (p=0.641)); No significant differences in bacterial diversity measures (Shannon (p=0.926); Richness (p=0.892); Evenness (p=0.858); Total organisms (p=0.912))
Open
Baqir Lalani et al. - 2021 - Examining Heterogeneity of Food Fortification and Biofortification Business Models Emerging Evidenc.pdf
Afghanistan; Angola; Argentina; Bangladesh; Benin; Bolivia; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cote d’Ivoire; Democratic Republic of Congo; Denmark; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Kenya; Liberia; Madagascar; Maharashtra; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nepal; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Oman; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Senegal; Sierra Leone; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Sweden; Switzerland; Tanzania; Thailand; Togo; Turkey; Uganda; United States; Uzbekistan; Venezuela; Vietnam; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe
2
Afghanistan; Angola; Argentina; Australia; Bangladesh; Benin; Bolivia; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cote d’Ivoire; Democratic Republic of Congo; Denmark; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Kenya; Liberia; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Nepal; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Oman; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Senegal; Sierra Leone; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Sweden; Switzerland; Tanzania; Thailand; Togo; Turkey; Uganda; United States; Uzbekistan; Venezuela; Vietnam; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe; Maharashtra;
Micronutrient deficiencies; Public health; Food security; Malnutrition; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Biofortification + Fortification + Complementary food supplementation
Non-agricultural solutions: Commercial Viability + Supportive Regulations/Legislation + Quality and Standards + Target + Country Type + Scale + Business Model + Legislation
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Biofortification + Fortification + Complementary food supplementation
Non-agricultural solutions: Commercial Viability + Supportive Regulations/Legislation + Quality and Standards + Target + Country Type + Scale + Business Model + Legislation
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Biofortification + Fortification
Non-agricultural solutions: Commercial Viability + Supportive Regulations/Legislation + Quality and Standards + Target + Country Type + Scale + Business Model + Legislation
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: Fortification
Non-agricultural solutions: Commercial Viability + Supportive Regulations/Legislation + Quality and Standards + Target + Country Type + Scale + Business Model + Legislation
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No quantative evidence
high yields that lead to better returns for farmers (No quantative evidence)
The provided text focuses on food fortification and biofortification strategies to address micronutrient deficiencies in humans and the business models associated with these initiatives. It does not discuss or report on outcomes related to improved soil health or its impact on plant and animal productivity or health. Therefore, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits in the text that belong to the KPI "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health."
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the full text content that belong to the specified KPIs: "Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services" and "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health". The text discusses outcomes related to human nutrition (micronutrient deficiency reduction), business models, and adoption of biofortified crops (like increased yields, but not linked to improved soil health), but not landscape resilience, ecosystem services, or soil health.
no evidence found
Open
Dominik Klauser and Christine Negra - 2020 - Getting Down to Earth (and Business) Focus on African Smallholders' Incentives for Improved Soil Ma.pdf
15;2;1
Africa; Kenya, Budalangi, western highlands; Burkina Faso; Malawi; Tanzania; Niger; Ethiopia; Benin; Mali; Tunisia
Soil degradation; Production risks; Climate change; Agricultural productivity; Resilience
Solution Package 1:
Diversified cropping systems + crop rotations + continuous soil cover (e.g., cover crops; mulching) + minimum tillage + intercropping and agroforestry systems + value chain strategies + policy strategies + finance strategies
Solution Package 2:
Legume rotation/forage/cover cropping + perennial intercropping + No-till + organic amendments/biochar addition + planting basins, ridging, weed management + fertilizer microdosing + precision agriculture, seed treatment + Rhizobium inocula and phosphorus fertilization + tied ridging, crop residue incorporation, legume rotation + Zaï farming + Reliable offtake arrangements + premium prices (certification) + extended transport infrastructure + farmer aggregation mechanisms + improved seed registration + coordinated seed multiplication systems + funding for in-region R&D, datasets, models + provision or cost-sharing for farm inputs + regulations, tariffs, taxes + land titling + preferential access to credit OR borrowing terms that account for lower repayment risk based on farmer screening + concessionary/blended finance schemes to incentivize agri-entrepreneurs (seeds; diagnostic or machinery services) + insurance and other risk-pooling schemes + incentive schemes that subsidize and verify environmental performance + carbon offset credits: subsidized prices, measurement methodologies, and verification mechanisms + water funds: established pricing, quotas + biodiversity and habitat conservation payment schemes
Solution Package 3:
Ecological weed management + Legume intercropping/trap crop rotation + Integrated pest management (push-pull) + assessment of agroecological suitability (appropriate crops, varieties, rotations; soil diagnostics) + bundled rural advisory services (e.g., training, Extension, Integrated Pest Management) + secure land tenure + household labor and financial resources + improved seeds, nursery stock, equipment (e.g., irrigation; storage) + agri-entrepreneurs (machinery services) + carbon offset payments + public support programs + carbon sequestration/GHG emission reduction + water use efficiency + watershed protection
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic matter and biodiversity, improved plant-available water, better nutrient availability, and reduced weed, pest, and disease pressure; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: reduced erosion; water recharge; carbon sequestration; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: increased agricultural production
Better value chain integration and service delivery through farmer aggregation mechanisms (No quantative evidence);;Develop models that combine soil diagnostic services and related input supply (No quantative evidence)
Increased yield (No quantitative evidence); Reduced fertilizer use (No quantitative evidence); Yield return on labor (No quantitative evidence); Reduced weed/pest pressure (No quantitative evidence)
Increased yield (No quantitative evidence); Increased resilience to drought (No quantitative evidence); Reduced weed/pest pressure (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Increased soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Improved plant-available water (No quantitative evidence); Reduced erosion (No quantitative evidence); Increased resilience to drought (No quantitative evidence)
Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence); Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Reduced erosion (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Bhupinder S Farmaha et al. - 2022 - Cover cropping and conservation tillage improve soil health in the southeastern United States.pdf
United States of America
2; 15; 13
United States, North Carolina, Alamance, Ashe, Buncombe, Catawba, Davidson, Duplin, Durham, Granville, Guilford, Halifax, Haywood, Hoke, Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Montgomery, Nash, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Scotland, Stanly, Union, Warren, Wayne, Wilkes; South Carolina, Calhoun, Darlington, Dillon, Dorchester, Florence, Orangeburg; Virginia, Augusta, Essex, Fauquier, New Kent, Rockingham; Pennsylvania, Berks, Lancaster, Montour
Soil degradation; Food security; Climate change; Environmental health; Soil erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Non-agricultural solution 1: Promotional campaigns
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Minimum soil disturbance + Agricultural Solution 2: Maximum soil cover + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop diversification
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the provided text.
Greater crop yields with NT than with conventional tillage (on average 6% greater)
Soil-test biological activity greater with conservation tillage (across regions 244 vs 138 mg kg−1 3 d−1 at 0-10 cm);Net N mineralization greater with conservation tillage (across regions 70 vs 39 mg kg−1 24 d−1 at 0-10 cm);Total organic carbon greater with conservation tillage (across regions 20.4 vs 14.3 g kg−1 at 0-10 cm);Total soil nitrogen greater with conservation tillage (across regions 1.68 vs 0.97 g kg−1 at 0-10 cm);Mehlich-III extractable P greater with conservation tillage (across regions 210 vs 158 g m−3 at 0-10 cm)
Increased Total organic C in surface layer (Across regions: 0-10cm, conservation tillage 20.4-21.4 g kg−1 vs inversion tillage 14.3 g kg−1);; Increased Soil-test biological activity in surface layer with conservation tillage (Across regions: 0-10cm, conservation tillage 244-291 mg kg−1 3 d−1 vs inversion tillage 138 mg kg−1 3 d−1);; Increased Net N mineralization in surface layer with conservation tillage (Across regions: 0-10cm, conservation tillage 70-85 mg kg−1 24 d−1 vs inversion tillage 39 mg kg−1 24 d−1);; Increased Soil-test biological activity in surface layer with cover cropping (Across regions: 0-10cm, cover cropping under conservation tillage 281-291 mg kg−1 3 d−1 vs no cover cropping 244 mg kg−1 3 d−1);; Increased Total soil nitrogen in surface layer (Across regions: 0-10cm, conservation tillage 1.68-1.86 g kg−1 vs inversion tillage 0.97 g kg−1)
Increased Total Organic Carbon (Conservation Tillage (20.4 g kg−1) vs Inversion Tillage (14.3 g kg−1) at 0-10 cm across regions);; Increased Soil-Test Biological Activity (Conservation Tillage (244 mg kg−1 3 d−1) vs Inversion Tillage (138 mg kg−1 3 d−1) at 0-10 cm across regions);; Increased Net N Mineralization (Conservation Tillage (70 mg kg−1 24 d−1) vs Inversion Tillage (39 mg kg−1 24 d−1) at 0-10 cm across regions)
Open
Casey J Shawver et al. - 2021 - Soil health changes following transition from an annual cropping to perennial management‐intensive g.pdf
United States of America
15; 2; 3
United States of America, Colorado, Fort Collins
Soil degradation; Climate change; Land degradation; Reduced production costs; Declining land availability
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Management-intensive grazing (MiG) + Perennial pasture
Non-agricultural solution 1: Irrigation
Non-agricultural solution 2: Reducing anthropogenic soil disturbance
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Positive impacts were observed in the chemical and biological SHI due to decreases in salt content and increases in microbial and enzymatic activities; The chemical and nutrient SHI increased in the soil surface due to reductions in salt content in conjunction with increased plant-available soil P, as a result of salt leaching via irrigation and pre-study inorganic P fertilizer application in conjunction with manure deposition due to MiG, respectively.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to the category were found in the text.
No specific outcomes related to higher yields or incomes were reported in the text as a direct result of the implemented solutions package.
Increased Biological SHI score (0.26 to 0.48 for 0-5cm depth);; Increased Chemical SHI score (0.32 to 0.44 for 0-5cm depth);; Increased Microbial biomass C concentrations (122 to 355 mg g−1 for 0-5cm depth);; Increased β-glucosidase activity (65.3 to 84.9 mg pnp kg−1 soil h−1 for 0-5cm depth);; Increased Potentially mineralizable N concentrations (11.8 to 17.3 mg kg−1 for 0-5cm depth)
Biological soil health index (increased from 0.26 ± 0.04 to 0.48 ± 0.03 in 0-to-5-cm depth and from 0.25 ± 0.03 to 0.42 ± 0.03 in 5-to-15-cm depth);Chemical soil health index (increased from 0.32 ± 0.04 to 0.44 ± 0.04 in 0-to-5-cm depth and from 0.14 ± 0.03 to 0.22 ± 0.04 in 5-to-15-cm depth);Microbial biomass C (increased from 122 ± 6 to 355 ± 25 mg g−1 in 0-to-5-cm depth and from 136 ± 9 to 271 ± 22 mg g−1 in 5-to-15-cm depth);Potentially mineralizable N (increased from 11.8 ± 1.9 to 17.3 ± 1.0 mg kg−1 in 0-to-5-cm depth and from 11.2 ± 1.7 to 14.9 ± 1.0 mg kg−1 in 5-to-15-cm depth);Reduction in salt content (electrical conductivity decreased from 1.96 ± 0.25 to 1.12 ± 0.25 dS m−1 in 0-to-5-cm depth and from 2.94 ± 0.20 to 2.52 ± 0.23 dS m−1 in 5-to-15-cm depth)
Increased microbial biomass carbon (MBC) activity (Increased from 122 ± 6 to 355 ± 25 mg g−1 (0-5cm) and 136 ± 9 to 271 ± 22 mg g−1 (5-15cm) between 2017 and 2018);; Increased β-glucosidase (BG) enzymatic activity (Increased from 65.3 ± 2.8 to 84.9 ± 4.2 mg pnp kg−1 soil h−1 (0-5cm) and 66.9 ± 3.3 to 70.2 ± 5.3 mg pnp kg−1 soil h−1 (5-15cm) between 2017 and 2018)
Open
Charlotte E Norris et al. - 2020 - Introducing the North American project to evaluate soil health measurements.pdf
Canada; Mexico; United States of America
15;2;13
Canada; Mexico; United States of America
Climate change; Water quality; Food production; Nutrient cycling; Soil erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health measurements + Agricultural Solution 2: Agricultural management practices + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop yield
+ non-agricultural solution 1: Policy + non-agricultural solution 2: Consumer awareness
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop diversity + Agricultural Solution 4: Nutrient management + Agricultural Solution 5: Water management
+ non-agricultural solution 1: Climate change + non-agricultural solution 2: Water quality
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Grazing
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health promoting practices
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover crop
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Determining what we value, or ask, from a specific soil because soils provide many ecosystem services, but not all soils can provide all services equally nor simultaneously.;
2. Three tools that currently assess soil health include the Soil Health Management Assessment Framework (Andrews, Karlen, & Cambardella, 2004), Haney Soil Test (Haney, Haney, Hossner, & Arnold, 2010), and Cornell’s Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (Moebius-Clune, Moebius-Clune, Gugino, Idowu, & Schindelbeck, 2017), and each relies on a specific suite of measures of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties.;
3. What is missing, and is therefore timely and necessary, is a large-scale broad assessment of soil health indicators, both old and new, across a wide range of soils, climates, and management systems.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Principle 5 of the Charter states “soil health management is sustainable if the supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services provided by soil are maintained or enhanced without significantly impairing either the soil functions that enable those services or biodiversity”.;
2. Therefore, our contemporary issue is how to best manage our agricultural land under these societal challenges to strengthen long-term environmental sustainability and resilience (IPCC, 2019).;
3. This interdependence is evident with nutrient availability because soil pH changes how nutrients interact with other constituents of the soil; therefore, soil pH constrains soil nutrient availability.;
4. Because of the tight linkage between soil C and other environmental benefits like increasing water holding capacity and infiltration, there is a strong interest in identifying the practices that increase soil organic C and soil health more broadly (Reicosky, 2003).
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. Therefore, our contemporary issue is how to best manage our agricultural land under these societal challenges to strengthen long-term environmental sustainability and resilience (IPCC, 2019).;
2. Ecosystem services is one framework that classifies the benefits of soils including: a foundation for infrastructure, a cultural heritage, and habitat for organisms, in addition to the commonly recognized provision of food, fiber, and fuel (FAO, 2015).;
3. The sites were spread across a large geographic area representing spatially diverse growing conditions from mean annual temperature and precipitation of 5.8 ◦C and 384 mm at the Breton Plots (Dyck et al., 2012) to 17.5 ◦C and 827 mm in Santo Domingo Yanhuitlán (Thornton et al., 2018).
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. For the International Year of Soils, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations officially adopted the World Soil Charter (FAO, 2015).;
2. Because soils develop based on the five soil-forming factors (climate, organisms, relief, parent material, and time), their abiotic and biotic properties will vary across the landscape.;
3. Three tools that currently assess soil health include the Soil Health Management Assessment Framework (Andrews, Karlen, & Cambardella, 2004), Haney Soil Test (Haney, Haney, Hossner, & Arnold, 2010), and Cornell’s Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (Moebius-Clune, Moebius-Clune, Gugino, Idowu, & Schindelbeck, 2017), and each relies on a specific suite of measures of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
1. For example, aggregate stability is measured using the standard “wet aggregate stability test” (Kemper & Roseneau, 1986), the Cornell wet aggregate stability test (Moebius-Clune et al., 2017), and a soil aggregate stability smartphone application
(i.e., SLAKES; Fajardo, McBratney, Field, & Minasny, 2016).;
2. However, biotic properties, such as total organic matter, have been known to increase available water holding capacity (AWHC) by as much as 50% for each 1% increase in organic matter (Hudson, 1994).
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
There are no specific reported sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" with quantitative proof provided in the text, resulting from the use/implementation of the mentioned solutions and solution packages within the scope of this project's reported findings. The text describes the project design and the indicators being measured to *later* evaluate these outcomes.
no evidence found
Based on the provided full text, there are no specific reported sub outcomes/outputs/benefits within the category "Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" that include quantitative proof from the NAPESHM project data. The text describes the project's design, methods, objectives, and the indicators being evaluated to identify how management practices affect soil condition and ecosystem provisioning, but it does not present results or specific outcomes achieved by the practices being studied.
Soil organic C (No quantative evidence);Soil microbial diversity (No quantative evidence);Carbon cycling (No quantative evidence)
Open
Zakir Hussain et al. - 2022 - A Review of Farmland Soil Health Assessment Methods Current Status and a Novel Approach.pdf
China; New Zealand; United States of America (USA); Brazil; Germany; France; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK); Australia; Israel; European Union (EU)
2;15;12
China; New Zealand; USA; Brazil; Germany; France; UK; Australia; Israel; European Union (EU); Cambodia; Austria; Switzerland; Turkey; India
Soil health degradation; Food security; Sustainable agriculture; Land management; Stakeholder engagement
Solution Package 1:
Soil function index system (i) + nutrition index system (j) + output index system (k)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Soil is a dynamic and diverse natural system that supports many essential ecosystem services (ES), such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, water purification, and habitat provision as well as maintenance of biological productivity and environmental quality;2. Healthy soils are vital for food production as 95% of global food production directly or indirectly depends on soils;3. This approach will facilitate the soil experts, land managers, owners, and end-users to understand the soil health status, the management practices, and required management strategies for maximum productivity without compromising the soil health;4. Given the population explosion, it has become a global challenge to provide food, fiber, and fuel to such a burgeoning population, and without the maintenance and protection of soils, it is not possible to provide these necessities to the future generations.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Soil is a dynamic and diverse natural system that supports many essential ecosystem services (ES), such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, water purification, and habitat provision as well as maintenance of biological productivity and environmental quality;2. Soil health indicators are the soil’s chemical, physical, biological properties, characteristics, processes, and functions
Soil Navigator decision support model (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
improvement of SH (No quantitative evidence); optimization of farmland management practices (No quantitative evidence); evaluation of the effectiveness of management strategies carried out on degraded agricultural lands (No quantitative evidence); Facilitates understanding of the soil health status, the management practices, and required management strategies (No quantitative evidence); adequate guidelines for local crop production (No quantitative evidence)
Based on the analysis of the provided text, there are no specific reported sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to the category of "Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions" that are explicitly stated as a result of the use/implementation of the specified soil health assessment methods or solution packages, along with quantitative proof. The text primarily reviews and proposes methods for *assessing* soil health and discusses how these methods might *include* or *target* environmental functions, but it does not report achieved environmental outcomes with quantitative data from using these assessment methods.
Open
Yijian Zeng et al. - 2025 - Monitoring and Modeling the Soil‐Plant System Toward Understanding Soil Health.pdf
Germany; Israel; Netherlands; United Kingdom
15
Netherlands,
United Kingdom,
Germany,
Israel,
Soil health; Climate change; Agricultural productivity; Soil erosion; Water quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health monitoring
Agricultural Solution 2: Digital twin approach
non-agricultural solution 1: Process-based models
non-agricultural solution 2: Earth Observation data
non-agricultural solution 3: Data assimilation
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health assessment using over 30 soil health indicators (SHIs)
Agricultural Solution 2: Regenerative systems
non-agricultural solution 1: Long-term agricultural research sites
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Monitoring
Agricultural Solution 2: Digital twin technology
non-agricultural solution 1: Remote sensing
non-agricultural solution 2: Field and laboratory measurements
non-agricultural solution 3: Model representation of soil‐plant processes
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Trait-based approaches
non-agricultural solution 1: Remote sensing
non-agricultural solution 2: Machine learning
non-agricultural solution 3: Deep learning algorithms
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.: Soils are fundamental for the production of safe and nutritious food;They provide vital provisioning, supporting and regulating ecosystem services; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.: soil health considers “the capacity of a living soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health”;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.: via vegetation's assimilation of CO2 and subsequent decomposition of plant materials, soils sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which helps mitigate greenhouse gas emissions;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.:Soil-related issues are identified also as the primary environmental drivers that historically contributed to the collapse of societies.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits reported in the text.
no evidence found
Scenario-based assessments and projections for soil health management (No quantative evidence);; Monitoring soil health indicators (No quantative evidence);; Assessment of soil erosion risk (No quantative evidence);; Assessment of soil salinization/desertification/contamination risk (No quantative evidence);; Simulation of plant and biomass production (No quantative evidence)
Improved soil hydraulic conductivity (up to 50%); Increased plant drought resilience (No quantative evidence); Increased soil water holding capacity (No quantative evidence); Reduced soil erodibility (No quantative evidence); Improved water storage within the soil body (No quantative evidence)
Based on the analysis of the provided text, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions" that are reported as a direct result of the use or implementation of the discussed solutions and solution packages (monitoring frameworks, indicators, remote sensing, digital twin, etc.). The text discusses the importance of soil health for these functions and the potential of the solutions to monitor and understand soil health, but does not quantify benefits achieved by using these solutions.
Open
Xuemeng Tian et al. - 2024 - Time-series of Landsat-based spectral indices for continental Europe for 2000--2022 to support soil.pdf
Ukraine; United Kingdom; Turkey; Germany; Netherlands; Poland; Italy; France; Switzerland; Spain; Norway; Sweden; Ireland; Austria; Denmark; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czechia; Estonia; Finland; Greece; Hungary; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Romania; Slovakia
15; 2; 6
continental Europe; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Turkey
Soil health monitoring; Soil degradation; Crop intensity; Tillage practices; Vegetation degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) + Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) + Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR) + Normalized Difference Tillage Index (NDTI) + Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) + Normalized Difference Snow Index (NDSI) + minimum Normalized Difference Tillage Index (minNDTI) + Bare Soil Fraction (BSF) + Number of Seasons (NOS) + Crop Duration Ratio (CDR)
Non-agricultural solution: Digital soil mapping + Cloud-Optimized GeoTIFFs + Soil Health Data Cube + Land Surface Phenology (LSP) metrics + Eurostat data integration + Machine learning + Statistical analysis (Theil-Sen estimator, Pearson correlation)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned.
no evidence found
BSF effective measurement of cropland bareness (-0.73 negative correlation coefficient with the duration of crop cover in agricultural areas between 2007 to 2016); minNDTI demonstration of ability to reflect tillage practices (0.57 moderate positive correlation with Eurostat tillage practices survey data)
Effective detection of soil exposure (-0.73 correlation); Providing valuable information on tillage intensity (0.57 correlation); Monitoring vegetation degradation (No quantitative evidence); Monitoring plant productivity and ecosystem health (No quantitative evidence); Identifying intensively cropped areas (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Dirriba Mengistu - 2015 - Factors Affecting the Choices of Coping Strategies for Climate Extremes The Case of Yabello Distric.pdf
13; 1; 2; 15
Ethiopia; Ethiopia, Oromia National Regional State; Ethiopia, Oromia National Regional State, Borana Zone; Ethiopia, Oromia National Regional State, Borana Zone, Yabello District
Climate extremes; Climate change; Drought; Flash flooding; Land degradation
Solution Package 1:
Livestock diversification based coping strategies (heard splitting, changing species composition, destocking, livestock migration and grazing based on rotation between dry and wet season) + Sex of household head + Access to credit + Access to training + Pastoral/agro-pastoral income
Solution Package 2:
Integrated crop-livestock diversification based coping strategies (Livestock diversification, early matured and drought resistant crop farming, hay making, conservation and feeding on crop residue, intercropping, temporal and spatial planting, dry soil seeding) + Sex of household head + Access to credit + Access to early warning information + Access to training + Pastoral/agro-pastoral income
Solution Package 3:
Livestock diversification, water and rangeland management based coping strategies (Livestock diversification, water harvesting, water resources maintenance, bush clearing, communal grazing land management) + Education status of household head + Size of livestock holding + Market distance from homestead + Access to credit + Pastoral/agro-pastoral income
Solution Package 4:
Livestock diversification, income earning opportunities and strategic feeding system adjustment based coping strategies (borrowing money from friends or neibors, social insurance including buusaa gonofa, remmitance, depending on asistant from other relatives or aid organization, sending childreen to other realtives, labor work, charcoal and firewood sell and petty trades, reducing food intake, bleeding, feeding on wild fruits and roots)
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**; Establishment of formal early warning information centers and sophisticated delivery system, improving access to market, training, credit scheme, improving livestock holding and income of the household would boost the choices of best coping strategies to overcome deleterious impacts of climate extremes.; Access to credit has a significant and positive effect on the chooses of coping strategy 1, coping strategy 2 and coping strategy 3. ; Access to early warning information has positive and significant effects on the decision to choose strategy 2.; Access to trainig has a positive and significant effects on the chooses of strategy 1 and strategy 2.;Improving access to market: Market is the major means of accessing financial resources and other necessities in Yabello district.
Access to credit (Credit provides opportunities to engage in various coping strategies including livestock diversification based coping strategies, integrated crop-livestock diversification based coping strategies, livestock diversification, water and rangeland management based coping strategies;; Access to early warning information (The marginal effect indicates that as households access EWI, the probability of households to choose strategy 2 increases by 0.542 at a p<1% holding the value of other variables constant.);; Access to training (From Marginal effect results, as the household access to trainig the the probability of choosingstrategy 1 and strategy 2 increases 0.019 and 0.088respectively at a p<5% holding the value of other variables constant. )
no evidence found
Improved access to water and forage resources (No quantative evidence); Forage improvements (No quantative evidence); Improved access for grass and water (No quantative evidence)
Improved grazing land management (No quantitative evidence); Improved water resource management (No quantitative evidence); Forage improvements (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Yao Pan et al. - 2018 - Agricultural Extension and Technology Adoption for Food Security Evidence from Uganda.pdf
Uganda
1
Uganda
Food Security; Agricultural productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Manure usage + Intercropping + Crop rotation + Irrigation + Weeding + HYV seeds + Seed purchase from BRAC sources
Non-agricultural solution: Training
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Manure usage + Intercropping + Crop rotation + Irrigation + Weeding + HYV seeds
Non-agricultural solution: Reduced consumption during shocks + Food consumption + Food variety + Meal frequency
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Manure usage + Intercropping + Crop rotation + Irrigation + Weeding + HYV seeds + Seed purchase from BRAC sources + Coffee cultivation
Non-agricultural solution: Reduced consumption during shocks + Food consumption + Food variety + Meal frequency + borrowing
Here's the breakdown of the requested information from the provided text, focusing on specific sub-outcomes/benefits for each KPI:
**1. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* 4: Increased usage of manure (organic fertilizer);increased adoption rate of intercropping; increased adoption rate of crop rotation; Mitigation of soil erosion.
**2. Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* 4: Increased household food consumption expenditure; Increased food variety; increased meal frequency; Higher agricultural income
**3. Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
* 2: increased seed purchases from BRAC sources; farmers are more likely to grow coffee
**4. Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
*0: The provided full text has no specific mention
**5. Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
* 1: Households are more likely to reduce consumption during shocks
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
BRAC Seeds (0.043 percentage points);; Irrigation (3 percentage points)
Per capita household food consumption increased (increased by about 11.6%); Overall food sufficiency (last year) increased (increases by 5.4 percentage points); Likelihood to skip meals (last month) decreased (9.5 percentage points less likely); Likelihood to limit consumption varieties (last month) decreased (6.2 percentage points less likely)
Likelihood to use manure (organic fertilizer) (9.2 percentage points more likely); Adoption rate of crop rotation (8 percentage points); Adoption rate of intercropping (6 percentage points)
Increased adoption rate of manure (9.2 percentage points);Increased adoption rate of crop rotation (8 percentage points);Increased adoption rate of intercropping (6 percentage points);Increased adoption rate of irrigation (3 percentage points)
no evidence found
Open
Xinyue Zhang et al. - 2018 - A Comparative Study of Integrated Crop Management System vs. Conventional Crop Management System for.pdf
China; United States
1;2;15
China, Jiangsu, Dafeng
Low soil fertility; Food security; Sustainable agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated Crop Management System (ICMS) + Agricultural Solution 2: optimal plant density + Agricultural Solution 3: growth-driven fertilizer schedule + Agricultural Solution 4: simplified seedling rising technology + Agricultural Solution 5: Economic N application rate + Agricultural Solution 6: number of N splits + non-agricultural solution 1: Simplified seedling nursery technology (SR)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conventional crop management system (CCMS) + Agricultural Solution 2: labor-intensive traditional seedling rising method + Agricultural Solution 3: plant density of 18,000 plant ha−1.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. More seedcotton yield under ICMS relative to that under CCMS.;2. By combining optimal management practices on infertile soils ICMS could minimize the yield differences due to soil fertility without sacrificing fiber quality.; 3. In our study, the seedcotton yield of bolls on FB16+ played a compensating role in yield production under CCMS.; 4. Plants produced more bolls on upper branches and produce more horizontal fruiting sites along longer fruiting branches as plant density is decreased and nitrogen rate is increased.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Low soil fertility has a negative impact on cotton production.
Simplified seedling rising technology for ICMS was aimed to reduce labor cost using mechanized transplantation (No quantative evidence)
More seedcotton yield (No quantative evidence);;Diminished yield differences due to soil fertility (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the specified category were mentioned in the full text as a result of the use/implementation of the described solutions (ICMS or CCMS).
no evidence found
Open
Y Sandhya Rani et al. - 2017 - Integrated Nutrient Management for Enhancing the Soil Health, Yield and Quality of Little Millet (Pa.pdf
India
2; 15
India; India, Vizianagaram
Soil health degradation; Crop yield reduction; Cost of cultivation increase; Environmental pollution; Nutritional security decline
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1 + Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1 + PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 2: 75% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1 + Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1 + PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 3: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1
Agricultural Solution 4: 75 % RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 5: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + FYM @ 5 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1
Agricultural Solution 2: 75% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 3: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1
Agricultural Solution 4: 75% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 5: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + FYM @ 5 t ha-1
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + FYM @ 5 t ha-1
Agricultural Solution 2: 75% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + FYM @ 5 t ha1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 3: 50% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + FYM @ 5 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 4: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1
Agricultural Solution 5: 75% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1+Azospirillum 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 6: 50% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1+Azospirillum 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 7: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1
Agricultural Solution 8: 75% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 9: 50% RDF (inorganic fertilizers) + Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1
Agricultural Solution 10: 100% RDF (inorganic fertilizers)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Significantly highest grain and straw yields were recorded in the treatment 100% RDF+Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1; However it was on par with 75% RDF+Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @5 kg ha-1, 100% RDF+Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1, 75 % RDF+Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1 and 100% RDF+FYM @ 5 t ha-1+Azospirillum @ 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1; Moreover the uptake of macronutrients (NPK) was found to be the highest in the treatment 100% RDF+Neem cake @ 1 t ha-1 and micronutrients (Zn and Fe) in the treatment 100% RDF+Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1; But the benefit cost ratio was found highest in 100% RDF treated plots followed by 100% RDF+FYM @ 5 t ha-1; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Integrated nutrient management influences the structure, nutrients turn over and many related physical, chemical and biological parameters of the soil; Maintaining and improving soil quality is thus crucial if agricultural productivity and environmental quality are to be sustained for future generations; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Organic manures act not only as a source of nutrients but also increase the bio-diversity and activity of the microbial population in soil.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Highest grain yield (11.48 q ha-1); Highest Net returns (` 14907 ha-1); Highest Gross returns (` 29,768 ha-1); Highest Straw yield (113.80 q ha-1); Highest Benefit cost ratio from an INM treatment (2.13)
Available Nitrogen (249 kg ha-1); Available P2O5 (87 kg ha-1); Available Iron (14.07 ppm); Available Zinc (1.49 ppm); Available Manganese (8.51 ppm)
Increased Available N (Up to 249 kg ha-1);;Increased Available P2O5 (Up to 87 kg ha-1);;Increased Organic Carbon content (Up to 0.49%);;Increased Available Zn (Up to 1.60 ppm);;Increased Available Fe (Up to 14.07 ppm)
Organic carbon content increase (highest in treatment 75% RDF+Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1+Azospirillum 5 kg ha-1+PSB @ 5 kg ha-1 (0.49%))
Open
Yayeh Bitew and Melkamu Alemayehu - 2017 - Impact of Crop Production Inputs on Soil Health A Review.pdf
Ethiopia; Kenya; China; USA; France; Brazil; Japan; Iran; Burkina Faso; Nigeria; Burundi; Senegal; Niger; Burkina Faso; Niger
1;5;15
Ethiopia; Kenya; China; United States; France; Brazil; Japan; Australia; Burkina Faso; Iran; Netherlands; Germany; Burkina Faso; Nigeria; Burkina Faso; Burkina Faso; Iran; China
Soil degradation; Food security; Environmental pollution; Soil health; Crop productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mineral fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 3: Microbial inoculants + Agricultural Solution 4: Pesticides + Non-agricultural solution 1: Integrated Pest and Nutrient Management strategy
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mineral fertilizers + Non-agricultural solution 1: Integrated Nutrient Management
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Bio-fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 2: Combined use of bio-fertilizers with chemical or organic fertilizers
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 13
* Mineral fertilizers have limited direct effects on soil physical property effects but their application can enhance soil biological activity via increases in system productivity, crop residue return and soil organic matter
*Organic amendments such as manure, compost, biosolids and humic substances provide a direct source of C for soil organisms as well as an indirect C source via increased plant growth and plant residue returns
*This study summarized the current understanding of the effects of crop production inputs on soil health. The underlying concept is that these inputs can affect soil health through direct or indirect effects
*Soil Health is defined as the capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem and land use boundaries to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality and promote plant and animal health
*Under use, over use and adequate use of crop production inputs determine the soil health of an environment
*Organic fertilizers are designed to supplement the nutrients already present in the soil
*Sound nutrient management system should strive to make a balance between maximizing crop production and sustaining soil quality
*Application of organic manure in combination with chemical fertilizer has been reported to increase absorption of N, P and K in sugarcane leaf tissue in the plant and ratoon crop compared to chemical fertilizer alone;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
* The plots which received FYM at 15 tons ha-1 33% RDF recorded highest organic carbon and available N kg ha-1
*The study showed that balanced fertilization using both organic and chemical fertilizers is important for maintenance of soil organic matter content and long term soil productivity in the tropics where soil organic matter content is low
*Integrated use of chemical, organic and bio fertilizers has considerable potential to lessen P accumulation in the soil and saves the input of chemical and organic fertilizers;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
* *Early many long term studies have shown that combinations of both organic and inorganic nutrient sources lead to enhanced nutrient availability and synchronization of nutrient release and uptake by crops and positive effects on soil properties (No quantative evidence);;. Combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers could increase soil fertility (No quantative evidence);;. Integrated use of chemical, organic and bio fertilizers Increased attention is now being paid to developing an Integrated Plant Nutrition System IPNS that maintains or enhances soil productivity through balanced use of all sources of nutrients including chemical fertilizers, organic fertilizers and bio fertilizers (No quantative evidence).*
Increased dry weight of water celery in combined treatment with Organic Compound Fertilizer and multifunctional biofertilizer (63% increase);; Increased lettuce yield in combined treatment of ¢ chemical fertilizer and biofertilizer (18% increase);; Maximum sorghum and chickpea yields achieved at half the recommended rates of inorganic fertilizer when a combination of microbial inoculants was added (maximum yields at half recommended inorganic fertilizer rates);; Positive balances of soil N and P resulting from combined application of FYM and inorganic N and P sources (Positive balances of soil N (40 kg ha-1) and P (8 kg P2O5 ha-1));; Potential to save the input of chemical and organic fertilizers by reducing half the amount of compost and urea combined with inoculants (saves the input of chemical and organic fertilizers by reducing half the amount)
Increased organic matter content (by 30% and 48% in the second and third year respectively); Beneficial bacterial counts increased (to 106-109 CFU g-1); Positive N balance (11 kg ha-1); Positive available P balance (12 kg P2O5 ha-1); Soil pH increased (by 1-2 units)
Increased beneficial bacterial counts (CFU gin);Increased Effective Cation Exchange Capacity (ECEC) (by );N positive balance (kg N ha);Available P positive balance (kg P O ha available P);Enhanced soil porosity (by )
Significant reduction in production of N2O and NO by certain fungicides (Significant reduction); Increase in specific beneficial bacterial counts with biofertilizer + organic compound fertilizer (Increased by 20-380 times); Endosulfan increased bacterial biomass by 60% and reduced fungal biomass by 48% (Increased by 60%; Reduced by 48%); Earthworm populations avoided soils with Copper concentrations as low as 50 mg/kg (Avoided soils with concentrations as low as 50 mg/kg); Bray P content approximately twice as high in Compost + Urea treatment compared to chemical fertilizer treatment (Approximately twice as high)
Open
Yeyoung Lee et al. - 2017 - The Effects of Agricultural Extension Service on Farm Productivity Evidence from Mbale District in.pdf
Uganda
1;2
Uganda; Mbale district
Poverty; Low agricultural productivity; Lack of access to information, markets, and technology; Poverty reduction; Rural development
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Agricultural extension service
Non-agricultural Solutions: Rural development; Increased adoption of improved technologies; Increased capacity of individual farmers; Increased gross farm revenue; Increased profit.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Agricultural extension service
Non-agricultural Solutions: Worker effect; Allocative effect.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Agricultural extension service
Non-agricultural Solutions: Input-allocation effect; Input-selection effect.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: both worker and allocative effects on bean and rice significantly contributed to agricultural performance, implying that both effects are crucial in this region;extension service for each product showed positive effects through the allocative effect than worker effect;the input-selection effect was found to be a more influential contributor than input-allocation effect in this area.
Number of extension contacts: EX (0.026** on Bean output;; 0.008*** on Rice Cultivation;; 0.034** on Gross farm revenue;; 0.064*** on value added)
Significantly positive impact on profit (0.064***); Significantly positive impact on gross farm revenue (0.034**); Significantly positive impact on bean production (0.026**); Significantly positive impact on rice production (0.008***); Allocative effect on rice (0.082)
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" mentioned in the full text content.
None
no evidence found
Open
W R Teague - 2018 - FORAGES AND PASTURES SYMPOSIUM COVER CROPS IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION WHOLE-SYSTEM APPROACH Managing.pdf
Canada; Mexico; United States of America
15; 13; 2
United States; Canada; Mexico
Soil degradation; Climate change; Water pollution; Biodiversity loss; Loss of farm livelihoods
Solution Package 1:
Grazing management + regenerative cropping management + policies to ensure regenerative cropping and grazing management protocols + economic benefits + social benefits + environmental benefits.
Solution Package 2:
Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing + economic benefits + environmental benefits + social benefits.
Solution Package 3:
Appropriate stocking rate + Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing + economic returns + environmental benefits.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* Soil function can be regenerated to improve essential ecosystem services and farm profitability. Affected ecosystem services include carbon sequestration, water infiltration, soil fertility, nutrient cycling, soil formation, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and increased ecosystem stability and resilience.
* Adaptive, goal-directed grazing methods managed specifically to reverse degradation, managers could also increase the quality of grasslands, improve economic sustainability, and promote resilience to climate change.
* Ruminants facilitate provision of essential ecosystem services, increase soil carbon (C) sequestration, reduce environmental damage, and reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
* Soil loss via erosion; the impairment of watershed function; widespread pollution; negatively impacted many beneficial microbes and insects; and decreased biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
* Poor grazing practices lead to soil compaction and reduced infiltration rates.
* Grazing management practices that maintain or restore soil and ecosystem function and resilience that is required for sustainable use in the long term.
* Ensure optimal ecosystem function requires efficient solar energy capture; effective water infiltration and retention; soil organic matter accumulation and retention; efficient nutrient cycling; and ecosystem biodiversity to facilitate these functions.
* Improving soil aggregation; aeration and water-holding capacity; stabilizing soil; improving nutrient acquisition and retention; cycling nutrients to improve nutrient availability; enhancing tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress; and buffering the impact of environmental factors on plants.
* Decreasing bare ground, restoring productive plant communities, increasing water infiltration rates and soil water storage capacity, increasing fungal to bacterial ratios, and increasing soil carbon.
* AMP grazing has been successfully applied in areas with annual rainfall ranging from 250 to 1,500 mm to achieve effective resource regeneration and provision of ecosystem services.
* Increased primary and secondary productivity, restoration of preferred herbaceous species that were harmed by previous grazing practices, and increased soil organic carbon, soil fertility, water-holding capacity and economic profitability for ranchers.
* Plant productivity and biodiversity have been elevated, plant and litter cover have increased over the landscape, and nitrogen-fixing native leguminous plant species and pollinators have increased. This has resulted in re-perennialization of ephemeral streams and watershed function.
* Soil and plant conditions that improved hydrological function at both the ranch and watershed scale compared to continuous grazing.
* Reduce the average annual surface runoff, sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads at the watershed outlet by 39, 34, 33, and 31%, respectively.
* Leading conservation farmers have used AMP grazing to achieve superior soil health, vegetation, livestock production and economic results.
* Substantial improvements in ecosystem function; plant species composition and productivity; soil carbon and fertility; water infiltration and water-holding capacity; biodiversity; wildlife habitats; and profitability.
* Soil function can be regenerated to improve essential ecosystem services and support local populations, simultaneously reducing the use of costly and potentially damaging purchased inputs. Affected ecosystem services include capture of solar energy, soil water infiltration, soil stabilization, nutrient cycling, nutrient retention, soil formation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat.
* Elevate soil C and improve soil ecological function.
* Research conducted on managed landscape shows that ecologically managed AMP grazing strategies incorporating short, high-impact grazing with long recovery periods can regenerate ecosystem function on commercial-scale agroecological landscapes:build soil carbon concentrations and soil microbial function; enhance water infiltration and retention; control erosion more effectively; build soil fertility; enhance watershed hydrological function; improve livestock production and economic returns and the resource base; enhance wildlife and biodiversity; and increase soil function as a net GHG sink.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* Ecosystem services include carbon sequestration, water infiltration, soil fertility, nutrient cycling, soil formation, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and increased ecosystem stability and resilience.
* Ruminants facilitate provision of essential ecosystem services, increase soil carbon (C) sequestration, reduce environmental damage, and reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
* Soil carbon (C) loss; soil loss via erosion; the impairment of watershed function; widespread pollution; negatively impacted many beneficial microbes and insects; and decreased biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
* Decreasing bare ground, restoring productive plant communities, increasing water infiltration rates and soil water storage capacity, increasing fungal to bacterial ratios, and increasing soil carbon.
* Ruminants consuming only grazed forages under appropriate management results in considerably more carbon sequestration than emissions.
* Research conducted on managed landscape shows that ecologically managed AMP grazing strategies incorporating short, high-impact grazing with long recovery periods can regenerate ecosystem function on commercial-scale agroecological landscapes:increase soil function as a net GHG sink.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
* To ensure long-term sustainability and ecological resilience of agroecosystems, agricultural production should be guided by policies to ensure regenerative cropping and grazing management protocols.
* Essential ecosystem services, increase soil carbon (C) sequestration, reduce environmental damage, and reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
* Maintain or restore soil and ecosystem function and resilience that is required for sustainable use in the long term.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
Economic profitability for ranchers (No quantative evidence);;Increased primary and secondary productivity (No quantative evidence);;Improve livestock production (No quantative evidence);;Improved grass composition and productivity (No quantative evidence);;Superior economic outcomes (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil organic carbon (3.0 t C/ha/yr additional soil organic carbon in the top 90 cm of soil over a decade relative to commonly practiced heavy continuous grazing; higher C levels of 7.0 t C/ha/yr over 5 yr; 2.5 t C/ha/yr over 20 yr; and 0.5 t C/ha/yr in 20 yr; soil C gains of 3 mg C/ha/yr with AMP grazing); Increased soil microbial biomass (mean = ±500% increase); Increased water infiltration rates (large increases as shown in Fig. 3); Increased primary and secondary productivity (No quantative evidence); Increased soil fertility (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil organic carbon/carbon sequestration (3.0 t C/ha/yr additional soil organic carbon; 7.0 t C/ha/yr higher C levels; 2.5 t C/ha/yr higher C levels; 0.5 t C/ha/yr higher C levels; rate of gain of OM was remarkably similar among locations shown in Fig. 1);;Enhanced water infiltration (large increases shown in Fig. 3);;Increased soil microbial biomass (mean = ±500% increase shown in Fig. 2);;Increased soil function as a net GHG sink (net C sink of 2.0 mg C/ha/yr; net sink of 1.7 mg C/ha/yr; soil C gains of 3 mg C/ha/yr);;Reduced sediment loads (reduced by 34%)
Increased soil organic carbon (average of 3.0 t C/ha/yr additional over a decade in southern tallgrass prairie in Texas; 7.0 t C/ha/yr over 5 yr in Mississippi relative to commonly practiced heavy continuous grazing);; Increased soil function as a net GHG sink (2.0 mg C/ha/yr net C sink when converting from heavily stocked continuous grazing to AMP grazing in southern tallgrass prairie in Texas; 3 mg C/ha/yr soil C gains with AMP grazing in Michigan);; Increased soil microbial biomass activity (mean = ±500% increase);; Elevated plant productivity and biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced wildlife and biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Wayne R Roper et al. - 2017 - Soil Health Indicators Do Not Differentiate among Agronomic Management Systems in North Carolina Soi.pdf
North Carolina
15; 2; 13
United States of America, North Carolina, Goldsboro, Reidsville, Mills River
Soil degradation; Agricultural productivity; Environmental degradation; Crop yield; Soil fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-till planting
Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping
Non-agricultural solution 1: Economic assessment of crop yields in soil health assessments
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: NTO in the mountain trial had a statistically greater CEC than the other treatments because it received additional cations in the form of organic fertilizer that was not incorporated into the soil;Organic treatments probably contained more nutrients because of the excess P and K typically found in organic fertilizers applied to satisfy N requirements;The overall trend in biological soil health indicator scores showed that biological activity increased with reduced tillage and often with organic soil amendments;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:Corn yield from NTC was similar to that of in-row subsoiling in spring and CPF, but was greater than that for all other tillage treatments;Long-term average yields from NTC and CTC were statistically greater than those from NTO and CTO
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Active C scores for coastal plain treatments were greater in NTC than in CTO1 and CTC
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category was found in the full text.
Higher corn yield under Piedmont NTC compared to MPDF (6516 kg ha-1 vs 3374 kg ha-1);;Higher sweetcorn yield under Mountain NTC compared to NTO (17283 kg ha-1 vs 9200 kg ha-1);;Higher sweetcorn yield under Mountain CTC compared to NTO (14957 kg ha-1 vs 9200 kg ha-1);;Higher soybean yield under Piedmont NTC compared to MPDF, exceeding RYE (2832 kg ha-1 vs 1942 kg ha-1; RYE 2556 kg ha-1);;Higher corn yield under Piedmont NTC compared to CPDS (6516 kg ha-1 vs 4327 kg ha-1)
Higher Corn Yield under No-Till Chemical (NTC) management (Piedmont) (6516 kg ha-1 compared to 3374 kg ha-1 under MPDF management);Higher Soybean Yield under No-Till Chemical (NTC) management (Piedmont) (2832 kg ha-1 compared to 1942 kg ha-1 under MPDF management);Greater CO2 Respiration under No-Till Chemical (NTC) management (Piedmont) (124 mg L-1 compared to 52 mg L-1 under CPDS and 34 mg L-1 under MPDS management);Greater Soil Protein under No-Till Chemical (NTC) management (Piedmont) (21 compared to 7 under MPDF and MPDS management);Increased Water Extractable Organic N (WEON) under No-Till Chemical (NTC) management (Piedmont) (16 mg L-1 compared to 9 mg L-1 under MPDS management)
Higher Piedmont corn yield (NTC 6516 kg ha-1 vs MPDF 3374 kg ha-1); Higher Piedmont soybean yield (NTC 2832 kg ha-1 vs MPDF 1942 kg ha-1); Greater Piedmont soil protein (NTC CASH index 21 (6.8) vs MPDF CASH index 7 (1.0)); Greater Mountain active carbon (NTO CASH index 37 (14) vs CTX CASH index 4 (3.5)); Greater Mountain soil potassium (NTO 434 (82) kg ha-1 and CTO 474 (83) kg ha-1 vs NTC 242 (43) kg ha-1 and CTC 288 (21) kg ha-1)
no evidence found
Open
Wayne R Roper et al. - 2019 - A Response to “Reanalysis Validates Soil Health Indicator Sensitivity and Correlation with Long‐term.pdf
North Carolina
15; 2; 12
United States of America; North Carolina, North Carolina, Reidsville
Agricultural sustainability; Crop yield reduction; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation tillage
Agricultural Solution 2: No-till
Agricultural Solution 3: In-row subsoiling
Agricultural Solution 4: Moderate tillage with a single pass of chisel or disk plow
Agricultural Solution 5: Intense tillage with a pass of chisel or moldboard plow followed by a pass with disk plow
Non-agricultural solution 1: Calibrating SHI assessments to quantifiable agroecological outcomes
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Long-term crop yields from conservation tillage systems were generally more favorable than yields from tilled soils; Relationships between corn (Zea mays L.) yield and most biological SHI had r2 £ 0.18, with only soil protein being moderately predictive of corn yield (r2 = 0.45); Crop yield acts as a surrogate for soil productivity in this case, and whereas tillage treatments had a large range in yield (productivity), their overall index scores comprise a narrow range of the scale favoring the lower half from 29 to 56.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health indicator sensitivity to management is not consistent; Predictability of corn yields based on soil health indicators is too variable; CASH overall soil health index is not predictive of long-term corn yields; Variability in soil health indicator response is likely due to physiographic differences.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
Soil protein predictability of corn yield (r2 = 0.45); Most biological SHI predictability of corn yield (r2 £ 0.18); CASH overall soil health index predictability of long-term corn yields (r2 = 0.12); P predictability of corn yield (r2 = 0.18); Aggregate stability predictability of corn yield (r2 = 0.07)
Long-term crop yield (No quantitative evidence)
Long-term crop yield (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Zachary P Stewart et al. - 2019 - Approaches to improve soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa..pdf
Senegal; Burkina Faso; Ghana; Niger; Mali; Tanzania; Kenya; Rwanda; Uganda; Burundi; Malawi; Ethiopia
2;1;15
Senegal, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Mali; Tanzania, Kenya; Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Malawi; Ethiopia
Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Poverty; Malnutrition; Low crop yields
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Application of inorganic N and P + Incorporation of organic resources + Increase integration of legumes in crop systems + Conservation agriculture (CA) practices + Liming acid soils + Diversification of cropping systems + Use of acid-tolerant crop varieties + Consider biochar where appropriate
Non-agricultural solution: Access to financial resources or credit + Quality soil testing + Region- and crop-specific fertilizer application recommendations + Skilled public and private sector service providers + Training for farmers, with a focus on peer-training and on-farm demonstrations + Capacity building for extension service providers + Gender equity issues + Ratifying appropriate policies that provide market stability for both farm inputs and outputs and enabling land ownership and grazing policies + Establishing enabling conditions for private sector investment + Strengthening the soil fertility KTVC + Empowering women to enable improved soil fertility management and decision-making + Increasing access to mechanization that enables minimum tillage
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Region- and crop-specific fertilizer blends + Retention of crop residues in the soil + Application of organic resources + Crop rotations + Cropping systems + Crop–livestock–soil management + Agroforestry systems + Reduced tillage, stone lines, grass bands, tied ridges, and contour ridging + Legumes (as crops, or in agroforestry as shrubs/bushes and trees) + Low C:N ratio crops
Non-agricultural solution: Skilled public and private sector service providers + Suitable information on the composition of manures and other C-rich soil amendments + Improved mechanization + Enabling polices + Open grazing policies + Land ownership policies + Policy briefs related to burning of brush and crop residues + Policy and development issues that enable the application of carbon-rich materials and the retention of crop residues in the soil + Strategies for appropriate mechanization related to providing planters at an appropriate scale (e.g. hand-held, or two-row drawn by animals or single-axle tractors)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Applying inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous + Incorporation of organic resources + Integration of legumes in crop systems (focus of biological N2 fixation) + Conservation agriculture practices + Liming acid soils + Diversification of cropping systems + Use and grow acid-tolerant crop varieties + Consider use of biochar, where appropriate and economical and environmentally feasible
Non-agricultural solution: Access to financial resources + Capacity building along the entire soil fertility, knowledge-transfer value chain (KTVC)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic matter, nutrient limitations at both the macro and micro scale.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits reported in the text under the specified category.
No specific outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" are reported with quantitative proof or as direct results of implementing the solutions within the scope of this study as described in the full text.
Productivity of farming systems (No quantative evidence);;Improved nutrient-use efficiency (No quantative evidence);;Improved water-holding capacity (No quantative evidence);;Improvements in soil physical properties (No quantative evidence);;Resilience to climate variability (No quantative evidence)
Overcoming nutrient deficiencies (N, P, and micronutrients) (No quantitative evidence);; Increasing soil organic C content (No quantitative evidence);; Improvements in soil physical properties (No quantitative evidence);; Reducing soil erosion (No quantitative evidence);; Increasing essential plant nutrients (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Zahir Muhammad et al. - 2019 - Allelopathy and Agricultural Sustainability Implication in weed management and crop protection—an o.pdf
Pakistan
15;2;3
Pakistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Weed management; Environmental pollution; Crop protection; Plant diseases; Soil quality
Solution Package 1:
Allelopathy (natural weed management, improving soil health, suppressing plant diseases) + biofertilizers + weed control agents for plant diseases + crop yields and production improvement + reducing reliance on hazardous agrochemicals
Solution Package 2:
Allelopathy + weed management + disease suppression + organic agriculture
Solution Package 3:
Allelopathic crops (rice, tomato, sorghum, wheat) + crop cultivars + mulch + crop cover + intercropping with other allelopathic plants
Solution Package 4:
Soil amendments with residues of allelopathic plants (sunflower, brassica, sorghum)
Solution Package 5:
Allelopathic extracts + essential oils + herbicides formulations
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:Allelopathy has a promising future for its application in agriculture for natural weed management, improving soil health and suppressing plant diseases.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
Improved crop yields and production (No quantitative evidence)
Improving soil health (No quantitative evidence);; Managing soil-borne pathogens (No quantitative evidence);; Facilitation of microorganism present in soil (No quantitative evidence);; Protecting soil microbial, floral, and faunal communities (No quantitative evidence)
Improving soil health (No quantitative evidence); Facilitation of microorganism present in soil (No quantitative evidence); Reduced activity of various soil borne pathogens (No quantitative evidence)
Avoidance of adverse effects on populations and communities of microbes, flora, and fauna (No quantative evidence)
Open
Žaklina Stojanović et al. - 2019 - Farmers' willingness to purchase crop insurance evidence from wheat and raspberry sectors in Serbia.pdf
Serbia
1;8
Serbia, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia
* Agricultural yield instability and income instability;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1 (Yield insurance) + Agricultural Solution 2 (Revenue insurance) + non-agricultural solution 1 (Age) + non-agricultural solution 2 (Farm size) + non-agricultural solution 3 (Income) + non-agricultural solution 4 (Perceived yield risk) + non-agricultural solution 5 (Perceived market risk) + non-agricultural solution 6 (Education level) + non-agricultural solution 7 (Specific qualifications) + non-agricultural solution 8 (Gender) + non-agricultural solution 9 (Plan to diversify) + non-agricultural solution 10 (Premium subsidies) + non-agricultural solution 11 (Differentiated premium subsidy rate) + non-agricultural solution 12 (Public-private partnership) + non-agricultural solution 13 (Mandatory elements in agricultural insurance) + non-agricultural solution 14 (Database of losses in agriculture) + non-agricultural solution 15 (Bonus-malus system) + non-agricultural solution 16 (Educational programs) + non-agricultural solution 17 (Marketing campaigns) + non-agricultural solution 18 (Regulation) + non-agricultural solution 19 (Incentives) + non-agricultural solution 20 (Reinsurance)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Crop insurance is widely acknowledged to be a valuable instrument contributing to sustainability of agriculture by reducing the risks associated with crop production and by stabilizing farmers’ income;If successful, crop insurance market could increase the viability of agriculture;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Crop insurance is widely acknowledged to be a valuable instrument contributing to sustainability of agriculture;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Knowledge about the factors affecting crop insurance demand outlines a consumer profile and thus can be useful for insurance companies to better adapt their offer to consumer needs.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belong to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
No relevant outcomes found.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Zubair Aslam et al. - 2019 - Unveiling the Efficiency of Vermicompost Derived from Different Biowastes on Wheat (Triticum aestivu.pdf
Pakistan; Turkey; Czech Republic; Australia; Germany
2; 15; 3
Pakistan, Faisalabad, Okara, Multan
1. Aphid infestation; Soil degradation; Food security; Waste management; Nutrient imbalance
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicompost (cow dung, paper waste, rice straw) + Agricultural Solution 2: NPK fertilizer + Agricultural Solution 3: Wheat Cultivar + non-agricultural solution 1: Reduced aphid infestation + non-agricultural solution 2: Improved grain biofortification + non-agricultural solution 3: Economic Benefit/Benefit Cost Ratio + non-agricultural solution 4: Improved Soil Health
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Improve soil health (physical and chemical properties);Improved the soil health by improving the physico-chemical attributes of the soil;Improved the physio-chemical attributes of the soil after harvesting of wheat crop;Maximum improvement in the N contents, available phosphorus, available potassium, Zn contents, Fe contents, OM and water holding capacity
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Application of cow dung vermicompost along with recommended NPK not only improved crop yield,Improved crop yield;significantly improved the yield attributes of the wheat cultivar, Galaxy 2013;The maximum plant height, total tillers, productive tillers, chlorophyll contents, spike length, spiklets per spike, grains per spike, 1000-grains weight, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index ;All the vermicompost treatments significantly improved the yield attributes;Maximum benefit cost ratio (BCR)
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the context that belong to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs."
Grain yield (5.37 t ha−1);; Biological yield (12.06 t ha−1);; Benefit Cost Ratio (1.20);; Net Benefits (US$ 834.51 ha−1);; Harvest index (41.32%)
N contents (0.25 ± 0.01%); Available phosphorus (6.01 ± 0.04 ppm); Available potassium (321.11 ± 0.04 ppm); Zn contents (0.73 ± 0.01 ppm); Fe contents (251.82 ± 0.04 ppm)
Increased N contents in soil post-harvest (0.25 ± 0.01%); Increased Available Phosphorus (AP) in soil post-harvest (6.01 ± 0.04 ppm); Increased Available Potassium (AK) in soil post-harvest (321.11 ± 0.04 ppm); Increased Organic Matter (OM) in soil post-harvest (1.08 ± 0.02%); Increased Water Holding Capacity (WHD) of soil post-harvest (67.03 ± 0.02%)
None.
Open
Xiaoshang Deng et al. - 2022 - Application of Conservation Tillage in China A Method to Improve Climate Resilience.pdf
China; United Kingdom; European Union; Sub-Saharan Africa; United States
15; 13; 2
China, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Henan, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Guangxi, Hunan, Jiangsu, Gansu, Kentucky, USA, Michigan, USA, Ohio, USA, Switzerland, Ethiopia, Italy
Climate change; Soil erosion; Yield loss; Greenhouse gas emissions; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Conservation Tillage + Crop Rotation + Cover Crops + Holistic Grazing
Solution Package 2:
Conservation Tillage + Water-saving irrigation + Soil and water conservation engineering measures
Solution Package 3:
Conservation Tillage + Mixed agriculture + Fish or duck cultivation
Solution Package 4:
Conservation Tillage + Cover crops + Cattle grazing of cover crops
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* *Three sub outcomes/benefits:* Improves hydrologic function of soil; Improves soil structure and increase soil nutrients; Improve the Soil’s Eco-Environment to Achieve Weed and Pest Control.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* *One sub outcome/benefit:* Reduces Greenhouse Gases to Mitigate Climate Change.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* *One sub outcome/benefit:* Stabilize and Increase Yield.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
* *Two sub outcomes/benefits:* improves soil health from the aspect of water dynamics, soil physicochemical properties, and the eco-environment; reducing greenhouse gases to mitigate the negative impact of climate change.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Higher crop yields than those under conventional tillage (Southern China) (3.4%); Increased average yield compared with conventional tillage (Maize in Northern China) (3.1%); Improved water use efficiency (No quantitative evidence)
Increased exchangeable and soluble K (by two or three times); Reduced water consumption (10.6%); Increased average yield (3.1%); Increased crop yields were higher (3.4%); Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Stabilize and increase crop yield (No quantitative evidence); Improve water use efficiency (No quantitative evidence); Reduced water consumption (10.6%); Achieve weed and pest control (No quantitative evidence); Reduce erosion rates (No quantitative evidence)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increase in soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Improve soil structure (No quantitative evidence); Increase soil nutrients (No quantitative evidence); Increase the abundance and species diversity in soil organisms (No quantitative evidence); Decrease soil bulk density (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced overall global warming potential of CH4 and N2O emissions (6.6%); Reduced CH4 emissions (15.5%); Reduced carbon dioxide emissions (No quantative evidence); Soil carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence); Increased abundance and diversity of soil organisms (No quantative evidence)
Open
Wendy J Williams et al. - 2021 - Resting Subtropical Grasslands from Grazing in the Wet Season Boosts Biocrust Hotspots to Improve So.pdf
Australia; Israel; Switzerland;
15; 2; 12
Australia, Queensland, Charters Towers; Northern Territory, Darwin; Israel, Negev
Soil degradation; Drought; Reduced pasture productivity; Loss of landscape function; Reduced cattle production
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Resting land from grazing during wet seasons (rotational spelling).
Non-agricultural solutions: Adjustment of stocking rates in line with rainfall and soil type.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Biocrusts were dominated by cyanobacteria that binds soil particles, reduces erosion, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, and improves soil fertility; Biocrusts that protect and enrich the soil will support long-term ecosystem integrity and economic profitability of cattle production in rangelands; Nitrogen as a renewable source is important; Biocrusts form at the critical zone between the soil and atmosphere, and are a key component of soil function, including nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and soil stability; Cyanobacteria and other diazotrophic bacteria improve soil fertility with nitrogen fixation generating bioavailable nitrogen for pasture plants; Preferential use of interspaces by cattle as easy passageway to access pasture to be impacted by stocking density, exacerbated by rainfall deficiencies and drought; Provide soil stability, water infiltration, and plant-available nutrients.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Managing at the paddock scale needs to incorporate ecosystem services provided by perennial plants, biocrusts, and leaf litter to better understand the influence they have on productive pastures, soil stability, infiltration, and nutrient cycling.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Biocrusts were dominated by cyanobacteria that binds soil particles, reduces erosion, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, and improves soil fertility; Managing at the paddock scale needs to incorporate ecosystem services provided by perennial plants, biocrusts, and leaf litter to better understand the influence they have on productive pastures, soil stability, infiltration, and nutrient cycling.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Biocrusts that protect and enrich the soil will support long-term ecosystem integrity and economic profitability of cattle production in rangelands.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Based on the analysis of the provided text, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that directly belong to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies." The text focuses on the impact of grazing strategies on soil health (biocrusts, stability, infiltration, nutrient cycling) and landscape function, which are presented as the foundation for productive pastures and economic profitability, but it does not provide quantitative data on increased yields, animal production, or income resulting from the rotational spelling treatment.
Nutrient Cycling Index (In RY soils, ranged from 19.4% (HSR) to 36.7% (XCL), with R/Spell at 33.8%, significantly higher than HSR (p < 0.001) and MSR (p = 0.03)); Infiltration Index (In RY soils, ranged from 28.2% (HSR) to 40.6% (XCL), with R/Spell at 38.3%; XCL had significantly higher infiltration compared to HSR (p < 0.001) and MSR (p = 0.009)); Stability Index (In RY soils, ranged from 53.8% (HSR) to 68.5% (XCL), with R/Spell at 62.1%); Lower Bare Ground Cover (In RY soils, HSR (79%) was up to 2.5 times higher than XCL (14.8%), R/Spell (29.9%), and MSR (51.4%) (p < 0.001)); Higher Litter Cover (In RY soils, ranged from 12.7% (HSR) to 57.7% (XCL), with R/Spell at ~30% (from Figure 8); XCL and R/Spell were significantly different from MSR and HSR (p < 0.001))
Higher biocrust cover (averaged ~34% in R/Spell and XCL on duplex soils, about double that of both MSR (18.7%) and HSR (14.6%), p < 0.001); Lower bare ground cover (up to 2.5 times higher in HSR paddocks than XCL, R/Spell, and MSR (p < 0.001) on red-yellow earths); Increased nutrient cycling (increased in rotational spelled paddocks to similar levels as the exclosures (R/Spell DC 35.6 ± 0.97, RY 33.8 ± 4.67; XCL DC 35.5 ± 1.86, RY 36.7 ± 1.55)); Increased infiltration (had the highest average levels of landscape function of all the grazed treatments (R/Spell DC 36.8 ± 0.82, RY 38.3 ± 3.89)); Increased stability (had the highest average levels of landscape function of all the grazed treatments (R/Spell DC 65.1 ± 1.21, RY 62.1 ± 3.66))
Improved Nutrient Cycling (LFA index averaged 35.6% on Duplex soil and 33.8% on Red-yellow earth soil under Rotational Spelling, compared to 31.8% and 19.4% respectively under Heavy Stocking); Improved Soil Stability (LFA index averaged 65.1% on Duplex soil and 62.1% on Red-yellow earth soil under Rotational Spelling, compared to 65.0% and 53.8% respectively under Heavy Stocking); Improved Water Infiltration (LFA index averaged 36.8% on Duplex soil and 38.3% on Red-yellow earth soil under Rotational Spelling, compared to 31.6% and 28.2% respectively under Heavy Stocking); Increased Carbon Sequestration (No quantitative evidence); Increased Biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Wenting Yan et al. - 2020 - Simulating and Predicting Crop Yield and Soil Fertility under Climate Change with Fertilizer Managem.pdf
China
1;2;13
China;
Climate change; Soil degradation; Food security;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Combined chemical fertilizer of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) + organic manure (MNPK) + high application rate of manure (hMNPK) + maize-soybean-maize rotation
Non-agricultural Solution: Climate change adaptation through fertilization strategies
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Combined chemical fertilizer of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK)
Non-agricultural Solution: Climate change mitigation and adaptation, food security
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Organic fertilizer (manure) application
Non-agricultural Solution: Climate change mitigation, soil fertility improvement, maintaining food security
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) storage and soil nitrogen (SN) storage with manure application; Soil fertility underpins cultivated land, which is the most important resource of agricultural production, and is also the key for maintaining agricultural sustainability; Central elements of soil fertility are soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nitrogen (SN); Rational combination of organic and inorganic fertilizer applications is a sustainable and effective agricultural measure to maintain food security and relieve environmental stresses.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Application of NPK with manure could improve crop yields; Application of organic fertilizers mitigate the negative effects of climate scenarios; NPK plus manure treatments could cut the reduction of crop maize caused by climate change in half.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Fertilized soil is a carbon sink in every climate model
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Increased maize yields with organic manure application (9.29%–23.22% compared with chemical fertilizers (NPK));;Mitigation of maize yield reduction caused by climate change with manure application (cut the reduction in half under RCP 4.5 compared to NPK alone);;Increased soybean yields with fertilization (significantly higher than that of the unfertilized treatments)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon stocks with hMNPK treatment compared to NPK (26.85%–35.74% higher than NPK under the four climate scenarios); Increased Soil Organic Carbon stocks with MNPK treatment compared to NPK (22.48%–27.88% higher than NPK under the four climate scenarios); Increased Soil Nitrogen stocks with hMNPK treatment compared to NPK (19.47%–23.46% higher than NPK under each climate scenario); Increased Soil Nitrogen stocks with MNPK treatment compared to NPK (14.11%–18.07% higher than NPK under each climate scenario); Positive annual Soil Organic Carbon accumulation rate with hMNPK treatment (74.17–101.98 kg C ha−1 yr−1 depending on scenario)
Increased SOC storages (increased by 20.2%–33.5% compared with that of NPK under baseline);Increased SN storages (increased by 13.7%–21.7% compared with that of NPK under baseline);Improved maize yields (increased by 9.29%–23.22% compared with what were treated with chemical fertilizers);Reduced negative impacts of climate change on maize yields (cut the reduction... in half in RCP 4.5 compared to NPK)
Increased SOC stocks with hMNPK compared to NPK (26.85%–35.74% higher);;Increased SOC stocks with MNPK compared to NPK (22.48%–27.88% higher);;Increased SOC storage of chemical fertilizers plus manure treatments under RCP scenarios compared to NPK under baseline (increased by 20.2%–33.5%);;Annual SOC growth rate with hMNPK (74.17–101.98 kg C ha−1 yr−1);;Annual SOC growth rate with MNPK (59.21–80.63 kg C ha−1 yr−1)
Open
Yayat Rahmat Hidayat et al. - 2023 - The Influence of Field Agricultural Extension (PPL) Development on The Dynamics of Farmer Groups.pdf
Indonesia
1;2
Indonesia, Indramayu Regency, Sukagumiwang District, Sukagumiwang Village
Low productivity in agriculture; Improving the welfare of farmers; Improving the abilities, knowledge and skills of farmers; Narrow land; Little capital.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Preparation of RDK and RDKK + Training and Visit Work System (LAKU)
Non-agricultural Solution: Agricultural extension development
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: An extension worker in fostering farmer groups in an effort to increase production and productivity by helping to develop definitive group plans (RDK) and (RDKK);The training and visit work system is expected to motivate agricultural extension workers in carrying out their functions as companions and guides for farmers, as well as ensuring the continuity of extension worker development to farmers in carrying out better agricultural activities, so as to increase production, productivity and income.
Agricultural extension increases productivity (No quantative evidence)
Increased productivity (No quantitative evidence);Increased production (No quantitative evidence);Increased income (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found matching the category and criteria.
no evidence found
Open
Yijian Zeng et al. - 2024 - Tracking Soil Health Monitoring and Modeling the Soil-Plant System.pdf
I am sorry, but I am unable to provide the list of countries, because the document text does not contain information about the countries the solution is researched.
1;2;3
Soil degradation; Climate change; Anthropogenic disturbances; Agricultural productivity; Soil functions
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health monitoring
Agricultural Solution 2: Soil-plant digital twin approach
non-agricultural solution 1: policy development
non-agricultural solution 2: establishing a robust, harmonised soil monitoring framework (EU Soil Observatory)
non-agricultural solution 3: soil health assessment
non-agricultural solution 4: climate adaptaon
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil health indicators (SHI)
non-agricultural solution 1: policy development
non-agricultural solution 2: remote sensing techniques
non-agricultural solution 3: soil health assessment
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: process-based modelling
Agricultural Solution 2: Earth Observaon data
Agricultural Solution 3: data assimilaon
Agricultural Solution 4: physics-informed machine learning
non-agricultural solution 1: soil health assessment
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Trait-based approaches
non-agricultural solution 1: machine learning
non-agricultural solution 2: deep learning algorithms
non-agricultural solution 3: landscape genomics
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Digital Twin Earth (DTE) approach
Agricultural Solution 2: physics-based models
Agricultural Solution 3: data assimilation techniques
Agricultural Solution 4: machine learning and deep learning algorithms
non-agricultural solution 1: Earth system science
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: modeling soil structure
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:** Soil health assessment has evolved from focusing primary on agricultural productivity to an integrated evaluation of soil biota and biotic processes that impact soil properties; Understanding how soil-microbiome-plant processes contribute to feedback mechanisms and causes of changes in soil properties, as well as the impact these changes have on soil functions; Soils support nutrient cycling, which is crucial for plant growth and therefore overall (agri-)ecosystem productivity; Soils support a diverse range of organisms, thereby preserving biodiversity and maintaining healthy ecosystems. Addionally, soil health is described as “the connued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services encompassing both the intrinsic and dynamic properes of soils to funcon sustainably and provide ecosystem services; soil aggregaon (or soil structure, being a physical indicator) results from chemical parameters (e.g., soil organic mater), mineral type and biological processes, as well as land use and management (as expressed by vegetaon cover); direct interacons include beneficial symbioc relaonships between plant and mycorrhizal fungi, which enhance plant nutrient uptake and formaon of soil aggregates; The increasing EPS (gel-like water-rich macromolecular organic mixtures – extracellular polymeric substances) plays an Important role in binding soil parcles with carbonates, metal oxides, and organic mater into organo-mineral complexes forming silt-sized aggregates (<50 μμμμ) or microaggregates (50 – 250 μμμμ), while the complexes of roots and fungal hyphae can enmesh and physically entangle these smaller aggregates into larger and less stable macroaggregates (>250 μμμμ); Growing evidence suggests that mycorrhizal fungi can facilitate water movement between plants along their hyphae, via water redistribuon through the soil profile, to migate drought impacts on plant producvity
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:** Soils sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which helps migate greenhouse gas emissions; diverse plant traits in mixed vegetation can shape the abundance and structure of belowground soil communities, via providing organic mater input as plant liter or root exudates with distinct substrate and energy resources; slow-growing high plants are generally associated with fungi-dominated communities that decompose more recalcitrant organic carbon than grasslands that are typically dominated by bacteria driving rapid nutrient cycling; soil biomass has a general trend of increasing with latitude, indicating a negative relationship between soil microbial biomass and SOM turnover rate at the global scale (i.e., the greatest soil organism abundance is in Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions, where the metabolic rates of heterotrophic organisms are low; Digital twin technology, initially developed for engineering and industry, has now been widely adopted in various fields, including Earth system science
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:** Soils act as a natural buffer against droughts and floods, contributing significantly to climate adaptation; vegetaon types and plant species (Bahram et al., 2018; Delgado-Baquerizo et al., 2018; Fierer, 2017; Sullivan et al., 2022). It turns out that we can use the relationship between these environmental factors and soil microbial taxa to infer the functional potential of soil taxa at broad spatial scales; pore clogging can reduce soil hydraulic conductivity and decrease water infiltration, while stable aggregates and micropores can enhance water retention
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belong to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Improved soil hydraulic conductivity (up to 50%);; Increased plant drought resilience (>30% of host plant transpiration accounted for by AMF water transport);; Enhanced plant nutrient uptake (No quantative evidence);; Enhanced soil structure stability (No quantative evidence);; Improved soil water storage (No quantative evidence)
No reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category and resulting from the use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages are provided in the full text content.
Open
Yingying Jiang et al. - 2023 - Establishing a Soil Health Assessment System for Quaternary Red Soils (Luvisols) under Different Lan.pdf
15; 2; 6
China, Liaoning Province, Chaoyang City, Wujianfang Town
Soil degradation and low agricultural productivity; acidification; hardpan formation; erosion; low fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Woodland
Agricultural Solution 2: Arable Land
Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment
Non-agricultural solution 2: Land use planning and management
Non-agricultural solution 3: Sustainable use of soil resources
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Grassland
Agricultural Solution 2: Sparse forest and grassland
Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment
Non-agricultural solution 2: Extensive management
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Arable land
Non-agricultural solution 1: Applying organic fertilizers and chemical fertilizers
Non-agricultural solution 2: Machine plowing
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The health status of Quaternary red soil is a comprehensive reflection of the production and ecological service functions, which directly affects agricultural productivity and ecosystem sustainability;This indicates that at this stage, human land use activities have to some extent promoted the healthy development of Quaternary red soils.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Overall soil health status under woodland (0.64); Overall soil health status under arable land (0.61); Topsoil layer health status under woodland (0.86); Topsoil layer health status under arable land (0.73); Overall soil health status under grassland (0.49)
Improved Overall Soil Health Status (Overall SHI trend: woodland (0.64) > arable land (0.61) > grassland (0.49) > sparse forest and grassland (0.37) > buried Quaternary red soils (0.33));;Healthy Soil Level Attained (Woodland and arable land SHI: 0.64 and 0.61, respectively);;Healthy Topsoil Layer Health Status (Topsoil SHI trend: woodland (0.86) > arable land (0.73) > grassland (0.70) > sparse forest and grassland (0.67));;Higher Organic Matter Content (Organic matter content trend: woodland (12.65 g·kg−1) > arable land (6.26 g·kg−1) > sparse forest and grassland (4.00 g·kg−1) > grassland (3.17 g·kg−1) > buried Quaternary red soils (1.93 g·kg−1));;Higher Microbial Diversity (Microbial diversity trend: woodland (10.72 mg·g−1) > arable land (10.40 mg·g−1) > sparse forest and grassland (10.15 mg·g−1) > grassland (9.82 mg·g−1) > buried Quaternary red soils (5.96 mg·g−1))
Microbial diversity (bacteria) (Woodland (10.72), Arable land (10.40), Sparse forest and grassland (10.15), Grassland (9.82), Buried Quaternary red soils (5.96));; Soil organic matter content (Woodland (12.65 g·kg−1), Arable land (6.26 g·kg−1), Sparse forest and grassland (4.00 g·kg−1), Grassland (3.17 g·kg−1), Buried Quaternary red soils (1.93 g·kg−1))
Open
Zahida H Pervaiz et al. - 2020 - Continuous Cropping Alters Multiple Biotic and Abiotic Indicators of Soil Health.pdf
Auburn University; University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Qingdao Agricultural University; China Three Gorges University; South China Agricultural University; Alabama State University;
1;2;3
China, Yichang; China, Guangzhou; China, Qingdao; United States of America, Alabama, Montgomery; United States of America, Nebraska, Lincoln; United States of America, Auburn
Soil degradation; Crop yield; Soil-borne disease; Soil health; Soil fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Intercropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Mixture Cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Rotation cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Cover crops + Non-agricultural Solution 1: Weeding + Non-agricultural Solution 2: Precise use of farm machinery + Non-agricultural Solution 3: Proper land leveling
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop residues + Agricultural Solution 3: Biochar + Agricultural Solution 4: Livestock and poultry waste + Non-agricultural Solution 1: Reduced use of farm machinery + Non-agricultural Solution 2: No-till agriculture
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Water conservation practices + Agricultural Solution 2: Mulching + Agricultural Solution 3: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop residues
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till agriculture + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-till + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 4: Cropping diversity
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mixture cropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Inter-cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Cropping diversity + Agricultural Solution 5: Organic amendments
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biopesticides + Agricultural Solution 2: Mixture cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Inter-cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 5: Crop rotation
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cropping diversity + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 5: Crop residues
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: Cropping diversity + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop residues
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cropping diversity + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: Biofertilizers + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop residues + Agricultural Solution 4: Cropping diversity
Solution Package 12:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: Biofertilizers + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop residues + Agricultural Solution 4: Cover crops
Solution Package 13:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop residues
Solution Package 14:
Agricultural Solution 1: Dolomitic limestone + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop residues
Solution Package 15:
Agricultural Solution 1: Limestone + Agricultural Solution 2: Gypsum + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop residues
Solution Package 16:
Agricultural Solution 1: Iron chelates + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure or sewage sludge + Agricultural Solution 3: Foliar spray of ferrous sulfate solution
Solution Package 17:
Agricultural Solution 1: Lime + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic matter + Agricultural Solution 3: Manure + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 5: Cover cropping
Solution Package 18:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop residues + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop rotation
Solution Package 19:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop residues
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health is a very a broad concept, and it is defined as the sustained capacity of agricultural soils to function and thrive as a healthy living ecosystem that supports microbes, plants, insects, and animals in a way which is desirable to and meets the demands of human beings; The microbial biomass or abundance is an essential component of the healthy soil ecosystem, and its contents determine the soil quality and crop yields; Mineralization of soil organic C and N is an essential indicator of soil fertility and agroecosystem functioning.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No quantative evidence
no evidence found
Reduced root pathogen pressure (No quantitative evidence); Increased potentially mineralizable N (PMN) (No quantitative evidence); Increased abundance of beneficial microbes (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter and organic C contents (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil aggregate Stability (No quantitative evidence)
Increased earthworm size and abundance (twice as large and more abundant species under wheat-clover rotation than wheat mono-cropping); Increased soil aggregate stability (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter and organic C contents (No quantitative evidence); Increased microbial biomass and abundance (No quantitative evidence); Increased microbial diversity (No quantitative evidence)
Increased earthworm abundance/species diversity (soil under wheat-clover rather than wheat mono-cropping showed twice as large and more abundant earthworm species);; Increased soil organic C contents (No quantative evidence);; Enhanced soil aggregation (No quantative evidence);; Increased microbial diversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Yonette Maya Tupamahu and Lydia Maria Ivakdalam - 2020 - Quality of Agricultural Extension Services in Ambon.pdf
Indonesia
1;2
Indonesia, Ambon, Ambon Bay District, Ambon Bay Baguala District, South Leitimur District, Nusaniwe District, Sirimau District
Agricultural extension service performance; Farmer satisfaction; Agricultural productivity; Farmer income; Agricultural business partnerships
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Counseling is done on time (S4) + Agricultural Solution 2: Serious attention from extension workers towards farmers (S5) + Agricultural Solution 3: Reliability in assisting farmers or farmer groups in preparing plans for farming activities (S9) + Agricultural Solution 4: The reliability of agricultural instructors for increasing business results (S14) + Agricultural Solution 5: Willing counselors provide services quickly (S15) + Agricultural Solution 6: Spent time for extension workers to respond quickly to farmers' requests (S17) + Agricultural Solution 7: Accuracy in handling farmers' complaints (S18) + Agricultural Solution 8: Extension agents have competency in guiding, solving problems of farmers or farmer groups in the field, and establishing business partnerships in agriculture (S19) + Non-agricultural solution 1: Restructuring the distribution of field extension workers + Non-agricultural solution 2: Preserving local wisdom especially related to the life of farmers and agriculture in Maluku + Non-agricultural solution 3: Seriousness of the government in implementing Law Number 16 of 2006 about Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Extension Systems.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Law Number 16 of 2006 about Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Extension Systems explains that agricultural counseling is a learning process for the main actors and business actors so that they are willing and able to help and organize themselves in accessing market information, technology, capital, and other resources, as an effort to increase productivity, business efficiency, their income and welfare, and raising awareness in the preservation of environmental functions; 2. Good performance will have an impact on farmers in cultivating agricultural products, so as to increase production and income of farmers;3. The reliability of agricultural instructors for increasing business results (S14)
Reliability conveys the latest technology (No quantative evidence);; Reliability of conveying market information (No quantative evidence);; The reliability of agricultural instructors conveys information on business opportunities and capital (No quantative evidence)
Reliability of agricultural instructors for increasing business results (No quantitative evidence);; Farming activities have been profitable for farmers (No quantitative evidence)
None.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Yuhu Cui et al. - 2025 - Evaluation of comprehensive benefits and the degree of coupling coordination for soil health product.pdf
2;11;15
China; Weifang City, Qingzhou, Zhucheng, Shouguang, Anqiu, Gaomi, Changyi, Linqu, Changle
Soil contamination; Food security; Soil degradation; Climate change; Rural development
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Bio-fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 3: Soil conditioners + Agricultural Solution 4: Microbial fungicides + Non-agricultural Solution 1: Employment and the development of rural areas + Non-agricultural Solution 2: Subsidies for the purchase and production of SHPs (policy) + Non-agricultural Solution 3: Training courses on SHPs (social) + Non-agricultural Solution 4: Extend the industrial chain for the processing of agricultural products (market) + Non-agricultural Solution 5: Establish agricultural cooperatives to implement an intensive management model for the joint purchase of products, sharing resources (market)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased crop yields and quality;The higher crop yields and lower input of pesticides can increase revenue in the agricultural market and improve economic efficiency;Meeting the growing demand for food;Increase the content of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients in agricultural products while also improving the taste and flavor;Transform the reliance of rural areas on single-agriculture production to a more diversified industrial structure, and strengthen the risk resistance of the rural economy.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improve the structure and nutrient levels of soil;Reduce the bulk density of soils, increase the resistance of crops to disease and pests, improve the internal structure of soils, increase soil aggregates, and improve soil fertility;Increasing the number and types of beneficial microorganisms in the soil, maintaining the balance and stability of the soil ecosystem, and improving the self-repairing capacity of soils;Increase the organic matter content and carbon sequestration capacity of soils
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Increasing the number and types of beneficial microorganisms in the soil, maintaining the balance and stability of the soil ecosystem, and improving the self-repairing capacity of soils;Increase the organic matter content and carbon sequestration capacity of soils;Reducing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and mitigating global climate change;The rational use of SHPs can also reduce the pollution levels of soil by absorbing heavy metal ions, thus reducing their mobility in the soil and reducing the risk of crop contamination
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category.
Increased crop yields (increased by 11.9–21.1%); Improved crop quality (commercial rate increased by 14.1–20.9%); Increase revenue in the agricultural market (No quantative evidence); Improve economic efficiency (No quantative evidence); Reduced use of fertilizers (No quantative evidence)
Increased potato yields (11.9–21.1%); Increased commercial rate (Potatoes) (14.1–20.9%); Significantly reducing the Cd content of brown rice (No quantitative evidence); Increased organic matter content of the soil (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence)
Increased potato yields and commercial rate (potato yields and the commercial rate increased by 11.9–21.1% and 14.1–20.9%, respectively, from a previous study on soil conditioners);Improve soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);Improve soil quality (No quantitative evidence);Increase the resistance of crops to disease and pests (No quantitative evidence);Promoting the healthy growth of crops (No quantitative evidence)
increase the organic matter content and carbon sequestration capacity of soils (No quantitative evidence); increasing the number and types of beneficial microorganisms in the soil (No quantitative evidence); maintaining the balance and stability of the soil ecosystem (No quantitative evidence); reducing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (No quantitative evidence)
Open
2020 - Farmers’ perception of pigeon pea fertilization and soil health indicators in Ebelle, Edo State.pdf
Nigeria
15; 2; 12
Nigeria, Ebelle, Edo State
Soil degradation; Reduction of biodiversity; Damage to water supply and health; Loss of productive capacity of the soil
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic Manure + Agricultural Solution 2: Chemical Fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 3: Post-harvest residue management + non-agricultural solution 1: Low cost (economic) + non-agricultural solution 2: High crop response (economic) + non-agricultural solution 3: Availability (supply chain) + non-agricultural solution 4: Common practice (social)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: soil colour (37.3%); mesofauna (28.1%); crop vigour (26.9%); moisture content (7.7%); Organic manure use attributed to low cost (45.3%), high crop response (31.4%), availability (13.8%), and common practice (9.5%); Farmers awareness on the role of pigeon pea on soil health; Farmers' assessment of soil health was qualitative and based on physical examination; Farmers had detailed exclamatory knowledge of twelve (12) indicators of soil health with each farmer knowing an average of five (5).
* Use of organic manure due to its low cost (45.3%);;Farmers adopt organic fertilization because of the low cost. (72.6%)
high crop response (31.4%);; yield more (No quantitative evidence)
Regenerate soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); High crop response (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced earthworm activity (No quantitative evidence); Crops look greener, grow faster, and yield more (No quantitative evidence)
Crops grown after pigeon pea yield more (No quantitative evidence);High crop response from organic manure application (No quantitative evidence);Pigeon pea regenerates soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);Crops grown after pigeon pea grow faster (No quantitative evidence);Pigeon pea enhances earthworm activity (No quantitative evidence)
Enhanced earthworm activity (No quantitative evidence); Avoiding threat to biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Improved organic matter content (No quantitative evidence)
Open
2020 - Model Approach of Crop Classification Using Logistic Regression.pdf
India; Iceland; China
2;15
India, GOVT Amravati(MH)
Africa, Zona da mata region
Kerala
Hvanneyri, Iceland
Soil degradation; Crop selection; Nutrient deficiency; Agricultural productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Soil testing tools + Crop suggestion + Soil classification
Non-agricultural solution: Machine learning algorithm (Logistic Regression)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Capturing soil health in concern of nutrient;Easy classification of soil on the basis of its different features and also from testing the quality of soil to suggest the additional supplement to improve the health and nutrient in the soil; We use the features of soil to detect the soil health and her nutrient deficiency;The main purpose of the proposed work is to create a suitable model for classifying various kinds of soil series data along with suitable suggestion for improving the fertility of soil using the logistic algorithm; Different classes have been created using the factors associated with soil;Evaluated soil fertility depend on several parameter such as texture , organic matter, soil PH, electrical conductivity, total calcium carbonate, total Nitrogen, C to N ration, available content of phosphorus, potassium , calcium, magnesium and also on the micro nutrients.
Classification of soil with 95-98% accuracy using Logistic Algorithm, which can lead to better crop selection and management (95-98%)
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" are explicitly mentioned as a direct result of the use/implementation of the solutions packages in the provided full text. The text primarily focuses on the accuracy of the soil classification model.
Classification of soil (95-98% accuracy);; Detecting the soil health (95 to 99%);; Suggestion for improving the fertility of soil (No quantative evidence);; Framework for crop suggestion (No quantative evidence)
Accuracy for classification of soil (95-98%)
no evidence found
Open
2025 - Response of Mango Trees to Organic and Biofertilizers to Enhance Crop Production and Quality in Egyp.pdf
Egypt
2;15
Egypt; India; Myanmar; China; Nigeria;
Food insecurity; Climate change; Soil degradation; Environmental pollution; Economic outcomes for farmers.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Organic fertilizers + Biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Sustainable agricultural practices + Economic outcomes for farmers + Environmental benefits + Improving productivity and fruit quality
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Organic fertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Sustainable agriculture
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Sustainable agriculture
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: Organic fertilizers + Biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Increased fruit production + Improve mango quality + consumer appeal
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution: Organic fertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Improving soil structure + Increased soil microbial activity
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution: Organic fertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Sustainable agriculture + Nutrient availability + Soil structure + Yield + Nutritional value + Flavour and Aroma + consumer perception and marketability
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution: Farm Yard Manure (FYM)
Non-agricultural solutions: Soil physico-chemical characteristics
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution: Biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Sustainable agriculture + Eco-friendly + Increase tolerance to high salt conditions
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution: FYM + VAM + Azotobacter
Non-agricultural solutions: Growth + yield parameters
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution: FYM + Azotobacter
Non-agricultural solutions: Quality parameters
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution: Biofertilizer (Bacillus circulans) + Potassium
Non-agricultural solutions: Vegetative growth + Yield + Quality
Solution Package 12:
Agricultural Solution: Vermicompost at 5 kg/plant/year, FYM at 10 kg/plant/year, inorganic fertiliser, 50% vermicompost + 50% inorganic fertiliser, 50% FYM + 50% inorganic fertiliser, biofertilizer (Azotobacter at 150 g/plant) + PSM at 100 g/plant), biofertilizer + 50% inorganic fertiliser
Non-agricultural solutions: Growth, fruit quality, and soil health
Solution Package 13:
Agricultural Solution: Organic (compost) + bio-organic fertilisers + mineral (NPK) + soil bio-stimulants (Phosphorein, Nitrobein, and Potasein)
Non-agricultural solutions: fruiting aspects and fruit characterise
Solution Package 14:
Agricultural Solution: Organic manure + biofertilizers + chemical fertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: Enhances physicochemical characteristics of the soil + soil fertility + producing more citrus fruits, such as mango trees
Solution Package 15:
Agricultural Solution: Organic manure + biofertilizers
Non-agricultural solutions: significantly improved biochemical properties + fruit quality
Solution Package 16:
Agricultural Solution: FYM + Azotobacter + inorganic nitrogen
Non-agricultural solutions: Fruit cracking reduced + Fruit quality increased
Solution Package 17:
Agricultural Solution: 50% nitrogen (poultry manure) + 50% nitrogen (urea) + Azotobacter
Non-agricultural solutions: Fruit length + fruit width + fruit weight + fruit volume + number of fruits per plant + yield
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Response of mango trees to organic and biofertilizers can significantly improve crop production and fruit quality; Combining organic and bio fertilisers in mango cultivation can result in higher growth and yield; In addition to encouraging greater fruit production, these methods enhance mango quality and increase consumer appeal; Using these strategies encourages sustainable farming methods, which eventually improve the financial results for farmers as well as the environment.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Integrative nutrient management, which preserves soil health, can be critical for mango growth, yield, and quality in the long run; Thus, organic and biofertilizers help plants meet their nutrient requirements while also restoring soil fertility; A further step towards sustainable agriculture is raising fruit quality and productivity for sustainable agricultural systems;Organic fertiliser enhances the physical, chemical, and biological properties of almost all soil types by adjusting soil pH and increasing plant solubility production
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: By minimising soil degradation and lowering reliance on chemical fertilisers, organic fertilisers support sustainable agriculture; Biofertilizers are low-cost inputs with significant environmental benefits; They have the potential to increase crop productivity and serve as a viable alternative to high-chemical inputs.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Biofertilizers are low-cost inputs with significant environmental benefits (No quantative evidence);; Biofertilizers are also much less expensive than chemical fertilisers and more environmentally friendly (No quantative evidence);; Biofertilizers are inexpensive, eco-friendly, and productive inputs that have major agricultural advantages (No quantative evidence).
Highest number of fruits per plant (40.22); Maximum yield per tree (8.52 kg); Increased production (No quantative evidence); Higher yields (No quantative evidence); Improve financial results for farmers (No quantative evidence)
Improve soil physical, chemical, and biological properties (No quantitative evidence);Increase soil microbial activity/population and enzyme activity (No quantitative evidence);Increase nutrient availability (No quantitative evidence);Strengthen soil structure (No quantitative evidence);Increase soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence)
Preserve soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Improve soil physical, chemical, and biological properties (No quantitative evidence); Increase soil microbial activity (No quantitative evidence); Increase nutrient availability (No quantitative evidence); Strengthen soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Maintains/restores soil fertility and health (No quantitative evidence); Reduces environmental pollution (No quantitative evidence); Increases soil organism biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Reduces reliance on chemical fertilisers (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Derek Henry Lynch - 2022 - Soil Health and Biodiversity Is Driven by Intensity of Organic Farming in Canada.pdf
Canada
15;2;12
Canada, Ontario; Quebec; Atlantic Canada
Soil Health; Biodiversity; Climate Change; Food Insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Cropping diversity + Tillage management + Nutrient utilization + Farm scale + Individual producer’s philosophical perspective (social) + Resiliency to biodiversity loss, climate change and food insecurity (social, environmental, economic) + Demographic trends and perspectives of new entrants in organic farming (youth) + Health and environmental concerns (social)
Solution Package 2:
Cropping diversity + Crop rotations + Cover crops + Tillage management + Organic amendments + Nutrient diversification and recycling (economic) + Regional recycling of phosphorus (economic)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil organic carbon is the keystone element affecting soil health outcomes and both total SOC and labile SOC are key components and measures of soil health;More diverse or extended crop rotations are recommended in organic farming systems, to maintain and enhance SOC
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" found in the text.
Yields matching adjacent conventional dairy farms (yields matching adjacent conventional dairy farms)
Increased soil microbial biomass (30%); Increasing SOC using organic amendments (24%); Gains in SOC associated with conservation tillage (14%)
Increased soil organic carbon due to organic amendments (24%) and conservation tillage (14%); Increased soil microbial biomass due to best management practices (30%); Increased soil mineralizable carbon and aggregate stability due to crop diversification (No quantative evidence); Recovery of soil microbial and earthworm population due to extended and diverse rotations (No quantative evidence); Maintenance of labile and total soil organic carbon due to diverse crop rotation (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil microbial biomass (30%); Increased soil organic carbon from organic amendments (24%); Increased soil organic carbon associated with conservation tillage (14%); Greater soil fungi, mycorrhizae, and Gram negative bacteria (No quantitative evidence); Benefits for plants, pollinators, and birds (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Chinna M Bentayao et al. - 2025 - Knowledge, Attitudes, and Agricultural Practices of Coconut Farmers on the Impacts of Climate Change.pdf
Philippines
1;2;13
Philippines; Davao Oriental, Philippines; Manay, Davao Oriental, Philippines; Barangay Capasnan, Manay, Davao Oriental, Philippines
Climate change; agricultural productivity; crop resilience; sustainable farming; climate adaptation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Drought-resistant crops + Agricultural Solution 2: Water-saving irrigation + Agricultural Solution 3: Soil conservation + Agricultural Solution 4: Pest management + non-agricultural solution 1: Financial assistance + non-agricultural solution 2: Climate-smart agricultural training + non-agricultural solution 3: Emotional and mental support + non-agricultural solution 4: Access to resilient crop varieties + non-agricultural solution 5: Affordable adaptive technology + non-agricultural solution 6: Increased distribution of coconut seedlings by the Philippine Coconut Authority
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Diversifying farm to include other crops + non-agricultural solution 1: Exploring alternative income sources + non-agricultural solution 2: Knowledge-sharing/exchange about adaptive strategies + non-agricultural solution 3: Training programs on climate-smart agriculture practices + non-agricultural solution 4: Planning to adopt renewable energy sources
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Climate change was perceived to have severe impacts on coconut yields;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits matching the criteria.
no evidence found
no evidence found
No information available that directly matches the requested category and criteria.
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the specified category and are mentioned with quantitative proof in the full text content as a result of the use/implementation of the solutions and solution packages specified.
Open
B.W Dougherty et al. - 2021 - Evaluating the impact of midwestern cropping systems on soil health and soil carbon dynamics.pdf
United States of America
2;15;13
United States of America, Iowa
Soil degradation; Water quality; Air quality; Plant and animal health; Soil erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: No-till (NT) cropping systems + Agricultural Solution: Cereal rye cover crop + Agricultural Solution: Manure application + Agricultural Solution: Corn residue removal + Non-agricultural solution: Soil Quality Index (SQI)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Corn–soybean rotation + Agricultural Solution: Spring-applied urea ammonium nitrogen (SU168) + Agricultural Solution: Fall-applied manure (FM) in no-till (NT) + Agricultural Solution: cereal rye (Secale cereale) cover crop + Non-agricultural solution: Soil Quality Index (SQI)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Continuous corn (CC) treatments with fall-applied manure (FM) + Agricultural Solution: Stover removal + Non-agricultural solution: Soil Quality Index (SQI)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health, also referred to as soil quality, has been defined as the capacity of soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem and land-use boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health;Increasing soil C may lead to the formation of larger soil aggregates;Macroaggregates are able to hold and protect soil C from mineralization;Possible effects on WSA due to interactions between N source, rate, and timing were not investigated, but may have impacted the results.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: It has been proposed that NT farming is a strategy that can increase soil organic carbon (SOC) levels and sequester carbon (C) in soils; full inversion tillage had significantly greater SOC than NT at depths of 21 to 35 cm, with no significant difference at depths >35 cm. However, NT still had an average of 4.9 Mg ha–1 more SOC than full inversion tillage over the entire sampling depth.; cover crop treatments led to a significant increase in soil SOC stocks over time compared to reference sites with no cover crop.; The increased biological activity associated with cover crops can also enhance N cycling in the soil; manuring increased SOC stocks relative to mineral fertilized plots;Results showed that FM168NT38 and FM224CC had significantly greater TC and TN than other treatments.; The trend toward increasing TC below 30 cm in CC and CS cropping systems with different management practices is an important finding.; This research demonstrates the need to examine soils at depths greater than what has traditionally been reported in the literature when evaluating soil C levels and estimating C accumulation potential.
There are no outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the text that directly relate to higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs as a result of the specified solutions and solution packages.
no evidence found
Higher Soil Quality Index (SQI) (0.91 for FM224CC and FM224CC-S compared to 0.83 for FM168NT10+R);Greater Total Carbon (TC) in 0-15 cm (23.0a g kg–1 for FM224CC compared to 20.5bc g kg–1 for FM224CC-S);Higher Total Nitrogen (TN) in 0-15 cm (1.87a g kg–1 for FM168NT38 compared to 1.60bc g kg–1 for SU168);Significant increases in TC deep in the soil profile (15-120 cm) (Annual increase of 0.07 to 0.25 g kg–1 across various depths (15-120 cm) for most treatments from 2007-2017);Greater Water-Stable Aggregation (WSA) > 0.212 mm in 0-15 cm (significantly greater in FM168NT38 compared to FM224CC-S (p = 0.049))
Significant increases in Total Carbon deep in the soil profile (Significant increases over time at various depths between 15 and 120 cm in several cropping systems (p ≤ 0.05 for various treatments and depths from 2007 to 2017)); Higher Soil Quality Index (SQI) Score (Significantly higher overall SQI in CC treatments managed with conservation tillage (FM224CC 0.91, FM224CC-S 0.91) than all other treatments (0.83-0.86)); Greater Total Carbon (TC) at 0-15 cm depth (Significantly greater in FM168NT38 (21.7 g kg–1) and FM224CC (23.0 g kg–1) than other treatments (p=0.031 for stock difference FM224CC vs FM224CC-S; p=0.034 for mass difference FM168NT38 vs FM168NT10+R)); Greater Total Nitrogen (TN) at 0-15 cm depth (Significantly higher in FM168NT38 (1.87 g kg–1) compared to all other CS rotation treatments (p=0.019 for N stocks)); Greater Water-Stable Aggregation (WSA) > 0.212 mm (Significantly greater in FM168NT38 compared to FM224CC-S (p = 0.049))
Estimated average C accumulation in the soil profile to a depth of 120 cm (1,300 kg C ha–1 y–1);Significant increases in TC over time at 30 to 60 cm depth (Annual ± g kg–1 rates range from 0.07 to 0.17; p-values <0.001 to 0.054 as shown in Table 6);Significant increases in TC over time at 60 to 90 cm depth (Annual ± g kg–1 rates range from 0.09 to 0.14; p-values <0.001 to 0.002 as shown in Table 6);Significant increases in TC over time at 90 to 120 cm depth (Annual ± g kg–1 rates range from 0.07 to 0.11; p-values <0.001 to 0.054 as shown in Table 6);Significantly greater Total Carbon in FM224CC treatment compared to FM224CC-S in the 0 to 15 cm layer (FM224CC: 23.0 g kg–1 and 50.0 Mg C ha–1; FM224CC-S: 20.5 g kg–1 and 43.0 Mg C ha–1 (p=0.031))
Open
B C Verma et al. - 2020 - Biowaste Utilisation for Improving Soil Health and Crop Productivity in North Eastern India.pdf
India
15; 2; 3
India; Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam, Tripura, Sikkim, Meghalaya; Bihar; Jharkhand
Soil degradation; Crop productivity; Climate change; Food security; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Efficient utilisation of bio-wastes (crop residues, weed biomass, forest litter, animal dung etc.)
Agricultural Solution 2: Production of quality organic manure
Agricultural Solution 3: In-situ utilization of bio-waste
Agricultural Solution 4: Improvement of compost through mineral amendments or microbial culture
Agricultural Solution 5: Inoculating nitrogen fixing microorganisms and phosphate solubilizing microorganisms to compost
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Efficient utilisation of bio-wastes could be an important strategy for meeting the growing demand of nutrients and improving the soil health and crop productivity in north-eastern India;These bio-wastes can also improve soil organic carbon, moisture retention capacity, buffering capacity and many other desirable attributes of soil quality;Deterioration of soil health is the cumulative result of soil fertility loss, increase in erodibility and exposure of compact sub-soil of poor physico-chemical properties;Organic manure improves the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil as well as release of nutrients after decomposition, affecting plants growth favourably;Large scale production and use of organic manure have a direct bearing on improvement of soil health of the already degraded soil resources by improving soil physicochemical properties, biological health and improving moisture retention capacity besides providing plant nutrients;Proper utilization of weeds itself can contribute significantly to enhancement of soil health and ecosystems sustainability;Considering the scope and imperatives of biowaste utilization in NEH region, there is a need for production of quality organic manures from these bio-wastes and their popularisation among the farming community for improving soil health and crop productivity in north-eastern India.;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits reported in the text that belong to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Significant improvement in yield components (No quantative evidence)
Improving nutrient status in soil (No quantitative evidence);; Improve soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence);; Increase soil pH (No quantitative evidence);; Improve moisture retention capacity (No quantitative evidence);; Improve buffering capacity (No quantitative evidence)
Increases available nutrient (No quantitative evidence);; Eliminates/reduces aluminium toxicity (No quantitative evidence);; Increases soil pH (No quantitative evidence);; Improve soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence);; Improve moisture retention capacity (No quantitative evidence)
improving soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Dianna K Bagnall et al. - 2022 - Selecting soil hydraulic properties as indicators of soil health Measurement response to management.pdf
Canada; Mexico; United States of America; Germany
6; 2; 15
Canada, Edmonton, AB; Canada, Lethbridge, AB; Canada, Guelph, ON; Canada, Harrow, ON; Canada, Swift Current, SK; United States of America, North Carolina; United States of America, Arkansas; United States of America, Washington, Puyallup, WA; United States of America, Texas, Bushland, TX; United States of America, Texas, Rapid City, SD; United States of America, Missouri, Rock Port, MO; United States of America, Ohio, Wooster, OH; United States of America, Pennsylvania, University Park, PA; United States of America, Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY; United States of America, South Carolina, Florence, SC; United States of America, Oklahoma, El Reno, OK; United States of America, Colorado, Fort Collins, CO; United States of America, Texas, Beeville, TX; United States of America, Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA; United States of America, Alabama, Auburn, AL; United States of America, Washington, Mount Vernon, WA; United States of America, Kentucky, Princeton, KY; United States of America, Michigan, Hickory Corners, MI; United States of America, Minnesota, Waseca, MN; United States of America, Missouri, Columbia, MO; United States of America, South Dakota, Brookings, SD; United States of America, Iowa, Ames, IA; United States of America, Arizona, Tucson, AZ; United States of America, Oregon, Adams, OR; United States of America, California, Parlier, CA; United States of America, Oregon, Corvallis, OR; United States of America, Missouri, Novelty, MO; United States of America, Tennessee, Nashville, TN; United States of America, South Dakota, Brookings, SD; United States of America, West Virginia, Morgantown, WV; United States of America, Kentucky, Lexington, KY; United States of America, Kansas, Manhattan, KS; United States of America, Illinois, Carbondale, IL; United States of America, Montana, Sidney, MT; United States of America, Wisconsin, Madison, WI; United States of America, Kansas, Tribune, KS; United States of America, California, Davis, CA; United States of America, Delaware, Newark, DE; United States of America, Florida, Quincy, FL; Mexico, Texcoco, MEX; Mexico, Coyoacán, CMX; Mexico, Santa Catarina, Coyoacán CMX; Mexico, Querétaro, QUE; Mexico, Tepatepec, HID; Mexico, Molcaxac PUE
Soil degradation; Climate change; Water erosion; Soil erosion; Crop yield reduction
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Reduced tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Residue retention + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover crops + Non-agricultural solution 1: Organic nutrient sources
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Residue retention increased WSA by about 20%; 2. Reduced tillage increased WSA by about 20%; 3. Use of cover crops increased WSA by about 20%; 4. Residue retention decreased bulk density by 2–3%; 5. Addition of organic nutrient sources decreased bulk density by 2–3%; 6. Reduced tillage decreased bulk density by 2–3%; 7. Residue retention increased θFC_INTACT by between 3 and 4%; 8. Addition of organic nutrient sources increased θFC_INTACT by between 3 and 4%; 9. Reduced tillage increased θFC_INTACT by between 3 and 4%;10. Residue retention increased SOC (11–13%); 11. Use of cover crops increased SOC (11–13%); 12. Reduced tillage increased SOC (11–13%); 13. Addition of organic nutrient sources increased SOC by 23%
No relevant outcomes found in the context.
Increased plant available water provided to the crop (Based on mean 4% increase in field capacity, this translates to an additional 0.90 cm (0.36 in) of water over a season (if refilled five times); Maximum response translates to an additional 2.3 cm (1.0 in) of water over a season (if refilled five times))
Additional plant available water holding capacity (0.18 cm to a depth of 15 cm for a 4% increase in field capacity resulting from management; 2.3 cm (1.0 in) across a growing season if a 10% increase in field capacity were refilled five times);Increased field capacity measured on intact cores (+3–4% with residue retention, addition of organic nutrient sources, and reduced tillage; max 10% change due to addition of organic nutrient sources);Decreased bulk density (-2–3% with greater residue retention, addition of organic nutrient sources, and reduced tillage);Increased water stable aggregate percentage (+20% with increased residue retention, use of cover crops, and reduced tillage);Increased soil organic carbon (+11–13% with reduced tillage, use of cover crops, and increased residue retention; +23% with addition of organic nutrient sources)
Increased field capacity (measured on intact cores) (between 3 and 4%);Increased aggregate stability (WSA) (about 20%);Reduced bulk density (2–3%);Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) (11–23% increase);Increased plant available water holding capacity (0.18 cm)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon from addition of organic nutrient sources (23%); Increased Soil Organic Carbon from reduced tillage (11–13%); Increased Soil Organic Carbon from use of cover crops (11–13%); Increased Soil Organic Carbon from increased residue retention (11–13%)
Open
Di Xiaoying - 2023 - Land reclamation and soil health in mining area.pdf
China
15; 2; 13
China
Environmental Pollution; Soil Degradation; Food Security; Climate Change; Resource Depletion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Land reclamation and soil health in mining area + Soil microbiome regulation + Soil scientific management + Soil biodiversity management + Soil organic matter management
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health pays more attention to the internal relationship between soil physical function, chemical function and biological function, and emphasizes the synergistic improvement of soil biological function, crop yield quality and health.; Soil aggregate and soil fertility
The aggregate and the space formed by it become the home of various organisms in the soil, and the aeration and water retention of the soil provide conditions for the survival and reproduction of various organisms in the soil.
Soil Microbiome and Soil Health: Studies have shown that soils with higher microbial diversity exhibit more ecological functions, higher resistance to environmental stress and higher crop productivity (No quantative evidence);; In the future, the soil microbiome can also be regulated to improve soil health and crop yield, reduce the application of pesticides and fertilizers, so as to reduce resource consumption in agricultural production and alleviate environmental pollution problems, and achieve the second "green revolution" in agricultural production (No quantative evidence)
Higher crop productivity (No quantitative evidence); Reduce the application of pesticides and fertilizers (No quantitative evidence)
Improve crop yield (No quantative evidence); Higher crop productivity (No quantative evidence); Synergistic improvement of crop yield quality and health (No quantative evidence); Soil organisms supply plant nutrients (No quantative evidence); Improved soil physical and chemical properties (No quantative evidence)
Higher crop productivity (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil physical and chemical properties (No quantitative evidence); Supply plant nutrients (No quantitative evidence); Improve soil structure (No quantitative evidence); Control of soil-borne diseases (No quantitative evidence)
Increased carbon storage in reclaimed coal mine ecosystem (No quantitative evidence); Restraining the carbon emissions of damaged land through land reclamation (No quantitative evidence); Regulation of production and emission of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide by soil microbiome (No quantitative evidence); Soil biodiversity playing an important role in soil ecological functions including accumulation and turnover of organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Higher microbial diversity exhibiting more ecological functions (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Dedi Purwana et al. - 2025 - Entrepreneurship Education as a Catalyst for Sustainability Linking Innovation, Intention, and Busi.pdf
Indonesia
5; 8; 12
Indonesia,
Climate change; Social injustice; Environmental degradation; Unemployment; Inclusive economic growth
Solution Package 1:
Entrepreneurship Education + Sustainability Innovation + Sustainability Intention + Sustainability Business Model
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Innovations prioritize the use of environmentally friendly resources; 2. Innovations pay attention to social impact; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
There is no sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
No outcome found in the text matching the category.
Ecosystem preservation (No quantative evidence); Reducing environmental consequences/impacts (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Deborah A Neher et al. - 2022 - Resilient Soils for Resilient Farms An Integrative Approach to Assess, Promote, and Value Soil Heal.pdf
15;2;12
Soil degradation; Climate change; Food insecurity; Water pollution; Economic instability
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Monitoring of soil health metrics (organic matter, beneficial microbes, food web complexity, aggregate stability, active carbon, water infiltration).
Agricultural Solution 2: Long-term effects of management practices on soil health.
Agricultural Solution 3: Interactions between soil health and water quality.
Agricultural Solution 4: Interactions between soil health and climate.
Agricultural Solution 5: Observation of soil physical structure (tilth, aggregate formation and size, compaction, water flow).
Agricultural Solution 6: Observation of plant and crop health.
Agricultural Solution 7: Observation of life belowground (soil biology).
Non-agricultural solution 1: Policy directives to compensate farmers for farm management that sequesters carbon, increases farm resilience to climate change, increases foundational soil health, increases storm water storage and mitigates agricultural runoff to surface waters.
Non-agricultural solution 2: Economic benefits and incentives related to ecosystem services.
Non-agricultural solution 3: Data access and sharing for soil health.
Non-agricultural solution 4: Development of soil biological community ontologies.
Non-agricultural solution 5: The use of microbes to improve crop productivity and soil health, as well as increasing resistance to environmental stress and plant disease.
Non-agricultural solution 6: Farmer education and access to actionable information on soil health.
Non-agricultural solution 7: Payment for ecosystem service programs.
Non-agricultural solution 8: Market analysis and understanding the agricultural and ecological benefits of soil health.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health should be the top priority for UVM research and outreach; Healthy soils are critical to produce food for the world’s population and to sustain the vital life support functions of healthy ecosystems; Soil health goals include important ecosystem services including plant production, water regulation and purification, human health and climate regulation; Plant health and vigor, plant diversity, crop productivity and biomass, and the number of growing days as indicators of soil health;Observing life belowground as indicators of soil biology.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Policy directives seek to compensate farmers for farm management that sequesters carbon, increases farm resilience to climate change, increases foundational soil health, increases storm water storage and mitigates agricultural runoff to surface waters; Models can also be used to estimate carbon cycling in agricultural systems; There is widespread agreement in the scientific community that producers and policymakers should take steps to not only eliminate further losses, but increase soil organic carbon on degraded agricultural lands both to reduce atmospheric CO2 and to improve soil health; Even if sequestering soil carbon cannot solve climate change, it increases water and nutrient retention and promotes a healthier soil microbiome, which not only improves crop yields, especially during years with extreme weather, but also improves ecological outcomes.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Reduces erosion, improves water infiltration, adds resilience to climate change impacts; Decreased bulk density allows for improved water, air, and root growth, adds resilience to climate change impacts; Portion of soil carbon sensitive to management, reduces stormwater damage, resilience to climate change; Landscape level measure of climate resilience; Impacts of ongoing farmer management of soils; Water regulation and purification; Soil health and ecological benefits; Stabilize yields in the face of climate change and extreme weather events.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Contributor to crop yield, but excess decreases water quality; Direct measure of crop profitability, economic resilience of farming, cultural ecosystem services; Stabilize yields in the face of climate change and extreme weather events;Improved crop yields, especially during years with extreme weather; Economic stability.
Runoff volume/Water infiltration (Requires edge of field water monitoring or new technology (>$100));; Low-cost sensor networks for near- or real-time assessment on plot, farm and landscape scales (lab-on-a-chip) (No quantative evidence)
Improved crop yields (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced inputs (No quantitative evidence);; Improved crop productivity and plant growth (No quantitative evidence);; Average net income and income stability (No quantitative evidence);; Diversifying farmer income streams (No quantitative evidence)
Crop Yield (No quantative evidence); Plant health/Plant growth (No quantative evidence); Disease suppression (No quantative evidence); Nutrient cycling/Nutrient availability (No quantative evidence); Water infiltration/Available water capacity (No quantative evidence)
Increased resilience to climate change impacts and extreme weather (No quantitative evidence); Improved crop yields (No quantitative evidence); Increased water and nutrient retention (No quantitative evidence); Improved water infiltration (No quantitative evidence); Disease suppression (No quantitative evidence)
Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence);; Soil food web complexity (No quantitative evidence);; Water regulation and purification (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced erosion (No quantitative evidence);; Improved water infiltration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Debarati Bhaduri et al. - 2022 - A review on effective soil health bio-indicators for ecosystem restoration and sustainability..pdf
India; United States of America; China; Brazil; Australia; France; Ireland; Kazakhstan; Belarus; Ukraine
2; 15
India, Cuttack, India; United States, Atlanta, GA, United States, Greensboro, NC, United States; Australia, Northern Territory, Australia; French Guiana; China, Tengger Desert, China; Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan; Brazil; Ireland; Florida, Everglades, Florida
Ecosystem restoration; Ecosystem stability; Soil health; Resilience and resistance; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial biomass + Agricultural Solution 2: respiration + Agricultural Solution 3: enzymatic activity + Agricultural Solution 4: molecular gene markers + Agricultural Solution 5: microbial metabolic substances + Agricultural Solution 6: microbial community analysis + non-agricultural solution 1: ecosystem restoration + non-agricultural solution 2: ecosystem stability + non-agricultural solution 3: resilience and resistance
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: earthworm + non-agricultural solution 1: Hgtoxicity bio-availability assessment
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: acidophilic bacteria + non-agricultural solution 1: lead-zinc mine tailing assessment
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: dehydrogenase and fluorescein activities + non-agricultural solution 1: underground mine soil + Agricultural Solution 2: peroxidase activity + non-agricultural solution 2: open cast mine soils
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: ants + non-agricultural solution 1: mine-rehabilitated soils assessment
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: urease and invertase enzyme activities + non-agricultural solution 1: soil rehabilitation
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: Denitrifying Enzyme Activity (DEA) and Substrate Induced Respiration (SIR) + non-agricultural solution 1: ecosystem indicators
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biomarkers + non-agricultural solution 1: surface mine reclamation progress assessment
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution 1: MBC + non-agricultural solution 1: ecosystem stability from surface coal mining
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution 1: stress proteins (hsp70 and hsp60) + non-agricultural solution 1: trace (or, heavy) metals and organic pollutants exposure assessment
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution 1: functional genes related to fatty acid metabolism (acc, fab, and fad genes) + non-agricultural solution 1: organic biomolecules like hydrocarbon contamination evaluation
Solution Package 12:
Agricultural Solution 1: Shannon diversity index + non-agricultural solution 1: soil contamination assessment
Solution Package 13:
Agricultural Solution 1: metabolic quotient and cellulase activity + non-agricultural solution 1: radioactive oil waste assessment
Solution Package 14:
Agricultural Solution 1: nematode diversity + non-agricultural solution 1: heavy metal polluted soil assessment
Solution Package 15:
Agricultural Solution 1: Pinus halepensis trees + non-agricultural solution 1: heavy metal pollution assessment
Solution Package 16:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cryptogamic biota, e.g., lichens and bryophytes + non-agricultural solution 1: heavy metal toxicity assessment
Solution Package 17:
Agricultural Solution 1: MicroRespTM analysis + non-agricultural solution 1: desert soil assessment
Solution Package 18:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil nematode communities + non-agricultural solution 1: sandy ecosystems assessment
Solution Package 19:
Agricultural Solution 1: hydrolase and oxidase enzymes + non-agricultural solution 1: Tengger Desert soil assessment
Solution Package 20:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil invertebrate species + non-agricultural solution 1: anthropogenic activities soil assessment
Solution Package 21:
Agricultural Solution 1: earthworms, millipedes, collembolans, and oribatid mites + non-agricultural solution 1: radioactivity levels and types of radioactive pollution assessment
Solution Package 22:
Agricultural Solution 1: earthworms + non-agricultural solution 1: adaptation for higher doses of ionizing radiation
Solution Package 23:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil macroinvertebrates (e.g., ground beetle) + non-agricultural solution 1: contaminated sites enriched with uranium and arsenic assessment
Solution Package 24:
Agricultural Solution 1: land snails (Helix aspersa Müller) + non-agricultural solution 1: radionuclides contamination assessment
Solution Package 25:
Agricultural Solution 1: aquatic mosses + non-agricultural solution 1: radioactive contamination assessment
Solution Package 26:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil microbial biomass + non-agricultural solution 1: fungal populations (assessment)
Solution Package 27:
Agricultural Solution 1: DGGE + non-agricultural solution 1: effect of specific pesticides on the soil microbial community (assessment)
Solution Package 28:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil respiration + non-agricultural solution 1: evaluate the effect of chemicals on microbial CO2 respiration (assessment)
Solution Package 29:
Agricultural Solution 1: Microbial metabolic quotient + non-agricultural solution 1: chemical pesticide application assessment
Solution Package 30:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil enzymatic activity + non-agricultural solution 1: nutrient cycling assessment
Solution Package 31:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial metabolic indicators + Agricultural Solution 2: hydric soil indicators + non-agricultural solution 1: wetland ecosystems assessment
Solution Package 32:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial loop components (or, microbial food webs) + non-agricultural solution 1: evaluating ecological disturbance in a restored carbonate-rich fen (assessment)
Solution Package 33:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial diversity and community comparison indices + non-agricultural solution 1: effect of wetland pollution (assessment)
Solution Package 34:
Agricultural Solution 1: ratios of oligotrophic:copiotrophic organisms such as the ratio of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) to ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) + non-agricultural solution 1: success of wetland restoration projects (assessment)
Solution Package 35:
Agricultural Solution 1: ratio of ammonia monooxygenase (amoA) gene copies for AOA to AOB + non-agricultural solution 1: effect of the nutrient loading in oligotrophic wetlands (assessment)
Solution Package 36:
Agricultural Solution 1: nucleic acid fingerprinting, especially terminal restriction length fragment polymorphism (tRFLP) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) + Agricultural Solution 2: microbial community-level physiological profile (CLPP) + non-agricultural solution 1: wetland trophic status (assessment)
Solution Package 37:
Agricultural Solution 1: Lipid biomarkers based on phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis + non-agricultural solution 1: efficacy of wetland restoration and management projects (assessment)
Solution Package 38:
Agricultural Solution 1: fungal biomarkers + Agricultural Solution 2: increased ratios of gram-negative: Gram-positive bacteria + non-agricultural solution 1: restoration status of a calcareous subtropical wetland of Florida Everglades (assessment)
Solution Package 39:
Agricultural Solution 1: Actinomycetes + non-agricultural solution 1: environmental stresses, including extreme oligotrophy, drought, or warming in wetlands (assessment)
Solution Package 40:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial community structure and function + non-agricultural solution 1: salt tolerance (assessment)
Solution Package 41:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil bacterial taxa (Gammaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes) + non-agricultural solution 1: soil and ecosystem responses to sea-level rise and associated salt-water intrusions in saline soils (assessment)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Soil health restoration is important to consider while designing ecological restoration strategies.;2. Excessive use of inputs has degraded many fertile lands in the recent past.;3. Facilitating restoration, and maintaining soil health is fundamental for achieving ecosystem stability and resilience.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Biological diversity or biodiversity is of pivotal importance to sustain a better future.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: 1. Preventing degradation, facilitating restoration, and maintaining soil health is fundamental for achieving ecosystem stability and resilience.;2. A functional ecosystem, which is completely self-perpetuating or natural, is the ultimate goal of restorative efforts
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: To facilitate sound recommendations (for fertility restoration) to the farmers, robust information on soil health is required.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No results found that belongs to the mentioned category and fit the inclusion criteria.
Improve N use efficiency (No quantitative evidence);;Increase soil, water, and nutrient use efficiency (No quantitative evidence)
Estimated soil loss was reduced (two to four times lower than plowed soil);;Higher microbial activity (No quantitative evidence);;Enhanced N mineralization potential (No quantitative evidence);;Stimulated nitrification (No quantitative evidence);;Higher aggregate stability (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced soil loss (two to four times lower than conventionally tilled soil);; Increased microbial diversity resulting in enhanced N mineralization potential (No quantitative evidence);; Recovery of nitrification activity (No quantitative evidence);; Stimulate nitrification (No quantitative evidence);; Improved nematode diversity (No quantitative evidence)
Increased Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon (No quantitative evidence); Increment of SOM content (No quantitative evidence); Increased microbial diversity (No quantitative evidence); Improved nematode diversity (No quantitative evidence); Beneficial impact on soil C-cycle and N-cycle enzymes due to sand-stabilizing shrubs (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Debankur Sanyal et al. - 2023 - Cover crops did not improve soil health but hydroclimatology may guide decisions preventing cash cro.pdf
South Dakota
2; 13; 15
South Dakota, Brookings, Beresford, Gettysburg, Salem, Garretson, Blunt, Henry
Cash crop yield loss; Soil health degradation; Water scarcity; Nutrient depletion; Soil erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops + non-agricultural solution: Hydroclimatology (SPEI for the month before CC planting)
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.** ; Hydroclimatology may guide decisions preventing cash crop yield loss.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Hydroclimatology guidance (especially SPEI) to potentially achieve cash crop yield advantage (SPEI correlation with CC yield advantage (R2=0.53); SPEI values below -0.21 and above 1.62 might provide yield advantage);;Hydroclimatology guidance (especially SPEI) to potentially reduce the risk of cash crop yield loss (SPEI values between -0.21 and 1.62 might provide no yield benefit; implied by the SPEI correlation with CC yield advantage (R2=0.53))
Saved labile nitrates-N from environmental losses (CC: 14.1 kg ha-1, NC: 22.0 kg ha-1, Pr(>F) <0.01); Higher soil microbial biomass (33% higher values under CC plots compared to no cover plots); Higher potentially mineralizable nitrogen (10% higher values under CC plots compared to no cover plots); Higher residue biomass (9% higher values under CC plots compared to no cover plots); Higher permanganate oxidizable carbon (4% higher values under CC plots compared to no cover plots)
Saved labile nitrates-N from environmental losses (14.1 kg ha-1 under CC vs 22.0 kg ha-1 under NC, p<0.01);; Reducing the risk of cash crop yield loss (SPEI values better correlated with CC yield advantage (R2 = 0.53));; Higher soil microbial biomass (SMB) (684 picomoles g-1 under CC vs 513 picomoles g-1 under NC);; Higher potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN) (94.2 μg NH4+ g-1 soil week-1 under CC vs 85.9 μg NH4+ g-1 soil week-1 under NC);; Higher residual biomass (3225 kg ha-1 under CC vs 2966 kg ha-1 under NC)
Reduced soil nitrate-nitrogen (14.1 kg ha-1 under CC vs 22.0 kg ha-1 under No cover)
Open
David R Montgomery et al. - 2022 - Soil health and nutrient density preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming..pdf
United States; California; Connecticut; North Carolina; Pennsylvania; Ohio; Iowa; Tennessee; Kansas; North Dakota; Montana; Oregon
3;2;12
United States, California, Connecticut, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, North Dakota, Montana, Oregon
Declining nutrient density of crops; Chronic disease prevention; Soil degradation; Obesity; Inflammation.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: no-till + Agricultural Solution 2: cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: diverse rotations
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: no-till + Agricultural Solution 2: cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: diverse rotations + non-agricultural solution 1: regenerative grazing practices
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: no-till + Agricultural Solution 2: hand sowing + Agricultural Solution 3: hand transplants
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Regenerative farms had higher soil organic matter levels, soil health scores;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Regenerative practices can increase topsoil organic matter and enhance soil health;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The farmer reported that both fields produced a harvest of 5 metric tons per ha (75 bushels an acre)
None
Maintained wheat harvest due to cover crops replacing herbicide (5 metric tons per ha / 75 bushels an acre)
Higher soil organic matter levels (mean ratio 2.0);;Higher soil health scores (mean ratio 3.3);;Crops had more vitamin K (34% more averaged across crops);;Crops had more total phenolics (20% more averaged across crops);;Beef had more omega-3 fats (3 times more than conventional beef)
Higher soil organic matter levels (mean ratio of 2.0 compared to conventional farms); Higher soil health scores (mean ratio of 3.3 compared to conventional farms); Increased levels of vitamins in crops (34% more vitamin K on average); Increased levels of phytochemicals in crops (20% more total phenolics on average); More beneficial omega-6/omega-3 ratio in beef (1.3:1 vs 6.2:1 compared to conventional beef)
Increased soil organic matter (regenerative mean 6.3% vs conventional mean 3.5%; mean ratio 2.0)
Open
David D. Tarkalson et al. - 2024 - Soil health indicators reveal that past dairy manure applications create a legacy effect.pdf
United States of America
15; 2; 12
United States; Idaho, Kimberly
Soil degradation; Nutrient cycling; Crop production; Environmental pollution; Economic issues
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Dairy manure application.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic carbon; Increased enzyme activities; Increased autoclaved citrate extractable protein; Increased potentially mineralizable N; Increased potential ammonia oxidation; Increased denitrification enzyme activity.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Soil organic carbon increase which is an indicator of C sequestration.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
no evidence found
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (17% and 25% greater in 134 and 237 Mg treatments compared to 0 Mg at 0–30 cm); Increased Enzyme Activities (anywhere from 18% to 88% greater at 0–15 cm and 11% to 81% greater at 15–30 cm in the 134 and 237 Mg treatments compared to 0 Mg for individual enzyme activities); Increased Autoclaved Citrate Extractable Protein (ACE) (21%‒39% greater in 134 and 237 Mg treatments compared to 0 Mg at 0–15 cm; 28%‒52% greater in 134 and 237 Mg treatments compared to 0 Mg at 15–30 cm); Increased Potentially Mineralizable N (PMN) (28% greater in the 237 Mg treatment compared to 0 Mg at 15–30 cm); Increased Olsen P concentrations (71% greater in the 237 Mg treatment compared to the non-manured control at 0–30 cm)
Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) (17% and 25% greater in the 134 and 237 Mg treatments, respectively, at 0–30 cm);Increased geometric mean index of enzyme activities (39% to 58% greater in manure treatments compared to control at 0-15 and 15-30 cm);Increased β-glucosaminidase activity (64% to 88% greater in manure treatments compared to control at 0-15 and 15-30 cm);Increased autoclaved citrate extractable (ACE) protein (21% to 39% greater at 0-15 cm and 28% to 52% greater at 15-30 cm in manure treatments compared to control);Increased potentially mineralizable N (PMN) (28% greater in 237 Mg treatment at 15-30 cm compared to control)
Soil organic carbon (SOC) (concentrations were 17% and 25% greater in the 134 and 237 Mg treatments, respectively)
Open
David Agole et al. - 2021 - Determinants of cohesion in smallholder farmer groups in Uganda.pdf
Uganda
1; 2; 17
Uganda; Uganda, Soroti district, Kyere, Olio, Arapai sub-counties
Poverty; Access to agricultural extension services; Low agricultural yields; Market access limitations
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Access to knowledge and skills + Agricultural Solution 2: Improved seed + Agricultural Solution 3: Improved animal breeds + Non-agricultural solution 1: Financial assistance + Non-agricultural solution 2: Social interaction + Non-agricultural solution 3: Support for HIV/AIDS patients + Non-agricultural solution 4: Group rewards.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Access knowledge and skills; 2. Improved seed; 3. Improved animal breeds; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belongs to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies." mentioned in the full text with quantitative proof of the yield or income increase. The study focuses on group cohesion and perceived benefits/needs met, not quantified increases in yield or income.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" were reported in the full text.
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services" or "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" that include quantitative proof resulting from the use/implementations of the specified solutions and solution packages mentioned in the full text.
no evidence found
Open
Darcy G Bonds et al. - 2021 - The Nose Knows! Interactions between soil smell and soil health.pdf
United States of America
15
United States of America, Iowa
Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Soil Health-promoting practice (Tillage method, crop rotation, biochar, forage).
Non-agricultural solution: None
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Soil moisture manipulation.
Non-agricultural solution: None
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil smell is linked to soil health.
* **Potentially, farmers, landowners, or developers may be able to look for these characteristic smells emitted by specific VOCs to give them insight into the state of their soil’s health.** (No quantative evidence)
None. The document does not report any specific outcomes or benefits related to higher yields or incomes resulting from the described research on soil smell and soil health.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Danielle L Gelardi et al. - 2024 - Biochar influences soil health but not yield in 3‐year processing tomato field trials.pdf
1; 2; 15
United States of America, California, Fresno County, Parlier; United States of America, California, Yolo County, Davis
Soil health; Climate change mitigation; Agricultural productivity; Soil fertility; Soil water retention
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Biochar (AS500, AS800, and SW500)
Non-agricultural solution: Climate change mitigation and adaptation, Public or private subsidies,
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Biochar (AS500, AS800, and SW500)
Non-agricultural solution: Climate change mitigation and adaptation, Incentives for farmers
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Biochars had a variable but positive effect on pH, electrical conductivity, soil potassium, water stable aggregation, and permanganate oxidizable carbon.
2. Almond shell biochars were associated with a slight increase in total biomass, an increase in the ratio of fungal to bacteria PLFAs, and reductions in multiple PLFA ratios were typically interpreted as indicators of environmental stress.
3. Increased aggregate size and stability.
4. Increased microbial biomass and activity and shifting community composition toward consortia less sensitive to water or nutrient stress, or more effective at utilizing recalcitrant C.
5. Increase in soil health indicators.
;**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Carbon (C) sequestration function of biochar, via biomass conversion to more stable forms of C (Lehmann & Joseph, 2015).
2. Increased aggregation and therefore C protection, or negative priming of soil organic matter (J. Wang et al., 2016).
3. Altering the soil microbial environment, increasing microbial biomass and activity (S. Liu et al., 2016) and shifting community composition toward consortia less sensitive to water or nutrient stress, or more effective at utilizing recalcitrant C.
;**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. The most consistent agricultural benefits have been observed in suboptimal agricultural soils (Jeffery et al., 2017; Joseph et al., 2021; H. Yu et al., 2019), such as saline or sodic (Akhtar et al., 2015; Mahmoud et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2020), contaminated (Almaroai & Eissa, 2020; Beesley et al., 2010), highly acidic (Jeffery et al., 2011), or low fertility soils (Jeffery et al., 2017).
;**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. Soil health assessments are one strategy to investigate whether a management practice can increase agricultural resilience or adaptive capacity.
2. Increases in soil health indicators are commonly used to infer increased resilience or adaptive capacity.
Electrical conductivity increase due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No quantative evidence
no evidence found
Increased Permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) (increased by 13.6 mg kg−1 or 17.8% averaged across biochars in Parlier, p = 0.002); Reduced Cy17/pre PLFA ratio (reduced from 0.497 to 0.341–0.363 range in Parlier for AS500 and AS800, p<0.05); Reduced Cy19/pre PLFA ratio (reduced from 0.771 to 0.459–0.462 range in Parlier for AS500 and AS800, p<0.05); Increased pH (increased from 7.73 to 8.03 by AS800 in Davis, p = 0.014); Increased Water stable aggregates (WSA) (increased from 28.1% to 35.8% averaged across biochars in Parlier, p = 0.035)
Permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) (Averaged across all biochars, significantly increased by 46.5 mg kg−1, or 71.5% (p = 0.03) in Davis; Averaged across all biochars, significantly increased by 13.6 mg kg−1, or 17.8% (p = 0.002) in Parlier);;Water stable aggregates (WSA) (Main effect of biochar on WSA in Parlier (p = 0.035));;Soil pH (AS800 increased soil pH in Davis from 7.73 to 8.03 (p = 0.014));;Soil Potassium (K) (AS800 increased K from 25.3 to 89.9 mg kg−1 (p = 0.075) in Parlier);;Reduced microbial stress indicators (Averaged across biochars, Cy17/pre PLFA ratio significantly reduced (p=0.001) in Parlier)
Increased permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) (Davis: average biochar effect increased by 46.5 mg kg−1 or 71.5%, p = 0.03; Parlier: average biochar effect increased by 13.6 mg kg−1 or 17.8%, p = 0.002); Decreased evidence of microbial nutrient and water stress (Parlier: significant reductions in Cy17/pre (p=0.003), Cy19/pre (p=0.002), and S/U (p=0.002) ratios for average biochar effect); Increased microbial biomass (PLFA biomass) (Parlier: observed trend of increased PLFA biomass of 6.23 nmol g−1 for average biochar effect, p = 0.078); Trend of increased fungal to bacterial PLFA ratio (F/B) (Parlier: average biochar effect p=0.121); Trend of increased total carbon (Davis: average biochar effect p=0.079)
Open
Dane C Elmquist et al. - 2023 - Linking agricultural diversification practices, soil arthropod communities and soil health.pdf
United States of America
15; 2; 11
United States of America; Idaho, Genesee; Washington, St. John; Oregon
Soil degradation; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Rotational diversification (incorporating WP and FOR) + Non-agricultural solutions: None mentioned
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil arthropods respond to agricultural diversification and can be used as bioindicators to assess the effects of diversification on soil health; Incorporating winter pea and forage crops into dryland cereal rotations supported soil arthropod biodiversity and soil health; Introducing WP and FOR increased soil arthropod taxa richness relative to the crops they replaced in BAU rotations: CP, SW and F; Relative to the BAU crops, WP and FOR also increased the abundance or diversity within soil arthropod functional groups, potentially influencing the ecosystem services they provide; In both AECs, incorporating WP into rotations improved soil health across these entire rotations, not just in the WP phases, as measured by QBS-ar; The increased adoption of WP in iPNW cereal systems not only has agronomic advantages for the entire production system but increases the abundance and diversity of soil arthropod communities, with implications for soil health.
* Increased adoption of WP in iPNW cereal systems (No quantative evidence);;Improved soil health across entire rotations as measured by QBS-ar, not just in the WP phases in both AECs. (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Improved Soil Biological Quality index (QBS-ar) across diversified rotations. (Greater in INC (Annual AEC: 59.20 ± 2.86 SEM; Transition AEC: 60.66 ± 2.28 SEM) and ASP (Annual AEC: 59.98 ± 2.56 SEM) rotations compared to BAU (Annual AEC: 52.07 ± 2.56 SEM; Transition AEC: 52.82 ± 2.01 SEM)); Improved Soil Biological Quality index (QBS-ar) in WP and FOR crops. (Greater in WP (Annual AEC: 66.70 ± 5.35 SEM; Transition AEC: 66.18 ± 4.25 SEM) and FOR (Annual AEC: 66.57 ± 5.88 SEM) compared to replaced crops (Annual AEC CP: 50.58 ± 2.88 SEM; Transition AEC F, SW, WW: means range from 50.95 to 55.50 SEM)); Increased soil arthropod taxa richness in WP and FOR crops. (Annual AEC: Richness greater in WP (10.6 ± 0.77 SEM) and FOR (10.03 ± 0.40 SEM) compared to CP (7.80 ± 0.41 SEM); Transition AEC: Richness greater in WP (11.33 ± 0.79 SEM) and FOR (10.94 ± 0.90 SEM) compared to F, SW, WW (means range from 8.12 to 9.22 SEM)); Increased overall soil arthropod abundance in WP crops. (Transition AEC: Abundance greater in WP (177.85 ± 31.52 SEM) than F (67.23 ± 8.99 SEM)); Increased predator abundance in WP and FOR crops. (Annual AEC: Abundance greater in FOR (38.20 ± 8.13 SEM) than CP (16.57 ± 1.95 SEM); Transition AEC: Abundance greater in WP (31.48 ± 5.63 SEM) and FOR (31.66 ± 6.91 SEM) than F (11.6 ± 1.78 SEM))
Improved QBS-ar (Soil Biological Quality index) (In Annual AEC INC rotation 59.20 ± 2.86 SEM and ASP rotation 59.98 ± 2.56 SEM were greater than BAU rotation 52.07 ± 2.56 SEM; In Transition AEC INC rotation 60.66 ± 2.28 SEM was greater than BAU rotation 52.82 ± 2.01 SEM);;Increased soil arthropod taxa richness (In Annual AEC, WP richness 10.6 ± 0.77 and FOR richness 10.03 ± 0.40 were greater than CP richness 7.80 ± 0.41; In Transition AEC, WP richness 11.33 ± 0.79 and FOR richness 10.94 ± 0.90 were greater than F richness 8.12 ± 0.52, SW richness 9.07 ± 0.33, and WW richness 9.22 ± 0.35);;Increased soil arthropod abundance (In Transition AEC, WP abundance 177.85 ± 31.52 was greater than F abundance 67.23 ± 8.99);;Increased predator abundance (In Annual AEC, FOR predator abundance 38.20 ± 8.13 was greater than CP predator abundance 16.57 ± 1.95; In Transition AEC, WP predator abundance 31.48 ± 5.63 and FOR predator abundance 31.66 ± 6.91 were greater than F predator abundance 11.6 ± 1.78);;Increased detritivore richness (In Annual AEC, WP detritivore richness 5.08 ± 0.38 was greater than CP detritivore richness 3.87 ± 0.21)
Soil arthropod taxa richness increased in WP and FOR compared to BAU crops (Annual AEC: Richness greater in WP (10.6 ± 0.77) and FOR (10.03 ± 0.40) as compared with CP (7.80 ± 0.41), p < 0.001; Transition AEC: Richness greater in WP (11.33 ± 0.79) and FOR (10.94 ± .90) vs F (8.12 ± 0.52), SW (9.07 ± 0.33), and WW (9.22 ± 0.35), p < 0.001); Potential to limit microbial respiration of CO2 linked to higher QBS-ar (QBS-ar was negatively correlated with microbial respiration: Annual AEC R2 = −0.27, p = 0.01; Transition AEC R2 = −0.33, p = 0.002); Soil arthropod predator abundance increased in diversified crops compared to Fallow or Chickpea (Transition AEC: predator abundance greater in all crops (WP 31.48 ± 5.63, WW 30.13 ± 3.06, SW 26.82 ± 2.66, FOR 31.66 ± 6.91) compared to F (11.6 ± 1.78), p < 0.001; Annual AEC: predator abundance greater in FOR (38.20 ± 8.13) compared to CP (16.57 ± 1.95), p = 0.003); Overall soil arthropod abundance increased in WP compared to Fallow (Transition AEC: Abundance greater in WP (177.85 ± 31.52) than in F (67.23 ± 8.99), p = 0.001); Overall soil arthropod Shannon's diversity increased in WP compared to Chickpea (Annual AEC: Shannon's diversity greater in WP (1.60 ± 0.07) than in CP (1.39 ± 0.05), p = 0.005).
Open
Dalia Vidickienė and Rita Lankauskienė - 2025 - Sustainability through the prism of innovative service-oriented business model in farming.pdf
Lithuania
12; 15; 8
Lithuania; United Kingdom
Environmental degradation; Social inequalities; Economic instability; Low income; Working conditions
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Natural farming + Agricultural Solution 2: Agroecological farming methods + non-agricultural solution 1: Educational services (teaching special agroecological farming methods, beekeeping, fruit tree care, gardening practices for exotic legume species) + non-agricultural solution 2: Entertainment services (farm tourism) + non-agricultural solution 3: Tourism services.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop cover + Agricultural Solution 3: Smart water usage + Agricultural Solution 4: Renewable energy + non-agricultural solution 1: Short supply chain + non-agricultural solution 2: Made-to-order systems + non-agricultural solution 3: Harvest-to-order systems.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Natural vegetable cultivation + Agricultural Solution 2: Zero waste strategy + non-agricultural solution 1: Facebook for marketing and customer communication + non-agricultural solution 2: Educational program for children about farming + non-agricultural solution 3: Social network building.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.** : Smart utilization of business skills and entrepreneurial abilities is often highlighted as a critical success factor to be successful in the post-industrial service economy era.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.** : direct contact with consumers ensured timely corrections in tactical decisions according to the consumer’s preferences, which helped in planning the next annual cycle of production, and at the same time–revenue flows;Established business model, centered on a product-service system, allowed the founders to disengage from alternative economic pursuits, thereby realizing their aspiration: to reside in nature, cultivate, consume, and disseminate organic vegetables and the ethos of healthy eating, while operating their own economically and environmentally friendly agribusiness, which serves as their sole source of income; productservice system, reliant on pre-orders, facilitated the management of time, workload, production scale, investments, and revenues simultaneously;The business model„product plus service “allowed changing economic growth with a sufficiency approach;
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.** : Farmers have been encouraged to apply many sustainable practices to increase environmental sustainability in agriculture, including crop rotation, crop cover, smart water usage, and renewable energy, such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass; Environmental thinking, common to highlighted in some literature sources , in “Moon Farm”was embedded from the very beginning by naturally growing vegetables, without any artificial fertilizers, and following the lunar cycle;Precisely organized natural agricultural production, they acted in a small-scale zero-waste family farm with no harm to society from food quality and biodiversity, as well as agroecology perspectives thus contributing to sustainability in terms of social responsibility; shift to natural agriculture allows the integration of environmental and social dimensions by focusing on food quality;
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.** : Applying service-driven business models is a proper way to shift from intensive industrial agricultural techniques to agroecology based on a symbiotic relationship with nature; Entrepreneurs and socially responsible people seek to design and apply alternative farming systems that recognize the essential functions of natural ecosystems and suggest innovative ways to generate positive or at least neutral synergetic effects of human/ nature relationships;
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.** : The initial desire to overcome the conflict between traditional economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainable agriculture by developing a service-oriented business model was implemented in the following ways; Lacking challenge was to deal with unconditional production; Zero-waste strategy of transitioning to a product-service system was the fundamental rationale and guiding principle of the “Moon Farm”;Sciences of agroecology increasingly are intended to add to biodiversity, green energy, natural farming, and consequently—better food quality, as well as many other areas, that correspond to greater social responsibility.
* **Higher customer numbers through social media marketing** (4600 followers and has garnered more than 2500 likes on “Moon Farm” Facebook page;The new “Moon Farm” adherents form a community that unites like-minded individuals who value an environmentally non-harmful, zero-waste, sustainable lifestyle. The group expands and shares accumulated experiences and knowledge, drawing new members who may become active advocates of similar natural lifestyles and/or business models)
Enhanced efficiency and efficacy of the farm (No quantitative evidence); Becoming a financially viable small-scale family business model (No quantitative evidence); Stabilized revenue streams (No quantitative evidence); Avoiding economic losses due to unsold goods (zero-waste strategy) (No quantitative evidence)
Naturally growing vegetables, without any artificial fertilizers (No quantative evidence)
Growing vegetables naturally without artificial fertilizers (No quantitative evidence); Shifting to agroecology based on a symbiotic relationship with nature (No quantitative evidence); Creating positive symbiotic relationships between humans and non-human inhabitants (No quantitative evidence); Growing healthy vegetables with the best nutrition characteristics (No quantitative evidence); Avoidance of excessive use of natural resources (No quantitative evidence)
Zero-waste mode of operation (No quantitative evidence);; Agroecology based on a symbiotic relationship with nature (No quantitative evidence);; Avoiding excessive use of natural resources (No quantitative evidence);; No harm to society from biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);; Natural farming without artificial fertilizers (No quantitative evidence)
Open
D Senthamizhselvan et al. - 2022 - Impact of soil health card on fertilizer consumption and yield of paddy in Karaikal district for sus.pdf
2;15;1
India; Karaikal district (Puducherry)
Soil degradation; Unsustainable agricultural production; Inefficient fertilizer use; Low farmer income;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Proper utilization of fertilizer
Non-agricultural Solution: Soil Health Cards (SHC) Scheme
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Gross income and net returns for card holders was more when compared to non-holders due to proper utilization of fertilizer and other resources; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Cost of cultivation worked out for card holding farmer was found to be lesser than the non-holders; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
Cost of cultivation for card holding farmer was lesser than the non-holders (Cost of cultivation worked out for card holding farmer (Rs.27171.66/ac) was found to be lesser than the non-holders (Rs.28902.12/ ac))
Higher net returns (No quantitative evidence);;Higher gross income (No quantitative evidence);;Higher B: C ratio (1.14 for card holders, 1.06 for non-holders);;Lower cost of cultivation (Rs.27171.66/ac for card holders, Rs.28902.12/ ac for non-holders)
Higher B:C ratio (1.14 for card holders and 1.06 for non-holders); Reduced cost of cultivation (Rs.27171.66/ac for card holding farmer and Rs.28902.12/ ac for non-holders); Increased net returns (No quantative evidence); Increased gross income (No quantative evidence)
Proper utilization of fertilizer (Lower cost of cultivation (Rs.27171.66/ac vs Rs.28902.12/ac); Higher gross income (more); Higher net returns (more); Higher B:C ratio (1.14 vs 1.06))
no evidence found
Open
Cristine Morgan and Shannon Cappellazzi - 2021 - Assessing Soil Health Putting It All Together.pdf
Canada; Mexico; United States of America
15;2;12
Canada; United States of America; Mexico
Soil degradation; Economic challenges for farmers; Reduced crop resilience to extreme weather; Water scarcity; Erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-till
Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping
Non-agricultural solution 1: Economic assessment of soil health
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Adoption of no-till only or no-till and cover cropping resulted in an 85% ($52/ac) and 88% ($45/ac) increase in net income when growing corn and soybean, respectively; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: An individual can use a smartphone application to quantify aggregate stability outside of a laboratory setting; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: build soil structure, which is important to water cycling, building resilience to extreme weather events, and reducing erosion risk; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The management principles activate the soil microbiology, which is vital to storing and cycling carbon and nutrients and supporting plant health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: carbon storage and cycling
Increased crop resilience to extreme weather (97 of the 100 farmers interviewed reported increased crop resilience to extreme weather);;Adoption of no-till only or no-till and cover cropping resulted in a 85% ($52/ac) and 88% ($45/ac) increase in net income when growing corn and soybean, respectively (No quantative evidence)
Increase in net income when growing corn (85% ($52/ac)); Increase in net income when growing soybean (88% ($45/ac)); Higher yield compared with their conventional system (67 reported a higher yield compared with their conventional system)
Increased crop resilience to extreme weather (97 of the 100 farmers reported); Higher yield compared with their conventional system (67 reported)
Increased crop resilience to extreme weather (97 of the 100 farmers); Higher yield (67 reported a higher yield)
Storing and cycling carbon (No quantative evidence); Activating the soil microbiology (No quantative evidence)
Open
Clare S Sullivan and Markus Kleber - 2024 - Winter cover cropping to improve soil health in semiarid, irrigated cropping systems of Central Oreg.pdf
Oregon;
15; 2; 11
United States; Oregon, Madras
1. Soil degradation; Water scarcity; Nutrient depletion; Weed proliferation; Pest and disease outbreaks
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Winter cover crops (CCs)
Agricultural Solution 2: Hairy vetch
Agricultural Solution 3: Forage turnip
Agricultural Solution 4: Winter pea
Agricultural Solution 5: Radish
Agricultural Solution 6: Austrian winter pea
Agricultural Solution 7: Horizon spring pea
Agricultural Solution 8: Berseem clover
Agricultural Solution 9: Hairy vetch + cereal rye
Agricultural Solution 10: Crimson clover + triticale
Solution Package 2:
Non-agricultural solution 1: Cost/benefit analysis
Non-agricultural solution 2: Region-specific information on CC variety selection
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:** 16 indicators, with hairy vetch and turnip being most efficient, showed steady improvement over fallow across all CCs;Soil chemical and biological parameters showed greater improvement compared to physical parameters; Hairy vetch had the greatest positive impact on soil biological and chemical properties; CCs improved BD and aggregate stability and reduced surface hardness and rock fragment content; Organic C stocks roughly doubled; Nitrogen concentrations rose even higher to between three and four times the amount present in the fallow; All biological indicators responded positively to CC treatments; Arbuscular mycorrhizal biomass, total fungal biomass, saprophytic fungi biomass, and gram (−) biomass were the most affected by CC treatments
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:** Carbon stocks were significantly lower for fallow (247 g·50 L soil−1) than all the CC treatments; CC biomass resulted in increased weed suppression;
* **Increased root density** (No quantative evidence)
* **Reduced surface hardness** (No quantative evidence)
* **Reduced bulk density** (No quantative evidence)
Potentially mineralizable nitrogen (314% change over fallow with Hairy vetch);Reduced weed density (lowest median weed count was 2.3 per 0.5 m2 with Hairy vetch + Cereal rye);Reduced surface hardness (reduced from a median of 2068 kPa in fallow to a median of 758 kPa with Berseem clover and Crimson clover + Triticale)
Potentially mineralizable N (PMN) (Fallow mean: 2.2 mg N·kg soil−1·day−1; Max CC mean: 9.3 mg N·kg soil−1·day−1);;Total Microbial Biomass (Fallow mean: 974 ng·g−1; Max CC mean: 2412 ng·g−1);;Total Bacterial Biomass (Fallow mean: 592 ng·g−1; Max CC mean: 1177 ng·g−1);;Organic C stock (Fallow mean: 247 g·50 L soil−1; Max CC mean: 733 g·50 L soil−1);;Bulk density (Fallow mean: 1.29 kg·L−1; Min CC mean: 1.04 kg·L−1)
Total N concentration (averaged 350% improvement over fallow);; Organic C stock (averaged 141% improvement over fallow);; Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi biomass (averaged 164% improvement over fallow);; Gram (−) biomass (averaged 142% improvement over fallow);; Surface hardness (averaged 54% improvement over fallow)
Increased soil organic C stock (247 g·50 L soil−1 for fallow vs. 486-733 g·50 L soil−1 for CCs);;Increased Gram (−) biomass (142% average change over fallow);;Increased total microbial biomass (92% average change over fallow);;Increased Total bacterial biomass (92% average change over fallow);;Increased Gram (+) biomass (60% average change over fallow)
Open
Christopher J Feeney et al. - 2023 - Development of soil health benchmarks for managed and semi-natural landscapes.pdf
15;13;11
United Kingdom,
United Kingdom, East Anglia
Soil degradation; Climate change; Food security; Ecosystem services; Land use
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil organic matter (SOM) + Agricultural Solution 2: pH + Agricultural Solution 3: Bulk density (BD) + Agricultural Solution 4: Earthworm abundance (EA) + non-agricultural solution 1: Benchmarking framework + non-agricultural solution 2: App for landholders to assess their soil health condition + non-agricultural solution 3: Habitat classification + non-agricultural solution 4: Soil type classification + non-agricultural solution 5: Rainfall data + non-agricultural solution 6: Climate data.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health is benchmarked for landscapes defined by habitat, soil type and rainfall; BD and pH decreased with land management intensity (agriculture > semi-natural grasslands > woodlands > heathlands > wetlands), and vice versa for SOM and EA; Our benchmarking framework allows landowners to compare where their measured soil health indicators fall within expected ranges and is applicable to other biomes, national and multinational contexts; Soil health has been characterised as promoting the continued capacity of the soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants and animals, environmental quality and human needs; Soil health therefore focuses on soils being fit for purpose, and this should encapsulate the multifunctionality of soils; in particular, the capacity of soils to deliver regulating, supporting, cultural and provisioning ecosystem functions and services; Underpinning these policy aims is a need to develop benchmarks of proxy indicators of soil health; Soil health assessment should ideally encompass physical structure, biological condition, and chemical composition; The 5 most popularly proposed soil quality and health indicators are soil organic matter (SOM), pH, available P, water storage and bulk density (BD); We chose to assess soil health across GB because it has a huge diversity of soils; Benchmarks are generated from representative datasets which allow for an indicative comparison with regionally representative measured values, but do not allow for a direct evaluation of specific soil functions; the landscape needs to be partitioned into smaller units, or “physiotopes” that reflect key soil formation factors; The current status of national topsoil health will likely vary at least as much between different habitats and land uses as it does between different soil types; Earthworm abundance (EA) represents an exception to most other soil biology metrics: it is an easy indicator to measure, and the benefits earthworms bring to physical soil structure and plant nutrition make this metric simple to convey to non-specialists; The stratification of the soil property data into nine habitat groups led to significantly different distributions of soil health indicators in most cases; the inclusion of a much wider range of habitats beyond agriculture has accentuated the role habitat plays in governing the soil health indicator benchmarks; Spatial analysis of where soils with atypical SOM, pH and BD occur reveal East Anglia is particularly rich in soils with below typical SOM and above typical pH and BD compared to the rest of the country; The benchmarks for SOM, pH and BD were calculated from every soil monitoring year on record in the CS database; The EA dataset will continue to be expanded as collaboration with a wider range of data holders increases, meaning a greater number of landscapes should be represented in future; These benchmarks represent physical, chemical and biological aspects of soil health, and are conceptual, practical, sensitive and interpretable; Our analysis highlights that soil health indicators vary markedly by habitat, soil type and rainfall;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Arable and horticulture and improved grassland exhibited narrow benchmarks for SOM, pH and BD, yet the widest EA benchmark, suggesting additional drivers impact EA patterns; Soil health therefore focuses on soils being fit for purpose, and this should encapsulate the multifunctionality of soils; in particular, the capacity of soils to deliver regulating, supporting, cultural and provisioning ecosystem functions and services; Increasing demands for food, fibre and fuel production, coupled with global environmental challenges such as climate change are placing soils under unprecedented threat
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Soil health therefore focuses on soils being fit for purpose, and this should encapsulate the multifunctionality of soils; in particular, the capacity of soils to deliver regulating, supporting, cultural and provisioning ecosystem functions and services.
Soil health webtool (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" reported with quantitative proof as a direct result or finding of the study within the provided full text. The text focuses on establishing benchmarks for soil health indicators (SOM, pH, BD, EA) and identifying spatial patterns in these indicators, which are presented as a tool to *support* efforts to improve soil health, rather than quantifying the benefits of such improvement on productivity and health.
no evidence found
Soil organic matter benchmarks (Ranges vary by physiotope, e.g., carbon-rich soils range from 4.5–11.2 % SOM in arable/horticulture to 20–96 % SOM in upland wetlands); Earthworm abundance benchmarks (Ranges vary by physiotope, e.g., 3–36 on modified/improved grassland with medium loamy-textured soil and 2–10 on broadleaved and mixed woodland with heavy clayey soils); Regional proportion of soils with below typical SOM (East Anglia has the highest proportion (19.2 %) of sites with below typical SOM relative to benchmarks)
Open
Christopher A Onyango et al. - 2020 - The Effect of Participation in Farmer Groups on Household Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Pr.pdf
15; 17; 2
Kenya, Lake Baringo Basin, Baringo South Sub-County, Il Chamus, Mukutani
Land degradation; Food insecurity; Poverty; Declining yields; Loss of dryland ecosystems resilience
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil and water conservation practices + Agricultural Solution 2: Integrated ecosystem management practices + non-agricultural solution 1: Farmer groups/organizations + non-agricultural solution 2: Access to credit and funding + non-agricultural solution 3: Access to extension services + non-agricultural solution 4: Market access + non-agricultural solution 5: Partnerships with NGOs, government agencies, and agribusiness agencies + non-agricultural solution 6: Capacity building for farmer groups + non-agricultural solution 7: Policy support at the county and national government level + non-agricultural solution 8: Social capital and help during emergencies.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
2. The results indicated that farmer groups can effectively be used to leverage farmers' adoption of SLM innovations and potentially improve household income and food security in the Kenyan drylands.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. Land degradation is a major cause of declining yields and loss of dryland ecosystems resilience in the Lake Baringo Basin in Kenya.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Dryland degradation manifests in the forms of decline in vegetative cover, loss of soil productivity, loss of plant and soil organisms’ biodiversity and increased soil erosion.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies**; **Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**; **Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**; **Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Adoption of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices is considered a possible solution to overcoming dryland degradation [16]. Developed by research and promoted by extension, SLM practices such as soil and water conservation and integrated ecosystem management practices, seeks to increase land value and productivity with the aim of sustaining and improving livelihoods [15].
Increased access to extension services (Group participants reported groups (61%) as main source for SLM information followed by neighbours (50%), state extension (39%), agro-dealers and NGOS, both at 24% and radio at nine percent. For the non participants neighbors (56%) were the most important source of information followed agrodealers at 21%, state extension (17%) radios (11% and NGOs (9%).);;Increased access to credit (79% of group members had credit access compared to 18% of non-group members);; Groups facilitated access to extension services and reciprocal labour sharing for SLM technologies implementation (No quantative evidence)
Higher household income (Group members: $4,078 vs Non-group members: $2,840)
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits within the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" mentioned in the full text with quantitative proof as a direct result of the use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages specified. The study focuses on factors influencing the adoption of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices rather than measuring the specific impacts of these practices on soil health or productivity within the sampled population.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Christine D Sprunger et al. - 2021 - Which management practices influence soil health in Midwest organic corn systems.pdf
Michigan; Indiana; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Sweden; Canada
5;1;2
United States of America, Ohio; United States of America, Michigan; United States of America, Indiana; United States of America, Pennsylvania; Canada
Soil health degradation; Reduced crop yields; Loss of soil organic matter; Weed control challenges; Nutrient deficiencies
Solution Package 1:
Crop diversity + perennials in rotation + reduced tillage intensity
Solution Package 2:
Crop diversity + cover crops + manure application + soil balancing (BCSR) + high-Ca limestone + gypsum
1. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The study demonstrates the effectiveness of incorporating management survey data with soil biochemical health analyses. A main management driver for improved soil biochemical health in organic corn production systems is to reduce tillage intensity and incorporate perennials;Perenniality was a significant driver of mineralizable C at p < .05;Perennial crops are efficient at improving soil health over time because of greater belowground C inputs and consistent year-round ground cover, which reduces disturbance relative to annual cropping systems.
There is no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Higher yields and incomes" are reported with quantitative proof in the provided full text.
Mineralizable C increased with perennial presence (56.8 mg kg−1 for perennial presence vs 49.7 mg kg−1 for perennial absence; significant at p < .1);;Mineralizable C increased with reduced tillage frequency (Negative correlation r = −.32, significant at p < .01)
Increased Mineralizable C when perennials are left in rotation for a greater number of years (Significantly increases when perennials are left in rotation for a greater number of years as shown in Figure 8); Increased Mineralizable C with reduced tillage frequency (Negative correlation r = –.32, p < .01 with tillage frequency)
Increased Mineralizable Carbon (Mineralizable C values averaged 49.7 mg C kg−1 for 0 yrs of perennials vs 63.0 mg C kg−1 for 2+ yrs of perennials; statistically different at p < .1);;Increased Organic Matter (Ca/Mg ratio was positively correlated with Organic Matter (r = .16) and was marginally significant at p < .1)
Open
Christian Thierfelder et al. - 2021 - Toward greater sustainability how investing in soil health may enhance maize productivity in Southe.pdf
Zimbabwe
15;2;1
Zimbabwe, Harare, Domboshawa, Madziwa, Shamva, Hereford
Soil fertility decline; Climate change adaptation; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: No-tillage (NT) with crop residue retention + Crop rotation with legumes + Incorporation of high biomass-producing grain legumes + green manures + tree-based components + Mineral fertilizers
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic matter;SOM supports biological abundance and diversity, represents a store of plant nutrients and confers physical (e.g., soil structure, stability and water holding capacity), biological (e.g., earthworm populations and greater diversity of microbial communities and functions) and chemical (e.g., ion exchange capacity) benefits; SOM accrual promotes soil health through increasing structural stability, reducing nutrient losses associated with erosion, improved nutrient and water capture and reduced leaching losses.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Relationships between soil characteristics and maize productivity, and the effects of management on these relationships, varied with soil type;total soil C and N were strong predictors of maize grain yield and above-ground biomass (i.e., stover) in the clayey soils, but not in the sandy soils, under both managements; sandy soils should be the priority target of NT with organic resource inputs interventions in southern Africa, as mineral fertilizer inputs alone will not halt the soil fertility decline. This will require a holistic management approach and input of C in various forms (e.g., biomass from cover crops and tree components, crop residues, in combination with mineral fertilizers). Clayey soils on the other hand have greater buffering capacity against detrimental effects of soil tillage and low C input.
* Increased maize yields at sandy soil sites due to residue retention (1.5 t grain ha−1 at Domboshawa);;
* Increased above-ground biomass at sandy soil sites due to residue retention (1.0 t above ground biomass ha−1 at Domboshawa)
Maize grain yield increased at Domboshawa (100% (1.5 t grain ha−1));Maize above-ground biomass increased at Domboshawa (50% (1.0 t above ground biomass ha−1));Maize above-ground biomass increased at Harare (23% (1 t above-ground biomass ha−1))
Increased total soil C and N concentrations/stocks (On-station, Domboshawa: both 59%; On-station, Harare: 22% C, 23% N; On-farm, Madziwa: 61% C, 78% N; On-farm, Hereford: 21% C, 18% N);;Increased soil MBC (At Harare: 61% greater);;Increased CEC (Domboshawa NT: 1.58 meq 100 g soil−1 vs CT: 1.01 meq 100 g soil−1; Harare NT: 13.61 meq 100 g soil−1 vs CT: 12.75 meq 100 g soil−1);;Increased maize grain yield (At Domboshawa: by 100% (1.5 t ha−1));;Increased maize above-ground biomass (At Domboshawa: by 50% (1.0 t ha−1); At Harare: by 23% (1 t ha−1))
Increased total soil C concentration (59% at Domboshawa; 22% at Harare; 61-63% at Madziwa; 21-28% at Hereford);;Increased total soil N concentration (59% at Domboshawa; 23% at Harare; 78-80% at Madziwa; 18-23% at Hereford);;Increased soil CEC (1.58 vs 1.01 meq 100 g−1 soil at Domboshawa; 13.61 vs 12.75 meq 100 g−1 soil at Harare);;Increased soil NH4+-N concentration (106% at Domboshawa; 79% at Harare; 148-155% at Madziwa);;Increased soil MBC concentration (61% greater at Harare)
Increased total soil C concentration under NT with residue retention (59% at Domboshawa; 22% at Harare; 61% at Madziwa ripline seeding; 63% at Madziwa direct seeding; 21% at Hereford ripline seeding; 28% at Hereford direct seeding);Increased total soil N concentration under NT with residue retention (59% at Domboshawa; 23% at Harare; 78% at Madziwa ripline seeding; 80% at Madziwa direct seeding; 18% at Hereford ripline seeding; 23% at Hereford direct seeding);Increased microbial biomass C concentration at Harare under NT (61%)
Open
Chiranjeev Kumawat et al. - 2021 - Recycling of Crop Residues for Sustainable Soil Health Management A Review.pdf
India; Brazil; Mexico; Zimbabwe; Ethiopia
15; 2; 13
India, Rajasthan-303329, India; Punjab, India; Brazil; Zimbabwe; Mexico; Ethiopia; Turkey; India, northern India; India, Madhya Pradesh; India, western Indo-Gangetic Plains
Soil degradation; Environmental pollution; Crop productivity; Soil fertility; Waste disposal problem
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Crop residue recycling + Composting + Conservation agriculture + No-till (NT) + Chiseling + Stubble mulching + Leaving crop residue on the soil surface + Crop residue incorporation + Green manuring
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Crop residue recycling increases sequestration of organic carbon in soil which ultimately leads to improve soil physical, chemical and biological health; 2. Organic carbon acts as a reservoir for nutrients, needed in crop production; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Agricultural residues burning may emit significant quantity of air pollutants like CO2, N2O, CH4, emission of air pollutants such as CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, (Nonmethane Hydrocarbon) NMHC, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and particulate matter like elemental carbon at a rate far different from that observed in savanna/forest fire due to different chemical composition of the crop residues and burning conditions; 2. Crop residues left in lagoons release methane gas and add to global warming under anaerobic decomposition; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Crop residue management recycling is a cost-effective option for minimizing agriculture's input with maximizing output; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: ; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits in the provided text that explicitly mention "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" as a result of crop residue recycling.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies." are reported with quantitative proof in the provided full text. The text mentions increased productivity and yields as general benefits of crop residue recycling, and discusses improvements in soil properties that contribute to yield, but does not provide specific quantitative data on the yield or income increases themselves.
Boosted the availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur (173 kg ha-1 N, 57.80 kg ha-1 P, 157 kg ha-1 K, 35 kg ha-1 S compared to 100 percent NPK alone 139 kg ha-1 N, 38.90 kg ha-1 P, 113 kg ha-1 K, 22.40 kg ha-1 S);;Maximum bacterial and fungal activity (Maximum bacterial 78.2 106 g-1 soil and fungal 63.5 106 g-1 soil activity compared to control 32.4 106 g-1 soil bacterial activity, 17.2 106 g-1 soil fungal activity);;Boosted dehydrogenase activity (93 mg TPF kg-1 soil 24 h-1 compared to approved amount of fertiliser 66 mg TPF kg-1 soil 24 h-1);;Increased total soil porosity and decreased bulk density (46.30% total soil porosity, 1.42 Mg m-3 bulk density compared to 100% NPK treated plots 43.10% total porosity, 1.51 Mg m-3 bulk density);;Increased soil total C content (21.60 mg g-1 compared to no rice straw application 18.20 mg g-1)
Increased soil total C content (21.60 mg g-1 when compared to no rice straw application (18.20 mg g-1)); Increased available nitrogen (173 kg ha-1 when compared to 100 percent NPK alone (139 kg ha-1)); Maximum bacterial activity (78.2 106 g-1 soil compared to the control (32.4 106 g-1 soil)); Maximum fungal activity (63.5 106 g-1 soil compared to the control (17.2 106 g-1 soil)); Decreased bulk density (1.42 Mg m-3 in 0-15 cm soil layer when compared to 100% NPK treated plots (1.51 Mg m-3, respectively))
Increased soil total C content (21.60 mg g-1 when compared to no rice straw application (18.20 mg g-1)); Increased bacterial activity (78.2 106 g-1 soil compared to the control (32.4 106 g-1 soil)); Increased fungal activity (63.5 106 g-1 soil activity compared to the control (17.2 106 g-1 soil)); Increased dehydrogenase activity (93 mg TPF kg-1 soil 24 h-1 compared to the approved amount of fertiliser (66 mg TPF kg-1 soil 24 h-1)); Increased phosphatase activity (7.40 mg PNP kg-1 soil 24 h-1 compared to 3.80 mg PNP kg-1 soil 24 h-1)
Open
Charlie Mioulet et al. - 2024 - Comparison of metrics to reveal the role of soil fauna in soil health assessment in peat meadow rest.pdf
Netherlands
15; 2; 3
Netherlands; Netherlands, South Holland
Soil degradation; Land-use change; Agroecosystem sustainability
Solution Package 1:
* Agricultural Solution 1: Regenerative farming +
* Agricultural Solution 2: Grazing
* Non-agricultural solution 1: Network analysis
* Non-agricultural solution 2: Soil organic matter content (SOM)
* Non-agricultural solution 3: C:N ratio
* Non-agricultural solution 4: Faunal abundance
* Non-agricultural solution 5: Acari-Collembola ratio
* Non-agricultural solution 6: Shannon's Diversity Index
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increase in SOM content results in an increase in microbes, which constitute the basis of the soil food web; The C:N ratio followed a similar pattern, and meadow LP had significantly higher C:N values indicating potentially of more fungal dominated food web and slower nutrient cycling; Oribatid mite abundance was highest in LP further indicating that the food-web structure in this meadow had changed from a Collembola dominated food web that is currently observed in conventional managed meadows.
Network density (BHP, the meadow with extensive grazing, had the highest network density followed by LP and then NVV);;Average number of neighbours (BHP, the meadow with extensive grazing, had the highest average number of neighbours followed by LP and then NVV)
no evidence found
Soil faunal abundance (No quantitative evidence);Soil organic matter content (No quantitative evidence);C:N ratio (No quantitative evidence);Acari-Collembola ratio (No quantitative evidence);Soil faunal network connectivity (No quantitative evidence)
Highest species connectivity in soil faunal communities (No quantitative evidence); Highest average number of neighbours (No quantitative evidence); Highest network density (No quantitative evidence); Highest soil faunal abundance (No quantitative evidence); Higher C:N ratio in the most regenerative meadow (LP) (No quantitative evidence)
Network density (No quantitative evidence);; Average number of neighbours (No quantitative evidence);; Soil Organic Matter content (affected by meadow (F = 15.54, p < 0.001));; Soil faunal abundance (differed significantly between meadows (F = 3.88, p < 0.05));; Acari-Collembola ratio (significantly affected by the land-use intensity of meadows (log transformed; F = 8.60, p < 0.001))
Open
Cecilia Crespo et al. - 2024 - Contrasting soil management systems had limited effects on soil health and crop yields in a North Ce.pdf
United States of America
15;2;12
United States of America, Iowa, Ames,
Soil degradation; Water quality degradation; Agricultural productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Relay cropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: No-tillage + Agricultural Solution 4: Nitrogen fertilization strategies
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. No-tillage with cover crops increased aggregate stability by 38% compared with camelina relay cropping.; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
There are no sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs." mentioned in the text.
no evidence found
Increased aggregate stability (increased by 38% compared with camelina relay cropping);; Increased K content (38% higher K content compared to NT-ZN soil)
Increased aggregate stability (38%); Greater macroaggregates (61%); Higher K concentration (38%)
no evidence found
Open
Catriona M Willoughby et al. - 2023 - Soil health metrics reflect yields in long-term cropping system experiments.pdf
United Kingdom
15;2;12
United Kingdom;
United Kingdom, Aberdeenshire;
United Kingdom, Norfolk
1. Declining soil health;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Ley duration + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic amendments (cattle manure, green-waste compost, turkey manure, paper crumble) + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotation (grass-clover leys) + Agricultural Solution 4: Synthetic fertiliser + Non-agricultural solution 1: Benchmarking yield
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Earthworm counts + Agricultural Solution 2: PMN (Potentially Mineralizable Nitrogen) + Agricultural Solution 3: Soil Organic Matter (SOM) + Agricultural Solution 4: Soil pH + Agricultural Solution 5: Soil bulk density + Agricultural Solution 6: Exchangeable potassium (K), calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), available phosphorus (P) + Non-agricultural solution 1: VESS (Visual Evaluation of Soil Structure) scores
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: agricultural management which resulted in better soil organic matter, pH, potassium and bulk density was correlated with higher crop yields;importance of ley duration and potentially mineralizable nitrogen to yield in legume-supported systems showed the impact of agricultural management on soil biology;In systems with applications of synthetic fertiliser, earthworm counts and visual evaluation of soil structure scores were correlated with higher yields;agricultural management altered yields not just through direct supply of nutrients to crops, but also through the changes in soil health measured by simple metrics
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Reductions in carbon stocks, declines in biodiversity and poor water and nutrient retention all have implications for primary productivity, climate change, off-site pollution and flooding;It is therefore vital that agricultural management ensures long-term maintenance of soil health to safeguard future sustainability;Soil health is defined here as the capacity of a soil to function as an ecosystem to sustain plants and animals (including humans) in the environment;easily usable soil health tests and interpretation frameworks that aid decision-making by land managers would benefit the health of agricultural soils
Earthworm counts (Earthworm counts have also been assessed in agricultural soils as a fast, cost-effective indicator of biological health, which have the additional benefit that they can be carried out by the practitioner.);; The relevance of structural indicator results to yield and overall soil health means that they represent an opportunity to collect farm data on a larger scale and at a smaller financial cost than many of the other soil health metrics included in this analysis (Johannes et al. 2017; Stroud 2019).
Higher crop yields correlated with agricultural management resulting in better soil organic matter, pH, potassium and bulk density (No quantitative evidence); Higher yields linked to longer ley duration (No quantitative evidence); Higher yields linked to potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN) (No quantitative evidence); Higher yields correlated with earthworm counts (No quantitative evidence); Higher yields correlated with visual evaluation of soil structure scores (VESS scores) (No quantitative evidence)
Better soil organic matter, pH, potassium, and bulk density correlated with higher crop yields (No quantitative evidence); Lower bulk densities predicted to lead to higher relative yield percentages (No quantitative evidence); Potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN) was an important contributor to higher yields (No quantitative evidence); Earthworm counts were correlated with higher yields (No quantitative evidence); Increased ley duration associated with both higher yields and better soil health (No quantitative evidence)
Higher crop yields (No quantative evidence); Increased soil organic matter (SOM) (No quantative evidence); Lower soil bulk density (Improved soil structure) (No quantative evidence); Increased potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN) (No quantative evidence); Higher earthworm counts (No quantative evidence)
Higher Soil Organic Matter associated with longer ley duration (No quantitative evidence); More earthworms associated with multi-year ley periods and cattle manure (No quantitative evidence); Benefits to biological community activity from earthworm populations (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Cassidy M Buchanan and James A Ippolito - 2021 - Long-Term Biosolids Applications to Overgrazed Rangelands Improve Soil Health.pdf
United States of America
15; 2; 3
United States of America, Colorado, Larimer County
Overgrazing; Soil degradation; Biodiversity loss; Soil erosion; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biosolids application
Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biosolids application
Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF)
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Maximized soil physical health index (SHI); 2. Decreasing soil pH with increasing biosolids application rates;3. Increased soil organic carbon (SOC); 4. Positive changes in potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC).
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
no evidence found
Increased Biological Soil Health Index (e.g., in repeated application, increased from 0.34 at 0 Mg ha−1 to 0.49 at 30 Mg ha−1);;Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (e.g., in repeated application, increased from 1.46% at 0 Mg ha−1 to 2.88% at 30 Mg ha−1)
Overall Soil Health Index (maximized at 0–21 Mg ha−1, significantly reduced at 30 Mg ha−1); Biological Soil Health Index (maximized at 30 Mg ha−1); Soil Organic Carbon (increased with increasing application rates); Potentially Mineralizable Nitrogen (positive trend with increasing application rates); Microbial Biomass Carbon (positive trend with increasing application rates)
Soil organic carbon (increased with increasing application rates, e.g., from 1.46% at 0 Mg ha−1 to 2.88% at 30 Mg ha−1 in 2002);Biological soil health index (increased with increasing application rates, e.g., from 0.34 at 0 Mg ha−1 to 0.49 at 30 Mg ha−1 in 2002)
Open
Casey Shawver et al. - 2020 - Management-intensive Grazing Affects Soil Health.pdf
United States of America
3;15;12
USA; USA, Colorado
Soil degradation; Public land grazing; Land use efficiency; Decreasing commodity prices; Environmental sustainability.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Management-intensive Grazing (MiG), perennial pasture, forage mixtures.
Non-agricultural solutions: None.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:1. Positive impacts were observed in the biological SHI due to increases in microbial and enzymatic activities, even though soil organic C (SOC) remained relatively unchanged; however, positive biological SHI changes are likely precursors to future SOC increases.; 2. Converting cropland to perennial pasture can enhance soil health by increasing microbial and enzymatic activity, building soil organic matter, and sequestering C.; 3. Perennial pasture plants establish root systems that alter overall soil health by improving physical properties such as aggregate stability, water infiltration, and sub-soil macroporosity; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
There are no sub outcomes/outputs/benefits in the specified category mentioned in the text.
no evidence found
Biological soil health index increased (0.29 to 0.43 in 0 to 5 cm; 0.26 to 0.37 in 5 to 15 cm);;Microbial biomass C increased (118 to 316 mg g-1 in 0 to 5 cm; 132 to 245 mg g-1 in 5 to 15 cm);;β-glucosidase activity increased (72.1 to 88.2 mg pnp kg-1 soil h-1 in 0 to 5 cm; 69.8 to 76.0 mg pnp kg-1 soil h-1 in 5 to 15 cm);;Potentially mineralizable nitrogen was significantly greater (15.6 to 18.3 mg kg-1 in 0 to 5 cm; 12.8 to 16.8 mg kg-1 in 5 to 15 cm);;Extractable K concentrations significantly increased (204 to 415 mg kg-1 in 0 to 5 cm; 195 to 253 mg kg-1 in 5 to 15 cm)
Increased biological soil health index (increased from 0.26-0.29 in 2017 to 0.37-0.43 in 2018); Increased microbial biomass C (increased from 118-132 mg g-1 in 2017 to 245-316 mg g-1 in 2018); Increased potentially mineralizable nitrogen (increased from 12.8-15.6 mg kg-1 in 2017 to 16.8-18.3 mg kg-1 in 2018); Increased β-glucosidase activity (increased from 69.8-72.1 mg pnp kg-1 soil h-1 in 2017 to 76.0-88.2 mg pnp kg-1 soil h-1 in 2018); Decreased electrical conductivity (decreased from 2.18-2.91 dS m-1 in 2017 to 1.34-2.44 dS m-1 in 2018)
Biological soil health index increase (Increased from 0.26-0.29 to 0.37-0.43);Microbial biomass C increase (Increased from 118-132 to 245-316 mg g-1);β-glucosidase activity increase (Increased from 69.8-72.1 to 76.0-88.2 mg pnp kg-1 soil h-1)
Open
Buhari Umasugi et al. - 2023 - Soil Health Indicators of Soil Management for Vegetable Cultivation under the Clove Plant.pdf
Indonesia
15
Indonesia; Ternate City, Tobololo Village
Low soil health; Reduced agricultural productivity; Food and vegetable consumption needs.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Provision of organic matter
Agricultural Solution 2: Provision of nitrogen fertilizers
Agricultural Solution 3: Provision of potassium fertilizers
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The level of soil health on vegetable farms under clove stands in Tobololo Village was in the medium (53-58%) and high (63-67%) classes;Soil health indicators which are variables that affect the decline in the value of soil health on vegetable farms under clove stands are C-organic, base saturation, total nitrogen, and available potassium;The provision of organic matter, nitrogen, and potassium fertilizers will increase base saturation as well as soil fertility and health;The moderate level of soil health on vegetable farming land in Tobololo Village is generally influenced by the low availability of total N, and the percentage of base saturation in the soil;Organic matter sourced from C-organic as a source of soil nutrients will be the main variable for assessing the level of soil health on agricultural land
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits directly belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" with quantitative proof provided in the full text content provided. The text discusses soil health as an indicator of productivity but does not quantify yields or incomes resulting from specific soil health levels or management practices within the main body of the paper.
High soil health level (63-67%); Absence of soil erosion (No quantitative evidence); Free root penetration (No quantitative evidence); Normal plant growth (No quantitative evidence); Good soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Level of soil health was high (63-67%);Level of soil health was medium (53-58%)
Earthworm population (1-3 earthworms in each SST; moderate density)
Open
Bronika Thapa and Roji Dura - 2024 - A review on tillage system and no-till agriculture and its impact on soil health.pdf
15; 2; 13
Brazil; China; Denmark; Finland; Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda; United Kingdom; United States of America
Soil erosion; Soil degradation; Climate change; Food security; Water conservation
Solution Package 1:
No-till agriculture + reduced tillage + cover cropping + crop rotation + integrated pest and weed control practices + insect pest management strategy + crop residue management + reduced production costs
Solution Package 2:
No-till agriculture + reduced tillage + minimum tillage + crop residue mulching + cover cropping + crop rotation + integrated pest and weed control practices
Solution Package 3:
Conservation tillage + cover cropping + soil health + reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improved soil structure; Improved water retention capacity; Increased soil organic matter; Increased soil microbial biomass; Increased number of earthworms; Improved soil aggregate stability; Reduced soil erosion; Improved soil fertility through organic matter cycling; Habitat enhancement.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Increased soil carbon accumulation; Reduced siltation of water bodies; Reduced eutrophication of surface waters; Reduced agrochemical transportation; Enhanced groundwater and aquifer replenishment; Carbon sequestration in the soil.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Boost crop yields; Reduce soil water demand; Increased precipitation use efficiency; Enhanced efficiency of agriculture through conservation tillage practices; Lower equipment depreciation rates; Decreasing production costs, hence boosting profit margins.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Soil conservation for agriculture is centered on increasing agricultural production by improving soil fertility while minimizing environmental damage, notably in terms of soil and water management
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Reduces labour cost and easily effective available of machines.
* Tillage can lower production costs (No quantative evidence);;NT technologies are extremely effective in minimizing soil and crop residue disturbance, controlling soil evaporation, minimizing erosion losses, sequestering carbon in the soil, and lowering energy requirements (No quantative evidence);;It entails decreasing production costs, hence boosting profit margins, while also reducing pollution from tractor-fuel combustion (No quantative evidence);;Reduced use of tractors and other powered farm equipment resulting in lower emissions of exhaust gases and fuel savings of up to 70% have been reported with Conservation Agriculture (FAO, 2008) (70%);;Farmers from the Arctic Circle (e.g., Finland) to the Tropics (e.g., Kenya, Uganda) to around 50o latitude South (e.g., Malvinas/Falkland Islands) are currently practicing no-tillage (Rolf Derpsch & Friedrich, 2009) (No quantative evidence)
Boosted grain yield and precipitation use efficiency by no-tillage with straw cover (45 percent; 43 percent);Fuel savings with Conservation Agriculture (up to 70%);Decreasing production costs, boosting profit margins (No quantitative evidence);Low production cost by reducing fuel and labor requirements (No quantitative evidence);Improved fertilizer use efficiency (No quantitative evidence)
Increased anecic earthworm densities (17 times greater in no-tillage system than in conventional tillage); Increased bioturbation (more than four times higher in no-tillage than in conventional tillage); Improved soil aggregate stability (No quantitative evidence); Increased organic matter content and sequester carbon (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced soil moisture content (No quantitative evidence)
Anecic earthworm densities were greater (17 times greater in no-tillage system than in conventional tillage); bioturbation was higher (more than four times higher in no-tillage than in conventional tillage); Decreases soil erosion significantly (No quantitative evidence); sequestering atmospheric carbon through enhanced Soil Organic Matter (SOM) (No quantitative evidence); grain yield [winter wheat, no-tillage with straw cover] (boosted... by 45 percent in comparison to conventional tillage)
Sequestering atmospheric carbon (No quantative evidence); Lower emissions of exhaust gases (up to 70%); Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantative evidence); Anecic earthworm densities were greater (17 times greater); Preserves soil biodiversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Brian A Hux et al. - 2023 - Winter cover crop impact on soil health in Texas Rolling Plains dryland cotton.pdf
United States of America
15; 2; 3
United States of America; Texas, Chillicothe
Soil degradation; Crop failure; Soil erosion; Water infiltration; Nutrient leaching
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-till (NT)
Agricultural Solution 2: Wheat cover crop
Agricultural Solution 3: Austrian winter pea cover crop
Agricultural Solution 4: Crimson clover cover crop
Agricultural Solution 5: Hairy vetch cover crop
Agricultural Solution 6: Mixed species cover crop
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:
* Single-species Austrian winter pea treatment had 24% and 28% higher soil carbon and nitrogen than no-till without a cover crop;
* Austrian winter pea showed greatest numerical increase of soil health improvements;
* Cover crops added to no-till agriculture cotton systems enhance soil function.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:
* Winter cover crops with NT management had a positive effect on the upper soil carbon (C) content, microbial enzymes, and microbial functional diversity irrespective of nitrogen (N) fertilization.
* A mixture of cover crop species can increase SOC more than a single-species treatment due to a greater biomass production above and below the soil.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text that meet the specified criteria.
no evidence found
Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) (AP (4.6 g SOC kg−1 soil) was significantly higher than NT (3.5 g SOC kg−1 soil) and CT (3.4 g SOC kg−1 soil)); Increased total nitrogen (TN) (AP (630 mg TN kg−1 soil) was significantly higher than NT (448 mg TN kg−1 soil) and CT (451 mg TN kg−1 soil)); Increased carbon mineralization (CMIN) (AP (63 mg CMIN kg−1 soil) was higher than NT (37 mg CMIN kg−1 soil) and CT (33 mg CMIN kg−1 soil)); Increased soil nitrate (NO3−) (AP (9.4 mg NO3− kg−1 soil) was higher than NT (6.3 mg NO3− kg−1 soil) and CT (6.4 mg NO3− kg−1 soil)); Increased water-extractable organic carbon (WEOC) (AP (108 mg WEOC kg−1 soil) was significantly higher than NT (90 mg WEOC kg−1 soil) and CT (85 mg WEOC kg−1 soil))
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (AP (4.6 g SOC kg−1 soil) significantly higher than NT (3.5 g SOC kg−1 soil) and CT (3.4 g SOC kg−1 soil)); Increased Total Nitrogen (TN) (AP (630 mg TN kg−1 soil) significantly higher than NT (448 mg TN kg−1 soil) and CT (451 mg TN kg−1 soil)); Increased Carbon Mineralization (CMIN) in 0-10 cm depth (AP (82 mg CMIN kg−1 soil) and HV (68 mg CMIN kg−1 soil) significantly higher than NT (44 mg CMIN kg−1 soil) and CT (37 mg CMIN kg−1 soil)); Increased Water-Extractable Organic Carbon (WEOC) in 0-10 cm depth (AP (130 mg WEOC kg−1 soil) significantly higher than NT (99 mg WEOC kg−1 soil) and CT (84 mg WEOC kg−1 soil)); Increased Water-Extractable Organic Nitrogen (WEON) in 0-10 cm depth (AP (32.2 mg WEON kg−1 soil) significantly higher than NT (25.7 mg WEON kg−1 soil) and CT (23.2 mg WEON kg−1 soil))
Increased Soil Carbon (24% higher than no-till without cover crops)
Open
Biplab Brahma et al. - 2025 - Significance of land management practices under haskap orchards to mitigate the degradations of soil.pdf
15; 13; 2
Canada, Nova Scotia, Truro
India, Assam, Silchar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Soil organic carbon degradation; Climate change; Food security; Soil health; Greenhouse gas emissions
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Shallow (S) tilling + Agricultural Solution 2: Furrow (F) tilling + Agricultural Solution 3: Compost + fertilizer (CF) as nutrient management
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conversion of grassland soils into haskap orchards
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Significant richness in SOC concentration under temperate forests;Maintaining soil health quality along with significant carbon sink potential in agricultural lands;Maintaining soil health quality with a substantial increase in carbon sink capacity;Soil health quality along with significant carbon sink potential in agricultural lands;Improve soil carbon sequestration in upper and lower soil depths, respectively, by maintaining the N content in the soil.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:Conversion of grassland soils into haskap orchards could play a significant role in SOC stocks management;S tillage and F tillage with nutrient management under haskap orchards could be viable management options to improve soil carbon sequestration in upper and lower soil depths, respectively, by maintaining the N content in the soil.
No relevant outcomes found.
no evidence found
Increased Total Nitrogen content (77% to 129% increase in 0–10 cm under CF; Around 88% increase in 10–30 cm under HFSCF compared to HFSCn); Increased Soil Organic Carbon stocks (14% to 54% higher in 0–10 cm under CF; 17% to 91% higher in 10–30 cm under CF (except 22% decrease under HFFCF); around 50% higher in 10–30 cm under F tillage vs S tillage (Cn); around 25% higher in 10–30 cm under S tillage vs F tillage (CF); 16% higher in 0–10 cm and 26% higher in 10–30 cm under S tillage vs F tillage (CF, grassland)); Increased Soil Organic Carbon concentration (52% to 78% higher in 0–10 cm under CF; 44% to 87% higher in 10–30 cm under CF (specific cases)); Increased Active Carbon stocks (At least 15% to 31% gain in 0–10 cm under CF; 32% to 69% gain in 10–30 cm under CF; around 69% increase in 10–30 cm under S tilling vs F tilling (Cn, grassland)); Increased Active Carbon fraction (17% to 50% gain in 0–10 cm under CF; 41% to 125% gain in 10–30 cm under CF)
Gain in SOC stocks from grassland to haskap conversion (18% and 20% gain in SOC stocks at 0–10 and 10–30 cm soil depth, respectively); Increased SOC stocks under CF management (magnitudes are estimated at 51%, 34%, 14%, and 54% higher than respective Cn managements for 0–10 cm soil depth); Increased N (%) content under CF management (magnitudes are 129%, 86%, 79%, and 77% higher than respective Cn plots for 0–10 cm soil depth); Increased AC concentration under CF management (magnitudes are 35%, 50%, and 17% gain over respective Cn managed orchards for 0–10 cm soil depth; 41%, 125%, and 42% gain over respective Cn managements for 10–30 cm soil depth); Increased AC stocks under CF management (At least 31% gain over respective Cn plots for 0–10 cm; 32% and 69% higher over respective Cn plots for 10–30 cm soil depths)
Increased SOC stocks when grassland is replaced by haskap orchard (around a 20% increase); Increased SOC stocks under Compost + Fertilizer nutrient management (ranging from 14% to 91% increase compared to respective Cn managements, with one exception); Increased Active Carbon stocks under Compost + Fertilizer nutrient management (ranging from 15% to 69% increase compared to respective Cn managements); Increased SOC stocks under S tillage with CF management compared to F tillage with CF management under grassland conversion (26% higher at 10-30 cm depth); Loss of SOC stocks because of land use change from forest to haskap orchards (estimated at 46% for 0-10cm and 60% for 10-30cm compared to forest soil).
Open
Balasubramani Ravindran et al. - 2020 - Combining organic and mineral fertilizers as a climate-smart integrated soil fertility management pr.pdf
Kenya; Tanzania; Zimbabwe; Malawi; Ivory Coast; Benin; Nigeria; Ethiopia; Ghana; Togo
1;2;8
Kenya; Malawi; Zimbabwe; Ethiopia; Ivory Coast; Benin; Nigeria; Tanzania; Ghana; Togo;
Low productivity; Climate change; Food security; Yield variability; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Combining organic and mineral fertilizers
Agricultural Solution 2: Improved germplasm
Agricultural Solution 3: Good agronomic practices
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Combining mineral and organic fertilizers
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic inputs (high-quality)
Agricultural Solution 2: Mineral N
Here's the breakdown of the sub-outcomes/benefits reported in the provided text, categorized under the specified KPIs:
**1. Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
*No specific sub-outcomes/benefits reported*
**2. Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. Greater responses in productivity and agronomic efficiency (AE) as compared to sole applications when more than 100 kg N ha-1 is used with high-quality organic matter.
2. Combined application of mineral and organic nutrient sources allows smallholder farmers to apply adequate and proportionate amounts of both minor and major nutrients, which is necessary to sustain soil fertility and crop production in the long term.
**3. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Increased soil organic matter content improves other soil functions such as soil biological processes and soil moisture regime.
2. Raising soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks is also essential for a sustainable soil health and crop productivity
**4. Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. Increased soil organic matter content also improves other soil functions such as soil biological processes and soil moisture regime which in turn improves resilience to droughts
2. Yield reliability can be considered as a key indicator as it defines the capacity of the system to remain close to its stable yield equilibrium when exposed to seasonal variation in weather conditions.
**5. Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Emissions of CO2, on the other hand, can potentially be mitigated by storing atmospheric carbon (C) in soils.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits matching the category and criteria.
Increased AE (20% at a total N rate of 150 kg N ha-1 season-1 when combining mineral fertilizer with the highest quality organic resources (50:50) as compared to sole mineral fertilizer); Greater responses in productivity (No quantative evidence)
Reduced SOC losses (18% over 7 growing seasons as compared to sole mineral fertilizer)
Reduced SOC losses (18% over 7 growing seasons)
Reduced SOC losses (compared to sole mineral fertilizer) (18% over 7 growing seasons compared to sole mineral fertilizer);;Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) from organic inputs (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Benjamin Tetteh Anang et al. - 2023 - Predictors of inoculant-based technology adoption by smallholder soybean farmers in northern Ghana.pdf
1;2;5
Ghana; Tolon district, Northern Ghana
Soil fertility decline; Food insecurity; Crop yield reduction
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Inoculant-based technology +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Access to agricultural extension + Non-agricultural solution 2: Farmer group membership
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Inoculant-based technology +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Access to agricultural extension + Non-agricultural solution 2: Farmer group membership + Non-agricultural solution 3: Access to credit + Non-agricultural solution 4: Off-farm employment
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Inoculant-based technology +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Use of pesticides and herbicides + Non-agricultural solution 2: Off-farm employment
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* 5: Inoculant technology enhances yields.
* 6: Inoculant technology improves farm profitability.
* 6: Increase in cowpea grain yield and soybean grain yield as a result of inoculation.
* 6: Returns on investment is achieved with inoculation.
* 6: Combining phosphorus fertilizer with inoculants increased soybean yield over phosphorus fertilizer alone by 25.7%.
* 6: Farmers generally perceive higher productivity and cost efficiency of rhizobium
* 6: Inoculants are relatively cheaper, safer and easier to use in order to improve the nitrogen content utilized by leguminous crops to boost production.
* 6: ICT-based extension services enhanced farm performance as well as knowledge scores of inoculant adopters relative to non-adopters in Ghana.
* 6: Inoculant use enhance crop yields.
* 6: Inoculant adoption improves soil fertility levels and farm yields.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* 1: Inoculant-based technologies are environmentally friendly and economic ways to improve soil fertility status.
* 6: Inoculant-based technology that uses nitrogen-fixing bacteria to fix atmospheric nitrogen into root nodules of crops, especially grain legumes.
* 6: The application of inoculants in crop production is environmentally friendly and an economic way to improve farm yields.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* 1: Inoculant-based technologies are environmentally friendly.
* 6: Rhizobium inoculants are cheaper and environmentally friendlier compared to other agrochemicals like inorganic fertilizers.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
* Inoculants must be made readily available to farmers (No quantative evidence);;Inoculants must be made readily available to farmers and if possible, the price of the input must be subsidized to encourage more farmers to adopt (No quantative evidence);;Farmer group membership enhanced inoculant technology adoption which aligns with the study’s a priori expectation because membership of farmer groups helps in promoting smallholders’ access to information, services and farm inputs (No quantative evidence).
Increase in cowpea grain yield (11–38%); Increase in soybean grain yield (1.5-fold); Value cost ratio (8.7); Increase in soybean grain yield (67%); Increased soybean yield over phosphorus fertilizer alone (25.7%)
11–38% increase in cowpea grain yield as a result of inoculation (11–38%);; 1.5-fold increase in soybean grain yield as a result of inoculation (1.5-fold);; 67% increase in soybean grain yield (67%);; increased soybean yield over phosphorus fertilizer alone by 25.7% (25.7%)
1.5-fold increase in soybean grain yield (1.5-fold);;67% increase in soybean grain yield (67%);;11–38% increase in cowpea grain yield (11–38%);;25.7% increase in soybean yield (over phosphorus fertilizer alone) (25.7%);;Significant difference in yield (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Attia El Gayar - 2020 - A study on plant nutrition balance, soil fertility and economic returns of investments.pdf
2;1;15
Nigeria; United States of America; China; India
Soil degradation due to nutrient mining, erosion and desertification; Food insecurity; Poverty; Low crop yield; Economic instability
Solution Package 1:
* Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated application of organic and inorganic fertilizers
* Non-agricultural solution 1: Training of farmers and development agents on new soil fertility management approaches.
Solution Package 2:
* Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation/Intercropping (cereal/legume rotations)
* Agricultural Solution 2: Green Manures (e.g. Crotolaria, Mucuna and Sesbania species)
Solution Package 3:
* Agricultural Solution 1: Organic sources of nutrients (e.g. farmyard manure)
* Agricultural Solution 2: Mineral soil amendments (Phosphate Rock)
Solution Package 4:
* Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated Nutrient Management: Combined Use of Organic and Mineral Fertilizers
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Fertilizer application resulted in marked crop yield increases, which for most crops were more than hundred;The reasons for this are many, which include access or availability of inputs, use of organic resources for other purposes in place of soil fertility, nutrient balancing, collecting, transporting and management of organic inputs and economic returns of investments.;
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The integrated application of organic and inorganic fertilizers improve productivity of crops as well as the fertility status of the soil.; Soil degradation due to nutrient mining, erosion and desertification is the major threat to food production in dry zone.;Organic resources not only supply many nutrients for crop production including micronutrients but are also a valuable source of Soil Organic Matter (SOM).;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The replenishment of soil P through PR in combination with judicious field management practices to overcome other nutrient limitations and crop growth constraints, would provide benefits of increased crop production and income to farmers, as well as certain environmental benefits;
Increased crop production and income to farmers;Improved productivity of crops;Providing two crops for the farmers in the same year;Greater efficiency of fertilizer use;Utilized residual N and other rotation benefits
Increased crop yields/production; Crop yield effectively maintained; Improving resilience of soil productive capacity; Decreased pest and disease incidence; Promotes growth of earthworms and other beneficial organisms
resilience of soil productive capacity;enhancing soil fertility;optimize production potentials;reduces wind and water erosion;improves soil structure or tilth
Increase in soil C and N (No quantative evidence);Promotion of growth of earthworms and other beneficial organisms (No quantative evidence)
Open
Anteneh Netsere and Bikila Takala - 2021 - Progress of Soil Fertility and Soil Health Management Research for Arabica Coffee Production in Ethi.pdf
1;2;3
Ethiopia; Gera, Haru, Jimma, Metu, Tepi, Wonago, Bedessa, Agaro, Kossa, Seka, Manna
Soil degradation; Low coffee production; Soil acidity; Declining soil fertility; Nutrient leaching
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mixing coffee pulp and husk with farm yard manure and leguminous plants in a composting pile + Agricultural Solution 2: Application of decomposed coffee husk (DCH) + Agricultural Solution 3: Compost application rates of 5 to 10 tons ha-1 (2 to 4 kg tree-1 in dry weight base) + non-agricultural solution 1: an equal proportion of soil incorporation and surface (50:50%) application techniques.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: 50% recommended NP mineral fertilizer (RMF) (172 and 77 kg ha-1 NP, respectively) + Agricultural Solution 2: 50% recommended DCH (10 ton ha-1 or 4 kg tree-1 on a dry weight basis) + non-agricultural solution 1: Application techniques of organic fertilizer( 50:50% ) + non-agricultural solution 2: long-term effects on soil physicochemical properties, coffee yield and bean quality, and establish cost effective soil fertility management in coffee-growing areas of the country
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Desmodiumspp (green manure crop) + RMF (172 and 63 kg ha-1 NP, respectively) + non-agricultural solution 1: timely revision and calibration of mineral fertilizer recommendations.
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mixing coffee pulp and husk with farm yard manure (FYM) + Agricultural Solution 2: Using lime, P mineral fertilizer, and compost + non-agricultural solution 1: for acid soil management.
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated application of NP mineral fertilizer + Agricultural Solution 2: Desmodium spp. (green manure crop) + non-agricultural solution 1: Weed control
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Adding organic material to the composting pile accelerated the composting process and resulted in nutritionally superior compost in 45 days;Organic fertilizer improves the physicochemical properties of soil over time; Applying organic residues can improve soil physicochemical properties and increase fertilizer efficiency, resulting in a more favorable environment for plant growth and development; An amendment containing 18.75 g pot-1 DCH, 4 g pot-1 lime, and 12.5 g pot-1 DCH was a promising amendment for acid soil management and the production of vigorous coffee seedlings for field planting. This was primarily due to an increase in soil pH and precipitation of exchangeable Al, which fixes P, as well as an increase in soil P solubility and availability to seedlings; An integrated application of mineral fertilizer and Desmodium spp. (green manure crop) can be used as an alternative to mineral fertilizer for long-term soil fertility amendment and promotion of organic coffee production.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Compost application rates of 5 to 10 tons ha-1 (2 to 4 kg tree-1 in dry weight base) and an equal proportion of soil incorporation and surface (50:50%) application techniques were found to be superior in increasing coffee yield; 50% recommended NP mineral fertilizer (RMF) (172 and 77 kg ha-1 NP, respectively) + 50% recommended (DCH (10 ton ha-1 or 4 kg tree-1 on a dry weight basis), 50% RMF + 75% DCH, and Desmodiumspp (green manure crop) + RMF (172 and 63 kg ha-1 NP, respectively) significantly (P≤0.05) promote clean coffee yield at Agaro, Haru and Jimma, respectively; Coffee pulp compost boosted the growth performance of coffee seedlings grown in nursery beds, demonstrating that coffee compost is a desirable soil amendment and a viable material for compost and vigorous coffee seedlings production;Plots amended with NP fertilizer outperformed control plots in terms of coffee tree height, girth, and yield, with the former having the highest and latter having the lowest; At a rate of 10 ton ha-1 coffee by-product compost, the highest clean coffee yield was recorded; Recommended NPK + 50% recommended NPK yielded the highest, most economically profitable, and most acceptable hybrid coffee yield in the Jimma area; The trial results showed that the application of inorganic fertilizer did not have a significant effect on forest coffee yield at the study locations
Increased coffee yield;;Boosted the growth performance of coffee seedlings grown in nursery beds;;Viable material for compost and vigorous coffee seedlings production
Highest clean coffee yield, net benefit, and economic profitability from integrated application of Desmodium spp + 50% Recommended Mineral Fertilizer (RMF) and RMF at Jimma.;Significant clean coffee yield increase from integrated application of 50% recommended NP mineral fertilizer with 50% recommended decomposed coffee husk (DCH) and 50% recommended NP mineral fertilizer with 75% recommended DCH at Haru and Agaro.;Highest, most economically profitable, and most acceptable hybrid coffee yield from Recommended NPK + 50% recommended NPK at Jimma.;Superior clean coffee yield from decomposed coffee husk (DCH) compared to Sesbaniasesban compost.;Highest clean coffee yield at 10 ton ha-1 coffee by-product compost application rate.
Increased clean coffee yield; Production of vigorous coffee seedlings for field planting; Improved soil physicochemical properties, creating more favorable conditions for plant growth and development; Superior dry matter yield of coffee seedlings; Stimulated shoot and root growth in coffee seedlings
Highest clean coffee yield;Improved soil physicochemical properties;Production of vigorous coffee seedlings;Increase in soil pH;Increase in soil P solubility and availability
Carbon sequestration; Biodiversity; Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Open
Amarjit Saikia et al. - 2022 - Effects of Organic Inputs on Soil Health with Special Reference to Potash Management.pdf
India
15; 2; 3
India; Assam, Jorhat; Assam, Dhubri; Assam, Tinsukia; Assam, Sonitpur
Soil health; Environmental pollution; Soil fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Enriched compost
Agricultural Solution 2: Azolla compost
Agricultural Solution 3: Banana vermicompost
Agricultural Solution 4: Banana extract
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Enriched compost
Agricultural Solution 2: Banana vermicompost
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Banana vermicompost
Agricultural Solution 2: Azolla compost
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Banana vermicompost
Agricultural Solution 2: Banana extract spray at PI stage
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Azolla compost
Agricultural Solution 2: Banana extract spray at PI stage
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Banana extract soil application
Agricultural Solution 2: Banana extract spray at PI stage
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Organic fertilization improves the soil structure and texture, enhances the water holding capacity of the soil and increases the microorganism activity in the soil, thereby sustained soil fertility and productivity;Among different organic inputs, the highest available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in soil were recorded in enriched compost (100% RDK i.e., Recommended Dose of Potassium);Banana vermicompost (100% RDK) was found to registered highest microbial biomass carbon (MBC), Dehydrogenase (DH) and Phosphomonoesterase (PMHes) activity but significantly at par with enriched compost (100% RDK);The organic inputs as a whole enhanced the physico-chemical and biological properties of soil;Application of enriched compost resulted in the highest K2O content (158.05 kg/ha) in soil which was at par with vermicompost by banana pseudostem (157.19 kg/ha)
I am unable to find specific sub-outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" within the provided text. The text focuses on the effects of organic inputs on soil health and potash management in paddy cultivation, and does not mention technology uptake, access to services, or delivery costs.
no evidence found
Increased available potassium in soil;Increased available nitrogen in soil;Increased available phosphorus in soil;Increased soil organic carbon (OC);Increased Dehydrogenase (DH) activity
Improves the soil organic carbon;Increases microbial biomass carbon;Improves CEC;Increases available K2O;Increases available N
Carbon sequestration; Biodiversity; Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Open
Akarsha Raj et al. - 2023 - Biochar A Comprehensive Overview of Its Role in Soil Health.pdf
15; 13; 2
India,
India, Rajasthan,
India, Kerala,
India, Uttar Pradesh,
India, Uttarakhand
Soil degradation; Climate change; Food security; Environmental pollution; Waste management
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil conditioner + Agricultural Solution 3: Nutrient retention + Agricultural Solution 4: Soil pH modification + Agricultural Solution 5: Water holding capacity + Agricultural Solution 6: Microbial activity + Agricultural Solution 7: Adsorption of pollutants
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: enhanced soil fertility, nutrient retention, water holding capacity, overall soil health; Improved physical, chemical, and biological qualities of soils; soil carbon sequestration; reducing the bioavailability of pollutants; improved soil structure; promotes long-term soil health; pH modification and liming effect; microbial activity and soil biodiversity; Adsorption of pollutants and soil detoxification.
I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no mention of specific sub-outcomes/outputs/benefits directly associated with "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" resulting from the use or implementation of biochar solutions. The text focuses on the impact of biochar on soil health, fertility, and environmental benefits, but it does not elaborate on how biochar leads to higher technology uptake or impacts service access and delivery costs.
enhanced crop output;improves fertiliser usage efficiency;increased nutrient uptake;sustained supply of nutrients;increases water-holding capacity
Increasing crop productivity;Improved soil fertility (nutrient retention and availability);Improved water holding capacity and soil moisture regulation;Regulation of soil pH and reduction of aluminium toxicity;Improved microbial activity and soil biodiversity
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Soil carbon sequestration;; Reduce greenhouse gas emissions;; Reducing leaching of contaminants into water sources;; Reducing the bioavailability of pollutants impacting living organisms;; Remediation of contaminated soils.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Enhanced crop output;; Enhance soil fertility;; Nutrient retention;; Water holding capacity;; Boosting soil microbial activity.
Carbon sequestration;Reduced greenhouse gas emissions;Biodiversity
Open
Akhilesh Sah - 2020 - Sesbania aculeata a Cost Effective Alternative to Enhance the Soil Health and Productivity of Rice-W.pdf
India
2;11;15
India, Bihar, Sabour
Soil degradation; Food security; Low agricultural productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Sesbania aculeata (green manure crop) + Agricultural Solution 2: inorganic fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: Economics
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Combination of inorganic fertilizer and Sesbania aculeata helped in increasing yield as well as improving soil health;Sesbania aculeata can be used as a viable and cost effective alternative through partial substitution of inorganic fertilizers to enhance the soil health and productivity of rice-wheat system;Integrated use of organics along with chemical fertilizers resulted in increase in SOC of soil (up to 0.79) and decreased in pH and EC;Treatments receiving either 25% or 50% N substitution through organic source resulted a higher built up of available N, P and K content in soil;Organic sources viz. FYM, wheat straw and Sesbania aculeata (green manure crop) used to substitute 50% of recommended N dose in rice were effective in bringing about marked improvement in chemical and biological properties of soils over the years.
Viable and cost effective alternative for partial substitution of inorganic fertilizers;;Enhance the soil health;;Enhance productivity of rice-wheat system.
Maximum net return (Rs. 84379/- ha-1);Maximum B:C ratio (1.27);Increased yield;Higher built up of available N content in soil;Higher built up of available P content in soil
Increase in Soil Organic Carbon content;;Higher built up of available N content;;Higher built up of available P content;;Higher built up of available K content;;raising the microbial density significantly
Increased yield/productivity of rice-wheat system;Increased soil organic carbon content;Increased available N content in soil;Increased available P content in soil;Increased soil microbial population (bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes)
carbon sequestration;biodiversity
Open
Dylan Warren Raffa et al. - 2025 - Agricultural Decision Support Tools in Europe What Kind of Tools Are Needed to Foster Soil Health.pdf
Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Ireland; Italy; Lithuania; Netherlands; Norway; Portugal; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom
1;3;15
Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Ireland; Italy; Lithuania; Netherlands; Norway; Portugal; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom
Soil degradation; Nutrient use efficiency; Water scarcity; Climate change; Soil organic matter
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: AquaCrop + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil moisture sensors + non-agricultural solution 1: economic modules + non-agricultural solution 2: farming practices (cover crops, tillage) + non-agricultural solution 3: user-friendly interface
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cool Farm Tool + Agricultural Solution 2: Roth C + non-agricultural solution 1: economic modules + non-agricultural solution 2: farming practices (cover crops, crop rotation, tillage practices) + non-agricultural solution 3: user-friendly interface
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: NPK balance calculators + Agricultural Solution 2: PLANET + Agricultural Solution 3: MANNER-NPK + non-agricultural solution 1: economic modules + non-agricultural solution 2: farming practices (cover crops, crop rotation, tillage practices) + non-agricultural solution 3: user-friendly interface
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: eo4water + Agricultural Solution 2: soil moisture sensors + non-agricultural solution 1: economic modules + non-agricultural solution 2: farming practices (cover crops, crop rotation, tillage practices) + non-agricultural solution 3: user-friendly interface
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Atfarm + Agricultural Solution 2: Yara N-sensor + non-agricultural solution 1: economic modules + non-agricultural solution 2: farming practices (cover crops, crop rotation, tillage practices) + non-agricultural solution 3: user-friendly interface
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1
Sustaining/improving soil fertility and soil health, it could contribute to achieve nutrient balance and better nutrient management in soil.
Agronomists, consultants and advisors being primary users (No quantative evidence);;Farmers being primary users (No quantative evidence);;Researchers being primary users (No quantative evidence)
Economic profitability (No quantitative evidence);;Yield improvement (No quantitative evidence);;Cost efficiency (No quantitative evidence);;Reduce inputs (No quantitative evidence);;Increase the economic profitability of farms (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Improving soil health and soil functions (No quantative evidence); Achieve nutrient balance and better nutrient management in soil (No quantative evidence); Sustaining/improving soil carbon/SOC (No quantative evidence); Optimising soil moisture (No quantative evidence); Increasing and maintaining the productivity of farmer's land (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
E.D Dayou et al. - 2017 - Impacts of the conventional tillage tools and reduced tillage on the soil fertility preservation cr.pdf
Benin; Mali; Brazil; Morocco; France; Spain
2;15;1
Benin; Mali; Morocco; Brazil; France; Spain; Kazakhstan; Iran; Tunisia
Soil fertility; Soil erosion; Soil compaction; Greenhouse gas emissions; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Reduced tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Zero tillage/direct sowing + Agricultural Solution 3: Direct seeders + Non-agricultural solution 1: Design of effective equipment + Non-agricultural solution 2: appropriate technology
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: conventional tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: minimum tillage + Agricultural Solution 3: direct sowing
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Conventional tillage lowers the fertility of the soil and reduces its productivity; SCT increase soil fertility; Improving soil fertility increases yield with a saving in working time; Conventional tillage induce long-term disturbance of soil properties and reduce fertility; Simplified cultivation techniques and particularly a direct sowing have a positive effect on the amount of soil organic matter, its density and water retention, and final production; SCT refer to a wide range of techniques ranging from superficial tillage to direct sowing under cover of a living crop; These production techniques and mainly direct sowing under vegetation cover reduce soil erosion and increase biomass production and carbon storage; No-till practices are those where the seed is placed directly into the soil with the least amount of tillage possible; SCT and mainly direct sowing are a promising method from the point of view of soil conservation in general and control soil erosion in particular; Quantity of residues left on the soil surface varies according to the type of tillage, with direct sowing leaving more residues; Zero tillage techniques conduct to leave organic residues on the soil surface, which slows down the decomposition process, promotes OM accumulation and consequently improves production capacity; The structure of the unploughed soil improves, allowing the physical protection of soil MO, both by reducing the diffusion of oxygen inside the soil and serving as a physical barrier between the microflora and the substrate; Low OM content was observed under conventional tillage compared to direct sowing; Accumulation of organic matter is generally followed by an increase in the bulk density of the soil, leading to a stable structure on the topsoil; Conventional tillage and minimum tillage yield respectively a density of 1.31 g / cm3 and 1.26 g / cm3, while the direct seeded soil has a value of 1.5 g / cm3; The change in OM and bulk density affects the mode of oxygen and water circulation in soil; Soil moisture behaviour is linked to the organic matter, which allows a better ability to store water; Direct sowing and simplified techniques therefore allow better water retention compared to conventional tillage; Tillage level reduction facilitates significantly earthworm population growth, especially under direct sowing; These effects favour the preservation and increase of soil fertility; Organic matter plays an important role in the structure and protection of soils against degradation agents; Under direct sowing the rate of organic matter evolves remarkably as a function of time, while under conventional tillage, the soil retains substantially the same contents; No-till increases organic matter in the soil, 2.6% against 2.3% measured in conventional mode; Only direct sowing improves soil organic matter level after comparing the use of different farming tools with zero tillage; Organic matter increases by 0.3% in the first year to the third year of direct sowing on clay soil; No-till enhances water intake by preserving the quantity of water present in the soil with a difference of 5% in its favour; This is because soil conservation techniques help first to protect the soil from structural accidents, the formation of mulch increases the density of the topsoil; Soil moisture changes from 5.8% to 12.7% in tillage and from 10.6% to 17.3% in direct sowing on clayey-limestone soils, confirming that no-till under vegetal cover retains more moisture in the soil especially after a few years of direct sowing; No-till soil remains better aggregated opposite to the climate hazards and the desiccationmoistening cycle; No-till facilitate an increase in the carbon stock in the early soil horizons and an increase in the quantity, activity and diversity of microorganisms; Tillage stopping is accompanied by an increase in earthworm densities, which favours macroporosity of biological origin; Direct sowing conserves the high levels of organic matter that are fundamental to preserve the potential capacity of soils; The grain yield was better expressed in conventional driving, reflecting decreases of 26% and 18%, respectively, in the no-till and the Minimum work; Driving in no tillage exceeded the yields obtained in conventional system by 10 q / ha; The good results of minimum tillage and direct sowing are due to more soil moisture availability under these two modes of management compared to conventional tillage; Direct sowing brings more organic matter especially for the protection of the soil against the weather.
;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The STC, such as zero tillage, increase soil fertility and have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;Direct sowing under vegetation cover increase biomass production and carbon storage
;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Crop yields continue to decline, with declining incomes and food insecurity; This technique saves water and provides higher yields than conventional tillage;Improving soil fertility increases yield with a saving in working time;Zero tillage give the highest yields of 38 q / ha, an increase of 10 q / ha from conventional tillage; Zero tillage give the highest yields of 38 q / ha, an increase of 10 q / ha from conventional tillage; the farmer realizes on average a saving of 800 Dh / ha for the implantation of wheat compared to the conventional system; Groundnut showed similar results in terms of the profitability of no-till systems
;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
;Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs
Fuel gain due to a reduction of the number of passages (from 22 to 33 l / ha depending on slope and type of soil);;By opting for direct sowing, the farmer realizes on average a saving of 800 Dh / ha for the implantation of wheat compared to the conventional system (800 Dh / ha)
Higher yields (10 q / ha increase from conventional tillage after the 3rd year); Higher yields (3000 kg compared to 1500 kg with conventional tillage in peanut production); Higher gross margin (205500 FCFA compared to 37000 FCFA with conventional tillage in peanut production); Saving for the implantation of wheat (800 Dh / ha compared to the conventional system); Fuel gain (from 22 to 33 l / ha compared to the conventional system)
Improved soil organic matter content (Direct seeding organic matter content at 0-8 cm depth is 1.99 % OM compared to conventional tillage 1.79 % OM); Increased soil moisture retention (Soil moisture changes from 5.8% to 12.7% in tillage and from 10.6% to 17.3% in direct sowing); Increased hydraulic conductivity (Hydraulic conductivity is 0.72 x 10-4 cm / s for conventional tillage and 5.0 x 10-4 cm / s for no-till soil); Increased earthworm population (No quantative evidence); Higher crop yield (Yields in no tillage exceeded conventional system yields by 10 q / ha after the 3rd year)
Higher soil organic matter content (1.99% to 1.60% on the first three horizons in zero tillage); Increased carbon stock (significantly higher in the first year for very superficial tillage than other techniques [Figure 1 shows approx 21000 kg C/ha at 0-5cm vs approx 19000 kg C/ha in others]); Increased hydraulic conductivity (5.0 x 10-4 cm / s for no-till soil vs 0.72 x 10-4 cm / s for conventional tillage); Increased soil moisture content (10.6% to 17.3% in direct sowing vs 5.8% to 12.7% in conventional tillage on clayey-limestone soils); Increased abundance of earthworms (No quantative evidence)
Increase in organic matter content / carbon stock (Organic matter content at 0-8cm layer is 1.99% under direct sowing, 1.82% under minimum tillage, and 1.79% under conventional tillage after 3 years; Carbon stock of the 0-5 cm horizon is approximately 32 g C/kg soil for very superficial tillage, 28 for minimum tillage, 25 for conventional tillage, and 24 for ploughing after one year);;Increase in carbon accumulation rate (Carbon accumulation rate under direct sowing increases from approximately 100 g C/m²/year in the first year to 170 g C/m²/year in the fourth year);;Increase in earthworm abundance (Total earthworm abundance is approximately 500/m² under direct sowing, 300/m² under minimum tillage, and 150/m² under conventional tillage after 7 years);;Increase in quantity of soil micro-organisms (No quantitative evidence);;Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Ekrem Ozlu et al. - 2019 - Soil health indicators impacted by long-term cattle manure and inorganic fertilizer application in a.pdf
United States of America
2;15;6
United States of America, South Dakota, Brookings County
Soil health degradation; Soil microbial activity decline; Nutrient cycling disruption; Crop productivity reduction; Soil organic matter depletion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Dairy manure + Inorganic fertilizers (INF)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Manure impacts labile pools of soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen (N) which can influence soil microbial composition (MCC) and enzyme activities, and hence soil health;Data from this study showed that, compared to inorganic fertilizers, manure can be beneficial in enhancing soil health indicators; Application of manure, either alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizer (INF) increases soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration which appears to be more effective in maintaining or restoring soil organic matter (SOM) than the INF alone; Different application rates of manure and INF can influence C stability and hence improve the soil health by controlling C-N fractions, enzymes activities and MCC;Manure increases SOM, soil aggregation and N content, decreases soil bulk density and maintain the soil pH those are beneficial in supporting soil microbial activities
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
no evidence found
Increased average urease activity (26.8% higher than INF at planting); Increased β-Glucosidase activity (6 and 14% higher with manure than INF at 1MAP and harvesting); Increased cold-water extractable nitrogen (CWEN) (enhanced with high manure rate compared to high fertilizer rate (53%), and CK (90%)); Increased cold-water extractable carbon (CWEC) (HM at planting (0.41 g kg−1) was 2.73, 3.15, 3.42, 3.73, and 4.56 times higher than under MM (0.15 g kg−1), LM (0.13 g kg−1), HF (0.12 g kg−1), MF (0.11 g kg−1), and CK (0.09 g kg−1)); Increased arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF) (average AMF increased by 10.2% at planting and 28.1% at 1MAP in comparison to INF addition)
Urease activity (26.8% higher activity with manure compared to INF at planting);;β-Glucosidase enzyme activity (6% and 14% higher activity with manure compared to INF at 1MAP and harvesting, respectively);;Cold water extractable carbon (CWEC) (M vs. F contrast significant at all sampling times; HM at planting (0.41 g kg−1) was 4.56 times higher than CK (0.09 g kg−1));;Cold water extractable nitrogen (CWEN) (Enhanced with high manure rate compared to high fertilizer rate (53%) and CK (90%); M vs. F contrast significant at all sampling times);;Arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF) (Manure addition increased average AMF by 10.2% at planting and 28.1% at 1MAP compared to INF)
Increased Cold Water Extractable Carbon (under HM at planting (0.41 g kg−1) was ... 3.42 ... times higher than those under ... HF (0.12 g kg−1)); Increased Hot Water Extractable Carbon (under HM at planting (1.02 g kg−1) was the highest and MF (0.5 g kg−1) the lowest); Increased average Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Fungi (AMF) (by 10.2% at planting and 28.1% at 1MAP in comparison to those under INF addition); Increased Total bacteria at 1MAP (overall manure addition (84.86% mol) increases the total bacteria 1MAP in comparison to INF (81.94% mol)); Increased Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Fungi (AMF) under high manure (under HM (4.15% mol) than those under ... HF (3.49% mol) at the planting)
Open
Edoardo A C Costantini and Stefano Mocali - 2022 - Soil health, soil genetic horizons and biodiversity#.pdf
Italy
15;2;14
Italy
Soil health degradation; Biodiversity loss; Climate change mitigation; Food security; Water quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil Conservation + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil biological activity + non-agricultural solution 1: Nature preservation + non-agricultural solution 2: Programs relating to nature conservation + non-agricultural solution 3: Networks of soil reserves.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Loss of the natural self-organization of genetic horizons is a form of soil health degradation;‘Caring for Soil is Caring for Life’ is the title of the EU mission proposed by the Soil Health and Food Mission Board in 2020, which aims to ‘ensure that 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 and can provide essential ecosystem services’;A soil agroecosystem is considered healthy if it has a good balance of mineral and organic substances and living components
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Storing and regulating the flow of water or mitigating the effects of climate change; Clays to bind with organic matter, and the formation of stable organo-mineral complexes, which foster organic carbon sequestration
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Embedded in the concept of soil health there is the enduring state of soil in a dynamic equilibrium within its natural habitat, able to maintain the quality of the whole environment.
Anthraquic horizon :In the upper part of the horizon, creating a condition that fosters the presence of nematodes, algae and bacteria, and limits earthworms, arthropods and fungi;; In the lower part, soil compaction, with associated massive structure, reduce macroporosity and pore connectivity, further limit organisms’ activity and mobility, which are concentrated along with the few roots and fissures that cross the pan (No quantative evidence).
Value of ecosystem services (from US $1610 to US $19,420 ha− 1 y− 1 in organic fields and from US $1270 to US $14,570 ha− 1 y− 1 in conventional fields for arable systems);; Provision of food and other biomass (No quantative evidence);; Sustain productivity (No quantative evidence);; Suppression of soil-borne plant diseases (No quantative evidence);; Nutrient regulation (No quantative evidence)
Higher monetary value of ecosystem services in organic fields compared to conventional fields (US $1610 to US $19,420 ha− 1 y− 1 in organic fields and from US $1270 to US $14,570 ha− 1 y− 1 in conventional fields); Suppression of soil-borne plant diseases (No quantative evidence); Fostering large biodiversity (No quantative evidence); Fostering organic carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence)
Suppression of soil-borne plant diseases (No quantitative evidence); Improved plant health (via rhizosphere) (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil resilience (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil structure (via rhizosphere) (No quantitative evidence); Organic carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Supporting biodiversity (No quantative evidence);;Fostering organic carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence);;Higher biological diversity in organically managed soils (No quantative evidence);;Spatial variation in bacteria diversity across soil profile (20–40% decrease from surface soil to deeper horizons);;Soil aggregates having larger alpha diversities (No quantative evidence)
Open
Duncan Chambers et al. - 2016 - Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community literature mapping exercise an.pdf
United Kingdom
None
United Kingdom,
Societal problems:
Health service quality; Access to healthcare; Diagnostic accuracy; Waiting times for diagnosis; Cost-effectiveness of healthcare;
Solution Package 1:
* Agricultural Solution: N/A
* Non-agricultural solutions:
* Policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals
* Reduced waiting times for diagnosis
* Availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment
* The ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts
* Staffing
* Training
* Governance
* Quality control.
Solution Package 2:
* Agricultural Solution: N/A
* Non-agricultural solutions:
* Staffing
* Training
* Quality control.
Solution Package 3:
* Agricultural Solution: N/A
* Non-agricultural solutions:
* Policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals
* Availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or improved equipment
* The ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts
Solution Package 4:
* Agricultural Solution: N/A
* Non-agricultural solutions:
* Human resources (skilled staff)
* Premises
* Equipment
* Patient views
Solution Package 5:
* Agricultural Solution: N/A
* Non-agricultural solutions:
* Policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals
* the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis and potentially treatment
* The availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment
* the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts
* staffing
* training
* governance
* quality control
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**;1. Community diagnostic centre (offering multiple diagnostic services or specializing in a single test); possibly non-NHS provider;2. Community outreach from secondary care;3. Specialist nurse or advanced nurse practitioner [dedicated to test (e.g. spirometry) or condition (e.g. diabetes)];4. Mobile service delivered at GP surgery or other community setting (possibly by non-NHS provider);5. Shared services within a primary care consortium (e.g. GP federation); telediagnosis (interpretation/advice from secondary care).
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
Community ultrasound can guide patient management and potentially reduce unnecessary referrals, at least for some indications/settings. (No quantative evidence);; Open-access testing may have a positive impact on the diagnostic pathway for breathlessness in terms of appropriate referral to specialists and in terms of a reduction in misdiagnosis. (No quantative evidence)
Avoided referrals to hospital (32%);; Reduced referrals to hospital cardiologists (41.5% vs 52.5%)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Based on the provided text, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned that belong to the category "Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions" and are stated to be a result of the described solutions/solution packages.
Open
Edwin K Akley et al. - 2023 - Wood Vinegar Promotes Soil Health and the Productivity of Cowpea.pdf
Ghana
1;7;2
Ghana,
Nyankpala,
Tolon.
Societal problems:
Low crop productivity; Declining soil health; Food insecurity; Poor smallholder farmer livelihoods; Climate Change.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Wood Vinegar (WV) +
Agricultural Solution 2: Soil Drenching +
Agricultural Solution 3: Foliar Application +
Economic Solution 1: Value: Cost Ratio (VCR)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Wood Vinegar (WV) +
Agricultural Solution 2: Soil Drenching +
Agricultural Solution 3: Foliar Application +
Agricultural Solution 4: Wang-kae Cowpea Cultivar +
Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Insecticide (K-Optimal) +
Non-Agricultural Solution 2: Irrigation (Rainfed condition)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Wood Vinegar (WV) +
Agricultural Solution 2: Soil Drenching +
Agricultural Solution 3: Foliar Application +
Agricultural Solution 4: Organic Fertilizer (biochar–manure compost) +
Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Herbicide (for soil salinity and pH improvement)
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Enhancement of soil enzymes and MBN
2. Improvement of soil health indicators.
3. Enhancement of POXC and mineralizable C with soil drenching;
4. Positive effect on soil biological and chemical indicators; Improved soil enzyme activities, microbial biomass N, mineralizable C and POXC; PA positively altered soil biological and chemical properties
5. High activity of acidic phosphatase, α-glucosidase, dehydrogenase and arylsulphatase
;
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. Greater shoot dry matter, nodulation and grain yield of cowpea.
2. Better economic returns than the control.
3. Enhanced profitability.
4. Increased grain yield of cowpea by 45.5% and 28.3%, respectively over the control in 2021, and in 2022, by 66.3% and 30% with respect to the control;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits identified in the text that belong to the category.
Grain yield increase (average across two seasons FA: 29.4%, SD: 55.4% compared to control); Economic returns / Value:Cost Ratio (average across two seasons VCR=2.24 for soil drenching, VCR=1.77 for foliar application, VCR=1.27 for control); Pod yield (average across two seasons Control: 1292 kg ha−1, FA: 1752 kg ha−1, SD: 1873 kg ha−1); Stover yield (average across two seasons Control: 3272 kg ha−1, FA: 4303 kg ha−1, SD: 3343 kg ha−1); Harvest index (average across two seasons order SD > FA = Con; significantly increased by 30% with respect to the control in 2022)
Increased Geometric Mean Enzyme Activity (GMea) (No quantative evidence); Enhanced Microbial Biomass Nitrogen (MBN) (No quantative evidence); Increased Permanganate-Oxidizable Carbon (POXC) (No quantative evidence); Increased Acidic phosphatase activity (+65.9% over the control); Increased Dehydrogenase activity (+66% over the control)
Grain yield increased (Increased by 55.4% with soil drenching and 29.4% with foliar application compared to the control over 2 years); Geometric Mean Enzyme Activity (GMea) significantly enhanced (Con ~9, FA ~25, SD ~28); Nodule mass increased (2-year mean: Con 50.9, FA 67.0, SD 63.1 mg plant−1); Microbial biomass Nitrogen (MBN) significantly enhanced (Con ~2.0, FA ~2.7, SD ~3.2 mg N kg-1); Permanganate-Oxidizable Carbon (POXC) significantly enhanced by soil drenching (Con ~250, FA ~290, SD ~340 mg C kg-1)
Permanganate-Oxidizable Carbon (POXC) (Soil drenching enhanced POXC compared to foliar application and the control (Figure 3B));;Geometric Mean Enzyme Activity (GMea) (Both soil drenching and foliar application showed significantly greater GMea values compared with the control (Figure 3A));;Microbial Biomass Nitrogen (MBN) (Soil drenching recorded the highest MBN, followed by foliar application and then the control (Figure 3C))
Open
Eleanor Beth Whyle and Jill Olivier - 2016 - Models of public–private engagement for health services delivery and financing in Southern Africa a.pdf
Angola; Botswana; Lesotho; Malawi; Mozambique; Namibia; South Africa; Swaziland; Zambia; Zimbabwe
3;10;17
Angola; Botswana; Lesotho; Malawi; Mozambique; Namibia; South Africa; Swaziland; Zambia; Zimbabwe
Health system strengthening; Donor reliance; Health system strengthening; Health financing; Health service delivery
Solution Package 1:
Public–private mix (PPM) approach + financing + social marketing + contracting out + global PPP (GPPP) + co-location PPP + sector-wide approach (SWAp) + private finance initiative (PFI) + DP regulation + voucher programmes + public–private partnership (PPP) + Alzira model PPP + Franchising + non-governmental organizations (NGOs) + international donors
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text related to higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions mentioned in the provided full text content.
Open
Efstratios Loizou et al. - 2025 - Enhancing Climate Resilience and Food Security in Greece Through Agricultural Biodiversity.pdf
Greece;
1;13;2
Greece
Climate Change Adaptability; Food Security; Pest and Disease Vulnerability; Soil Conservation; Nutrient Cycling
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop genetic diversity + Agricultural Solution 2: Species diversity + Agricultural Solution 3: Ecosystem diversity + Agricultural Solution 4: Functional diversity + non-agricultural solution 1: Organic farming + non-agricultural solution 2: Silviculture + non-agricultural solution 3: Conservation of regional varieties + non-agricultural solution 4: National legislation (support from EU CAP) + non-agricultural solution 5: Global policies such as the EU CAP and the UN SDGs + non-agricultural solution 6: Farm to Fork strategy + non-agricultural solution 7: Climate-smart agriculture + non-agricultural solution 8: Sustainable land management
Here's the breakdown of the KPIs and their associated sub-outcomes/benefits as reported in the text, prioritizing the most relevant:
* **Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:** agricultural diversification in Greece increased crop yields, especially during climatic shocks;increased genetic variation promotes yields in the context of climate change, providing food security; changes in agro-diversity in Greece have been associated with improved climate resilience in terms of reduced yield volatility.
* **Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:** The heterogeneity of ecosystems in agricultural landscapes means a heterogeneity of soil and water functions; Maintaining a diversity of ecosystems in agricultural areas for soil conservation and water management is a critical component of sustainable agriculture; In Greece, such management has been associated with improved soil health and better protection of water resources in various ecosystems; agricultural land and forests, wetlands, and agroforestry systems improve the structure and fertility of soils and, thus, crop productivity.; various analyses have shown that diverse agricultural systems are more resilient to environmental pressures or are able to sustain higher levels of agricultural productivity; Plant diversity leads to soil nutrient availability and promotes the growth of microbes that are essential for soil sustainability; In Greece, climate-smart measures have improved food production, soil health, and water management; climate-smart practices use natural production cycles and crop heterogeneity to support the agricultural process
* **Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:** Ecosystem services include nutrient cycling, soil formation, and water purification, which are important for sustaining agriculture;Diverse ecosystems provide multiple services, including nutrient cycling, soil formation, and water purification; Having a diverse ecosystem is helpful in mitigating environmental stresses, thus providing the support needed to improve soil and water sustainability. This resilience is particularly important in countries such as Greece, where water and soil scarcity is expected to worsen due to climate change; functional diversity allows the ecosystem to maintain important ecosystem processes, such as nutrient cycling, pollination, and pest control, even when the environment changes;These practices have not only improved food production but also the management of genetic resources and ecosystem services;ecosystems are better able to cope with change and risk, which is useful for maintaining crop productivity and ecosystem integrity.
* **Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:** This is in line with climatesmart agriculture, which aims to increase productivity, incomes, and food production while achieving climate resilience and reducing greenhouse gas emissions
* **Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.** Climate-smart agriculture also embraces agricultural biodiversity as one of the approaches to enhancing on-farm systems
Here are the specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs", from the provided full text, along with any quantitative evidence provided:
* No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to this category are mentioned in the text as a direct result of the solutions and solution packages specified.
Capacity to slow the spread of pests and diseases (0.621);;Impact on efficient nutrient cycling and ecosystem services (0.421);;Contribution to improved natural resources (soil health and water management) (0.111);;Impact on agricultural productivity (yield resilience/stability) (0.54)
Enhances soil health and water management (Beta = 0.202, t = 3.96, Sig. = 0.001);;Efficient nutrient cycling and ecosystem services (Beta = 0.550, t = 15.04, Sig. = 0.000)
Improved soil health (No quantitative evidence);Enhanced nutrient cycling (No quantitative evidence);Soil conservation (No quantitative evidence);Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);Maintaining important ecosystem processes (pollination, pest control) (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantative evidence); Carbon sequestration (absorbing CO2) (No quantative evidence); Conservation of genetic resources/germplasm (No quantative evidence); Enhancement of ecological diversity (No quantative evidence); Maintaining high levels of biodiversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Ee Ling Ng and Junling Zhang - 2019 - The Search for the Meaning of Soil Health Lessons from Human Health and Ecosystem Health.pdf
China
2;11;15
Australia, Victoria; China
Land degradation; Food security; Environmental pollution; Soil degradation; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: National soil testing and fertilizer recommendation (STFR) + Agricultural Solution 3: Straw return + Agricultural Solution 4: Implementing a zero-growth plan in chemical fertilizer use + non-agricultural solution 1: Subsidies (cash and fertilizers) + non-agricultural solution 2: Top-down policy
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: the capacity of a living soil to function, within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health;a healthy agricultural soil is one that is capable of supporting the production of food and fibre, to a level and with a quality sufficient to meet human requirements, together with continued delivery of other ecosystem services that are essential for maintenance of the quality of life for humans and the conservation of biodiversity;the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals and humans;Global production loss in wheat, rice, maize and barley grain yields due to soil depletion of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were estimated to be 210, 491 and 433 Tg equivalent rice grain yield per year, respectively, in 2000;From the perspective of ecosystem health, such a leaky system has low resilience and can easily collapse into degraded land, and the soil may have to be abandoned or restored at high costs;Some of the successful practical measures included conservation tillage, national soil testing and fertilizer recommendation (STFR), straw return and implementing a zero-growth plan in chemical fertilizer use
National soil testing and fertilizer recommendation (STFR) (No quantative evidence);;Implementing a zero-growth plan in chemical fertilizer use (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Achieving sustainable productivity (No quantitative evidence); Achieving food security (No quantitative evidence)
Based on the analysis of the provided text, there are no specific reported sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the specified categories, are explicitly stated as results of the mentioned solutions/policies, and are supported by quantitative proof within the text. The text discusses the *importance* of soil health and resilience, defines them, lists the *consequences of their loss* (with quantitative data), and mentions policies aimed at promoting soil health, stating they achieved "some degree of success" conceptually, but does not quantify the resulting specific outcomes for soil health, productivity, or resilience.
Reduced emissions from straw burning (No quantative evidence)
Open
Fanuel Laekemariam et al. - 2016 - Physiographic characteristics of agricultural lands and farmers’ soil fertility management practices.pdf
Ethiopia
1;2;15
Ethiopia; Ethiopia, Southern Nations’, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State, Wolaita zone, Damot Gale district, Damot Sore district, Sodo Zuria district
Soil degradation; Low crop yield; Soil fertility depletion; Soil erosion; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil conservation + Agricultural Solution 2: Application of sufficient organic and inorganic fertilizers
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:Application of sufficient organic and inorganic fertilizers are recommended to restore the soil fertility and improve crop productivity;Fertilizer application rate showed significant differences among the crop types and the use of inorganic fertilizer was higher for cereals and haricot bean compared to perennial crops.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil management interventions such as soil conservation, application of sufficient organic and inorganic fertilizers are recommended to restore the soil fertility and improve crop productivity;Fallowing is among soil management practices considered to replenish soil fertility;Farmers use more of the organic fertilizer to enset, and larger application of inorganic fertilizer to the outfield crops; Crop residues are stores for nutrients that upon decomposing would release plant nutrients for the subsequent crops;The rotation in the present study is implemented in the following patterns: (maize → haricot bean → teff ); (root crops → haricot bean → teff or cereals with root crops)
No outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belong to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Higher Maize yield with fertilizer use (2.08 ± 0.81 t ha−1 compared to 0.55 ± 0.31 t ha−1 without fertilizer); Higher Teff yield with fertilizer use (0.70 ± 0.19 t ha−1 compared to 0.15 ± 0.10 t ha−1 without fertilizer); Higher Wheat yield with fertilizer use (1.81 ± 0.74 t ha−1 compared to 0.45 ± 0.28 t ha−1 without fertilizer); Higher Haricot bean yield with fertilizer use (1.12 ± 0.32 t ha−1 compared to 0.34 ± 0.14 t ha−1 without fertilizer); Higher Potato yield with fertilizer use (7.11 ± 3.16 t ha−1 compared to 2.14 ± 1.09 t ha−1 without fertilizer)
Maize yield (with fertilizer application) (2.08 ± 0.81 t ha−1); Sweet potato yield (with fertilizer application) (11.13 ± 3.71 t ha−1); Taro yield (with fertilizer application) (13.33 ± 4.68 t ha−1); Potato yield (with fertilizer application) (7.11 ± 3.16 t ha−1); Wheat yield (with fertilizer application) (1.81 ± 0.74 t ha−1)
Higher Taro yield on fertilized fields (13.33 ± 4.68 t ha−1); Higher Sweet potato yield on fertilized fields (11.13 ± 3.71 t ha−1); Higher Potato yield on fertilized fields (7.11 ± 3.16 t ha−1); Higher Coffee yield on FYM fertilized fields (4.9 ± 1.5 t ha−1); Higher Maize yield on fertilized fields (2.08 ± 0.81 t ha−1)
None.
Open
Fakher Kardoni - 2023 - Principal component analysis (PCA) on temporal changes of soil health indicators.pdf
Iran
15; 2; 13
Iran; United States of America,
Food and nutritional security; Climate change mitigation; Soil degradation; Land degradation; Water quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Perennial plants + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Non-tillage practices + Non-agricultural solution 1: GHG emissions mitigation + Non-agricultural solution 2: Carbon capture improvement + Non-agricultural solution 3: Temporal yield stability
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Corn crops + Agricultural Solution 2: Soybean crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Annual crops + Non-agricultural solution 1: N fertilization
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: organic carbon (OC), total carbon (TC), fall soil total nitrogen (TN);Wet aggregate stability (WAS);higher soil moisture;The lowest bulk density was recorded in treatment 2 (Miscanthus), showing the impact of this plant on soil health and quality.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: carbon sequestration; TC was higher in perennial than annual, indicating the influence of cropping practices in soil organic carbon (SOC) and carbon reservoir.
There are no sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the text that are specifically results of use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages specified and belong to the category of "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs."
no evidence found
Increased Total Carbon (TC) (Recorded higher in perennials (27692-30658) than some annuals (19292-20138));Increased Organic Carbon (OC) (Recorded higher in perennials (0.431-0.547) than some annuals (0.207-0.339));Lower Bulk Density (BD) (Lowest recorded 1.14 in Miscanthus (Trt2));Increased Soil Moisture (Moi) (Recorded greater under no tillage/non annual system (22.45-24.7) than some tillage/annuals (19.79-22.04));Increased Wet Aggregate Stability (WAS) (Recorded greater under no tillage/non annual system (44.95-67.69) than some tillage/annuals (33.09-45.57))
Improved Total Carbon (Up to 30658);Improved Organic Carbon (Up to 0.547);Lower Bulk Density (As low as 1.14);Increased Wet Aggregate Stability (Up to 67.69);Increased Soil Moisture (Up to 24.7)
Higher Organic Carbon (OC) levels (OC values in perennial treatments: 27692, 27725, 30658);Higher Total Carbon (TC) levels (TC values in perennial treatments: 27692, 27725, 30658);Higher Fall Soil Total Nitrogen (TN) levels (Fall Soil TN values in perennial treatments: 2258.7, 2283.13, 2629.64)
Open
Fahmuddin Agus et al. - 2016 - IMPROVING AGRICULTURAL RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH SOIL MANAGEMENT.pdf
Indonesia
15; 2; 13
Indonesia, Java, East Nusa Tenggara, Lampung, Mindanao, Philippines, Northern Laos, Oklahoma, United States
Climate change; Food security; Soil degradation; Water scarcity; Agricultural productivity
Solution Package 1:
Conservation tillage + vegetative soil conservation techniques (agroforestry, vegetative grass strips, cover crop and cropping pattern) + engineering soil conservation techniques (bench terrace, sediment pits, ridge tillage, biopores and vertical mulch) + application of organic fertilizers + water harvesting + soil nutrient management + soil amelioration + soil biological management
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* Management of soil organic matter is very central in adapting to climate change because of its important role in improving water holding capacity, increasing soil infiltration capacity and soil percolation, buffering soil temperature, improving soil fertility and enhancing soil microbial activities.
* The use of organic matter is very central in improving soil physical, chemical and biological properties. The use of organic matter; in the form of mulch or incorporated plant residues, barnyard manure and living mulch improves soil structure (reduces soil bulk density, increases macro and water available porosities) and in turn increases infiltration capacity, water holding capacity and water percolation.
* Soil chemical properties can also be improved by organic matter application, depending on the organic matter quality. Barnyard manure, for example, is superior to chemical fertilizers in terms of macro- and micro- nutrients contents.
* Organic matter also behaves as an electron donor in the soil that provides energy for soil microbial activities.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* Technology on rainfall prediction is a key to avoid water shortage or excessive water. This could be coupled with soil organic matter management technologies and selection of hardy high yielding varieties.
* Proper and balance use of fertilizers will increase crop resilience to extreme climatic conditions and increase crop yield.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* In addition, tree component is also important sequestering carbon in the tree biomass above and below ground. Multistory agroforestry has larger carbon stocks compared to simple agroforestry.
* Applying silica fertilizer stimulates rice plant growth, especially root biomass and rhizosphere oxygen concentration; the latter is related to reduction of methane emission. Therefore silicate fertilizer is a good soil amendment for reducing methane emission as well as increasing lowland rice production.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
* There are various kinds of vegetative soil conservation measures, including agroforestry, vegetative grass strips, cover crop and cropping pattern.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
* Cropping calendar is an important tool to support the selection of cropping pattern systems. It is a dynamic system that advises farmers about the planting time, warns about the areas likely to experience floods and droughts, recommends rice crop varieties, and provides time series information on fertilizer needs in certain districts such that the local authorities can adjust fertilizer distribution and advise on farming tools needed for the season.
Water harvesting leading to increased cropping intensity (For horticultural farming, the use of small WRP increases cropping intensity from one to two or three crops per year in a pot (plastic bag) system.);; Farmers' choice of cropping pattern is a strategy for pests and diseases avoidance and seasonal market price fluctuation adaptation (No quantative evidence);; Conservation tillage leads to increased crop yields, especially on light-textured soils (Increased crop yield under conservation tillage is especially occurring on lighttextured soils)
Increase water use efficiency (12.26 to 13.15 kg/ha/mm with mulch compared to 09.72 kg/ha/mm without mulch);; Increase crop productivity (2,972 to 3,495 t/ha with mulch compared to 2,343 t/ha without mulch);; Increased cropping intensity (from one to two or three crops per year);; Increased crop yields (No quantative evidence);; Improve fertilizer use efficiency (No quantative evidence)
Increased crop yield (from 2.343 t/ha to 3.495 t/ha);;Increased water use efficiency (from 9.72 kg/ha/mm to 13.15 kg/ha/mm);;Reduced runoff (33% to 49%);;Reduced maximum soil temperature (1.4 to 2.4°C);;Increasing cropping intensity (from one to two or three crops per year)
Reduced runoff by mulching (33% to 49%); Increased water use efficiency of wheat by mulching (9.72 to 13.15 kg/ha/mm); Reduced maximum soil temperature by mulching (1.4 to 2.4°C); Higher monthly average soil water content with sediment pits and ridge tillage (No quantitative evidence); Reduced soil erosion by conservation tillage (No quantitative evidence)
Increase soil organic carbon (No quantative evidence);Increasing soil carbon stock (No quantative evidence);Sequestering carbon in the tree biomass above and below ground (No quantative evidence);Reduction of methane emission (No quantative evidence);Increase biological activity and biodiversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Fahmyddin Araaf Tauhid - 2018 - URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE A REVIEW.pdf
There is no specific country mentioned where the solution is researched. The document discusses urban climate resilience in a general context, and provides examples of projects that are implemented in different countries. The document does not present specific results of researching a solution for a specific country.
11;13;15
Indonesia, Makassar; United States of America, New York City, Louisiana, Mississippi; Netherlands
Flooding; Drought; Sea level rise; Urban heat island effect; Building energy demands
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rain gardens
Agricultural Solution 2: Bioswales
Agricultural Solution 3: Permeable pavements
Agricultural Solution 4: Rainwater harvesting systems
Agricultural Solution 5: Trees
Agricultural Solution 6: Green roofs
Agricultural Solution 7: Green wall
Agricultural Solution 8: Vegetation
Agricultural Solution 9: Coastal "green infrastructure"
Non-agricultural solution 1: Managing flood risk
Non-agricultural solution 2: Building resiliency to drought
Non-agricultural solution 3: Reducing the urban heat island effect
Non-agricultural solution 4: Lowering building energy demands
Non-agricultural solution 5: Improving coastal resiliency
Non-agricultural solution 6: Reducing energy needed to manage water
Non-agricultural solution 7: Green jobs opportunities
Non-agricultural solution 8: Health aspect
Non-agricultural solution 9: Providing recreation space
Non-agricultural solution 10: Improving property values
Non-agricultural solution 11: Government policies
Non-agricultural solution 12: Planning
Non-agricultural solution 13: Design
Non-agricultural solution 14: Green roof rebate program
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.; Managing flood risk; Building resiliency to drought; Reducing the urban heat island effect; Lowering building energy demands; Improving coastal resiliency; Reducing energy needed to manage water.
Lowering building energy demands (It is estimated by Liu et al. (2003) that dense green roof application may reduce the energy demand in the summer by over 75 percent.);;Reducing energy needed to manage water (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Reduce soil erosion (No quantative evidence)
Decrease runoff (65-85% for green roofs); Refilling groundwater reserves (No quantative evidence); Reduce soil erosion (No quantative evidence); Protecting floodplain functions (No quantative evidence); Habitat and wildlife connectivity (No quantative evidence)
Lowering building energy demands (Over 75 percent); Habitat and wildlife connectivity (No quantitative evidence); Reducing energy needed to manage water (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Fabio Tittatelli et al. - 2016 - Soil fertility management in organic greenhouses in Europe.pdf
Germany; Sweden; Italy; Spain; France; The Netherlands
1;2
France; Germany; Italy; Netherlands; Spain; Sweden
Soil fertility decline; High nutrient demands; Soil-borne diseases and pests; Nutrient imbalances; Water management
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Agro-ecological service crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Organic fertilizers and amendments + Agricultural Solution 4: Complementary mineral fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 5: Soil tillage practices + Agricultural Solution 6: Weed control + Agricultural Solution 7: Irrigation system + Agricultural Solution 8: Disease management +
non-agricultural solution 1: Regulatory framework + non-agricultural solution 2: Decision Support System (DSS) + non-agricultural solution 3: Water management
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:** Maintenance and enhancement of soil life and natural soil fertility, soil stability and soil biodiversity preventing and combating soil compaction and soil erosion, and the nourishing of plants primarily through the soil ecosystem; Organic plant production shall use tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or increase soil organic matter, enhance soil stability and soil biodiversity, and prevent soil compaction and soil erosion; The fertility and biological activity of the soil shall be maintained and increased by multiannual crop rotation including legumes and other green manure crops, and by the application of livestock manure or organic material, both preferably composted, from organic production; Agro-ecological service crops (ASCs) are not directly aimed to yield but they can help to sustain agricultural production through a wide range of mechanisms. They enhance soil fertility by improving soil structure, soil biological activity, soil organic matter content and nutrient availability and, if N-fixing, they supply nitrogen to the cropping system
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:** The use of any decision support systems (DSS) is not common by farmers. As a result, there is tremendous variability in both the quantities of nutrients applied and the resulting soil fertility status on organically managed farms. Soil tests and simple budgeting tools can help producers maintain balance to achieve success;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No quantative evidence
no evidence found
Increased total organic carbon (Increased in organic systems compared to conventionally managed systems);Increased total nitrogen (Increased in organic systems compared to conventionally managed systems);Increased cation exchange capacity (Increased in organic systems compared to conventionally managed systems);Soil organic matter content is relatively high (Percentages of 5–7% are quite common in Northern high intensive systems);Bulk density reduced (Reduced in organic systems compared to conventionally managed systems)
High organic matter content (5–7%); Increased total organic carbon (No quantative evidence); Increased total nitrogen (No quantative evidence); Increased cation exchange capacity (No quantative evidence); Improved infiltration (No quantative evidence)
High soil organic matter content (percentages of 5–7%);; Favouring soil biodiversity (No quantative evidence);; Increased plant diversification and general biodiversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
F Rekik et al. - 2020 - Understanding soil health and associated farmers' perceptions in Colombian coffee systems.pdf
15;2;12
Colombia; Cauca; Cajibio, Timbío, Popayán, Piendamó, Morales, Rosas
Low profitability in agriculture; Climate variability in agriculture; Environmental impacts of agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Shade-grown coffee +
Non-agricultural solution 1: More transparent and traceable business models +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Price premiums +
Non-agricultural solution 3: Certification (e.g., Rainforest Alliance, Fair Trade, Smithsonian Bird Friendly) +
Non-agricultural solution 4: Credit +
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Agroecological practices +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Quality-related price premiums +
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Sustainable farming practices (e.g., shade-grown coffee) +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Relationship Coffee Model (RCM) +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Transparency +
Non-agricultural solution 3: Traceability +
Non-agricultural solution 4: Active engagement of smallholders throughout the value chain +
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:High aggregate stability values;Higher organic matter levels in soil provides nutrients and water to coffee trees and promotes biological activity and nutrient cycling;Higher protein(nitrogen) boosts coffee yields.
Co-op member farms had on average higher SH than nonmember farms (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Higher overall soil health index scores on co-op member farms (p=0.0394);Higher soil health scores on plots perceived as most fertile (62% and 57%, p=0.01)
Higher overall soil health index score for co-op members (p = 0.0394)
Open
F G Santeramo et al. - 2016 - Farmer Participation, Entry and Exit Decisions in the Italian Crop Insurance Programme.pdf
Italy; Switzerland; Spain; France; Greece; Canada; United States of America (USA)
None
Italy,
Italy, Northern Italy, Southern Italy
Crop insurance participation; Entry and exit decisions in crop insurance
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop insurance
Non-agricultural solution 1: Subsidies on insurance contracts
Non-agricultural solution 2: Ex-post payments (disaster compensation)
Non-agricultural solution 3: Education and outreach programs
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop insurance
Non-agricultural solution 1: Premium subsidies
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belongs to the category, that are mentioned as direct result of use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages in the full text.
None.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" are reported in the full text content as a result of the use/implementations of the specified solutions and solution packages.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Evelyne Kiptot and Steven Franzel - 2019 - Developing sustainable farmer-to-farmer extension experiences from the volunteer farmer–trainer app.pdf
Kenya
1;2;17
Kenya,
Agricultural productivity; Food security; Low staffing levels; Low funding; Low income
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Feed technologies + Agricultural Solution 2: Fodder and pasture establishment + Non-agricultural solution 1: Local institutional support from dairy POs + Non-agricultural solution 2: Building social capital through farmer groups (DMGs) + Non-agricultural solution 3: Technical backstopping + Non-agricultural solution 4: VFTs’ motivation
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: 2. VFTs help create awareness among farmers;VFTs help solve management and production challenges; VFTs help capture issues that require the attention of the POs.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Increased production as a result of farmers learning from VFTs and adopting new technologies; Have better breeds of dairy cows; Increased milk production.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:0
Increased milk production (27.5% of farmers reported increased milk production as a benefit of new skills learned);;VFTs are easily accessible (43% of farmers reported that VFTs being easily accessible is an advantage);; VFTs were knowledgeable (22% of farmers reported that VFTs being knowledgeable is an advantage);;VFTs offered hands-on training (22% of farmers reported that VFTs offering hand-on training is an advantage)
increased milk production (27.5%)
Increased milk production (27.5%); Improved the quality of milk (No quantitative evidence)
None.
no evidence found
Open
Esther O Thomsen et al. - 2019 - Simple Soil Tests for On-Site Evaluation of Soil Health in Orchards.pdf
United States of America
2;15;3
United States of America, Utah, Kaysville
Soil health; Agricultural sustainability; Soil quality; Erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Modified slake tests
Agricultural Solution 2: Solvita®respiration test
Agricultural Solution 3: Soil organism biodiversity counts
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Earthworm abundance test
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Simple physical tests were conducted on soil collected in August in both years, two to three days after an irrigation event. Soil was collected with a shovel from the top 10 cm of each replicate, transported to the lab and air-dried. ; Soil organisms and their diversity are also important indicators of soil health as they are responsible for organic matter breakdown and nutrient release, and may rapidly respond to shifts in management practices
Sieve and bucket test(No quantative evidence);;Hose test(No quantative evidence);;Total organism count(No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Assessment of Microbial Biomass (Solvita®respiration correlated with microbial biomass R=0.88);;Assessment of Soil Structure / Aggregate Stability (Surface test correlated with microbial biomass R=0.83);;Assessment of Soil Organism Diversity / Total Count (Organism Diversity count correlated with BR R=0.68);;Assessment of Available Soil Nitrogen (Mosser correlated with lab N R=0.80);;Assessment of Available Soil Potassium (LaMotte correlated with lab K R=0.72)
No quantative evidence
Open
Esperanza Arnés et al. - 2018 - Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) A Tool Empowering Sustainability and Food Security in Peasant Farming S.pdf
Nicaragua
1; 2; 15
Nicaragua;
Food and Nutritional Security; Sustainability of Peasant Farming Systems; Environmental Conservation; Socioeconomic Welfare; Agricultural Extension Services
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated pest management + Agricultural Solution 2: Erosion control technologies + Agricultural Solution 3: Fertility conservation technologies + non-agricultural solution 1: Food and nutrition security + non-agricultural solution 2: Access to basic services + non-agricultural solution 3: Participation in local organizations + non-agricultural solution 4: Off-farm income
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated pest management + non-agricultural solution 1: Level of theoretical knowledge + non-agricultural solution 2: Food strategies in lean-season + non-agricultural solution 3: Production costs + non-agricultural solution 4: Female participation
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:**
1. Conservation of natural resources (broad and long lasting impact)
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:**
1. Erosion control technologies (breadth is high); 2. Fertility conservation technologies (breadth is less)
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:**
1. Maize production; 2. Bean production; 3. Sorghum production
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
Access to basic services (Significant differences were found for seven out of the 25 indicators in the community where the FFSs were implemented next (Llanitos), whereas they were observed for only four indicators in Ángel 2.);;Level of theoretical knowledge (The level of theoretical knowledge and access to basic services also undergo a steady and significant improvement (Table 4).);;Integrated pest management (IPM) (No quantative evidence)
Maize production (Participants vs Nonparticipants in Terrero (236.63 kg caput−1 vs 133.29 kg caput−1); in Angel 2 (119.72 kg caput−1 vs 85.26 kg caput−1)); Bean production (Participants vs Nonparticipants in Terrero (458.14 kg caput−1 vs 141.56 kg caput−1); in Angel 2 (130.05 kg caput−1 vs 83.00 kg caput−1)); Maize yield (Participants vs Nonparticipants in Terrero (1.40 Mg ha−1 vs 0.89 Mg ha−1)); Number of income sources (Participants vs Nonparticipants in Terrero (5.11 vs 3.91); in Llanitos (4.47 vs 2.22)); Income from sale of on-farm production (over 60% for Terrero participants)
Erosion control technologies (Terrero: FFS Participants 3.22 vs Nonparticipants 2.09; Llanitos: FFS Participants 3.40 vs Nonparticipants 2.22; Ángel 2: FFS Participants 2.64 vs Nonparticipants 1.75);Fertility conservation technologies (Terrero: FFS Participants 3.00 vs Nonparticipants 1.73; Llanitos: FFS Participants 3.27 vs Nonparticipants 2.11; Ángel 2: FFS Participants 2.55 vs Nonparticipants 1.92)
Adoption of Erosion control technologies (Participants adopted 3.22 techniques vs. Nonparticipants 2.09 techniques in Terrero after 8 years);; Adoption of Fertility conservation technologies (Participants adopted 3.00 techniques vs. Nonparticipants 1.73 techniques in Terrero after 8 years);; Increase in number of species grown (Participants grew 12.56 species vs. Nonparticipants 5.82 species in Terrero after 8 years);; Adoption of Integrated pest management (Participants scored 0.47 coefficient vs. Nonparticipants 0.03 coefficient in Terrero after 8 years);; Improvement in Maize yield (Participants achieved 1.40 Mg ha−1 vs. Nonparticipants 0.89 Mg ha−1 in Terrero after 8 years).
Integrated pest management (0.47 vs 0.03); Number of species grown (12.56 vs 5.82); Erosion control technologies (3.22 vs 2.09); Fertility conservation technologies (3.00 vs 1.73)
Open
Esawy Mahmoud et al. - 2024 - Enhancing Maize Yield and Soil Health through the Residual Impact of Nanomaterials in Contaminated S.pdf
Egypt; Russia
1;3;2
Egypt; Russia
Heavy metal contamination; Soil degradation; Food security; Soil health; Crop yield
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nanobiochar (nB) + Agricultural Solution 2: Nano-water treatment residues (nWTR) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil salinity reduction + non-agricultural solution 2: Soil sodicity reduction + non-agricultural solution 3: Heavy metals immobilization
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nanobiochar (nB) + Agricultural Solution 2: Nano-water treatment residues (nWTR) + non-agricultural solution 1: Enhanced cation exchange capacity (CEC) + non-agricultural solution 2: Soil fertility improvement
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nanobiochar (nB) + Agricultural Solution 2: Nano-water treatment residues (nWTR) + non-agricultural solution 1: Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) improvement + non-agricultural solution 2: Dehydrogenase activity (DHA) improvement + non-agricultural solution 3: Catalase activity (CLA) improvement + non-agricultural solution 4: Maize yield increase
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Significant increase in exchangeable cations, cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil fertility, soil organic matter (OM), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and a decrease in soil salinity and sodicity;Increased soil fertility; Improved soil physical properties; increased DHA, CLA, and MBC;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Greatly boosted maize yield by 54.5–61.4% and 61.9–71.4%, respectively; Increasing the soil’s sustainability and fertility is necessary to increase maize productivity;Increasing crop yields by 10% to 20% while nB fertilization lowered fertilizer use by 30% to 50% ;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Decrease in heavy metals; Decrease in extractable Pb, Ni, Cd, and Co concentrations; The relative decrease (%) in Cd was 44.11%, 49.01%, and 50.0% for nB50, nB100, and nB250, respectively, compared to the control treatment.; The concentrations of Pb, Ni, Cd, and Co decreased by 22.21% and 28.13%, 21.87% and 30.92%, 42.15% and 52.49%, and 29.25% and 30.82%, respectively, upon the addition of B and WTR.; Eco-friendly farming method;
* No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category was reported in the full text.
Maize yield increase (54.5–61.4% and 61.9–71.4% compared to control)
Reduction in DTPA-extracted Cadmium concentrations (up to 60.78% relative decrease compared to the control);Increased Maize Grain Yield (increased by 54.5–61.4% for the nB and 61.9–71.4% for the nWTR-amended soils, respectively);Increased Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC) (increased by 1.31, 1.61, and 1.63 times for nB rates compared to the control treatment);Increased Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) (increased by 14.04, 38.43, and 23.48% for nB rates compared to the control treatment);Increased Catalase activity (CLA) (increased by 350% relative to the control for nWTR-treated soils at 50 mg kg−1)
Increased maize grain yield (increased by 54.5–61.4% for nB-amended soils and 61.9–71.4% for nWTR-amended soils); Decrease in bioavailable heavy metals (Relative decrease in Cd was 44.11%, 49.01%, and 50.0% for nB50, nB100, and nB250 compared to control); Increase in Cation Exchange Capacity (Increased by 14.04%, 38.43%, and 23.48% for nB50, nB100, and nB250 compared to control); Increase in microbial biomass carbon (Increased by 1.31, 1.61, and 1.63 times for nB50, nB100, and nB250 compared to control); Decrease in soil sodicity (ESP) (Increased by 19.33%, 25.98%, and 23.85% for nB50, nB100, and nB250 compared to control)
Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) (ranging from 165.7 mg kg−1 in the control to 295.1 mg kg−1 in the nWTR50, increased by up to 1.63 times (nB250) over control); Soil organic matter (OM) (increased from 1.23% (C) and elevated by 11.76% (nWTR250) more than the control pot); Dehydrogenase activity (DHA) (increased by up to 39.3% (nWTR50) relative to the control); Catalase activity (CLA) (increased by up to 350% (nWTR50) relative to the control)
Open
Ernst-August Nuppenau - 2018 - Soil Fertility Management by Transition Matrices and Crop Rotation On Spatial and Dynamic Aspects i.pdf
Germany
15;2;12
Germany
Soil fertility degradation; Pest control; Biodiversity loss; Water retention; Ecosystem services
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation
Agricultural Solution 2: Mixed farming
Non-agricultural solution 1: Farmer communication
Non-agricultural solution 2: Extension services
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation
Agricultural Solution 2: Mixed cropping
Non-agricultural solution 1: Landscape-oriented analysis
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation
Non-agricultural solution 1: Payments for “greening” (EU)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Crop rotation as a method to improve soil fertility and control pests;build soil fertility on recycling of organics (humus formation);nature-based methods have regained some attraction due to declining soil fertility;maintaining soil fertility;crop rotation and conservation have a considerable impact on soil and yields;appreciation of advantages of long-term rotations through changed modelling and programming tools;long-term effects of rotations (soil fertility and ecosystem services);soil fertility and pest regulation primarily through controlling crop mixes;a potential decline in soil fertility due to “too” narrow crop rotations;a joint ecological and agronomical assessment of the fertility of land;using a transition matrix, we can establish a dynamic programming approach in bio-economic modelling being closely linked to ecological arguing and modelling of system change;measurement of degradation vs. fertility as a share of land in different states;land quality categories deliver constraints to farming in future periods;different fertility categories appreciable jointly by farmers and ecologists;Farmers face quality “states” of their land (as a mix) being the consequence of farming in the past and future relies on the past.;"States” are characterized by discrete fertility categories, for instance “very fertile, . . . , fertile, poor, . . . , very poor”.;land quality categories are the result of cropping patterns in the previous period.;The analysis is on the potential natural fertility (yields);Qualified scheme for transition.;land categories along the potential to grow crops with different yields.;a cluster of fields with different states of fertility;soil fertility and thresholds;Deliberations on rotation choice may be a joint exercise between landscape ecologist, agronomists, and farmers.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: decreasing biodiversity and conservation is now a request for measures directed at the reduction of negative externalities;major problems of biodiversity loss from converting traditional cultural landscapes into production steppes;demand for nature conservation in cultural landscapes is actually an environmental service, ecosystem service, of multi-functional agriculture for the society;A further aim is to present a dynamic optimization approach, including rotation and spatial design of landscapes which is specifically oriented towards field sizes, field edges, and needs to accommodate low-yielding crops;some organisms (including. micro-organisms in the soils) are no longer present/abundant and farmers voice that they cannot rely on ecosystem services.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: ecologically-oriented researchers and the society, itself, see major problems of biodiversity loss from converting traditional cultural landscapes into production steppes; some authors think that if the demand for nature conservation in cultural landscapes is not given priority problems of sustainability in the landscape will persist;landscape-oriented analysis for the benefits from rotation;ecosystem services from a mosaic of small fields;long-term effects of rotations (soil fertility and ecosystem services);at the landscape level a further benefit from the public good character of ecosystem services provided at the landscape level;ecosystem health;fram or landscape related?;In order to address the higher degree of complexity in dynamic optimization models in a frame of landscape and ecosystem services;ecosystem states in landscapes, yet by expert opinion, modelling, forecast, etc., can be a method that is highly successful if it works in the same framework and with the categories outlined above;Ecosystem health is a norm which cannot be compromised.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Pests and declining fertility can strongly decrease yields;farmers face problems with diminishing ecosystem services (fertility) even as a private good (natural resources and input) which reduces individual revenues, (i.e., yields, outputs, etc.) increases costs (inputs, labour, etc.), and reduces income;Knowing that crop rotation and conservation have a considerable impact on soil and yields;An essential question is how a potential drop in fertility can be linked to economic planning of crops, space, and rotation?;working with yield regressions which were implemented in linear programming LPs;the modeling and depiction of economic consequences of different rotations with regards to long-term effects;A transition matrix enables research to include processes and thresholds. For example, an agronomist can set up a temporal link between yield potentials of today and yields in the future;Temporal constraints show the availability of good land in t+ . . . and in different productivity categories as subject to the choice of a specific rotation;The advantage is that farm planning can be associated with categories and gross margins simultaneously, requiring minimal knowledge on system development and degradation;The size of the criteria index I > s (threshold) is a matter of open debate and subject to agronomist knowledge.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
Based on the provided text and the specified criteria, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies." that are reported *as a result of the use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages specified* (crop rotation modelling, transition matrices, dynamic programming) within this full text. The text describes the modelling framework and its potential to demonstrate or analyze these benefits, but does not present results achieved by applying the framework.
Higher natural yields (linked to examples like wheat at 30, 40, or 50 dt/ha); Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Control pests (No quantitative evidence); Build soil fertility on recycling of organics (humus formation) (No quantitative evidence); Reduced need for chemical inputs (No quantitative evidence)
Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);;Building soil fertility on recycling of organics (humus formation) (No quantitative evidence);;Controlling pests (No quantitative evidence);;Promoting pollination (No quantitative evidence);;Water retention (No quantitative evidence)
Promote pollination (No quantitative evidence); Humus formation (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Eva Stricker et al. - 2025 - Compost amendments up to one inch restore dry rangeland soil health.pdf
15; 13; 2
United States of America; New Mexico, Bernalillo County, Mora County
Degradation of rangeland productivity; Soil erosion; Water scarcity; Climate change; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Compost application
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil carbon;Increased hydraulic conductivity;Approximately doubled litter cover;Soil structure was more resilient to livestock impact.
Increased litter cover ;; Increased soil carbon ;; Increased hydraulic conductivity in one year (increase of 1.05 cm min-1 for each cm of compost at Polk's Folly in 2021);; Reduced erosion (No quantative evidence) ;; The ground absorbed much less of a footprint and significantly less soil attached itself to footwear (No quantative evidence)
Increased aboveground biomass sought by livestock (75% more aboveground biomass inside exclosures than outside in plots with 2.5 cm of compost); Increased soil organic carbon (increased in the 0–10 cm depth of soil by 1.24 kg m−2 at Polk's and 0.71 kg m−2 at Sol after two years with 2.5 cm addition); Increased hydraulic conductivity (increase of 1.05 cm min−1 for each cm of compost added in 2021 at Polk's Folly); Increased root biomass (increase of 41 g m−2 per cm of compost added in 2022 at Polk's Folly); Decreased bulk density (decreased 0.05 g cm−3 per cm of compost added in 2022 across both ranches)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (by 1.24 kg m 2 at Polk's and 0.71 kg m 2 at Sol after two years with 2.5 cm compost); Increased Hydraulic Conductivity (increase of 1.05 cm min 1 for each cm of compost at Polk's Folly in 2021); Increased Litter Cover (approximately doubled after two years with 2.5 cm compost); Decreased Bulk Density (decreased 0.05 g cm 3 per cm of compost added in 2022 across both ranches); Increased Aboveground Biomass (at least 3 g m 2 per cm of compost added more where livestock was excluded than where livestock was present at Sol)
Soil organic carbon (nearly twice as much organic carbon compared to controls after 2 y with 2.5 cm addition); Hydraulic conductivity (increase of 1.05 cm min-1 for each cm of compost added in 2021 at Polk's Folly); Litter cover (approximately doubled after two years with 2.5 cm addition); Root biomass (increase of 41 g m-2 per cm of compost added in 2022 at Polk's Folly); Bulk density (decreased 0.05 g cm-3 per cm of compost added in 2022 across both ranches)
Soil organic carbon increase (nearly doubled compared to control after two years; increased by 1.24 kg m-2 at Polk's and 0.71 kg m-2 at Sol after two years at 2.5 cm depth in 0-10 cm soil)
Open
Etienne Laliberté et al. - 2017 - Soil fertility shapes belowground food webs across a regional climate gradient..pdf
Australia; Panama; Argentina; Sweden;
None
Australia; Australia, Jurien Bay; Australia, Guilderton; Australia, Yalgorup; Australia, Warren; Panama
Soil fertility; Climate change; Soil aging; Nutrient limitation; Ecosystem development.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Root biomass.
Agricultural Solution 2: Bacterial biomass.
Agricultural Solution 3: Fungal biomass.
Agricultural Solution 4: Nematodes
Agricultural Solution 5: Microarthropods.
Non-agricultural solution 1: Climate gradient.
Non-agricultural solution 2: Soil organic matter.
Non-agricultural solution 3: Leaf area index (LAI).
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increases in root weight with increasing soil age across chronosequences.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category specified are mentioned in the full text.
Based on the provided full text and the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies", there is no information that matches the category requirements. The text focuses on ecological relationships between soil fertility, climate, and soil food webs, discussing ecological processes, biomass, and community structure, rather than agricultural yields, incomes, or specific input efficiencies related to external solutions/packages.
No outcomes found matching the specified criteria.
no evidence found
Changes in soil organic carbon storage (Changes in soil organic matter during long-term ecosystem development varied among chronosequences, but organic matter was lowest at the youngest stage for all sequences and highest at the intermediate stages for all sequences except Yalgorup);; Consistent increases in root weight (consistent increases with increasing soil age across chronosequences);; Ratio of fungal-feeding to fungal-feeding plus bacterial-feeding nematodes (significantly greater at the oldest stage than at the other four stages)
Open
Ermita Hernandez Heredia - 2023 - Organic soil amendments Enhancing vegetable production & soil health in Puerto Rico.pdf
Puerto Rico
2;15;13
Puerto Rico, semi-arid region, wet region
Food security; Climate change impacts; Unsustainable agricultural practices; Soil degradation; Contamination
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure + Agricultural Solution 3: Biochar + Agricultural Solution 4: Compost + Agricultural Solution 5: Coffee pulp compost + Agricultural Solution 6: Spent mushroom compost + non-agricultural solution 1: Sustainable farming practices
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improved soil structure, water holding capacity; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Increased nutrients, soil microbiota, carbon sequestration and soil organic matter; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increase vegetable production
There is no mention of higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs, therefore I cannot provide an answer.
Increased total yield of tomatoes (increased the total yield of tomatoes by 31%); Reduced silverleaf disorder (reduced up to 78%); Yield similar at 50% N needs (similar to applying compost based on 100% crop N needs); Spent mushroom compost similar total yield to organic commercial fertilizer (similar total yield); Increase in soil organic matter (increase of 400%)
Increase in the mean change of soil organic matter due to coffee pulp compost use (400%); Reduction of plants expressing silverleaf disorder due to higher compost amount (up to 78%); Greater retention of nutrients (No quantitative evidence); Greater retention of moisture (No quantitative evidence); Improvements in soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Increased soil organic matter (increased by 400%);; Reduced plants expressing silverleaf disorder (reduced up to 78%);; Increased total yield of tomatoes with spent mushroom compost vs biochar (increased by 31%);; Similar total yield of tomatoes with spent mushroom compost vs organic commercial fertilizer (similar total yield);; Similar yield in semi-arid region with 50% N compost vs 100% N (similar yield)
Increase in soil organic matter (increase of 400% in the mean change compared to the use of organic commercial fertilizer in six months in the semi-arid region in tomato crops);;Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence);;Soil microbiota (No quantitative evidence);;Large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Erin Wepruk et al. - 2022 - Identifying rotation and tillage practices that maintain or enhance soil carbon and its relation to.pdf
Canada
15; 2; 13
Canada; Ontario, Delhi, Elora, Ottawa, Ridgetown
Soil degradation; Climate change; Food security
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop Rotation (maize–soybean) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health scores
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Rotation (continuous alfalfa) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health scores
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Rotation (maize, soybean, winter wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: No-tillage + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health scores
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil organic matter is an important variable in determining soil fertility and productivity;Integrating soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties into a single metric or score to describe a soil’s health is becoming increasingly common to evaluate management practices;Soil health is defined as the capacity of a soil to function within ecosystems and land-use boundaries to sustain biological productivity, environmental quality, and plant and animal health;One key attribute of soil health is SOM;Healthy soils are productive soils.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Agricultural soils have been identified as having a high carbon storage potential due to the depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks associated with cultivation and conversion to agricultural production;The large organic carbon saturation deficit in agricultural soils suggests that agricultural soils are potentially important carbon sinks that could be exploited with proper land use and management practices;Sequestering carbon in the soil has the potential to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and enhance soil health;Storing additional carbon could potentially lead to reductions of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The goals of this study were to identify management practices that maintain or enhance soil health scores and soil carbon and to identify agricultural soils in Ontario that can further accumulate soil carbon and thereby enhance soil health scores.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soils with no-tillage management in Ridgetown, Delhi, and Elora had higher OSHA scores, and there was no effect of tillage system in Ottawa.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Our findings indicate that the majority of agricultural soils in Ontario are capable of storing more carbon and have a carbon deficit of up to 2 kg m−2.
No sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belong to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs".
Higher crop yields (No quantitative evidence)
Increased soil health scores (No quantitative evidence);Higher crop yields (No quantitative evidence);Increased SOC levels (No quantitative evidence);Promoted aggregate mean weight diameter (No quantitative evidence);Lower water stress (No quantitative evidence)
Strong positive relationship between SOC concentration and OSHA scores (R2=0.62; P<0.001);;Weak negative relationship between carbon saturation deficits and OSHA scores (R2=0.11; P<0.001);;Smaller carbon saturation deficit with conventional tillage in Ridgetown maize–soybean rotation (2.95 g C kg soil−1);;Smaller carbon saturation deficit with continuous alfalfa rotation in Elora (7.25 g C kg soil−1)
Smallest carbon deficit in Elora (continuous alfalfa rotation) (7.25 g C kg soil−1);Smallest carbon deficit under Ridgetown conventional tillage (maize-soybean rotation) (2.95 g C kg soil−1);Potential carbon storage in Ontario agricultural soils (0 to 2 kg m−2 in the top 20 cm of the soil);Largest carbon deficit in Elora (maize–soybean rotation) (12.07 g C kg soil−1);Carbon deficit under Ridgetown no tillage (maize-soybean rotation) (8.97 g C kg soil−1)
Open
Erin L Wilkus et al. - 2018 - Genetic Patterns of Common-Bean Seed Acquisition and Early-Stage Adoption Among Farmer Groups in Wes.pdf
Uganda
1;2;15
Uganda; Colombia; Kenya
Agricultural production; Crop genetic diversity; Seed system; Variety adoption; Farmer group.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Participatory varietal selection (PVS) + Agricultural Solution 2: Developing new varieties + non-agricultural solution 1: Farmer association + non-agricultural solution 2: Market Information + non-agricultural solution 3: Seed exchange networks
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Participatory varietal selection (PVS) + Agricultural Solution 2: Developing new varieties + non-agricultural solution 1: Farmer groups + non-agricultural solution 2: Seed exchange networks + non-agricultural solution 3: Market standards
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improved varieties + non-agricultural solution 1: Seed systems
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. Households that participated in PVS trials showed higher levels of molecular variance overall, which was due principally to acquisition of seeds from organizations, highlighting the importance of PVS trials
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Distinct adoption patterns, described on the basis of the overall household seed stock characteristics and the consequences that adopted material had on that seed stock, emerged among the four groups of households;
2. The comparisons between adopted breeder-selected materials and market-sourced or household-saved seeds from the current study revealed a range of seed acquisition patterns that varied in levels of adoption, diversification, and replacement of Seed Engufu;
3. This study takes a unique approach, linking household seed source data to seed stock molecular analysis, to explain how household seed sourcing activities impact crop genetic diversity and maintenance of novel germplasm.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
1. PVS-trial varieties that were evaluated by breeding program-affiliated households did not show high levels of genetic relatedness to Seed Engufu;
2. Forty percent of the genetic composition of K20 samples and 24% of K 132 was of the Seed Engufu population cluster (K = 4).
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. An evaluation of Uganda production conditions from 2010 found that Hoima District in the Albertine Rift of western Uganda had highly degraded landscapes, rapidly decreasing soil fertility, and increasingly variable rainfall levels.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. Varietal adoption and ongoing selection under agronomic and social pressures represent two major processes that shape in situ crop genetic diversity and the generation and maintenance of distinct “landraces
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits in the full text that belongs to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased overall genetic diversity of household seed stock among households participating in participatory varietal selection (PVS) (774.93 vs. 606.14);; Increased genetic diversity of adopted Mesoamerican seeds among households in the Kakindo Sustainable Cooperative (SSWP: 611.03);; Increased genetic diversity of adopted Andean seed stock among households in the Akumulikire Women Group (SSWP: 359.5)
Open
Eri Maeda et al. - 2015 - A cross sectional study on fertility knowledge in Japan, measured with the Japanese version of Cardi.pdf
Japan
3
Japan, Tokyo, Setagaya-ku, Saitama, Higashimatsuyama-shi
Fertility decline; Lack of accurate fertility information; Low fertility knowledge; Delayed childbearing; Health inequalities.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Fertility Education + non-agricultural solution 1: School based education + non-agricultural solution 2: Community education + non-agricultural solution 3: Social network approaches + non-agricultural solution 4: Mass Media Coverage
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.; Educational interventions, both in schools and in the community, may be needed to increase fertility knowledge in the general population because most people obtain fertility knowledge from mass media, which has been shown to often present distorted and inaccurate fertility information.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits of the category mentioned in the full text.
no evidence found
no evidence found
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text for the specified category.
no evidence found
Open
Emmanuel Tolno et al. - 2015 - Economic Analysis of the Role of Farmer Organizations in Enhancing Smallholder Potato Farmers’ Incom.pdf
Guinea
1;2;10
Guinea,
Middle Guinea,
Timbi Madina,
Timbi Touny,
Hafia,
Pita prefecture,
Labe prefecture,
Fouta Djallon region
Poverty; Agricultural productivity; Income
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer Organizations + Agricultural Solution 2: Improved market participation + non-agricultural solution 1: Agricultural development policy + non-agricultural solution 2: Poverty reduction + non-agricultural solution 3: Institutional innovations + non-agricultural solution 4: market access
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer organizations + Agricultural Solution 2: Collective services (common property management, technology development and testing, and management of rural infrastructure, and marketing of key production inputs or farm outputs) + non-agricultural solution 1: Economic and agricultural reforms + non-agricultural solution 2: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) + non-agricultural solution 3: National Policy on Agricultural Development – Vision 2015 + non-agricultural solution 4: Rural development + non-agricultural solution 5: socio-economic decline
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer organizations + Agricultural Solution 2: Provision of funds, farming goods and technical counseling for peasants and ensuring the marketing of their products. + non-agricultural solution 1: Economic, social and political functions + non-agricultural solution 2: Support the production and marketing of single cash crop by providing a number of services to their members, from inputs supply, marketing and market linkage development to lobbying and advocacy + non-agricultural solution 3: Socio economic development
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improved access to production input and adoption of high quality production technics + Agricultural Solution 2: Marketing of farmers’ produce and providing market incentives + Agricultural Solution 3: Develop farmers training schemes and stimulate innovation + non-agricultural solution 1: Infrastructure and community development + non-agricultural solution 2: Credit + non-agricultural solution 3: Market incentives + non-agricultural solution 4: Training schemes + non-agricultural solution 5: Infrastructure development
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer organizations + Agricultural Solution 2: Improved agricultural technology adoption + non-agricultural solution 1: Intensification of agriculture + non-agricultural solution 2: Increased incomes + non-agricultural solution 3: Market orientation
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer organizations + Agricultural Solution 2: Providing support to farmers’ organizations + non-agricultural solution 1: Intensification and development of smallholder agriculture + non-agricultural solution 2: Provision of improved farm inputs + non-agricultural solution 3: Output marketing
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. The results revealed that the age of the potato farmers, land ownership, extension service, credit access and off-farm income are positively associated with group membership while gender and education level of the farmer negatively influenced their decision to join farmer groups. Results of the second stage outcome equation found positive farm income effects of group membership. Furthermore, results revealed that farm income is predominantly determined by labor used, the size of the cultivated potato area, share of potato sold and potato market price.
2. Smallholder producers participation in market-oriented production holds potential for diversifying their incomes and increase agriculture productivity hence promoting food security and poverty eradication.
3.There is a positive effect on small-scale farmers’ income from being member in a farmers’ organization (Bachke, 2009). And membership to such organizations is considered to increase the level of agricultural production and yield economic benefit to farmers as well as promote their general welfare (Oyeyinka et al., 2009; Mwaura, 2014).
4. By participating in farmers’ group, farmers could significantly increase their income from potato production. For instance, group membership on average, was able to increase the participant’s farming income by 7,413,487 fg per cultivation.
5. Results also point that farm income is positively and significantly affected by labor used, potato price, share of potato sold and cultivated potato area. Furthermore, the analyses on the profitability estimation revealed that group members were able to earn significant higher net farm profit than non-members; the results show that there was a statistically significant difference in terms of net farm income between farmers’ group members and non-members.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
1. Farmer based organizations have attracted interest as vehicles for providing an array of collective services including common property management, technology development and testing and management of rural infrastructure, and marketing of key production inputs or farm outputs (Tinsley, 2004).
2. Group members realize a farm profit of nearly twice than that of non-members. This is certainly due to the support they receive from their membership in farmers’ group. However, the total farm management and production cost is nearly the same between members and non-members of farmers’ group. The cost on seed, farm manure, labor and machinery as well as the fixed input cost present no significant difference between the two groups. Farmers in the study area in general, in addition to the high cost of farm input, are constrained to access to farm input and agricultural equipment.
There is no mention of Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs in the context of use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages specified in the document.
Increased farm income (7,413,487 fg per cultivation); Higher net farm profit (nearly twice that of non-members); Lower fertilizer cost (accounting for about 16% of total cost for members vs about 30% for non-members)
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the full text that belong to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health".
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Emmanuel Frossard et al. - 2017 - The Challenge of Improving Soil Fertility in Yam Cropping Systems of West Africa..pdf
Benin; Burkina Faso; Côte d’Ivoire; India; Japan; Nigeria; Sri Lanka
1;2;15
Benin,
Burkina Faso,
Côte d’Ivoire,
India, Kerala,
Japan, Miyako Islands,
Nigeria, Western Nigeria,
Puerto Rico,
Sri Lanka,
Switzerland,
Soil fertility degradation; Food security; Income generation; Crop yield; Sustainable agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Soil fertility management + less demanding yam cultivars + microorganisms fostering plant nutrition + intercropping yam with legumes + organic mulch + waste recycling + mounding or ridging + less demanding yam cultivars + introduction of yam in rotations + cultivation of yams in sites where water, organic matter, and nutrients accumulate + ISFM + Innovation platforms + national agricultural extension agencies
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Positive impacts of N, P, and K inputs on tuber yields; Increased uptake of N derived from the soil by the crop due to fertilizer input; Intercropping yam with herbaceous legumes in the presence of fertilizer increases tuber yield and nutrient recycling rate; Addition of G. sepium, Tithonia diversifolia, or C. odorota mulches can improve yam yield by providing nutrients, limiting weed invasion and decreasing soil temperature; Mounding or ridging lead to higher tuber yields than no-till
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Positive relationship between soil organic carbon stocks and tuber yields of D. rotundata with maximum yields obtained after forest and Chromoleana odorata fallows; NPK addition had increased the rate of soil organic matter mineralization
No relevant outcomes found.
Positive impacts of N, P, and K inputs on tuber yields (No quantitative evidence); Increased uptake of N derived from the soil by the crop (No quantitative evidence); Intercropping yam with herbaceous legumes in the presence of fertilizer increases tuber yield (No quantitative evidence); Addition of organic mulches can also improve yam yield (No quantitative evidence); Mounding or ridging lead to higher tuber yields (No quantitative evidence)
Higher tuber yields when plants grew in a soil high in organic matter after a long-term forest-derived fallow compared to a soil low in organic matter following a long-term savanna-derived fallow (40 t ha−1 for D. alata and 21 t ha−1 for D. rotundata when grown in soil high in organic matter vs 21 t ha−1 for D. alata and 3.7 t ha−1 for D. rotundata when grown in soil low in organic matter);; Positive relationship between soil organic carbon stocks and tuber yields (No quantative evidence);; Higher tuber yields linked to mounding or ridging (No quantative evidence);; Improve yam yield linked to mulches (No quantative evidence);; Positive effect of NPK input on D. alata yield (No quantative evidence)
Positive effect on D. alata yield following NPK input (No quantitative evidence); Increased tuber yield following intercropping yam with herbaceous legumes in the presence of fertilizer (No quantitative evidence); Improve yam yield following addition of organic mulches (No quantitative evidence); Lead to higher tuber yields than no-till following mounding or ridging (No quantitative evidence); Increase of D. rotundata tuber yield following urine input (No quantitative evidence).
Increased nutrient recycling rate (No quantitative evidence);Fixing N from the atmosphere (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Emily W Duncan et al. - 2019 - Phosphorus and Soil Health Management Practices.pdf
Colombia; Germany; Canada; United States of America
6;15;2
Colombia,
Germany,
Canada, Ontario,
United States of America; Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio
Water quality degradation; Eutrophication; Soil degradation; Ecosystem health; Fishery decline
Solution Package 1:
Conservation tillage + Cover crops + Nutrient placement (fertilizers and manures) + Drainage management
Solution Package 2:
Conservation tillage + Cover crops + Injecting or banding of fertilizers and manures under no-till
Solution Package 3:
Controlled drainage with subirrigation + Rye cover crop + whole farm management system
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Reduced soil disturbance, improving biodiversity, maintaining soil cover, and maintaining continuous plant growth; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
Increased crop yields (No quantitative evidence);Reduced fertilizer and pesticide inputs (No quantitative evidence)
increased crop yields (No quantative evidence); improved nutrient cycling (No quantative evidence); increase soil microbial biomass (No quantative evidence); increasing aggregate stability (No quantative evidence); P accumulated by the cover crop... released... to nourish the following crop (No quantative evidence)
Reduced sediment delivery (0.31 Mg ha-1 for conservation tillage compared with intensive tillage 0.58 Mg ha-1);;Reduced particulate P losses (No quantitative evidence);;Mitigate N leaching (No quantitative evidence);;Improved nutrient cycling (No quantitative evidence);;Improved water quality (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Emily E Oldfield et al. - 2015 - How much SOM is needed for sustainable agriculture.pdf
United States of America
2;15;12
United States of America;
Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Water pollution; Climate change; Loss of biodiversity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: conservation tillage
Non-agricultural solutions: policies for sustainable land management, setting SOM targets, implementing standardized long-term experiments
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Stores nutrients and water to promote plant growth, thus limiting leaching; provides energy for decomposers that increase nutrient availability; and adds structure that improves drainage and reduces erosion.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
no evidence found
Stores nutrients and water (No quantitative evidence);; Increase nutrient availability (No quantitative evidence);; Drought resilience (No quantitative evidence);; Improves drainage (No quantitative evidence);; Reduces erosion (No quantitative evidence)
drought resilience (No quantitative evidence); decreased sediment and nutrient losses to freshwater systems (No quantitative evidence); improvements in soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); stores nutrients and water to promote plant growth, thus limiting leaching (No quantitative evidence); adds structure that improves drainage and reduces erosion (No quantitative evidence)
sequestration of atmospheric carbon (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Emilie Winfield - 2020 - Climate-Smart Agriculture Soil Health & Carbon Farming.pdf
United States of America
13;15;2
United States of America, California
Climate change; Soil degradation; Agricultural productivity; Drought resilience
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Application of soil amendments like compost or biochar, conservation tillage, agroforestry, whole orchard recycling, cover crops that maximize living roots
Non-agricultural solution 1: Carbon-based farming incentives
Non-agricultural solution 2: soil health and increased adaptive capacity
Non-agricultural solution 3: More sustainable agricultural systems
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Building soil organic matter on croplands and rangelands sequesters carbon in soils, which helps mitigate the effects of climate change; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased crop and forage yields; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Amendments that increase soil organic matter may improve the water holding capacity and infiltration in soils, which promotes resilience to climate-related impacts such as drought, heat waves, or heavy rains.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belongs to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Increased crop and forage yields (No quantitative evidence);Reduced need for chemical fertilizers (No quantitative evidence);Increased nutrient availability and retention (No quantitative evidence)
Increased crop and forage yields (No quantitative evidence); Healthier plants that are less vulnerable to pests and disease (No quantitative evidence); Increased nutrient availability and retention (No quantitative evidence); Increased water holding capacity and water infiltration in soils (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Increased nutrient availability and retention (No quantitative evidence); Increased crop and forage yields (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced microbial activity in soils (No quantitative evidence); Increased water holding capacity and water infiltration in soils (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Carbon sequestration (over 25 million metric tons of CO2 can be sequestered annually on natural and working lands in California by 2045); Help California meet its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (No quantitative evidence); Catalyze negative carbon emissions (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Elvis Dartey Okoffo et al. - 2016 - A double-hurdle model estimation of cocoa farmers' willingness to pay for crop insurance in Ghana..pdf
Ghana
1;2;13
Ghana, Brong-Ahafo Region, Dormaa West District, Nkrankwanta, Diabaa, Krakrom, Kwakuanya
Climate change; Pests and diseases; Crop failure; Bush fire; Erratic rainfall
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Adoption of modern cultivation practices
Non-agricultural solution 1: Education on crop insurance
Non-agricultural solution 2: Involvement of farmers in planning the crop insurance scheme
Non-agricultural solution 3: Good record keeping
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: High-yielding and disease resistant cocoa seedlings/varieties
Agricultural Solution 2: Distribution of fertilizers
Agricultural Solution 3: Mass spraying (spraying of cocoa farms with pesticides)
Non-agricultural solution 1: Awareness creation on crop insurance
Non-agricultural solution 2: Education of farmers on the need to adopt crop insurance schemes.
Non-agricultural solution 3: Good record keeping
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Cocoa income (Cocoainc) was statistically significant at 10 % and negatively influenced the premium cocoa farmers are willing to pay for crop insurance; cocoa is an export commodity and therefore, generate enough income for farmers.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Insurance companies indicated the need for awareness creation and education of farmers on the need to adopt crop insurance schemes, adopt modern ways of cultivation and good record keeping; Farmers should be involved in planning the crop insurance scheme in order to conclude on the premium to be paid by the cocoa farmers.
Crop insurance to guard against loss of crops through theft and perils (fire outbreak, flood and drought) (No quantative evidence)
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies." mentioned in the full text that are explicitly stated as results of the specified solutions and solution packages and accompanied by quantitative proof.
no evidence found
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the categories "Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services" and "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" explicitly reported in the full text as results of the solutions and solution packages mentioned. The text focuses on the risks faced by farmers and the role of crop insurance as a financial risk management tool, rather than on improvements in landscape resilience or soil health resulting from specific interventions.
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits reported in the full text that belong to the category of Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the use/implementations of the discussed solutions and solution packages.
Open
Elisa Fischetti et al. - 2025 - Agroecology and Precision Agriculture as Combined Approaches to Increase Field-Scale Crop Resilience.pdf
Italy
2;11;15
Italy, Lazio, Rome
Food security; Climate change; Soil degradation; Environmental pollution; Loss of biodiversity.
Solution Package 1:
Agroecology (field bean as green manure crop) + precision agriculture (prescription maps for site-specific mineral fertilization, VRT basal dressing fertilization) + economic (profit and loss statement, reduction in fertilizer purchase costs) + environmental (improvement in soil quality, reduction in fertilizer excesses)
Solution Package 2:
Conventional methods (sunflower as intermediate crop) + precision agriculture (fertilizer distribution in CP was carried out evenly with a fertilizer spreader over the entire area) + economic (profit and loss statement)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 2 - Exchangeable calcium content increased; Cation exchange capacity increased.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1 - Higher grain yield in agroecological treatment compared to conventional treatment.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Variable-rate fertilization (No quantative evidence);;Reduction in fertilizer purchase costs (No quantative evidence);;Lower use of agricultural equipment (No quantative evidence);;Reduction in nitrogen fertilization (No quantative evidence);;Reduction in the risk of nitrate leaching into groundwater (No quantative evidence)
Grain yield (2.36 t ha−1);Net income (EUR + 2027)
Increased exchangeable calcium (AE: 5030 ppm compared to CP: 4690 ppm after harvest; AE: 6044 mg kg−1 compared to CP: 5660 mg kg−1 before sowing);Increased cation exchange capacity (AE: 27.8 meq 100 g−1 compared to CP: 26.1 meq 100 g−1 after harvest; AE: 32.7 meq 100 g−1 compared to CP: 30.9 meq 100 g−1 before sowing)
Higher cation exchange capacity (CEC) in soil (27.8 meq 100 g−1 in AE vs 26.1 meq 100 g−1 in CP);Higher exchangeable calcium in soil (5030 ppm in AE vs 4690 ppm in CP);Higher foliar nitrogen content (153 mmol m−2 in AE vs 137 mmol m−2 in CP);Higher grain yield despite extreme rainfall/flooding (2.36 t ha−1 in AE vs 2.07 t ha−1 in CP)
no evidence found
Open
Elizabeth Rowe et al. - 2025 - Using fuzzy cognitive mapping to assess the sustainability impacts of transitioning to pasture-fed p.pdf
United Kingdom;
1; 2; 15
United Kingdom;
1. Feed–food competition; Environmental degradation; Climate change mitigation; Public good provision; Biodiversity loss
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: 100% pasture-fed beef production
Agricultural Solution 2: Rotational Grazing
Non-agricultural solution 1: Income from subsidies
Non-agricultural solution 2: Decrease in the ability to export beef
Non-agricultural solution 3: Decrease in the ratio of land use for farming vs other uses
Non-agricultural solution 4: Decrease in the proportion of feed from non-human-edible sources
Non-agricultural solution 5: Increase in training/skill levels
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: 100% pasture-fed beef production
Non-agricultural solution 1: Decrease in production efficiency
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Pasture-based farming
Non-agricultural solution 1: Agri-environment schemes
Non-agricultural solution 2: Agri-tourism
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Pasture-fed approaches
Non-agricultural solution 1: Decrease in beef consumption
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Maintenance of grassland on Pasture For Life farms, managed by grazing cattle, improved plant–soil interactions and microbial community structure, which leads to increased soil and general ecosystem health compared to land that is ploughed.
2. Pasture For Life advocates that management of pasture through a pasture-fed livestock system can improve soil structure which increases the soil’s water-holding capacity.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Pasture For Life advocates that management of pasture through a pasture-fed livestock system can generate benefits to wild plant and animal biodiversity;capture carbon for climate change mitigation.
2. Feeding cattle entirely on pasture avoids the environmental impacts of imported feed such as maize and soya and the issue of feed–food competition, instead turning human-inedible pasture into a valuable food source of high value protein and micronutrients.
3. With appropriate management, it can create and conserve species-rich grassland, provide an important habitat for a range of flora and fauna and prevent loss of soil carbon and biodiversity through ploughing.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. Pasture For Life advocates that management of pasture through a pasture-fed livestock system can contribute to flood and drought mitigation.
2. Grassland on which cattle are grazed can provide vital environmental, social, and cultural benefits, and livestock may be fundamental to maintaining these habitats and enhancing soil quality.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. The most marked changes under the 100% conversion scenario were an increase in income from subsidies (27.3%) in line with ‘public money for public goods’.
2. UK pasture-fed beef has been shown to match dietary guidelines better than meat from conventional systems, qualifying as a source of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, containing a high nutrient density and healthpromoting phytonutrients.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
(Not explicitly mentioned in the text)
* No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits of the category are mentioned in the text.
Lower costs (No quantative evidence)
Improved soil health (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence); Recycle nutrients (No quantitative evidence); Capture carbon (No quantitative evidence); Improved plant–soil interactions and microbial community structure (No quantitative evidence)
Decrease in the ratio of land use for farming vs other uses (11.23%);Vegetation quality (No quantative evidence);Soil health (No quantative evidence);Benefits to wild plant and animal biodiversity (No quantative evidence);Improved soil structure (No quantative evidence)
Fossil fuel use (-10.3%);; Ability to meet climate change targets (2.11%);; Soil health (2.29%);; Ratio of land use for farming vs other uses (-11.23%);; Biodiversity of the sward (0.92%)
Open
Elizabeth Rieke and Shannon Cappellazzi - 2021 - Assessing Soil Health Measuring the Soil Microbiome.pdf
There is mention of "The North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements (NAPESHM)", but no specific countries are identified.
2
No specific geographies are mentioned in the document. However, the Soil Health Institute project titled, "The North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements (NAPESHM)" is referenced.
North America
Soil degradation; Crop disease; Nutrient availability; Soil aggregate stability; Harmful chemical breakdown
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Residue retention + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic amendments + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 4: Reduced tillage
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Microbial community members enhance soil health through transformations of organic residues to plant-available nutrients, breakdown harmful inorganic chemicals, stabilization of soil aggregates, and regulation of crop diseases; Measurements of respiration generally increase as a result of implementing soil health management systems that are building soil organic matter, which serves as a microbial food source, fueling their activity; Potential enzyme activity measures a soil’s capacity to degrade specific organic molecules.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
no evidence found
Transformations of organic residues to plant-available nutrients (No quantitative evidence); Regulation of crop diseases (No quantitative evidence); Stabilization of soil aggregates (No quantitative evidence); Breakdown harmful inorganic chemicals (No quantitative evidence)
Transformations of organic residues to plant-available nutrients (No quantative evidence);Regulation of crop diseases (No quantative evidence);Stabilization of soil aggregates (No quantative evidence);Breakdown harmful inorganic chemicals (No quantative evidence)
Building soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence);;Shifts in microbial community structure (a 1% change in microbial relative abundance is equivalent to altering the presence of hundreds of thousands of organisms)
Open
Elizabeth A Stockdale et al. - 2018 - Conceptual framework underpinning management of soil health—supporting site‐specific delivery of sus.pdf
United Kingdom
1;2;15
United Kingdom, UK
Food insecurity; Soil degradation; Environmental pollution; Crop yield reduction; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Active management of soil health +
Agricultural Solution 2: Locally-adapted, site-specific crop/soil management practices +
Agricultural Solution 3: Optimizing soil biological function +
Agricultural Solution 4: Optimize the C:N ratios in soil OM using cover crops and/or crop sequence +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Investment and loans (policy) +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Advice at farm/catchment level (policy) +
Non-agricultural solution 3: Guidance and monitoring that can be used to drive selection of locally-adapted, site-specific crop/soil management practices (policy)+
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Minimizing tillage +
Agricultural Solution 2: Optimizing weed control +
Agricultural Solution 3: Drainage +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Economic (right balance economic as well as ecological) +
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop selection +
Agricultural Solution 2: Residue management +
Agricultural Solution 3: OM inputs +
Agricultural Solution 4: Drainage +
Agricultural Solution 5: Tillage +
Agricultural Solution 6: Fertilisation +
Agricultural Solution 7: Liming +
Agricultural Solution 8: Grazing intensity +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Climate (fixed site factor) +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Soil texture (fixed site factor) +
Non-agricultural solution 3: Crop choice (fixed site factor)+
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rotation of a variety of crops +
Agricultural Solution 2: Incorporation of crop residues +
Agricultural Solution 3: Herbicides +
Agricultural Solution 4: Grazing +
Agricultural Solution 5: Fertilizers +
Agricultural Solution 6: Slurry +
Agricultural Solution 7: Composted materials +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Chemical environment +
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Minimum intensity tillage +
Agricultural Solution 2: No-till +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Increased inputs of organic matter (cover crops)+
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health. Healthy soils maintain a diverse community of soil organisms that help to control plant disease, insect and weed pests, form beneficial symbiotic associations with plant roots; recycle essential plant nutrients; improve soil structure with positive repercussions for soil water and nutrient holding capacity, and ultimately improve crop production.
* No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belong to the category.
Crop yield (No quantative evidence); Gross Margins (No quantative evidence)
Improved Soil Structure (No quantative evidence); Increased Earthworms (No quantative evidence); Increased Water Infiltration (No quantative evidence); Increased Microbial biomass (No quantative evidence); Increased Microbial activity (No quantative evidence)
Improved Soil Structure (No quantitative evidence); Increased Microbial biomass/activity/Soil biota (No quantitative evidence); Increased Earthworm populations (No quantitative evidence); Increased Water Infiltration (No quantitative evidence); Improved Yield (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Elias Nkiaka et al. - 2019 - Identifying user needs for weather and climate services to enhance resilience to climate shocks in s.pdf
Kenya; Senegal; Ghana; Nigeria; Burkina Faso; Niger; Benin; Tanzania; Ethiopia
1;13;2
Ghana; Kenya; Niger; Senegal
Climate shocks; Water stress; Coastal inundation; Extreme weather events; Water scarcity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Daily weather forecasts + Agricultural Solution 2: Daily forecasts on extreme rainfall events + Agricultural Solution 3: False rainfall alerts + Agricultural Solution 4: Rainfall breaks + Agricultural Solution 5: 10 d forecasts for rainfall + Agricultural Solution 6: Droughts + Agricultural Solution 7: Soil moisture content + Agricultural Solution 8: Seasonal forecasts for rainfall and droughts + Agricultural Solution 9: Rainfall onset for expected sowing dates + Agricultural Solution 10: Rainfall cessation dates + Agricultural Solution 11: Monsoon onset dates + Agricultural Solution 12: Forecasts on temperature + Agricultural Solution 13: Spatial distribution of daily and 10 d forecasts for rainfall + non-agricultural solution 1: Training and rain gauges to communities + non-agricultural solution 2: Information on crop varieties, information on crop and livestock management, information on input availability and market price, access to market information, pest outbreak warnings
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Seasonal forecasts on the availability of pasture + Agricultural Solution 2: Seasonal forecasts for water resources availability + Agricultural Solution 3: Forecast for the onset date of rains + Agricultural Solution 4: Daily forecast for extreme rainfall events + Agricultural Solution 5: Spatial distribution of rainfall during the rainy season + Agricultural Solution 6: Dry spells + Agricultural Solution 7: The end date of the rainy season + Agricultural Solution 8: Daily potential lightning zones during the rainy season + Agricultural Solution 9: 10 d rainfall forecast + non-agricultural solution 1: translation of WCS into local languages + non-agricultural solution 2: transmission of forecast information through mobile phones + non-agricultural solution 3: increasing the frequency of sharing forecast information + non-agricultural solution 4: broadcasting of forecasts through local radio stations + non-agricultural solution 5: scheduling of special broadcast times for farmers
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Seasonal forecast + non-agricultural solution 1: crop models and seasonal forecast + non-agricultural solution 2: information about new seed varieties, new farming practices and advise on livestock management + non-agricultural solution 3: access to loans
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 22- Farmers strategic decisions on crop selection and seed variety, geographic distribution of plots, used with process based crop simulation models to predict seasonal crop yields; Farmers choose the most appropriate sowing dates, selecting favourable periods for different farming operations such as land preparation, weeding dates and application of fertiliser; Help farmers improve their decision-making about the selection of crop types and varieties and can also reduce the risks and costs related to the re-sowing or re-planting process; Farmers plan for the purchase of pesticides and fungicides for pest and disease control and application of fertiliser; Farmers and herders avoid flood prone areas; Plan and take decisions on post-harvest operations to prevent crops from germinating in the soil; Prevent damage from pests and diseases that thrive under humid conditions; Herders plan for the purchase of supplementary fodder, make choices on transhumance destinations, prevent farmer—pastoralist conflicts; Herders avoid lightening zones thereby reducing risk hazards caused by lightning on cattle; Herders make choices on transhumance destinations, make changes in herd composition; Help the farmers to cope with climate variability and change
Daily weather forecasts, daily forecasts on extreme rainfall events, false rainfall alerts, rainfall breaks, 10 d forecasts for rainfall;; Forecasting monsoon onset dates (No quantative evidence);; Provision of training and rain gauges to communities (No quantative evidence);; Development of Lake Victoria Intense storm Early Warning System (VIEWS) (No quantative evidence);; Development of an open source software water observation and information system (WOIS) for Africa (No quantative evidence).
Increase maize yields (an average of 44%);;Increase in grain production (30%);;Increase in crop yield (78% reported of a substantial increase);;Increase in crop yield (more than two-third of the farmers... attributed the increase);;Substantial increase in crop yield (farmers reported a substantial increase)
Increased maize yields (44%);;Increase in grain production (30%);;Substantially reduced post-harvest losses (No quantative evidence);;Substantial increase in crop yield (No quantative evidence);;Timely purchase of pesticides and fungicides for pest and disease control (No quantative evidence)
Increased maize yields (44% increase);Increased grain production (30% increase);Management of reservoirs for urban water supply and irrigation water management (No quantitative evidence);Improved reliability of hydropower dams (No quantitative evidence);Preventing farmer—pastoralist conflicts (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Elena A Mikhailova et al. - 2023 - Quantifying Damages to Soil Health and Emissions from Land Development in the State of Illinois (USA.pdf
Illinois (USA)
1;2;3
United States of America (USA); Illinois, Illinois, Iroquois, LaSalle, Champaign, Cook, Lake, Will, Kane
Soil degradation; Climate change; Greenhouse gas emissions; Soil carbon loss; Land use change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till cultivation + Agricultural Solution 3: Rotational grazing + Agricultural Solution 4: Manure or compost application + Agricultural Solution 5: Planting perennials + Agricultural Solution 6: Reducing chemical application + Agricultural Solution 7: Planting hedgerows and using native vegetation + Agricultural Solution 8: Multi-cropping + Agricultural Solution 9: Soil microbial inoculations + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health legislation
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. definition as “the overall composition of the soil, including the amount of organic matter stored in the soil, and the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans” [3].
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Current IL soil health legislation can benefit from this landscape level data on soil C loss with GHG emissions and associated SC-CO2 costs by providing insight into the soil health continuum and its dynamics.;2. These techniques and data can also be used to expand IL’s GHG emissions reduction efforts from being solely focused on the energy sector to include soil-based emissions from developments.;3. Current soil health legislation does not recognize that soil’s health is harmed by disturbance from land developments and that this disturbance results in GHG emissions.;4. Soil health programs could be broadened to encourage less disturbance of soil types that release high levels of GHG and set binding targets based on losses in the soil health continuum.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Improved farms' profitability (No quantitative evidence);Reducing the use of fertilizer (No quantitative evidence);Reducing the use of pesticides (No quantitative evidence);Reducing the use of fuel (No quantitative evidence);Reducing the use of irrigated water (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Soil carbon (C) loss from land developments (midpoint total of 2.5 × 1011 kg of total soil carbon (TSC) through 2016; midpoint loss of 1.6 × 1010 kg of TSC between 2001 and 2016);Realized social costs of soil carbon (C) (SC-CO2) released from land development (total midpoint value of $41.8B in SC-CO2 through 2016; $2.7B in SC-CO2 from 2001 to 2016);Loss of land for potential soil carbon (C) sequestration because of land development (sum of 13,360.9 km2 of land area converted to developments through 2016; total of 738.5 km2 of conversion to developments between 2001 and 2016)
Open
Ela Chandan - 2020 - Impact of soil health card scheme on farmers’ income A case study of kharif crops in Godda di.pdf
1; 2; 12
India; Jharkhand, Godda district
Farmers' income; Soil health; Crop yield; Sustainable agriculture.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Application of recommended doses of fertilizers (RDF) + Soil testing
Non-agricultural solutions: Awareness generation about the benefits of the Soil Health Card scheme + Strengthening of soil testing services / laboratories + Contact officials of the department of agriculture, scientists of SAUs and KVKs and farming facilitators + Extension service delivery.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Yield of paddy increased per acre by 17.98 per cent; Net income per acre increased from 6366 to 8060 (26.61%) in paddy after soil testing; The BC ratio increased from 1.50 to 1.55 (3.78%) in paddy on adoption of RDF; Reduction in application of other inputs like seed, labour, pesticides, etc. (71.22%)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improvement in soil texture (58.64%)
Reduction in application of other inputs like seed, labour, pesticides, etc. (71.22%);;Improvement in soil texture (58.64%)
Net income (26.61%); Increase in crop yield (17.98%); Increase in B.C Ratio (3.76%)
Increase in crop yield (17.98%); Improvement in soil texture (58.64%); Lower incidences of pest and diseases (69.70%); Improvement in crop growth (67.12%); Improvement in grain filling (59.40%)
Improvement in Soil Texture (58.64%); Increase in crop yield (17.98%); Improvement in Crop Growth (67.12%); Improvement in grain filling (59.40%); Lower incidence of pest and diseases (69.70%)
Reduction in application of other inputs like seed, labour, pesticides (71.22%)
Open
Ekundayo Adeleke et al. - 2024 - Dynamic soil properties for soil health (DSP4SH) database 1.0 – Phase 1 and 2 datasets.pdf
Oregon; Washington; Kansas; Minnesota; Illinois; Connecticut; North Carolina; Texas
2;15
United States of America; Oregon, Washington, Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, Connecticut, North Carolina, Texas
Soil degradation; Agricultural practices; Land management; Climate change; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health management (SHM)
Agricultural Solution 2: Assessment of dynamic soil properties
Agricultural Solution 3: Conservation practices
Agricultural Solution 4: Tillage intensity
Agricultural Solution 5: Cover crops application
Agricultural Solution 6: Crop residue integration
Non-agricultural solution 1: Standardize and update soil survey information
Non-agricultural solution 2: Climate data for each location
Non-agricultural solution 3: Data modeling
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The data for dynamic soil properties (aggregate stability, soil organic carbon, permanganate oxidizable carbon, autoclaved-citrate extractable protein, and soil respiration) can be used as a reference and baseline values for soil health indicators that can be linked to soil inherent properties and climate to enhance soil information.; The data can also be used to assess the relationship and effectiveness of land use and management systems or conservation agriculture on overall soil health metrics.; These data provide a collection of dynamic soil properties and soil health indicators that can be used to standardize and update soil survey information.; This dataset can be used to understand the influence of dynamic soil properties on soil health.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
no evidence found
Based on the analysis of the provided full text, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits explicitly stated as results of the use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages specified, that also belong to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" and are accompanied by quantitative proof within the text. The text describes the initiative, the dataset, and the data collection methods, highlighting the *potential* for the data to be used to understand relationships and assess effectiveness of management systems on soil health metrics, but it does not report on the *results* of such assessments or improvements achieved.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the specified category are mentioned in the full text.
no evidence found
Open
Elias Kuntashula et al. - 2015 - The Effects of Household Wealth on Adoption of Agricultural Related Climate Change Adaptation Strate.pdf
1;13
Zambia, Choma, Sinazongwe, Nyimba, Petauke, Serenje, Mpika;
Climate change; Poverty; Food insecurity; Rural poverty; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Minimum tillage + Agricultural Solution 3: Fertiliser trees + Agricultural Solution 4: Change crop varieties + non-agricultural solution 1: Subsidizing the relatively poor endowed households
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Minimum tillage + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate Change awareness + non-agricultural solution 2: Belonging to the well-endowed category + non-agricultural solution 3: Eastern and Southern regions
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Fertiliser trees + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate Change awareness + non-agricultural solution 2: Eastern and Southern regions
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate Change awareness + non-agricultural solution 2: Eastern region
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Change crop varieties + non-agricultural solution 1: Male headed households + non-agricultural solution 2: Eastern and Southern regions
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. Relatively well-endowed households had a high probability of 10.6%, 9.5%, 7.1%, and 5.5% to embrace crop rotation, minimum tillage, fertiliser trees and change crop varieties due to climate change, respectively, than their poorly endowed counter parts.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Crop rotation involves varying successive crops in a definite order on the same ground, especially to avoid depleting the soil and to control weeds, diseases, and pests that could have built up as a result of changes in climate.
2. The trees help in increasing the productivity of smallholder farmers as well as improving on-farm biodiversity that is important in mitigating climate change;Minimum tillage requires some investment in accessing manure and human labour, among others.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
1. The trees help in increasing the productivity of smallholder farmers as well as improving on-farm biodiversity that is important in mitigating climate change.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. The trees help in increasing the productivity of smallholder farmers as well as improving on-farm biodiversity that is important in mitigating climate change.
Minimum tillage (The well-endowed households were almost 10% likely to adopt minimum tillage than their poorly endowed counter parts.);;Fertiliser trees (Belonging to the well-endowed category increased the probability of adoption of fertiliser trees by 7.1% );;Crop rotation (The well-endowed households were 10.6% more likely than poorly endowed households, to practice crop rotation due to climate change.);;Changing crop varieties (The probability of changing crop varieties due to climate change by the well-endowed households was higher by 5.5%)
no evidence found
Avoiding soil depletion (No quantitative evidence); Achieving aims of natural fallows (No quantitative evidence); Improving on-farm biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Ensuring long term sustainability of the production system (No quantitative evidence); Increasing productivity (No quantitative evidence)
Improved on-farm biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);Avoiding depleting the soil (No quantitative evidence);Increasing the productivity (No quantitative evidence)
Improving on-farm biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);;Avoiding depleting the soil (No quantitative evidence);;Soil fertility enhancing (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Elias Kuntashula - 2017 - Impact of Soil Fertility Improving Trees on Crop Productivity and Farmer Wealth in Zambia.pdf
1;2;15
Zambia, Choma, Sinazongwe, Nyimba, Petauke, Mpika, Serenje
Maize productivity; Wealth creation; Climate change mitigation; Food security; Environmental degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil fertility improving trees +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Labor saving technologies +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Access to information +
Non-agricultural solution 3: Access to credit +
Non-agricultural solution 4: Government subsidies (Farmer Input Support Programme - FISP) +
Non-agricultural solution 5: Extension messages.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Increases in maize productivity; 2. Capacity to marginally contribute to wealth creation; 3. Increase maize productivity by 75%; 4. Wealth status of the non-adopters was enhanced; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation and protection of watershed; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions
InforAcc: Household accessing agricultural extension (0.89 (0.009) to 0.93 (0.021)*);;
AccessC: Household accessing credit (0.13 (0.010) to 0.19 (0.031)*)
Increased maize productivity for adopters (75%); Increased wealth index for adopters (1.56); Potential increase in maize productivity for non-adopters if they had adopted (could barely double); Increased wealth index for adopters (0.22 index); Increased maize productivity for adopters (18%)
Increased maize productivity (by 75%);; Potential increase in maize yields per hectare for non-adopters had they adopted (could have doubled);; Increase in maize productivity (by 21%);; Increase in maize productivity (by 18%)
Increased maize productivity (Increased by 21% using NNM; Increased by 18% using KM; Increased by 75% among adopters using ESR; Could double for non-adopters using ESR)
carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence);biodiversity conservation (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Elena Ojea et al. - 2016 - Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change.pdf
Chile; Spain; Japan; Mexico; New Zealand; United States of America; Canada; Netherlands; Australia; Kenya; Argentina; Malawi
14;13;12
Chile; Japan; Spain; United States of America; New Zealand; Canada; Australia; Kenya; Argentina; Malawi; Netherlands; Mexico; Iceland; United Kingdom
Climate change impacts on fisheries; Overfishing; Unsustainable harvest practices; Stock collapse; Habitat destruction
Solution Package 1:
Fisheries regulatory regimes (Open Access) + fisher mobility + livelihood diversification
Solution Package 2:
Fisheries regulatory regimes (Limited Entry) + sustainable harvest + conservation of biodiversity or habitat + adaptive management + community-based management + fisher mobility + alternative livelihoods.
Solution Package 3:
Fisheries regulatory regimes (ITQs) + sustainable harvest + conservation of biodiversity or habitat + stewardship + multi-level governance + diversified livelihoods + fisher mobility + community-based management.
Solution Package 4:
Fisheries regulatory regimes (TURFs) + increased abundance of species + conservation of biodiversity or habitat + stewardship + adaptive management + community-based management + diversified livelihoods + multi-level governance + fisher mobility
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; ECR-2: conserving biodiversity & habitats
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the text for this category.
Maximizing long-term profitability (No quantative evidence);; Avoiding perverse incentives such as the ‘race to fish’ or subsidizing overcapacity (No quantative evidence);; Higher asset values from the fishery (No quantative evidence);; Increased abundance and size of managed and unmanaged species (No quantative evidence);; Stock improvement after ITQ implementation (12 stocks were improved after ITQ implementation)
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health." mentioned in the provided full text content.
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the full text content that belong to the category “Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.” The text focuses on marine fisheries resilience to climate change.
Higher species richness, biomass, and density in TURFs compared with open access areas (significantly higher species richness, biomass, and density in TURFs compared with open access areas);Increased abundance and size of managed and unmanaged species (increased abundance and size of managed and unmanaged species in comparison with open access areas);Stock recovery/improvement (12 stocks were improved after ITQ implementation [out of 20 reviewed]);Conservation of non-target species or habitats (No quantative evidence);Reducing fishing mortality (No quantative evidence)
Open
Eleanor E Campbell and Keith Paustian - 2015 - Current developments in soil organic matter modeling and the expansion of model applications a revi.pdf
Based on the provided document, the solution described is researched in the following country:
United States of America;
1;2;3
Colorado, Fort Collins, CO;
Soil degradation; Climate change; Greenhouse gas emissions; Soil fertility; Sustainable land management.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: SOM modeling
Non-agricultural solutions: Climate change policy, soil health, sustainable land management solutions.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: SOM modeling, agricultural management practices.
Non-agricultural solutions: Climate change policy, land management decision making, carbon credits, economic incentives, sustainability policy, ecosystem services, GHG reduction.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: SOM model simulations, land use change, crop-based biofuels, soil carbon sequestration
Non-agricultural solutions: climate change mitigation strategy, economic incentives, information program, GHG assessment, policy instruments, carbon markets.
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: land management strategies, deep-rooted crop species
Non-agricultural solutions: climate change, climate change mitigation.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1-SOM’s quantity, quality, and dynamics can be used an indicator of human impacts on a wide array of ecosystem functions , as well as a mechanism to improve soil health and its sustainable use as a natural resource.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1-manage SOM for greenhouse gas mitigation; 1- atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; Climate change policy.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No quantative evidence
Improved soil health (No quantitative evidence);;Sustainable use as a natural resource (No quantitative evidence)
Soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Water holding capacity (No quantitative evidence); Soil physical structure (No quantitative evidence); Water infiltration (No quantitative evidence); Sustainable use as a natural resource (No quantitative evidence)
Improved soil health (No quantitative evidence); Sustainable use as a natural resource (No quantitative evidence); Greenhouse gas mitigation (No quantitative evidence); Soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Water holding capacity (No quantitative evidence)
GHG assessment (No quantitative evidence);; Evaluate baseline versus emissions under other management practices (No quantitative evidence);; Accounting of land-based GHG emissions (No quantitative evidence);; Inform better land use decision making to optimize environmental outcomes (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Michael Tsan et al. - 2019 - The Digitalisation of African Agriculture Report 2018-2019
I am sorry, but I do not have access to the internet or any specific files, including the full text document you mentioned. Therefore, I cannot analyze its content or list the countries where the solution is researched.
Here's the analysis:
13;11;17
I am sorry, but I am unable to access external URLs or local files, including the one provided in your prompt. Therefore, I cannot analyze the content and provide the requested geographical information.
Here's the analysis of the document's societal problems:
Poverty; Hunger; Lack of access to education; Climate change; Inequality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Advisory and information services + non-agricultural solution: Youth engagement + non-agricultural solution: Women empowerment
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Precision agriculture advisory + non-agricultural solution: Weather and climate information
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Soil and crop diagnostic advisory + non-agricultural solution: Agent-intermediated field diagnostic
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: Satellite data + Farmer Data + Field Sensors + Remote Sensing Data + non-agricultural solution: real-time insights and predictive capabilities
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution: e-marketplaces + non-agricultural solution: blockchain + non-agricultural solution: payments + insurance
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution: mobile payments + savings + credit + insurance + non-agricultural solution: Financial literacy
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution: Precision agriculture + IoT + AI + non-agricultural solution: Data analytics
Okay, I'm ready to analyze the text and provide the specific sub outcomes/benefits associated with the given KPIs. I will focus on identifying the most relevant KPIs and their corresponding outcomes, prioritizing the most relevant one first, and separating them with semicolons (;). I will also exclude information from the references/bibliography section.
Please provide the full text content.
I need the full text to answer your question. Please provide the full text content so I can identify the sub-outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" and provide the quantitative evidence from the text.
Please provide the "Full Text" and the "Solutions Packages" information to perform the requested analysis. I need this content to identify the specific sub-outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" that are attributed to the mentioned solutions.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" are mentioned in the provided full text.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Gutu Tesso - 2016 - Commercialization of Smallholder Farmers in light of climate change and logistic challenges Evidenc.pdf
Ethiopia
1; 2; 10
None
Ethiopia; Ethiopia, North Shewa Zone, Yaya Gullele, Hidha Abote, Derra
Poverty; Climate change; Market participation; Logistic challenges; Commercialization
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Fertility enhancements + Agricultural Solution 2: Improve production and productivity through fertility enhancements + non-agricultural solution 1: improve access to market information through improved agricultural logistics + non-agricultural solution 2: increased livelihood diversification + non-agricultural solution 3: build resilience to climate change induced shocks and stresses.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The level of land fertility and the implementation of conservation system on farm are important factors to enhance production and productivity, which in turn render the capacity to produce in excess of HH consumption and supply to the market.; Access to market information through the dense of social network, agents, and neighbors is a key determinant of the degree of commercialization.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The coefficients for the level of soil fertility and for the intensity of conservation level were 0.039 and 0.1055 respectively.; Thus a unit increase in the average soil fertility score of all operated plots is likely to increase their degree of commercialization by about 3.9%. Similarly a unit hectare of land brought under appropriate soil and water conservation measure increase the degree of commercialization by 10.55%.
Ownership of TV as a source of information on diverse agricultural issues (1.513 significant at 10% probability level)
Total value of farm earning (No quantitative evidence);Harvest multiple time (No quantitative evidence);Increased degree of commercialization due to intensity of soil and water conservation measures (0.1055**);Increased degree of commercialization due to total volume of annual production (0.0138***);Increased degree of commercialization due to level of land fertility (0.0398**)
Enhanced production and productivity (No quantative evidence)
Enhanced production and productivity (No quantitative evidence); Harvesting multiple times a year (No quantitative evidence)
No outcome found matching the category and criteria.
Open
Gretchen F Sassenrath et al. - 2023 - Critical Soil Health Parameters to Improve Crop Production.pdf
There is only one country: United States of America
2;15;13
United States of America, Kansas, Parsons
Soil degradation; Crop production decline; Water and nutrient cycling inefficiency; Soil compaction; Carbon storage reduction
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-till management
Agricultural Solution 2: Tillage reduction
Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil Health Buckets (from the Kansas Soil Health Alliance)
Non-agricultural solution 2: Visual Evaluator of Soil Structure (VESS)
Non-agricultural solution 3: Rainfall simulation assessment tool.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil structure is important to provide support for plants, nutrient and water cycling, decreased compaction, and more efficient carbon storage; Optimal soil conditions decrease soil compaction, reduce limitations to root growth, improve water infiltration and storage capacity, increase aeration, and improve nutrient uptake, storage, and delivery to plants; These aggregates stabilize the soil, reducing erosion, protecting carbon, and enhancing water and nutrient cycling within the soil; Tillage destroys the soil structure, collapsing the pores formed by fungal hyphae and plant roots
Soil Health Buckets are available from the Kansas Soil Health Alliance (No quantative evidence);; Visual Evaluator of Soil Structure (VESS) evaluation can be used in a variety of settings, including agricultural fields, gardens, and other areas to provide an assessment of soil physical structure and indicate potential concerns (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Nutrient and water cycling (No quantitative evidence); Reduced soil loss/erosion (No quantitative evidence); Decreased compaction (No quantitative evidence); Improve water infiltration and storage capacity (No quantitative evidence); Reduce limitations to root growth (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced loss of soil particles during rainfall (lost significantly more soil than the no-till fallow); Improved soil structure and friability (Sq1 rating for no-tilled soils; Sq3/Sq4 rating for tilled soils); Builds the soil microbial community (No quantitative evidence); Improve water infiltration and storage capacity (No quantitative evidence); Increase aeration (No quantitative evidence)
Sequester carbon (No quantitative evidence);;Protecting carbon (No quantitative evidence);;Reduced carbon dioxide release to the atmosphere (No quantitative evidence);;Build the soil microbial community (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Godspower Oke Omokaro et al. - 2024 - Understanding the Perspectives of Small-Scale Arable Crop Farmers on Soil Management Practices in Uh.pdf
Nigeria
15;2;12
Nigeria, Edo State, Ovia North-East Local Government Area, Uhen
Soil degradation; Soil erosion; Food production; Climate change; Environmental pollution
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Mounds/heaps/ridges + Agricultural Solution 3: Bush burning + Agricultural Solution 4: Mulching + Agricultural Solution 5: Mixed cropping + Agricultural Solution 6: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 7: Cover cropping + non-agricultural solution 1: Education/Awareness of organic agriculture.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Farmers recognized the importance of organic residue and soil organisms for soil health; The findings highlight the need for increased awareness and knowledge of organic agriculture and the potential benefits of organic inputs for soil health and fertility; Cover Cropping and Mulching; Crop Rotation; Conservation Tillage; Residues Management; Soil health is inherently defined as the inherent capability of soil to operate within the confines of ecosystem boundaries, whether natural or managed; Farmers in the Uhen community have a strong attachment to traditional indigenous knowledge of soil management practices; There is a pressing need for increased awareness and education about organic agriculture in the Uhen community.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Agriculture significantly contributes to soil degradation, primarily through the excessive use of inorganic fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, and other chemicals. These practices result in the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide; Agriculture also alters the Earth’s land cover, affecting its ability to absorb or reflect heat and light, contributing to radiative forcing; Crop rotations offer favorable conditions for the growth of diverse soil functional microorganisms. This contributes to rich biodiversity within the soil ecosystem, as both shallow feeding crops and deep-rooted crops activate varying species of microorganisms over time.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Implementing soil management involves applying processes like crop rotation, cover cropping, planting windbreaks, and conservation tillage, which have been employed for centuries; Managing soil health emerges as a promising solution to mitigate some environmental impacts and potentially enhance economic returns; The objective of this method is to safeguard soil aggregates, organic matter, and crop residues; This conservation method has demonstrated its effectiveness in improving soil structure, reducing soil erosion, enhancing drainage and water-holding capacity, increasing soil organic matter, and promoting microbial and earthworm activity; Farmers’ perspectives on organic agriculture, soil health, and soil fertility; The majority of respondents (94%) reported that their farming business is profitable year-round; All respondents (100%) believed that increasing organic inputs would help improve soil fertility and crop yield.
Organic fertilization usage (74% of the respondents use organic fertilizers);; Willingness to increase organic inputs on their farms (90% of the respondents expressed willingness to do so);; Willingness to use soil microbial inputs on their farms (88% of the respondents agreed)
Profitability of farming business year-round (94% reported Yes);; Annual farming income (72% earn 150,000 and above);; Significant increase in crop yield during organic fertilizer application (30% reported high increase, 70% reported slight increase);; Changes in crop yield over the years (50% reported increasing)
Increased crop yield from organic fertilizer application (30% high increase, 70% slight increase)
Significant increase in crop yield during organic fertilizer application (30% of the respondents reported a high increase, 70% reported a slight increase)
Promoting soil microbial diversity (No quantitative evidence); Promoting microbial and earthworm activity (No quantitative evidence); Managing agro-ecosystem biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Enhancing carbon and nitrogen cycling (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Guta Amante - 2024 - Advancing Agricultural Sustainability Vermicomposting as a Biochemical Pathway for Improved Soil He.pdf
Ethiopia
2;12;15
Ethiopia
Climate change; Soil degradation; Food production; Waste management; Greenhouse gas emissions
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicomposting + Agricultural Solution 2: Selection of suitable earthworm species for vermiculture
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicomposting + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate-smart farming practices
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicomposting + Agricultural Solution 2: Vermicompost application + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil aggregation + non-agricultural solution 2: Soil stability + non-agricultural solution 3: pH improvement + non-agricultural solution 4: EC improvement + non-agricultural solution 5: Bulk density improvement + non-agricultural solution 6: Water holding capacity (WHC) improvement + non-agricultural solution 7: Organic matter (OM) improvement + non-agricultural solution 8: Micro and macronutrients improvement
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicomposting + non-agricultural solution 1: Reducing leaching and runoff
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* Number of sub outcomes/benefits: 7
* Name of sub outcomes/benefits: biochemical transformations such as the optimization of the carbon to nitrogen ratio, alterations in organic carbon content, and the modulation of soil pH and electrical conductivity;enhancement of humus content;vermicomposting increases phosphorus bioavailability;Vermicompost imparts positive impact on physiochemical properties of soil. It helps to improve soil aggregation, stability, pH, EC, bulk density, water holding capacity (WHC), organic matter (OM), micro and macronutrients;Vermicompost as a soil amendment builds up soil organic carbon that helps in slow release of nutrients in the soil and enables plants to absorb available nutrients; improving soil structure and converting the nutrients (nitrate, available phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) in a form that can be readily taken up by the plants;Vermicompost contains considerable amounts of humic acid and plant-growth hormones such as auxins, gibberellins, and cytokinins.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* Number of sub outcomes/benefits: 4
* Name of sub outcomes/benefits: Reduction in greenhouses gases emission; vermicomposting reduces nitrogen loss by 10–20% compared to thermophilic composting, decreased nitrous oxide emissions by 25–36%, and decreased methane emissions by 22-26%;Vermicomposting reduces the quantity of CO2 released into the environment by absorbing and storing atmospheric CO2 in the soil;earthworm abundance might be used to deter the production of greenhouse gases.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* Number of sub outcomes/benefits: 2
* Name of sub outcomes/benefits: potential to increase agricultural productivity; positively affect plant growth and yield.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services**
* Number of sub outcomes/benefits: 1
* Name of sub outcomes/benefits: pivotal component of climate-resilient agriculture, offering a pathway to healthier soil ecosystems and a sustainable future.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits in the category of "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" were identified in the provided text.
Improved seed germination (93% vs 84% for mungbean);;Increased yield of mungbean (No quantative evidence);;Increased plant production (No quantative evidence);;Increased plant productivity (No quantative evidence);;Increase in the number and biomass of flowers (No quantative evidence)
Increase nitrogen contents in soil (by over 85%); Increased germination of mungbean (93% vs 84%); Organic matter content in worm casts is about four times more than in surface soil (48.2 g kg-1 soil vs 11.9 g kg-1 soil); Increased nutrient availability (macro- and microelements, N, P, K) in soil (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil physical properties (aggregation, stability, bulk density, porosities, water holding capacity) (No quantitative evidence)
Increased nitrogen contents in soil (over 85%); Increased water holding capacity (No quantative evidence); Increased soil structural stability and aggregate stability (No quantative evidence); Increased soil organic carbon percentage (No quantative evidence); Increased soil macro and microelements and nutrient availability (No quantative evidence)
Decreased nitrous oxide emissions (25–36%); Decreased methane emissions (22-26%); Increased humic materials (40-60%); Reduced nitrogen loss (10–20%); Carbon sequestration in the soil (No quantative evidence)
Open
Grey Evenson et al. - 2022 - Representing soil health practice effects on soil properties and nutrient loss in a watershed-scale.pdf
United States of America
1; None
United States of America, Ohio, Maumee River Watershed
Water quality degradation; Nutrient loss; Soil erosion; Hydrologic flow
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover Crops + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till + Agricultural Solution 3: Modifications to each soil property parameter
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1 (Increased infiltration and water holding capacity); 1 (increased nutrient retention and availability)
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1 (increase soil organic carbon (SOC))
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1 (increased N and P mineralization as well as plant uptake); 1 (cover crops reduce NO3- yields primarily by increasing plant uptake of soil nutrients susceptible to loss)
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:1 (increasing infiltration and decreasing surface runoff); 1 (soil health practices may reduce NO3-, TN, and TP yields but increase DRP yields)
* **Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:** USLE-P(Practice factor for universal soil loss equation) decreased by 58% (58 (0));; BIOMIX(Biological mixing efficiency) increased by 133% (133 (0))
no evidence found
Increased soil organic carbon (65%); Increased available water capacity (7%); Increased saturated hydraulic conductivity (54%); Reduced soil bulk density (-7%); Increased soil organic nutrient content (N and P) (No quantative evidence)
Decreased TP loads at the basin outlet (-0.39 kg ha-1 yr-1 or -26%); Decreased TN loads at the basin outlet (-5.0 kg ha-1 yr-1 or -19%); Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (~65%); Increased Available Water Capacity (AWC) (avg 7%); Decreased Discharge (Q) at the basin outlet (-14%)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (average increase of 1 g C g-1 or 65% across selected HRUs); Increased Biological Mixing Efficiency (BIOMIX) (average increase of 0.2 or 133% across selected HRUs)
Open
Greta Winkler et al. - 2024 - Soils and ecosystem services policy narratives and instruments for soil health in the EU.pdf
EU (European Union)
15;13;2
None
European Union; Italy
Soil degradation; Loss of soil organic matter; Erosion; Climate regulation; Water quality.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil fertility enhancement + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil Monitoring Law + non-agricultural solution 2: Payments for ecosystem services (ES) + non-agricultural solution 3: Market regulation (carbon markets)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Forest management + Agricultural Solution 2: Rewetting peatlands + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate Law + non-agricultural solution 2: Biodiversity Strategy + non-agricultural solution 3: Nature Restoration Law
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic farming + non-agricultural solution 1: Farm to Fork strategy
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Soil fertility;2.Long-term fertility, stability, and biodiversity ;3.Soil organic matter ;4. Multifunctional forest management; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Food ;2.Fodder ;3. Biofuel; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Carbon sequestration; 2.Erosion protection; 3. Water retention; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: 1. Soil stabilization; 2.Landscape heritage conservation; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Property rights and use rights: Food Fodder (mixed-grazing, rotational grazing and reforestation; grassland) Biofuel (3) (No quantative evidence);;Water retention Erosion Carbon storage (7) (No quantative evidence);;Microbial biodiversity Nutrients’ cycles (6) (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Increased soil organic carbon stock (No quantative evidence); Enhanced soil fertility (No quantative evidence); Reduced soil erosion (No quantative evidence); Increased soil biodiversity (No quantative evidence); Improved water retention (No quantative evidence)
Increased organic carbon stocks (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced soil erosion (No quantitative evidence);; Water retention (No quantitative evidence)
Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence); Soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence); Biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Reduced emissions (No quantitative evidence); Soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Steven D. Prager et al. Scaling and Sustaining CIS and CSA through Bundled Business Models
None
Here's the analysis of the provided text, formatted as requested:
None
None
Here's the analysis of the provided full text (assuming a full text was provided):
**Societal Problems Addressed:**
Poverty; Inequality; Lack of access to education; Unemployment; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1: Lersha Service Aggregator Platform
Agronomic advice + Climate services (wheat rust forecasts) + KYC bank registration + Access to inputs (seeds and fertilizer) + Services (mechanization extension) + Banking
Solution Package 2: CRIIZ (Climate Risk Insurance and Information in Zambia)
Climate risk insurance + Climate risk information + Training + Radio programs for farmers + Location-specific climate and weather information + Participatory tools for decision making
Solution Package 3: Ghana PPP Business Model for CIS delivery in Climate Smart Villages
CIS (through mobile phone platforms) + Mainstreaming CIS into agricultural development plans programs strategies and policies
Solution Package 4: ZFU EcoFarmer Combo Programme
Weather-based insurance + Real-time and location-based weather information + Farming tips and alerts + Funeral insurance coverage
Solution Package 5: aMaizing Project in Kenya
Index-based insurance products + Climate information services + Provision of inputs + Access to credit + Recommendations to improve nutrition on the value chain + Non-agriculture insurance projects
Solution Package 6: Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture
Climate information + CSA technologies
Solution Package 7: BASKET-A (Bundled Advisory Services Kits for Enabling Transformation in Agriculture)
Cropping calendar advisories + Bundled input credit + Embedded insurance option + Periodic update and advisory messages (SMS platform)
Solution Package 8: Bundling CIS with Agricultural Inputs in Senegal
Improved crop varieties + Certified fertilizers + Tailored agro-advisories + Agricultural insurance + CIS
Solution Package 9: Integrated Soil Nutrient and Climate Risk Management (ISN-CRM) in Mali
Smart-Valleys (water-harvesting technique) + Stress-tolerant varieties + Information on drought and flooding (via mobile phone) + Crop calendar construction + Appropriate rates and timing for fertilizer application + Loans to buy equipment and inputs
Okay, I will analyze the provided full text and extract the relevant sub-outcomes/benefits for each KPI, prioritizing the most relevant ones and separating them with semicolons. I will also remove any content from the references/bibliography section.
Please provide the full text.
I am sorry, I do not have access to the provided text. To provide the correct answer, please provide the full text.
Please provide the "Solutions Packages" list and the "Full Text" content. I need these to identify the specific sub-outcomes/outputs/benefits related to "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" that are mentioned as results of using the specified solutions packages.
No outcomes found based on the provided text.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Grace L Miner et al. - 2020 - Soil health management practices and crop productivity.pdf
Canada; United States of America
2;15;3
United States of America; Canada; Honduras; Argentina; South Africa; Australia; France
Food and nutritional security; Climate change mitigation/adaptation; Land degradation; Crop yield; Water quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health management practices + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 4: Crop rotation
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
Reduced field operations (No quantative evidence);;Improved water capture and retention (No quantative evidence)
Higher rates of productivity and profitability over the long term (No quantitative evidence);Increase economic returns (No quantitative evidence);Increase in corn yields with legume winter CC when N fertilizer rates were low or the system shifted from conventional tillage to no-tillage (No quantitative evidence);Increase in corn yields with mixture winter CCs (No quantitative evidence);Yield benefits were realized in dry, water-limited climates when no-till was coupled with residue retention (No quantitative evidence)
No-till yields matched conventional tillage yields in oilseed, cotton, and legume crops (matched conventional tillage yields); Neutral impact of grass winter cover crops on corn yields (neutral impact); Inclusion of cover crops in a corn–soybean rotation in the Midwest did not affect cash crop yields (did not affect cash crop yields); Tillage had virtually no effects on long-term corn and soybean yields in the midwestern US Corn Belt (virtually no effects); Cover crops did not affect soybean and wheat yields in a Pennsylvania study (did not affect soybean and wheat yields)
Reduced soil erosion (No quantitative evidence); Reduction in nutrient losses (No quantitative evidence); Improved water capture and retention (No quantitative evidence); Increases in nutrient scavenging and cycling (No quantitative evidence); Increased subsequent cash crop yields (in 11 studies out of 17 in temperate U.S. regions)
no evidence found
Open
Godspower Oke Omokaro et al. - 2023 - Farmers Perception of Practices in Crop Production in Relation to Soil Health in Sapele Delta State.pdf
Nigeria
2;15;12
None
Nigeria, Delta State, Sapele Local Government Area, Songhai community
Soil degradation; Crop productivity; Environmental sustainability; Soil fertility; Soil management
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mixed cropping +
Agricultural Solution 2: Organic manure (poultry droppings) +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Government guidelines for obtaining indicators and their use to monitor improvements in soil health.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Bush fallowing +
Agricultural Solution 2: Mechanical methods, traps, and introducing biological pest enemies for pest control +
Agricultural Solution 3: Organic and inorganic fertilization +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Policymakers and extension organizations focusing on socioeconomic factors to encourage farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Implementing more sustainable agricultural land management practices to ensure food security and environmental sustainability.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover cropping +
Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation +
Agricultural Solution 3: Intercropping +
Agricultural Solution 4: Green manure +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Incentives, funding, and raising public awareness, along with empowering institutions to educate farmers about effective soil management practices and their impact on soil health.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Farmers understood the importance of good soil health management practices and were open to adopting new methods, such as microbial inputs, to enhance soil health and crop yield;soil health refers to the ongoing ability of soil to operate as a vital living system, recognizing its biological elements essential for ecosystem function within specific land-use boundaries;the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans;Soil health as the ability of a particular type of soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, supporting the productivity of plants and animals, enhancing water and air quality, and contributing to human health and habitation.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: To improve crop yield and soil health, organic manure, especially from poultry droppings, was the most used due to its availability and low cost; Yield outcomes of soil health management are of importance to ensure that future global food demands are met;Improvements in soil health will alleviate growth-limiting factors and hence improve yields; organic and in organic manure help in improving soil fertility and crop yield;increasing organic inputs would enhance soil fertility and crop yield.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The study revealed that most crops, such as maize, had a growing cycle of 0-6 months. Cassava, on the other hand, took 12 months to reach full maturity and was predominantly cultivated on 2.5-5 acres of land owned by individual farmers. Mixed cropping was practiced because it allowed farmers to cultivate a variety of plants and crops. The climate, temperature, and vegetation of the Songhai community were conducive to planting; Healthy soils form the basis of thriving ecosystems and societies and are intricately linked to food and nutritional security, water quality, human health, climate change mitigation/adaptation, and biodiversity; ensure food security and environmental sustainability.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: In a study conducted by Kibblewhite et al. (2008), soil health was identified as an integrative property indicating the soil’s capacity to respond to agricultural interventions, enabling it to support both agricultural production and the provision of other ecosystem services.
No outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belongs to the category, Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
Significant increase in crop yield during organic fertilizer application (54.8% indicated high, 38.1% indicated slight);Significant increase in crop yield during inorganic fertilizer application (50% indicated high, 40.5% indicated slight);Farming business is profitable during the whole year (85.7%);Income from farm in a year (76.2% reported earnings exceeding 200,000)
Belief that increased organic farm inputs improve soil fertility and crop yield (Yes (90.5%), No (9.5%));;Belief that organic inputs improve soil fertility and soil structure (Yes (73.8%), I don’t know (26.2%));;Perceived significant increase in crop yield during organic fertilizer application (High (54.8%), Slight (38.1%), None (7.1%));;Belief that earthworms increase soil fertility (Increased soil fertility (85.7%), Reduced soil fertility (9.5%), Nothing (4.8%));;Perceived significant increase in crop yield during inorganic fertilizer application (High (50%), Slight (40.5%), None (9.5%))
Significant increase in crop yield during organic fertilizer application (54.8% indicated high, 38.1% indicated slight);;Significant increase in crop yield during inorganic fertilizer application (50% indicated high, 40.5% indicated slight);;Changes in crop yield over the years (47.6% indicated increasing).
Use of organic inputs improves soil fertility and soil structure (Yes 73.8%);;Increase in organic farm inputs will help the good soil microbes (Yes 90.5%);;Willingness to increase organic farm inputs (81%);;Willingness to use soil microbial inputs (78.6%);;Use of organic fertilization (57.1%)
Open
Gissel García et al. - 2025 - Holobiome Harmony Linking Environmental Sustainability, Agriculture, and Human Health for a Thrivin.pdf
Cuba; United States of America
1;5;13
None
Cuba; United States of America, Alabama, California, Colorado; Japan
* Environmental degradation; Climate change; Agriculture; Human health; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Microbial inoculants (for soil remediation, nutrient cycling, and pathogen suppression) + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till farming + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Soil probiotics + Agricultural Solution 5: microbial consortia + non-agricultural solution 1: artificial intelligence (AI) + non-agricultural solution 2: supportive policies + non-agricultural solution 3: interdisciplinary collaboration
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: microbial soil inoculant + Agricultural Solution 2: soil probiotics + non-agricultural solution 1: precision probiotics + non-agricultural solution 2: AI-driven innovations in probiotic development.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:**
1. Soil microbiomes facilitate carbon sequestration and enhance soil fertility.
2. In agriculture, soil probiotics enhance microbial diversity, improve nutrient cycling, and degrade contaminants, increasing crop yields and soil health.
3. Sustainable agricultural practices and soil probiotics can rehabilitate degraded soils, improve crop productivity, and promote environmental sustainability.
4. Soil microbes are essential for sustaining plant growth by breaking down organic matter and cycling nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.
5. In agriculture, microbiome-based strategies can improve crop resilience, enhance nutrient uptake, and reduce reliance on chemical inputs;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
6. The application of the treatment demonstrated significant improvements in multiple soil health parameters, supporting its potential to enhance soil functionality and fertility
7. Nutrient mobilization by improving phosphorus solubilization, nitrogen fixation, and organic matter decomposition, all of which contribute to healthier soil and higher crop yields.;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:**
1. Microbial interactions drive nutrient cycling, pathogen suppression, and climate regulation.
2. Soil microbiomes facilitate carbon sequestration and enhance soil fertility, while marine microbiomes contribute to carbon capture and climate stability.
3. The integration of holobiome principles into sustainable agricultural and environmental management practices can enhance ecosystem stability, improve soil and plant health, and mitigate the impacts of environmental stressors; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.
4. The functionality and diversity of microbial ecosystems play pivotal roles in ecosystem stability, making holobiome research an essential pathway toward sustainable development.
5. Marine microbiomes, particularly those associated with phytoplankton, are critical to global carbon capture and climate regulation.
6. Rising temperatures reduce the abundance of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton while increasing microbial processes that release CO2, reinforcing climate change
7. Just as probiotics and prebiotics can restore the microbial balance in the human gut, similar principles can be applied to soil microbiome restoration.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:**
1. Interdisciplinary collaboration and supportive policies are essential for restoring microbial equilibria, ensuring ecosystem resilience, and promoting long-term sustainability.
2. Leveraging the functional potential of holobiomes, we can develop robust, adaptive strategies that promote long-term ecological and human resilience in the face of global environmental and health challenges.
3. The growing recognition of the individual variability in gut microbiomes has propelled the development of precision and personalized probiotics.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:**
1. In agriculture, soil probiotics enhance microbial diversity, improve nutrient cycling, and degrade contaminants, increasing crop yields and soil health.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:**
1. Artificial intelligence is transforming microbiome research by enabling predictive modeling, precision probiotic design, and microbial consortia optimization.
*Reduction in glyphosate residues* (36% reduction in glyphosate residues);; *Increased microbial alpha diversity* (No quantative evidence);; *23.1% increase in cation exchange capacity (CEC)* (23.1% increase in cation exchange capacity (CEC));; *Higher soil organic matter content* (No quantative evidence);; *Elevated nitrate nitrogen levels* (No quantative evidence)
Increase in corn yield (28.6%);; Increase in silage production (9.6%);; Increased cation exchange capacity (23.1%);; Elevated nitrate nitrogen levels (38.15 mg/kg vs. 31.75 mg/kg);; Enhanced uptake of key micronutrients (Iron, Manganese, Boron, Phosphorus) (Statistically significant difference compared to untreated controls (p < 0.05 for Fe, Mn, B, P))
Higher Soil Health Score (13.26 vs. 8.79); Increase in corn yield (28.6%); Increased microbial alpha diversity (No quantitative evidence); Higher Microbial Organic Carbon (80.48 mg/kg vs. 24.83 mg/kg); Increase in CO2 soil respiration (167.1% increase)
Significant carbon sequestration benefits (167.1% increase in CO2 respiration as a marker); Increased CO2 soil respiration (marker of microbial activity and organic matter decomposition) (167.1%); Reduction in glyphosate residues (36%); Increase in cation exchange capacity (CEC) (23.1%); Elevated nitrate nitrogen levels (38.15 mg/kg vs. 31.75 mg/kg)
Increased microbial alpha diversity (Increased (Chao1 higher, Shannon modest increase, Figure 2)); Increased Organic Matter (1.90% vs. 1.70%); Increased CO2 Soil Respiration (167.1% increase); Reduction in glyphosate residues (36% reduction); Increased Soil Health Score (13.26 vs. 8.79)
Open
Girish Chander Girish Chander et al. - 2018 - Building soil health, improving carbon footprint and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions through CSR.pdf
India
1;2;13
None
India, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Jharkhand
Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Greenhouse gas emissions; Climate change; Nutrient deficiency
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health mapping-based management + Agricultural Solution 2: Balanced fertilization (including micro- and secondary nutrient amendments) + Agricultural Solution 3: Improved crop and water management + Non-agricultural solution 1: Policy support + Non-agricultural solution 2: Knowledge dissemination (soil health cards, wall writings, and android-based mobile app) + Non-agricultural solution 3: Public-private partnerships
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Landform management (broad-bed and furrow cultivation) + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil test-based balanced fertilization + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop management + Non-agricultural solution 1: Policy (land use planning)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Jatropha plantation + Non-agricultural solution 1: Livelihood and income diversification
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation agriculture + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotations
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Soil health mapping-based management Increased C sequeslI'ation with higher proportion of blomass C and enhanced uptake and use efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers, and thereby reducing losses through runoff and gaseous emissions;Strategies to rejuvenate fann soil health have shown significant productivity benefits that varied from 25% to 47% in cereals. 28% to 37% in pulses and 22% to 48% in oilseed crops; Soil health building through balanced fertilization along with improved crop and water management can sequester 335 kg Cper ha per year;Building soil health and managing C footprint is a great opportunity for CSR consortia to have a win-win proposition.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: SoU l088 and Cand nutrients therein can be reduced;Management at watershed level Is proved as one o( the most lI"usted approach to managing natural resources and reducing runoff
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:Soil health mapping-based management Increased C sequeslI'ation with higher proportion of blomass C and enhanced uptake and use efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers;One of the direct benefits that CSR scaling-up initiatives have demonstrated is Improving food security. '!he strategies to rejuvenate fann soil health have shown significant productivity benefits that varied from 25% to 47% in cereals. 28% to 37% in pulses and 22% to 48% in oilseed crops;Soil health building through balanced fertilization including micro- and secondary nutrient amendments not only Increase productivity.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services:Watershed level Management at watershed level Is proved as one o( the most lI"usted approach to managing natural resources and reducing runoff;ecosystems in the semi-arid tropics are prone to land degradation, which may be aggravated by climate change;development of the watershed/catchment is one of the most trusted and ecofriendly approaches to managing natural resources and reducing runoff, soil loss and Ctherein.
Innovative extension ways for information dissemination have been explored (No quantative evidence);;A mobile App is another potential opportunity in soil health management (No quantative evidence)
Significant productivity benefits in cereals (25% to 47%); Significant productivity benefits in pulses (28% to 37%); Significant productivity benefits in oilseed crops (22% to 48%); Potential milk yield per ha (as high as 40%); Monetary benefits through higher productivity in agricultural and horticultural crops (around `1100 crore`)
Significant productivity benefits in cereals, pulses and oilseed crops (varied from 25% to 47% in cereals; varied from 28% to 37% in pulses; varied from 22% to 48% in oilseed crops);;Increase crop yield per ton of soil C pool increase in degraded cropland soils (200-400 kg/ha of maize; 20-70 kg/ha of wheat; 20-30 kg/ha of soybean; 5-10 kg/ha of cowpea; 10-50 kg/ha of rice; 50-60 kg/ha of millets; 20-30 kg/ha of beans);;Potential milk yield per ha (as high as 40%);;Enhanced food production from increased soil organic C pool (30-50 million tons per year);;Significant productivity benefits from Bhoochetana scaling-up initiative (net economic benefits through increased production were estimated at - US$353 million (~ Rs 963 crore)
Significant productivity benefits varied from 25% to 47% in cereals, 28% to 37% in pulses and 22% to 48% in oilseed crops;Increased potential milk yield per ha (by as high as 40%);Increased crop yield per ton of soil C increase (by 200-400 kg/ha of maize, 20-70 kg/ha of wheat, 20-30 kg/ha of soybean, 5-10 kg/ha of cowpea, 10-50 kg/ha of rice, 50-60 kg/ha of millets and 20-30 kg/ha of beans);Monetary benefits through higher productivity in agricultural and horticultural crops (to the tune of around ₹1100 crore);Net economic benefits through increased production (~ US$353 million (₹963 crore))
Carbon sequestration through soil health building (335 kg C per ha per year);; Carbon sequestration through Jatropha biomass addition (1450 kg C per ha per year);; Organic C returned through tank sediment application (2873 tons);; Carbon replacement in fossil fuel through Jatropha biodiesel (230 kg C per ha per year);; Increased microbial biomass C in Jatropha plantations (22%)
Open
Girma A Birru et al. - 2019 - Chemical Amendments of Dryland Saline–Sodic Soils Did Not Enhance Productivity and Soil Health in Fi.pdf
United States of America
2;15;13
United States of America; United States of America, South Dakota, Spink County; United States of America, South Dakota, Aurora County; United States of America, South Dakota, Day County;
Soil Salinity; Soil Sodicity; Reduced Crop Yields; Water Table Issues
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Chemical amendments (CaCl2, CaSO4, and elemental S) + Agricultural Solution: Tile drainage
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Chemical amendments (CaCl2, CaSO4, and elemental S) + Agricultural Solution: Leaching with water
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Growing full season deep rooted perennial vegetation + Agricultural Solution: enhancing microbial and root respiration + Agricultural Solution: increasing transpiration + Agricultural Solution: soil drainage
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Chemical amendments did not enhance soil health or plant productivity in northern Great Plains soils that did not have effective drainage systems; The application of chemical amendments as preventative treatment in tile drained North America northern Great Plains fields did not improve soil health (water infiltration and microbial diversity) and either reduced or did not increase crop yields; An alternative approach might include the solubilization of Ca+2 by increasing microbial activity or root respiration.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs."
Soybean yields were reduced by the CaCl2 treatment in the backslope position in 2014 (untreated control treatment (none) were 84% of the county average, whereas the soybean yields in the CaCl2 treatment were 49% of the county average); Sorghum yield per plant was reduced by CaCl2 and gypsum in the footslope position in 2013 (None 106.7 g plant–1, CaCl2 74.7 g plant–1, Gypsum 76.4 g plant–1); Chemical amendments did not influence maize yields in the backslope position in 2013 (No quantitative evidence beyond statement of no influence); Gypsum did not increase maize yields relative to the untreated control in the toeslope position in 2015 (No quantitative evidence beyond statement of no increase); Across years, the gypsum treatment did not increase the yields relative to the untreated control soil in the backslope position (No quantitative evidence beyond statement of no increase).
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Gilbert DAGUNGA - 2021 - CONSERVATION AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES DETERMINANTS AND EFFECTS ON SOIL HEALTH FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT.pdf
Ghana
2;15;13
None
Ghana; Upper East, Upper West, Northern
Soil erosion; Food security; Climate change; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Conservation Agricultural Practice: Crop rotation + Conservation Agricultural Practice: Fallowing + Conservation Agricultural Practice: Contour ploughing or pit planting + Conservation Agricultural Practice: Manure Application + Non-agricultural solution: Policy (government's flagship planting for food and jobs programme)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 4; Crop rotation, fallowing, contour ploughing or pit planting and manure application.; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:1; Agroforestry contributes to carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, soil enrichment and air and water quality improvement.
Contour ploughing or pit planting (No quantative evidence)
Increasing crop yields (No quantative evidence);;Farm output (No quantative evidence);;Crop production (No quantative evidence);;Increase productivity (No quantative evidence);;Profits (No quantative evidence)
Positive effect on soil health from Manure Application (0.173);Positive effect on soil health from Contour Ploughing or Pit Planting (0.166);Positive effect on soil health from Fallowing (0.053);Positive effect on soil health from Crop rotation (0.02)
Positive effect of Manure Application on soil health (resilience to soil erosion) (0.173);Positive effect of Contour Ploughing or Pit Planting on soil health (resilience to soil erosion) (0.166);Positive effect of Fallowing on soil health (resilience to soil erosion) (0.053);Positive effect of Crop rotation on soil health (resilience to soil erosion) (0.02);Crop rotation improves soil fertility/quality (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantative evidence);; Carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence);; Biodiversity conservation (No quantative evidence)
Open
Gil Gram et al. - 2020 - Combining organic and mineral fertilizers as a climate-smart integrated soil fertility management pr.pdf
Kenya; Uganda; Tanzania; Zimbabwe; Malawi; Ethiopia; Nigeria; Benin; Ghana; Ivory Coast; Togo;
1;2;15
None
Benin; Ethiopia; Ghana; Ivory Coast; Kenya; Malawi; Nigeria; Tanzania; Togo; Zimbabwe
Low productivity; Climate change; Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Yield variability
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Combining organic and mineral fertilizers + Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) framework
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: improved germplasm + good agronomic practices
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Combining organic and mineral fertilizers
No direct KPU relevance
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the the category.
Increased Agronomic Efficiency (AE) compared to sole mineral fertilizer (increased AE by 20% over 7 growing seasons at a total N rate of 150 kg N ha-1 season-1 combining mineral fertilizer with the highest quality organic resources (50:50) as compared to sole mineral fertilizer); Higher maize grain yields compared to sole mineral applications at higher N rates (No quantative evidence); Greater maize grain yields compared to sole organic applications (No quantative evidence); Higher Agronomic Efficiency (AE) compared to sole mineral applications at higher N rates for high-quality organic classes (No quantative evidence); More stable Agronomic Efficiency (AE) across increasing N input rates compared to sole mineral fertilizer (No quantative evidence)
Reduced SOC losses (reduced SOC losses by 18% over 7 growing seasons); Increased SOC (No quantative evidence)
Changes in soil organic carbon (reduced SOC losses by 18% over 7 growing seasons as compared to sole mineral fertilizer);;Inter-seasonal yield variability (No quantative evidence)
reduced SOC losses (18% over 7 growing seasons at a total N rate of 150 kg N ha-1 season-1, as compared to sole mineral fertilizer)
Open
Geremew Biramo - 2018 - The Role of Integrated Nutrient Management System for Improving Crop Yield and Enhancing Soil Fertil.pdf
Ethiopia; Nigeria; Kenya
2;15;1
None
Ethiopia,
Ethiopia, Benishangul Gumuz region, word as Agalometi, Sirba;
Ethiopia, South Ethiopia, Hawassa Agricultural Research Centre;
Ethiopia, Western Hararghe, Eastern Ethiopia, Chiro campus;
Ethiopia, Tigray region, Aberegalle subdistrict;
Kenya, central Kenya.
Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Crop yield reduction; Soil fertility decline; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated Nutrient Management (INM)
Agricultural Solution 2: Application of organic fertilizers (green manure, farmyard manure (FYM), compost)
Agricultural Solution 3: Application of inorganic fertilizers (Urea, DAP, N, P, K fertilizers)
Agricultural Solution 4: Zero Tillage with residue retention
Agricultural Solution 5: Tie-ridging
Non-agricultural solution 1: Training of farmers and development agents on new soil fertility management approaches.
Non-agricultural solution 2: Research and extension to sort out issues of adoption and scaling up of available options.
Non-agricultural solution 3: Farmers’ knowledge
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated Nutrient Management (INM)
Agricultural Solution 2: Application of organic fertilizers (green manure, farmyard manure (FYM), compost)
Agricultural Solution 3: Application of inorganic fertilizers (Urea, DAP, N, P, K fertilizers)
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* Integrated application of organic and inorganic fertilizers improve productivity of crops as well as the fertility status of the soil.; Using balanced fertilizers has an impact on plant growth and physicochemical properties of soil.;Continuous decrease in organic matter and nutrient content of the soil, the importance of integrated nutrient management for efficient utilization of nutrient resources and for long-term maintenance of soil fertility has been indicated.; Farmyard manure (FYM) is among the important soil amendments to which farmers have access in mixed farming system. In addition to its nutrient supply, farmyard manure improves the physicochemical conditions of soils.;Increased yields of cereal and other crops due to application of FYM.; the long-term sustainability of productivity in intensive cropping system could be achieved only through integration of inorganic and organic source of nutrients.; Soil analytical data is important to identify the level of nutrients in the soil and to determine suitable rates and types of fertilizers for recommendation.;integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources could result in significant improvement in the overall condition of the soil as well as agricultural productivity if the best alternative option is adopted by producers.; soils fertilized with manure had higher contents of organic matter and numbers of micro-fauna than fertilized soils, and were more enriched in P, K, Ca and Mg in topsoil and nitrate N, Ca and Mg in sub soils; Integrated soil fertility management plays a critical role in both short-term nutrient availability and longer-term maintenance of soil organic matter and sustainability of crop productivity in most smallholder farming systems in the tropics.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* Fertilizer application resulted in marked crop yield increases, which for most crops were more than hundred percent.; Integrated application of organic and inorganic fertilizers improve productivity of crops as well as the fertility status of the soil.; Ploughing and adding either manure or compost also resulted in significantly higher yield in 2002; Application of 5 and 10tha-1 of E. bruci biomass significantly increased the grain yield of wheat by 82 and 127% over the control respectively.; a combination of 4ton ha-1 FYM + 75kgNha-1 with 60kgPha-1 performed best among others, with maize yield of 8.16 tons ha-1.; tie-ridging in combination with fertilizer application is the best practice than other tillage practice even with fertilizer applications.; Higher wheat grain yield, total biomass and straw yield were obtained from the application of organic and inorganic plant nutrient sources.; Yield increases were over 100%, owing to soil fertility status improvement; the study proved the significance of the ISFM treatments containing both organic and inorganic forms under farmers’ field condition that they could be considered as alternative options for sustainable soil and crop productivity in the degraded highlands of Ethiopia.; the highest teff grain yield was obtained with application of about 60/20kg NP ha-1.; combined use of organic and mineral fertilizers at justifiable rates is central to enhance the productive capacity of the soil and to improve crop yield and productivity.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**; **Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
* Modern nutrient management strategy has shifted its focus toward the concept of sustainability and eco-friendliness.; the long-term sustainability of productivity in intensive cropping system could be achieved only through integration of inorganic and organic source of nutrients.
* Integrated soil fertility management plays a critical role in both short-term nutrient availability and longer-term maintenance of soil organic matter and sustainability of crop productivity in most smallholder farming systems in the tropics. (No quantative evidence)
Bread wheat grain yield increase from combined E. bruci biomass + inorganic fertilizer (227% over the control); Wheat grain yield increase from recommended NP (about 151% compared to the control); Teff grain yield increase from recommended inorganic NP fertilizer (about 141% compared to the control); Wheat grain yield increase from application of half the recommended NP rate and half the recommended rate of manure and compost as inorganic N equivalence (about 129% compared to the control); Teff grain yield increase from application of 50% recommended NP rate and 50% manure and compost as inorganic N equivalence (122% compared to the control)
Increased organic matter content (No quantative evidence); Improved soil pH (No quantative evidence); Increased total N content of the soil (No quantative evidence); Increased available phosphorus content of the soil (No quantative evidence); Increased potassium content of the soil (No quantative evidence)
increased soil organic matter content (No quantitative evidence); increased soil pH (No quantitative evidence); significant increase in total nitrogen, available phosphorus and potassium content of the soil (No quantitative evidence); CEC and exchangeable cations were significantly improved (No quantitative evidence); improving effects on the tilth and the moisture retaining properties of the soil (No quantitative evidence)
Increased numbers of micro-fauna (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Georgios Kalantzopoulos et al. - 2024 - The Western Greece Soil Information System (WΕSIS)—A Soil Health Design Supported by the Internet of.pdf
Greece
1;2;15
None
Greece;
Soil health; Soil degradation; Sustainable agriculture; Crop yield; Soil quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Internet of Things (IoT) + artificial intelligence (AI) + soil quality indicators + sustainable fertilization management zones + soil property distribution + soil property prediction + soil property mapping + soil properties statistical and geostatistical analysis + soil water management + land use maps + digital soil mapping + crop health calculation + precision agriculture techniques + precision spraying + precision irrigation management + precision soil sampling + soil spectroscopic data + remote-sensing radiometric data
Non-agricultural solution: Open-access data and services + IT platform for data collection and processing + user-friendly interface + secure and searchable data repository + dynamic visualization + real-time information exchange + improved decision support + capacity building for farmers + communication and dissemination of knowledge + knowledge brokerage + scientific papers and publicly using our means of communication, such as social media, blogs, websites, etc. + stakeholder engagement + EU-wide databases + JRC’s Soil Atlas database
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: IoT sensor + soil property sensors + aerial yield-monitoring units + new soil-sensor technology + crop rotation + conservation tillage
Non-agricultural solution: Collaborative resource monitoring framework + open-access IT platform + Creative Commons (CC) licenses + IT infrastructure for farmers, soil experts, entrepreneurs, and policy authorities
+ GIS model builder + Machine learning model + long short-term memory (LSTM) model + Optimized process-based models + long-term consistent artificial intelligence model + stakeholder engagement + EU-wide databases + JRC’s Soil Atlas database
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Sustainable intensification (SI) + irrigated agriculture management + conservation agriculture + efficient nutrient management + soil carbon sequestration
Non-agricultural solution: Circular economy + IT platform for data manipulation and harmonization + harmonized soil quality indicators
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The capacity of living soil to support plant and animal productivity, maintain or improve water and air quality, and foster plant and animal health within the confines of a natural or managed ecosystem; Ensured soil fertility and productivity, reducing soil degradation, implementing efficient nutrient management, and enhancing soil carbon sequestration to offset climate change.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increasing crop yield and quality; AI algorithms assist farmers and regional stakeholders in optimizing production lines, methodologies, and field practices, reducing costs and increasing profitability; Smallscale farmers adopting appropriate technologies for soil health will further expand the quality of their products and access new markets, thus significantly upgrading profit rates and environmental protection; Increased efficiency and sustainability of soil resources, such as water, energy, fertilizer, and land; By encouraging improved farm management and using the appropriate amount of inputs at the proper time and location, digitalization seeks to maximize soil fertility and minimize degradation.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Promotes a circular economy, a soil- and climate-resilient future, biodiversity protection targets; Sustainable soil management and the ecological restoration of degraded land are critical if biodiversity protection targets are to be achieved, helping to create favorable conditions for the maintenance and improvement of the global soil resource to produce food, fiber, and freshwater, contribute to energy and climate sustainability, and maintain biodiversity and the overall protection of the ecosystem; Enhanced soil carbon sequestration to offset climate change; Sustainable intensification (SI), irrigated agriculture management, conservation agriculture, minimized losses from the soil, and increased biodiversity while establishing a positive soil carbon budget are vital factors to sustain soil quality for mitigating soil degradation.
Enhanced digital soil mapping tools can provide a cost-effective means of geographical determination (No quantative evidence);; Open IT platform, that acts as a centralized collection point for soil information based on the selected harmonized soil quality indicators(No quantative evidence)
Increasing crop yield and quality (No quantitative evidence);; Reducing production and operational costs and increasing profitability (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced efficiency and sustainability of soil resources, such as water, energy, fertilizer, and land (No quantitative evidence)
Increased yield and quality of crops (No quantitative evidence);;Enhanced soil fertility and productivity (No quantitative evidence);;Enhanced efficiency and sustainability of soil resources (No quantitative evidence);;Expanding the quality of their products (No quantitative evidence)
Enhanced soil fertility and productivity (No quantitative evidence); Increased crop yield and quality (No quantitative evidence); Soil quality improvement (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced efficiency and sustainability of soil resources (No quantitative evidence); Reducing soil degradation (No quantitative evidence)
Biodiversity protection targets are achieved (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced soil carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals (No quantitative evidence);; Increased biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Gigih Prihantono - 2017 - IMPACT MICROFINANCE CREDIT ACCESS TO IMPROVE HOUSEHOLD WELFARE EVIDENCE LONGITUDINAL DATA.pdf
Indonesia
1;8;10
Indonesia
Indonesia
Poverty; Reliance on informal lending; Access to finance
Solution Package 1:
Microfinance Credit + Agricultural purpose + Geographical area + Ethnicity + interest rates + Savings + Income + Profits + Health + Corporate governance + Economies of scale + Ownership + Efficiency + Loan conditions + Borrower and lender relationship + Poverty + Informal loans + interest rates + Savings + Collateral + Credit score + Repayment schedule + Group lending approach + Interest rates + Credit rationing + Income growth + Investment
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
* Households engaged in business or agriculture (No quantative evidence);;Households with a better track record of microfinance borrowing (observable through longer membership duration) (No quantative evidence)
Higher microenterprise profit (No quantitative evidence);Benefit from income growth (No quantitative evidence);Investment in more profitable projects (No quantitative evidence);More efficient investment in inputs, labour and technologies (No quantitative evidence);Expansion of self-employment activities (No quantitative evidence)
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits related to 'Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health' mentioned in the provided full text as a result of microfinance access.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Gideon Danso-Abbeam et al. - 2019 - Adoption of Zai technology for soil fertility management evidence from Upper East region, Ghana.pdf
Ghana; Burkina Faso; Mali; Niger
1;2;15
None
Ghana, Upper East region, Garu district, Tempane district
Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Zai technology + minimum tillage + crop rotation + intercropping + dry season land preparation + non-farm income + agricultural extension services + credit facilities + farmer groups + membership of VSLAs
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:**
* The Zai technology is designed to rehabilitate degraded lands, conserve soil moisture and improve farm yield.
* The success of this technology during the period of drought in the 1970s reduced the high level of emigration since many were abandoning their land because of low yield
* Assessing adoption and use intensity of such a drought-tolerant and yield-enhancing technology may serve as an empirical guide to farm-level programmes’ design and implementations in areas of agrarian practices and sustainable development.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:**
* Zai is a conventional soil rehabilitation management practice where organic matter is buried in a small pit to help restore fertility and conserve water in the soil.
* This conventional farming practice was considered as a form of conservation agriculture for soil fertility management, the “Zai” pit system, popularly known as the Zai technology.
* Intercropping, particularly with leguminous crops like soybean, improves soil fertility through the addition of soil organic matter, soil cover, and nitrogen fixation.
* The addition of organic matter improves infiltration and increases soil nutrient making degraded land available again for cultivation.
* The organic matter buried in the soil attracts termites and other soil insects, which help in maintaining soil structure.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:**
* Moreover, farm-level policies oriented towards increasing access to agricultural credit and membership of VSLAs are essential to improving the adoption of farm innovations.
* Assessing adoption and use intensity of such a drought-tolerant and yield-enhancing technology may serve as an empirical guide to farm-level programmes’ design and implementations in areas of agrarian practices and sustainable development.
* Per the results of our study, estimates related to the supply-side policy variables such as access to agricultural extension services and credit have positive and significant effects on both the probability and intensity of adoption.
Extension service (No quantative evidence);;Access to credit (No quantative evidence)
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category "Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies" reported with quantitative proof from the full text provided. The study focuses on identifying the determinants of adoption and adoption intensity of Zai technology, not measuring the outcomes of adoption on yield or income.
Zai pits can hold water (over 500% of the water holding capacity of the soil);; Restore fertility (No quantative evidence);; Conserve soil moisture (No quantative evidence);; Rehabilitate degraded lands (No quantative evidence);; Improve farm yield (No quantative evidence)
Rehabilitate degraded lands (No quantative evidence);Restore fertility (No quantative evidence);Zai pits can hold water (over 500% of the water holding capacity of the soil);Improve farm yield (No quantative evidence);Increases soil nutrient (No quantative evidence)
Attracts termites and other soil insects (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Getachew Alemayehu et al. - 2020 - Crop rotation and organic matter application restore soil health and productivity of degraded highla.pdf
Ethiopia
2;1;3
None
Ethiopia;
Soil degradation; Crop productivity; Soil fertility depletion; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat–clover–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure + 5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (clover–bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure + 5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (potato–clover–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure + 5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure + 5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure + 5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat–clover–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (0 tha−1 manure)
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (clover–bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (0 tha−1 manure)
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (potato–clover–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (0 tha−1 manure)
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (0 tha−1 manure)
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (0 tha−1 manure)
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat–clover–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure)
Solution Package 12:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (clover–bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure)
Solution Package 13:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (potato–clover–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure)
Solution Package 14:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure)
Solution Package 15:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (2.5 tha−1 sesbania green manure)
Solution Package 16:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat–clover–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 17:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (clover–bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 18:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (potato–clover–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 19:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (bread wheat undersowing lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Solution Package 20:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (lupine–potato undersowing lupine–bread wheat) + Agricultural Solution 2: Manure application (5 tha−1 fresh cattle manure)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil bulk density, pH, CEC, and contents of organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorous, and exchangeable potassium were improved on average by about 23%, 18%, 67%, 89%, 150%, 89%, and 44%, respectively, with R1+M4 treatment combination in three-year period.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: productivity of bread wheat and potato increased on average by about 446% and 540% in 2015 with R3M4 and R1M4, respectively.
[No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found]
Productivity of potato improved with R1M4 in 2015 (540%); Productivity of bread wheat improved with R3M4 in 2015 (446%); Potato tuber yield increased with the interaction of R5 and M1 in 2015 compared to R3M1 in 2013 (179%); Bread wheat grain yield increased with R3 in 2015 compared to R1 in 2013 (176%); Bread wheat grain yield increased with the interaction of R4 and manure treatments after three years (65% - 139%)
Improved soil total nitrogen (150.00%); Improved soil organic carbon (88.89%); Improved soil available phosphorous (88.78%); Improved soil cation exchange capacity (66.82%); Improved soil exchangeable potassium (44.12%)
Improvement in soil total nitrogen (Up to 150%); Increased potato productivity (Up to 540%); Increased bread wheat productivity (Up to 446%); Improvement in soil organic carbon (Up to 89%); Improvement in soil available phosphorous (Up to 89%)
Increase in soil organic carbon (up to 89%); Increasing soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Georgina Key et al. - 2016 - Knowledge needs, available actions and future challenges in agricultural soils.pdf
United Kingdom; Netherlands; United States of America
2; 15; 12
United Kingdom, England, Lancashire, Bedford, Norfolk, Stratford-upon-Avon; Netherlands; Switzerland; United States of America; Kenya; Spain; Italy; Austria; Turkey; Canada; France; Germany
Soil degradation; Food security; Carbon sequestration; Flood control; Biological control of pests and diseases
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated nutrient management (organic and inorganic amendments) + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotations + non-agricultural solution 1: N/A
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Grow cover crops beneath the main crop (living mulches) or between crop rows + Agricultural Solution 2: Amend the soil with formulated chemical compounds + Agricultural Solution 3: Control traffic and traffic timing + Agricultural Solution 4: Reduce grazing intensity + non-agricultural solution 1: N/A
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Amend the soil using integrated nutrient management; Grow cover crops; Use crop rotation; Grow cover crops beneath the main crop (living mulches) or between crop rows;Amend the soil with formulated chemical compounds; Control traffic and traffic timing; Reduce grazing intensity;Change tillage practices;Convert to organic farming;Manuring and composting;Mulching;Retain crop residues;Restore or create low-input grasslands;Amend the soil with municipal wastes or their composts;Amend the soil with fresh plant material or crop remains;Incorporate leys into crop rotation;Plant new hedges;Change the timing of ploughing;Amend the soil with organic processing wastes or their composts;Change the timing of manure application;Amend the soil with crops grown as green manures;Amend the soil with composts not otherwise specified;Amend the soil with non-chemical minerals and mineral wastes;Amend the soil with bacteria or fungi;Use alley cropping;Encourage foraging waterfowl;Reduce fertilizer, pesticide use; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Higher quality fruit (important for value) from Convert to organic farming (No quantative evidence)
Increased nutrient range and mineralization processes (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter levels (No quantitative evidence); Higher numbers, diversity, or activity of soil organisms (No quantitative evidence); Improved water filtration (No quantitative evidence); Reduced soil loss (No quantitative evidence)
Increase soil organic matter levels (No quantative evidence); Reduce soil loss (No quantative evidence); Increase water retention (No quantative evidence); Improved water filtration (No quantative evidence); Reduced soil and nutrient loss (No quantative evidence)
Increase soil biodiversity (No quantative evidence); Increase soil organic matter (No quantative evidence); Increase soil organic matter levels (No quantative evidence); Positive effects on biodiversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Georgina Key et al. - 2016 - Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils.pdf
United Kingdom; Netherlands; United States of America
2; 15
United Kingdom, Manchester, Lancashire, Norfolk, Stratford-upon-Avon; Netherlands; Switzerland; United States of America; Spain; Italy; Kenya; Canada; Australia; China; Turkey; Georgia; Central Spain; Georgia Piedmont
Soil degradation; Food security; Carbon sequestration; Flood control; Biological control of pests and diseases
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Integrated nutrient management (organic and inorganic amendments) +
Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops +
Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotations
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Grow cover crops beneath the main crop (living mulches) or intercropped +
Agricultural Solution 2: Amend the soil with formulated chemical compounds +
Agricultural Solution 3: Control traffic and traffic timing +
Agricultural Solution 4: Reduce grazing intensity
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The goal of this study is to clarify research needs and identify effective practices for enhancing soil health;Enhancing soil health is central to delivering food security and ecosystem services
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs" are mentioned in the provided text as a result of use/implementations of the solutions and solution packages specified in the full text.
Benefits for crop productivity (No quantitative evidence); Higher quality fruit and increased disease resistance (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced soil and nutrient loss (No quantative evidence);Increased soil organic matter levels (No quantative evidence);Increased soil biodiversity / soil organisms (No quantative evidence);Improved water filtration (No quantative evidence);Wider range of nutrients and mineralization processes (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil organic matter levels (No quantitative evidence); Reduced soil loss (No quantitative evidence); Increased water retention (No quantitative evidence); Reduced nutrient loss (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Increased soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);; Increased soil organic matter levels (No quantitative evidence)
Open
George Schoneveld et al. - 2015 - A systematic mapping protocol what are the impacts of different upstream business models in the agr.pdf
Based on the provided document, the research described is focused on **tropical developing countries** in general, but not specific to any country.
1;2;15
There is no direct geographic information of specific locations researched.
Poverty; Environmental degradation; Food insecurity; Economic vulnerabilities; Deforestation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Outgrower schemes + tenant farming schemes + nucleus-plasma schemes + farmer-owned businesses + joint ventures + management contracts + plantations.
Non-agricultural solutions: Improved livelihoods of low-income communities + integrating low-income communities into value chains as suppliers, employees, distributors, and consumers of goods and services + promotion of inclusive business models + climate-smart and low emission agriculture + policy interventions for sustainable development + economic growth + environmental stewardship + social inclusion + gender empowerment (for female economic empowerment) + access to rural waged labor
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: loss of biodiversity and forest cover, in turn detracting from the potential contribution of, for example, biofuels to improving the carbon balance; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Type of environmental outcomes assessed e.g. none,, (agro-)biodiversity, forest cover, pollution, water quality/ quantity, greenhouse gas emissions, soil health, biomass.
No relevant outcomes/outputs/benefits found.
Productivity gains (No quantitative evidence); Profitability gains (No quantitative evidence); Household income (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Loss of biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);Loss of forest cover (No quantitative evidence);Detracting from the potential contribution of improving the carbon balance (No quantitative evidence)
Open
George Lazarovits - 2017 - A Road Map to Finding Microbiomes that Most Contribute to Plant and Soil Health.pdf
Canada; Brazil; Egypt
2;15;3
Canada; Egypt
Agricultural productivity; Crop health; Environmental sustainability; Soil health; Plant health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium species.
Agricultural Solution 2: Intercropping rice with legumes.
Agricultural Solution 3: Selection of high yielding cultivars.
Agricultural Solution 4: Crop rotations.
Agricultural Solution 5: Application of biofertilizers.
Non-agricultural solution 1: Research and development of molecular tools and sequencing techniques.
Non-agricultural solution 2: Site-specific monitoring using aerial monitoring of crops with NDVI images.
Non-agricultural solution 3: No-till production system and precision planters.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Nitrogen fixation by legumes increases yields; Rhizobium inocula have yield benefits; Bacterial treatments increased rice yield by up to 47%; Intercropping rice with legumes contributes to yield increases; Sugarcane cultivars colonized by endophytic bacteria provided nutrients and growth factors for high yields; No-till corn and soybean rotation increased corn yields.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Development of disease-suppressive soils for take-all disease of wheat; Suppressiveness caused by fluorescent pseudomonad bacteria inhibiting pathogenic fungi; Crop rotations can increase suppressive bacteria; No-till corn and soybean rotation may create disease suppressive soil.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Rhizobium inocula have environmental benefits; Sugarcane production in Brazil uses less nitrogen fertilizer compared to the USA.
- Nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium species (Commercially available Rhizobium inocula have a nominal cost by comparison to their yield and environmental benefits.);;Bacterial treatments increased yield by up to 47% in farmers’ fields, with an average increase of 19.5%.
Increased rice yield from bacterial treatments (up to 47% with an average increase of 19.5%); Reduced nitrogen input for sugarcane production (50kgN/ha vs. the 350kg of N/ha used in the USA); Corn yield at high-producing site (about 300bu/A in a region where the average yields are 150 bu/A); Yield variability reflecting bacterial microbiomes within zones in a field (from 75 to 350 bu/A)
Increased yield in corn from specific rotation (plateaued at about 300bu/A in a region where the average yields are 150 bu/A);Increased yield in rice from endophytic Rhizobium (bacterial treatments increased yield by up to 47% in farmers’ fields, with an average increase of 19.5%);Reduced nitrogen fertilizer use in sugarcane (Sugarcane production uses 50kgN/ha vs. the 350kg of N/ ha used in the USA);Reduced or eliminated take-all disease of wheat (reduced or eliminated take-all disease of wheat; disease development was curtailed)
Increased yield in corn (300 bu/A vs 150 bu/A average); Reduced or eliminated take-all disease of wheat (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced nitrogen fertilizer use (50kgN/ha vs. 350kg of N/ ha used in the USA)
Open
Geofrey K Gathungu et al. - 2020 - Effect of Institutional and Farmer Based Climate Change Adaptation Measures on Crop Production in Ma.pdf
Kenya
1;2;13
None
Kenya;Mavuria Ward, Mbeere South Sub-County, Embu County, Kenya
Climate change; Crop production; Food insecurity; Soil fertility decline
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil fertility improvement + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil and water conservation + Agricultural Solution 3: Early planting + Agricultural Solution 4: Pest and disease control + Agricultural Solution 5: Provision of certified seeds + Non-agricultural solution 1: Awareness creation
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Provision of certified seeds + Agricultural Solution 2: Provision of farm inputs and implements + Non-agricultural solution 1: Training and awareness creation + Non-agricultural solution 2: Link to the markets + Non-agricultural solution 3: Early warning systems + Non-agricultural solution 4: Financial assistance + Non-agricultural solution 5: Others (provision of food aid, partial payment of school fees, employment)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Early planting + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of soil and water conservation methods + Agricultural Solution 3: Application of fertilizers and manure + Agricultural Solution 4: Changes in crops and cropping patterns + Agricultural Solution 5: Pest and disease control + Non-agricultural solution 1: Others
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Provision of certified seeds; 2. Provision of farm inputs and implements; 3. Training and awareness creation; 4. Early planting; 5. Use of soil and water conservation methods; 6. Application of fertilizers and manure; 7. Pest and disease control
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Soil fertility improvement; 2. Use of soil and water conservation methods; 3. Application of fertilizers and manure
Training and awareness creation (25.8% of respondents stated that institutions provided training and awareness creation);; Linking farmers to the market (4.7% of respondents stated that institutions provided links to the markets)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Based on the full text provided, there are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits explicitly reported as "Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services" or "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" resulting from the use of the specified solutions and solution packages. The text identifies measures aimed at these areas (like soil fertility improvement, soil and water conservation, application of fertilizers and manure, organic farming, tree planting), discusses their importance, and reports on their use by farmers and institutions as adaptation strategies, but does not provide reported outcomes or quantitative proof of achieving improved soil health or landscape resilience in the study area.
no evidence found
Open
G Rootman and J B Stevens - 2016 - Enhancing farmers' organizational and experimentation capacities for soil fertility management in sm.pdf
Benin; Kenya; South Africa
1;2;12
South Africa; Limpopo Province; Vhembe District; Dzimauli (Rammbuda irrigation scheme); Luvhada (Mphaila irrigation scheme)
Soil fertility decline; Low crop yields; Poverty reduction; Food security; Institutional limitations
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Green manuring with forage legumes (Lablab bean, Velvet bean, Cowpea, Sunn-hemp) + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of organic fertilizers (chicken manure, kraal manure, compost) + non-agricultural solution 1: Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) + non-agricultural solution 2: Farmer-initiated experimentation + non-agricultural solution 3: Soil testing + non-agricultural solution 4: Organizational innovation (formation of farmer groups, umbrella organizations) + non-agricultural solution 5: Training of extension officers and farmer trainers + non-agricultural solution 6: Market (Winter Green mealies out of season production) + non-agricultural solution 7: Social Innovation (reduce the number of meetings and the time away from their farming enterprises)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased returns per hectare (from R20 000/ha to R45 000.ha); Enabled farmers to send children to school for education, built modern houses and afford them to buy necessary farm inputs; Maize grain yield on the control plot was less than 1 t/ha in comparison to maize yield of 3t/ha where green manure was cultivated; The highest maize yield (just under 9t/ha) was recorded where Mucuna (green manure) plus nitrogen (N) were applied;
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improvement of soil fertility;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Green manuring with forage legumes.
Increased adoption of Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) methodology by extensionists (700 extensionists trained in PEA methodologies and facilitation skills);;Service to more villages (A total of 397 villages were eventually served);;Increased number of extension officers trained in technical areas (By June 2005, 389 extension officers had been trained in the five phases of the PEA learning cycle);;Expansion of PEA approach to other provinces (Besides the horizontal expansion of the PEA approach within Limpopo Province, it was also initiated in 2001 in the Eastern Cape Province and in 2002 in Mpumalanga Province)
Increased financial returns from winter green mealies (from R20 000/ha to R45 000.ha); Highest maize yield with Mucuna green manure plus nitrogen (just under 9t/ha); Maize yield where green manure was cultivated (3t/ha); Reduced fertiliser costs (No quantative evidence); More affordable acquisition of inputs (No quantative evidence)
Maize yield where green manure was cultivated (3t/ha);; Highest maize yield where Mucuna green manure plus nitrogen were applied (just under 9t/ha)
Improvement of soil fertility (No quantative evidence); Improved grain yields from maize (Maize yield on control plot was less than 1 t/ha in comparison to maize yield of 3t/ha where green manure was cultivated; Highest maize yield (just under 9t/ha) was recorded where Mucuna (green manure) plus nitrogen (N) were applied); Reduced fertiliser costs (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Frank Tchuwa et al. - 2022 - From Learning Plot to Main Field Scaling-Out Soil Health Innovations in Malawi.pdf
1;2;15
None
Malawi, Kandeu; Malawi, Mkanakhoti; Malawi, Zombwe
Soil degradation; Climate change; Crop yield; Soil health; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Planting patterns for maize and legume crops (e.g., single seed per station in maize) + Agricultural Solution 2: Testing different rates of mineral fertilizer + Agricultural Solution 3: Testing improved maize and legume varieties + Agricultural Solution 4: Managing crop residues + Agricultural Solution 5: Applying animal and compost manure + Agricultural Solution 6: Rotating maize with a sole legume crop (i.e., soya, groundnuts or pigeon peas) + non-agricultural solution 1: Knowledge of basic research principles + non-agricultural solution 2: Social capital (bridging and bonding) + non-agricultural solution 3: Access to agricultural extension services + non-agricultural solution 4: Knowledge sharing between farmers, extension workers and agronomists.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Planting patterns for maize and legume crops (e.g., single seed per station in maize) + Agricultural Solution 2: Testing different rates of mineral fertilizer + Agricultural Solution 3: Testing improved maize and legume varieties + Agricultural Solution 4: Managing crop residues + Agricultural Solution 5: Applying animal and compost manure + Agricultural Solution 6: Rotating maize with a sole legume crop (i.e., soya, groundnuts or pigeon peas) + non-agricultural solution 1: Biophysical factors (e.g., moisture stress, run-off, waterlogging) + non-agricultural solution 2: Socioeconomic factors (e.g., time of planting).
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Planting patterns for maize and legume crops (e.g., single seed per station in maize) + Agricultural Solution 2: Testing different rates of mineral fertilizer + Agricultural Solution 3: Testing improved maize and legume varieties + Agricultural Solution 4: Managing crop residues + Agricultural Solution 5: Applying animal and compost manure + Agricultural Solution 6: Rotating maize with a sole legume crop (i.e., soya, groundnuts or pigeon peas) + non-agricultural solution 1: Perceived benefits of the options + non-agricultural solution 2: Gender + non-agricultural solution 3: Wealth status.
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. 0 Options reported: The study analysed how smallholder farmers in rural Malawi were involved in evaluating soil health management options as well as how they scaled-out the lessons from the learning plots to their main farms.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
2. Testing different rates of mineral fertilizer (full or 92 kg N/ha, half or quarter rates);Testing improved maize and legume varieties recommended by formal research organisations (promoted for their high yield, early maturity, and tolerance to pests, diseases and droughts); The farmers scaled-out the options when they viewed them as beneficial to their farms and households as well as acceptable to their leaders (referents) and peers.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
3. Managing crop residues, applying animal and compost manure, as well as rotating maize with a sole legume crop (i.e., soya, groundnuts or pigeon peas).; the village heads and traditional authorities encouraged their subjects to apply different soil health options to combat food insecurity and poverty; Farmers opted for adapting different soil health options to local conditions rather than replicating the acquired knowledge.
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
4. Only lead farmers tested physical structures (e.g., box ridges) as well as minimum tillage and mulching (i.e., conservation agriculture).; maize-legume intercropping and box ridges for conserving moisture and protecting the soils from water runoff;
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
5. Lead Farmer (LF), Farmer Field School (FFS), Farmer Research Team (FRT) and Farmer Research Network (FRN). These approaches were applied in agricultural interventions in Kandeu, Mkanakhoti and Zombwe Extension Planning Areas (EPA) in Malawi.;
Local leaders approve options (The chances of a farmer integrating several soil health options also increased by almost 11 times where influential individuals such as local leaders approved the application of the agro-ecological options in their areas.)
Maize response to soil health options (No quantitative evidence); Improved smallholder farm productivity (No quantitative evidence); Optimal yield (No quantitative evidence); Make much-needed cash (No quantitative evidence); Food and nutrition security (No quantitative evidence)
Good maize response to soil health options (Likelihood of good response significantly increased with timely planting (p < 0.01); Likelihood of good response significantly reduced with moisture stress (p < 0.05), waterlogged conditions (p < 0.05), and run-off (p < 0.05)); Improved soil structure (No quantitative evidence); Improved moisture retention (No quantitative evidence); Reduced Striga (witchweed) (No quantitative evidence)
Maize response to soil health innovations (41 farmers rated groundnut/maize rotation 'good' or 'very good' in evaluations); Improved soil structure (perceived) (No quantitative evidence); Improved moisture retention (perceived) (No quantitative evidence); Reduced Striga (witchweed) (perceived) (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Frank Kwaku Agyei - 2016 - Sustainability of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Experiences from Eastern Ghana.pdf
13;2;1
Ghana,
Eastern Region,
East Akim Municipal District,
Tafo,
Bunso,
Asiakwa
Ashanti Region;
Brong Ahafo Region;
Northern Region
Central Region;
Western Region;
Ashanti Region
Climate change; Food insecurity; Livelihoods; Environmental degradation; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Short rotation and mixed species cropping + drought tolerant crop varieties + low cost strategy + economic equity + flexibility to precipitation and temperature
Solution Package 2:
Short rotation cropping + mixed species cropping + farming at several locations + drought tolerant crop varieties + pest and disease resistant crops + increased income + promote environment health
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:1.Farmers use inorganic fertilizers on their farm to make their crops grow fast and healthy; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:1. Planting several crops on land does not affect the land, the only problem is that farmers do not get many benefits from what they plant on farms these days.; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1.Short rotation crops, mixed species cropping, farming at several locations, and drought tolerant crop varieties sustain highest incomes; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: 1. Some climate strategies employed by the farmers like cultivation of multiple crops, and the raising of drought resistant species were both economically viable to the farmers and had no negative effect on the environment.
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the full text that belongs to the category "Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.".
Short rotation cropping (86);;Mixed species cropping (77);;Drought tolerant crop varieties (72);;Farming at several locations (58);;Pest and disease resistant crops (56)
Mixed species cropping (83%); Short rotation cropping (76%); Drought tolerant crop varieties (63%); Farming at several locations (63%); Pest and disease resistant crops (60%)
Mixed species cropping (83%);Short rotation cropping (76%);Drought tolerant crop varieties (63%);Farming at several locations (63%);Pest and disease resistant crops (60%)
Mixed species cropping promotes environment health (83%)
Open
Francis Atube et al. - 2021 - Determinants of smallholder farmersu2019 adaptation strategies to the effects of climate change Ev.pdf
1; None
Climate change; Food insecurity; Land degradation; Agricultural productivity losses; Drought.
Solution Package 1:
Planting drought‐resistant varieties + Planting different crop varieties + Fallowing + Use of improved seeds + Intensive use of pesticides + Use of chemical fertilizers + Tree planting + Access to credit + Access to extension services + Farm income + Gender of household head + Household size + Marital status + Farming experience + Time taken to market
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
* Household heads with a higher annual farm income were more likely to plant improved seeds (1);Household heads with a higher annual farm income were more likely to use fertilizers (1);Household heads with a higher annual farm income were more likely to use pesticides (1);Increased access to credit/cash flows enables farmers to invest in better rewarding farming practices which could reduce the negative impact of climate change on food production. (1);Access to extension services exposes farmers to new information and technical skills.(1)
**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**
* Household heads that received extension services were more likely to plant trees (1);Farmers with more years of experience were more likely to plant trees(1)
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
* Farmers with more years of experience were more likely to adopt fallowing (1)
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* Planting different crop varieties enhances achievement of a sustainable agricultural growth for food security amidst climate change.(1)
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
Access to agricultural extension services increases the likelihood of uptake of adaptation to climate change as farmers get exposed to new information and technical skills (No quantative evidence)
Improved crop productivity from planting different crop varieties (No quantative evidence);Good harvest despite experiencing drought from planting drought-resistant varieties (No quantative evidence);Improved productivity amidst climate change from planting improved seeds (No quantative evidence);Improved productivity amidst climate change from fallowing gardens (No quantative evidence)
Fallowing the garden (No quantitative evidence);Practicing tree planting (No quantitative evidence);Use of chemical fertilizers (No quantitative evidence)
Reducing soil erosion (No quantitative evidence); Improving water catchment (No quantitative evidence); Ensuring some planted crops survive climate change effects (No quantitative evidence); Achieving good harvest despite experiencing drought (No quantitative evidence); Improving productivity (No quantitative evidence)
None. The text does not provide specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions as results of the reported adaptation strategies.
Open
Fauzan Wahidurromdloni et al. - 2025 - Enhancing soybean productivity through agroforestry, organic waste fertilization, and mulching A re.pdf
Bangladesh; Brazil; China; Ethiopia; India; Indonesia; Malaysia; Pakistan; Vietnam; Australia; Tanzania; Cambodia; Japan; Taiwan; Ethiopia; Malaysia; China
13;2;15
None
Indonesia, Surakarta; Western India; Bangladesh; India, Haryana; Pakistan, Punjab; Brazil; Australia; China, Liaoning; China, Hesheng Town, Gansu Province; Malaysia, Sabah; Ethiopia; China, Loess Plateau; India, Kerala
Climate change; Declining productivity; Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Drought
Solution Package 1:
Agroforestry + Organic Fertilizer + Mulching + Economic constraints + Technical constraints
Solution Package 2:
Agroforestry + Organic Fertilizer + Mulching + Policy (government intervention; supportive policies for agroecology and organic farming)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Agroforestry reduced soil erosion by 50%; Switching from traditional agriculture to agroforestry increases soil carbon stock levels by 26% at 0-15 cm depth, 40% at 0-30 cm depth, and 34% at 0-100 cm soil depth; The improved soil structure and water-holding capacity from organic fertilizer results in better root health and overall plant performance; mulching helps retain moisture and prevent drought effects on soybean crops.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Agroforestry systems reduce emissions while enhancing carbon sequestration; Agroforestry systems lock up more than 24 metric tons of carbon per hectare in Bangladesh; cocoabased agroforestry systems in Brazil have been shown to sequester up to 302 metric tons of carbon per hectare; organic fertilizers play an important role in climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to inorganic fertilizers; Organic farming systems showed a 40.2% reduction in N2O emissions per hectare compared to non-organic systems.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Organic fertilizers combined with inorganic inputs increased yields by 12.8-32.5%; Mulching further increased yields by 38.6-44.2%; The latest regulatory data from I.F.O.A.M. - Organics International in 2022 shows that 75 countries have implemented comprehensive organic farming regulations.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: With the adoption of these sustainable practices, the farmers are also able to enhance the production efficiency while also maintaining an ecological system that is recovering and has a greater stability against disturbances; Agroforestry also enhances soil microbial activity; Integrating agroforestry, organic fertilizer, and mulching works synergistically to enhance the productivity of soybeans and soil quality.
No relevant sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found in the text.
Soybean seed yield increase from integrated use of straw mulch with nitrogen fertilizer (75%); Soybean grain yield increase from polyethylene plastic mulch (38.6-44.2%); Soybean yield increase for organic fertilizers used at twice the usual dose compared to inorganic fertilizers (35.2-49.8%); Soybean yield increase from the combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers (12.8-32.5%); Additional profit per soybean harvest in coconut agroforestry systems (Rp. 4,402,000)
Reduced soil erosion (50%);Increased soil carbon stocks (26% at 0-15 cm depth, 40% at 0-30 cm depth, and 34% at 0-100 cm soil depth);Increased soil water retention (51.7-81.6%);Increased soil moisture (10-20%);Increased total soil nitrogen (9-19%)
Increased soil carbon stocks (26-34% at various depths); Increased soil water retention/content (51.7-81.6% and 6.7% and 23%); Decreased soil temperature (8% and 0.5-1.5°C and kept at roughly 20°C); Improved soil porosity (2.75% to 4.97%)
Increased soil carbon stocks (26-34% at various depths);Reduction in N2O emissions (40.2% per hectare compared to non-organic systems);Agroforestry carbon sequestration potential (above-ground ranging from 0.29 to 15.21 Mg C ha-1 year-1 and below-ground between 0.3 to 2 Mg C ha-1 year-1);Carbon sequestration in South Asia agroforestry systems (more than 24 metric tons of carbon per hectare);Carbon sequestration in Cocoa-based agroforestry systems in Brazil (up to 302 metric tons of carbon per hectare)
Open
Farooq Shah and Wei Wu - 2019 - Soil and Crop Management Strategies to Ensure Higher Crop Productivity within Sustainable Environmen.pdf
China; USA; Denmark; India; Bangladesh; West Africa
2; 15; 17
None
China; Pakistan; United States of America; Denmark; India; Bangladesh; West Africa; South America
Land degradation; Greenhouse gas emissions; Food security; Soil erosion; Agricultural sustainability
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nutrient management + Agricultural Solution 2: Site Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM) + Agricultural Solution 3: Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) + Agricultural Solution 4: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) + Agricultural Solution 5: Integrated Soil–Crop System Management (ISSM) + Agricultural Solution 6: Ridge-Furrow Mulching System (RFMS) + Agricultural Solution 7: Water Management Techniques + Agricultural Solution 8: Conservation Agriculture (CA) + Agricultural Solution 9: Breeding strategies + non-agricultural solution 1: Technological changes + non-agricultural solution 2: Behavioural changes + non-agricultural solution 3: Policy
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)- Increasing the cereal productivity and farmers’ income by opting for ISFM have also been reported in West Africa;Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers- The mean grain yields of three major cereals, including rice, maize, and wheat, were enhanced by approximately 11%, while the N application rate, estimated losses of reactive N, and emission of GHGs were reduced by 16.5%, 25.8%, and 19.6%, respectively.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Reducing chemicals’ usage, such as that of fertilizers and pesticides, plus improvements in the crop input use efficiency could minimize greenhouse gases emissions while protecting the environment; Integrated nutrient management (INM) - INM can be defined as using inorganic and organic fertilizers, bio-fertilizers, crop residues, and other living materials in such a balance that enhances fertilizer use efficiency, thus resulting in increased crop yields while indirectly minimizing the environmental risk through balanced fertilizer application; ridge-furrow mulching systems (RFMS)- It is suggested that plastic mulching under RFMS could serve as a physical barrier to reduce the emission of GHGs and the C footprint of grain crops while increasing grain yield and carbon emission efficiency;Sustainable Land Management (SLM)- Disturbing this resource can significantly affect crop productivity, intensifies financial crises and tensions, and leaves current biodiversity and the environment at risk due to the cutting of forests, which leads to the release of carbon
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Adding organic fertilizers combined with suitable managing strategies, like incorporating plant residues or applying zero-tillage or minimum tillage rather than inorganic fertilizers, can improve soil quality, increase C sequestration, and reduce GHGs emissions while increasing grain yield
Ridge-Furrow Mulching System (RFMS) (This technique involves incorporating plastic film, crop straw, gravel sands, and rocks in the ridges and furrows before or shortly after sowing to cover the topsoil, thus preserving the soil moisture. This practice could be beneficial for channelling water into furrows, reducing soil evaporation, and enhancing the infiltration of soil water deeper into the soil profile, thereby increasing the availability of water to crop plants);; Interest in micro-irrigations, such as drips or sprinklers, has gained more importance with time due to their greater efficiency (For instance, in drip irrigation, water is directly applied to the plant rooting zone, thus minimizing evaporation from the surface and can thus increase the crop productivity and WUE by at least 50% [64]);; Site-specific crop management, precision agriculture (PA), and satellite farming are some of the novel agricultural strategies based on variations within or in-between the fields. (No quantative evidence)
Enhanced mean grain yields and reduced N application rate, reactive N losses, and GHG emissions (mean grain yields enhanced by approximately 11%); Increased cereal yield and N use efficiency simultaneously (increased by more than 30%); Greater yield in wheat (39% greater yield); Increased water use efficiency, N fertilizer productivity and N uptake efficiency (WUE up to 70%; N fertilizer productivity up to 33%; N uptake efficiency up to 45%); Increased crop productivity and WUE (productivity and WUE by at least 50%).
Increased grain yield (enhanced by approximately 11%; significantly increased by more than 30%; 39% greater yield); Improved soil quality (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence); Reduced soil erosion (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced biological activity of the soil (No quantitative evidence)
Cereal yield increase under integrated soil-crop system management (by more than 30%); N use efficiency increase under integrated soil-crop system management (by more than 30%); N fertilizer productivity and N uptake efficiency increase under Ridge-Furrow Mulching System (up to 33% and 45% respectively); Water use efficiency increase under Ridge-Furrow Mulching System (up to 70%); Mean grain yield enhancement under integrated soil-crop system management (by approximately 11%)
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (19.6%);Reduced intensity of GHGs emissions (21%);Reduced estimated losses of reactive N (25.8%)
Open
Gemma Ryan - 2015 - Review of the evidence for adolescent and young person specific, community-based health services for.pdf
United Kingdom; New Zealand; Israel; Northern Ireland; USA; Ecuador; European Union
3;10;17
United Kingdom; New Zealand; Northern Ireland; Israel; United States; Ecuador; European Union
Adolescent health; Teenage pregnancy; Mental health difficulties; Health service delivery; Community services
Solution Package 1:
School based multidisciplinary clinics + reduced number of teenage pregnancies.
Solution Package 2:
Adolescent multi agency support service + Integrated wrap around care model for children in CAMHS + Cost savings of £1.1m + Without the intervention 86% would have entered care, 26% actually did + Some of the children who entered care were continued to be supported by the project and resulted in more cost effective foster placements + The number of children 10-16 entering care fell by 36%.
Solution Package 3:
School based appointment or walk in clinics + Multidisciplinary, integrated approach with social care and education + Reduced need for external referrals + Students are more likely to seek help in familiar settings + Parents do not need to take time off work to enable students to attend appointments + Reduces barriers in access to healthcare consultations particularly for those with low SES + Model was shown to be successful in engaging with and targeting vulnerable or minority populations.
Solution Package 4:
Stepped care model with ‘matched services’ + Integrated MDT + Mental Health and Learning disabilities + 4-Tier model with care pathways; Universal, PMH Intervention, Specialist, Intermediate Patient and public involvement + Integrated across health and social care.
Solution Package 5:
Walk in adolescent health service in a medical centre + Integrated across health and social care + Improved diagnosis of further needs + Improved access to services + Referral source for those with unmet health needs + Improved engagement with health and social care.
Solution Package 6:
Health centre specifically designed to service 11 secondary and high schools + MDT health and social care + School clinics + Improved direct referral from school professionals, parents and students = easier access + Most of the attendees were middle and upper class even though the clinic was in a low SE area + High dropout rate.
Solution Package 7:
School based health clinics + MDT education and medical, mental health, nursing, unqualified staff + 91% of students supported having a school based health centre compared to those who did not have access + Preventative services are less valued than treatment services by users + Students more willing to use school health centres + Increased engagement with minority groups + Parents are more likely to support services that offer counselling services + Students preferred services that dispensed contraceptives or treatments.
Solution Package 8:
School linked health centres + MDT/integrated + Great potential to improve access to services + One central place for all health needs ‘right care at right time’ + Improved relationships with school staff and HCPs from two way referrals + Ability to reach beyond school populations e.g. homeless, dropouts, runaway youth, detention centres and shelters and social service programs + Help to reach those at risk of unwanted pregnancy, HIV, drug abuse and violence + Follow up is more difficult than school based clinics.
Solution Package 9:
Transformation of a mainstream service into a Adolescent Specific Service + Increased service use amongst adolescents + Improved availability and accessibility for adolescents + Promoted gender equality + Requires commitment from staff groups and many put in additional hours to engage in activities with adolescents + High turnover of staff which hindered progression and relationships + Requires integrated approach across community, government, healthcare.
Solution Package 10:
Service user feedback on services + 85% students believed that there should be adolescent specific services available + Want staff who understand them + Confidentiality is important + Want drop in centres as advice centres and teenage specific clinics.
Solution Package 11:
Teen talk project + Health drop in clinic based in a school + 47% of students had heard about the service most was word of mouth through friends + Highlighted importance of marketing and advertising of services available + Feedback highlighted a need for links between education, connextions and all other services for a holistic approach + Those aged 12-15 were most likely to use the school based service + Whole school approach is valued + Males used service less than females + Immediate access to health advice valued.
Solution Package 12:
Survey + Staff should be specifically trained to work with adolescents + Services need to be more ‘youth friendly’ + GP surgeries and clinics should be accessible with opening times before and after school and work and weekends + Electronic booking of appointments via text or internet is needed + Sexual health services specifically for adolescents need to be more accessible and available + Advertising and marketing of services available is poor + PPI is essential – involvement in design of services and recruitment of staff + More advice and specific services for anxiety and mental health are needed.
Solution Package 13:
School based health centres + Improved student frequency in exercise + Increased the number of adults young people feel comfortable asking for help + Improved academic performance + Improved support for children who had been suspended or have poor attendance + Increased knowledge and access of services for mental health + Reduction in ‘risk taking’ behaviours + Reduction in absenteeism, dropouts and school performance + Reduced substance use, pregnancy + Improved relationships in the school setting.
Solution Package 14:
Adolescent specific inpatient units + 12-14 year olds rated care in an adolescent ward significantly superior to that of a children’s ward + 15-17 year olds were significantly more likely to rate their care as excellent on adolescent specific wards compared to adult wards + Adolescent specific wards provide higher quality of care.
Solution Package 15:
Combination of 3 approaches: Approach 1 – Teenage specific, holistic health services (one stop shops etc) + Approach 2 – health provision in other community settings + Approach 3 – enhancing current NHS mainstream provision + Requires a wide range of staff roles and collaboration across health and social care and education + Create dedicated staff time for mapping current provision and new data from all stakeholders + Realistic amount of time for ground work and for initial results + Devise a programme of work which is realistic but that includes all services planned for short and long term + Use and enhance existing services where possible + Services which extend from one central ‘hub’ will help to enhance mainstream and current provision + Specialists in adolescent health are required along with youth workers + PPI essential + Encourage self-referral and ease of access for vulnerable groups + Adopt a gradual change approach to current and mainstream services.
Solution Package 16:
Services at health centres + Services in other centres + Services linked to schools + Outreach services + Technical competence of staff is crucial + See the person not the problem + Training and staff support for those working with adolescents + Services need to be physically accessible + Confidentiality and privacy is essential + Services need to be acceptable to the community - PPI + Use current services in health centres and adapt for adolescent care – link up related services and existing ones + Hold specialist clinics in other community based centres where young people may already attend + Urban and rural areas need outreach centres and also the internet to reach those who may ‘slip through the net’ + Schools provide a natural environment and entry point for young people to access services and opportunity for collaboration and health promotion.
Solution Package 17:
School based health clinics + School based clinics reduced absenteeism + Reduced developmental delay + Reduced low birth weight babies to teen mothers + Increased use of contraception.
Solution Package 18:
Sex education and other programs relating to teenage pregnancy + School based/linked + Community based + Clinic based + Improved knowledge + Reduced risk taking behaviours + Reduced incidence of STIs + Improved self-responsibility for decisions + Improved parent-child communication + Increase in teenage pregnancy rate if some services withdrawn + Improved academic achievement and reduced school suspensions [school linked] + Reaching high risk/vulnerable groups + Reduced numbers of teenage births + Reduced risk taking behaviours + Increased incidence of skilled employment and higher education + Reduced truancy rates + Increased access to high quality healthcare + Increased resistance to peer pressure + Reduced risk taking behaviours + Reduced incidence of STIs + Increased compliance with treatment protocols + Reduced incidence of teenage pregnancy + Increased positive lifestyle changes + Increased coping mechanisms/actions + Reduced substance abuse.
Solution Package 19:
Sexual health and reproductive service models + Broad based, holistic services with medical practitioner input along with an MDT work most effectively + Partnership working across health and social care and education is effective.
Solution Package 20:
Primary care services + The contexts 1. Combined hospital and drop in services along with secondary, tertiary referrals and professional training 2. Community based health for all segments of the population in combination with stand-alone units 3. School based units 4. Community based health service in combination with other services 5. Pharmacies and shops 6. Outreach information and service provision; point of contact where young people congregate + Most studies addressed access to healthcare through pharmacies or modification of current services. Making current service more youth friendly was shown to be successful in improving access in all contexts, along with multifaceted approaches + The need for better training in adolescent health was highlighted + Nurse led general practice visits have limited effect on health risk behaviours.
Solution Package 21:
Review of evidence + Primary care services should be supported by safety netting in health clinics, schools and community based settings + Primary and secondary provision should be linked and easily referred and include a wide range of settings such as schools, clinics, hospitals + Attention should be focused on particular vulnerable or at risk groups in meeting the five characteristics [see below] + There should be an integrated approach and model linking education, health and social care + Speciality training should be available for practitioners + Few studies have examined settings other than school based/linked + Speciality services such as mental, sexual, reproductive and oral health along with substance abuse treatment are not accessible enough for young people + Services are not co-ordinating with each other effectively enough to meet accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness and equity for adolescent service provision + There is insufficient evidence to suggest that one model of delivery is better than another + Multi-faceted approaches are required that meet the gaps in particular geographic areas mapping of gaps is good + Office based primary care services are do not meet the five key requirements + The narrow focus of many services means that they are ill equipped to provide disease prevention and health promotion for young people especially for reproductive, mental health, oral health and substance abuse.
Solution Package 22:
Youth health drop ins: clinical provision within existing services + Youth health drop ins: prevention and education within existing health provision + Youth health drop ins: prevention and education linked to wider provision + Youth health outreach: universal + Youth health outreach: targeted + Development of mainstream health services + Wide range of services provided, health information in a variety of ways, young people develop trust with staff, easy to market as set time and location, clearly defined monitoring information, potential for youth engagement + Provision for health information in a variety of ways, access to vulnerable groups, easy to market, clearly defined monitoring information, potential for youth engagement in services, strong partnership with other groups + wide reaching, limited stigma, access to vulnerable groups, link with existing structures, partnerships with other groups, use in conjunction with drop in models, partnership working.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Improved access to services; Electronic booking of appointments via text or internet is needed.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Cost savings of £1.1m; Cost savings; • Integrated wrap around care model for children in CAMHS; Integrated wrap around care model for children in CAMHS; Reduced need for external referrals
* Improved access to healthcare professionals in schools (p=0.03);; Improved access to services (No quantative evidence);; Improved availability and accessibility for adolescents (No quantative evidence);; Improved direct referral from school professionals, parents and students = easier access (No quantative evidence);; Great potential to improve access to services (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
G.L. Miner et al. - 2020 - Assessing manure and inorganic nitrogen fertilization impacts on soil health, crop productivity, and.pdf
Colorado
1;2;12
None
United States of America, Colorado, Fort Collins
Soil health degradation; Crop productivity; Crop quality; Nutrient deficiencies; Environmental pollution
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Manure-based N treatment + Agricultural Solution 2: Inorganic N treatment + Agricultural Solution 3: Tillage
Non-agricultural solution 1: SMAF (Soil Management Assessment Framework) tool
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Manure application + Agricultural Solution 2: inorganic fertilizer
**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**
1. Manure application increased biological SH indicators compared to the control and inorganic N treatments and also increased available potassium (K), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and phosphorus (P).
2. Manure amendment increased SOC (%) and TSN (%) in the surface 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm depths compared to the control and urea treatments, with no differences in the 15 to 30 cm depth.
3. Manure amendment increased BG activity by up to 50% in the 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm depth.
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. Crop yields were higher in treatments with higher overall SH, supporting the linkages between SH and crop productivity.
2. Grain [N] was 40% greater in the urea and manure treatments than in the control.
3. Grain [P], [K], and [Mg], important elements in livestock nutrition, were 10% to 28% greater in the manure treatment than in the urea treatment.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. The nitrogen (N) in manure must be mineralized before it is plant available, making it difficult to ensure that N is available at critical crop growth stages ;Manure application rates that are sufficient to meet crop N needs can result in overapplication of phosphorus (P), as the crop N:P uptake ratio is higher than the ratio in manure
2. Elevated soil P concentrations are of environmental concern if P is moved via erosion into water bodies, where it can cause eutrophication
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
Grain [P], [K], and [Mg], important elements in livestock nutrition, were 10% to 28% greater in the manure treatment than in the urea treatment (No quantative evidence);; Maize grain [P] was 10% and 25% lower in 2017 than in 2018 in the manure and urea treatment, respectively, with no interannual differences in the control (No quantative evidence);; Grain [N] was similar in both 2017 and 2018, but it was 40% higher in the urea and manure treatments as compared to the control, reaching an upper threshold of ~13 g kg–1 (No quantative evidence)
Higher Grain Yields (averaged 11,450 kg ha–1 over growing years, nearly 40% higher than the control, which averaged only 6,740 kg ha–1); Increased Total N uptake (markedly increased total N uptake over the control (i.e., by >100 kg N ha–1)); Increased Total P uptake (averaged 44.5 kg ha–1 in the manure treatment, versus only 28.6 and 31.9 kg ha–1 in the check and urea treatments, respectively); Increased Total K uptake (ranged from 100.7 kg ha–1 in the control treatment to 151.1 kg ha–1 in the manure treatment); Increased Total Mg uptake (ranged from 24.3 to 33.4 kg ha–1 and was highest in the urea and manure treatments)
Increased β-glucosidase (BG) enzyme activity (Manure amendment increased BG activity by up to 50% in the 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm depth); Increased available soil Zinc (Znavail increased by 130% to 230% in the 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm depths with manure compared to the control or urea treatments); Increased available soil Phosphorus (Manure application increased STP in all soil depths, where concentrations were ~500% higher than the control and urea treatments); Higher Grain Yields (Grain yields did not differ between the urea and manure treatments and averaged 11,450 kg ha–1 over growing years, nearly 40% higher than the control, which averaged only 6,740 kg ha–1); Higher Grain Concentrations of Phosphorus, Potassium, and Magnesium (Grain P, K, and Mg, important elements in livestock nutrition, were 10% to 28% greater in the manure treatment than in the urea treatment)
Higher crop yields (nearly 40% higher than the control); Increased available phosphorus (~500% higher than the control and urea treatments); Increased available zinc (130% to 230% higher than the control or urea treatments); Higher grain P, K, and Mg (10% to 28% greater in the manure treatment than in the urea treatment); Increased biological SH indicators (BG activity increased by up to 50%)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (compared to the control and urea treatments in the surface 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm depths);; Increased Beta-Glucosidase (BG) activity (by up to 50% in the 0 to 7.5 cm and 7.5 to 15 cm depth)
Open
G Uckert et al. - 2017 - Farmer innovation driven by needs and understanding building the capacities of farmer groups for im.pdf
Tanzania
1; None
Tanzania, Chamwino District, Idifu; Tanzania, Chamwino District, Ilolo; Tanzania, Kilosa District, Ilakala; Tanzania, Kilosa District, Changarawe
Food security; Deforestation and environmental degradation; Time saving; Health improvement; Poverty reduction
Solution Package 1:
Improved Cooking Stove + Three-stone fires + Fuelwood + Time savings + Reduced smoke + Enhanced safety + Income generation + Food security
Solution Package 2:
Improved Cooking Stove + Farmer innovation + Knowledge exchange + Firewood combustion efficiency
Solution Package 3:
Improved Cooking Stove + Time savings + Food security + Knowledge exchange + Income generation + Local economy
Solution Package 4:
Improved Cooking Stove + Firewood combustion efficiency + Reduced smoke + Time savings + Health benefits
Solution Package 5:
Improved Cooking Stove + Participatory action research + Knowledge exchange + Farmer training
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: 1. Dissemination within the village, feedback loop to improve innovation capacities; 2. Outreach and up-scaling to other villages, regions; 3.Advanced ICS builders and trainers, income generation
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Advanced ICS builders and trainers, income generation; 2. Contribution to improve livelyhoods and food security
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Reduction of time / monetary burden of energy consumption, preservation of resources; 2. Advisory and backstopping for stove programms
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs:
Dissemination within the village, feedback loop to improve innovation capacities (No quantative evidence);;Outreach and up-scaling to other villages, regions (No quantative evidence)
Higher firewood efficiency (Reduced by 55% in the Morogoro region and about 33% in the Dodoma region); Time saved during cooking and collection (a total of 213 h, per household and year); Time saved during cooking (total cooking time was reduced an average of 25%); Higher firewood efficiency (consumed about 20% less [in Chamwino]; savings of more than 50% [in Kilosa])
no evidence found
Reduced firewood consumption (55% in the Morogoro region and about 33% in the Dodoma region); Reduced time spent collecting firewood (annually 70 h per household in Idifu)
Reduced firewood consumption (55% in the Morogoro region based on controlled cooking test);Reduced firewood consumption (33% in the Dodoma region based on controlled cooking test);Reduced firewood consumption (more than 50% in Kilosa based on monitoring);Reduced firewood consumption (20% in Chamwino based on monitoring);Reduced annual firewood consumption (493 kg/year/household in Idifu based on KPT calculations)
Open
G C Du Preez et al. - 2024 - Time Matters A Short-Term Longitudinal Analysis of Conservation Agriculture and Its Impact on Soil.pdf
South Africa
2; 15; 13
None
South Africa, North-West Province, Ottosdal
Soil degradation; Sustainable agriculture; Food security; Climate change; Nutrient cycling
Solution Package 1:
Conservation agriculture (rotation of maize, sunflower, and cover crops) + crop rotation + no-tillage + building soil armour (permanent soil organic cover) + planting cover crops + integration of livestock through managed grazing
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 4 - Total available P, organic matter content, microbial biomass, Crop sequence
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1 - Organic matter content
No relevant outcomes found.
no evidence found
Structure index (60.59%);; Maturity index (2.45);; Soil structure (volumetric aggregate stability) (22.37%)
Higher Structure index (significantly higher in the cover crop-maize sequence compared to the sunflower-cover crop sequence in Year 3); Higher Maturity index (significantly higher in the cover crop-maize sequence compared to the sunflower-cover crop sequence in Year 2); Shift towards fungal decomposition (significantly lower channel index in the uncultivated system in Year 3); Higher Total available Phosphorous (always significantly higher in the cultivated crops than uncultivated); Higher Total available Nitrogen (significantly higher in cultivated crops than uncultivated in years 1 and 2)
Increased Food Web Connectance (Structure Index) in cover crop-maize sequence (Year 3)(No quantitative evidence);;Shift towards Increased Fungal Decomposition (Channel Index) in cover crop-maize sequence (Year 3)(No quantitative evidence);;Higher Ecosystem Maturity (Maturity Index) in cover crop-maize sequence (Year 2)(No quantitative evidence)
Open
Frank Ewert et al. - 2015 - Uncertainties in Scaling-Up Crop Models for Large-Area Climate Change Impact Assessments.pdf
Germany; Finland; France; New Zealand; Italy; Australia; Sweden; United States of America; United Kingdom
2;13;15
Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia
Food security; Climate change impact assessments; Sustainable development;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop models + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop management + non-agricultural solution 1: Economic models + non-agricultural solution 2: Climate models + non-agricultural solution 3: Soil data
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Simulated potential yields of winter wheat were about 15% to 20% higher than observed yields.
No relevant outcomes found.
no evidence found
None of the reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belong to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health."
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Furaha Aydan Gwivaha - 2016 - Factors that impact agricultural extension training programs for smallholder women farmers in Njombe.pdf
Tanzania;
1;2;None
Tanzania, Njombe District
Food insecurity; Agricultural training; Land access; Group membership; Access to information
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Early planting + The use of fertilizer + Application of pesticides + Importance of improved seeds + Food storage and security + New production techniques + Post-harvesting food handling
Non-Agricultural Solutions: Accessibility of agricultural credits + Farmers networking + Food processing + Education on how to produce commercial crops + Education concerning improved livestock + More training on fruits cultivation + Education on family planning + More education on entrepreneurship
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1-Early planting; 2-The use of fertilizer; 3-Application of pesticides; 4-Importance of improved seeds; 5-Accessibility of agricultural credits; 6-Food storage and security; 7-New production techniques; 8-Post-harvesting food handling; 9-Farmers networking; 10-Food processing; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
* **Education on how to produce commercial crops** (No quantative evidence);; **Education concerning improved livestock** (No quantative evidence);; **More education on entrepreneurship** (No quantative evidence)
Producing enough food for the family throughout the year (57 percent of smallholder women farmers reported that they produce enough food for the family throughout the year); Contribution of the extension training on the performance of their farm (46 percent reported that training has played a significant role)
Training having played a significant role in increased agricultural production (46.0%);;Productivity increasing (55.0%);;Produce enough food for the family throughout the year (57.0%)
Contribution of extension training on farm performance (Significant role (46%)); Overcoming production challenges (Extension information very useful (55%); Moderately useful (39%)); Learning new production techniques (50%); Learning the use of fertilizers (38%); Learning importance of improved seeds (37%)
no evidence found
Open
Florian Walder et al. - 2023 - Synergism between production and soil health through crop diversification, organic amendments and cr.pdf
Switzerland
2;15;12
Switzerland
1. Soil degradation; Food security; Biodiversity loss; Eutrophication; Yield instability
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Crop diversification + Organic amendments + Effective crop protection
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Organic management resulted in the best overall soil health (+47%); Soil health was an important predictor of yield in conventionally managed fields; Positive relationships between crop yield and soil health properties; Crop diversification measures provide promising soil health support; Frequent cultivation of leys and a high level of soil cover promoted overall soil health; Soil organic matter foster soil aeration and thereby root growth and carbon allocation.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Agrochemical use property showed a positive relationship to grain yield under no-till management; Fungicides and organic amendments increase grain yield in conventional systems; Herbicides were negatively associated with conventional yields; Under no-till, herbicides indicated positive and organic amendments negative effects; Soil cover was negatively associated with yields under no-till and organic management; Leys and preceding crops were positively associated with organic yields.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Fungal communities under organic management were far more complex, even if they did not exhibit higher diversity; No-till systems also had higher soil carbon stocks in the topsoil layer.
Crop diversification (No quantative evidence);;Organic amendments (No quantative evidence);;Fungicide use (No quantative evidence)
Increased grain yield from fungicide use (positive parameter estimate in models); Increased grain yield from organic amendments (positive parameter estimate in models); Higher grain yield associated with higher overall soil health (positive relationship observed, especially strong under conventional management with a slope of 1.18 per unit soil health index); Increased organic yields from leys (positive parameter estimate in models); Increased wheat yield from herbicides (positive parameter estimate in models)
Overall soil health (Organic: +47% compared to conventional; No-till: +5% compared to conventional);; Soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence);; Microbial abundance (No quantitative evidence);; Soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Overall soil health (+47% under organic; +5% under no-till compared to conventional); Soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Microbial abundance (No quantitative evidence); Soil structure (No quantitative evidence)
Higher organic matter content (markedly higher standardized index value in organic soils compared to conventional); Overall soil health (+47% compared to conventional management); Better soil structure (quantitatively shown as higher standardized index values in organic and no-till soils compared to conventional)
Open
Fiona M Seaton et al. - 2020 - Soil health cluster analysis based on national monitoring of soil indicators.pdf
Wales;
15; 13; None
Wales, UK
Soil degradation; Land-use change; Climate change; Soil health; Nutrient loss
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil carbon management + Agricultural Solution 2: pH management + Agricultural Solution 3: Bulk density management + Agricultural Solution 4: Nitrogen management + Agricultural Solution 5: Phosphorus management + Non-agricultural solution 1: Policy (agri-environment land management scheme)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Baseline for future monitoring to track changes against agri-environment and other policy targets; Soil measurements seek to address the need for data to understand the soil state and change at a national scale in order to inform policy.
No sub outcomes/outputs/benefits found that belong to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Reduced soil acidity (Percentage of mesotrophic grassland sites with pH < 5 decreased from 38% in 1978 to 4% in 2013–2016)
Carbon storage in bog habitats (carbon stock ~6 kg C m−2); Mesotrophic grassland sites with Olsen-P above threshold for habitat support (three-quarters (75.3%) of the sites); Acid grassland sites with pH above threshold for habitat support (26%)
Open
Filip Benjaminsson et al. - 2019 - A framework for characterizing business models applied by forestry service contractors.pdf
Finland; Ireland; Scotland; Sweden
None
Finland; Ireland; Scotland; Sweden
Poor profitability; Barriers to business growth and innovation; Market fluctuations; Weak financial performance; Difficulty in entering the forestry service market
Solution Package 1:
Harvesting Services + Silvicultural Services + Long-term contracts + Piece work rates per cubic meter + Domestic employees + Wheeled harvesters and forwarders + Subcontracting of forwarding services
Solution Package 2:
Harvesting Services + Silvicultural Services + Customer relationships + Channels + Seasonal contracts + Piece work rate per treated hectare or planted seedling + Foreign workers + Tracked excavators
Solution Package 3:
Forestry service + Full-service contracts + Economies of scale
This document primarily focuses on business models of forestry service contractors, and doesn't directly report on the specific sub-outcomes/benefits related to the provided KPIs. Therefore, it's difficult to strongly associate it with any of them. However, based on the general context, here's the most relevant one:
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits in the category.
No quantative evidence
no evidence found
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the categories "Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services" or "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" are mentioned in the full text as reported specific results of the use/implementations of the discussed solutions and solution packages.
no evidence found
Open
Ferran Romero et al. - 2023 - Soil health increases primary productivity across Europe.pdf
Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Sweden; Switzerland
2;15;12
None
Austria; Belgium; Estonia; Germany; Italy; Netherlands; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland
Soil degradation; Food provision; Climate change; Biodiversity loss; Ecosystem functioning
Solution Package 1:
Soil microbial diversity (bacteria, fungi) + Climatic factors + Edaphic factors + Soil health index (built from soil chemical properties and biodiversity)
Solution Package 2:
Acidobacteria richness + Actinobacteria richness + Firmicutes richness + Chytridiomycota richness + Sand content + pH + Microbial biomass
Solution Package 3:
Soil organic carbon + pH (with productivity peaking at pH ≈ 6)
Solution Package 4:
Fungal community composition + Temperature + Phosphorus + Clay content
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Microbial biomass, soil nitrogen and carbon content, and microbial diversity have a general positive effect on primary productivity, particularly for croplands and grasslands.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Soil health is positively linked to plant yield; 2. High microbial biomass in croplands enhances nutrient use efficiency and nutrient cycling of plants.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Grasslands store one third of the terrestrial carbon stock, and most of it is stored belowground as soil organic carbon;2. Plant diversity increases soil organic carbon storage in grasslands by elevating carbon inputs to belowground biomass and promoting microbial necromass contribution to soil organic carbon storage.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category: Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs. are mentioned in the text.
Positive effect of soil health on primary productivity in croplands (R2 = 0.16);Positive effect of soil health on primary productivity in grasslands (R2 = 0.18)
Positive correlation of soil health index with primary productivity in grasslands (R2 = 0.18); Positive correlation of soil health index with primary productivity in croplands (R2 = 0.16)
no evidence found
Soil organic carbon content differs across land use types (chi-squared = 141.19, p-value < 0.001);;Soil bacterial richness differs across land use types (chi-squared = 152.65, p-value < 0.001);;Soil fungal richness differs across land use types (chi-squared = 115.68, p-value < 0.001);;Richness of nitrogen-fixing bacteria differs across land use types (chi-squared = 22.18, p-value < 0.001);;Microbial biomass differs across land use types (chi-squared = 66.14, p-value < 0.001)
Open
Fernanda Souza Krupek et al. - 2022 - Assessing how cover crops close the soil health gap in on‐farm experiments.pdf
United States of America; Canada
2;13;15
Nebraska
United States of America; Nebraska, Greeley County; Nebraska, Howard County; Nebraska, Merrick County; Nebraska, Colfax County
Soil degradation; Reduced crop yields; Nutrient retention; Erosion control; Water infiltration
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (CCs) +
Non-agricultural Solution: Reference soils concept + Sampling intensity strategies
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Reduced the soil health gap between bare (no-CC) and reference soil in the short (3-yr) timescale;Soil property improvements (e.g., organic matter, water infiltration, β-glucosidase activity, aggregation) with CCs; Higher infiltration, aggregate stability, β-glucosidase, organic matter, nitrate, and cation exchange capacity values relative to reference soils indicated improved soil functioning as far as efficient filtration, erosion control, belowground biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention; Most of the soil properties dynamically responded to CC, but responses were site-specific, as might be expected for soils from different ecological sites varying in management and vegetation;The RSH concept successfully captured soil function improvements through infiltration, aggregation, erosion control, belowground biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention;Positive effects from CC adoption on farms can be achieved by integrating a reference-based soil health concept and adequate sampling.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:Increases in soil health relative to reference soils showed some relationship to increases in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and corn (Zea mays L.) yields;Farmers achieved higher yields when the cropland RSH value for infiltration rate was higher;Cover crops led to increases in soil water infiltration and soybean yield.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:Soil property improvements (e.g., organic matter, water infiltration, β-glucosidase activity, aggregation) with CCs; Higher infiltration, aggregate stability, β-glucosidase, organic matter, nitrate, and cation exchange capacity values relative to reference soils indicated improved soil functioning as far as efficient filtration, erosion control, belowground biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention; The RSH concept successfully captured soil function improvements through infiltration, aggregation, erosion control, belowground biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention;Across sites and soil properties, Colfax had the greatest magnitude and significant responses to CCs (Figure 2a andb), most likely because finer texture led to soil improvements through formation of water-stable aggregates and organic carbon accumulation.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Reference soils embodying soil health principles can be used to evaluate cover crops success on farms.
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits belonging to the category found in the text.
Soybean yield increase (14%); Higher yields linked to improved infiltration RSH (No quantitative evidence); Corn yield increase (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced the soil health gap (for more-is-better properties) (reduced by 55, 28, 17, and 14% across sites);Reduced the soil health gap (for less-is-better properties) (reduced by 67, 47, and 12% across sites);Improved water infiltration (significant difference between CC and no-CC at 2 sites);Improved organic matter (significant difference between CC and no-CC at 1 site);Improved aggregation (significant difference between CC and no-CC at 1 site)
Reduced the soil health gap for less-is-better properties (reduced by 67, 47, and 12% across sites);;Reduced the soil health gap for more-is-better properties (reduced by 55, 28, 17, and 14% across sites)
Carbon sequestration (RSH for Organic Matter ranges from 0.3 to 0.8 across sites);;Belowground biodiversity (RSH for β-glucosidase activity ranges from 0.4 to 1.2 across sites)
Open
Farhat Ullah Khan et al. - 2025 - Long-Term Effects of Crop Treatments and Fertilization on Soil Stability and Nutrient Dynamics in th.pdf
China
1;2;15
China, Shaanxi Province, Xianyang City, Changwu County, Shilipu Village
Soil degradation; Erosion; Soil erosion; Crop productivity; Soil fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Three continuous alfalfa fields (AL-CK, AL-P, and AL-NPM). + Agricultural Solution 2: Three continuous wheat fields (WH-NPM, WH-NP, and WH-P). + Agricultural Solution 3: Fertilization with 120 kg ha−1 N, 60 kg ha−1 P-NP. + Agricultural Solution 4: Combination of organic and inorganic fertilization (75 t ha−1 cow manure-NPM). + Non-agricultural solution 1: Public policies.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation tillage techniques, including minimum tillage, crop rotation, and cover cropping. + Agricultural Solution 2: Integration of organic and inorganic amendments. + Agricultural Solution 3: Precision agriculture methods.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Alfalfa cultivation. + Agricultural Solution 2: Wheat cultivation. + Agricultural Solution 3: Integrated organic-inorganic fertilization with 120 kg ha−1 nitrogen, 60 kg ha−1 phosphorus, and 75 t ha−1 cow manure.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Higher soil fertility, improved soil structure, and crop yield; 2. Enhancing nutrient availability and overall soil health; 3. Improving soil organic matter and nutrient availability; 4. Enhance microbial activity, nitrogen fixation, and SOC accumulation; 5. Enhancing soil structure and promoting sustainable land use in this fragile ecosystem; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. forage dry matter yields ranging from 34,880 to 34,967 kg ha−1; 2. Grain yields ranging from 4981 to 5087 kg ha−1.
* No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belongs to the category.
Highest alfalfa forage dry matter yield under NPM fertilization (34,900 kg/ha);; Increased alfalfa yield with NPM fertilization compared to no fertilization (from 24,555 kg/ha to 34,900 kg/ha);; Highest wheat grain yield under NPM fertilization (5094.75 kg/ha);; Increased wheat yield with NPM fertilization compared to minimal P fertilization (from 1055 kg/ha to 5094.75 kg/ha);; Substantial alfalfa forage dry matter yield under P fertilization (33,240 kg/ha)
Increased Total Nitrogen (TN) (averaging 2.12 g/kg at the 0–10 cm depth in AL-NPM);Increased Total Phosphorus (TP) (0.98 mg/kg at the 0–10 cm soil depth in AL-NPM);Improved Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (significantly higher levels at 0–10 cm compared to 20–30 cm in AL-NPM);Increased Water-Stable Aggregates (WSA) (69.33% at 0–10 cm, 66.69% at 10–20 cm, and 58.22% at 20–30 cm in AL-NPM);Increased Mean Weight Diameter (MWD) (AL-NPM showed the highest values across all soil depths, with the 0–10 cm layer significantly higher than the 10–20 cm and 20–30 cm layers)
Increased Water-Stable Aggregates (WSA) (up to 69.33% at 0–10 cm depth under AL-NPM treatment); Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (up to 10.92 g/kg at 0–10 cm depth under WH-NPM treatment); Increased Crop Yield (Alfalfa yield up to 34,900 kg/ha under AL-NPM; Wheat yield up to 5094.75 kg/ha under WH-NPM); Reduced Soil Bulk Density (as low as 1.09 g cm−3 at 0–10 cm depth under AL-P treatment); Increased Root Biomass (up to 0.31 mg cm−3 at 0–10 cm depth under AL-NPM treatment)
Soil organic carbon (SOC) (11.62 g/kg)
Open
Harold M Van Es and Douglas L Karlen - 2019 - Reanalysis Validates Soil Health Indicator Sensitivity and Correlation with Long‐term Crop Yields.pdf
United States of America
2; 15
United States of America; North Carolina, North Carolina, Goldsboro; United States of America; North Carolina, North Carolina, Reidsville; United States of America; North Carolina, North Carolina, Mills River
Soil degradation; Crop yield reduction; Water quality degradation; Air quality degradation; Soil health decline
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage intensity + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic vs. conventional management + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotation + Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment framework (CASH)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage practices (No-Till, ChiselTill, MoldboardPlow) + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic amendments (poultry litter, cover crops) + Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment framework (CASH)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Reduced Tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Adding Organic Inputs + Agricultural Solution 3: Altering Rotations + Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment framework (CASH)
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: No-Till + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops + Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment framework (CASH)
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic Management + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Poultry litter + Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health assessment framework (CASH)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Healthy well-functioning soils that enhance water and air quality, support human health and habitation, and sustain plant and animal productivity are essential to ensuring a sustainable future for an ever-growing global population;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:Without question, traditional soil testing and plant analysis have proven useful for increasing agricultural production;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:A CASH analysis emphasizes identification of specific soil constraints within agroecosystems, thereby aiding in the selection of land management solutions to increase productivity and minimize environmental impact;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:demonstrating that it can effectively detect differences among agronomic management practices at multiple spatial levels and with different types of soil;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Tillage intensity and fertility practices were especially differentiated by biological soil health metrics
no evidence found
Mean soybean yield correlation with ActC (R²adj = 0.93);;Mean soybean yield correlation with Resp (R²adj = 0.90);;Mean corn yield correlation with Protein (R²adj = 0.88);;Mean corn yield correlation with ActC (R²adj = 0.85);;Mean corn yield correlation with Mn (R²adj = 0.85)
ActC levels correlated with Soybean Yield (R2adj = 0.93);Resp levels correlated with Soybean Yield (R2adj = 0.90);Protein levels correlated with Corn Yield (R2adj = 0.88);ActC levels correlated with Corn Yield (R2adj = 0.85);Mn levels correlated with Corn Yield (R2adj = 0.85)
Improved soybean yield (R2adj = 0.93); Improved corn yield (R2adj = 0.88); Improved corn yield (R2adj = 0.85); Improved corn yield (R2adj = 0.85); Improved soybean yield (R2adj = 0.90)
no evidence found
Open
Hao Zheng et al. - 2017 - Enhanced growth of halophyte plants in biochar‐amended coastal soil roles of nutrient availability.pdf
China
2;11;15
None
China, Yellow River Delta, Dongying Halophytes Garden
Soil degradation; Climate change; Food security; Salinity; Nutrient deficiencies
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biochar
Agricultural Solution 2: Inorganic Fertilizer
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: biochar-improved soil health enhanced nutrient availability; biochar may increase soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil organic matter (SOM) content, and soil surface area, thus improving the health of the degraded soil; biochar-induced improvements of soil properties could be more favourable for plant growth, which ultimately can improve soil health and productivity; the biochar addition will improve the properties of degraded soil (e.g. SOM, CEC and SA-CO2)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: biochar alone or co-application promoted the halophytes growth (e.g. germination, root development and biomass)
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: contributed to the coastal soil C (SOM, Table 3) due to the higher content of biochar-C which greatly enhanced the ‘blue C’ sinks in the coastal ecosystem
no evidence found
Increased total biomass (111–152% (biochar alone); 118–156% (co-application) for Sesbania;; 32.8–76.7% (biochar alone); 44.9–66.2% (co-application) for Seashore mallow);; Increased shoot biomass (111–143% (all biochar alone treatments) for Sesbania;; 54.7% (BCF-1.5%) and 60.0% (BCF-5%) for Sesbania);; Increased root biomass (113–190% (at higher rate ≥5%, biochar alone) for Sesbania);; Increased NAE (from 2.37 to 3.46 mg m 1 (BC-1.5%) for Sesbania;; 33.6% (BCF-1.5%) for Seashore mallow);; Increased PAE (69.1% (BC-5%) for Sesbania)
Increased total biomass (111–156%); Increased root development (Root length 59.7–163%; Root SA 3.28–978%; Root tips 15.6–253%); Increased soil organic matter (SOM) content (34.5–138%); Decreased soil electrical conductivity (EC) values (decreased by 13.8–31.9% in the rhizosphere soils); Increased abundance of beneficial bacteria (Pseudomonas abundance increased by up to 51.5%; Bacillus abundance increased by up to 243%)
Enhanced total biomass of halophytes (Sesbania increased by 111–156% (biochar alone/co-application); Seashore mallow increased by 32.8–76.7% (biochar alone/co-application)); Increased soil organic matter (SOM) content (34.5–138%); Increased soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) (12.0–14.7%); Increased soil available phosphorus (Olsen-P) (increasing trends); Increased soil porosity (SA-CO2) (28.0–46.8%)
Increased Soil Organic Matter (34.5–138% in biochar alone treatments); Increased abundance of Acidobacteria (147% in non-fertilized rhizosphere soils); Increased abundance of Bacillus (243% in non-fertilized rhizosphere soils); Increased abundance of Pseudomonas (23.4% in non-fertilized rhizosphere soils); Enhanced microbial activity (significantly higher AWCD values between 48 and 120 h in BC-1.5% rhizosphere soil compared to CK)
Open
Hannah L Decker et al. - 2022 - Cover crop monocultures and mixtures affect soil health indicators and crop yield in the southeast U.pdf
United States;
2; 15
United States; Alabama, Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center; Alabama, Wiregrass Research and Extension Center
Soil degradation; Crop yield reduction; Soil erosion; Soil compaction; Weed control
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover cropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotations
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rye monoculture + Agricultural Solution 2: Crimson clover monoculture + Agricultural Solution 3: Radish monoculture + Agricultural Solution 4: Rye-clover mixture + Agricultural Solution 5: Rye-radish mixture + Agricultural Solution 6: Clover-radish mixture + Agricultural Solution 7: Rye-clover-radish mixture
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Short-term cover crop use improved selected soil health indicators and reversed soil degradation at one location evaluated, but these benefits were dependent on soil type and cover crop selection.; Cover crops increased soil C by 19-30% in the top 5 cm of a silt loam Ultisol.; Rye and clover cover crops decreased compaction in a silt loam Ultisol after 4 yr.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: In order to restore degraded soils, conservation practices such as cover cropping, conservation tillage, and crop rotations have been adopted to restore soil health and increase crop yield potential. Cover crops can aid in the restoration of degraded soil by decreasing erosion, sequestering C, and increasing stability of soil aggregates
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
Cotton yield at TVREC (approximately 25% greater than the no cover crop control)
Increased soil organic carbon (19–30% in the top 5 cm at TVREC compared with winter fallow); Decreased soil strength (14–22% at TVREC after 4 yr of cover crop utilization for treatments containing rye or clover); Increased permanganate oxidizable carbon (14% higher in the 0-to-5-cm depth at TVREC for certain cover crop treatments than fallow and radish monoculture treatments); Increased cash crop yield (approximately 25% greater cotton yield at TVREC in 2020 for certain cover crop treatments compared to the no cover crop control)
Increased soil organic carbon at TVREC 0-5 cm depth (19–30% greater than fallow and radish monoculture treatments);; Increased soil organic carbon at TVREC 5-10 cm depth (15% higher than fallow for rye-clover mix; 20% higher than fallow for rye-radish mix);; Increased permanganate oxidizable carbon at TVREC 0-5 cm depth (14% higher than radish monoculture and fallow treatments for treatments not containing radish);; Decreased soil strength at TVREC (by 14–22%);; Increased cash crop yield at TVREC (approximately 25% greater than no cover crop control in 2020)
Increased soil organic carbon in the top 5 cm at TVREC (19–30%);;Increased soil organic carbon at the 5-to-10-cm depth at TVREC (15 and 20% higher for the rye–clover mix and rye–radish mix compared with fallow)
Open
Hana Ševčíková et al. - 2015 - Age-Specific Mortality and Fertility Rates for Probabilistic Population Projections.pdf
All countries.
1;3;17
None
Brazil; Lithuania; Bangladesh; Pakistan; Japan; Kazakhstan; Botswana; Niger; Czech Republic; Ethiopia; Nepal; Uganda; India; Germany; China; China, Hong Kong SAR; China, Macao SAR; Dem. People's Republic of Korea; Mongolia; Republic of Korea; Taiwan, Province of China; Austria; Denmark; Finland; France; Ireland; Netherlands; Norway; Singapore; United Kingdom; United States of America
Mortality; Fertility; Population aging; Health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Not mentioned
Agricultural Solution 2: Not mentioned
non-agricultural solution 1: Bayesian hierarchical models
non-agricultural solution 2: Cohort-component method
non-agricultural solution 3: Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods
non-agricultural solution 4: bisection method
non-agricultural solution 5: Lee-Carter method
non-agricultural solution 6: Kannisto model
non-agricultural solution 7: Greville approach
non-agricultural solution 8: Coale and Demeny West region relationships
non-agricultural solution 9: Coherent Kannisto Method
non-agricultural solution 10: Coherent Lee-Carter method
non-agricultural solution 11: Rotated Lee-Carter Method
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Not mentioned
Agricultural Solution 2: Not mentioned
non-agricultural solution 1: Bayesian hierarchical model
non-agricultural solution 2: time series model
No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Hana Ševčíková et al. - 2016 - Age-Specific Mortality and Fertility Rates for Probabilistic Population Projections.pdf
All countries
1;3
None
Brazil; Lithuania; Bangladesh; Pakistan; Japan; Kazakhstan; Botswana; Ethiopia; Nepal; Niger; Czech Republic; Uganda; India; Germany; China; China, Hong Kong SAR; China, Macao SAR; Dem. People's Republic of Korea; Mongolia; Republic of Korea; Taiwan, Province of China; Finland; United Kingdom; United States of America; Denmark; Netherlands; Norway; Singapore; France; Germany; Ireland; Austria
Mortality; Fertility; Population aging
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Not mentioned
Agricultural Solution 2: Not mentioned
Non-agricultural solution 1: Bayesian hierarchical models
Non-agricultural solution 2: Cohort-component method
Non-agricultural solution 3: Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Not mentioned
Agricultural Solution 2: Not mentioned
Non-agricultural solution 1: Coherent Kannisto Method
Non-agricultural solution 2: Coherent Lee-Carter method
Non-agricultural solution 3: Rotated Lee-Carter method
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Not mentioned
Agricultural Solution 2: Not mentioned
Non-agricultural solution 1: WPP 2012 method
Non-agricultural solution 2: Convergence method
Non-agricultural solution 3: Time series model
No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Hambulo Ngoma et al. - 2021 - Climate Shocks, Vulnerability, Resilience and Livelihoods in Rural Zambia.pdf
Zambia
1; 13
None
Zambia, Southern Province, Western Province, Eastern Province, Muchinga Province, Northern Province, North-western Province, Copperbelt Province, Lusaka Province, Central Province
Climate shocks; Vulnerability; Resilience; Poverty; Livelihoods
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1 (minimum tillage) + Agricultural Solution 2 (hybrid maize seed) + Agricultural Solution 3 (inorganic fertilizers) + non-agricultural solution 1 (weather indexed insurance) + non-agricultural solution 2 (targeted social cash transfers) + non-agricultural solution 3 (facilitating asset accumulation) + non-agricultural solution 4 (education) + non-agricultural solution 5 (innovative digital platforms that can facilitate timely delivery of climate information services)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1 (crop diversification) + non-agricultural solution 1 (access to credit)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Use of climate-smart agricultural practices—namely, minimum tillage and use of inorganic fertilizers or hybrid maize seedsignificantly improves household resilience in the short term;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health;Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Haimanote K Bayabil et al. - 2020 - Potential management practices of saltwater intrusion impacts on soil health and water quality a re.pdf
Florida; Bangladesh; Jordan; Oman; Indonesia; China
6;13;15
United States of America; Bangladesh; Jordan; China; Oman; Indonesia; Australia; Turkey; Netherlands
Soil salinization; Climate change; Water quality; Agricultural production; Food security
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Soil amendments (gypsum, sulfuric acid/elemental sulfur, organic mulch, biochar, hydrogel)
Solution Package 2:
Non-agricultural solution: Policy (developing short- and long-term strategies to manage the impacts of accelerated SLR), market(economic feasibility of using biochar), gender, youth and other non-agricultural solutions were not discussed in the article.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: improving soil structure and water infiltration;decreasing bulk density; source of plant-available calcium and sulfur to those soils deficient in those nutrients;Improves soil’s physical and chemical properties;Improving soil nutrient availability;Biochar high-specific surface area, CEC, and microporosity enhances soil productivity;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: increased a yield response of different crops;increased rice yield even at the lowest rate of biochar amendment;increase tomato production by mitigating the negative effects of salt stress;mulching at the bottom and top of the soil surface of the pit resulted in significantly greater yield;date palm leaves and mulch resulted in greater sorghum yield;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: minimizes greenhouse gas emissions; increased CO2 production; influx of seawater into wetlands increased CO2 production;biochar amendment on agricultural soils for carbon sequestration;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: mitigate the impacts of SWI;mitigating effects of soil salinity;protecting freshwater resources;mitigate CH4 emission that would slow the rate of the climate crisis.
no evidence found
Increased sweet gourd yield (18.5 Mg/ha compared to 10.6 Mg/ha from no mulch treatment)
reduction in total Na+ in the soil (96% reduction);;significantly lower soil EC (4.98 dS/m vs 8.82 dS/m);;increased soil hydraulic conductivity (6.8 mm/h vs 5.2 mm/h);;significantly greater yield (18.5 Mg/ha vs 10.6 Mg/ha);;salt-induced mortality of seedlings was completely mitigated (at 50 Mg/ha biochar treatment)
Reduction in total Na+ (96% reduction);; Reduced soil salinity (EC 4.98 dS/m compared with 8.82 dS/m);; Increased soil hydraulic conductivity (6.8 mm/h compared with 5.2 mm/h);; Significantly greater yield (18.5 Mg/ha compared with 10.6 Mg/ha);; Mitigated salt-induced mortality of seedlings (Completely mitigated at 50 Mg/ha biochar treatment)
carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence)
Open
Haddish Melakeberhan et al. - 2025 - The Soil Food Web Model as a Diagnostic Tool for Making Sense out of Messy Data A Case of the Effec.pdf
United States of America (USA)
15; 3; 2
None
United States of America, Michigan
Soil health degradation; Nutrient cycling; Crop yield; Soil structure
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover Crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Nitrogen Amendments + non-agricultural solution 1: SFW model
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Improved soil structure, physicochemistry, nutrient cycling, and water holding capacity; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Beneficial nematode community structure (BNCS); Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: enhance desirable ecosystem services (DESs); Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: improved biological functioning and crop yield
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased SOM in no-till (2.62% vs 2.12%); Increased SOM with high-rate organic amendment (Highest SOM 2.69%); Identification of primarily resource-limited soil conditions using SFW model (No quantative evidence); Increased NO3 in no-till (72.90 ppm vs 53.99 ppm); Increased bacterivore nematode abundance in no-till in 2018 vs tilled in 2018 (No quantative evidence)
Higher soil organic matter (SOM) content in no-till soil (2.62% compared with 2.12%); Highest soil organic matter (SOM) content with high rate organic amendment (2.69% compared with 2.06% with check); Higher nitrate (NO3) content in no-till soil (72.90 ppm compared with 53.99 ppm); Highest ammonium (NH4) value with high inorganic nutrient amendment (4.24 ppm compared with 2.52 ppm with check)
Increased soil organic matter (No-Till 2.62 vs Tilled 2.12; High rate organic amendment 2.69 vs Check 2.06 and High inorganic amendment 2.18)
Open
Haddish Melakeberhan et al. - 2021 - Nematode Community-Based Soil Food Web Analysis of Ferralsol, Lithosol and Nitosol Soil Groups in Gh.pdf
Ghana; Kenya; Malawi
15; 2
None
Ghana; Kenya; Malawi
Soil health degradation; Small-holder agriculture; Degradation; Biodiversity; Ecosystems
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nematode Community-Based Soil Food Web Analysis
Agricultural Solution 2: Soil health management strategies
Non-agricultural Solution 1: Location-specific approach
Non-agricultural Solution 2: Soil group-based scalable soil health management strategies
Non-agricultural Solution 3: One-size-fits-all management strategy
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: the types and levels of soil health degradations in soil groups (orders) and provides a proof-of-concept for a location-specific approach to formulating soil health management strategies in SSA.;A healthy soil is an indication that the different soil health components and belowground processes that drive the biophysicochemical changes are in harmony.; The study developed the first biophysicochemical proof-of-concept that the soil groups need to be treated separately when formulating scalable soil health management strategies in SSA.; One way of developing scalable soil health management strategies is to use soil groups as platforms for characterizing similarities and differences in the types and levels of soil health degradations
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Haddish Melakeberhan et al. - 2021 - Application of Nematode Community Analyses-Based Models towards Identifying Sustainable Soil Health.pdf
Ghana; Kenya; Malawi
1;2;15
None
Ghana, Kenya, Malawi
Societal Problem: Soil degradation; Crop yield reduction; Nutrient pollution; Environmental damage; Economic loss
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil fertility management + Agricultural Solution 2: Pesticides and agricultural inputs + Agricultural Solution 3: Land use practices (tillage, grazing) + Agricultural Solution 4: Cropping systems + non-agricultural solution 1: Economic (fertilizer may be expensive)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil fertility management + non-agricultural solution 1: Environmental (nutrient pollution) + non-agricultural solution 2: Economic (economic waste)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil amendment + non-agricultural solution 1: Environmental (adversely affects the soil environment) + non-agricultural solution 2: Environmental (affecting beneficial soil organisms)
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil nutrient amendments + Agricultural Solution 2: cropping systems + non-agricultural solution 1: Environmental (environmental changes)
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil amendments + non-agricultural solution 1: Environmental (environmental needs) + non-agricultural solution 2: Economic (economic needs)
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Nitrogen fertilization + non-agricultural solution 1: Plant growth boosting factors
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. improve soil structure, physiochemistry, water-holding capacity and nutrient cycling; 2. suppress pests and diseases while increasing beneficial organisms; 3. improve biological functioning leading to improved biomass/crop yield.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: agriculture contributes ~84% of the global nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions;Total loss to farmers from overfertilization in low- and variable-yielding areas was ~$485 million. The loss in fertilizer value corresponded to greenhouse gas (GHG) of 6.8 MMT CO2 equivalents.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: improve biological functioning leading to improved biomass/crop yield; Total loss to farmers from overfertilization in low- and variable-yielding areas was ~$485 million.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Suppressed plant-parasitic nematodes (e.g., SCN 36.9a % of Control; Figure 6 shows points in Quadrants A and C indicating decrease in harmful nematodes); Increased biomass/crop yield (e.g., NDVI 110.3a % of Control; Figure 6 shows points in Quadrants A, B, E, and F indicating increase in ecosystem service); Identification of soil conditions with high nutrient cycling potential (EI ranged 11% to 37%, SI of 31% to 88% in Table 1; Quadrant B of the SFW model corresponds to high SI and EI indicating best case for nutrient cycling); Identification of soil conditions with high structure/resistance to disturbance (SI of 31% to 88% in Table 1; Quadrants B and C of the SFW model correspond to high SI indicating structured soil conditions); Identification of soil conditions with increased beneficial nematodes (EI ranged 11% to 37%, SI of 31% to 88% in Table 1; These indices are derived from beneficial nematode communities, with high values in Quadrant B indicating stable, structured communities).
Identification of specific soil conditions across different soil groups and locations (EI ranged 11% to 37% and SI of 31% to 88%; Non-overlapping of either SI and/or EI standard errors of the data points on the graph show that there are significant differences);; Identification of integrated efficiency outcomes of agricultural practices on plant health and harmful nematode populations (Only 3 means fell into the worst-case quadrant for integrated fertilizer use efficiency)
no evidence found
Open
Habtamu Tadele Belay and Birtukan Amare Kebede - 2023 - Review of the relationship between soil health, climate change mitigation, and crop production when.pdf
Ethiopia
2;1;15
None
Ethiopia, Eastern Ethiopia, Oromia Region, Haraghe Zone, Western Ethiopia, Amhara Region, Eastern Amhara, Gozamen Woreda, South Gondar zone, Tigray, Adaa District, Eastern Shewa Oromia region, Sebeta Hawas Woreda, South West Shewa zone Oromia Region; Nigeria; Ghana; Nepal; Rwanda.
Climate change; food insecurity; soil degradation; sustainable agriculture; greenhouse gas emissions.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of poultry manure + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of nitrogen + non-agricultural solution 1: Economic stability for developing nations
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of organic fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of farm manure (FYM) + non-agricultural solution 1: Poverty reduction + non-agricultural solution 2: Food security
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of organic fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of poultry litter (PL) + Agricultural Solution 3: Use of poultry manure (PM) + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of farm manure (FYM) + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of inorganic fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil fertility in western Ethiopia
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of bio-slurry + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of chemical fertilizer + non-agricultural solution 1: Crop production of rice and maize
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of biogas slurry + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of inorganic fertilizer + non-agricultural solution 1: Crop yield of white cabbage
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: Using organic amendment + Agricultural Solution 2: Utilizing poultry manure + non-agricultural solution 1: Soil quality, nutrient retention, aeration, soil moisture retention, and water infiltration
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of PM + Agricultural Solution 2: Using organic fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: Sustainable agricultural practices
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of PM + Agricultural Solution 2: Use of urea + Agricultural Solution 3: Use of muriate of potash fertilizer + non-agricultural solution 1: Sustainability Index (SI)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The primary aim of the review is to examine the role of organic fertilizers in enhancing the yield of crops.; Organic fertilizers refer to naturally occurring substances that possess a welldefined chemical composition and offer plant nutrients in a readily available form, thereby possessing a high analytical worth; The incorporation of organic fertilizers is a beneficial supplement to enhance the quality of the soil.; Organic fertilizer appears to be a valuable and environmentally friendly way to improve the mineral availability in the soil and improve fruit quality of tomato; Adding live natural substances to the soil could help protect crops and safeguard their investment of carbon against environmental challenges.; As Tolessa and Friesen [38] detailed natural fertilizers, particularly FYM, have a noteworthy part in keeping up and moving forward the chemical, physical, and organic properties of soils and in supporting maize abdicate in the western portion of Ethiopia.; The fertility of soil can be enhanced through the use of organic fertilizers that have an impact on its physical, chemical, and biological qualities.; Nevertheless, it is possible to reduce it by utilizing organic fertilizers that are derived from excrement and urine [52].
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The utilization of 4 t t ha−1 of poultry manure resulted in the most significant development and production of maize.; utilization of bio-slurry in both liquid and composted forms, either alone at a rate of 20 t ha−1 or in combination with the complete dose of chemical fertilizer at a rate of 10 t ha−1, results in varying increases in crop yield of maize, soybean, wheat, sunflower, cotton, ground nut, cabbage, and potato compared to the control group.; examine the role of organic fertilizers in enhancing the yield of crops; According to [17] the report, the most successful results in terms of grain yield and test weight were obtained through the utilization of 10 tons per hectare of PM, paired with 125 kilograms per hectare of nitrogen in the form of urea.; According to research, the utilization of poultry manure resulted in a significant enhancement of crop growth and maize yield by up to 40%; The implementation of four tons of PM per hectare led to the most substantial development and productivity of maize [18]; Indeed [19] reported the utilization of organic fertilizers may result in a substantial productivity boost of 15.2% for kiwifruit, as opposed to using mineral fertilizers; The outcomes indicated that organic fertilizers that have abundant quantities of diminutive organic matter could be more effective in stimulating crop yield.; The study conducted adaa district Eastern Shewa Oromia region by Bhattacharyya et al. [32] indicated that the combination of dry matter compost and inorganic fertilizers resulted in a grain yield value of 0.67 t ha−1 for bread wheat.; Tolessa D, Friesen D. Effect of enriching faryard manure with mineral fertilizer on grain yield of maize at Bako, Western Ethiopia.; According to Krishna [43] by utilizing bio-slurry, the crop production of rice and maize observed a rise of 34 percent while wheat saw an increase of 25 percent; data presented indicates that the plot where 12 t ha−1 of poultry manure was utilized had the highest grain yield with a signifi cant value of 5.11 t ha−1; According to [47] reported that poultry manure significantly increased grain yield; According to findings [50], it is suggested that utilizing poultry manure to replace 50% of inorganic fertilizer can effectively minimize the need for chemical fertilizers while maintaining crop productivity; The utilization of fertilizers containing 50% NPK and 100% PM and fertilizers containing pure 100% NPK resulted in the most bountiful pod and seed yields per plant.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: By utilizing organic sources of nutrients, the emissions of N2O can be diminished through the enhancement of nitrogen utilization effectiveness.; Organic source of nutrients possesses numerous characteristics that not only enhance crop yield but also serve as options for safeguarding the environment by enhancing soil organic carbon and reducing N2O emission.; significant amounts of carbon can be absorbed from the atmosphere and stored in the soil, which would subsequently lead to a decrease in CH4 and CO2 emissions [6]; With proper management of cultivated soil and implementation of efficient policies; determine how organic fertilizers can enhance soil productivity, secure food supply, and safeguard the environment against climate change.; Utilizing organic fertilizers that contain high levels of active small molecular organic agents can enhance both the yield and quality of crops, as compared to traditional organic fertilizers.; The utilization of organic fertilizer not only enhances the quality of soil but also plays a pivotal role in reducing the impact of climate change by boosting carbon sequestration and enhancing the nutrient usage efficiency of crops.; soil can function as a significant tool for reducing the impact of climate change by sequestering carbon and reducing the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.; efficient policies, significant amounts of carbon can be absorbed from the atmosphere and stored in the soil, which would subsequently lead to a decrease in CH4 and CO2 emissions [6]; soil can function as a significant tool for reducing the impact of climate change by sequestering carbon and reducing the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
no evidence found
Poultry manure (12 t ha−1) led to highest grain yield for maize (5.11 t ha−1); Poultry manure (10 t ha−1) led to grain yield for maize (4.16 t ha−1); Poultry manure (8 t ha−1) led to grain yield for maize (3.60 t ha−1); Combination of slurry compost and full dose of inorganic fertilizer resulted in increased white cabbage yield (38.4% increase); Bio-slurry utilization results in crop production rise for rice and maize (34 percent)
Rise in soil nitrogen levels (elevating it from 0.09 to 0.14%); Enhancement of exchangeable soil cations (No quantitative evidence); Improves soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties (No quantitative evidence); Boosts soil moisture retention (No quantitative evidence); Increases nutrient retention (No quantitative evidence)
Rise in soil nitrogen levels (elevating them from 0.09 to 0.14%, significant rise of 53%); Rise in exchangeable soil cations (elevating it from 0.09 to 0.14%); Enhances soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence); Enhances the ability of the soil to retain moisture (No quantitative evidence); Improves soil's physical properties (No quantitative evidence)
Boosting carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence);; Reducing N2O emission (No quantative evidence);; Decrease in CH4 and CO2 emissions (No quantative evidence)
Open
H.M Hughes et al. - 2023 - Towards a farmer-feasible soil health assessment that is globally applicable.pdf
United Kingdom; Denmark; Switzerland; Brazil; Canada; United States of America; South Africa; Colombia; India
1;12;15
None
United Kingdom; Denmark; Switzerland; Brazil; South Africa; Canada; Colombia; India; United States of America
Soil degradation; Food security; Climate change; Ecosystem resilience; Agricultural management
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Minimum data set (MDS)
Agricultural Solution 2: Soil health assessment (SHA)
Non-agricultural solution 1: Provision of a standardised protocol for measurement and sampling that considers the reliability and accuracy of different methods
Non-agricultural solution 2: Cross-industry collaborative approach between researchers, businesses, policy makers, and farmers.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer-centric SHA
Non-agricultural solution 1: Recognizing farmer expertise and considering visual indicators.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Standardised SHA
Non-agricultural solution 1: Local context specificity for decision support.
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: MDS with visual and physical indicators
Agricultural Solution 2: Earthworm counts
Non-agricultural solution 1: Multi-regional statistical analysis
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Localized baselines and thresholds for SHA
Non-agricultural solution 1: Farmer networks to monitor indicators
Non-agricultural solution 2: Multi-regional work on thresholds.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:10 - Managing agricultural soils to function well now and into the future is a priority at all scales; for farmers, policy makers and wider society.;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:73 - Functioning, healthy soils are more stable and resilient to physical, biological and chemical stressors, with reduced risk of soil erosion and improved aeration and water infiltration (Bot and Benitez, 2005), minimising runoff;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:77 - A living terrestrial ecosystem relies on nutrients provided by soil which sustain, and are sustained by, diverse soil organisms (Lehman et al., 2015; Fall et al., 2022; Powell and Rillig, 2018).;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:357 - There has been a rapid rise in discourse and scientific research on agriculture impacts on soil health and the importance of soil health to support regenerative approaches to land management, though the term ‘soil health’ is not consistently used or defined.
no evidence found
reduction of input costs (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Greater resistance to flooding and drought (No quantitative evidence);;Greater recovery from flooding and drought (No quantitative evidence);;Reduced risk of soil erosion (No quantitative evidence);;Improved water infiltration (No quantitative evidence);;Sustaining diverse soil organisms (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
H.A Yusuf - 2018 - An assessment of crop farmer households’ perceptions of climate change and coping strategies in Kano.pdf
Nigeria
13;2;15
Nigeria; Kano State; Doguwa LGA; Minjibir LGA; Shanono LGA, Makarfai, Unguwar Rufai, Falgore Dilmari, Dumawa, Giginyu, Tsakuwa, Kauyen Kuka, Unguwar Gabas, Badumawa
Decrease in crop production; Decrease in food availability; Decrease soil fertility; Increase pest and disease infestation; Increase in cost of food crops
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Changing crop variety + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 3: Mixed cropping + Agricultural Solution 4: Shifting cultivation + Agricultural Solution 5: Changing crop type + Agricultural Solution 6: Mulching
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: decrease in crop production; decrease in food availability; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: decrease soil fertility; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: decrease soil fertility
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
H S P Rahayu and I K Suwitra - 2020 - Agronomic and social strategies on food crop production for climate change adaptation at Palu Valley.pdf
Indonesia
1;2;13
None
Indonesia; Central Sulawesi, Palu Valley; Central Sulawesi, Sigi Regency; Central Sulawesi, Dolo; Central Sulawesi, Dolo Barat; Central Sulawesi, Sigi Biromaru; Central Sulawesi, Gumbasa
Climate change impacts on agricultural production; Poverty; Food insecurity; Crop failure; Loss of production.
Solution Package 1:
Agronomic Solution: Delay planting time + Changing crop variety + Changing commodity + Water management + Farming practices
Non-agricultural solution: Government assistance + Use indigenous knowledge/local wisdom + Access to credit + Access to insurance + Off-farm work + meteorological information + planting calendar application + Rice farming Insurance or Asuransi Usaha Tani Padi (AUTP)
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
no evidence found
maximum yields (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
maintained soil and plant moisture (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
H Bashir et al. - 2023 - IMPACT OF POTENTIALLY SOIL MINERALIZABLE NITROGEN (PMN) ON SOIL HEALTH AND CROP PRODUCTION.pdf
China; India; Indonesia; Pakistan; Vietnam
2;15;12
China, Hubei, Wuhan; Indonesia, Surakarta; Pakistan, Faisalabad; India; Vietnam, Mekong Delta Province
Crop production; Soil health; Nutrient availability; Soil organic matter; Microbial activity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil organic matter management
Agricultural Solution 2: Precision nutrient management
Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotation and diversification
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 3; Role of PMN in Soil Organic Matter Dynamics; Impact of PMN on Soil Microbial Communities; PMN and Soil Physical Properties; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 2; Influence of PMN on Crop Yield and Quality; Effect of PMN on Crop Nutrient Uptake; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Increased crop yields (No quantitative evidence);Increased market value of crops (No quantitative evidence);Improved crop quality (No quantitative evidence);Increased grain protein content (wheat and maize) (No quantitative evidence);Enhanced nutrient uptake (No quantitative evidence)
Enhanced nutrient availability for crop uptake (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter accumulation (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil microbial biomass and activity (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil physical properties (structure, water holding capacity, porosity, water infiltration) (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced nutrient retention and cation exchange capacity (No quantitative evidence)
Increased crop yield (No quantitative evidence);; Improved crop quality (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced nutrient availability and uptake (No quantitative evidence);; Increased soil organic matter accumulation (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced nutrient leaching (No quantitative evidence)
Increased soil organic matter accumulation (No quantitative evidence); Influences the composition and diversity of soil microbial communities (No quantitative evidence); Promote soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Improved nutrient use efficiency (No quantitative evidence); Reduced nutrient losses (e.g., leaching) (No quantitative evidence)
Open
H A Yusuf - 2018 - An Assessment of Crop Farmer Households’ Perceptions of Climate Change and Coping Strategies in Kano.pdf
Nigeria
13;2;15
Nigeria; Kano State, Doguwa LGA, Makarfai, Unguwar Rufai, Falgore Dilmari; Minjibir LGA, Dumawa, Giginyu, Tsakuwa; Shanono LGA, Kauyen Kuka, Unguwar Gabas, Badumawa
Decrease in crop production; Decrease in food availability; Decrease soil fertility; Increase pest and disease infestation; Increase soil erosion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Changing crop variety
Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation
Agricultural Solution 3: Mixed cropping
Agricultural Solution 4: Shifting cultivation
Agricultural Solution 5: Changing crop type
Agricultural Solution 6: Change in planting dates
Agricultural Solution 7: Mulching
Agricultural Solution 8: Planting of trees
Agricultural Solution 9: Change to irrigation farming
Non-agricultural solution 1: Developing farm-level climate adaptation technologies by research institutes and disseminating them to farmers through extension agents
Non-agricultural solution 2: Farmers should have direct link with the research institutes or seed companies in order to have access to the new seed varieties
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Decrease soil fertility;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Decrease in crop production, Decrease food availability;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Planting different varieties of crops, crop rotation, mixed cropping, shifting cultivation
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Guilherme DePaula - 2023 - Bundled contracts and technological diffusion: Evidence from the Brazilian soybean boom
Brazil
1;2;8
None
Brazil; Brazil, Brazilian Savanna
Technological diffusion; Agricultural expansion; Economic development; Agricultural productivity; Market access
Solution Package 1:
Biological Nitrogen Fixation Soybean Varieties + Seeds + Fertilizers + Pesticides + Technical Assistance + Credit + Commercialization of Soybeans with Guaranteed Prices
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health
no evidence found
agricultural productivity (10-fold increase)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Reduced need for nitrogen fertilizers (Potential savings of up to USD 3.2 billion (1996 USD) per year on nitrogen fertilizers)
Open
George Kanyenji and Pedro Chilambe - 2024 - Business model for a Bundled Credit Product
Kenya; Ethiopia; Zambia; Tanzania; Rwanda
1;2;13
None
Kenya; Ethiopia; Zambia
Financial exclusion; Low productivity; Poor market access; Knowledge gap; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Bundling credit and climate insurance products
Agricultural Solution 2: Climate-Credit risk scoring
Agricultural Solution 3: Soil moisture index insurance
Agricultural Solution 4: Picture-based crop insurance
Agricultural Solution 5: Picture-based advisory applications
Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Government e-voucher programs and projects
Non-Agricultural Solution 2: Working with cooperatives to mobilize farmers and aggregate output for marketing
Non-Agricultural Solution 3: Widespread presence of input providers Agro-dealers
Non-Agricultural Solution 4: Digitizing the premium payment and credit dispersal process
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Affordable credit in the form of e-vouchers
Agricultural Solution 2: Insurance against climatic hazards
Agricultural Solution 3: Customized digital agro-advisories agronomic weather market info
Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Assured market and standardized prices
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Credit to access necessary agricultural inputs in the form of an e-voucher
Agricultural Solution 2: Insurance against climatic hazards such as drought flood heat moisture stress pests and diseases
Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Localised agro advisories based on their location and the type of crop they are growing via USSD SMS WhatsApp and mobile apps
Non-Agricultural Solution 2: Linkage to high-value markets such as supermarkets and hotels
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.: Affordable credit in the form of e-vouchers;Assured market and standardized prices;Farmers can sell their produce at a premium price;Reduced defaulting rates;increase farmers' access to finance;boost agricultural productivity;Providing localized agro-advisories.;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.: De-risked credit product offered through multiple channels;one-stop shop for all farmers’ immediate needs (financial, market, input and extension).;Adopting an e- voucher system is an efficient method to ensure that agricultural credit is utilized for its intended purpose.;Partner with digital agro-advisory providers.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.: Recommendations on the organic or inorganic fertilizer to apply;biological or chemical control measures
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.: Climate risk insurance; Insurance against climatic hazards such as drought, flood, heat, moisture stress, pests, and diseases; localised climatic information.
no evidence found
Selling produce at a premium price (No quantitative evidence);; Improved farmers' productivity by providing personalized advice (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced post-harvest losses (No quantitative evidence)
Improved farmers' productivity by providing personalized advice to address their specific challenges (No quantative evidence);; Addressing low productivity by providing e-vouchers for essential inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides) (No quantative evidence)
Boost agricultural productivity (No quantitative evidence);;Improve farmers' productivity by providing personalized advice (No quantitative evidence);;Addressing plant stress/health issues (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Erwin Bulte et al. - 2019 - Does bundling crop insurance with certified seeds crowd-in investments? Experimental evidence from Kenya
Kenya
1;1;13
None
Kenya;
Societal Problems:
Poverty reduction; Agricultural development; Risk associated with adoption of modern inputs; Vulnerability to risk; Low adoption rates of modern agricultural techniques.
Solution Package 1:
Certified seeds + Multi-Peril Crop Insurance + Fertilizer + Herbicides + Labor + Machinery
Solution Package 2:
Improved Seeds + Multi-Peril Crop Insurance + Increased Land Area for Farming
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Insurance + Credit
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.: 3. Farmers induced to buy a bundle with improved seeds and formal insurance are more likely to also invest in the use of complementary inputs.; 2. the bundle (improved seed and free insurance) enhanced the uptake of additional mod- ern inputs and increased the area people cleared for farming.;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.: 1. increase the uptake of improved seeds; 1. Uptake of modern varieties with subsidized insurance is greater than uptake of modern varieties without subsidized insurance, suggesting positive willingness to pay for insurance; 3. Subsidized access to insurance increases future demand for insurance.;
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.: No direct KPU relevance
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.: No direct KPU relevance
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.: No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
Total non-seed (1690.651∗∗∗);;Total land farmed (0.293∗∗);;Total non-seed (505.880∗);;Fertilizer (459.397∗∗);;Machine rental (556.721∗∗∗)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Craig McIntosh et al. - 2012 - Productivity, credit, risk, and the demand for weather index insurance in smallholder agriculture in Ethiopia
Ethiopia
None
Ethiopia;
Poverty reduction; Fertilizer use; Risk management; Agricultural productivity; Credit constraint
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Fertilizer + Improved seeds + Infrastructure
Non-Agricultural Solution: Credit + WII + Extension services + Market information + Financial service innovation + Education + Policy + Access to market
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Fertilizer + Improved seeds + + Infrastructure
Non-Agricultural Solution: Credit + WII + Extension services + Market information + Policy
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Fertilizer
Non-Agricultural Solution: WII + Credit
**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**
1. The project implemented a randomized control trial (RCT) experiment in the Amhara region of Ethiopia designed to explore whether the availability of WII interlinked with credit can expand the demand for fertilizer and thereby increase agricultural productivity.
2. Agriculture remains the main source of income for most rural households in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and also the main occupation of almost all the rural smallholders. Hence increasing the productivity of agricultural production is a key aspect to rural poverty reduction. Given also the increasing scarcity of productive land in the Ethiopian con- text, increasing yields is the only way to enhance productivity.
3. They showed that the lack of insurance against the risks faced leads to low input use and inefficient produc- tion choices; Fertilizer usage resulted in large increases in yields on farmer plots (local extension agents report two- to threefold yield increases in good years from the use of improved inputs)
4. Government of Ethiopia (GOE) has adopted an Agricultural Development-Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy, focusing first on output growth in agriculture through technologies such as fertilizer, seeds, and infrastructure, and focusing especially in cereals.
**Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.**
1. We test whether fertilizer demand constraints pertain to risk, and assess whether WII can contribute toward in- creasing fertilizer usage; The Ethiopian Project on Interlinking Insurance with Credit in Agriculture (EPIICA) works with the largest private bank in Ethiopia (Dashen Bank) and the largest private insurance com- pany, Nyala Insurance Company (NISCO), and targets a high potential production region (Amhara) where it is presumed that risk and credit are major constraints to expanding production.
**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
1. Low input use, and degradation of the natural resources resulting from the cumulative impact of the actions of these small land users has resulted in the exposure of smallholders to food insecurity and generally, limited agricultural growth; Any prospects of growth in Ethiopia, especially of the pro-poor na- ture, must deal with improving smallholder farm productivity.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Tamiru Amanu Abetu et al. - 2024 - Bundling of inputs and services for sustainable smallholder agriculture: the concepts, theoretical arguments and bundle designs using conjoint analysis
Ethiopia
1;None
Ethiopia, Bako district
Sustainable agriculture; Smallholder-centric; Adoption; Technology adoption; Food security
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soybean seed
Agricultural Solution 2: Rhizobium inoculant
Agricultural Solution 3: Fertilizer
non-agricultural solution 1: Buyer contract
non-agricultural solution 2: Herbicide service
non-agricultural solution 3: Pictorial manuals on inoculant application
non-agricultural solution 4: Common bean seed for home consumption
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Smallholders experience complementarity value from using a combination of soybean seed, inoculant and phosphorus fertilizer.;2. Smallholders ascribe different values to seeds from different sources.;3. Smallholders have capital constraints to buy seed and fertilizer.;4. Smallholders have difficulty with inoculant application to soybean seed due to the knowledge gap;5. Smallholders have labour constraints for soybean hand weeding.;6. The soybean grain market is unpredictable so smallholders are not sure if they can have a buyer or that prices may be lower;7. Low soybean household consumption due to drudgery in processing that hinders adoption
Buyer contract (Smallholders who live far away from input markets give a stronger preference to the buyer contract than those who live closer to the input market centres (cooperative shops).);;Technology bundling (Smallholders, who live far away from the nearest input marketplace, showed significant and positive preferences for technology bundling.)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Improved soil fertility through nitrogen fixation (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Xavier Giné and Dean Yang - 2008 - Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidence from Malawi
Malawi
1;2;13
None
Malawi, Lilongwe North, Mchinji, Kasungu, Nkhotakota.
Risk aversion; Credit market imperfections; Technology adoption;
Solution Package 1:
High-yielding hybrid maize and groundnut seeds + Credit + Weather insurance policy
Solution Package 2:
High-yielding hybrid maize and groundnut seeds + Credit
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The study sample was composed of roughly 800 maize and groundnut farmers in Malawi, where by far the dominant source of production risk is the level of rainfall. We randomly selected half of the farmers to be offered credit to purchase high-yielding hybrid maize and groundnut seeds for planting in the November 2006 crop season.; Technology adoption in rural areas of developing countries. The adoption of new technology plays a fundamental role in the development process. In the 1950s and 1960s, the so-called Green Revolution transformed agricultural production in developing countries by introducing high- yield crop varieties and other modern cultivation practices.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: NASFAM contacted clubs in June and July 2006 and offered them the opportunity to be included in the study. Our study sample consistsof159 clubs from four different regions of central Malawi: Lilongwe North, Mchinji, Kasungu, and Nkhotakota.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Farmers were randomized into two groups that differed in whether the loan was insured against poor rainfall. Take-up was 33.0% for farmers who were offered the uninsured loan. Take-up was lower, by 13 percentage points, among farmers offered insurance with the loan.
There is no content in the full text related to the requested category.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Higher yield (hybrid maize DK 8051) (outperformed the trial mean by 12.7%, and outperformed MH18... by 32.7%); Less susceptible to drought (improved groundnut ICGV-SM 90704) (No quantitative evidence); Greater disease resistance (improved groundnut ICGV-SM 90704) (No quantitative evidence); Resistant to common diseases (hybrid maize DK 8051) (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Catherine Ragasa et al. - 2017 - Limitations of Contract Farming as a Pro-poor Strategy: The Case of Maize Outgrower Schemes in Upper West Ghana
Ghana;
1;2;9
None
Ghana;
Upper West Ghana, Sissala East, Sissala West, Wa East
Poverty reduction; Technology adoption; Productivity; Profitability; Market failures.
Solution Package 1:
Contract Farming + Quality inputs + Extension services + Written contract
Solution Package 2:
Contract Farming + Fertilizer + Pannar 12 or Pannar 53 seeds + Herbicides + Written contract + Tractor services + Farmer training + Extension advice
Solution Package 3:
Contract Farming + Inputs + Improved management practices + Verbal agreements + Capacity-building activities + Training in agricultural and farm business practices + Provision or cofinancing of some supplies and equipment
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: 2; improved technology adoption and yield increases
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 2; led to improved technology adoption and yield increases; Maize CF schemes also enabled market coordination and consistent supply of quality maize to downstream industries
Technology adoption;;Yield increases(400–800 kg/acre);; Access to fertilizers;; Access to improved seeds
Yield increase (400–800 kg/acre increase); Increased fertilizer use (24.22–42.51 kg/acre increase in Nitrogen); High profits for a subset of farmers (21% of Masara scheme farmers had >GHS 200/acre profits, 8% had >GHS 500/acre profits); Higher yields for farmers who continued scheme participation (Masara farmers who continued in 2015 had 1,269.54 kg/acre yield in 2014 compared to 1,018.59 kg/acre for those who exited); Higher profits for farmers who continued scheme participation (Masara farmers who continued in 2015 had GHS 33.94/acre profits in 2014 compared to -150.95 GHS/acre for those who exited)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Gatsby Africa - 2022 - Digitally Enabled Agriculture
A landscape study of digital advisory models for smallholder farmers in East Africa
Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda; Rwanda; Zambia
1;2
None
Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda; Rwanda
Agricultural productivity improvements for smallholders; Access to information; Market access; Financial services; Access to inputs
Solution Package 1: DigiFarm
Agricultural Solution: Access to quality inputs at a discount
Agricultural Solution: Information on different crops and livestock
Agricultural Solution: Access to finance
Agricultural Solution: Links to service providers (iProcure YARA Syngenta CropIn FarmDrive Arifu iShamba UNGA East African Breweries Limited One Acre Fund Pula)
Agricultural Solution: Soil testing
Agricultural Solution: Connection with buyers
Agricultural Solution: Digital credit products bundled with insurance
Non-agricultural Solution: M-Pesa transactions
Non-agricultural Solution: Digital Village Advisor network
Non-agricultural Solution: DigiSoko marketplace
Solution Package 2: eGranary
Agricultural Solution: Farmer training on good agricultural practices
Agricultural Solution: Access to agro-inputs (seeds agrochemicals fertiliser)
Agricultural Solution: Connect farmers to microfinance institutions (MFI)
Agricultural Solution: Post-harvest services storage
Agricultural Solution: Market linkages through aggregation of produce and linking to an off-taker via contract farming
Non-agricultural Solution: Access to finance
Non-agricultural Solution: Access to insurance
Non-agricultural Solution: Mobile money
Solution Package 3: PxD
Agricultural Solution: Customised digital information and services to increase productivity profitability and environmental sustainability
Agricultural Solution: Tailored information on crop optimisation pest management input utilisation and environmental stewardship
Non-agricultural Solution: Partnership with in-country partners governments and multilateral institutions
Solution Package 4: Climate Edge
Agricultural Solution: Relevant information to farmers
Agricultural Solution: Basic system (USSD) that can be applied to SMS and WhatsApp
Non-agricultural Solution: B2B solution working with market players off-takers input companies etc
Non-agricultural Solution: Tiered subscription model
Solution Package 5: Kuza Biashara
Agricultural Solution: Rural agent model Agripreneurs
Agricultural Solution: Digital content
Non-agricultural Solution: Youth-led extension network
Non-agricultural Solution: Incubation and launching of new agripreneurs Rural Entrepreneur Development Incubator (REDI)
Non-agricultural Solution: Facilitating credit for smallholders
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Impact refers to a statistically significant increase in yields or incomes for farmers that have adopted or accessed the technology in question. This could represent increased income through crop diversification, improved farm productivity, reduced crop losses, better financial access, higher prices, or quality inputs;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: By helping to reach farmers with more, and hopefully better quality, advice, digital advisory can spur the uptake of good practices and the use of better quality and more appropriate inputs and services;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: PxD is a non-profit organisation with a mission to support people living in extreme poverty by providing customised digital information and services to increase productivity, profitability, and environmental sustainability;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: eGranary’s model is based on the premise that a market-driven approach, coupled with bulking of produce and input requests are needed to help smallholder farmers sustainably increase their incomes and improve their livelihoods
DigiFarm: DigiFarm represents direct-to-farmer hubs as ‘one-stop shops’ through which third-party agricultural service providers offer their services directly to farmers registered on the hub, while farmers can take orders directly from buyers. (No quantative evidence);;
DigiFarm: Of all the platform features and services, access to markets, education and credit are the most popular features, while uptake of soil testing is a less conventional option among farmers. (No quantative evidence);;
eGranary: For farmers, eGranary allows the sale of farm produce at a decent price, access to certified inputs and affordable, specialised financial solutions. (No quantative evidence);;
Climate Edge: Climate Edge’s focus is on finding solutions for how digital technology can bridge the gap between commercial and smallholder farmers. (No quantative evidence);;
Kuza Biashara: Kuza’s agripreneurs provide digital extension services to a cohort of up to 200 smallholder farmers for free and earn an income through inputs sales; aggregating farm produce for off-takers; providing specialised services like soil testing; proving post-harvest handling; selling other products like tarpaulins as well as facilitating credit for smallholders. (No quantative evidence)
eGranary estimated net income for maize farmers (up to US$1,914 net income per 3.5 acres a year);eGranary estimated net income for soy farmers (up to about US$ 782 per year on the same land size);Kuza soya farmers production increase (8.2%);Average yield improvements for advisory services (roughly 20%);Average yield gain associated with digital agriculture programs (4%)
No specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits matching the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health" are reported as direct results of the specified digital advisory models in the provided text. The text mentions services related to soil (like soil testing or advice on using inputs like agricultural lime) and outcomes like yield increases or practice adoption, which can be *related* to soil health, but does not quantify or explicitly state "improved soil health" as a reported benefit resulting from the use of these solutions.
no evidence found
There are no specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits that belong to the category "Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions" mentioned with quantitative proof in the full text content.
Open
- 2022 - EVIDENCE FOR DIGITAL AND BUNDLED SERVICES - Framing a Research Agenda for the Digital Agricultural Innovations and Services Initiative
Sub-Saharan Africa; South Asia
1;2;None
Sub-Saharan Africa; South Asia
Poverty; Agricultural productivity; Income inequality; Access to credit and savings; Technology adoption
Solution Package 1:
Advisory services + Credit + Insurance + Risk management
Solution Package 2:
Advisory information + Relaxing liquidity constraints + Increase in income + Increase in yield
Solution Package 3:
Price premium certainty + Training + Credit + New quality-improving technology + Adoption of technology + Improvements in production quality
Solution Package 4:
Crop information + Credit + On-farm investment + Subsidy + Girls’ school fees
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1;Evaluation of one such service that combines advisory information with relaxing liquidity constraints (RiceAdvice) found significant increases in both income and yield.;2;The impact of bundled services on yield and income can be significantly higher than when they are implemented individually.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1;Agricultural production and productivity improvements that are achieved without concomitant food-related emissions or further degradation of other resources, like groundwater, are especially important.;2;DAISI will ask researchers to consider the environmental resource use changes induced by the bundle, with specific attention to documenting changes in land, water, or input use.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: 1;Such adaptation and resilience benefits could come from building natural capital stocks (for example, improved soil fertility and decreased erosion) or enhancing ecosystem services on agricultural land (for example, improved pollination or nitrogen fixation) through digital advisory and agronomic services.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: 1;On the farm, digital technologies lower access costs and increase the reach of information on new technologies, with the added benefit of leveraging digital tools, such as localized satellite weather data, to tailor information to local conditions.;2;Off the farm, digital technologies have the power to drastically reduce barriers to small-scale producers’ access to both input and output markets, including by connecting buyers and sellers, lowering transport costs, and strengthening information flows between actors.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Such adaptation and resilience benefits could come from building natural capital stocks (for example, improved soil fertility and decreased erosion)
* **Lower access costs to information on new technologies** (No quantative evidence);; **Increase the reach of information on new technologies** (No quantative evidence);; **Lower barriers to accessing mobile money on digital platforms** (No quantative evidence);; **Digitization of agricultural services offers increased potential to reduce constraints** (No quantative evidence);; **Digital reach of the bundled interventions lower the costs enough to effectively reach farmers at scale** (No quantative evidence)
Increased income (significant increases); Increased yield (significant increases)
Improved soil fertility (No quantative evidence);Decreased erosion (No quantative evidence)
Improved soil fertility and decreased erosion (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced ecosystem services (improved pollination or nitrogen fixation) (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Joshua W. Deutschmann et al. - 2025 - Relaxing multiple agricultural productivity constraints at scale
Kenya
1;2;12
Kenya, Teso region, western Kenya
Agricultural productivity; Poverty; Food security; Economic growth; Welfare
Solution Package 1:
Loans for improved seeds and fertilizer + Training on modern agricultural techniques + Input insurance + Convenient distribution of seeds and fertilizer + Funeral insurance + Marketing advice
Solution Package 2:
Input loans for high-quality seeds and fertilizer + Input insurance + Training on improved farming practices
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Increases maize yields by 26 percent;2. Increases total maize output by 24 percent; 3. On average, program participation is profitable, with the net value of maize production increasing by about 18%.
Increased maize yields (26% increase in maize yields;; 24% increase in maize output)
Maize yields (increase by 26%);; Total maize output (increase by 24%);; Profits (increase by 18%)
There are no reported specific sub outcomes/outputs/benefits mentioned in the full text that belong to the category "Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health". The text focuses on increases in maize yields, total maize output, and profits resulting from the use of improved seeds, fertilizer, and modern agricultural techniques provided by the program, but does not specifically mention or provide evidence for improved soil health or the sustainability of plant and animal health via soil health improvements as program outcomes.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
One Acre Fund - 2018 - SDM: Case Report One Acre Fund
Service Delivery Model assessment: Short version April 2018
Kenya
1;2;17
Kenya
Poverty/overall improvement of life; Reduction in hunger; Improve soil health
Solution Package 1:
High-quality maize seeds + Fertilizer + Farmer training + Financing + Crop insurance + Funeral insurance + On-time delivery of inputs + Flexible repayment schedule + Mobile banking
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Enhanced services, which lead to improved farmer income and resilience, through higher productivity and product quality; Increase farmer productivity;1AF farmers report having an increase in their productivity as the result of the use of inputs and the implementation of best practices; Higher yields, and strong ROI for the farmer.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improve soil health; 1AF has actively assessed soil health in Kenya, analyzing pH, carbon and micronutrients, This information has reported improvement in soil health; The reported improvements are from a short window of time, therefore not sufficient to conclude that the program has a positive effect on soil in the longer term.
All of the farmer repayment is done through mobile banking. (No quantative evidence)
Potential productivity for farmers part of the program utilizing the current interventions (approximately 1,600 kg/acre compared to 1,100 kg/acre for non-1AF farmer); Average actual impact across all its customers compared to non-1AF farmers ($211 (21,311 KSH) per farmer in 2015); Total program impact per farmer ($211 in 2015; $149 in 2016; $125 in 2017*); Reported increase in productivity (No quantative evidence); Higher yields (No quantative evidence)
reported improvement in soil health (No quantitative evidence)
Improve soil health (No quantitative evidence)
Improve soil health (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jorge A Delgado et al. - 2018 - Agricultural Collaborative Research Outcomes System (AgCROS) A network of networks connecting food.pdf
United States; Australia; Canada; Mexico; European Union
2;11;15
United States, Colorado, Fort Collins; United States, Maryland, Beltsville; United States, North Dakota, Mandan; United States, Minnesota, Morris; United States, Iowa, Ames; United States, Nebraska, Lincoln; United States, Texas, Lubbock; United States, Pennsylvania, University Park; United States, Wyoming, Cheyenne; Australia
Food security; Environmental quality; Human health; Climate change; Sustainability of natural resources
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Databases that have advanced agricultural research, GRACEnet, REAP, and Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) + Agricultural Solution 2: Databases focused on food such as the International Network of Food Data Systems (INFOODS) + Agricultural Solution 3: USDA ARS Food Data System (FooDS) + Agricultural Solution 4: Soil database networks, such as the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Geospatial Data Gateway + Agricultural Solution 5: North American Drought Monitor (NADM) + Agricultural Solution 6: The Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS) + Agricultural Solution 7: European Soil Bureau and the European Soil Data Center + non-agricultural solution 1: Open-access agricultural research databases + non-agricultural solution 2: Data management plan + non-agricultural solution 3: Coordination among ecological networks + non-agricultural solution 4: Team science and open science + non-agricultural solution 5: FAIR principles + non-agricultural solution 6: Coordination of cyberinfrastructure + non-agricultural solution 7: Farm Nutrient Loss Index (FNLI) decision support tool.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: GRACEnet/REAP DET + Agricultural Solution 2: NUOnet + non-agricultural solution 1: Data Entry Template (DET) + non-agricultural solution 2: best management practices + non-agricultural solution 3: machine learning, robotics, and artificial intelligence.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Increasing profitability (No quantitative evidence); Maintaining or increasing yields (No quantitative evidence); Increase crop yield (No quantitative evidence); Nutrient use efficiencies (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Increased soil health (No quantative evidence); Sustainability of natural resources and environmental quality (No quantative evidence); Increased C sequestration (No quantative evidence); Reduced nutrients losses to the environment (No quantative evidence); Reduced GHG emissions (No quantative evidence)
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantitative evidence); Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jonathan Sanderman et al. - 2020 - Mid‐infrared spectroscopy for prediction of soil health indicators in the United States.pdf
United States of America
2;15;6
None
United States; United States, Illinois; United States, North Dakota; United States, Texas, Kerr County; United States, Washington; United States, Florida, Polk County; United States, Alaska; United States, Nebraska, Mead
Soil health degradation; Agriculture productivity; Water quality; Air quality; Human health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Advanced statistical modeling methods
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Prediction of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (R2 = 1.00 MBL);;Prediction of Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) (R2 = 0.98 MBL);;Prediction of Total Nitrogen (TN) (R2 = 0.97 MBL);;Prediction of Clay content (R2 = 0.96 MBL);;Prediction of Water retention at –1500 kPa (R2 = 0.94 MBL)
Soil Organic Carbon (MBL R2=1.00, RMSE=0.64%);;Total Nitrogen (MBL R2=0.97, RMSE=0.13%);;Cation exchange capacity (MBL R2=0.98, RMSE=3.12 cmol(+) kg−1);;Water retention at –1500 kPa (MBL R2=0.94, RMSE=3.10%);;Bulk density (clod method) (MBL R2=0.81, RMSE=0.10 g cm−3)
Prediction performance for Soil Organic Carbon (R2 = 1.00, RMSE = 0.64)
Open
Joji Muramoto et al. - 2022 - Integrated Soil Health Management for Plant Health and One Health Lessons From Histories of Soil-bo.pdf
United States
2;11;3
United States; California, Santa Cruz
Soil-borne diseases; Plant health; Soil degradation; Human health; Environmental contamination
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Comprehensive soil health diagnostics + Agricultural Solution 2: A suite of soil health management practices (SHMPs) + Non-agricultural solution 1: Farmers’ location-specific knowledge and adaptability + Non-agricultural solution 2: Decision support tools + Non-agricultural solution 3: Social learning
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Non-fumigant approaches such as anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation with disease suppressive crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Use of host plant resistance + Agricultural Solution 4: Substrate production + Agricultural Solution 5: Steaming with a mobile machine + Non-agricultural solution 1: Social learning
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation with broccoli + Agricultural Solution 2: Host plant resistance + Agricultural Solution 3: ASD + Non-agricultural solution 1: Molecular diagnostic techniques
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Prevention (certified seed, sanitation, and weed control) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation (frequency, sequence, green manure, resistant varieties) + Agricultural Solution 3: Additional measures (grafting, biological control agents, biofumigation, ASD, organic amendments, solarization) + Non-agricultural solution 1: Monitoring (soil sampling, bioassay)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: A suite of soil health management practices (SHMPs) known to improve soil health including practices for prevention and enhancing disease suppression via general or specific suppressiveness (e.g., applying organic amendments, cover cropping, crop rotation, using host resistance) are integrated to tailor a site-specific soil-borne disease and soil health management strategy; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Healthy soil can provide multiple ecosystem services such as food and fiber production, water quality and supply, pest and disease suppression, atmospheric composition, and climate regulation, and biodiversity conservation; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: To ensure healthy crop production, the inclusion of a soil-borne disease management perspective in soil health assessments is critical
Development of portable, accurate, and easy to operate sequencers may allow farmers to determine soil and plant biomes in the field as “point-of-care” and may reduce the costs of diagnostics and empower farmers (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Improving overall soil health (No quantitative evidence); Sustained soil and plant health (No quantitative evidence); Enhancing disease suppression (No quantitative evidence); Preventing soil-borne diseases (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
John Musemakweri - 2015 - Farmers' experiences and perceptions of the NAADS Agricultural Extension SystemProgram in Kabale di.pdf
Uganda
1;2;None
Uganda, Kabale district; Uganda, Kabale district, Bukinda, Bubare, Kyanamira, Rubaya
Societal problems:
Food insecurity; Rural poverty; Inefficient agricultural production; Lack of access to information and technology; Insufficient farmer participation.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Crop production, soil erosion and pest management.
Non-agricultural solutions: Farmer group formation, group dynamics, resource mobilization, enterprise selection and development, crop production, and modalities.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Crop or livestock species whose production or post-harvest management.
Non-agricultural solutions: Advisory services, financial support, and group formation.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies;Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs;No direct KPU relevance;No direct KPU relevance;No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
Increased cabbage head size and price due to proper fertilizer application (size has doubled; 500/= per cabbage head but now get 1,000/= per head);;Increased Irish potato yield per acre due to new farming techniques (15 bags whereas previously would get 10 bags on the same acreage);;Increased bean yield per acre (get 40-50 kg from the same acreage whereas used to get 20 kg);;Improved crop production using animal manure (No quantitative evidence);;Increased overall production allowing farmers to sell surplus (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Johan Bouma et al. - 2022 - Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services on Farm Level, Including the Role of S.pdf
Netherlands
1;2;3
None
6;13;15
None
None
None
None
None
None
1;2;3
6;13;15
Netherlands, Flevoland
1. Clean water and sanitation (SDG6); Zero hunger (SDG2); Good health and well-being (SDG3); Climate action (SDG13); Reduction of land degradation and biodiversity preservation (SDG15)
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Reduced tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Conversion to organic farming + non-agricultural solution 1: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Strip cropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop breeding + Agricultural Solution 3: Precision fertilization and irrigation + non-agricultural solution 1: Robots
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The healthier the soil, the better the contribution to SDG’s.;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Carbon capture is seen as a soil contribution to ecosystem services focused on SDG 13; Above-ground biodiversity, that can only partly be assessed at farm scale as there is a large regional component.;
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Characterizing soil health, a limited number of indicators are suggested to produce an operational, not too complex and expensive system that is essential to facilitate adoption in practice by 2030. The indicators are based on needs of growing roots: (i) lack of pollutants; (ii) good soil structure; (iii) relatively high organic matter contents, (iv) high soil biodiversity, (v) favorable soil moisture regimes (newly added) and (vi) favorable soil fertility; Pollutants are absent in the soils being discussed; Rooting depth is directly affected by soil structure, as expressed by visual observations, supported by measured bulk densities and penetration resistances; The organic matter content of the soils in BASIS is determined with loss on ignition; Well designed and maintained drainage systems establish favorable water table levels in BASIS which range from an average lowest water table level at 120 cm below surface at the end of the growing season in late summer to 60 cm below surface in early spring; BASIS management strictly follows the Dutch fertilization recommendations, which defacto provides thresholds based on extensive field research.;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: An increase in carbon sequestration is possible by incorporating more crops in the crop rotation with large amounts of crop residues like cereals, growing cover crops and applying (more) organic manure;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Target levels of crop yields on clay soils in general are 40 t/ha for seed potatoes, 60 t/ha for seed onions, 95 t/ha for sugar beet and 6.4 t/ha for summer barley; the yield of seed potatoes is 7 t/ha (=18%) lower than the threshold, suggesting attention to possible causes, while the other yields are much higher. The conclusion is justified that the threshold for SDG2 is met. This conclusion is supported by the simulation analysis that produced, for example a value of 7.3 t/ha for summer wheat which is above the 80% Yw value. The Yw value is important to assess the general production level to be applied when comparing soils in an SDG context.
no evidence found
Precision fertilization resulting in savings of fertilizer input and costs (up to at least 10%);Robots for biocide application realizing savings (up to 80%)
High soil organic matter content contributing to nutrient dynamics, resilience, water holding capacity, and water delivery to plant roots (3.0 (0.3) % (Conventional), 3.1 (0.3) % (Non-inversion), 3.3 (0.3) % (Organic) in 0-30 cm layer; Above national median (2.0%) and tentative threshold (2.0% or 3.0%));;Favorable soil structure supporting root growth (Bulk density (2-7 cm): 1.35 (0.08) g/cm3 (Conventional), 1.35 (0.06) g/cm3 (Non-inversion), 1.30 (0.09) g/cm3 (Organic); Bulk density (14-19 cm): 1.43 (0.07) g/cm3 (Conventional), 1.47 (0.06) g/cm3 (Non-inversion), 1.40 (0.09) g/cm3 (Organic); Penetration resistance (15-30 cm): 0.67 (0.31) MPa (Conventional), 1.90 (0.61) MPa (Non-inversion), 1.38 (0.58) MPa (Organic); Values below thresholds of 1.55 g/cm3 and 1.5 MPa);;Increased soil organic matter content under organic farming (From ~3.0% (Conventional) to 3.3% (Organic) in 0-30 cm layer; almost significant increase);;Favorable soil moisture regimes (Water table levels ranging from 120 cm below surface (late summer) to 60 cm below surface (early spring); simulation results do not result in a significant reduction of production levels)
Yields meeting thresholds for some crops (Seed onions: 63 tonnes/ha vs target 60 t/ha; Sugar beet: 100 tonnes/ha vs target 95 t/ha; Summer barley: 8 tonnes/ha vs target 6.4 t/ha);;Crops are healthy, meeting quality standards (No quantitative evidence);;Soils of the BASIS experiment are healthy (No quantitative evidence);;Relatively high organic matter content (0-30 cm: 3.0 (0.3) %; tentative threshold 2.0%);;Good soil structure shown by low bulk densities (2-7 cm: 1.35 (0.08) g/cm3; 14-19 cm: 1.43 (0.07) g/cm3; threshold 1.55 g/cm3)
carbon sequestration (3.3% organic matter content (Organic farming); 3.0% organic matter content (Conventional ploughing); 3.1% organic matter content (Conventional non-inversion tillage); exceeding a tentative threshold of 2.0%);;soil biodiversity (proxy by organic matter content) (3.3% organic matter content (Organic farming); 3.0% organic matter content (Conventional ploughing); 3.1% organic matter content (Conventional non-inversion tillage); exceeding a tentative threshold of 2.0% (as proxy))
Open
Joanna Staszewska and Lilla Knop - 2025 - Identifying Resilience Factors of Power Company Business Models.pdf
**Poland**
```
1;2;6
1;2
1;2;3;4;5
1;2
1;6;8
1;2;3
```
Poland;
Societal Problems:
Energy Transition; Climate Change; Economic Instability; Geopolitical Risks; Energy Security
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* The dynamics and alignment of the various components of the model with the implementation of the strategy and its change,
* tolerance of the model to volatility to accommodate strategy implementation,
* feedback systems on model effectiveness/fit with strategy/strategy conditions.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* relationship between customer value creation and company profitability,
* the impact of business architecture and its changes on value creation,
* the role of innovation in value creation,
* dependence of the business model on components outside the company’s control,
* the ability of the business model to balance potentials,
* the relationship between balancing potentials and building long-term value,
* the impact of social responsibility on building long-term value.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* the interrelationship between the elements of the chain,
* the level of risk and uncertainty of the entire value chain and its individual links,
* tolerance/ability to absorb changes in individual links and the whole chain,
* systems for securing/maintaining business continuity and risk prevention,
* communication and feedback systems between links in the chain,
* adaptability of chain links to change—adapting and driving change in an efficient and cost-effective way without compromising quality.
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* the impact of individual product changes on the value offered to the customer,
* the level of risk and uncertainty of individual products on the value offered to the customer,
* feedback on how products match the value expected by customers,
* ability to adapt the value offered to changes in the environment—responding quickly and flexibly to customer needs,
* systems to protect innovative product solutions from imitation and copying,
* product innovation.
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* adaptability to stakeholder/owner expectations,
* risks and uncertainty of the effects of ownership decisions on the business.
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* A diversified, flexible offer tailored to the needs of products and services and meeting the needs of customers,
* The speed of introducing changes to the offer, allowing you to stay ahead of the competition,
* Media monitoring, building contacts and relations with the media,
* Communication and customer relations,
* Continuous improvement of customer service standards,
* Communication processes with the external and internal environment,
* Standards and procedures for testing the quality of products/services and customer service,
* Monitoring the effectiveness of marketing activities, including acquiring new and losing customers,
* Procedures and tools to support the maintenance of existing and recovery of lost customers,
* Standards to protect the value offered to the customer and the competitive advantages achieved.
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* Production assets adapted to the consequences of extreme weather events and weather variability in Business Areas sensitive to these factors,
* Production and network assets adapted to the generation of renewable energy and zero and low-emission technologies for the generation of electricity and heat,
* Availability of environmental resources,
* Meeting the requirements of the licensed activity,
* Procedures for maintaining the required level of performance of pollution abatement devices,
* Constant supervision over compliance with the conditions of environmental decisions,
* Constant technical supervision of production assets, particularly those exposed to weather anomalies,
* Procedures for monitoring the condition of machinery, equipment and installations and for responding to emergencies,
* Asset insurance against random events (excluding assets underground),
* Procedures for monitoring the availability of generating units and demand reduction and transferring capacity obligations requiring reservation to dedicated intra-group reserve units or external entities,
* Developed and maintained business continuity plans,
* IT solutions with technical parameters, ensuring an acceptable level of reliability and efficiency of operation,
* Plans for the protection of facilities subject to mandatory protection,
* Procedures for complying with applicable information protection rules,
* Procedures and mechanisms to reduce the risk to resources in the event of emergency events,
* Ability to meet obligations on an ongoing basis,
* Ability to obtain and handle financing,
* Conducting a policy of dialogue with the Social Party and active internal communication in employee matters,
* Adoption and implementation of the Recruitment, Selection and Adaptation Policy of Company Employees and the Policy of compliance with the Ethics Rules and counteracting Mobbing and Discrimination. Diversity Policy and Human Rights Respect Policy,
* Development of staff competences, enhancing professional skills and the work culture of employees in line with strategic objectives,
* Raising the level of employee awareness in the field of security and data protection.
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* Risk level of the entire value chain and its individual links,
* Compliance of the processes with the applicable regulations,
* Monitoring and analysis of new technological solutions limiting the impact of adverse weather conditions on the volume of electricity produced,
* Implemented Internal Control System and control mechanisms for conducted processes,
* Implemented business continuity plan,
* Implemented mechanisms and tools for collecting information on threats and identifying potential security threats,
* Implemented Code of Conduct for Contractors,
* Standardization of the rules of conducting proceedings in the purchasing process and its transparency,
* Durability of relations with contractors/suppliers,
* Diversification of contractors and suppliers, eliminating business continuity threats,
* Process maturity and flexibility of process management,
* Implemented procedures for reporting external fraud,
* Constant monitoring of the legal environment and changes in legal regulations related to information security or compliance,
* Monitoring the process of implementing changes to internal regulations required by law,
* Procedures and standards for monitoring working conditions and the correctness of its organization,
* Use and development of external and internal communication tools,
* Monitoring of situations and events that may cause social anxiety,
* Constant monitoring of external and internal threats,
* Planning and conducting training in the field of continuity of operation and security of manufacturing infrastructure, IT and OT,
* Planning and conducting training for employees in the field of applicable safety procedures,
* Debt management
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* Diversified revenue streams,
* Stability of revenue streams,
* Planning, monitoring and control of financial parameters (revenue, costs, results) and the impact of changes on the covenant,
* EBITDA generated within the business model,
* Mechanisms to eliminate the adverse impact of changes in exchange rates on earnings and the size of exposure to minimize the negative effects of changes in interest rates,
* Mechanisms to eliminate adverse price movements in the wholesale electricity market and related product markets, including the price of CO2 emission allowances, resulting in a negative impact on the financial result,
* Procedures to monitor changes in weather conditions to take action to mitigate the effects of falling energy and heat sales volumes, falling production volumes, deteriorating quality indicators and regulated revenue,
* Transfer of interest rate risk using derivatives,
* Procedures and standards for assessing the financial health and reliability of suppliers, contractors and subcontractors,
* An organizational culture focused on building value.
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* Defined strategy of sustainable development,
* Mechanisms and tools of corporate social responsibility aimed at building long-term value,
* The degree of impact of business activities on the environment and the use of its resources,
* Implemented Climate policy,
* Implemented Environmental policy,
* Mechanisms to prevent above-normal pollution, damage, disturbance or failure of installations or equipment resulting in a negative impact on the environment,
* Implementation of investments from the sphere of environmental protection to minimize the effects of the adverse impact of mining and processing activities on the environment and climate,
* Technical and organizational solutions to minimize the impact of activities on climate change.
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution: None
Non-agricultural solutions:
* Defined strategy with strategic options considering changes in the conditions of the environment,
* Matching individual components of the model to the strategy,
* Include EU climate policy objectives in the strategy,
* Strategy review and update mechanisms.
Here is the analysis of the provided text, focusing on identifying specific sub-outcomes/benefits related to the specified KPIs.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No direct KPI relevance
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: No direct KPI relevance
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: No direct KPI relevance
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: No direct KPI relevance
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Jinhui Xie et al. - 2025 - Transboundary Impacts of NO2 on Soil Nitrogen Fixation and Their Effects on Crop Yields in China.pdf
China
1; 2; None
China, North China Plain, Northeast Plains, Southwest, Xinjiang region
Air pollution; Crop yield reduction; Soil degradation; Climate change; Nitrogen cycle disruption
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Precision nitrogen fertilizer management
Non-agricultural solution: Implementing regulated nitrogen management, cleaner energy solutions, and urban–cropland buffer zones
Non-agricultural solution: Reducing deforestation and overgrazing
Non-agricultural solution: Promoting the combined use of nitrogen fertilizers and organic fertilizers.
Non-agricultural solution: Optimizing fertilization systems by promoting split fertilization.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Precision fertilization technologies
Non-agricultural solution: Cleaner energy solutions
Non-agricultural solution: Implementing urban–cropland buffer zones
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increasing soil total nitrogen content by 0.62–2.1 g/kg can reduce NO2 by 10–30%;Legumes critical for improving soil fertility and reducing dependence on synthetic fertilizers, especially when integrated into cereal-based cropping systems;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Increase in average soybean yield due to 20% increase in soil nitrogen fixation levels (8% increase);; Significant boost in maize yields due to increasing soil nitrogen fixation levels (No quantative evidence);; Significant improvement in rice yields due to reducing NO2 emissions in a greener and cleaner scenario (No quantative evidence);; Significant improvement in maize yields due to reducing NO2 emissions in a greener and cleaner scenario (No quantative evidence);; Improvement in wheat yields due to increasing total nitrogen content (No quantative evidence)
Increased soybean yield (an 8% increase);Reduced NO2 concentration (decrease by approx. 10–30% with a 0.62–2.1 g/kg increase in TNC)
Increased soil total nitrogen content helps control NO2 emissions, mitigating air pollution and climate change (NO2 concentration will decrease by approximately 10%, 20%, and 30% when TNC increases by 0.62 g/kg, 1.31 g/kg, and 2.10 g/kg, respectively);;Increased soil nitrogen fixation levels boosts soybean yield (average soybean yield will increase to 2407 ± 38 kg/ha, representing an 8% increase if soil nitrogen fixation levels increase by 20%);;Reduced NO2 emissions improves maize and rice yields (No quantitative evidence);;Increased soil nitrogen fixation levels boosts maize yield (No quantitative evidence)
Reduction in NO2 concentration associated with increasing soil total nitrogen content (reduce NO2 by 10–30% when TNC increases by 0.62–2.1 g/kg); Mitigation of air pollution and climate change through TNC-enriched soils (No quantative evidence)
Open
Jingting Zhang et al. - 2015 - Responses of Crop Water Use Efficiency to Climate Change and Agronomic Measures in the Semiarid Area.pdf
China
1; None
China, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Gansu, Wuchuan, Guyuan
Climate change; Agronomic practices; Water scarcity
Solution Package 1:
Agronomic Practice: Fertilization + Cropping Patterns: Rotation cropping + Non-agricultural solution: Developing appropriate strategies in adapting the adverse impacts of climate warming
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Fertilization + Non-agricultural Solution: Reasonable agronomic practices (e.g. appropriate fertilization)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Elevated fertilizer and rotation cropping would increase crop WUE by 5.6–11.0% and 19.5–92.9%, respectively; Changes in temperature and precipitation in the past three decades jointly enhanced crop WUE by 8.1%-30.6%; Rotation cropping could improve crop WUE with notable increase rates of 19.5–92.9%, relative to traditional continue cropping.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Continuous cropping was replaced by rotation cropping in the SAC.
no evidence found
Millet yield increase in rotation cropping (10.0%); Rapeseed yield increase in rotation cropping (104.9%); Potato yield increase in rotation cropping (10.2%)
no evidence found
Crop WUE increased due to rotation cropping (19.5–92.9%); Crop WUE increased due to elevated fertilizer (5.6–11.0%); Crop WUE jointly increased due to temperature and precipitation changes (8.1–30.6%); Difference between maximum and minimum crop WUE (29.0%-55.5%); Crop WUE increased significantly in stage II (warmer, drier) than stage I (27.7–51.1% in Wuchuan; 28.7–46.2% in Guyuan)
no evidence found
Open
Jin-Suk Kwag et al. - 2018 - A Study of the Urban Garden Soil Health in Busan Area.pdf
Korea (South)
2; 3; 11
Republic of Korea; Busan, Busan Metropolitan City
Soil degradation; Water pollution; Food security; Environmental pollution; Urbanization
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil testing and analysis of chemical properties (pH, organic matter, available phosphate, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, electrical conductivity)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The study analyzed the chemical properties of urban vegetable soils, focusing on factors like pH, organic matter, available phosphate, and exchangeable cations to determine soil fertility and identify any nutrient imbalances. The conclusion suggests the need for research on appropriate fertilizer use based on soil fertility status to promote optimal crop growth.; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The study mentions the potential for urban agriculture to contribute to resource recycling by composting food waste and reusing rainwater, thereby reducing environmental impact.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
John Livsey et al. - 2019 - Do alternative irrigation strategies for rice cultivation decrease water footprints at the cost of l.pdf
China; Vietnam
6;13;15
China; Viet Nam; United States of America; Sweden; India; Japan
Water scarcity; Soil health; Greenhouse gas emissions; Food security; Yield stagnation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Alternate wetting and drying + Agricultural Solution 2: Mid-season drainage + non-agricultural solution 1: (reduction in) CO2eq emissions
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Alternate wetting and drying + Agricultural Solution 2: Mid-season drainage + non-agricultural solution 1: (reduction in) CH4 emissions + non-agricultural solution 2: Increased CO2 emissions + non-agricultural solution 3: Increased N2O emissions
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Alternate wetting and drying + Agricultural Solution 2: Mid-season drainage + non-agricultural solution 1: (reduction in) SOC concentrations + non-agricultural solution 2: Increased C emissions
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: (i) SOC reduction by 5.2% and soil organic nitrogen depletion potentially depleting stocks by more than 100 kg N/ha per year
no evidence found
Increased water productivity (grain yield per unit water) (24% increase);Reducing water requirements (up to about 30% reduction)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Reduced CO2eq emissions (-18.6% (−24.9 to −11.9));Reduced CH4 emissions (-52.3% (−63.2% to +38.1%));Increased CO2 emissions (+44.8% (+29.2% to +62.2%));Increased N2O emissions (+37.0% (+26.0% to +48.8%));Reduced SOC concentrations (-5.2% (−8.9% to −1.3%))
Open
John F Obrycki et al. - 2018 - Corn Stover Harvest, Tillage, and Cover Crop Effects on Soil Health Indicators.pdf
United States of America; Iowa
2;15;12
United States of America; Iowa, Boone county
Soil degradation; Soil erosion; Nutrient loss; Residue management problems; Reduced soil organic matter
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Chisel plow with no stover removal + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till with no stover removal + Agricultural Solution 3: Chisel plow with moderate stover removal + Agricultural Solution 4: No-till with moderate stover removal + Agricultural Solution 5: Chisel plow with high stover removal + Agricultural Solution 6: No-till with high stover removal + Agricultural Solution 7: No-till with moderate stover removal and rye cover crop + Agricultural Solution 8: No-till with high stover removal and rye cover crop
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Corn stover harvest + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: Tillage practices
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Increased soil organic matter; Particulate organic matter increased; Potentially mineralizable N increased
no evidence found
no evidence found
Potentially mineralizable N under no-till with cover crops (Average PMn values were 56.9 and 45.5 μg g–1 PMn for no-till with cereal rye at 0- to 5- and 5- to 15-cm depths, respectively, compared with 17.5 and -3.7 μg g–1 PMn for the same no-till treatments without cereal rye);Particulate organic matter C under no-till with no stover removal (1.9-fold higher than in other treatments at 0- to 5-cm depth);Total SMAF index value under no-till with cover crops (NTR60 0.95 ± 0.00a compared with NT35 0.80 ± 0.05b and NT60 0.89 ± 0.03ab at 0-5 cm depth without MBC data);Water-stable aggregates under no-till with cover crops (44.6 ± 4.3 g 100 g–1 with cereal rye and 37.7 ± 4.3 g 100 g–1 without at 0-5 cm depth);NH4–N under no-till (3.2-fold higher than chisel plow soils; 27.1 ± 9.3 mg g–1 for no-till and 8.6 ± 9.3 mg g–1 for chisel plow at 0-5 cm depth)
Potentially mineralizable N increase (56.9 mg g–1 in cover crop treatments vs 17.5 mg g–1 for no-till treatments without cover crops at 0- to 5-cm depth);;Potentially mineralizable N increase (45.5 mg g–1 for no-till with cover crops vs -3.7 mg g–1 for no-till treatments without cover crops at 5- to 15-cm depth);;Higher particulate organic matter C in no-till with no stover removal (10 mg g–1, 1.9-fold higher than other treatments at 0- to 5-cm depth);;Increased water-stable aggregates with cereal rye cover crop (44.6 g 100 g–1 with cover crop vs 37.7 g 100 g–1 without cover crop at 0- to 5-cm depth);;Higher NH4–N in no-till soils (27.1 mg g–1 for no-till vs 8.6 mg g–1 for chisel plow at 0- to 5-cm depth)
Particulate organic matter C (NT0 treatment had 10 mg g–1 at 0-5 cm, which was approximately 1.9-fold higher than in all other treatments);;Potentially mineralizable N (56.9 μg g–1 at 0-5 cm in cover crop treatments compared with 17.5 μg g–1 for no-till treatments without cover crops);;Potentially mineralizable N (45.5 μg g–1 at 5-15 cm in no-till with cover crops compared with -3.7 μg g–1 for no-till treatments without cover crops)
Open
Joab J L Osumba et al. - 2021 - Transforming Agricultural Extension Service Delivery through Innovative Bottom–Up Climate-Resilient.pdf
Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda
1;2;13
Kenya;Tanzania;Uganda
Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda
Climate change; food security; agricultural production; agribusiness; climate variability
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmers’ Field School + Agricultural Solution 2: Climate Field School + Agricultural Solution 3: Climate-Smart Agriculture + Agricultural Solution 4: Indigenous Technical Knowledge + non-agricultural solution 1: Policy advocacy + non-agricultural solution 2: Economic (market-based approaches for the benefit of climate-vulnerable populations, stimulating sustainable agribusiness development) + non-agricultural solution 3: Social (Inclusive agribusiness, creating employment and other income-generating opportunities for the poor) + non-agricultural solution 4: Market (link producers to markets) + non-agricultural solution 5: Supply Chain (production, processing, storage, transportation and distribution) + non-agricultural solution 6: Gender (addressing gender considerations and social inclusion) + non-agricultural solution 7: Youth (addressing gender considerations and social inclusion)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) + Agricultural Solution 2: high-yielding varieties + Agricultural Solution 3: enhanced soil testing and fertilizer use + Agricultural Solution 4: conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 5: intercrop diversification + Agricultural Solution 6: efficient irrigation technologies + non-agricultural solution 1: market linkage for climate-smart products + non-agricultural solution 2: access to credit/financial services + non-agricultural solution 3: access to better climate information and weather forecasting
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Farmer Field School (FFS) + Agricultural Solution 2: Climate Field School (CFS) + Agricultural Solution 3: Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) + Agricultural Solution 4: Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK) + non-agricultural solution 1: policy
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Initial results show that the innovation is strengthening adaptation behaviour of agribusiness champions, farmers and supply chain actors, and reducing training costs; The approach bundles the costs of previously separate processes into the cost of one joint, simultaneous process, while also strengthening technical service delivery through bundled messaging.;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The immediate objective of the intervention was to improve the decision-making skills of implementors in the CRAFFS approach, including the use of climate information to manage climate-related risks that prevent farmers from closing yield gaps.; The medium-term objective was to improve agricultural productivity, build resilience and achieve climate change mitigation and co-benefits where possible.;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Examples of inclusive agribusiness practices include sourcing goods and services from smallholder farmers, facilitating access to financial services in rural areas, distributing and selling products in remote areas and supporting the development of local agro-enterprises.; For instance, in climate change interventions, businesses are encouraged to pursue sustainability by sourcing products from climate-resilient clientele; using energy, water and other resources more efficiently; managing waste resourcefully and reducing greenhouse gas emission/carbon footprint.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Adverse weather conditions also directly affect agricultural marketing systems, leading to risks of market instability and food price volatility.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Depending on microclimatic and environmental conditions, this transformation often comes with social and ecological implications, especially degradation, emissions and pollution, and therefore requires rigorous sustainability safeguards
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Strengthening the climate resilience of agroecosystems and agricultural livelihoods (No quantitative evidence);; Supporting actions that build more resilient agricultural production systems (No quantitative evidence);; Increasing the capacity of actors to apply climate-smart technologies, practices and innovations (No quantitative evidence);; Strengthening adaptation behaviour of farmers (No quantitative evidence);; Encouraging adoption and adaptation of practices most suitable to their local farming systems (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Jiri O Mafongoya P - 2015 - Smallholder Farmer Perceptions on Climate Change and Variability A Predisposition for their Subsequ.pdf
Zimbabwe; South Africa; Tanzania; Malawi; Ethiopia; Kenya; China; India; Nigeria; Haiti
13;2;1
None
Zimbabwe, Chiredzi district, Masvingo Province
Climate change and variability; Food security; Poverty; Droughts; Rain-fed agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Adjusting planting dates
Agricultural Solution 2: Crop diversification
Agricultural Solution 3: Planting different crop varieties
Agricultural Solution 4: Increasing the use of irrigation
Agricultural Solution 5: Water and soil conservation techniques
Non-agricultural solution 1: Off-farm income
Non-agricultural solution 2: Socioeconomic factors such as gender, age, number of cattle owned, land size and average crop yields
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Adjusting planting dates; Crop diversification; Planting different crop varieties; Complementing farm activities with non-farm activities; Increasing the use of irrigation; Water and soil conservation techniques; Use of chemicals, fertilisers, manure and pesticides; Shortening the length of growing period; Mixing dry land and home gardens; Mixing farming and non-farming activities; Use of irrigation (home gardens); Increasing water conservation on farms; Increasing soil conservation on farms; Shading and sheltering young plants; Mixing crops and livestock (diversification); Livestock diversification (different animals); Adjusting livestock management practises; Increase maize yield
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Jinshi Jian et al. - 2020 - Quantifying cover crop effects on soil health and productivity.pdf
China; Europe; North America
2;15
China; North America; Europe
Soil degradation; Soil erosion; Crop yield; Nutrient leaching; Surface runoff
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover Crops
Non-agricultural solution 1: Climate type (tropical, arid, temperate, and continental)
Non-agricultural solution 2: Soil texture (coarse, medium, and fine)
Non-agricultural solution 3: Cash crop type (corn, soybean, wheat, vegetable, corn-soybean rotation, corn-soybean-wheat rotation, and other)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil aggregate stability; Soil organic carbon; Soil nitrogen; Soil microbial carbon; Soil microbial nitrogen; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Cash crop yield; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Soil organic carbon; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Soil erosion; Surface runoff; Infiltration; Leaching
no evidence found
cash crop yield (No quantitative evidence)
soil organic carbon (No quantative evidence); soil aggregate stability (No quantative evidence); cash crop yield (No quantative evidence); microbial biomass carbon (No quantative evidence); soil nitrogen (No quantative evidence)
Soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence);; Soil aggregate stability (No quantitative evidence);; Cash crop yield (No quantitative evidence);; Soil bulk density (No quantitative evidence);; Soil nitrogen (No quantitative evidence)
Soil organic carbon (No quantative evidence);; Microbial biomass carbon (No quantative evidence);; Microbial biomass nitrogen (No quantative evidence)
Open
Jinshi Jian et al. - 2020 - A database for global soil health assessment.pdf
The countries where the solution described in the document is researched are:
China; United States of America
2;15;12
China; United States; Canada; Australia; Brazil; Argentina; Mexico; Germany; France; Italy; Spain; United Kingdom; Poland; Switzerland; Netherlands; Belgium; Austria; Hungary; Romania; Serbia; Bulgaria; Denmark; Sweden; Norway; Finland; South Africa; Zimbabwe; Ethiopia; Kenya; Uganda; Tanzania; Zambia; Ghana; Nigeria; India; Japan; South Korea; New Zealand
Soil degradation; Crop yield decline; Unsustainable land-use management practices; Soil health decline; Erosion
Solution Package 1:
Cover crops + No-tillage + Agro-forestry systems + Organic farming
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
no evidence found
cash crop yield increases (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Increased soil carbon (No quantative evidence); Reduced soil erosion (No quantative evidence); Improved soil infiltration (No quantative evidence); Increased biodiversity (No quantative evidence); Cash crop yield increases (No quantative evidence)
Increased soil organic carbon (No quantitative evidence); Increased biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jiayi Huang and Peng Zhou - 2025 - Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship A Review from the Perspective of Sustainable Business Models.pdf
China; Slovenia; Croatia; Turkey
1;3;17
1;3;17
None
1;3;17
1;3;17
1;3;17
China,
Slovenia,
Croatia,
Turkey, Istanbul, Izmir,
Environmental degradation; Digital transformation; Climate change; Sustainability; Technological change
Solution Package 1:
* Digital platforms + Digital capability + Stakeholder collaboration + Governance structures + External networks + Industrial dynamics
Solution Package 2:
* Digital platforms + Digital capability + Stakeholder collaboration + Governance structures + External networks + Industrial dynamics + Economic benefits + Functional benefits + Self-fulfillment benefits + Future work self-salience + Altruistic motivations
Solution Package 3:
* Sustainable Open Business Models + Digital platforms + Digital capability + Stakeholder collaboration + Governance structures + External networks + Industrial dynamics + Green Structural Capital + Environmental Dynamism
Solution Package 4:
* Cross-border E-Commerce + Digital platforms + Digital capability + Stakeholder collaboration + Governance structures + External networks + Industrial dynamics + Business environment improvements + Industrial synergy and agglomeration + Expanded market scale
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Decreased transaction costs (No quantitative evidence); Innovation efficiency (No quantitative evidence); Resource optimization (No quantitative evidence); Operational efficiency (No quantitative evidence); Cost reduction (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Jianjun Hao and Katherine Ashley - 2021 - Irreplaceable Role of Amendment-Based Strategies to Enhance Soil Health and Disease Suppression in P.pdf
* No countries mentioned in the document.
15;2;3
United States, Maine
Soilborne diseases; Soil health; Plant health; Plant disease
Solution Package 1:
Fresh or living plants (rotation crops, cover crops, or green manures) + soil microorganisms + soil health
Solution Package 2:
Soil amendments (organic and inorganic matter amendments, and microbial amendments) + soil health
Solution Package 3:
Plant-based amendments (rotation crops, cover crops, or green manures) + allelopathic effects of plants + soil microbiome + soil health
Solution Package 4:
Organic amendments (by-products of animals, by-products of plants, and produced and processed materials) + soil microorganisms + soil properties
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil amendments have shown benefits to control these diseases and improve soil quality;Most amendments provide nutrients to plants and suppress multiple soilborne pathogens;Managing soilborne pathogens starts from improving soil health;Soil health forms the foundation and conditions for plant health;Soil health in agricultural settings can be defined as the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans;Collectively, soil amendments can improve soil health by reducing moisture loss through evaporation and runoff, inhibiting weed growth, increasing soil organic matter, suppressing soilborne diseases, promoting plant growth, and enhancing plant resistance to diseases;Soil is a dynamic and living ecosystem. The integrity of soil is highly affected by soil microorganisms, which regulate soil quality and fertility, and modify soil health
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: To keep potato production sustainable, cultural practices, such as soil amendments have been extensively studied and applied;In the United States, a multi-state research project was funded by USDA-NIFA to find non-chemical longterm strategies for controlling potato diseases by using cover crops and soil amendments;Organic amendments have been used for more than 2000 years;This requires all soilborne diseases to be managed, soil health which is sustainable, plants to have high yield and high quality, and all of these to be leading toward food and environmental safety.
no evidence found
Increased potato yield (up to 50%); Increase potato yield (No quantitative evidence); Increasing yield (No quantitative evidence); Enhance crop yield (No quantitative evidence).
Reducing potato common scab (up to 50%);; Increased potato yield (up to 50%);; Reduced viable populations of Verticillium dahliae (can be reduced to a non-detectable level);; Reduced common scab build up (No quantative evidence);; Reduced pink rot (No quantative evidence)
Reduction of potato common scab severity (up to 50%); Increased potato yield (up to 50%); Reduction of Verticillium dahliae population (to a non-detectable level); Killing of Verticillium dahliae populations in soil (in one to two days)
Increased abundance and diversity of microbial populations (No quantitative evidence); Supported microbial biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jessica Stubenrauch and Felix Ekardt - 2020 - Plastic Pollution in Soils Governance Approaches to Foster Soil Health and Closed Nutrient Cycles.pdf
Germany; European Union
15;3;12
Germany; European Union
Plastic pollution in soils; Soil health and soil fertility; Food security; Human health; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic fertilisation + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation management + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate protection + non-agricultural solution 2: Circular economy in agriculture
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Sewage sludge + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic fertilisation + non-agricultural solution 1: Nutrient recycling + non-agricultural solution 2: Circular economy + non-agricultural solution 3: Climate protection
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: compost fertilisation + non-agricultural solution 1: Circular economy + non-agricultural solution 2: Climate protection + non-agricultural solution 3: Soil fertility
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Mineral fertilisers + non-agricultural solution 1: good agricultural practice (e.g., conservation tillage, lower tyre pressure of agricultural machinery, locally adapted diversified cultivation, smart crop rotation, enhanced organic and green fertilisation strategies)
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: quantity control on fossil fuels + non-agricultural solution 2: land use quantity control + non-agricultural solution 3: livestock farming quantity control + non-agricultural solution 4: Recycling strategies + non-agricultural solution 5: efficiency strategies
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Healthy soils (No quantitative evidence); Maintaining positive effects of compost on soil fertility and structure (No quantitative evidence)
healthy soils (No quantitative evidence);minimise microplastic inputs into the soil (No quantitative evidence);foster circular economy approaches in agriculture (No quantitative evidence);positive effects on the soil conditions and its natural fertility (No quantitative evidence);enhance the soil carbon storage potential (No quantitative evidence)
Enhance the soil carbon storage potential (No quantative evidence);;Contributes to climate protection (No quantative evidence)
Open
Jerome Wright et al. - 2022 - Utilization of Compost as a Soil Amendment to Increase Soil Health and to Improve Crop Yields.pdf
United States of America (USA)
2; 15; 13
None
United States of America; United States of America, South Dakota; United States of America, South Dakota, Rapid City
Food Security; Soil Health; Crop Yields; Water Quality; Global Warming
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Compost amendment + non-agricultural solution 1: food security + non-agricultural solution 2: mitigating global warming + non-agricultural solution 3: water quality
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Compost amendment + Agricultural Solution 2: no-till farming + Agricultural Solution 3: conservation agriculture + non-agricultural solution 1: soil structure and health
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Compost + Agricultural Solution 2: cover crops + Agricultural Solution 3: manures + Agricultural Solution 4: minimum tillage + Agricultural Solution 5: crop rotation + Agricultural Solution 6: liming + non-agricultural solution 1: decrease soil acidity + non-agricultural solution 2: fuel and feed
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Compost + non-agricultural solution 1: irrigation + non-agricultural solution 2: water holding capacity
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Compost + Agricultural Solution 2: mulch + non-agricultural solution 1: reducing evaporation + non-agricultural solution 2: improving water infiltration and storage + non-agricultural solution 3: reducing deep drainage
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Compost amendments improve soil health;Soil health is the ability to function as a living system, to sustain plant and animal productivity, to enhance water and air quality, and to promote plant and animal health;Soil health can be estimated by measuring the total living microbial biomass, retained carbon, odor, and texture;Healthier soils created by the incorporation of compost will increase the amount of carbon sequestered which could be a leading method to mitigate global warming;Soil health is the soil’s ability to function as a living system, to enhance water and air quality, and to promote plant and animal health; Disease control is also an indicator of soil health and can be viewed as a manifestation of ecosystem stability and health;Soil health is expressed in crop quality not quantity;Incorporation of compost into agricultural soil has shown a significant benefit in improving the soil in several key aspects of soil health
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Compost amendments improve crop yields;The health of a soil is dependent on the maintenance of four major functions; carbon transformations; nutrient cycles; soil structure maintenance; and the regulation of pests and diseases; Healthy soil has a loose texture allowing roots to easily penetrate the soil matrix and access water and nutrients; By understanding the stress that the plant is undergoing, best management practices can be developed to close the gap between the plant’s yield and its genetic yield potential, thus supporting worldwide food security; Adoption of improved tillage and residue management improves soil health; Increasing soil organic matter improves water holding capacity, improves soil structure, increases nutrient exchange, helps soil adjust to resist drastic pH changes, and increases nutrient availability;Perhaps most impressive were the long-term increases in N/P/K concentrations showing that composting is a viable means to reduce need for agricultural producers and homeowners to supplement with N/P/K fertilizers.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Healthier soils created by the incorporation of compost will increase the amount of carbon sequestered which could be a leading method to mitigate global warming; Soil microbial biomass generally comprises less than 5% of organic matter in soil but performs at least 3 critical functions of soil and the environment:1) It is a reliable source of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur; 2) it is an immediate sink of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur; and 3) and it is an agent of nutrient transformation and pesticide degradation.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Disease control is also an indicator of soil health and can be viewed as a manifestation of ecosystem stability and health.
no evidence found
Crop yield increase (2018, 10% compost) (+115%);;Crop yield increase (2020, 10% compost) (+61%);;Crop yield increase (2018, 5% compost) (+39%);;Crop yield increase (2019, 10% compost) (+30%);;Crop yield increase (2020, 5% compost) (+15%)
Increased crop yields (increased by 115% in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 61% in 2020 for 10% compost);; Increased Total Living Biomass (+62% average over 2018-2020 for 10% compost);; Increased Total Carbon (+71% average over 2018-2020 for 10% compost);; Increased infiltration rates (increased by 351% when 10% compost was added);; Improved soil porosity (+5.5% when amended with 10% compost by weight)
Improved crop yield (Increased by +30% to +115% compared to no compost);;Increased total living mass (Average +62% increase for 10% compost);;Increased soil carbon (Average +71% increase for 10% compost);;Increased infiltration rates (Increased by 150% for 5% compost and 351% for 10% compost);;Reduced weed infestation (Reduced to an estimated 1% - 2% by area compared to 25% in no compost field)
Increased Total Carbon (+71% with 10% compost amendment compared to no compost (average 2018-2020); +34% with 5% compost amendment compared to no compost (average 2018-2020)); Increased Total Living Biomass (+62% with 10% compost amendment compared to no compost (average 2018-2020); +19% with 5% compost amendment compared to no compost (average 2018-2020))
Open
Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert and Margaret L Brandeau - 2015 - Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing How Health Ef.pdf
I am sorry, but the document you provided does not contain any information about research conducted in specific countries. Therefore, I am unable to fulfill your request.
17
17;18
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
16;17;20
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
;
Societal Problems:
Inconsistent economic evaluations of health interventions; Fertility and childbearing outcomes not consistently included in economic evaluations; Bias in outcome selection for cost-effectiveness analyses
Solution Package 1:
* Treatment of chlamydia among women and men + maternal and paternal outcomes + infant health harms
* Antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected pregnant women + infant health (DALYs averted)
* Smoking cessation for pregnant women + maternal outcomes
Solution Package 2:
* Contraception for women and men + cost per pregnancy averted
* Preeclampsia treatment + newborn health
* Genetic testing of pregnant women and their fetuses + maternal QALY gains/losses
* IVF and ARTs + cost per live birth or live healthy birth
Solution Package 3:
* Treatment of diabetes in pregnant women + maternal and infant health
* Preconceptional genetic testing + cost per future affected birth avoided
* Folate supplementation for pregnant women + QALYs gained from children born healthy and avoiding neural tube defects
* Hysterectomy + women’s QALYs gained
Solution Package 4:
* Contraception for HIV-infected pregnant women + infant health
* Therapeutic abortion + future infertility
* Smoking cessation for women of childbearing age + intermediate outcomes only
* Chemotherapy for cancer in women of childbearing age + women’s QALYs gained
* Vasectomy + cost per pregnancy averted or couple-years of protection
* Vasectomy reversal + intermediate outcomes of live births or pregnancies
* Imaging in pregnant women + newborn health
* Female HPV vaccination + women’s QALYs gained + fertility
* Male HPV vaccination + cost per male or female QALY gained
* Chemotherapy for testicular cancer + gains in men’s health
Here's the breakdown of the provided text and the relevant KPIs:
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.:No direct KPI relevance
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.:No direct KPI relevance
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.:No direct KPI relevance
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.:No direct KPI relevance
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.:No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Jialing Teng et al. - 2024 - Conservation agriculture improves soil health and sustains crop yields after long-term warming.pdf
China
2;15;13
China, North China Plain; Spain; United Kingdom; Germany
Climate warming; Food security; Soil degradation; Climate change; Crop yield
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Conservation agriculture (reduced or zero/no tillage, permanent soil cover, and diverse crop rotations) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: Improved soil health + non-agricultural solution 2: Climate-resilient farming systems
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: An overall positive effect of warming on soil health over time under conservation agriculture is characterized by linear increases in soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon;Conservation agriculture results in an average 21% increase in soil health and supports similar levels of crop production after long-term warming compared to conventional agriculture;The soil conditions created by conservation agriculture can counteract the negative effects of climate change on food production in some regions;Conservation agriculture generally promotes the size, diversity, activity and beneficial functions of soil microorganisms that contribute to soil health, including SOC accrual in available and stable pools, and crop productivity
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Warming-triggered shifts in microbial biomass carbon and fungal diversity (saprogen richness) are directly linked to a 9.3% increase in wheat yields over eight years, but only under conservation agriculture;Across the eight-year study, warming increased wheat yields by 9.3% and 11.2% under conservation and conventional agriculture, respectively, when compared with the no warming treatments;Conservation agriculture supported larger maize yields than conventional agriculture under both ambient and warming conditions
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Warming decreased fungal richness by 4.1% compared to the no-warming treatment under conservation agriculture; Less saprogen richness may be linked to slower rates of organic matter decomposition that contributes to SOC accrual in conservation agriculture under warming
no evidence found
Increase in wheat yields under warming (9.3%); Larger maize yields (No quantitative evidence)
Average increase in soil health score compared to conventional agriculture (21%);; Soil health score 31.4% greater than conventional agriculture at 0–5 cm depth under warming (31.4%);; Soil health score 10.1% greater than conventional agriculture at 5–15 cm depth under warming (10.1%);; Increase in soil health score at 0–5 cm soil depth under warming (6.3%);; Increase in soil health score at 5–15 cm soil depth under warming (8.1%)
Overall Soil Health Score (31.4% and 10.1% greater than conventional agriculture at 0–5 cm and 5–15 cm depth with warming); Soil Organic Carbon (Increased under conservation agriculture with warming (P < 0.05); Positive effects strengthened with time (P < 0.05)); Microbial Biomass Carbon (Increased under conservation agriculture with warming (P < 0.05); Positive effects strengthened with time (P < 0.05)); Mean Weight Diameter (Enhanced under conservation agriculture with warming (Fig. 2c)); Total Nitrogen (Increased under conservation agriculture with warming (Fig. 2c))
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) (P < 0.05);;Increased Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC) (P < 0.05);;Greater richness of AMF (P < 0.001);;Lesser richness of saprogens (P < 0.05);;Lesser richness of pathogens (P < 0.05)
Open
Jerry Knox et al. - 2016 - Meta-analysis of climate impacts and uncertainty on crop yields in Europe.pdf
The solution described in the document is researched in the following countries (regions) :
Europe; Africa; South Asia.
2;12;13
Europe; Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southern Europe
Food security; Climate change impacts on crop yields; Rural livelihoods; Agricultural productivity; Trade
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Crop yield improvement for wheat, barley, maize, potato, sugar beet, rice and rye + Non-agricultural Solution: Climate adaptation policy
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Crop yield improvement for wheat, barley, maize, potato, sugar beet, rice and rye + Non-agricultural Solution: Inform future crop modeling research
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Crop yield improvement for wheat, barley, maize, potato, sugar beet, rice and rye + Non-agricultural Solution: Climate adaptation policy + Non-agricultural Solution: Trade policies
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Projected change in average yield of +8% in Europe for seven crops by the 2050s;For wheat and sugar beet, average yield changes of +14% and +15% are projected, respectively;Strong regional differences with crop impacts in northern Europe being higher (+14%) and more variable compared to central (+6%) and southern (+5) Europe; Maize is projected to suffer the largest negative mean change in southern Europe (−11%).
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Agriculture plays a multifunctional role in integrating natural resources management, rural development and food production and underpinning environmental heritage through the maintenance of semi-natural habitats, landscape and biodiversity.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Jérôme E Tondoh et al. - 2019 - Soil Health Changes Over a 25-Year Chronosequence From Forest to Plantations in Rubber Tree (Hevea b.pdf
Côte d’Ivoire
15; 8; 11
None
Côte d’Ivoire, Tiéviessou village, Grand-Lahou District; Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou; Ghana, Accra; New Caledonia; India, Tripura; Nigeria
Soil degradation; Biodiversity loss; Land degradation; Food insecurity; Soil threats
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rubber tree plantations +
Non-agricultural solution 1: None
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improvement of soil health from 12 years in the rubber tree landscapes is consecutive to the increase in earthworm abundance and P concentration;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Biodiversity loss
no evidence found
no evidence found
Cumulative Degradation Index (+84.1);;Earthworm density (+80.8);;Total Phosphorus (+207.6);;Species richness (+10.0)
Cumulative Degradation Index (+84.1);Earthworm density (+80.8 %);Total Phosphorus (mg g−1) (+207.6 %);Species richness (+10.0 %);MWD (mm) (−14 %)
Increase in earthworm density in older plantations (+80.8% in 25-year plantation relative to forest);;Increase in earthworm species richness in older plantations (+10.0% in 25-year plantation relative to forest)
Open
Jennifer Owens et al. - 2021 - Effects of 3‐nitrooxypropanol manure fertilizer on soil health and hydraulic properties.pdf
Canada
2;15;12
Canada, Lethbridge, AB; Canada, Agassiz, BC
Soil degradation; Greenhouse gas emissions; Soil nutrient imbalances
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Composted conventional manure
Agricultural Solution 2: Composted manure from cattle supplemented with 3-NOP
Agricultural Solution 3: Composted manure from cattle supplemented with 3-NOP and monensin
Agricultural Solution 4: Stockpiled conventional manure
Agricultural Solution 5: Stockpiled 3-NOP
Agricultural Solution 6: Stockpiled 3-NOP+Mon
Agricultural Solution 7: Inorganic fertilizer (150 kg N ha–1 and 50 kg P ha–1)
Non-agricultural solution 1: No amendment control
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1.Select chemical (K+, Mg2+, Mn+, Zn+, pH, and Olsen-P), biological (soil organic matter, active C, respiration, and extractable protein), physical (wet aggregate stability, bulk density, total porosity, and macro-, meso-, and micro-porosity), and hydraulic (saturation, field capacity, wilting point, water holding capacity, and hydraulic conductivity) variables were measured; 2. Using composted or stockpiled manure as fertilizer can improve soil health, which considers chemical, biological, and physical factors that collectively describe a soil’s general fitness; 3. There are many ways manure can improve soil health, including: improving soil nutrient content by returning essential macro- and micronutrients back to soil, increasing microbial species richness and stimulating activity related to degradation of complex organic compounds, and improving soil aggregate stability by increasing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-produced glomalin-related soil protein; 4. Amending soil with manure can also alter soil physical properties by increasing soil organic matter content, decreasing bulk density, and increasing total porosity, and these changes can increase soil water holding capacity by altering soil pore size distribution; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Active C (between 44 and 98% higher compared with the inorganically fertilized treatment and the control); Protein (71–80% higher compared with the control and inorganically fertilized treatment); Respiration (between 50 and 67% higher than the control); Olsen-P (between 4.2 and 7 times higher compared with the control and the inorganically fertilized treatment); Macropores (>30 μm, cm3 cm−3) (107% greater in stockpiled 3-NOP compared with inorganic fertilizer and the control)
Increased volume of macropores >30 μm (107% greater in stockpiled 3-NOP compared with inorganic fertilizer and the control);Increased active C (between 44 and 98% higher compared with the inorganically fertilized treatment and the control);Increased protein (71–80% higher compared with the control and inorganically fertilized treatment for most manured treatments);Decreased bulk density (between 25 and 34% lower in some manured treatments compared with the inorganic fertilizer and control treatments);Increased total porosity (between 17 and 24% higher in some manured treatments compared with the inorganic fertilizer and control treatments)
enteric methane emissions (up to 70% reduction)
Open
Jennifer E Schmidt et al. - 2016 - Using Ancient Traits to Convert Soil Health into Crop Yield Impact of Selection on Maize Root and R.pdf
Mexico; United States of America; China
2;11
Mexico, Balsas river valley; USA, California, Davis, CA; USA, New Hampshire, Durham, NH; China
Low nutrient use efficiencies and subsequent nutrient losses; Climate change impacts on crop growth and yield; Loss of biodiversity.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Breeding for maize varieties + Agricultural Solution 2: Root and rhizosphere interactions + Agricultural Solution 3: root system architecture and physiological traits + Agricultural Solution 4: high-affinity ammonium or nitrate transporter expression + Agricultural Solution 5: QTL mapping of teosinte × maize crosses + Non-agricultural solution 1: Soil health building management practices + Non-agricultural solution 2: Low-input conditions + Non-agricultural solution 3: organic sources of nutrients
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Transgenes + Agricultural Solution 2: breeding for resource efficiency + Non-agricultural solution 1: risk assessments
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: root plasticity + Agricultural Solution 2: inoculation to introduce favorable species
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Productivity gains seen in newer hybrids result in part from increased N acquisition and water use efficiencies compared to earlier varieties
no evidence found
Productivity gains due to increased N acquisition and water use efficiencies (No quantitative evidence)
Increased nitrogen acquisition efficiency (No quantitative evidence);; Stimulated nitrogen fixation earlier (No quantitative evidence);; Higher arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) colonization (No quantitative evidence);; Increased water use efficiencies (No quantitative evidence);; Newest cultivar responding positively to mycorrhizal colonization regardless of soil P (No quantitative evidence)
Improved maize productivity in low-input or biologically-based systems (No quantitative evidence);; Increasing resilience to extreme events (No quantitative evidence);; High rates of nutrient cycling (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced need for external inputs (No quantitative evidence);; Enhancing agricultural sustainability (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced loss of biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantitative evidence); Reduced rates of N loss from the agroecosystem (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jennifer B Thompson et al. - 2024 - Seasonal soil health dynamics in soy-wheat relay intercropping.pdf
Germany
2
Germany, Müncheberg
Soil erosion; Depletion of soil carbon; Greenhouse gas emissions; Soil health; Productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Intercropping (soy-wheat relay intercropping) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: Irrigation + non-agricultural solution 2: mineral fertilization + non-agricultural solution 3: herbicides
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased MAOM C:N ratios in intercropping and sole soy compared to sole wheat;Higher soil water infiltration in intercropping compared to sole soy;Maintenance of living roots, minimized tillage, increased soil cover, reduced soil erosion, and crop biodiversity due to the extended duration of relay intercropping;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
Soil water infiltration: (Sole soy’s average infiltration rate was 71% lower than intercropping and 85% lower than sole wheat while the percent difference between sole wheat and intercropping was only 16%.)
Intercropped winter wheat grain yield relative to density (produced 63% of the grain yield despite its 50% reduction in plant density);; Intercropped winter wheat biomass relative yield (produced 80% of the sole cropped wheat biomass despite its 50% reduction in plant density)
Increased MAOM C:N ratio (increased by 4.2% in intercropping); Higher soil water infiltration (12.6 cm hr−1 for intercropping); Increased MAOM C (No quantitative evidence); Higher Average Well Color Development (AWCD) (NER of 1.31 at Sampling 2); Lower Bacteria:Fungi abundance ratio (No quantitative evidence)
Increased mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) C:N ratio percent change (increased by 4.2 and 6.2% in intercropping and sole soy and decreased by 5% in sole wheat);;Higher near-saturated soil water infiltration rates (12.6 cm hr−1 for intercropping, 14.9 cm hr−1 for sole wheat, and 6.0 cm hr−1 for sole soy)
Increased mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) C:N percent change compared to sole wheat (+4.2% in intercropping vs −5% in sole wheat); Increased MAOM C percent change compared to sole wheat (approx +1% in intercropping vs approx −5.6% in sole wheat); Higher fungal abundance at Sampling 4 compared to sole wheat (intercropping average—2.57 × 105, sole wheat average—2.09 × 105 gene copies per gram soil); Lower Bacteria:Fungi abundance ratio at Sampling 4 compared to sole wheat (higher in sole wheat than intercropping; intercropping 16S average—2.33 × 109, sole wheat 16S average—2.23 × 109, intercropping ITS2 average—2.57 × 105, sole wheat ITS2 average—2.09 × 105 gene numbers per gram soil)
Open
Jenifer L Yost et al. - 2022 - Effect of swine manure on soil health properties A systematic review.pdf
Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Ireland; South Korea; Nigeria; Spain; USA
None
Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Ireland; Nigeria; South Korea; Spain; United States of America, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Minnesota
Soil health degradation; Soil fertility decline; Soil organic carbon depletion; Water quality deterioration; Crop productivity reduction.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Swine manure
Agricultural Solution: Inorganic fertilizer
Non-agricultural solution: None
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Swine manure
Agricultural Solution: Inorganic fertilizer
Non-agricultural solution: Application method
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Solid swine manure
Agricultural Solution: Inorganic fertilizer
Non-agricultural solution: Soil texture
Here's the breakdown of the sub-outcomes/benefits reported in the text, categorized by the provided KPIs:
* **Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:**
* Increase in soil organic carbon (SOC)
* Increase in soil organic matter (SOM)
* Increase in microbial biomass carbon (MBC)
* Decrease in bulk density
* Proficient nutrient cycling
* Plentiful and diverse organisms
* Sufficient water infiltration and holding capacity
* Soil structure improvement
* Increase total N, P, and K
* Increased aggregate stability
* Increase saturated hydraulic conductivity
* **Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.**;**Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:**
* Total Nitrogen increased when solid manure plus inorganic fertilizer was applied
* **Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**;**Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.**;**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**;**Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.** :
* Increase in total carbon
* **Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.**;**Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.**
* C sequestration can be enhanced by swine manure application, increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil organic matter (SOM) concentrations are key indicators of soil health
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (increased by 64% when solid manure was applied);Decreased Bulk Density (decreased ranging from -1% to -29%);Increased Available Water Capacity (increased ranging from 1% to 55%);Increased Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (increased ranging from 12% to 71%);Increased Cation Exchange Capacity (increased by 28% when solid manure or swine manure plus inorganic fertilizer was applied)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (64% when solid manure was applied);Increased Soil Organic Matter (44% when solid manure was applied);Decreased Bulk Density (average reduction of ∼15%);Increased Total N (ranging from <1 to 167%);Increased Cation Exchange Capacity (increased by 28% when solid manure or swine manure plus inorganic fertilizer was applied)
Soil organic carbon increase (36% average increase);Soil organic matter increase (27% average increase);Microbial Biomass Carbon increase (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jeffrey R Pieper et al. - 2015 - Effects of Three Conservation Tillage Strategies on Yields and Soil Health in a Mixed Vegetable Prod.pdf
United States of America;
2; 15
United States of America, Rhode Island
Soil degradation; Weed control; Reduced vegetable yields; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Strip tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Killed cereal rye (Secale cereale) cover crop mulch + non-agricultural solution 1: Hand hoeing and pulling weeds within the planting strips.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Perennial white clover (Trifolium repens) and ryegrass (Lolium perenne) living mulch + non-agricultural solution 1: Mowing to control weeds + non-agricultural solution 2: Black plastic mulch (for cucurbits)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Annual crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) living mulch + non-agricultural solution 1: Mowing to control weeds.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: significant increases in soil aggregate stability, potentially mineralizable nitrogen, active soil carbon, and microbial activity relative to the control, and significant decrease in loss of soil organic matter; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Aggregate stability increased in the 2nd and 3rd years of the study in the strip tillage and perennial living mulch treatments; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: potentially mineralizable nitrogen levels increased in the strip tillage treatment and the perennial living mulch treatment; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Carbon levels increased by 14% and 16% in the perennial living mulch and strip tillage treatments, respectively; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: the strip tillage and perennial living mulch treatments lost significantly smaller percentages of the initial soil organic matter than did the conventional control and annual living mulch treatments
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased soil aggregate stability (significantly greater than the conventional control in 2012 (48%) and 2013 (55%));;Decreased loss of soil organic matter (lost significantly smaller percentages than the conventional control (5% loss in strip tillage, 6% loss in perennial living mulch vs 14% loss in conventional control));;Increased potentially mineralizable nitrogen (increased in the strip tillage treatment (P = 0.099) and the perennial living mulch treatment (P = 0.001));;Increased active carbon (increased by 16% in the strip tillage and 14% in the perennial living mulch treatments from 2011 to 2013);;Increased microbial activity (significantly higher CO2 respiration than the conventional control in perennial living mulch (34.7 mg CO2/g soil/day in 2011, 31.5 mg CO2/g soil/day in 2012 vs 27.0 and 23.9 in control) and strip tillage (35.4 mg CO2/g soil/day in 2012 vs 23.9 in control))
Improved soil aggregate stability (In 2013, the strip tillage treatment averaged 65% aggregate stability compared to 45% in the conventional control treatment. The increase over time in strip tillage was significant at P = 0.09);;Reduced soil organic matter loss (From 2011 to 2013, the strip tillage treatment lost 3% and the perennial living mulch treatment lost 4% of initial soil organic matter, compared to 12% loss in the conventional control treatment. Strip tillage and perennial living mulch treatments lost significantly smaller percentages than the conventional control);;Increased soil microbial respiration (In 2011, perennial living mulch (34.7 mg CO2/g soil/day) had significantly higher soil respiration than the control (27.0 mg CO2/g soil/day). In 2012, strip tillage (35.4), perennial living mulch (31.5), and annual living mulch (28.4 mg CO2/g soil/day) all had significantly higher soil respiration than the control (23.9 mg CO2/g soil/day));;Increased active soil carbon (From 2011 to 2013, active carbon levels increased by 16% in strip tillage and 14% in perennial living mulch, while decreasing by 8% in the conventional control. In 2013, strip tillage (45 mg C/g soil) had significantly more active carbon than the control (36 mg C/g soil));;Increased potentially mineralizable nitrogen (Potentially mineralizable nitrogen levels increased significantly over time in perennial living mulch (P = 0.001) and strip tillage (P = 0.099). In 2013, strip tillage (14 mg N/g soil) had significantly more potentially mineralizable nitrogen than the control (9.5 mg N/g soil))
Reduced loss of soil organic matter (significantly smaller percentages of the initial soil organic matter loss than conventional control); Increased active carbon (Increased by 14% in perennial living mulch and 16% in strip tillage treatments from 2011 to 2013, while decreasing by 8% in conventional control); Higher microbial activity (significantly higher CO2 respiration rate than control, e.g., 35.4 mg CO2/g soil/day in strip tillage vs 23.9 in control in 2012)
Open
Jeanne Coulibaly et al. - 2015 - Responding to Crop Failure Understanding Farmers’ Coping Strategies in Southern Malawi.pdf
Malawi
1;2;13
Malawi
Malawi, Chikwawa, Machinga, Zomba, Mwanza, Blantyre
Crop failure; Climate variability; Poor soil fertility; Lack of agricultural inputs and technologies; Food insecurity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Farm irrigation + Change of crop type/variety + Crop diversification +
Non-agricultural solution: Off-farm labor + Small businesses + Sale of forest products
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:1 poor soil fertility;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:1 lack of agricultural inputs and technologies;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1 high variability of maize prices;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies:1 an underdeveloped credit market;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: 1 severe land degradation
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Jatish C Biswas et al. - 2019 - Soil Health Assessment Methods and Relationship with Wheat Yield.pdf
Bangladesh; India
2;11
Bangladesh; India
Soil degradation; Food security
Solution Package 1:
Soil texture + Organic carbon + pH + Available water + Cation exchange capacity + Bulk density + Total porosity + Saturated hydraulic conductivity + Salinity + Aggregate stability + Slope + Soil depth + Geometric mean approach for soil health scoring
Solution Package 2:
Soil texture + Soil organic carbon (SOC) + Soil pH + Soil available water + Cation exchange capacity (CEC) + Bulk density (BD) + Porosity + Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) + Soil salinity + Aggregate stability (WDCS) + Slope + Soil depth + Additive model + Multiplicative model + Logic based scoring
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
no evidence found
Good relationship of soil health score with wheat yield (R2 = 0.62 ** P<0.001)
Relationship between soil health index and wheat yield (R2 = 0.62**); Spatial assessment of soil health quality (64.6% soils scored > 60)
Improved prediction of wheat yield using the multiplicative model derived from soil attributes (R2 = 0.62*); Ability of PCA-selected soil attributes to explain wheat yield variability (explained about 36% yield variability; R2 = 0.3634**); Spatial characterization of soil health status across the landscape (About 64.6% soils scored more than 60; the best soil group (score > 70) was only about 15%)
no evidence found
Open
Jehangir H Bhadha et al. - 2021 - On-farm Soil Health Assessment of Cover-cropping in Florida.pdf
Florida;
2;15
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
United States of America; Florida, Walton County, Columbia County, Alachua County, Palm Beach County, Hendry County
Soil degradation; Soil compaction; Nutrient depletion; Water retention capacity; Crop diversity.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crop + non-agricultural solution: Economically viable alternatives.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Mustard seeds, Oats, Peas, Barley, Cereal rye, Crimson clover, Faba Beans, Flax, Lentil, Oats, Peas, Triticale, Radish, Rye, Safflower, Vetch, Wheat, White clover) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Oats & Rye mix) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Oats) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Buckwheat, Cowpea & Sunn hemp mix) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Sunn hemp) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Cowpea, Cowpea & Sudan grass mix, Cowpea & Sunn hemp mix) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Cowpea & Sunn hemp mix) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Sunn hemp) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution: Cover crops (Sunn hemp) + non-agricultural solution: no specific non-agricultural solution mentioned.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Soil OM, MWHC, and soil protein showed increases in cover crop fields;2. cover crops helped to build up soil protein level in sandy soils;3. approximately 2% significant increase in soil OM after one year of cover crop practice; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. from a nutrient perspective, this is a good sign as it indicated larger amounts of P would be available for subsequent cash crops that are being planted.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased Soil Organic Matter (No quantative evidence); Increased Maximum Water Holding Capacity (No quantative evidence); Decreased Bulk Density (No quantative evidence); Increased Soil Protein (No quantative evidence)
Soil protein increase (No quantitative evidence); Soil OM increase (approximately 2% significant increase after one year of cover crop practice); MWHC increase (No quantitative evidence); BD decrease (No quantitative evidence); Active C increase (No quantitative evidence)
Increase in soil organic matter (approximately 2% significant increase after one year of cover crop practice); Significant decrease in soil TKN level (significant lower TKN was observed in the second year); Significant increase in Active Carbon (Active C showed a significant increase in cover crops fields in the second year)
Open
Jehangir Bhadha et al. - 2018 - Evidence of Soil Health Benefits of Flooded Rice Compared to Fallow Practice.pdf
United States of America;
2;15;12
None
United States of America; Florida, Everglades Agricultural Area
Soil degradation; Nutrient depletion; Soil erosion; Insect pests; Subsidence
Solution Package 1:
Flooded rice cultivation + soil health index + local employment
Solution Package 2:
Flooded rice cultivation + Best Management Practices (BMPs) + flood-tolerant crop cultivars + reduced tillage + adoption of crop rotations
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increase in soil pH;Reduction in soil bulk density;Increase in water holding capacity;Increase in cation exchange capacity;Increase in organic matter content;Limiting the amount of soil loss via oxidation.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased Maximum Water Holding Capacity (Significant increase compared to fallow);Increased Cation Exchange Capacity (nearly doubled from 58 to 101 cmolc kg-1);Reduced Bulk Density (significant reduction due to rice cultivation);Increased Organic Matter (significant 3% increase observed when sugarcane fields were cultivated with ratoon rice);Reduced Active Carbon generation (less than half that generated under fallow (almost 16 g kg-1), limiting the amount of soil loss via oxidation)
Significant increase in cation exchange capacity (nearly doubled from 58 to 101 cmolc kg-1 for Cane ratoon rice);; Lower rate of carbon loss via oxidation (no more than 8 g kg-1 generated under flooded practices compared to almost 16 g kg-1 in fallow);; Significant increase in organic matter (small, yet significant 3% increase for Cane ratoon rice);; Significant reduction in soil bulk density (No quantative evidence);; Significant increase in maximum water holding capacity (No quantative evidence)
Reduced carbon loss via oxidation (Almost 16 g kg-1 of active C is being generated within fallow soils, whereas less than half that under flooded practices); Increased soil organic matter (significant increase of 3% OM content for Cane ratoon rice)
Open
Jeffrey David Svedin - 2022 - Utilization and limitations of soil health metrics in Missouri corn production decisions.pdf
Based on the text provided, the solution described in the document is researched in:
Missouri
1; None
Missouri, sub-country level; United States of America
Societal problems that the solution aims at solving:
Soil degradation; Fertilizer overuse; Low crop yield; Water pollution; Nutrient imbalance.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil Respiration + Agricultural Solution 2: POXC + Agricultural Solution 3: ACE protein + Agricultural Solution 4: Extracellular Enzymes
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: In the United States and England, 40-60% of recent corn (Zea mays L.) yield increases are attributed to fertilizers;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: fertilizer should be applied to maximize yield?;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: How much fertilizer should I place to maximize yield and limit environmental impacts?;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: fertilizer improved yield with 42 and 34% accuracy, respectively.;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health
no evidence found
Optimized corn productivity (POXC > 415 mg kg soil-1); Greater yield from legacy perennial systems (2021 corn yield 130% greater; 10% greater average corn yield increase than soybean over the 10-year period); POXC outperforming other soil analyses in predicting corn grain yield (outperformed all other established soil analyses)
2021 Corn yield increase in field with perennial system legacy (130% greater); Average yield increase for corn compared to soybean over 10 years in field with perennial system legacy (10% greater average yield increase than soybean over the 10-year period); Strong relationship between soil organic carbon and autoclaved citrate extractable protein and average grain production (r2> 0.70); POXC benchmark for optimized corn productivity (> 415 mg kg soil-1)
Greater corn yield (130% greater in the North field in 2021; 10% greater average yield increase than soybean over the 10-year period);Optimized corn productivity (> 415 mg kg soil-1 POXC);POXC outperforms other established soil analyses in predicting corn grain yield (POXC outperformed all other established soil analyses);Strong relationship between soil organic carbon and autoclaved citrate extractable protein with average grain production (r2 > 0.70)
Increased Soil Organic Carbon (Range from 1.23% to 2.93% observed across different management intensities); Increased Potassium Permanganate Oxidizable Carbon (Range from 181 mg kg-1 to 580 mg kg-1 observed across different management intensities)
Open
Jeffrey D Michler et al. - 2018 - Conservation agriculture and climate resilience.pdf
Zimbabwe
7;12;13
None
Zimbabwe;
Societal problems that the solution aims at solving:
Climate change; Agricultural productivity; Weather risk
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Conservation Agriculture (CA)
Non-agricultural solutions:
* Policy: Policy should focus on promoting CA on these climate resiliency benefits.
* Policy: Policy should be designed to focus on CA’s potential benefits in mitigating risk due to changing rainfall patterns.
* Policy: policy should target CA for households living in areas prone to frequent severe drought or flooding.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Households that practice CA tend to receive higher yields compared to households using conventional methods in years of both low and high rainfall;While CA is hypothesized to be ‘climate smart,’ increased resiliency during periods of rainfall stress may come at the cost of yields during regular growing conditions;In our data, we find that adoption of CA in years of average rainfall results in no yield gains, and in some cases yield loses, compared to conventional practices.;Where CA is effective is in mitigating the negative impacts of deviations in rainfall.;Policy should focus promotion of CA on these climate resiliency benefits.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Households that practice CA tend to receive higher yields compared to households using conventional methods in years of both low and high rainfall;it is effective in mitigating the negative impacts of rainfall shocks;Policy should focus promotion of CA on these climate resiliency benefits.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions:Policy should focus promotion of CA on these climate resiliency benefits.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: no evidence found
CA improves maize yields during times of drought (3.522***); CA improves maize yields when rainfall is above average (2.931***); CA improves groundnut yields during times of drought (1.433*); Households experience positive returns to CA cultivation only when rainfall stress exceeds specific thresholds (Rainfall shortages greater than one and a half standard deviations away from the mean or rainfall surpluses greater than one standard deviation away from the mean for weighted average returns); The mean predicted returns to CA over the past 15 years were positive (Positive mean predicted returns).
Yield resilience during rainfall shocks (Shortages > 1.5 standard deviations or surpluses > 1 standard deviation needed for average positive returns)
Maize yields are consistently more resilient under CA than under traditional cultivation methods (shortage: 3.522**; surplus: 1.953**);Sorghum yields improve during times of drought (shortage: 0.987);Cowpea yields improve during times of drought (shortage: 1.404);Average returns to CA become positive only when rainfall shortages are greater than one and a half standard deviations away from the mean or rainfall surpluses greater than one standard deviation away from the mean (> 1.5 std dev shortage or > 1 std dev surplus);Groundnut yields have no specific impact in mitigating losses from either surpluses or shortfalls of rain (shortage: 0.832; surplus: 0.086)
no evidence found
Open
Jeanne Dollinger and Shibu Jose - 2018 - Agroforestry for soil health.pdf
Argentina; Brazil; Cameroon; Canada; Ghana; India; Mexico; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Portugal; Tanzania; Zambia
2;15;3
Brazil, Amazonia; Cameroon; Tanzania, Shinyanga; Nicaragua; India; Portugal; Argentina; Canada; Zambia; Mexico; Ghana; India, Lesser Himalayas; India, Indo-Gangetic alluvial soils; Nigeria; Ethiopia; Colombia
Soil health; Climate change; Soil fertility; Soil quality; Biodiversity
Solution Package 1:
Agroforestry + Policy (Increased attention in policy discussion)
Solution Package 2:
Agroforestry + Climate Change mitigation (Carbon storage) + Soil health (enhances soil microbial dynamics)
Solution Package 3:
Agroforestry + Phytoremediation (for contaminated sites)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 3
(1) enrich soil organic carbon better than monocropping systems; (2) improve soil nutrient availability and soil fertility due to the presence of trees in the system; (3) enhance soil microbial dynamics, which would positively influence soil health.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1
(1) enhancing carbon storage and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Edible mushroom production (production had twice the market value);Improving maize yield (No quantative evidence)
Enrichment of soil organic carbon (greater under poplar-based and guava-based agroforestry systems than under the sole crop);Improved soil fertility and increased nutrient content (Greater P, Mg, Ca as well as lower pH in homegardens compared to soil from secondary and primary forests);Reduced cadmium contamination (decreased Cd contamination by 41–52%);Increased soil organic carbon storage (greater under systems containing trees than under pasture);Increased contents of essential macro- and micronutrients in soil (greater in areas planted with Eucalyptus than in areas planted with Zeyherias)
Enrich soil organic carbon (improved SOC storage [meta-analysis finding]; greater under the poplar-based and guava-based agroforestry systems than under the sole crop; greater under systems containing trees than under pasture); Improve soil nutrient availability and soil fertility (greater contents of essential macro- and micronutrients in areas planted with Eucalyptus than in areas planted with Zeyherias; greater P, Mg and Ca as well as lower pH in homegardens vs forests; supply more than 18 kg N ha-1 year-1 from litter inputs; tree leaves could supply up to 93 mg N kg-1); Enhance soil microbial dynamics (increase the microbial diversity and abundance; greater AMF diversity and density; greater fungal diversity in the rhizosphere compared to bulk soil); Decrease pollutant contamination through phytoremediation (decreased Cd contamination by 41–52%); Reduced methane emissions (produced less CH4 than prairies and eucalyptus woodlots)
Agroforestry enriches soil organic carbon better than monocropping systems (No quantitative evidence);Improved soil organic carbon storage when shifting from systems without trees to agroforestry systems (No quantitative evidence);Agroforestry enhances soil microbial dynamics (No quantitative evidence);Silvopastoral systems and pine woodlots produced less methane than prairies and eucalyptus woodlots (No quantitative evidence);Greater soil organic carbon under systems containing trees than under pasture (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jason P Kaye and Miguel Quemada - 2017 - Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review.pdf
Pennsylvania, USA; Spain
13;2;15
None
Spain, Central Spain, Aranjuez, Pennsylvania, USA, Mid-Atlantic, USA, Northeastern USA, Nebraska, USA
Climate change; Erosion; Drought; Soil degradation; Extreme rain events
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: climate change mitigation + non-agricultural solution 2: climate change adaptation
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: erosion reduction
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: soil water management + non-agricultural solution 2: drought adaptation
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover crops + non-agricultural solution 1: N management + non-agricultural solution 2: warming adaptation
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: cover crop species selection + non-agricultural solution 1: climate change adaptation
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: cover crop mixtures + non-agricultural solution 1: climate change adaptation + non-agricultural solution 2: yield improvement
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.: Legume cover crops consistently increase yields by 5 to 30 %
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.: Cover crops have long been touted for their ability to reduce erosion, fix atmospheric nitrogen, reduce nitrogen leaching, and improve soil health;Evidence that cover cropping increases soil C sequestration; After 7 years of cover cropping, both grass and legume cover crops enhanced water stable aggregates in Aranjuez, Spain
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.: Cover crop effects on greenhouse gas fluxes typically mitigate warming by ~100 to 150 g CO2 e/m2/year;Cover crop management can also enable climate change adaptation, especially through retention of nitrogen mineralized due to warming;Estimated total mitigation from altered greenhouse gas fluxes was 116 and 135 g CO2 e/m2/year for non-legumes and legumes, respectively.;Calculating the mitigation potential for a practice requires summing the positive and negative effects of the practice on greenhouse gases and albedo using common units.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.: Increasing resilience means increasing the capacity of the system to absorb disturbance without qualitatively changing the fundamental interactions that characterize the system;Cover crops can help adapt to autumn warming by taking up N that is mineralized to prevent a warming-induced increase in autumn nutrient leaching.;The improvements in soil structure and the soil coverage by the cover crop, either the living crop or the residue mulch, also protect the soil from soil crusting.
no evidence found
Increased yields after legume cover crops (consistently increase yields by 5 to 30 %);;Reduced N fertilizer use (maize following legumes would require 2 to 15 g/m2 less fertilizer; typical scenario: fertilizer credit of 5 g N/m2);;Higher maize yields in Spain case study (average of 850 kg ha−1 after a vetch cover crop and of 300 kg ha−1 after barley);;Increased economic benefit in Spain case study (increased economic benefit in 67 and 50 % of the study years for vetch and barley, respectively);;Increased yields after non-legume cover crops (generally similar to or slightly <10 % greater than those following bare fallow)
Increased soil organic matter concentration (about 0.3 % every 10 years);;Increased soil water storage (Reduction in spring soil water content by cover crops was up to 60 mm in Spain and to 80 mm in California initially, then more water later);;Reduced nitrogen fertilizer requirements from increased soil organic matter (1 g N/m2/year after a decade of cover cropping);;Increased soil aggregate stability (No quantative evidence);;Reduced erosion (No quantative evidence)
Soil Carbon Sequestration (117 g CO2 e/m2/year); Increased Soil Organic Matter (0.3 % concentration increase by 10 years); Reduced N Leaching (70 % lower N leaching in non-legume cover-cropped systems); Reduced Vulnerability to Erosion from Extreme Rain Events (No quantitative evidence); Increased Soil Water Management Options During Droughts (Soil in the fallow plots contained 35 to 55 mm more water than a barley-vetch cover crop mixture when the cover crop was terminated)
Soil C sequestration (117 g CO2 e/m2/year); Albedo change (25 g CO2 e/m2/year); Reduced N fertilizer use - Green manure credit (20 g CO2 e/m2/year); Reduced N fertilizer use - Organic matter credit (4 g CO2 e/m2/year); Reduced downstream N2O flux (3 g CO2 e/m2/year)
Open
Jason Murillo et al. - 2015 - Vancouver community gardeners perceptions on soil health and contamination.pdf
Canada;
3;11;6
None
Canada; British Columbia, Vancouver; Quebec, Montreal; Pennsylvania, Delaware county; Ontario, London; Utah, Utah State University.
Soil contamination; Public health; Food security; Environmental health; Healthy communities
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Growing in raised beds and containers + Agricultural Solution 2: Decontaminating the soil with helpful plants + non-agricultural solution 1: Remove contaminated soil + non-agricultural solution 2: Mandatory soil testing + non-agricultural solution 3: Financial incentives (grants, tax assistance, and rebate programs)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Reclaiming and converting brownfields into green spaces, such as community gardens; Potential risks when growing and eating food from contaminated soil; Gardeners must take the proper precautions to reduce their exposure to such contaminants such as having their soil tested; Gardening in soil that has previously been contaminated through industrial processes poses a potential health concern; The absence of soil testing indicates a gap in the safety standards for community gardens; Therefore, mandatory and annual soil testing should be implemented with Vancouver’s community gardens to ensure the health and safety of gardeners.; Restore natural habitats; Issues of soil quality; Prior remediation; Heavy metals, solvents of petroleum products leaching into the soil and contaminating ground; The findings suggest that Vancouver community gardeners generally feel safe about their soil being contaminant-free, despite a lack of soil testing; The new guidelines will now require that edible plants grown in community gardens be planted in soil free from urban contaminants; affordable soil testing; Contaminants of concern, as mentioned in the survey, include heavy metals (primarily lead and arsenic), hydrocarbons, pesticides and automobile emissions from high-traffic roadways; Soil testing; removing contaminated soil and growing in raised beds; The next step is then to have mandatory soil testing or to have fresh soil brought in for community gardens in brownfields as these gardens are more susceptible to soil contamination.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Restore natural habitats (No quantitative evidence); Improve the local environment by preserving and growing green space (No quantitative evidence)
Restore natural habitats (No quantative evidence)
Open
Jasaswee T Das et al. - 2016 - Sustainability and resilience analyses in slope stabilisation.pdf
United States of America
11;13;9
None
Texas, Grapevine dam
Surficial slope failures; Embankment slope failures; Natural landslides; Economic development; Environmental protection
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: 20% Compost + non-agricultural solution 1: Cost + non-agricultural solution 2: Environmental impact + non-agricultural solution 3: Resource consumption + non-agricultural solution 4: Socio-economic impact + non-agricultural solution 5: Maximum lateral movement + non-agricultural solution 6: Probability of failure
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: 4% lime + 0.30% PP fibre + non-agricultural solution 1: Cost + non-agricultural solution 2: Environmental impact + non-agricultural solution 3: Resource consumption + non-agricultural solution 4: Socio-economic impact + non-agricultural solution 5: Maximum lateral movement + non-agricultural solution 6: Probability of failure
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: 8% lime + 0.15% PP fibre + non-agricultural solution 1: Cost + non-agricultural solution 2: Environmental impact + non-agricultural solution 3: Resource consumption + non-agricultural solution 4: Socio-economic impact + non-agricultural solution 5: Maximum lateral movement + non-agricultural solution 6: Probability of failure
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: 8% lime + non-agricultural solution 1: Cost + non-agricultural solution 2: Environmental impact + non-agricultural solution 3: Resource consumption + non-agricultural solution 4: Socio-economic impact + non-agricultural solution 5: Maximum lateral movement + non-agricultural solution 6: Probability of failure
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Increased tensile strength of the soil making it less susceptible to shrinkage cracking;Robustness of the system to endure hazardous events (intense rainfall, flooding and earthquakes) without significant loss of functionality or structural integrity over time.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Global warming potential (kgCO2e);;Eutrophication potential (gPO43−e)
Open
Jamini Saikia et al. - 2018 - Effect of biofertilizer consortium on yield, quality and soil health of french bean (Phaseolus vulga.pdf
India
2; 15; 3
None
India; Assam, Jorhat
Soil degradation; Food security; Environmental pollution
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: FYM 20 t/ha + NPK @ 30:40:20 kg/ha (RDF)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Enriched compost @ 3 t/ha
Agricultural Solution 2: Consortium (Rhizobium + Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicompost @ 3 t/ha
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicompost @ 5 t/ha
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Vermicompost @ 2.5 t/ha
Agricultural Solution 2: Consortium (Rhizobium + Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB)
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Consortium (Rhizobium + Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 6. Bulk density; pH; P2O5; microbial biomass carbon; dehydrogenase activity; phosphomonoesterase activity; organic carbon; available N; K. ; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Pod/plant; pod length; pod girth; seed/pod; pod yield; harvest index
no evidence found
Pod yield (10.95 t/ha); Pod/plant (23.53); Harvest index (65.00%); Seed/pod (6.30); Pod length (14.50 cm)
Microbial biomass carbon (630.33g/g/24h); Dehydrogenase activity (711.50 g TPF/ g/24h); Phosphomonoesterase activity (442.43g p-nitrophenol/g/h); Bulk density (0.83 g/ cm3); Available P2O5 (47.40 kg/ha)
Maximum microbial biomass carbon (630.33g/g/24h); Maximum dehydrogenase activity (711.50 g TPF/ g/24h); Maximum phosphomonoesterase activity (442.43g p-nitrophenol/g/h); Minimum bulk density (0.83 g/ cm3); Maximum available phosphorus (47.40 kg/ha)
Increased microbial biomass carbon (630.33 g/g/24h); Increased dehydrogenase activity (711.50 g TPF/g/24h); Increased phosphomonoesterase activity (442.43 g p-nitrophenol/g/h); Increased soil organic carbon (0.68%)
Open
Jagadish Timsina - 2018 - Can Organic Sources of Nutrients Increase Crop Yields to Meet Global Food Demand.pdf
The solutions described in the document are researched in the following countries:
* Nepal;
* Bangladesh;
* India;
* Philippines;
* Sweden;
* USA.
1;None
Australia, Victoria, Nepal, Chitwan;
Sub-Saharan Africa;
South Asia;
Asia;
Latin America
Meeting global food demand; Land degradation; Environmental pollution; Climate change; Soil fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of high-yielding varieties (HYVs)
Agricultural Solution 2: Irrigation
Agricultural Solution 3: Chemical fertilizers
Agricultural Solution 4: Synthetic pesticides
Non-agricultural solution 1: Site-specific nutrient management (SSNM)
Non-agricultural solution 2: Development of computer-based decision support system (DSS) tools for farmers
Non-agricultural solution 3: Evergreen Agriculture (an extension of Agroforestry System)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of organic sources of nutrients
Agricultural Solution 2: Use of agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods
Non-agricultural solution 1: Site-specific nutrient management (SSNM)
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Use of chemical fertilizers
Non-agricultural solution 1: Site-specific nutrient management (SSNM)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Legumes Can Use All N2 Fixed from Atmosphere;Nutrient Supply from Inorganic and Organic Sources;
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Organic Materials Can Build-Up Large Amount of SOM;Chemical Fertilizers Cannot Build Up SOM;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Evergreen Agriculture, an advanced form of agroforestry system, is an approach for maintenance of a green cover on the land throughout the year in the tropical and sub-tropical climate.
no evidence found
Reduction in mineral N requirement by fertilizer trees (up to 75%); Dramatic increases in maize yield in Evergreen Agriculture systems (dramatic increases); Higher income directly from products produced by the intercropped trees and crops (No quantitative evidence)
Improve soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Build up soil organic matter/Sequester carbon (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil physical properties (structure, aggregation, water holding capacity, drainage) (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil microbial populations (No quantitative evidence); More effective conservation of below-ground biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Increased nutrient supply through N2 fixation by Evergreen Agriculture trees (34–300 kg N ha−1 year−1); Reduced mineral N requirement through nutrient contributions from Evergreen Agriculture tree biomass (up to 75%); Improved soil physical properties by organic materials (No quantitative evidence); Build-up of soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil structure and water infiltration by Evergreen Agriculture (No quantitative evidence)
Sequester carbon in trees and soil (No quantitative evidence); Mitigate CO2 emissions (No quantitative evidence); Result in more effective conservation of above- and below-ground biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Enhance carbon storage both above- and below-ground (No quantitative evidence); Enhances biodiversity (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jacqueline L Stroud - 2019 - Soil health pilot study in England Outcomes from an on-farm earthworm survey..pdf
England
2;15;12
England, sub-country level
Soil degradation; Food production; Soil security; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic matter management (straw retention, cover cropping, manuring) + non-agricultural solution 1: Twitter recruitment channel + non-agricultural solution 2: Farmers Weekly recruitment channel
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Reducing tillage frequency and intensity + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic matter management (straw retention, cover cropping, manuring) + non-agricultural solution 1: #30minworms survey + non-agricultural solution 2: workshop to improve soil health assessments + non-agricultural solution 3: Use of scientific field trials data
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased earthworm presence and abundance in farmland soils; Sub-optimal earthworm populations identified in 42% of fields, indicating potential for improvement; Tillage negatively impacted earthworm populations; Cover cropping increased the presence of anecic earthworms
Farmer participation could save £14 million pounds per #30minworms survey nationally (No quantative evidence);; An average #30minworms field survey (10.9 ± 0.8 ha-1) would incur £16–48 in fieldwork costs depending on labour type (farmer or outsourced)
no evidence found
Using earthworm monitoring results to change soil management practices (57% participants); Identifying soils at risk of being over-worked (42% fields had sub-optimal earthworm populations); Detecting compaction problems (No quantitative evidence); Detecting anaerobic/slowly degrading organic materials (No quantitative evidence); Enabling comparisons of soil management practices on-farm (36% participants would use for this)
no evidence found
Fields with sub-optimal earthworm populations (42%); Fields with no sightings of epigeic earthworm (21%); Fields with no sightings of anecic earthworms (16%)
Open
J. Wade et al. - 2021 - Soil health conceptualization differs across key stakeholder groups in the Midwest.pdf
Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Michigan; Minnesota; Nebraska; North Dakota; Ohio; South Dakota; Wisconsin
15;2;12
United States; United States, Illinois; United States, Indiana; United States, Iowa; United States, Michigan; United States, Minnesota; United States, Nebraska; United States, North Dakota; United States, Ohio; United States, South Dakota;
Agricultural sustainability; Communication strategies; Soil health; Crop productivity; Farmer attitudes
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Soil health tests +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Communication strategies
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Increased crop productivity (No quantitative evidence);Increased farm profitability (No quantitative evidence);Reduced agrochemical inputs (No quantitative evidence)
Crop productivity (No quantitative evidence)
Positively affected crop productivity (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced environmental harm (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced agrochemical inputs (No quantitative evidence);; Soil fertility and biological functioning (No quantitative evidence);; Soil physical functioning (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
J G Arbuckle and G Roesch-Mcnally - 2015 - Cover crop adoption in Iowa The role of perceived practice characteristics.pdf
Iowa
2;1;15
None
Iowa
Soil erosion; Nutrient loss; Water quality; Soil health; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Cover crops + crop and livestock diversity + technical assistance (e.g., agricultural retailers and custom operators) + education + external funding + watershed groups + cost-share.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
no evidence found
Improve soil productivity (No quantative evidence);; Reduce N and phosphorus (P) losses (No quantative evidence);; Forage value/extra crop for cows (No quantative evidence);; Holding on to more nutrients (No quantative evidence);; Nitrogen (N) use efficiencies (No quantative evidence)
Improve soil productivity (No quantitative evidence); Increase soil health (No quantitative evidence); Reduce soil erosion significantly (No quantitative evidence); Provide extra crop/forage for livestock (No quantitative evidence); Build tilth in the soil (No quantitative evidence)
Reduce soil erosion (No quantitative evidence);Reduce nutrient loss (No quantitative evidence);Improve soil productivity (No quantitative evidence)
Carbon (C) sequestration (No quantitative evidence); Reduced greenhouse gas emissions (No quantitative evidence); Increased microbial activity (No quantitative evidence); Reduction of nitrogen losses (No quantitative evidence)
Open
J Abishek et al. - 2023 - Soil Texture Prediction Using Machine Learning Approach for Sustainable Soil Health Management.pdf
India
2;15;12
India, Tamil Nadu, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore
Soil degradation; Food security; Sustainable agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Machine learning (ML), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), soil texture prediction
Non-agricultural solution: Eco-friendly approach
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil texture is the most important soil health indicator being used for the selection of crops, mechanical manipulation, irrigation management, and fertilizer management; Soil texture is an important soil physical property being used as a soil health indicator for sustainable crop production; A better understanding of soil texture paves the way for implementing sustainable crop management practices.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Reliable soil texture prediction (87.50%)
no evidence found
Open
Jamie Mullins et al. - 2017 - The Adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture The Role of Information and Insurance Under Climate Chang.pdf
Malawi
1;13
None
Malawi, Tropical Warm/Semiarid AEZ, Malawi
Climate change; Crop productivity; Welfare of smallholder agricultural households; Food security; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Intercropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil and Water Conservation + non-agricultural solution 1: Weather index insurance + non-agricultural solution 2: Agricultural extension + non-agricultural solution 3: Credit
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Intercropping + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil and Water Conservation + non-agricultural solution 1: Weather index insurance + non-agricultural solution 2: Agricultural extension
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Farmers can change cropping decisions between staple and cash crops and amongst crop types within these categories; 2. Farmers can make changes in land management practices through the adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) techniques (e.g. Kassie et al. 2008; Rosenzweig and Binswanger 1993; Heltberg and Tarp 2002; Deressa and Hassan 2010); 3. Investments in soil-water holding capacity (SWC) may be a particularly important adaptive response in light of recent research that finds a positive correlation between rainfall variability and the selection of SWC type practices (Arslan et al. 2013); 4. Greater volatility leads to greater perceived volatility (except in the special case where m = 0) and thus increases the returns to protection from yield risk; 5. bringing expectations regarding weather conditions in line with the new realities under climate change is akin to increasing m in the conceptual model. In response we see increased CSA usage as predicted by Eq. 15; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services
no evidence found
Increased land allocation to diversification crops (specifically, climate-adapted, high-yielding varieties like Groundnut CG7) (up to 50% of land allocated to cash crops, e.g. Groundnut CG7, from Tables 2 & 3);;Increased adoption of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) techniques (+ SWC mentioned alongside intercropping in Tables 2 & 3 under certain policy scenarios);;Improved farmer welfare/utility (utility levels weakly increase as the levels of information and insurance payout increase)
Sustainable land management practices are more productive than conventional practices (No quantative evidence);; Improved farmer welfare/outcomes from sustainable land management practices (Utility increases up to ~4000 units in simulation under High Climate Change scenarios);; Increased expected yield after a 3-5 year period (No quantative evidence);; Improved soil water-holding capacity (No quantative evidence);; Protection from yield volatility (No quantative evidence)
Sustainable land management practices such as soil and water conservation, legume rotation or intercropping are more productive than conventional practices (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
James Reed et al. - 2017 - Trees for life The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in th.pdf
India; Uganda; Ghana; Cameroon
1; 2; 15
None
Africa;
Asia;
Americas;
Australia
Food insecurity; Poverty; Climate change; Biodiversity loss; Deforestation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: incorporating forests and trees within an appropriate and contextualized natural resource management strategy + agroforestry
Non-agricultural solutions: income sources + greater resilience strategies to adapt to market or climatic shocks
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: integrating trees on farms
Non-agricultural solutions: economic benefits (provision or sale of fuelwood, mulch, or fodder)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 2. Achieving net livelihood gains through integrating trees on farms, providing rural farmers with additional income sources;Potential to maintain, and in some cases, enhance yields comparable to solely monoculture systems
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Positive effect on soil fertility within the system
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: No direct KPI relevance
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: No direct KPI relevance
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
Net positive or neutral effect of tree presence on food yields or food yield proxies (52%); Positive overall livelihood effect of tree presence (46%); Reduction in total negative effects of tree presence on livelihood outcomes compared to negative effects on yield (Negative effects on yield were 36%, negative effects on livelihoods were 16%); Additional income sources for rural farmers (No quantative evidence)
Soil fertility (No quantative evidence)
Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Jagroop Kaur and Harsimrat K Bons - 2017 - Mulching A viable option to increase productivity of field and fruit crops.pdf
India; China; Ethiopia; Kenya; Indonesia; Pakistan; Vietnam
2; 15; 13
India, Punjab
Ethiopia
China
Kenya
Pakistan
Indonesia
Soil erosion; Soil degradation; Air pollution; Climate change; Declining water table
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (Kaolin, straw mulch, paddy straw mulch, legume mulching, plastic film, biodegradable film, wheat straw mulch, black polythene mulch, grass mulching, sugarcane trash, rice straw mulch, maize stover, dust mulching, polythene mulch, white clover, hay mulching, grass mulching, dry grass mulch, paddy husk, sarkanda mulch, clear mulched, reflecting films, organic mulch)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (tied ridging, mulch)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (plastic mulch, drip irrigation)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (mulch, herbicide, white netted polythene)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (cover crops, straw mulch, kura clover living mulches)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching ( ridge-furrow plastic mulching)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (tillage, straw mulch, manuring)
Non-agricultural solution: Minimum Tillage
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (Mulching with FYM)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (cover management practices)
Non-agricultural solution: Improved Tillage
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (legume mulch)
Non-agricultural solution: N/A
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution: Mulching (mulch, herbicide use, Sesbania intercropping)
Non-agricultural solution: Weed management
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Mulch acts as a barrier which effectively blocks the transport of vapours out of soil and alters the net radiation at the soil surface which check soil evaporation, moderate soil temperature, modify crop microclimate, suppress weed growth, improve soil physical, chemical and biological properties and check the direct beating action of rains lead to soil erosion control;Improvement of soil properties: Mulch increased soil organic matter (1.32 g/kg) and soil moisture contents (17%), but decreased bulk density (1.35 Mg/m3) and soil strength (464 kPa) compared to control in maize;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Problem of destruction of soil organic matter and nutrients and air pollution due to residue burning can be solved by use of residue as mulch for sustainable agriculture in Indo-Gangetic Plains;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The main objectives of mulching are to prevent loss of water by evaporation, prevention of soil erosion, weed control, to reduce fertilizer leaching, to promote soil productivity, to enhance yield and quality of field and fruit crops
no evidence found
Maize grain yield increase (81% in 2008 and 92% in 2009);Kinnow fruit yield increase (68%);Potato yield increase (50.1-86.8% in 2010 and 36.3-60.5% in 2011);Ginger net returns increase (61%);Sapota yield (134.6 kg/tree vs 78 kg/tree for control)
Decreased bulk density (1.35 Mg/m3);Increased soil organic matter (1.32 g/kg);Increased available soil nitrogen (215.6 ppm);Increased water stable aggregates (48.1 and 49.2 of 0-15 and 15-30 cm soil layer, respectively);Reduced annual soil loss (to 1.82 Mg/ha from 14 Mg/ha)
Reduced annual soil loss (from 14 Mg/ha to 1.82 Mg/ha);;Reduced runoff (33%);;Increased available soil nitrogen (215.6 ppm);;Increased soil organic matter (1.32 g/kg);;Increased water stable aggregates (48.1 and 49.2%)
Increased soil organic matter (1.32 g/kg)
Open
Jacqueline L Stroud - 2018 - Soil health pilot study in England outcomes from an on- farm earthworm survey.pdf
England
2;15;12
England
Soil degradation; Food security; Soil security; Climate change; Biodiversity loss
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: #60minworms method (earthworm survey) + Agricultural Solution 2: Straw retention + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover cropping + non-agricultural solution 1: Twitter + non-agricultural solution 2: Farmers Weekly + non-agricultural solution 3: Farmers Forum + non-agricultural solution 4: Workshop + non-agricultural solution 5: Online Resources (YouTube demonstration) + non-agricultural solution 6: Factsheets (AHDB factsheets) + non-agricultural solution 7: Soil health app (sectormentor)
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: #30minworms survey (streamlined earthworm survey) + non-agricultural solution 1: Farmer participation
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Earthworms are ecosystem engineers that benefit both food production and ecosystem services associated with soil security; Most fields have basic earthworm presence and abundance; Tillage had a negative impact (p < 0.05) on earthworm populations; Organic matter management did not mitigate tillage impacts; Farmers would change their soil management practices based as a result earthworm monitoring results (57% participants); Qualitative feedback was provided directly (email, twitter posts or verbal) with ‘added value’ of the worm survey including the detection of compaction problems, anaerobic/slowly degrading organic materials, linear decline in earthworms across a field leading to soil chemistry assessments, predator problems (moles)
At a national scale, £14 million pounds per #30minworms survey could be saved by mobilising farmers (No quantative evidence)
Significant benefits in plant productivity (No quantitative evidence);;Support water drainage for plant production (No quantitative evidence);;Support deep crop rooting (No quantitative evidence);;Benefit spring crop emergence (No quantitative evidence)
Identification of fields with sub-optimal earthworm populations indicative of sub-optimal soil health (42% fields)
Identification of fields with sub-optimal earthworm populations (up to 42% fields in this survey); Farmers' intention to change soil management practices based on results (57% participants)
Improving biodiversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Jacob T Young - 2021 - Cover crop and rotation intensity effects on soil health and yield in corn-soybean cropping systems.pdf
The solution described in the document is researched in the following country:
United States of America (USA)
1;3;15
None
United States, Missouri, Columbia
Soil erosion; Soil fertility; Crop yield; Water quality; Soil structure
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover Crops + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop Rotation
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Rotation + Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Weed Management + Non-Agricultural Solution 2: Disease Management
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Rotation + Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Water Management + Non-Agricultural Solution 2: Soil Erosion Reduction
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: Cover Crops
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Rotation + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: Cover Crops + Non-Agricultural Solution 1: Economic Models for assessing profitability of Cover Crops
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.
no evidence found
Corn yield significantly decreased with increasing corn rotation frequency (This 2003.1 kg ha-1 (or 21.6%) decrease in corn yield as CRF increased from 50% to 100% is substantial); Soybean yield also significantly decreased with increasing soybean rotation frequency (The lowest soybean yield was observed in the SSSSS treatment (3498.5 kg ha-1)... Conversely, the highest soybean yield was seen in the CCS treatment (3991.1 kg ha-1)...); The C S rotation treatment had the highest corn yield (9276.9 kg ha-1); The C C S rotation treatment had the highest soybean yield (3991.1 kg ha-1); Corn yield in the SC rotation was significantly higher than corn yield in the CR rotation (6530.1 and 4729.7 kg ha-1, respectively)
Improved Corn Seed Yield (Increased by 1583 kg ha-1);; Improved Soybean Seed Yield (Increased by 576 kg ha-1);; Increased Overall Microbial Biomass (Increased by 601.1 pmol g-1);; Increased Active Carbon (Increased by 352.6 mg kg-1);; Increased Potentially Mineralizable Nitrogen (Increased by 40.8 mg kg-1)
Improved water stable aggregates (Cover crop treatment increased water stable aggregates by 13.2% across rotation systems);; Improved water stable aggregates (Soybean following corn (S/C) rotation had 10.7% higher water stable aggregates than soybean following soybean (S/S) in no cover crop treatments);; Higher potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN was significantly higher with cover crops compared to no cover crops across rotation systems with a 15.6% increase);; Higher arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF was significantly higher with cover crops compared to no cover crops across rotation systems with a 12.5% increase);; Higher Gram Negative Bacteria (Gram Negative Bacteria were significantly higher with cover crops compared to no cover crops across rotation systems with a 22.9% increase)
Overall microbial diversity (Shannon index) (Increased from 2.99 at 0% CRF to 3.12 at 80% CRF);;Overall microbial biomass (Total PLFA) (Increased from 1340 pmol g-1 at 0% CRF to 1712 pmol g-1 at 80% CRF);;Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) (Increased compared to no cover crop by +236 pmol g-1 in 2017 and +349 pmol g-1 in 2018);;Total organic carbon (TOC) (Increased from 1.66% at 0% CRF to 1.87% at 80% CRF);;Active carbon (Increased from 548 mg kg-1 at 0% CRF to 663 mg kg-1 at 80% CRF)
Open
J Wills and S Sykes - 2019 - eHealth Literacy and Fertility – managing complex information in a digital environment.pdf
Nigeria; United States of America; Italy
3;10;17
None
3;10;17
None
3;10;17
Nigeria, Lagos, Lagos State; Italy, Milan; United Kingdom, London; United States
Non-compliance with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing; Healthcare associated infections; Ehealth Literacy; Fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Decision-support smartphone app for prescribing behavior change.
Non-agricultural solutions: Cost-effective, scalable app.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools for Healthcare associated infections (HAI) control.
Non-agricultural solution: Improve the quality and capacity of surveillance.
No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
J Dille et al. - 2022 - Using Cover Crops to Control Weeds and Improve Soil Health.pdf
United States of America
2;15
United States of America; Kansas, Parsons
Herbicide-resistant weeds; Soil health; Weed control; Crop production
Solution Package 1:
Cover crops (ryegrass, wheat, Graza radish, forage collards, winter oats, spring oats, commercial cover crop mix) + weed management + improved soil health + increased crop diversity
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
no evidence found
Soybean yield higher after ryegrass compared to fallow (7.6 bu/acre higher than after fallow)
Increased bacterial percentage in soil microbial composition (No quantitative evidence)
Change in soil microbial composition (No quantitative evidence)
Change in soil microbial composition (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Ittyamkandath Rashmi et al. - 2023 - Soil Amendments An Ecofriendly Approach for Soil Health Improvement and Sustainable Oilseed Product.pdf
Argentina; Brazil; Canada; China; Egypt; Greece; India; Indonesia; Italy; Malaysia; Philippines; Russia; Spain; Turkey; Ukraine; United States of America; Uzbekistan
1;2;15
None
India, China, USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, European union, Ukraine, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Greece
Soil degradation; Food insecurity; Climate change; Oilseed yield; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Soil Amendments: An Ecofriendly Approach for Soil Health Improvement and Sustainable Oilseed Production
Soil organic amendments such as animal manure, compost, vermicompost, biosolids/sewage sludge, biochar etc. and inorganic amendments such as gypsum, zeolite, pyrite etc. are the most commonly available amendments.
Solution Package 2:
Oilseed Crops - Uses, Biology and Production
Soil amendments could be a helpful technique in improving oilseed yield and quality without deteriorating soil health.
Efficient management practices of oilseed crops includes higher production and processing oil with improved technology governs the economic health of the country.
Solution Package 3:
Soil Amendments for Soil Health Improvement
Soil management for sustainable agriculture can be achieved by improving soil organic matter/ organic carbon of soil through organic amendments addition to soil at regular time intervals.
Solution Package 4:
Types of soil amendments
Soil amendments are generally added to soil for reclamation process which improve soil physical, chemical and biological properties.
The most preferred soil amendments include natural minerals like gypsum, pyrite, lime; other amendments from biological origin such as animal manures, compost, vermicompost, farm yard manure etc.
Addition of microbial inoculants or biofertilizers are effective amendments for improving oilseed production by enhance biological N fixation.
Inorganic amendments: Inorganic amendments are either mined or man-made in nature.
Solution Package 5:
Commonly used soil amendments in agriculture
Soil amendments such as manures, compost, mineral/organic fertilizers, biochar, biosolids, microbes etc. generally improve plant growth and soil health.
Reutilization of organic waste is also socially acceptable approach which could be better substitute to landfills, incineration and directly contribute to SDG goal 3 (Good health and wellbeing) and 6 (Clean water).
Organic farming could rejuvenate, and restore soil health, thus improving soil productivity by altering physical, chemical and biological properties.
Solution Package 6:
Oilseed yield and quality as influenced by soil amendments
Soil health deterioration with less to no use of organic manures, chemical fertilizers, intensive cultivation, sulfur free fertilizers etc. are major constrains in enhancing oilseed productivity.
Substituting nearly 25–50% of synthetic fertilizers with organic manures/ compost provide better crop yield response and enhance fertilizer use efficiency in oilseed crops.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Soil organic amendments could substitute nearly 25–50% of synthetic fertilizers, enhance nutrient use efficiency and influencing oilseed yield response;Improved safflower yield in combined application of FYM and gypsum in alkali soils;Mustard yield improved by 140–190% over control in combined application of sheep manure and humic substances;FYM (50% or 100%) with zeolite (5 t ha−1) under normal irrigation condition improved biological yield by two times than control;pod and haulm yields of groundnut increased by 40.19 and 35.96 per cent, respectively over no manuring in manuring plots with FYM + Rhizobium + PSM
;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Direct and indirect effect of soil amendments on soil chemical, physical and biological properties significantly influences soil-plant-continuum, beneficial for soil health improvement
;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Based on a recent report by Shukla [27], based on soil sample collected from various Indian states, indicated soils were deficient in sulfur, Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn and B by 41, 43,14.4, 6.1, 7.9 and 20.6% respectively.
;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Biochar are carbon rich stable inert compounds produced from biomass pyrolysis that enhances soil carbon, positive impact on soil properties, crop yield and environment, are included in agroecosystem over a decade or two
no evidence found
Soybean grain yield improvement (132% over uninoculated treatments); Mustard yield improvement (140–190% over control); Sunflower seed yield improvement (68.1 and 107.5% over control in VC/ FYM+ Azotobacter+PSB + 50% NPK); Soybean yield increase (73–93% over control); Rapeseed Improved NUE (58.8% over urea only)
Enhanced Soil Organic Carbon content (improved by 6.2% and 2.4% over only fertilizers);Improved soil biological properties (increased microbial biomass carbon by 90% and 29.5%; increased microbial respiration by 104%; increased DHA by 265%);Improved soil physical properties (reduced runoff and soil loss by 26% and 29%);Enhanced nutrient availability/supply (No quantitative evidence);Enhanced Nutrient Use Efficiency (improved by 58.8% over urea only)
Increased DHA activity (265%); Increased soil microbial respiration (104%); Increased soil microbial biomass carbon (90%); Improved SOC (6.2% and 2.4%); Reduced soil loss (29%)
Increased soil organic carbon (improved SOC by 6.2 and 2.4% respectively over only fertilizers plots after 50 years of cropping); Increased soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC) (increased by 90% compared to control with green manure; improved by 29.5% over control with gypsum); Increased soil biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Isabelle Nicolai and Sylvie Faucheux - 2015 - Business models and the diffusion of eco-innovations in the eco-mobility sector.pdf
France; Canada
11;9;13
France
Greenhouse gas emissions; Road transport; Congestion; Local pollution; Noise
Solution Package 1:
Electric vehicles + Smart cars + Car-sharing + Service economy + Smart multimodal systems + Smart parking + Regulatory apparatus + Social acceptance of the innovation + New business models + Changes in user behaviour + Public-private partnership forms
Solution Package 2:
Electric vehicles + ICT technologies + Data management + “Smart” technologies + “Connected” vehicle fleets + Automatic vehicles + Regulatory interventions + Infrastructure investments + Administrative frameworks + Market structure + Value chain + Purchase and use patterns + Electric car recharging facilities
Solution Package 3:
New organizational forms + New services + New products + Technological processes + Reductions in GHG emissions + Energy efficiency + Car-sharing + Electric vehicles + “Smart cars” + “Connected” vehicle fleets + Automatic vehicles + “Smart” multimodal systems + Smart parking + Social dimensions defining acceptance and uptake of the innovation + Regulatory frameworks + Consumer behaviour changes + New marketing strategies + Economic models + Economy of services + High consciousness of network integration + New partnerships on the technology and production side
Solution Package 4:
Electro-mobility + ICT technologies + New marketing strategies + Economic models + Economy of services + Infrastructure development (recharge points) + Environmental bonus for car buyers + Financial advantages + Consumer behaviour changes + Sustained political will + Tax advantages + Infrastructure development
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.: 1. reductions in GHG emissions
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Isaac Kwadwo Mpanga et al. - 2024 - Fishpond Water Potential on Vineyard Soil Health An Exploratory Study of a Circular System.pdf
United States of America
2;6;15
United States, Arizona, Camp Verde
Soil degradation; Climate change; Water scarcity; Food security; Biodiversity loss
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Irrigation with recycled fishpond water + Agricultural Solution 2: Compost application + Agricultural Solution 3: Manure application + Non-agricultural solution 1: Weed control(Weed Wacker, hand pulling, and geese) + Non-agricultural solution 2: Pruning
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Fishpond water for irrigation + Agricultural Solution 2: Intercropping + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotations + Non-agricultural solution 1: Waste reuse
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased organic matter (13% in summer, 8% in winter); Increased organic carbon (30% in summer, 18% in winter); Increased total N (36% in summer, 10% in winter); Increased inorganic P (47% in summer, 19% in winter); Increased microbial biomass (13% in summer, 12% in winter); Increased microbial respiration (59% in summer, 47% in winter); Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased grape fruit cluster numbers, length, and weight per plant and hectare
no evidence found
Higher grape yields (No quantitative evidence); Increased inorganic phosphorus (47% in summer; 19% in winter); Increased inorganic nitrogen (13% in both seasons); Increased organic nitrogen (36% in summer; 10% in winter); Increased organic phosphorus (17% in winter)
Organic matter (13%); Organic carbon (30%); Nitrogen (17%); Phosphorus (46%); Microbial biomass (18%)
Increased soil organic matter (13%);;Increased soil organic carbon (30%);;Increased soil nitrogen (17%);;Increased soil phosphorus (46%);;Increased soil microbial biomass (18%)
Increased organic carbon (30%); Increased microbial biomass (18%); Increased organic matter (13%); Increased fungal biomass (29% summer, 30% winter); Increased bacterial biomass (27% summer, 11% winter)
Open
Isaiah Masinde Tabu et al. - 2015 - Effect of Varying Ratios and Rates of Enriched Cattle Manure on Leaf Nitrogen Content, Yield and Qua.pdf
Kenya
2;15
Kenya; Kenya, Kangaita
Soil acidification; Water pollution; Low crop yield; Soil health; Low tea quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Enriched cattle manure + Agricultural Solution 2: Inorganic compound fertilizer 25:5:5:5
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased yield; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.
no evidence found
Increased crop yield with increasing fertilizer rate (Yields reached 2903-4127 kg made tea ha-1 at 225 kg N ha-1 compared to 1284-1304 kg made tea ha-1 at 0 kg N ha-1);;Higher annual yield from enriched cattle manure compared to cattle manure alone (Yield increased from 2903 kg made tea ha-1 (Cattle manure) to 3719-4127 kg made tea ha-1 (Enriched manure) at 225 kg N ha-1 in Season One);;Highest annual yield achieved with specific enriched manure ratio and rate (4127 kg made tea ha-1 using OM: NPKS 1:4 at 225 kg N ha-1 in Season One)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Isabel Lambrecht et al. - 2015 - Integrated soil fertility management from concept to practice in Eastern DR Congo.pdf
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
1;2;8
None
Democratic Republic of the Congo;
South-Kivu;
Walungu;
Kabare;
Burundi;
Burhale;
Lurhala;
Kabamba;
Luhihi.
Food insecurity; Soil depletion and erosion; Poverty
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improved Germplasm + Agricultural Solution 2: Organic Inputs + Agricultural Solution 3: Mineral Fertilizer
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Row Planting + Agricultural Solution 2: Mineral Fertilizer
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improved Legume Varieties + Agricultural Solution 2: Improved Maize Varieties
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. use of improved germplasm; 2. application of organic inputs; 3. application of mineral fertilizer;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Legumes are not only appreciated for their potential beneficial effects on soil fertility through their nitrogen fixation capacity;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Investments in soil fertility; 2. Use of both organic and mineral inputs are needed to sustain soil health and increase crop production; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The dual purpose legume varieties introduced by the project give similar grain yields as local varieties, but fixate more biological nitrogen and produce more biomass, thus leading to improved soil fertility.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased pod yields for traditional legume varieties (50%); Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Significant yield increase for maize following legume varieties (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced effect of mineral fertilizer due to improved soil conditions (No quantitative evidence); Nitrogen fixation capacity from legumes (No quantitative evidence)
Improved soil fertility (via nitrogen fixation and biomass production) from improved legume varieties (No quantitative evidence); Reduced run-off and volatilization losses from incorporated mineral fertilizer (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil conditions enhancing fertilizer effectiveness (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Isaac Gershon Kodwo Ansah et al. - 2019 - Resilience and household food security a review of concepts, methodological approaches and empirica.pdf
Ghana; Kenya; South Sudan; Palestine; Niger; Bangladesh; Nicaragua; Ethiopia; Fiji; Sri Lanka; Vietnam; Malawi
1;2;None
Ghana; Kenya; Malawi; Palestine; South Sudan; Bangladesh; Niger; Nicaragua; Fiji; Sri Lanka; Vietnam; Ethiopia;
Food security; Child malnutrition; Food consumption; Poverty; Shocks
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Crop diversification + Agricultural intensification
Non-agricultural solutions: Contract farming + Vertical and horizontal integration
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Drought resistant crop varieties
Non-agricultural solutions: Diversification of livelihood activities
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Better agronomic practices + Diversification + Agroecological management + Sustainable intensification
Non-agricultural solutions: Market access + Off-farm labor opportunities
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: A household with an efficient production system, for instance through the adoption of better agronomic practices, diversification, agroecological management or sustainable intensification, is likely to be more resilient and able to withstand shocks that threaten food security; A household with an efficient production system would better manage the drought, enhance production efficiency and make adequate food readily available to the household; With stable food production there could also be improved farm income if the household participates in markets; Efficiency gains could also come from reduced cost of managing risks and asset decapitalization
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: No direct KPI relevance
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: No direct KPI relevance
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: No direct KPI relevance
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: A technology uptake component was included, called Agricultural practice and technology; Households may use various mechanisms such as crop diversification, contract farming, vertical and horizontal integration and agricultural intensification to cope with these shocks and adapt
no evidence found
Improved farm income (No quantative evidence);Enhanced production efficiency (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Inyong Shin - 2016 - Change and prediction of income and fertility rates across countries.pdf
Here's an analysis of the countries researched, based on the provided text. I have removed any country information present within the reference sections:
* **106 Countries:** The research analyzes data from 106 countries.
1; 2; None
Algeria; Argentina; Australia; Austria; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belgium; Benin; Bolivia; Botswana; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroon; Canada; Cape Verde; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo, Democratic Republic of the; Congo, Republic of; Costa Rica; Côte d'Ivoire; Cyprus; Denmark; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Ethiopia; Fiji; Finland; France; Gabon; Gambia; Ghana; Greece; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Honduras; Hong Kong; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Jordan; Kenya; Korea, Republic of; Lesotho; Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia; Nepal; Netherlands; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Romania; Rwanda; Senegal; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tanzania; Thailand; Togo; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; Uganda; United Kingdom; United States; Uruguay; Venezuela; Zambia; Zimbabwe
Income inequality; Demography; Economic Forecasting; Development; Population
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: None.
Complementary Solutions:
* Demography
* Economic Forecasting
* Economics and Development
* Population
* Development
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: None.
Complementary Solutions:
* Income Distribution
* Fertility Rate
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: None.
Complementary Solutions:
* Demographic Transition
* Economic Growth Theory
Here's the breakdown of the provided text in relation to the specified KPIs:
No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Innocent Ndoh Mbue et al. - 2019 - Crop Yield Response and Community Resilience to Climate Change in the Bamenda Highlands.pdf
Cameroon
1;2;13
None
Cameroon, Bamenda Highlands, Mezam, Menchum, Ngoketunjia
Climate change; Food insecurity; Poverty; Crop yield decline; Community resilience
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Agroforestry + Crop rotation + Mixed cropping + Landscape mosaics + Polycultures + Maintenance of diverse landraces + Adoption of improved seed varieties
Non-agricultural solution: Increasing livelihood diversity + Local ecological knowledge + Social network connectivity + Strategic framework for climate risk mitigation
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 2. Declining yields have led to high prices of food items in the market, undermining food security.;1. The main effect of temperature on yield was significant, F (2, 23) = 7.91, MSE = 23.20, p < .01, as was the main effect of precipitation, F (2, 23) = 12.70, MSE = 23.20, p < .01.;3. Declining yields have led to high prices of food items in the market, and these prices are still increasing.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: 1. Joining efforts to build community resilience, specifically by increasing livelihood diversity, local ecological knowledge, and social network connectivity, may help conservation agencies conserve the rapidly declining agrobiodiversity in the region.;2. The results suggest a need to open up procedures and practices of participation and inclusion in order to accommodate pluralism, contestation and incommensurable perspectives and knowledge systems.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Cash-crop intensification, a driver of biodiversity loss elsewhere, did not negatively affect native tree richness within parcels.;2. Joining efforts to build community resilience, specifically by increasing livelihood diversity, local ecological knowledge, and social network connectivity, may help conservation agencies conserve the rapidly declining agrobiodiversity in the region.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: No direct KPU relevance
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
Improved productivity (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Cash-crop intensification did not negatively affect native tree richness within parcels (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Ina Krahl et al. - 2025 - New Approach to Experimental Soil Health Definition Using Thermogravimetric Fingerprinting.pdf
Czech Republic; Germany
3; 15
None
Germany,
Czech Republic,
Western Siberia
Soil health; Soil fertility; Soil assessment; Indicators of soil use; Soil fertility
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Thermogravimetric fingerprinting + Standard determination of SOC, nitrogen, and clay contents + Soil respiration in laboratory incubation experiments
Non-Agricultural Solution: None
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Thermogravimetric fingerprinting + Standard determination of SOC, nitrogen, and clay contents + Soil respiration in laboratory incubation experiments
Non-Agricultural Solution: Economic (yield security, mineral fertilizer, and energy savings) + Policy (a reduction in the environmental impact of current land use)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Quantification of known relationships and discovery of several new ones between soil components that have evolved over thousands of years of soil formation without human intervention;Using near-natural soils as a reference, considering bound water seems to be a suitable starting point for the experimental definition of soil health.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Assessment of the level of soil organic carbon sequestration (The magnitude of the deviations [between measured and calculated MLI/TMLs] was related to the long-term level of soil organic matter sequestration);;Quantification of fresh, biodegradable organic matter (indirectly quantified based on the deviations [between measured TML130 and expected from clay content]; deviations decrease proportionately to the measured respiratory activity or biological degradation rate)
Quantifying the degree of carbon sequestration (No quantative evidence); Possible predictions for nitrate release from biological decomposition processes of organic matter (No quantative evidence); Documented close relationships between thermogravimetric data and soil water-holding capacity (No quantative evidence)
The degree of carbon sequestration in soils is easy to quantify (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Iin Handayani et al. - 2024 - Linking Women Farmer Perceptions and Knowledge of Soil Health to Climate-Smart Coffee Cropping Manag.pdf
Indonesia
2;15;13
Indonesia; USA
Climate change mitigation and adaptation; Economic impact on women farmers; Soil degradation; Food security; Crop yield decline
Solution Package 1:
Agroforestry system + Conservation tillage + The use of organic fertilizers + Cover Crops + Liming + The Use of chemical fertilizer + The use of soil amendments + Training on soil management.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 3
Soil Color;Soil Organic Matter; Soil Biology
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1
Carbon Sequestration
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1
Crop performance and Yield
no evidence found
no evidence found
Important contribution of cover crops, particularly legumes, to prevent soil erosion and add nitrogen, thus increasing coffee yield (No quantitative evidence);;Benefits of undisturbed soil surface (reduced tillage) to promote humus content (SOM) and improve soil color (No quantitative evidence);;Improved soil moisture, reduced soil erosion, and enhanced soil fertility status from minimum tillage and agroforestry (No quantitative evidence);;Benefits of adding soil amendments and incorporating cover crops to soil through improvement in soil organic matter and biota diversity, controlling erosion and reducing in soil compaction (No quantitative evidence);;Reduced negative impacts on soil color, erosion, and compaction from avoiding long-term continuous tillage (No quantitative evidence)
Improved soil organic matter (No quantitative evidence); Reduced soil erosion (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Improved soil moisture (No quantitative evidence); Increased yield (No quantitative evidence)
Increasing soil organic matter (up to 9%);;Reduction of nitrate leaching (53%);;Increasing microbial biomass (up to 40%);;Improving the number of beneficial microbes and earthworms (No quantative evidence);;Improving biota diversity (No quantative evidence)
Open
Ikechukwu V Agomoh et al. - 2020 - Increasing crop diversity in wheat rotations increases yields but decreases soil health.pdf
Canada
2; 15
Canada, Ontario, Woodslee
Food security; Soil degradation; Environmental sustainability; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop rotation (2-yr and 3-yr rotations) + Agricultural Solution 2: Red clover cover crop
1. Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Crop rotation increased yields by 23–39% compared to monoculture winter wheat (WW) +/− red clover.
2. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health decreased under crop rotations compared to monoculture WW.; Underseeding red clover into WW did not affect WW yields but did increase soil health indicators.
3. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Monoculture winter wheat does enhances for soil health parameters when compared to the more diverse crop rotations with soybean.
no evidence found
Higher wheat yields for 2-yr and 3-yr rotations compared to monoculture WW in the presence of red clover (23–28% greater); Higher wheat yields for 2-yr and 3-yr rotations compared to monoculture WW in the absence of red clover (32–39% greater)
Increased soil water-extractable organic C (122 mg kg−1 soil vs 113 mg kg−1 soil without red clover);; Increased soil total C (23.1 g kg−1 soil vs 22.1 g kg−1 soil without red clover)
Potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN) (39.1 mg N kg−1);Soil heterotrophic respiration rate (2.43 mg C kg−1 h−1);Water extractable organic carbon (WEOC) (150 mg kg−1 soil);Total soil carbon (TC) (27 g kg−1 soil);Total soil nitrogen (TN) (2.7 g kg−1 soil)
Total soil carbon concentration (Monoculture WW (27 g kg−1 soil) produced significantly greater TC than the 2-yr (22 g kg−1 soil) and 3-yr rotations (mean = 23 g kg−1 soil) in the presence of red clover); Concentration of particulate organic matter carbon (significantly greater for WW (5.3 g kg−1 soil) than WW-S (3.2 g kg−1 soil), C-SWW (3.5 g kg−1 soil) and WW-S-S (2.9 g kg−1 soil), averaged across cover crops); Water extractable organic carbon concentration (greater for WW (150 mg kg−1 soil) than all rotations (102 – 111 mg kg−1 soil), averaged across cover crops)
Open
Ignatius Suprih Sudrajat - 2020 - Role of Farmer Groups and Field Agricultural Extension Officer in the Development of Organic Rice Ag.pdf
Indonesia
1; 2; 12
Indonesia; Boyolali Regency, Central Java Province; Mojosongo District; Dlingo Village; Andong District, Andong Village; Nogosari District, Glonggong Village; Sambi District; Mojosongo District, Dlingo Village; Simo District, Wates Village; Mojosongo District, Metuk Village; Sambi District, Catur Village; Sambi District, Jatisari Village; Tasikmalaya Regency, Cibalong District, Setiawaras Village; Jember Regency
Inefficiency in production cost of organic rice farming; Agricultural institutional development; Poverty; Soil degradation; Food security.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Organic Rice Farming + non-agricultural solution: Farmer groups + non-agricultural solution: Field agricultural extension officer + non-agricultural solution: Agricultural institutions
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
Role of farmer groups and field agricultural extension officer in reducing production cost inefficiency (No quantative evidence);; Increased productivity of organic rice farming (No quantative evidence)
Reduced production cost inefficiency (-0.5497)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Idin Saepudin Ruhimat - 2021 - FARMER GROUPS STRENGTHENING STRATEGYOF AGROFORESTRY FARMINGTHE CASE OF FARMER GROUPS IN SODONGHILIR.pdf
Indonesia
1;2;15
None
Indonesia; Jawa Barat, Tasikmalaya Regency, Sodonghilir District
Lack of participation in group activities; Weak managerial skills; Low perception of the benefits of group activities; Low land ownership of members; Lack of agroforestry technology; Lack of capital for farming; ;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Agroforestry farming + Agricultural Solution 2: Usahatani agroforestry + non-agricultural solution 1: Increasing human resources capacity + non-agricultural solution 2: Increasing farmer groups’ role in agroforestry farming development.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Increasing human resources capacity as well as increasing farmer groups’ role in agroforestry farming development.
no evidence found
Achieving economic scale in terms of quality, quantity, and continuity of production (No quantitative evidence);;Improving production and efficiency of owned resources (No quantitative evidence);;Increasing farmer's bargaining position in marketing (No quantitative evidence);;Increasing quantity and quality of production (No quantitative evidence);;Improved management capacity (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Idowu A Atoloye et al. - 2022 - Hemp biochar impacts on selected biological soil health indicators across different soil types and m.pdf
North Carolina
15; 3; 2
United States of America, North Carolina
1. Soil health degradation; Climate change mitigation; Soil carbon sequestration; Nutrient cycling; Agroecosystem productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1 (Hemp Residue) + Agricultural Solution 2 (Hemp Biochar) + Agricultural Solution 3 (Hardwood Biochar)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: HR and HB will have beneficial effects on soil health and productivity, therefore potentially improving soil’s resilience to changing climate.; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: the application of hemp biochar has the potential to enhance soil health, considering the positive effect on soil microbial functional diversity and promote soil C accrual in Piedmont and Coastal Plain soils in North Carolina.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased geometric mean enzyme activity (increased by 1-2-fold in the Piedmont soil under the three moisture cycles and about 1.5-fold under D-W in the Coastal soil);;Increased nitrate retention/availability (between 167–175% higher than control soils in the Coastal soil);;Increased POXC (600 700 mg POXC kg-1 soil in the Coastal soil under D-W2)
Improved geometric mean enzyme activity (1-2-fold in the Piedmont soil under the three moisture cycles and about 1.5-fold under D-W in the Coastal soil);;Increased POXC (600–700 mg POXC kg-1 soil in the Coastal soil under D-W2 for HR and HB);;Increased nitrate retention (between 167–175% higher than control soils in the Coastal soil for HA)
Increased Permanganate Oxidizable Carbon (POXC) (600–700 mg POXC kg-1 soil); Increased geometric mean enzyme activity (1-2-fold in Piedmont; 1.5-fold under D-W in Coastal)
Open
Idupulapati M Rao et al. - 2016 - Root adaptations to soils with low fertility and aluminium toxicity..pdf
Colombia; Germany;
1;3;11
None
Colombia, Cali; Germany, Hannover; Kenya; South Africa;
Low soil fertility; Aluminium toxicity; Food insecurity; Nutritional security; Crop yield
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Root elongation rate + Root hair characteristics + Root branching + Root length density + Root depth + Root elongation + Root architectural traits + Root morphological traits + Root cortical aerenchyma + Root respiration + Root exudates + Interspecific hybridization + Conventional breeding + Molecular breeding
Non-agricultural solutions: Nutritional security + Yield stability + Climate variability + Environmental sustainability
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Root elongation + Root hair length + Root branching + Root architecture traits + Root morphological traits + Root cortical aerenchyma + Root respiration + Root exudates + Conventional breeding + Marker-assisted breeding + Transgenic approaches
Non-agricultural solutions: P fertilization + Economic constraints
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution: Root elongation + Root branching + Root hair characteristics + Interspecific Brachiaria hybrids + Conventional breeding
Non-agricultural solutions: Soil acidity + Drought tolerance + Al resistance
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution: Root architectural traits + Root morphological traits + Root anatomical traits + Root metabolic traits + Conventional breeding + Molecular breeding
Non-agricultural solutions: Nutritional security + Yield + Biomass accumulation
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Phenotypic characterization of root adaptations to infertile soils is enabling plant breeders to develop improved cultivars that not only yield more, but also contribute to yield stability and nutritional security in the face of climate variability.; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Development of these new cultivars adapted to soils with low fertility and Al toxicity is needed to improve global food and nutritional security and environmental sustainability.; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Development of these new cultivars adapted to soils with low fertility and Al toxicity is needed to improve global food and nutritional security and environmental sustainability.; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The most successful approaches to improving crop adaptation to infertile soils have historically used field-based evaluations to identify tolerant genotypes, followed by breeding and selection of cultivars that combine performance in stressful environments with other desirable plant attributes.
no evidence found
three-fold increase in shoot biomass of cultivars with long root hairs and shallow basal roots (three-fold increase in shoot biomass)
no evidence found
Reducing nitrification in soil (No quantitative evidence);Reducing emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere (No quantitative evidence);Minimizing N pollution from agricultural systems (No quantitative evidence);Requiring lower inputs of lime and P fertilizer (No quantitative evidence)
Reduced nitrous oxide emission (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Ib Abaje et al. - 2016 - Impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies in rural communities of Kaduna State, Nigeria.pdf
Nigeria
13;2;15
None
Nigeria; Kaduna State, Sanga, Kagarko, Kajuru, Kauru, Soba, Ikara
Decline in crop yields; Increased sickness; Decrease in soil fertility; Decline in forest resources; Crop infestation and diseases
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Use of fertilizer/animals dung to improve crop yield + Planting of crop varieties with a wide range of maturity and climatic variability tolerance + Irrigation farming on flood plains during dry season + Planting of drought resistant crops
Non-agricultural Solutions: Water harvesting during the raining season + Praying for God to intervene + Selling of livestock in order to augment cost of crop production
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Decrease in soil fertility;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Decline in crop yields; The use fertilizer/animals dung on farm to improve crop yield;
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Decline in forest resources;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Climate change has led to decline in forest resources;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
improve crop yield (No quantitative evidence)
Improve crop yield (3.89)
no evidence found
Open
I Mucharam et al. - 2019 - Development of sustainable agricultural indicators at provincial levels in Indonesia A Case study o.pdf
Indonesia
2;12;15
Indonesia
Indonesia; Riau, West Kalimantan
Sustainable agricultural development; Environmental degradation; Food security; Poverty; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improved rice variety
Economic Solution 1: Review of economic aspects in adoption of new improved rice variety
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Sustainable farming systems
Policy Solution 1: Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pertanian 2015-2019 ed. rev.
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Sustainable farming systems
Market Solution 1: Adoption of technologies
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
I Gede Ketut Adiputra - 2022 - The Effect of Accumulation of Leaf Litters and Allelochemicals in the Soil to the Sustainability of.pdf
Indonesia; Colombia; Ghana; Costa Rica; Ethiopia; Mexico; China; Nigeria
15;2;13
None
Indonesia; Indonesia, Bali
Unsustainability of crop production; Soil health and fertility; Allelochemical accumulation; Soil organic carbon; Drought and flooding
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Replanting shading trees + Agricultural Solution 2: Addition of mulch
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Agroforestry + Agricultural Solution 2: Mulching
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Introducing crop by clearing of previously existing vegetation could severely reduce the rate of leaf litter accumulation. Consequently, in a prolonged period, the soil organic carbon and soil fertility are very low and are unable to support the healthy growth and production of the crops;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Clearing up trees before the introduction of new crops will cut off organic carbon supply from the leaf litter of the trees which subsequently could deteriorate soil organic carbon. This organic carbon is responsible for soil health and fertility;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: the increased amount of available nutrient in soil improve growth and production of the crop;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: decreasing plant diversity in the plantation relative to the diversity of plants in native forest resulted in a decrease amount of leaf litter accumulation. This decrease subsequently then reduces soil organic carbon which is very important for the soil health and nutrient available in the soil;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: addition of leaf litter to soil increased soil organic carbon by up to 13% relatively to the soil without the addition of leaf litter. This increase in soil organic carbon is mainly attributed to worm activity;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Under the various conditions of the agricultural system employed and the type of crop introduced, the landscape of the crops might continuously deteriorate which eventually makes the soil unable to provide a healthy growth condition;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The removal of the yield from the plantation, particularly during the top production, possibly causes a substantial decrease of nutrients available in the soil;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: the agricultural system employed does not support the sustainability of soil organic carbon which is regarded as central to soil health;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: mulching cocoa plants using coffee husk. These authors concluded that simple mulching techniques could significantly improve the cropping of cacao.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Improves soil fertility (by 42% relatively to degraded pasture); Increases soil organic carbon (by up to 13% relatively to the soil without the addition of leaf litter); Improves general indicator of soil quality (No quantitative evidence); Faster supply rate of organic carbon into the soil (No quantitative evidence); Improves soil porosity (No quantitative evidence)
Establishment of agroforest cacao plantations improves soil fertility (by 42% relatively to degraded pasture);Addition of leaf litter to soil increased soil organic carbon (up to 13% relatively to the soil without the addition of leaf litter);Contribution of litter to mineral related organic carbon in topsoil (1.88 g C m-2 for 22 months which is equal to ca 18.800 kg C Ha-1);Improved rate of leaf litter decomposition in agroforest systems (99% decomposition time is 2.6 years in agroforest vs 3.5 years in conventional);Agroforestry makes higher soil perforation enables better drainage and lengthens soil moisture (No quantitative evidence)
Mulching and agroforestry improve soil organic carbon (No quantative evidence); Addition of leaf litter increased soil organic carbon (up to 13% relatively to the soil without the addition of leaf litter); Contribution of litter to mineral related organic carbon in topsoil (1.88 g C m-2 for 22 months which is equal to ca 18.800 kg C Ha-1); Complex agroforest increases soil organic carbon (No quantative evidence); Higher soil organic carbon level from more diverse plant population (No quantative evidence)
Open
Hunter Bielenberg et al. - 2022 - COVER CROP COMPOSITION IN LONG-TERM NO-TILL SOILS IN SEMI-ARID ENVIRONMENTS DO NOT INFLUENCE SOIL HE.pdf
South Dakota
2;15
None
United States of America; South Dakota, Beresford, Garretson, Gettysburg, Salem, Blunt, Henry, Mitchell, Pierre, Plankinton
Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Grass mixture, Broadleaf mixture, 50/50 blend of grass and broadleaf species.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Hunter Bielenberg et al. - 2023 - Cover crop composition in long‐term no‐till soils in semi‐arid environments do not influence soil he.pdf
South Dakota; Nebraska; Iowa; Illinois; Kansas; Virginia; Missouri; Indiana; California; Netherlands; Spain; Maryland; Germany
2;15;12
South Dakota, Beresford, Garretson, Gettysburg, Salem, Blunt, Henry, Mitchell, Pierre, Plankinton
Soil erosion; Drought; Weed problems; Soil compaction; Nutrient losses
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Dominantly Grass Mixture + Agricultural Solution 2: Dominantly Broadleaf Mixture + Agricultural Solution 3: 50/50 Blend of Grass and Broadleaf Species + Agricultural Solution 4: No Cover Crop Control
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Increased soil microbial diversity;Increased microbial biomass;Improved SOM;Enhanced nutrient cycling.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Humberto Aponte et al. - 2020 - New approaches for evaluation of soil health, sensitivity and resistance to degradation.pdf
China; Germany; Russia; Saudi Arabia; Chile; Switzerland
15;6;2
Germany; Saudi Arabia; China; Russia; Chile; Switzerland
Land degradation; Soil degradation; Ecosystem stability; Soil management; Land quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: SQI-area approach
Agricultural Solution 2: resistance-sensitivity approach
Non-agricultural solution 1: Evaluation of land-use practices
Non-agricultural solution 2: Decision-making for soil degradation measures
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health, also referred to as soil quality, is therefore commonly defined very broadly as “the capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem and land-use boundaries to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health”;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Assessment of soil health requires complex evaluation of properties and functions responsible for a broad range of ecosystem services;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Soils have an extremely broad range of functions related to climate, hydrology, biodiversity, food security, land restoration and human health
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Soil health recovery in degraded Phaeozems (increased from 0.22 to 1.0 over 70 years); Soil health recovery in degraded Chernozems (increased from 0.39 to 1.0 within 20 years)
Evaluated recovery of soil health and functions including carbon sequestration and biodiversity using SQI-area approach (Phaeozem) (increased from 0.22 to 1.0 over 70 years);;Evaluated recovery of soil health and functions including carbon sequestration and biodiversity using SQI-area approach (Chernozem) (retained functions at 0.39 and recovered after 20 years);;Determination of Basal respiration sensitivity during Phaeozem recovery using resistance/sensitivity approach (Sensitive; No quantitative evidence);;Determination of Microbial biomass carbon resistance during Phaeozem recovery using resistance/sensitivity approach (Resistant; No quantitative evidence);;Evaluation of SOC sensitivity/resistance as reference using resistance/sensitivity approach (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Huayu Lu et al. - 2024 - Multiple Soil Health Assessment Methods for Evaluating Effects of Organic Fertilization in Farmland.pdf
China;
15;None
China; Yunzhou Country, Datong City,
Societal Problems:
Soil degradation; Environmental pollution; Unsustainable agricultural development; Food security; Agricultural productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic Fertilization +
Agricultural Solution 2: Cow Manure +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Increase Crop Yield
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Organic Fertilization +
Agricultural Solution 2: Chemical Fertilizer +
Agricultural Solution 3: Cow Manure +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Increase Crop Yield
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: Application of organic fertilizer +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Increase the nutrient content of the soil (e.g., soil organic carbon (SOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and microbial biomass carbon (MBC))
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: Application of manure fertilizer +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Improve soil enzyme activity (carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling) +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Increase the content of soil nutrients (TN, NO−
3 -N, AP, and AK)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health refers to the ability of soil to function as a living ecosystem within land-use boundaries, promote plant and animal health, improve air and water quality, and increase animal and plant productivity;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil health condition is a main restraining factor for farmland productivity;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil is a highly diverse and complex ecosystem, as its properties are affected by the soil formation process, parent material, climatic factors, artificial management practices, etc. Soil health evaluation should be locally conducted, and a comprehensive assessment is required;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The incorporation of cow manure and chemical fertilizer improved soil health and increased crop yield;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Manure addition improved soil health conditions by increasing key limiting parameters, such as soil carbon, microbial biomass, and enzymatic activity.
no evidence found
Millet yield increase (NPKM increased millet yield by 1070.06, 859.32, and 2087.28 kg ha−1 compared to MF, NPK, and CK treatments, respectively)
Improved soil health (35.10–204.47% higher than CK); Increased crop yield (increased by 2087.28 kg ha−1 compared with CK); Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) (144.46% higher than CK); Increased microbial biomass carbon (MBC) (91.47% higher than CK); Increased N-acquisition enzyme activity (62.71% higher than CK)
Increased millet yield (increased by 2087.28 kg ha−1 compared to CK); Improved soil health index (raised SHIs by 35.10–204.47% compared to CK); Increased soil organic carbon (102.3% higher in NPKM compared to CK); Increased microbial biomass carbon (91.47% higher in NPKM than CK); Increased N-acquisition enzyme activity (LAP) (62.71% higher in NPKM compared to CK)
Increased soil organic carbon (SOC) (NPKM 102.35% higher than CK);Increased microbial biomass carbon (MBC) (NPKM 91.47% higher than CK);Increased microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) (NPKM 91.47% higher than CK);Increased soil enzyme activity (N-acq enzyme activity increased by 62.71% in NPKM over CK);Increased soil enzyme activity (C-acq enzyme activity increased by 18.16–70.26% in NPKM over CK)
Open
Hong-Liang Zhao et al. - 2018 - Development Trend of Agricultural Extension Information Service in China.pdf
China
1;2;12
China; Madhya Pradesh, Morena district
Lack of market information; Inefficient use of resources; Limited access to information; Low agricultural productivity;
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Big Data Technology in Agriculture + Precision Agricultural Technology + Agricultural Information Service Platform
Non-agricultural solution: Establishment of agricultural data industry technology innovation alliance
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
no evidence found
Efficient use of resources and investment (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
efficient use of resources (No quantative evidence)
Open
Holy Ranaivoarisoa et al. - 2016 - Vermiculture for Sustainable Organic Agriculture in Madagascar.pdf
Madagascar
1; 2; 12
Madagascar; Madagascar, Antananarivo Avaradrano, Analamanga Region; Madagascar, Antananarivo Avaradrano, Analamanga Region, Ambohimanambola
Soil fertility; Agricultural productivity; Household income
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Vermicomposting
Non-agricultural solutions:
* National policy on organic farming
* Financial support
* Market for organic products
* Creation of a common marketing center
* Consumers buying organic products
* Creating Network or Movement that Brings Together All Stakeholders
* Website that would bring together farmers associations, private entities, and/or the public who may be applying vermicompost
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: improvement in crop performance and yield, and increase farmers’ incomes with this organic technique; the TATA Association offers its members an opportunity in terms of a market;Improve soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: solve problems of soil fertility, improve agricultural productivity;improve the fertility of the soil in the long term;restore and maintain soil fertility and ecological balance by crop rotation, vegetation cover, natural fertilization and minimum tillage;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: preservation of the environment;facilitated the farmers’ respect of the environment;Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: Each farmer can practice vermicomposting because of its simple technology
no evidence found
Reduced average spending on agricultural inputs (from 45% to 60%); Resulted in yield increases (of 10% to 50%); Increased value of production (from 10% to 50%); Low cost of vermicompost production (about 60 ariary/kg); High profitability of the investment (had a high value; increased every year during 10 years)
Increased yields (10% to 50%); Increased cassava yield (Type 2 obtained 47 kg/are, Type 1 22 kg/are, Type 3 20 kg/are); Improve soil fertility (No quantitative evidence)
Improvement in crop yields (10% to 50% increase; cassava yield 47 kg/are compared to 22-20 kg/are with other methods);; Improve soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);; Restoring and maintaining ecological balance (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Holger Hoffmann et al. - 2015 - Variability of effects of spatial climate data aggregation on regional yield simulation by crop mode.pdf
Germany
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
1; None
Germany, North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW), Germany, C0:R4, Germany, C1:R3, Germany, z50
Climate change; Crop yield reduction; Temperature change; Radiation change; Precipitation change
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop Models (winter wheat, silage maize) + Agricultural Solution 2: Climate data aggregation + non-agricultural solution 1: Partial Least Squares Regression (PLS)
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Simulated regional winter wheat and silage maize yields (mean of region and years) were biased when using aggregated climate input data.;Mean aggregation effects up to 0.2 t ha-1 were found for both winter wheat and silage maize, thus resulting in a lower relative aggregation effect in relation to the yield for silage maize as compared to winter wheat
no evidence found
Increase in simulated yield (up to 0.2 t ha-1)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Holly Jane Wright et al. - 2016 - Using ICT to Strengthen Agricultural Extension Systems for Plant Health.pdf
Kenya
1;2;12
Kenya
Food insecurity; Crop losses; Weak agricultural extension services; Rural livelihoods; Malnutrition
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Tablets + SMS messaging
Non-agricultural solution: Training program + Instant messaging app (for communication among plant doctors)
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.: 1. Plant doctors reported using their tablets to access a wealth of Plantwise and non-Plantwise resources; 2. Most notable are the improvements of data speed and quality, the wealth of resources available for accurate decision making, and the opportunities for plant doctors to support each other through chat groups; 3. Initial studies indicate that the cost of delivering and collecting information using tablets can be brought down to the level of the costs of paper and that the benefits of using ICT are considerable.
More advice is given to farmers per clinic session (Clinics with tablets submit significantly more forms on average than clinics using paper forms (Figure 2). A possible explanation for increased attendance is that some plant doctors SMS from the tablets to invite farmers to clinics. Plant doctors that sent invitations reported that an average of four more farmers came to the advertised clinic sessions.);;Plant doctors use the tablets in all aspects of their extension work (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Plant doctors give higher quality recommendations (16% more recommendations achieved the highest quality score (χ 2 = 6.81, p = < .01)); More advice is given to farmers per clinic session (Clinics with tablets submit significantly more forms on average than clinics using paper forms (18.6 (13.5, 23.7) vs 6.7 (6.0, 7.4) forms per month, t = ., p = < .)); Stakeholders receive the data far more quickly, allowing them to rapidly respond to threats (Data available within an average of 24 days (from 105 days, t. = ., p = < .))
no evidence found
Open
Him Shrestha et al. - 2017 - Linking Soil Properties to Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security in Nepal.pdf
Nepal
2;13;15
Nepal; Bajhang, Mustang
Food security; Climate change mitigation; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Incorporating livestock for farmyard manure + Agricultural Solution 2: Holistic soil management + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop production + non-agricultural solution 1: Increasing access and availability of food
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Maintaining crop diversity + Agricultural Solution 2: Raising livestock + Agricultural Solution 3: Agroforestry + non-agricultural solution 1: Climate change mitigation + non-agricultural solution 2: Food security + non-agricultural solution 3: Adaptation
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Improved soil quality, increased productivity, and stable soil aggregates;Improved soil health and crop production holistic soil management should be practiced for higher productivity, and incorporating livestock for farmyard manure would fertilize cultivated soils, which increases soil productivity
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Reduction of atmospheric CO2;Potential for soil sequestration depends greatly on a number of variables including the soil type, climate, land-use history, and farming system adopted—especially the availability and quantity of C-rich components used in the system such as compost, manure, perennial plants, pastures and trees
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increasing productivity would aid in enhancing the access and availability of food in these mountain villages
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Potential benefits of forest and grass land to act as C sinks, indicating that when agricultural practices are stopped, the abandoned farmlands are led to a shift in vegetation composition in the sense that agricultural productions are replaced by shruband grass-dominated communities. Such shifts boost the capability of the atmospheric C to be fixed in these types of ecosystems
no evidence found
no evidence found
Increased productivity (No quantitative evidence); Enhanced food production (No quantitative evidence); Improved crop quality (No quantitative evidence); Vegetation growth (No quantitative evidence); Stable soil aggregates (No quantitative evidence)
Increase in Total Nitrogen (resulting in increases from 0.09% to 0.17% in the long-term application of FYM)
Highest Soil Organic Carbon stock in Forest land in Bajhang (53.61 t·ha−1); Highest Soil Organic Carbon stock in Agricultural land in Mustang (52.02 tons·ha−1); High Soil Organic Carbon stock in Grass land in Bajhang (53.49 ± 5.18 t·ha−1); High Soil Organic Carbon stock in Forest land in Mustang (40.41 ± 9.64 t·ha−1); High Soil Organic Carbon stock in Grass land in Mustang (33.92 ± 8.49 t·ha−1)
Open
Him Lal Shrestha et al. - 2017 - Soil Properties Linking to Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security in Nepal.pdf
Nepal
13;2;15
Nepal; Bajhang, Mustang
Food insecurity; Climate change; Soil degradation
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Sustainable soil management + Agricultural Solution 2: Livestock providing manure for fertilizer
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Crop production + Agricultural Solution 2: Agroforestry
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Total nitrogen increased by continuous application of Farm-Yard-Manure (from 0.09 to 0.17%)
Soil Organic Carbon content (Mean 2.47% ± 0.17 in Bajhang; Mean 2.60% ± 0.25 in Mustang);;Total Nitrogen content (Mean 0.18% ± 0.01 in Bajhang; Mean 0.18% ± 0.02 in Mustang);;Exchangeable Potassium content (Mean 0.15 me/100g ± 0.01 in Bajhang; Mean 0.26 me/100g ± 0.02 in Mustang);;Available Phosphorous content (Mean 111.34 ppm ± 10.05 in Bajhang; Mean 77.43 ppm ± 9.41 in Mustang);;Soil pH (Mean 7.21 ± 0.16 in Bajhang; Mean 7.89 ± 0.08 in Mustang)
Highest mean SOC in Bajhang Forest land (53.61 ± 5.81 t ha-1); Mean SOC in Bajhang Grass land (53.49 ± 5.18 t ha-1); Highest mean SOC in Mustang Agricultural land (52.02 ± 7.74 t ha-1); Mean SOC in Bajhang Agricultural land (48.81 ± 7.54 t ha-1); Mean SOC in Mustang Forest land (40.41 ± 9.64 t ha-1)
Open
Hiba M Alkharabsheh et al. - 2021 - Biochar and Its Broad Impacts in Soil Quality and Fertility, Nutrient Leaching and Crop Productivity.pdf
Egypt; Jordan; Saudi Arabia; USA
1;2;15
None
1;2;15
None
1;2;15
None
1;2;15
None
1;2;15
None
1;2;15
None
1;2;15
None
Saudi Arabia; Egypt; United States of America
Soil contamination with Heavy Metals (HMs); Soil salinity; Soil infertility; Nutrient leaching; Crop productivity
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: soil amendment + Agricultural Solution 3: nutrient retention + Agricultural Solution 4: water retention + Agricultural Solution 5: increase crop productivity + non-agricultural solution 1: carbon (C) sequestration + non-agricultural solution 2: bioremediation + non-agricultural solution 3: overall environmental management tool
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar application + Agricultural Solution 2: organic and inorganic amendments and fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: decrease the nitrogen (N) leaching and volatilization + non-agricultural solution 2: increase NUE
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: soil amendment + Agricultural Solution 3: increase the absorption of nutrients by plants + non-agricultural solution 1: C sequestration
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: soil amendment + Agricultural Solution 3: increasing nutrient retention + Agricultural Solution 4: providing shelters for microorganisms + non-agricultural solution 1: C sequestration
Solution Package 5:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: soil amendment + non-agricultural solution 1: long-term adsorption of heavy metals (HMs)
Solution Package 6:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: organic amendment + non-agricultural solution 1: reduce nutrient leaching
Solution Package 7:
Agricultural Solution 1: Biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: soil amendment + non-agricultural solution 1: bioremediation
Solution Package 8:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + non-agricultural solution 1: soil C sequestration tool
Solution Package 9:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: organic fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 3: compost + Agricultural Solution 4: vermicompost + Agricultural Solution 5: animal manures + non-agricultural solution 1: improving soil structure + non-agricultural solution 2: improving soil fertility + non-agricultural solution 3: NUE + non-agricultural solution 4: crop yield
Solution Package 10:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar application + Agricultural Solution 2: silicon + Agricultural Solution 3: water deficit stress + non-agricultural solution 1: oil and oleic acid contents + non-agricultural solution 2: seed yield
Solution Package 11:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: soil amendments + non-agricultural solution 1: improve WUE + non-agricultural solution 2: enhances nutrient uptake
Solution Package 12:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: N fertilizers + Agricultural Solution 3: N losses + non-agricultural solution 1: increase crop yields + non-agricultural solution 2: NUE
Solution Package 13:
Agricultural Solution 1: biochar + Agricultural Solution 2: animal manure + Agricultural Solution 3: inorganic fertilizers + non-agricultural solution 1: soil fertility + non-agricultural solution 2: WHC
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.: 1. Biochar application to salt-affected soils increased K+, Ca+2, Mg+2, Zn+2, Mn+2 concentration due to a concomitant increase in the CEC, surface area, structure, and porosity of soils, and the stability of organic molecules; 2. Combined application of biochar with manures, composts, or other organic material can improve NUE as a result of slower leaching rates; 3. Mixing poultry litter biochar with fertilizers and manure significantly increased growth and fruit yield of cucumber (Cucumis sativa L.) by improving soil fertility and WHC in a sandy soil; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.:Biochar is gaining significant attention due to its potential for carbon (C) sequestration, improvement of soil health, fertility enhancement, and crop productivity and quality; Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health.: Biochar addition to the soil has shown beneficial results in terms of increasing nutrient retention, providing shelters for microorganisms, improving soil structure, and increasing the absorption of nutrients by plants, which ultimately resulted in increases in plant growth and yield; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.: No direct KPU relevance; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.: No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
Increased maize yield (98–150%);; Increased crop yields (75%);; Increased maize yield (46 to 58%);; Increased yield of field mustard (49%);; Increased wheat grain yield (27%)
Increased Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) (21% increase; CEC increases of 906, 180, and 130%; 21% increase; 44 and 57% CEC increases);; Increased Soil Organic Matter and Soil Organic Carbon Content (increases in the OM content of sandy (42–72%) and loam soils (32–48%); increased the OM by an average 77, 18, and 9%; organic C content in soil increased from 3.1 to 4.9 mg kg−1);; Increased Soil Water Holding Capacity (WHC) (10.8% increase in soil moisture content; 33% increase in moisture content);; Decreased Soil Bulk Density (decreased soil bulk density between 3 and 31%; decreased soil bulk density up to 75%; 14.2 and a 9.2% reduction; decreased bulk density by 3–31%);; Reduced Nutrient Leaching (reduced cumulative leaching of P (37.7%), NH4+ (50.2%), and nitrate (NO3−); reduced the NO3−, NH4+, and total N leaching between 19 and 28%, 16 and 19% and 19 and 20%, respectively)
Increased maize yield (98–150%); Increased available P (up to 165%); Increased soil porosity (65%); Increased soil cation exchange capacity (up to 906%); Decreased As bioaccumulation in rice plants (88%)
Reduced N2O emissions from soil (between 38 and 49%; up to 71%); Increased organic C content in soil (from 3.1 to 4.9 mg kg−1); Increased soil microbial biomass (ranging between 20 and 124%); Higher fungal abundance (6.6 to 31.2%); Increased mycorrhizal spores (between 182 and 277%)
Open
Hoang Tuan - 2024 - Agricultural Practices and Climate Resilience Case Study in Vietnam.pdf
Vietnam; USA; Japan; Thailand; Brazil; UK; India; Colombia; Peru; Kenya; Uganda; Bangladesh; Nepal; Nigeria; Tanzania; Ethiopia; Malawi; Zambia; Ghana; China
1;2;13
USA; Japan; Thailand; Brazil; UK; India; Vietnam; Colombia; Peru; Kenya; Uganda; Bangladesh; Nepal; Nigeria; Tanzania; Ethiopia; Malawi; Zambia; Ghana
Climate change; Food insecurity; Economic instability
Solution Package 1:
Diversified cropping systems + climate-smart techniques (conservation agriculture, agroforestry) + promoting resilient crop varieties and livestock breeds + integrating these strategies into agricultural policies
Solution Package 2:
Crop breeding techniques + precision agriculture technologies + innovative irrigation systems + water management practices + climate-smart agricultural practices (crop diversification, soil conservation) + investment in rural infrastructure + access to climate information services
Solution Package 3:
Advancements in agroforestry practices + conservation agriculture techniques + climate-resilient crop varieties + drought-tolerant crop varieties + improved water management practices + climate-smart livestock management practices + sustainable land management practices + small-scale irrigation schemes
Solution Package 4:
Crop rotation + water management techniques (rainwater harvesting, drip irrigation) + cover cropping + conservation tillage practices + enhance access to climate information and early warning systems + strengthening institutional support + market linkages + financial mechanisms
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Diversified cropping systems and climate-smart techniques like conservation agriculture and agroforestry help mitigate climate-related risks by spreading vulnerabilities and improving soil health and water retention;By promoting agro ecological approaches such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and integrated pest management, farmers can build resilience to climate change while simultaneously improving soil health, water retention, and biodiversity;Conservation agriculture emphasizes minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and crop rotations, aiming to improve soil health, water retention, and overall ecosystem resilience;The adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices is paramount for enhancing agricultural resilience to climate variability. CSA practices encompass a range of techniques aimed at improving productivity, conserving natural resources, and mitigating climate-related risks. Crop rotation is one such practice that involves alternating the types of crops grown on a particular piece of land over time. This practice helps improve soil health, reduce pest and disease pressure, and enhance nutrient cycling, thereby contributing to crop yield stability;
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Agroforestry involves integrating trees into agricultural landscapes, providing multiple benefits such as soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and improved water management;Agroecology emphasizes the integration of ecological principles into farming systems, promoting biodiversity, soil health, and ecosystem services;
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Agroforestry involves integrating trees into agricultural landscapes, providing multiple benefits such as soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and improved water management;By promoting agro ecological approaches such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry, and integrated pest management, farmers can build resilience to climate change while simultaneously improving soil health, water retention, and biodiversity;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: The adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices is paramount for enhancing agricultural resilience to climate variability. CSA practices encompass a range of techniques aimed at improving productivity, conserving natural resources, and mitigating climate-related risks;
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: The adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices is paramount for enhancing agricultural resilience to climate variability. CSA practices encompass a range of techniques aimed at improving productivity, conserving natural resources, and mitigating climate-related risks.
no evidence found
Increased crop yields (No quantative evidence);Improved smallholder farmer livelihoods (No quantative evidence);Positive impacts on household income (No quantative evidence);Increased agricultural productivity (No quantative evidence);Improved water productivity (No quantative evidence)
Improved soil health (No quantative evidence); Soil moisture retention (No quantative evidence); Soil fertility (No quantative evidence); Soil conservation (No quantative evidence); Increased organic matter content (No quantative evidence)
Improved soil health (No quantitative evidence);Increased crop yields (No quantitative evidence);Overall ecosystem resilience (No quantitative evidence);Biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);Water retention (No quantitative evidence)
Enhanced biodiversity (No quantitative evidence);Improved soil health (No quantitative evidence);Soil conservation / Reduced soil erosion (No quantitative evidence);Increased organic matter content (No quantitative evidence);Carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Heejung Kim et al. - 2022 - Analysis of Major Bacteria and Diversity of Surface Soil to Discover Biomarkers Related to Soil Heal.pdf
Korea, Republic of
2; 15
None
Republic of Korea, Chungcheong province, Yesan, Geumsan, Gongju, Okcheon, Boeun, Sejong, Daejeon
Soil health; Climate changes; Intensive agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Microorganisms associated with the nitrogen cycle, bioremediation, plant pathogenicity, antibiotic production, and material degradation
Agricultural Solution: Microorganisms beneficial to plants [nitrogen-fixing bacteria—symbiotic (Rhizobia etc.) or plant-associated bacteria (Azospirillium and Paenibacillius etc.); phosphate-solubilizing bacteria—Pseudomonas and Bacillus etc.; and bacteria inducing induced systemic resistance in plants and fungi forming beneficial symbionts with plants—arbuscular mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal fungi];
Agricultural Solution: Microorganisms harmful to plants (Fusarium genus is plant pathogen and related markers are assessed as factors negatively affecting plant growth);
Agricultural Solution: Soil microorganisms related to nutrient cycling [nitrogen fixation (nifH), nitrification (amoA), denitrification (nir, nor), N immobilization (glutamine synthase-encoding gene), N mineralization (protease-encoding genes), organic C mineralization (β-glucosidase-encoding genes), carbon dioxide fixation (RUBISCO-encoding genes), and organic P mineralization (acid and alkaline phosphomonoesterase)]
Non-agricultural solution: Traditional indicators, such as chemical and physical measures
Non-agricultural solution: Molecular-biological metagenomics data of soil
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Microorganisms associated with the nitrogen cycle, bioremediation, plant pathogenicity, antibiotic production, and material degradation showed potential for use as markers;By examining the characteristics of the dominant microorganisms and bacteria diversity, this information can be used as a major indicator of soil health.;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Other ecological services performed by the soil microbiota include regulation of biogeochemical cycles, retention and delivery of nutrients to primary producers, maintenance of soil structure and fertility, bioremediation of contaminants, supply of clean drinking water, flood and drought mitigation, erosion control, regulation of atmospheric trace gases, pest and pathogen control, and regulation of plant production through secondary metabolites (non-nutritive biochemical substances). Specific genes, taxa, or groups with principles based on such functionalities may be useful as indicators
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Richer microbial diversity in agriculture soil (Chao 1 2089.56 avg, Shannon 8.93 avg) than in forest soil (Chao 1 1509.48 avg, Shannon 8.35 avg); Higher abundance of phyla Proteobacteria (5.2% difference), Acidobacteria (3.7% difference), and Verrucomicrobia (2.5% difference) in forest soil compared to agriculture soil; Higher abundance of phyla Firmicutes (3.9% difference), Cyanobacteria (1.9% difference), Gemmatimonadetes (1.3% difference), Chloroflexi (2.5% difference), and Nitrospirae (0.6% difference) in agriculture soil compared to forest soil; Agriculture soil contained a higher number of total OTUs with a ratio ≥ 0.1% (295) than forest soil (242); More unique OTUs with a ratio ≥ 0.1% appeared in agriculture soil (103) than in forest soil (50)
Open
Heather L Tyler - 2021 - Single- versus Double-Species Cover Crop Effects on Soil Health and Yield in Mississippi Soybean Fie.pdf
United States of America
1; 2; 15
None
United States of America, Mississippi
Soil health degradation; Reduced crop yields; Environmental impacts of agriculture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rye (Secale cereale L.) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) + Agricultural Solution 3: No-till management
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Rye (Secale cereale L.) + Agricultural Solution 2: Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) + Agricultural Solution 3: Tilled management
Solution Package 3:
Agricultural Solution 1: No cover crop + Agricultural Solution 2: Tilled management
Solution Package 4:
Agricultural Solution 1: No cover crop + Agricultural Solution 2: No-till management
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased activities of β-glucosidase, cellobiohydrolase, fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis, N-acetylglucosaminidase, and phosphatase in surface soils;Enhanced microbial biomass;Organic matter input from cover crops;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Increased water infiltration, and ultimately improving the soil’s capacity to absorb water and maintain moisture;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Nutrient preservation by absorbing nutrients from the soil, thus preventing their loss to leaching and erosion over the winter, and then releasing them back into the soil as their biomass degrades over the course of the summer growing season;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
Enhanced microbial biomass (Enhanced by NT (p < 0.0001) and both cover crops (MBC, p < 0.0001; MBN, p = 0.0057) in 0-5 cm soil);; Increased cellobiohydrolase activity (Significantly impacted by cover crop treatments (p < 0.0001) and tillage (p = 0.0001) in 0-5 cm soil; NTRC significantly higher than NTNC at all timepoints (p ≤ 0.0242));; Increased β-glucosidase activity (Significantly impacted by cover crop treatments (p < 0.0001) and tillage (p = 0.0001) in 0-5 cm soil; NTRC significantly higher than NTNC (p ≤ 0.0366) in all but the fall 2019 timepoint);; Increased phosphatase activity (Significantly impacted by cover crop treatments (p < 0.0001) and tillage (p = 0.0358) in 0-5 cm soil; NTRC significantly higher than NTNC (p ≤ 0.0410) in all but the fall 2019 timepoint);; Higher soil organic matter (Significant interactions between time and cover crop (p = 0.0372) and time and tillage (p = 0.019) for SOM in 0-5 cm soil)
Enhanced microbial biomass (enhanced by NT (MBC, p < 0.0001; MBN, p < 0.0001) and both cover crops treatments (MBC, p < 0.0001; MBN, p = 0.0057) in 0–5 cm soil); Higher soil organic matter (significant interactions between time and cover crop (p = 0.0372) and time and tillage (p = 0.019) for SOM in 0–5 cm soil); Increased cellobiohydrolase activity (significantly higher [in NTRC] than NTNC at all timepoints (p ≤ 0.0242)); Increased β-glucosidase activity (significantly higher [in NTRC] than NTNC (p ≤ 0.0366) in all but the fall 2019 timepoint); Increased phosphatase activity (significantly higher [in NTRC] than NTNC (p ≤ 0.0410) in all but the fall 2019 timepoint)
Increased Soil Organic Matter (Ranged from approximately 4.2% in TNC to 6.8% in NTRC treatments in the 0–5 cm depth and 4.7% in TNC to 5.2% in NTRC in 5–15 cm soil; Average SOM for both cover crop treatments generally tended to be higher than NC, while NT tended to have higher SOM than T (Figure 3C; Table 1));;Enhanced Microbial Biomass (MBC, MBN enhanced by NT (MBC, p < 0.0001; MBN, p < 0.0001) and both cover crops treatments (MBC, p < 0.0001; MBN, p = 0.0057) in 0–5 cm soil throughout the study period (Figure 4); MBC and MBN levels reported in Table 2 and Figure 4).
Open
Hayley Crowell et al. - 2022 - Impacts of winter grazing on soil health in southeastern cropping systems.pdf
United States of America
2;15;12
United States of America, Alabama, Headland
Soil degradation; Soil compaction; Reduced crop yield
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Winter grazing of cover crops + Agricultural Solution 2: Conservation tillage + Agricultural Solution 3: Crop rotation (cotton and peanut) + Non-agricultural solution 1: Economic gains
1. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic carbon; Increased above and belowground biodiversity; Improving soil structure; Improved water-holding capacity; Enhanced nutrient cycling; Increased organic matter additions from manure; Increased MBC; Soil aggregation; Prevents erosion; Promotes water infiltration into the soil; Higher biomass levels
2. Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased cotton lint yields; Economic gains
no evidence found
Cotton lint yield greater in ungrazed and mid-February treatments than mid-March and mid-April treatments (Control: 1,810 kg ha−1, Mid-February: 1,799 kg ha−1, Mid-March: 1,575 kg ha−1, Mid-April: 1,609 kg ha−1)
Increased cotton lint yield (1,810 kg ha−1 in Control and 1,799 kg ha−1 in Mid-February were greater than 1,575 kg ha−1 in Mid-March and 1,609 kg ha−1 in Mid-April in 2019)
Increased cotton lint yield (1,810 kg ha−1 (control) and 1,799 kg ha−1 (mid-February) were greater than 1,575 kg ha−1 (mid-March) and 1,609 kg ha−1 (mid-April) in 2019)
Microbial biomass C was influenced by treatment (P=0.0170; ungrazed control treatment had approximately 30% greater MBC than the mid-February and mid-April cattle removal treatments);;Soil organic carbon was not affected by treatment (P=0.1600);;Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonization rates were not influenced by grazing treatments (2019: P=0.8082; 2020: P=0.3739);;Microbial respiration (CO2-C) between treatments (P=0.2171);;Permanganate oxidizable C was not affected by treatment (P=0.1438)
Open
Hayley Crowell et al. - 2022 - Impacts of winter grazing on soil health in southeastern cropping systems.pdf
United States of America
2;15
United States of America, Alabama, Headland
Soil degradation; Crop yield reduction; Soil compaction; Water infiltration reduction; Soil organic matter depletion
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Winter grazing of cover crops +
Agricultural Solution 2: Cotton–peanut rotation +
Agricultural Solution 3: Conservation tillage +
1. Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Increased soil organic carbon (SOC); Increased microbial biomass C (MBC); Improved soil aggregation
2. Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Increased cotton lint yields; Peanut yields unaffected by treatments
no evidence found
Cotton lint yield (The ungrazed control (1,810 kg ha−1) and mid-February cattle removal treatments (1,799 kg ha−1) were greater than the mid-April (1,609 kg ha−1) and mid-March (1,575 kg ha−1) treatments in 2019)
Sustained Cotton lint yield under mid-February grazing (1,799 kg ha−1; not significantly different from ungrazed control 1,810 kg ha−1);;Penetration resistance not negatively impacted (No significant difference between grazing treatments and ungrazed control);;Water stable aggregates not negatively impacted (No significant difference between grazing treatments and ungrazed control);;Soil organic carbon not negatively impacted (No significant difference between grazing treatments and ungrazed control);;Permanganate oxidizable C not negatively impacted (No significant difference between grazing treatments and ungrazed control)
no evidence found
Soil Organic Carbon storage (Pr > F = 0.1600);; Permanganate Oxidizable Carbon (Pr > F = 0.1438);; Microbial respiration (CO2–C) (Pr > F = 0.2171)
Open
Hava K Blair et al. - 2024 - Nature versus nurture Quantifying the effects of management, region, and hillslope position on soil.pdf
Minnesota
15;1;11
None
Minnesota;
Agricultural soil degradation; Food security
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Tillage + Agricultural Solution 2: Crop Rotation + Agricultural Solution 3: Cover Crop + non-agricultural solution 1: Regional soil and environmental conditions + non-agricultural solution 2: Hillslope positions.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs. No direct KPU relevance
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies. No direct KPU relevance
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health. 1.Wet aggregate stability responded to management; 2. Wet aggregate stability increased in SH fields due to lower tillage intensity;
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services. No direct KPU relevance
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
wet aggregate stability (higher by six percentage points in 2019; higher by 12 percentage points in 2020)
Wet aggregate stability (six percentage points in 2019 (p = 0.05, 90% confidence interval [CI] [1%–11%]) and 12 percentage points in 2020 (p = 0.001, 90% CI [6%–18%]))
no evidence found
Open
Hava K Blair et al. - 2024 - A data‐driven topsoil classification framework to support soil health assessment in Minnesota.pdf
Minnesota;
15;None;None
Minnesota,
Minnesota,
Minnesota,
Minnesota; North America
Soil health assessment; Nutrient cycling; Water cycling; Carbon storage; Yield
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Topsoil classification using k-means clustering + Agricultural Solution 2: Soil health test sampling + non-agricultural solution 1: communication with non-experts about broad differences in topsoil properties. + non-agricultural solution 2: field-scale planning for soil sampling + non-agricultural solution 3: developing carbon monitoring protocols on farms enrolled in carbon market programs.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: soil health assessment and interpretation + non-agricultural solution 1: nutrient management areas to support soil-specific fertility guidance
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health;Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.;Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Explaining variance in Permanganate oxidizable carbon (0.89); Explaining variance in Microbial biomass nitrogen (0.70); Explaining variance in Soil organic carbon (0.66); Explaining variance in Microbial biomass carbon (0.56); Explaining variance in Aggregate stability (0.51)
Ability of MLRA and soil cluster grouping to explain variance in Permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) (0.89);Ability of MLRA and soil cluster grouping to explain variance in Microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) (0.70);Ability of MLRA and soil cluster grouping to explain variance in Soil organic carbon (SOC) (0.66);Ability of MLRA and soil cluster grouping to explain variance in Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) (0.56);Ability of MLRA and soil cluster grouping to explain variance in Aggregate stability (AGG) (0.51)
no evidence found
Open
Harajatu Ahmed - 2019 - DOES FARMER GROUP MEMBERSHIP ENHANCE TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TOLON DISTRICT OF.pdf
Ghana
1;2;17
None
Ghana, Tolon district
Food insecurity; Poverty; Low agricultural productivity; Limited access to agricultural extension; Low adoption of improved technologies
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improved maize varieties +
Non-agricultural solution 1: Access to agricultural extension +
Non-agricultural solution 2: Access to fertilizer subsidy +
Non-agricultural solution 3: Incentivizing farmer groups +
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Harshad A Prajapati et al. - 2024 - Impact of Climate Change on Global Agriculture Challenges and Adaptation.pdf
India
13;2;15
India; India, Gujarat, Dang; India, Telangana, Hyderabad; India, Karnataka, Bengaluru; India, Jammu and Kashmir; India, Tamil Nadu, Villupuram District; India, Tamil Nadu, Salem; Puerto Rico; Central America; West Africa
Climate change; Crop production; Water resources; Soil health; Food security
Solution Package 1:
Crop diversification + Breeding climate-resilient crop varieties + Precision agriculture + Agroforestry + Sustainable land management + Water-efficient irrigation techniques + Climate services and early warning systems + Global collaboration + Policy frameworks + National Adaptation Plans for Agriculture
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Soil conservation measures, such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, can enhance soil structure and nutrient retention.;Soil conservation measures, such as cover cropping and reduced tillage, can enhance soil structure and nutrient retention. ; Rising temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events exacerbate soil degradation and nutrient loss.
no evidence found
Maximize yields (No quantative evidence);Additional sources of income (No quantative evidence);Minimizing input waste (No quantative evidence);Enhancing resource efficiency (No quantative evidence);Optimize water use and minimize losses (No quantative evidence)
Bolstered soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced nutrient retention (No quantitative evidence);; Improved nutrient cycling (No quantitative evidence);; Enhanced soil structure (No quantitative evidence);; Improve soil health (No quantitative evidence)
Improve soil health (No quantitative evidence);;Bolster soil fertility (No quantitative evidence);;Enhance soil structure (No quantitative evidence);;Enhance nutrient retention (No quantitative evidence);;Enhancing ecosystem resilience (No quantitative evidence)
contributing to carbon sequestration (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Harrington Nyirenda - 2019 - Achieving sustainable agricultural production under farmer conditions in maize-gliricidia intercropp.pdf
Malawi
1;2;15
None
Malawi; Salima District, central Malawi
Soil degradation; Low maize yield; Climate change; Loss of soil nutrients; Soil erosion.
Solution Package 1:
Maize-gliricidia intercropping + incorporation of G. sepium trimmings (October, January, September) + application of 92 kg N ha-1 of inorganic fertilizer + easier to read/understand materials to the rural farmers.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Organic matter (p < 0.001) and nitrogen (p < 0.011) were significantly higher in MIG than in TSM while bulk density was significantly lower (p < 0.006) in MIG than in TSM;
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Higher maize yield was achieved in MIG (5.52 t/ha) than in TSM (1.48 t ha-1) (p < 0.001)
no evidence found
Higher maize yield (5.52 t ha-1 in MIG compared to 1.48 t ha-1 in TSM in the fifth season);Significant increase in maize yield starting from the second season (p < 0.001);Highest maize yield recorded in one season (6.8 t ha 1 in 2016/17 in MIG)
Higher organic matter (p < 0.001); Higher nitrogen (p < 0.011); Lower bulk density (1.28 g cm-3 compared to 1.44 g cm-3)
Higher maize yield (5.52 t ha-1 in MIG vs 1.48 t ha-1 in TSM in the fifth season, p < 0.001);;Higher Organic matter (Significantly higher than TSM, p < 0.001);;Increased Nitrogen (Significantly higher than TSM, p < 0.011);;Lower Bulk density (1.28 g cm 3 in MIG vs 1.44 g cm 3 in TSM, p < 0.006)
Increased soil organic matter (p < 0.001)
Open
Jorge Luis Huere-Peña et al. - 2024 - Innovations in Soil Health Monitoring Role of Advanced Sensor Technologies and Remote Sensing.pdf
Peru; India; California
2;15;9
None
Perú; Andahuaylas, Perú; Ayacucho, Perú;
India;
California, United States of America
Sustainable agriculture; Environmental stewardship; Food security; Soil degradation; Climate change
Solution Package 1:
Advanced sensor technologies (soil moisture sensors, soil temperature sensors, electrical conductivity sensors, nutrient sensors) + IoT devices + remote sensing techniques (satellite imagery, drone-based observations) + precision agriculture + irrigation management + nutrient management + soil conservation
Solution Package 2:
Soil moisture sensors + Irrigation management + water use efficiency + crop yield
Solution Package 3:
Nutrient sensors + fertilization practices + crop yield + environmental outcomes
Solution Package 4:
Drones equipped with multispectral and hyperspectral cameras + soil moisture content assessment + nutrient levels assessment + disease/pests detection + irrigation efforts optimization + nutrient deficiencies correction + crop yields + resource utilization
Solution Package 5:
IoT-based soil monitoring systems + irrigation management + soil health assessment + water use efficiency + crop yield + sustainable farming practices
Solution Package 6:
IoT-based soil monitoring systems + weather forecasting systems + drought mitigation + water usage reduction + crop sustainability
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies.; Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services.; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.; Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs.
IoT in Smart Farming: Integration of soil moisture sensors allowed for precise irrigation management, resulting in a reduction of water usage by up to 30% compared to traditional irrigation methods; IoT in Smart Farming: using nutrient sensors enabled farmers to optimize fertilization practices, leading to a 20% decrease in fertilizer consumption while ensuring an adequate supply of nutrients for the crops.
Improvement in crop yields (10% improvement); Reduction of water usage (up to 30%); Decrease in fertilizer consumption (20%); Reduced input costs (No quantative evidence); Enhanced crop quality (No quantative evidence)
Reduction in nitrogen use and improvement in crop yields (15% reduction in nitrogen use and 10% improvement in crop yields); Reduction of water usage (up to 30%); Decrease in fertilizer consumption (20%); Improve wheat yields (No quantitative evidence); Improved grapevine growth conditions (No quantitative evidence)
Reduction of water usage (up to 30%); Decrease in fertilizer consumption (20%); Improvement in crop yields (10%); Significantly lower salinity levels (No quantative evidence); Reduced nutrient runoff and pollution (No quantative evidence)
Reduced nitrogen use (15% reduction); Reduced fertilizer consumption (20% decrease)
Open
Jorge Charles-Coll et al. - 2015 - Income Inequality, Fertility, Human Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth in Mexico.pdf
Mexico
1;4;10
Mexico, Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Zacatecas, Nuevo León, Distrito Federal, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, Coahuila de Zaragoza, Colima, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosí, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlaxcala, Chihuahua, Puebla, Yucatán, Durango, Guanajuato, Querétaro
Income inequality; Economic growth; Education; Fertility rates
Solution Package 1:
Education + Redistributive policies + Universal access to education
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies; The results infer that redistributive policies are not as important as providing equal and universal access to education in order to boost long term growth.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Julie L Davidson et al. - 2016 - Interrogating resilience toward a typology to improve its operationalization.pdf
Australia
11;13;17
None
Australia; Indonesia; United States of America
Climate change; Policy making; Conceptual clarity; Disaster; Urban
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Changes in agriculture cropping patterns + Non-agricultural solution 1: Improved building structures that are adapted to withstand increased flood or wildfire risk + Non-agricultural solution 2: undertaking preventative measures + Non-agricultural solution 3: establishing collaborative community organizations to build community resilience.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: shifts in livelihood strategies from agrarian smallholding to tourism and market-based agriculture + Non-agricultural solution 1: the strength of local governance processes or education levels that would enable more transformative pathways to be identified.
No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
Joseph P Amsili et al. - 2025 - Pedotransfer Functions for Soil Protein Based on Random Forest Modeling for Routine Soil Health Anal.pdf
United States of America
15;2;None
United States of America,
Nitrogen pollution; Soil health; Crop yield; Soil organic matter; Climate.
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Autoclaved-citrate extractable soil protein (ACE protein) + Agricultural Solution 2: soil texture, total carbon (C) and N, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C/N), permanganate-oxidizable carbon (POXC), pH, and extractable magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe) + Agricultural Solution 3: tillage, organic amendments, cover crops, and crop rotation + non-agricultural solution 1: machine learning algorithms + non-agricultural solution 2: predictive models/pedotransfer functions + non-agricultural solution 3: soil health packages
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Soil health indicators that assess a soil’s capacity to supply N may play an important role in improving N use efficiency; Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Soil protein can provide greater sensitivity to management than SOC at some sites but was equivalent to total N; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Recent studies have found positive correlations between soil protein and non-legume crop yield for maize (Zea mays), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and switch grass (Panicum virgatum L.)
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Soil’s capacity to supply nitrogen (N) (No quantative evidence); Positive correlations between soil protein and non-legume crop yield (No quantative evidence); Positive correlations between soil protein and wet aggregate stability (r = 0.53–0.84)
no evidence found
Open
Joseph P Amsili et al. - 2024 - Pedotransfer Functions for Field Capacity, Permanent Wilting Point, and Available Water Capacity Bas.pdf
United States of America
15; 2; 11
None
United States of America, Ithaca, New York
1. Soil health; Water supply capacity; Crop yield; Soil organic matter; Soil texture
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Pedotransfer functions for θFC, θPWP, and AWC.
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution: Random forest models.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health; Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies
no evidence found
no evidence found
Available water capacity prediction enhanced (reduced the root mean square error (RMSE) by 12.8% compared to multiple linear regression models); Field capacity prediction enhanced (reduced the root mean square error (RMSE) by 16.3% compared to multiple linear regression models); Permanent wilting point prediction enhanced (reduced the root mean square error (RMSE) by 13.3% compared to multiple linear regression models); Improved cost-effectiveness of comprehensive assessments of soil health (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
no evidence found
Open
José Félix De Brito Neto et al. - 2023 - Soil Health in an Integrated Production System in a Brazilian Semiarid Region.pdf
Brazil
2;15;3
Brazil, Paraíba, Lagoa Seca; Brazil, Paraíba, Campina Grande; Brazil, Amapá, Macapá; Brazil, Paraíba, Catolé do Rocha; Brazil, Paraíba, Sumé; Brazil, Paraíba, Areia
Soil degradation; Climate change; Food security; Water scarcity; Biodiversity loss
Solution Package 1:
Brachiaria brizantha (Piatã and Marandu cultivars, Paiaguás) + Urochloa mosambicensis (Urochloa) + Cenchrus ciliaris (buffel grass) + Panicum maximum (Massai and Mombaça cultivars) + Integrated crop–livestock system (ICLS)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Edaphic soil respiration was significant in the nine evaluation periods, demonstrating the importance of grass cover in edaphic respiration arising from the biological activity of microorganisms, which is directly related to the amount of soil organic carbon.;2. Cover crops increased soil organic matter and consequently microbial respiratory activity.;3. Physical and chemical soil attributes are involved in the critical functioning of soil and can serve as indicators for healthy-soil assessment.;4. The evaluation of soil microbial activity has been proposed as an indicator of soil quality due the soil microorganisms decompose plant debris into transformed carbon products in the soil.;5. Soil basal respiration measures the microbiological activity of soil where microorganisms degrade organic compounds to CO2, thus an important and sensitive indicator of soil quality activity
no evidence found
no evidence found
Higher microbial respiratory activity (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil organic matter content (No quantitative evidence); Increased base saturation (No quantitative evidence); Increased soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) (No quantitative evidence); Reduced aluminum (Al+3) content (No quantitative evidence)
Higher soil microbiological activity (No quantative evidence);; Increased soil organic matter (SOM) content (No quantative evidence);; Increased soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) (No quantative evidence);; Increased base saturation (No quantative evidence);; Higher phosphorus (P) content (No quantative evidence)
Soil microbiological activity (No quantative evidence); Significant input of organic carbon (No quantative evidence)
Open
José Cleydson F Silva et al. - 2025 - Challenges and Opportunities for New Frontiers and Technologies to Guarantee Food Production A Broa.pdf
Brazil; Netherlands; United States of America; Tanzania; Tunisia; Egypt; Saudi Arabia; Oman; United Arab Emirates; Uzbekistan; Australia; China; India; Bangladesh; Thailand; Spain; Czechia; Romania; Slovakia; Portugal;
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
1;2;17
None
Brazil, Viçosa, MG; Brazil, Recife PE; Brazil, Jaguariúna, São Paulo; Brazil, Pirassununga-SP; Brazil, Capitão Poço-PA; United States of America, Gainesville, FL; Saudi Arabia; Oman; United Arab Emirates; Egypt; Libya; Algeria; Uzbekistan; Tunisia; Australia; Tanzania; Bangladesh; India; Thailand; Czech Republic; Romania; Slovakia; Portugal; Spain; Switzerland; China; New Zealand
Food security; Climate change impacts; Population growth; Water scarcity; Public policy
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Urban farming technologies + Agricultural Solution 2: Agroforestry and regenerative agriculture + Agricultural Solution 3: Agriculture in the desert + Agricultural Solution 4: Deep Space Food Technologies + Agricultural Solution 5: Plant Engineering + Agricultural Solution 6: Synthetic Biology + Agricultural Solution 7: Nanotechnology for Food Production + Agricultural Solution 8: Bioinputs + Agricultural Solution 9: Artificial Intelligence in the Food Production + Agricultural Solution 10: Water Management + non-agricultural solution 1: Public policy + non-agricultural solution 2: Food regulation + non-agricultural solution 3: Participatory community.
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: Regenerative agriculture proposes a sustainable food system able to sustain the health of the soil by restoring its carbon content, consequently, improves yield.;plants that grow in aeroponics systems may present a better nutritional value and increased fitting and yield.;Regenerative agriculture (Reg-ag) aims to improve soil health and restore degraded soil (soil organic carbon), which accordingly benefits water quality, local vegetation, and yield.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: The review also delves into agroforestry and regenerative agriculture practices that enhance soil health and biodiversity while sequestering carbon.;Regenerative agriculture proposes a sustainable food system able to sustain the health of the soil by restoring its carbon content, consequently, improves yield.;Regenerative agriculture (Reg-ag) aims to improve soil health and restore degraded soil (soil organic carbon), which accordingly benefits water quality, local vegetation, and yield.
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The review also delves into agroforestry and regenerative agriculture practices that enhance soil health and biodiversity while sequestering carbon.;Besides that, it can help in climate change issues by estimates that regenerative annual cropping could reduce or uptake 14.5-22 gigatons of CO2 by 2050.;Reg-eco-ag integrates climate change mitigation and adaptation, carrying out sustainable agricultural strategies to avoid impacts on the environment, which consequently make it climate-smart agriculture (CSA) as an outcome.
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Reg-eco-ag includes ecosystem restoration through native plants such as herbaceous, woody crops, grazing, horticulture, and pollinators;In Europe, the consortium of regionally adapted species such as olive groves, grasses, and forbs are suggested as global greening initiatives and a wide inventory of species has been studied for ecosystem restoration.
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No direct KPI relevance
no evidence found
Decrease of water, fertilizer, and pesticide usage in aeroponics (98, 60, and 100%, respectively);;Efficiency in controlling Fusarium wilt using antagonistic microorganisms (35.71% to 85.75%);;Increased recovery rates in mechanical fruit harvesting using AI (36%)
Regenerative annual cropping reduces or uptakes CO2 by 2050 (14.5-22 gigatons); Restore degraded land by 2030 (100 million hectares); Sequester carbon by 2030 (250 million tonnes); Regenerate litter thickness (more 21 000 ha); Improve soil health and restore degraded soil (No quantative evidence)
Restore 100 million hectares of degraded land (100 million hectares by 2030); Sequester 250 million tonnes of carbon (250 million tonnes of carbon); Reforestation of the more 21 000 ha (more 21 000 ha); Regenerative annual cropping could reduce or uptake CO2 by 2050 (14.5-22 gigatons of CO2 by 2050); Improve soil health (No quantitative evidence)
Regenerative annual cropping could reduce or uptake CO2 (14.5-22 gigatons of CO2 by 2050); Great Green Wall project can sequester carbon (250 million tonnes of carbon); Great Green Wall project can restore degraded land (100 million hectares of degraded land); Regenerative agriculture practices enhance biodiversity (No quantitative evidence); Regenerative agriculture practices enhance soil health by restoring its carbon content (No quantitative evidence)
Open
Jokūbas Daunoras et al. - 2024 - Role of Soil Microbiota Enzymes in Soil Health and Activity Changes Depending on Climate Change and.pdf
Lithuania
1;3;11
;Lithuania;China;Germany;Canada;China;United States Minor Outlying Islands;Puerto Rico;United States of America
Climate change; Soil health; Carbon sequestration; Soil fertility; Soil ecosystems
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution: Microbial Enzymes
Non-agricultural solutions: Climate Change, Soil Ecosystems, Organic Farming, Fertilization
Higher yields and incomes due to input complementarity and ensured efficiencies: 1. Improved soil fertility
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: 1. Ensuring soil quality; 2. carbon sequestration; 3. improved SOM decomposition; 4. increased P availability; 5. Biological soil quality indicators
Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 1. carbon sequestration; 2. greenhouse gas emissions; 3. reducing NO3−; 4. N2O production
Improved landscape resilience to sustain desired ecosystem services: Forest soil health
Higher technology uptake due to better access to services and lower delivery costs: No direct KPU relevance
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Accessible nutrients (No quantative evidence);C and N accumulation (No quantative evidence);Soil microbial biomass C and N (No quantative evidence);Soil ammonium and nitrate availability (No quantative evidence);Bacterial and fungal populations (No quantative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
John Paul M Wasan et al. - 2023 - Effects of climate change on soil health resulting in an increased global spread of neglected tropic.pdf
Australia; Mexico; Taiwan; Thailand; Peru
3;6;15
Taiwan; Australia; Mexico; Thailand; Peru
Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs); Climate change; Soil degradation; Vector-borne diseases; Public health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Improving soil structure through active land management (promoting root development to increase pore size).
Agricultural Solution 2: Using deep-rooted, high-water use plants, clean irrigation water, and deep tillage to remove salts.
Agricultural Solution 3: Manure and fertilizer placement method, application rate, and timing considering the risk of runoff to water bodies.
Agricultural Solution 4: Controls both on-site and at water bodies, such as buffer strips (deep-rooted plants placed at field edges to filter off-site flow) and riparian areas (wetland vegetation with a similar effect) to reduce the impact of soil erosion on water quality.
Agricultural Solution 5: Reevaluating manure storage and management in regions at risk of novel vectors.
Agricultural Solution 6: Avoiding the use of contaminated irrigation water or manure, as well as modifying irrigation methods to limit prolonged saturated conditions.
Solution Package 2:
Non-agricultural solution 1: Identifying key regions of concern where soil services are degraded to link land management to public health policy.
Non-agricultural solution 2: Proactive, region-wide steps to simultaneously improve soil and human health.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Physically healthy soils are well aerated and have balanced moisture content;Fertile soils are high in organic matter and are abundant in plant nutrients;Chemically healthy soils are of moderate pH and not contaminated or saline;Microbiologically healthy soils consist of diverse communities that efficiently cycle nutrients, form beneficial symbiotic relationships with plants, and suppress pathogens.
no evidence found
increased agricultural yields and economic benefits (No quantitative evidence)
increased agricultural yields and economic benefits (No quantative evidence)
Reducing standing water (No quantitative evidence); Removing salts (No quantitative evidence); Reducing the impact of soil erosion on water quality (No quantitative evidence); Improving soil fertility (No quantitative evidence); Increased agricultural yields (No quantitative evidence)
no evidence found
Open
Joseph Amsili et al. - 2022 - Empirically-based production environment soil health goals.pdf
New York State (USA)
15;2;11
None
United States of America, New York, Long Island; United States of America, New York
Soil degradation; Climate change; Water quality; Soil quality
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Defining quantitative soil health goals
Agricultural Solution 2: Benchmarking soil health at the individual field level.
Agricultural Solution 3: Implement management practices that build soil health.
Non-agricultural solution 1: Broader ecosystem services goals
Non-agricultural solution 2: Climate mitigation and water quality goals
Non-agricultural solution 3: Voluntary soil health standards
Solution Package 2:
Agricultural Solution 1: Implementing soil health management systems
Agricultural Solution 2: Cover cropping
Agricultural Solution 3: Perennial forages
Agricultural Solution 4: Organic matter inputs
Agricultural Solution 5: Woodchip mulch
Non-agricultural solution 1: Guidance on SH and SOC goals for farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders.
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health:Defining quantitative soil health goals can support efforts to improve soil quality and meet broader ecosystem services goals, while simultaneously helping field-level benchmarking of soil health on farms.;Empirical approach for defining production environment soil health (PESH) goals for NYS was developed by estimating the 75th percentile value within soil texture and cropping system groupings (Amsili et al., 2020).;Global interest in improving soil health to reverse soil degradation, sustainably intensify agriculture, and mitigate and adapt to climate change requires guidance on SH and SOC goals for farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders.
no evidence found
no evidence found
Improved Soil Organic Matter (No quantitative evidence);; Improved Wet aggregate stability (No quantitative evidence);; Reduced Penetration Resistance (No quantitative evidence);; Improved Available water capacity (No quantitative evidence);; Improved Soil Respiration (No quantitative evidence)
Improved Soil Organic Matter (Q90 goals range from 2.8% to 6.5% depending on production environment); Improved Wet Aggregate Stability (Q90 goals range from 43.9% to 92.0% depending on production environment); Reduced Penetration Resistance (Achievable goals include 350 kPa for 0-15 cm depth and 1100 kPa for 15-45 cm depth); Improved Available Water Capacity (Q90 goals range from 0.20 g H2O/g soil to 0.34 g H2O/g soil depending on production environment); Improved Soil Respiration (Q90 goals range from 0.54 mg CO2/g to 1.64 mg CO2/g depending on production environment)
no evidence found
Open
Joseph Amsili et al. - 2023 - Empirical approach for developing production environment soil health goals, New York, USA.pdf
New York State (USA)
15;2;11
None
New York, USA, New York State, LRR-L, LRR-R, LRR-S, Long Island
Soil degradation; Climate mitigation; Water quality; Soil quality; Soil health
Solution Package 1:
Agricultural Solution 1: Defining quantitative soil health goals
Agricultural Solution 2: Implementing agricultural practices that build soil organic carbon (SOC)
Agricultural Solution 3: Tillage intensity
Agricultural Solution 4: Cover cropping
Agricultural Solution 5: Perennial sod crops
Agricultural Solution 6: Organic amendments
Non-agricultural solution 1: Climate mitigation and adaptation strategy
Non-agricultural solution 2: Benchmarking soil health at the individual field level
Non-agricultural solution 3: Establishment of "voluntary soil health standards" (policy)
Non-agricultural solution 4: Soil Health Gap concept
Non-agricultural solution 5: Soil Health Target concept
Non-agricultural solution 6: Policy discussions around the most appropriate metrics for voluntary SH standards (policy)
Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Defining quantitative soil health goals can support efforts to improve soil quality and meet broader ecosystem services goals, while simultaneously helping field-level benchmarking of soil health on farms.;Environmental sustainability in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions: ramp up agricultural practices that build soil organic carbon (SOC) as a climate mitigation and adaptation strategy.;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: Global interest in improving soil health to reverse soil degradation, sustainably intensify agriculture, and mitigate and adapt to climate change requires guidance on SH and SOC goals for farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders.;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: realistic targets for farmers within the context of their farming environment.;Improved soil health to sustain plant and animal productivity and health: provide more realistic soil health goals to help growers calibrate their management.
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
no evidence found
Predicted Soil Organic Carbon PESH Goal (Q75, Coarse-Textured Annual Grain) (1.8 %);;Predicted Soil Organic Carbon PESH Goal (Q90, Silt Loam Pasture) (4.3 %);;Average difference in SOM PESH goals between Long Island and rest of NYS (-0.7 %);;Soil Organic Matter PESH Goal (Q75, Coarse-Textured Annual Grain) (2.6 %);;Soil Organic Matter PESH Goal (Q90, Silt Loam Pasture) (6.5 %)
Open