Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2021
Authors
Manuel Helbig Tatjana Zivkovic Pavel Alekseychik Mika Aurela Eugénie S. Euskirchen Lawrence B. Flanagan Timothy J. Griffis Carole Helfter Takashi Hirano Elyn Humphreys Gerard Kiely Randall Kolka Paul Leahy Annalea Lohila Ivan Mammarella Masahito Ueyama Mats B. Nilsson Frans-Jan W. Parmentier Matthias Peichl Janne Rinne Daniel T. Roman Oliver Sonnentag Eeva-Stiina Tuittila Timo Vesala Patrik Vestin Simon Weldon Per WeslienAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
S. Higgins Z. Kadziuliene A. Paz E. Mason W. Vervuurt A. Astover N. Borchard A. Jacobs P. Laszio D. Wall G. A. Trinchera Alice Budai R. Mano S. Thorma J. M. Rok B. Sanchez J. Hirte S. MadenogiuAbstract
Deliverable 2.13. Stocktake study and recommendations for harmonizing methodologies for fertilization guidelines
Authors
Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe Anna Jacobs Chiara Piccini Dario Fornara Eloïse Mason Frédéric Vanwindekens Frederik Bøe Grzegorz Siebielec Julia Fohrafellner Julia Miloczki Katharina Meurer Martina Kasper Lilian O'Sullivan Michal Sviček Maria Gonçalves Miro Jacob Nádia Castanheira Nils Borchard Olivier Heller Peter Laszlo Raimonds Kasparinskis Sara Mavsar Sevinc Madenoglu Vit Penizek Wieke Vervuurt Žydrė KadžiulienėAbstract
Deliverable 2.7. This report provides a synthesis of stakeholders’ perceptions of knowledge on and use of knowledge on sustainable soil management, as well as the knowledge needs. The report is based on interviews with 791 stakeholders in 23 European countries completed in the summer of 2020 in the context of the EJP SOIL project. The analysis highlights a number of shortcomings in the current use and coordination of knowledge on sustainable soil management. For instance, insufficient communication and coordination between policymakers, researchers and farmers is reported. Most national reports stress that, currently, the promotion of knowledge on sustainable soil management towards stakeholders is ineffective. Challenges, for instance, arise because the theoretical knowledge produced at universities is considered irrelevant or inaccessible to farmers who have a practical approach to soil management. It is also reported that there is too little continuity in soil research due to project dependence, which is a challenge because soil research requires long-term investigations. Furthermore, current research insufficiently supports integrated decision-making of practitioners and policymakers, where different challenges and trade-offs continuously must be balanced. In some countries, this is partly due to insufficient funding for dissemination activities, whereas in other countries funding is not utilized correctly. Additionally, reports broadly agree that there is too little continuity in research due to project dependence, which is challenging because soil research requires long-term investigations. In relation to specific areas, knowledge gaps regarding the loss of soil organic matter, carbon sequestration and exploring the effects of climate change, mitigation and preventive measures. were identified. A range of other areas also appear as highly important in certain regions − for instance, ensuring an optimal soil structure, enhancing soil biodiversity, water storage capacity, soil nutrient retention and use efficiency. To overcome these challenges, stakeholders stress that it is important to improve the coordination between policy, research, industry, advisory services and farmers because knowledge about field activities and sustainable soil management is fragmented and poorly coordinated. Thus, stakeholders stress that it is important to strengthen intermediaries, such as the advisory service and farmers’ associations, as they are important knowledge brokers, both in terms of improving knowledge availability and to provide feedback on knowledge gaps to research institutions. Additionally, the need for strengthening networks and peer-to-peer communication is emphasized because these are useful platforms for knowledge exchange. Furthermore, it is important to provide incentives for farmers and improve the visibility of soil challenges for stakeholders, for instance using decision support tools to highlight the benefit of adopting sustainable soil management.
Authors
A. Astover J. Escuer-Gatius A. Don K. Armolaitis G. Barančíková M. Bolinder S. Cornu M. De Boever R. Farina C. Foldal R. Jandl M. Kasper D. Fornara A. Govednik R. Mihelič Vrščaj B. B. Huyghebaert R. Kasparinskis S.G. Keel P. Laszlo A. Lehtonen S. Madenoğlu G. Maria da Conceição Christophe Moni L. O'Sullivan D. Wall G. Lanigan B. Sánchez Gimeno A. Taghizadeh-ToosiAbstract
Deliverable 2.12. This report presents a picture of the inventory of the different models accounting and monitoring soil quality and soil carbon stocks used in 21 different countries in Europe, and especially for the reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 2020). The report synthesizes the information collected regarding the use of these models both at national and farm scale, as well as information of other models for soil quality monitoring, by different actors (policy making, farmers, and extension services). The study identified a big variability in the models used at national level and GHG reporting, where the Yasso07 model is currently the most widely used, and with several countries planning its implementation in the future. The number of models used at the farm scale to estimate SOC change presented an even bigger variability than those reported at the national scale, including some of the models included in the national scale, but also incorporating smaller spatial models intended for use at the farm scale, at the field scale or even at smaller scales. Most of the models are intended for mineral soils, both arable or grasslands, and only a few are reported for organic soils and/or other land use. A big heterogeneity was also present in the reported soil quality models (besides those used for accounting for SOC change). Two models included in the national and farm scale are also included here (RothC and Yasso07). The most reported soil quality models focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimation and leaching, and are mainly related to the nitrogen cycle, but also to other nutrients, and soil physical properties. Our results show that synergies derived from European collaborations are not fully used but offer the possibility to enhance the quality of model applications for national GHG reporting and at smaller scales for the support of farm management.
Authors
Miro Jacob Peter Maenhout Simone Verzandvoort Greet Ruysschaert Sigbert Huber Bettina Schwarzl Bruno Huygebaert Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe Eloïse Mason Anna Jacobs Stella Sonnenburg Axel Don Lilian O’Sullivan David Wall Raimonds Kasparinskis Oļģerts Nikodemus Imants Kukuļs Ivo Vinogradovs Baiba Dirnēna Kristīne Afanasjeva Kristaps Auziņš Žydrė Kadžiulienė Frederik Bøe Jannes Stolte Kamilla Skaalsveen Teresa Gómez de la Bárcena Daniel Rasse Grzegorz Siebielec Fátima Calouro Ana Marta Paz Cristina Sempiterno Maria da Encarnação Marcelo Pedro Jordão Michal Sviček Kristína Buchová Vladimír Hutár Rok Mihelič Sara Mavsar Borut Vrščaj Klara Rekič Helena Grčman Benjamin Sanchez Lena Engström Noemi Peter Olivier Heller Gina Garland Peter Weisskopf Wieke Vervuurt Janjo de Haan Sevinc Madenoglu Hesna Ozcan Dario Fornara Elaine Groom Jill Mellon Suzanne Higgins Rachael Ramsey Alex Higgins Lisa BlackAbstract
Deliverable 2.5. This report contributes to the EJP SOIL roadmap for climate-smart sustainable agricultural soil management and research by identifying current policy targets and realizations and setting soil service aspirational goals by 2050 at the regional/national (Chapter 2) and European scale (Chapter 3). At both scales, the report is based on a desk study of current agricultural soil related policies, followed by a stakeholder consultation. Twenty countries/regions have contributed to the regional/national analyses and 347 different stakeholders have provided their views on soil policy. The policy analysis demonstrates that large differences exist between the number of policy targets per soil challenge. In general, the soil challenge ‘Maintaining/increasing soil organic carbon’ can be considered as the most important soil challenge taking into account both the policies of the participating countries and of the EU level. This soil challenge not only has (one of) the largest share(s) of quantitative and qualitative targets, but also has a large share of the targets for which an indicator and monitoring is in progress or existing. At the EU level, ‘Avoiding contamination’ is also particularly high addressed in policy documents. In the participating countries, other very important soil challenges in policy are ‘Enhance nutrient retention/use efficiency’, ‘Avoid soil erosion’ and ‘Avoid soil contamination’. These soil challenges comprise a large share of soil- and agricultural soil specific targets. However, despite the large number of policy targets, identified by the participating EJP SOIL countries, there is still a shared need for appropriate clear (quantified) policy targets with a specific time horizon, well-defined indicators and a monitoring systems. Similar results are found at the EU level. Policy targets addressing soil challenges are mostly not expressed in quantitative terms and indicators for monitoring policy targets with references to soil challenges were identified for less than half of the cases. From the stakeholder consultations, it becomes clear that for all soil challenges there is still a way to go before future aspirational goals will be met. Generally, when averaging between all countries, the gap between current policy targets and realizations is for most soil challenges considered between large and halfway in reaching the current policy targets and for most soil challenges current policy targets are regarded almost- to- far from being futureproof. In the prioritization of soil challenges, stakeholders at the regional/country and European level, clearly marked maintaining/increasing SOC as the most relevant soil challenge in the upcoming decades. The stakeholders explain the key role of maintaining/increasing soil organic carbon through the multiple interactions with other soil challenges and for climate change mitigation. At the EU level, the second highest ranked prioritization is soil sealing, due to its irreversible nature. This is, however, not reflected at the country level, potentially due to a misinterpretation of soil sealing as compaction by part of the stakeholders. At the country level, enhancing soil nutrient retention/use efficiency was ranked 2nd in the prioritization exercise. Generally, there is an urgency for policy updates, because the current policy is considered unable to tackle the prominent soil challenges. In the report, also the soil related management practices to achieve the aspirational goals have been identified, both in the policy analysis and in the stakeholder consultation. The most prominent differences between policy and stakeholders, is in the emphasis on the use of buffer strips and small landscape elements in policy, while measures in this category are less highly ranked by the stakeholders. On the other hand, conservation agriculture, agro-ecological farming, precision agriculture, incorporation ........
Authors
Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern Arezoo Taghizadeh-toosi Maria Knadel, Trine Nørgaard Emmanuel Arthur Johannes Lund Jensen Mansonia Pulido-Moncada Chiara de Notaris Lars J. Munkholm Julia Fohrafellner Julia Miloczki Erich Inselsbacher Martina Kasper Maarten De Boever Peter Maenhout Brieuc Hardy Lenka Pavlů Mansonia Pulido-Moncada Arezoo TaghizadehToosi Mika Tutunen Nils Borchard Eloïse Mason Daria Seitz Axel Don Peter Laszlo Béla Pirkó Eszter Tóth Lilian O’Sullivan David Wall Sergio Pellegrini Raimonds Kasparinskis Žydrė Kadžiulienė Wieke Vervuurt Frederik Bøe Kamilla Skaalsveen Teresa Gómez de la Bárcena Jannes Stolte Grzegorz Siebielec Nádia Castanheira Corina Carranca Maria Gonçalves Michal Sviček Rok Mihelič Sara Mavsar Benjamin Sanchez Diego Intrigliolo Katharina Meurer Olivier Heller Sevinc Madenoglu Dario Fornara Alex Higgins Suzanne Higgins Jill MellonEditors
Lars J. MunkholmAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
L. Pavlů J. Sobocká L. Borůvka V. Penížek B. Adamczyk A. Baumgarten I. V. Castro S. Cornu M. De Boever A. Don D. Feiziene G. Garland B.S. Gimeno H. Grčman F. Hawotte A. Higgins R. Kasparinskis M. Kasper L. Kukk P. Laszlo S. Madenoğlu K. Meurer P. Schjønning Kamilla Skaalsveen L. O'Sullivan S. Vanino W. Vervuurt R. WawerAbstract
Deliverable 2.2. This synthesis shows recent and current efforts in Europe related to the establishment of soil indicators as parameters used to quantify and valuate impacts of agricultural soil management practices on soil quality. It also shows how the existing indicators have been used. Among the best captured soil parameters across all participating countries are carbon concentration in soils and its changes in time, macronutrients (N, P, K) and micronutrients (Cu, Mn) contents in soils, soil pH, cation exchange capacity and base saturation of soils, soil texture and bulk density, and contamination with potentially toxic elements, especially Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn. However, there is only partial agreement between the measured parameters and the indicators used in the national legislations and as policy maker´s tools.
Authors
Leonor Rodrigues Julia Fohrafellner Brieuc Hardy Bruno Huyghebaert Jens Leifeld Alberto Sanz Cobeña Alice Budai Andis Lazdiņš Arezoo Taghizadeh Axel Don Bartosz Adamczyk Benjamin Gimeno Benjamin Sanchez Bo Stenberg Claudia Di Bene Corina Carranca Dalia Feiziene Daniel Rasse Daria Seitz Dario Fornara Eduardo Aguilera Elena Rodriguez Eloïse Mason Erich Inselsbacher Gabriela Barančíková Grzegorz Siebielec Heide Spiegel Imants Kukuļs Jacek Niedźwiecki Jan P. Lesschen Karin Kauer Kestutis Armolaitis Lilian OSullivan Lenka Pavlu Maarten De Boever Nils Kauer Peter Kuikman Peter Laszlo Raquel Mano Raimonds Kasparinskis Rok Mihelič Sevinc Madenoglu Sophie Cornu Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern Stephan Glatzel Sylvain Pellerin Teresa Gómez de la Bárcena Thalisa Slier Thomas Kätterer Martin A. Bolinder Kerstin Berglund Toth Toth GergelyAbstract
Deliverable 2.3. This synthesis identifies the available knowledge of achievable carbon sequestration in mineral soils and GHGs mitigation in organic soils in agricultural land, including pasture/grassland across Europe. The inventory of past and current studies on carbon sequestration and GHGs mitigation measures in agricultural soils and the methodology used for the assessment were considered from 25 Member states (MS) across Europe. The stocktake shows that availability of datasets concerning soil carbon sequestration (SCS) is variable among Europe. While northern Europe and central Europe is relatively well studied, there is a lack of studies comprising parts of Southern, Southeaster and Western Europe. Further, it can be concluded that at present country based knowledge and engagement is still poor; very few countries have an idea on their national-wide achievable carbon sequestration potential. The presented national SCS potentials (MS n=13) do however point towards important contributions to mitigate climate change by covering considerable shares of national greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector in the range of 0.1-27 %, underpinning the importance of further investigations. In contrast to mineral soils, effective mitigation measures for organic soils while maintaining industrial agricultural production are still in its infancy. Very few mitigation options exist to mitigate GHG emissions without compromising agricultural production. Most GHG mitigation practices reported by the MS involve the restoration of organic soils, which means a complete abandonment of land from any agricultural use. Only one contribution (NL) reports possible mitigation potentials, which are based on specific water management measures (water level fixation). Nevertheless, there is an increasing awareness of the need of mitigation measures reflected by the several ongoing research projects on peatland management.