Report on technologies and Practices

This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Report on technologies and Practices Project NOVASOIL Project title INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR SOIL HEALTH Work Package WP2. Analysis and Development of Business Models to Promote Soil Health Deliverable 2.1 Period covered 17 months Publication date Dissemination level PU Organisation name of lead beneficiary for this report LEEDS Authors Catriona Willoughby, Guy Ziv, Pippa Chapman, Carina Obergröbner, Fabian Frick Contributors LEEDS, TUM Ref. Ares(2024)5756986 - 09/08/2024 Ref. Ares(2025)8236416 - 30/09/2025 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Aims and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 9 3. Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Literature Search .............................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Land use type and soil health.................................................................................... 10 3.3 Soil Health Indicators and Climate Zones ...................................................... 11 3.4 Literature Search on Soil Health Practices’ Acceptance ............................ 13 4. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1. Agricultural Management Practices ..................................................................... 14 4.1.3 Agricultural Soil Health ......................................................................................... 17 4.1.2 Agricultural Soil Carbon ........................................................................................ 19 4.1.3 Acceptance of Agricultural Soil Management Practices ..................... 22 4.2. Forestry Results .............................................................................................................. 27 4.2.1 Management Practices .......................................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Forestry Soil Carbon ............................................................................................... 27 4.2.3 Forestry Soil Health ................................................................................................ 29 4.2.4 Afforestation Acceptance ................................................................................... 32 4.3. Urban Results ................................................................................................................... 34 4.3.1 Management Practices .......................................................................................... 34 4.3.2 Urban Soil Health ..................................................................................................... 35 4.3.3 Urban Soil Carbon .................................................................................................... 38 4.3.4 Acceptance Studies in Urban Contexts ....................................................... 38 5. Integrating Soil Health Findings and Acceptance of Soil Health Improving Practices in Europe ............................................................................................. 40 5.1. Behavioural Factors affecting Likelihood of Adoption ............................... 41 5.1.3. Farm Characteristics .............................................................................................. 42 6. Discussion and Future Considerations ....................................................................... 42 6.1 Acceptance of Soil Health Improving Practices ............................................... 44 7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 47 8 Acknowledgment .................................................................................................................... 47 9. References ................................................................................................................................. 48 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 List of Tables TABLE 1: THE INCLUSION CRITERIA USED FOR THE FIRST SEARCH OF THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE. 10 TABLE 2: A SUMMARY OF THE SOIL HEALTH INDICATORS INCLUDED FOR EACH LAND USE TYPE (ALL USED IN THE D1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK) 11 TABLE 3: A SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURE INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW. 15 TABLE 4: A SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT THEMES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SUBCATEGORIES. 17 TABLE 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE CARBON ACCUMULATION RATES ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT FACTORS INCLUDE ED IN THE STUDIES ANALYSED. 19 TABLE 6: MEAN ANNUAL SOIL CARBON ACCUMULATION RATES IN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE ACCORDING TO MANAGEMENT TYPE AND CLIMATE ZONE. 22 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS IN THE FOREST LAND USE TYPE. 27 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF FOREST MANAGEMENT SUBCATEGORIES AND THEIR EFFECT ON SOIL CARBON ACCUMULATION. 29 TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF FOREST MANAGEMENT SUBCATEGORIES AND THEIR EFFECT ON SOIL ACIDIFICATION. 30 TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS IN THE URBAN LAND USE TYPE. 34 TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT SUBCATEGORIES AND THEIR EFFECT ON HEAVY METALS IN THE URBAN LAND USE TYPE. 36 TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SOIL HEALTH BENEFITS, LIKELIHOOD OF ADOPTION AND ECONOMIC BARRIERS FOR SELECTED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 40 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 List of Figures FIGURE 1: A SUMMARY OF DATAPOINTS COLLATED ACCORDING TO EACH AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICE. 16 FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF TOPICS REGION EXAMINED BY STUDIES IN EUROPE THAT WERE REVIEWED (STUDIES THAT DID NOT INVESTIGATE SPECIFIC SOIL PRACTICES ARE NOT INCLUDED). 16 FIGURE 3: A SUMMARY OF SOIL CARBON ACCUMULATION RATE (ANNUAL T HA -1) SOIL ORGANIC MATTER (%), BULK DENSITY (G CM3) AND PH FOR EACH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPAL COMPARED WITH THE STANDARD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE FOR COOL TEMPERATE (RED LINE) AND MEDITERRANEAN (BLUE LINE) CLIMATE AREAS. NOTE THAT FOR CARBON ACCUMULATION, THE MEDIAN ACCUMULATION RATE FOR STANDARD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE IN BOTH CLIMATE ZONES IS 0.0 (ANNUAL T HA -)1. 18 FIGURE 4: AGRICULTURAL SOIL CARBON ACCUMULATION RATES ACCORDING TO THE SAMPLE DEPTH. 20 FIGURE 5: CARBON ACCUMULATION RATES PLOTTED ACCORDING TO REPORTED SOIL CLAY CONTENT (%). NOTE THAT ONLY STUDIES WHICH REPORTED CLAY CONTENT ARE INCLUDED (N = 1264). 21 FIGURE 6: FORESTRY SOIL CARBON CONTENT ACCORDING TO BIOMASS (GREEN), SUBSOIL (BROWN) AND TOPSOIL (ORANGE), DERIVED FROM SCHARLEMANN ET AL. (2014). 28 FIGURE 7: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF MODERATORS FOR PREDICTING SOIL PH CHANGES. MODERATORS INCLUDE MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (MAP), SOIL PH BEFORE FORESTATION (IPH), YEARS AFTER FORESTATION (YEARS), SITE SLOPE (SLOPE), SOIL ORGANIC C CONCENTRATION (SOC), FORESTATION TYPE (SOC), SOIL CLAY CONTENT (CLAY) AND SLOPE ASPECT (ASPECT). 31 FIGURE 8: SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DEPTHS FROM PAPERS INVESTIGATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN URBAN SOILS (FROM O’RIORDAN ET AL., 2021). 35 FIGURE 9: MAP OF SOIL SEALING PREVALENCE IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, DERIVED FROM STANKOVICS ET AL., 2020. 37 FIGURE 10: SUMMARY OF BIODIVERSITY-IMPROVING URBAN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, DERIVED FROM SUN ET AL., 2023. 38 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 1. Summary An extensive review of soil management practices in agricultural, urban and forestry land at European field sites has been carried out. The study also compiled findings on land manager acceptance and adoption likelihood for soil healthimproving technologies and practices. Results indicated that land managers implemented practices that minimized soil disturbance, utilized organic amendments, and incorporated new woody biomass and living roots to enhance soil health. Across all land-use types, the introduction of new woody biomass proved effective in reducing surface pollution, increasing soil carbon content, and promoting biodiversity. However, these benefits were not sustained once the trees matured. In forestry areas, management strategies which reduce harvestingassociated compaction were largely effective, but dependent upon site conditions including soil type, texture, slope and underlying bulk density. The study revealed significant variations in the efficacy of soil health improvement strategies between cool temperate and Mediterranean climate zones. Furthermore, evidence indicated that economic and social constraints influenced land manager acceptance of these technologies and practices. By integrating findings on soil health benefits and adoption, the authors identified areas requiring further research, policy incentives, and investment. While substantial overlap existed between climate zones, techniques minimizing soil disturbance (e.g., reduced tillage intensity and frequency) proved more effective in Mediterranean regions with higher erosion risks. The study recommends investment in training and education for future farmers, along with targeted funding to mitigate financial risks associated with adopting soil health practices like reduced tillage and diversified crop rotations. The authors conclude that while promising management strategies have been identified to support soil health business models, further innovation in land management is necessary to achieve sustainable and commercially viable soil management practices. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Graphical summary of practices according to the soil health benefit and economic barrier in cool temperate and Mediterranean climate zones: practices with high benefit but economic barrier are highlighted in green, while high benefit and high economic barrier are highlighted in red. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 2. Introduction There is increasing public and supplier pressure on land managers to manage their soil in a way which is both productive and sustainable. Farm management practices furthermore need to supply nutritious food to a growing global population in the face of an increasingly unstable climate and volatile economic conditions. Management practices which preserve or improve the health of the underlying soils may increase the resilience of land management systems and furthermore provide important ecosystem services, thus there is interest in how best to incentivise soil health-friendly land management practices. Soil health, or quality, can be broadly defined as ‘the capacity of a living soil to function within natural or managed ecosystems, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health’ (Doran, 2002). Soil health is transient; it can be improved or enhanced by land use and management decisions that consider the multiple functions of soil, but has often been degraded by decisions which focus only on short-term crop productivity (Doran, 2002). Thus, the preservation and improvement of the health of managed soils requires an adjustment in management of soils which are currently in a degraded state. Preserving soil health necessitates maintaining its physical, chemical, and biological attributes, which can be achieved through the implementation of diverse agronomic strategies. This may be through low soil organic matter and/or compaction and erosion, often as a result of long-term arable cropping. Enhancing soil health can be attained through strategies such as diversifying nutrient inputs with a focus on organic sources, adopting conservation agriculture principles, boosting soil microbial diversity, optimizing resource cycling within integrated farming systems, and rectifying soil pH through amendment applications (Shahane & Shivai, 2021). Reduction of tillage intensity, cultivation of cover crops and incorporating trees and hedgerows into farming systems have been proposed to aid the balance of food production and soil health in agricultural systems. Concurrently, the market for carbon offsetting and credits has led to commercial interest in the theory that management practices which improve soil health could also lead to carbon accumulation. There are currently businesses operating in the carbon credits market based on expected accumulation from implementing these practices, however rates of carbon accumulation are highly variable, and soil health itself should be viewed as a separate entity to soil organic carbon. Soil carbon itself is a complex constituent part of the soil overall, forming the basis of many important soil processes and interactions from microbial communities to the overall soil structure. The role of carbon within the soil – and of soil management in the accumulation, storage and sequestration of carbon – has come under increasing public scrutiny and commercial interest since the wellpublicised “4-per-mille” incentive was launched at COP21 (Minasny et al., 2017). However, there is a key lack of evidence and scientific consensus on the mechanisms that control organic carbon dynamics in soil and thus the ability of soil to store carbon in the long term which can lead to confusion amongst researchers, policymakers, and land managers (Derrien et al., 2023). Furthermore, there is a need for researchers to carefully distinguish between sequestration and storage when discussing soil carbon in the context of management, with research This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 showing that carbon storage exceeds long-term sequestration despite the terms being frequently used interchangeably (Baveye et al., 2023). The complexity of interactions between soil variables across a range of scales and lack of a clear set of suitable indicators from which to assess soil health means that assessing soil health is challenging, causing potential confusion to land managers and businesses engaging in soil health improving projects. The assessment of soil health uses a combination of physical, chemical and biological properties (Bünemann et al., 2018; Fahad et al., 2022). These properties serve as indicators of soil function because it is difficult to measure function directly, and observations may be subjective. Soil health properties can be linked to key soil functions and the delivery of public goods and ecosystem services, such as improved water quality, flood alleviation and climate change mitigation (Rinot et al., 2019). There is therefore a clear need for evidence-based approaches to sustainable soil management. There are many published papers, books and technical documents which provide valuable information for land managers in terms of soil health properties underlying varying land management practices, however used and proposed indicators vary. In research aiming to recommend a minimum dataset of soil indicators, the average number of proposed indicators is 11 (Bünemann et al., 2018). The most frequently used indicators are organic matter (or organic carbon) and pH followed by structural indicators (e.g. water holding capacity, bulk density), soil texture, and available nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) (Bünemann et al., 2018; Nunes et al., 2021). Furthermore, the heterogeneity of soil systems, climate and topography means that the applicability of findings to European land management systems is not always clear. This report synthesizes existing literature to assess the potential of new land management practices for improving soil health. Specifically, it examines published evidence on how soil health properties respond to changes in management practices. The report further considers the impact of contextual factors like soil type, sampling depth, and climate on previously published results. This analysis aims to identify existing technologies and practices with the most significant (magnitude) and reliable (certainty) improvements for soil health. Land use is divided into three categories: agriculture, forestry, and urban environments. The urban category encompasses green spaces, including public parks, gardens, allotments, and road verges, as well as brownfield remediation and development operations that involve soil capping. The report acknowledges the role of agri-environment schemes, established business models that have driven many of the interventions considered. It explores the suitability of management practices for adoption by land managers and proposes strategies to encourage their acceptance for a future of sustainable soil management. The comparison of quantitative soil data with results from acceptance studies enables the report to consider the social factors behind soil health improving land management practices in a European context, and the current state of acceptance amongst farmers for the practices found to be most suitable for improving soil health. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 2.1 Aims and Objectives The report aims to conduct an in-depth review of management practices to improve soil health across agricultural, forestry and urban land uses. Furthermore, the report aims to examine the acceptance of these practices by land managers and assess any barriers which may be in place. This aim is met through achieving the following objectives: • Identifying operational soil health indicators from the WP1 conceptual framework D1.1. • Reviewing available land management technologies and practices for soil health management and improvement. • Evaluating existing technologies and practices with the most significant (in terms of magnitude) and certain (in terms of variability) improvements for soil health. • Identifying the interactions between climate zones and soil management, thus the most effective strategies soil health improvement in different climate zones. • Identifying key public and private actors for soil health management support • Screening relevant farmer and sectoral acceptance studies for soil health improving technologies and practices • Identifying barriers to acceptance of the most effective practices to target future work This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 The results showed that the body of academic research was not evenly divided between the different management practices, with more studies focussed on tillage than any other management practice and incorporation of grazing animals into arable cropping sequences the least studied in the agricultural management categories (Figure 1). Figure 1: a summary of datapoints collated according to each agricultural management practice. A review of acceptance study topics showed that in European land management systems, the most studied areas were conservation/organic agriculture, general land management and training/advice/business models/finance (Figure 2). Figure 2: Number of topics region examined by studies in Europe that were reviewed (studies that did not investigate specific soil practices are not included). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 4.1.3 Agricultural Soil Health To ensure clarity of results for soil health variables, management sub-categories were arranged into groups based on the underlying management principles of each practice (Table 4). Table 4: a summary of management themes and their associated subcategories. Management Theme Sub-category Standard Agricultural Practice Inversion Tillage Conventional Tillage Synthetic Fertilizers Diversify crops Woody biomass Arable Biofuel Leys in arable rotations Organic farming Integrate Livestock Livestock in arable rotations FYM Silvopasture Maintain Living Roots Cereal Cover Crop Grass Cover Crop Legume Cover Crop Brassica Cover Crop Other Cover Crop Hedgerows Agroforestry Protect Soil Surface Residues Reduced Tillage Zero Tillage Novel Amendments Biochar Other Management groups were used to compare soil health responses with standard agricultural practice (Figure 3). Groups were based on the principals of regenerative agriculture, a movement of farm management that has been highly successful in encouraging the agricultural land managers, the food industry and policy makers to consider how to best to manage agricultural soils to improve soil health or maximise the delivery of ecosystem services (EASAC, 2022; Khangura et al., 2023). We found that the response of key soil health indicators to different management principles was different between the cool temperate and Mediterranean climate zones (Figure 3). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Figure 3: a summary of soil carbon accumulation rate (annual t ha -1) soil organic matter (%), bulk density (g cm3) and pH for each management principal compared with the standard agricultural practice for cool temperate (red line) and Mediterranean (blue line) climate areas. Note that for carbon accumulation, the median accumulation rate for standard agricultural practice in both climate zones is 0.0 (annual t ha -)1. The study found that there were higher carbon accumulation rates in cool temperate climates compared to Mediterranean climates for treatments utilizing novel amendments (e.g., biochar) and other miscellaneous amendments (e.g., sewage sludge, anaerobic digestate) (Figure 3). This trend aligns with the generally higher SOM content observed in cool temperate zones (Figure 4b). Notably, novel amendments were the only management practice exhibiting a clear distinction in carbon accumulation rates between the two climate zones (Figure 4a). Regarding bulk density, the integration of livestock and the year-round presence of living roots in Mediterranean systems resulted in significantly lower values (0.12 and 0.1 g cm³ reduction, respectively) compared to control treatments (Figure 4c). In contrast, cool temperate zones displayed the lowest bulk densities in soils This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 treated with novel amendments and in arable land integrated with livestock. Interestingly, practices aimed at surface protection, such as reduced tillage intensity compared to standard agricultural practices, did not lead to lower bulk densities in either climate zone (Figure 4c). The study identified higher soil pH levels in Mediterranean climates compared to cool temperate zones, likely due to the acidifying effect of higher rainfall in the latter (Keresztesi et al., 2019) (Figure 4d). Interestingly, Mediterranean plots implementing diversified cropping systems and livestock integration exhibited lower pH compared to standard farming practices in the same region. Conversely, no significant influence of management practices on soil pH was observed in cool temperate zones. This could be attributed to two potential factors. Firstly, soil pH in these zones might already be closer to the optimal range for plant growth. Secondly, factors like parent material, rainfall patterns, fertilizer use, and lime application (Müller et al., 2022) likely exert a stronger influence on soil pH than management activities not directly related to fertilizer or lime amendments. 4.1.2 Agricultural Soil Carbon The study employed SOC (soil organic carbon) accumulation rates as a key indicator of soil health. In instances where the studies themselves did not report these rates, calculations were made using data on SOC content, bulk density, and sampling depths. Notably, the analysis revealed a trend of higher soil carbon accumulation rates when multiple land management practices were implemented concurrently, as compared to single practices (Table 4). However, the limited number of studies investigating the combined effect of four practices (only two studies within the database) highlights the need for further research in this area. This additional research would be crucial to definitively establish the significance of combining multiple practices for enhanced soil health and SOC accumulation. Table 5: descriptive statistics of the carbon accumulation rates arranged according to the number of management factors include ed in the studies analysed. Number of Manageme nt practices adopted Mean C accumulati on (annual t ha -1) Median C accumulati on (annual t ha -1) Min C accumulati on (annual t ha -1) Max C accumulati on (annual t ha -1) SE M SD 1 0.17 0.03 - 8.22 7.65 0.0 6 0.9 5 2 0.10 0.11 - 16.00 11.00 0.2 0 2.5 4 3 0.12 0.11 - 8.22 4.56 0.2 0 1.4 5 4 1.38 1.38 0.07 2.69 1.31 1.85 Studies incorporated a range of sampling depths. The most common soil depth was 30 cm. Results showed that median rates across all depths were less than 0.6 annual t ha -1 (Figure 2). The accumulation rates were highly variable between the sampling depths with the highest average rate of 0.63 annual t ha -1 recorded from a 75 cm depth soil profile and the lowest average rate of - 0.19 annual This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 t ha -1 from a 30 cm depth soil profile (Figure 2). This finding highlighted the importance of sampling below the topsoil (typically defined as the top 30 cm of the soil) and furthermore the contribution of the subsoil to soil health and carbon storage in agricultural areas. A consideration is that soil depth varies widely across Europe, with some shallow soils of only ~50cm total depth, compared with others which are much deeper. Figure 4: Agricultural soil carbon accumulation rates according to the sample depth. Results showed a huge variation in accumulation and loss of SOC in both climate zones across the most sampled depth (30 cm). This variability in rates achieved presents significant challenges to land managers hoping to base income streams on soil carbon accumulation. The study identified greater variability in carbon accumulation rates for sites with clay content between 0% and 20% (Figure 3). No clear trend emerged from the data to suggest a direct influence of clay content on annual soil carbon accumulation rates. While past research indicates that high-clay soils generally exhibit greater capacity for retaining soil carbon (Matus, 2021), this study suggests that SOC accumulation rates are not inherently higher in clay-rich soils. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence suggests that relying solely on particle size for clay content classification, without considering chemical composition, may lead to inaccuracies. Consequently, soils categorized as having high clay content may not necessarily possess a consistent ability to retain soil carbon (Tan et al., 2017; Mäkipää et al., 2024). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Figure 5: Carbon accumulation rates plotted according to reported soil clay content (%). Note that only studies which reported clay content are included (n = 1264). The analysis revealed variations in the impact of specific practices on carbon accumulation rates between climate zones. In Mediterranean regions, cover crops demonstrated a greater positive influence on carbon accumulation compared to cool temperate zones (Table 5). Similarly, reductions in tillage intensity, transitioning from inversion to zero tillage, yielded larger increases in carbon accumulation rates within the Mediterranean climate (Table 5). Conversely, studies on biochar amendments reported significantly higher carbon accumulation rates in cool temperate zones compared to their Mediterranean counterparts (Table 5). These findings emphasize the critical role of minimizing soil disturbance and maintaining living ground cover (e.g., through cover crops) in preventing soil degradation within Mediterranean climates. This is likely due to the increased vulnerability of Mediterranean soils to erosion. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Table 6: Mean annual soil carbon accumulation rates in agricultural land use according to management type and climate zone. Cool temperate Mediterranean Subcategory Mean Annual C accumulation (t ha -1) Subcategory Mean Annual C accumulation (t ha -1) Agroforestry -0.05 [-0.15, 0.14] Agroforestry 0.32 [0.13, 0.35] Silvo-pasture -0.18 [-0.55, 0.39] Silvo-pasture -0.29 [-0.49, -0.09] Hedgerows 0.23 [0.00, 0.27] Hedgerows 0.21 [-0.29, 0.58] Woody biomass 0.36 [0.00, 1.40] Woody biomass 0.43 [0.00, 0.31] Arable Biofuel 0.00 [-0.44, 0.86] Arable Biofuel 0.0 [-0.18, 0.36] Grass Cover Crop -0.01 [0.00, 0.59] Grass Cover Crop 0.29 [0.15, 0.43] Legume Cover Crop 0.01 [-0.12, 0.27] Legume Cover Crop 0.25 [0.05, 0.30] Brassica Cover Crop -0.27 [-0.48, -0.04] Brassica Cover Crop 1.30 [0.85, 1.73] Other Cover Crop 0.29 [-0.02, 0.50] Other Cover Crop - Livestock in arable rotations -0.01 [-0.01, 0.38] Livestock in arable rotations 0.34 [0.14, 0.49] Leys in arable rotations 0.21 [0.03, 0.34] Leys in arable rotations -0.08 [-0.57, 0.87] Organic farming -0.28 [-0.52, 0.03] Organic farming -0.72 [-0.89, -0.11] Synthetic Fertilizers 0.08 [0.00, 0.15] Synthetic Fertilizers 0.02 [-0.04, 0.09] FYM 0.46 [0.16, 0.51] FYM 0.17 [-0.01, 0.29] Residues 0.74 [0.21, 1.09] Residues 0.57 [-0.65, 1.36] Biochar 2.06 [0.99, 3.19] Biochar 0.13 [0.00, 0.17] Other 1.80 [0.71, 2.52] Other - Inversion Tillage -0.78 [-0.45, 0.06] Inversion Tillage -0.18 [-0.62, 0.02] Conventional Tillage -0.25 [0.00, 0.33] Conventional Tillage 0.06 [0.00, 0.10] Reduced Tillage -0.04 [-0.04, 0.82] Reduced Tillage 0.10 [-0.64, 0.17] Zero Tillage 0.03 [-0.12, 0.30] Zero Tillage 0.24 [0.00, 0.58] Results showed that the cultivation of woody biomass in farmland (through agroforestry, woody biomass cultivation and hedgerows) was consistently positive in Mediterranean climate areas (Table 5). 4.1.3 Acceptance of Agricultural Soil Management Practices Barão et al. (2019) studied the adoption rates of sustainable soil management practices in 10 study sites across Europe. They identified crop rotation, manuring This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 and composting and minimum tillage as the most commonly adopted practices in the selected study sites. These practices are supported through both current and historic implementation of agri-environment incentives across Europe (e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy for 2023 – 27, and summarised by European Commission, 2017). In a case study in Western Sicily, 14 soil conservation practices were investigated and distinguished according to whether they were promoted under the Rural Development Program. They found that minimum tillage was the most frequently adopted practice of those not included in the Rural Development Program. Organic manuring covered by the Rural Development Program and was the most frequently adopted practice overall, highlighting the key role played by public agri-environment schemes (Fantappiè et al., 2020). In terms of soil carbon, a survey of 435 Dutch arable farmers by Hijbeek et al. (2018) found 90% of the farmers reported a high intention to increase soil organic carbon content in their fields. This suggests that, in principle, many farmers are willing to adopt practices that promote soil health. On the other hand, the responses received by Hijbeek et al. (2018) also indicate that farmers might perceive soil organic carbon content to be largely beyond their control. Tillage Acceptance Reduced tillage is one of the most widespread soil sustainability practices among farmers. However, there are differences in adoption across farm-type zones and countries. Bijttebier et al. (2018) found adoption rates to vary from 19% to 80% across four European countries. For arable farms, adoption rates ranged from 68-84% in Germany, 41% in Italy, 54% in the Netherlands, and 23% in Belgium. Differences were due to farm type, geophysical conditions, and cultural, political, and socioeconomic conditions. In the Netherlands and Belgium, no-till practices were more commonly implemented by arable farms than dairy farms (54% arable vs. 26% dairy, and 23% vs. 19%, respectively). The main motives for using reduced tillage are reductions in labour and fuel (Blanco-Canqui & Wortmann, 2020; Bijttebier et al., 2018; Bijttebier et al., 2014; Sattler and Nagel, 2010). Compared to conventional tillage, reduced tillage saves time during work peaks. However, farmers may also adopt reduced tillage for soil health improvement when the benefits are clear: through reduced risk of nitrate leaching (Blanco-Canqui & Wortmann, 2020; Sattler and Nagel, 2010), or erosion reduction in areas which are susceptible (Nandan et al., 2019; Bijttebier et al. 2014). In a study of Spanish olive groves with a high erosion risk, 43% of the farmers surveyed used mulch tillage (a combination reduced tillage and chopped pruning residues as mulch) (Calatrava and Franco, 2011). Relevant adoption factors identified were the farmer's experience and the level of local soil degradation, indicating the relevance of local geophysical conditions to farmer adoption of soil health improving technologies and practices. Reduced tillage is seen as risk-associated. Non-adopters believe that reducing tillage harms soil health and reduces yields through compaction, resulting poorer growing conditions for cereals (Bijttebier et al., 2014). Farmers fear that reducing tillage will result in more field weeds (Bijttebier et al., 2018; Bijttebier et al., 2014; Sattler and Nagel, 2010). This can reduce yields, especially on poorly draining soils (Bijttebier et al., 2014). In viticulture, farmers using irrigation were found to be less This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 likely to reduce tillage (Payen et al., 2022). Furthermore, farmers may fear the increased occurrence of fungi, affecting product quality (Bijttebier et al., 2014; Sattler and Nagel, 2010). The limited availability of technology for no-till methods is an adoption barrier (Bijttebier et al., 2014; Mills et al., 2020), thus the costly investments required are another obstacle (Mills et al., 2020). Prager and Posthumus (2010) and Brown et al., (2020) found a positive association between farm size and likelihood of adopting reduced tillage. A possible explanation is that managers of larger farms are more willing to invest in new technologies such as direct seed drills (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). In addition, large farms also have a higher ability to absorb risk (Serebrennikov et al., 2020). Soil Amendment Acceptance An exploratory study in several European countries found that some farmers lack necessary knowledge about the benefits of retaining crop residues; in addition, farmers might lose income if the straw can be profitably sold to, e.g., mushroom producers or livestock farmers for bedding (Mills et al., 2020). Organic fertilisers are widely used in mixed systems, where farmers have supply readily available onsite. Still, several potential obstacles exist to using organic fertilisers to improve soil health. Mills et al. (2020) found organic fertilisers had higher costs for arable farms due to logistical challenges and the labour associated with transportation and application. In some European countries (Italy, Hungary), stringent regulations on transport and application are barriers to wider adoption. Spreading of organic fertilisers can ignite conflicts with residents in populated or touristic areas due to odour nuisance (Mills et al., 2020). Organic Farming Acceptance Organic systems are perceived as environmentally friendly and are generally preferred by the public (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018; Specht et al., 2016). More than 80% of respondents in Italy would buy products from sustainable farming systems, while there is hardly any support for the use of genetically modified organisms (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018). The adoption of organic agriculture was found to be influenced by social norms in a French study of 243 farmers (Mzoughi et al., 2011). Social concerns drove the desire of farmers to demonstrate their environmental commitment to the public, thus adoption of organic farming. Farmers’ moral concerns (the individual’s ethics) also have been found as a significant driver of organic farming adoption (Mzoughi et al., 2011; Xia et al., 2023). However, these social drivers vary between regions. In Ireland, attitudes of the farmer and farming community towards organic farming were found to constrain its adoption (Läpple and Kelley, 2013). Other important individual factors for switching to organic farming have been identified with age and education. In a study on olive cultivation in Greece, Chatzimichael et al. (2014) found non-monotonous relationships between the age and the education of the farm manager with the adoption propensity. While farmers above a certain age no longer consider changing their farm management, young farmers might lack sufficient experience to make the switch. Similarly, the level of education was found to decrease adoption probability beyond a certain threshold. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Besides social and farmer-individual factors, economic considerations have a central role in the organic farming (and indeed all soil health improving) adoption decisions. Mzoughi et al., (2011) found that farmers prioritising economic concerns were less willing to implement organic farming, perceiving of organic farming as both more costly and riskier than conventional farming. In Latvia and Estonia, economic factors such as availability of agri-environmental subsidies was more effective in stimulating organic farming uptake than social factors (Kaufmann et al., 2009; Krajewski et al., 2024). Crop Rotation and Cover Crop Acceptance A sufficiently diverse crop rotation can support diverse micro and macro faunal communities in the soil, making cultivated plants more resilient (Barão et al., 2019). In a study on viticulture, Payen et al. (2022) identified the size of the farm, available resources, and confidence were key factors for the adoption of cover cropping. While available resources and confidence had a positive influence on adoption, farm size had a negative influence on adoption. Barriers to the uptake of cover crops can be economic aspects, like increased costs due to seeds and extra field operations, although these are lower than those for agroforestry adoption (Mills et al., 2020). Other barriers are a lack of awareness of the benefits of cover crops, or time conflicts, cover cropping leads to additional operations. In drier climate zones and those with climatic restrictions, there are also concerns about water competition between cover crops and spring crops or climatic restrictions (Mills et al., 2020). Agroforestry Acceptance Despite their demonstrated environmental benefits, the costliness in implementation of agroforestry paired with poor financial incentives, lack in awareness and education, and insufficient marketing are significant barriers to farmer adoption (Sollen-Norrlin et al., 2020). There are differences in agroforestry system perception between farmers in Mediterranean and cool temperate zones (Graves et al., 2008): while the most relevant factor for Mediterranean farmers was farm profitability, cool temperate farmers were driven to adoption of agroforestry for perceived environmental benefits (Graves et al., 2008). Barriers to adoption were fears of intercrop yield decline and complexity along with necessary mechanization, respectively. The most popular positive effects of agroforestry cited by stakeholders in Europe were benefits for biodiversity, animal health and welfare, as well as landscape aesthetics (García de Jalón et al., 2018). Most important negative aspects were increased labour and management costs, system complexity, and administrative burden. This result was partly confirmed by Tsonkova et al. (2018) in interviews with German farmers; the administrative and legal burdens were named as the most relevant obstacles. Felton et al. (2023) studied farmer acceptance of agroforestry in England and found that farm ownership was positively associated, while profitability and perception by others was negatively associated with adoption. Rois-Díaz et al. (2018) found that many farmers used forms of agroforestry without being aware of the concept. Important adoption factors for both adopters and non-adopters were identified to be the desire to stick to traditional farming systems and a lack of awareness. There is evidence to suggest that agroforestry This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 In Mediterranean areas, the impact of forestry management activities on soil health and pollution are impacted by generally lower SOC levels due to climate conditions and long-term anthropogenic activities in this zone (Delcourt et al., 2023). Applications or fertilizers leading to build-up of unwanted nutrients and contaminants are also of concern in Mediterranean zones (Fuentez et al., 2007). There is a lack of consensus on specific technologies and practices to improve the state of soil pollution in forested Mediterranean systems. This is largely because the issues of soil loss and compaction are of a higher concern to researchers, policymakers and the general public in Mediterranean zones (Cutini et al., 2021, Alvarez et al., 2013). Research in Mediterranean zones has shown that applications of sewage sludges to forestry zones can significantly increase potentially toxic metal concentrations in soils and metal transfer to freshwater and plants (Toribio and Romanya, 2006). Furthermore, the extensive land use history of Mediterranean regions means there are extensive areas of potential contamination with heavy metals, thus a need for forest management to be resilient to soil pollution. Research shows that incorporating a mixture of tree species enhances system resilience at heavy metal polluted sites (Samara et al., 2020). In Mediterranean zones, black pine was found to absorb the highest concentration of iron (Fe), while black poplar had the highest concentrations of zinc (Zn). In general, while both coniferous and broadleaved species had highest concentrations for iron, they differed in terms of their uptake of other trace elements from the soil. For coniferous species the order of concentration was Fe, Zn, manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co). In broadleaved species, the order was Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Ni, Cr (Samara et al., 2020). Cadmium was detected only in black poplar at both sites, indicating its potential suitability for inclusion in forestry stands where soil cadmium contamination was a concern. 4.2.4 Afforestation Acceptance Land manager willingness to participate in afforestation measures is largely guided by economic considerations as opposed to soil health considerations. Converting farmland to forest elicits opportunity costs, and even though income after afforestation may be greater than the income achieved through farmland management, the long-term nature of economic return from tree planting is a barrier preventing afforestation from being an economically attractive option (Brouwer et al., 2015; Ryan and O’Donoghue, 2016). Farmers might refrain from afforestation simply because of the desire to cultivate their farmland (Ryan and O’Donoghue, 2016). The suitability of the underlying soil characteristics for tree planting and the economic subsidies received are important factors influencing economic appeal of afforestation to land managers (Ryan and O’Donoghue, 2016). The conversion of agricultural land with the lowest productivity for afforestation may help farmers increase income of the land (Vidyaratne et al., 2020), however as stated, economic benefits are only achievable in the long term unless supported by agri-environmental schemes. A special characteristic associated with afforestation compared to other soil management practices is the long-term nature of any decision to convert agricultural land to forest (Ryan and O’Donoghue, 2016). In farmland afforestation schemes, the duration the scheme is a decisive factor. Farmers have shown to prefer shorter contracts and highly value the option of converting the land back This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 into agricultural land after the contract ends, however planting and harvesting of trees takes place over decades (Brouwer et al., 2015; Lienhoop and Brouwer, 2015; Ryan and O’Donoghue, 2016; Vidyaratne et al., 2020). Also, farmers prefer to convert only small areas (Lienhoop and Brouwer, 2015). Providing accurate economic advice has been found to increase farmers' willingness to participate in afforestation schemes (Brouwer et al., 2015; Lienhoop and Brouwer, 2015). While farm type does not predict participation in afforestation schemes (Brouwer et al. 2015), farm size is a predictor (Ryan and O’Donoghue 2016). This is because farmers with limited land must farm all of it to ensure economic viability, making them reluctant to afforest (Frawley and Leavy, 2001). Larger farms are more likely have a larger revenue base and greater capacity to absorb short-term opportunity costs in favour of long-term benefits. High off-farm income is positively associated with the willingness to participate in afforestation measures (Ryan and O’Donoghue, 2016; Vidyaratne et al., 2020). Landowners were aware of positive environmental effects of afforestation. German farmers rated forests as important for carbon storage, erosion reduction and clean air/water, all of which have strong links to soil health (Brouwer et al., 2015). However, research conducted in the Netherlands found that farmers placed value only on clean air, and that soil-related ecosystem services to not influence the willingness to participate in an afforestation scheme (Lienhoop and Brouwer, 2015). Besides economic and environmental factors, social norms can determine decision-making (Deuffic et al., 2018). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 4.3. Urban Results The key threats facing urban soils were found to be pollution, compaction and biodiversity loss (Table 2, D1.1 Conceptual Framework). 4.3.1 Management Practices The management practices for urban land were divided into four categories and 11 subcategories (Table 10). Table 10: Summary of categories and definitions in the urban land use type. Category Sub-category Definition Urban forestry Urban forestry Cultivation of trees in an urban environment Green spaces Parkland An area of managed parkland, predominantly mown grass Improved parkland Parkland with multi-species swards, trees, wetland areas etc Road verges Grasses and shrubs along roads Gardens Private gardens with lawns, trees etc Community gardens Public gardens with lawns, trees etc Urban farming Market gardens Small scale, typically high intensity horticultural production for commercial use Allotments Small scale horticultural production for largely personal use Brownfield management Revegetation Cultivation of trees, shrubbery or grass in brownfield site Remediation Practices to either prevent the transportation of pollutants or remove pollutants from the brownfield site (e.g. phytoremediation) Capping Constructing impermeable barrier over the soil surface (e.g. a car park) As with agriculture, research paper numbers were not evenly divided between the different management practices. A recent review found that research into ecosystem services provided by urban soils is a small but growing area, with ~75 papers published from European systems up until 2019 (O’Riordan et al., 2021). It was found that the majority of papers investigating ecosystem services in urban soils focussed on the top 0 – 40 cm (Figure 7). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Figure 8: Summary of sampling depths from papers investigating ecosystem services in urban soils (from O’Riordan et al., 2021). Review articles and meta-analyses were used to identify common themes. 4.3.2 Urban Soil Health Cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) become toxic at large concentrations and are predominant trace element pollutants of urban soil. Pollutants also include arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg). Urban pollutants are largely released as a result of anthropogenic activities including industry, transport, waste, energy and construction (Li et al., 2018). Brownfield management techniques including revegetation, remediation (though organic amendments, phytoremediation or biochar) and surface capping have all been found to reduce concentrations of heavy metals in urban land use areas (Table 11). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Table 11: Summary of management subcategories and their effect on heavy metals in the urban land use type. Category Sub-category Effect on heavy metals in urban areas Reference Urban forestry Urban forestry Reduction Irga et al., 2015 Green spaces Parkland No effect Madrid et al., 2002; Beesley et al., 2020 Improved parkland - - Road verges No effect Piepenschneider et al., 2015 Gardens No effect Bretzel et al., 2018 Community gardens No effect Hiller et al., 2022 Urban farming Market gardens No effect Mok et al., 2014 Allotments No effect Bretzel et al., 2018; Mok et al., 2014 Brownfield management Revegetation Reduction Cundy et al., 2016 Remediation Reduction Obrycki et al., 2017; Cundy et al., 2016 Capping Reduction Obrycki et al., 2017 The study revealed minimal influence from urban green spaces and farming practices on soil heavy metal concentrations compared to the initial soil properties (Table 11). This aligns with the focus of much existing research on urban food production, which primarily investigates the potential for human activities to contaminate edible crops (e.g., Bretzel et al., 2018). The most prominent threat to urban soil health is the sealing of the surface, enacted through construction of roads, buildings and other urban developments. This issue is widespread across Europe, with north-western cool temperate regions of particular concern (Figure 8). In 2012, the European Commission published guidelines to promote the limitation, mitigation and compensation of urban soil sealing, acknowledging the damage such management can cause on the function and ecosystem services provided by soils (European Commission 2012). Management practices proposed included simple limitations on land take and planning permission for urban use at a national level, but without legally binding measures, initiatives are not sufficient (European Commission 2012). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Figure 9: Map of soil sealing prevalence in European countries, derived from Stankovics et al., 2020. The preservation of urban green spaces and planting of diverse species mixtures to include deep rooting structures in parkland and road verges has been suggested to maintain or improve urban soil structure where possible (Segar et al., 2022). Furthermore, the use of organic amendments such as composts or biosolids has been proposed to both remediate anthropogenic contamination and soil compaction (Kumar et al., 2016). Evidence from the literature showed that implementation of green spaces in urban areas (including parkland, improved parkland, road verges and community gardens) provide mediation from urban heat islands (Kirschner et al., 2023) with positive implications for local biodiversity. A global synthesis of research on urban soil biodiversity found that a combination of disturbances and homogenization of urban ecosystems is leading to homogenization of urban microbial biodiversity: thus while diversity of soil microbiota may be high at a given site, differences in community composition between sites may nonetheless be small (Sun et al., 2023). The analysis summarizes specific management practices which can improve urban soil biodiversity (Figure 9). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Figure 10: Summary of biodiversity-improving urban management practices, derived from Sun et al., 2023. Nematodes equally abundant in urban than in non-urban systems, however urban nematode species composition shows dominance of fast-growing bacterivores and herbivorous nematodes, at the expense of larger omnivores (Li et al., 2022). There is a general trend in urban systems of more negative effects on larger organisms also applies to larger-sized soil invertebrate groups (Sun et al., 2023). 4.3.3 Urban Soil Carbon Urban soils are a large terrestrial store of carbon, with a mean SOC stock of 73 t ha -1 and content of 4.3% to a depth of 50 cm (Alloroy et al., 2021). This is variable depending on physical factors including climate and topography, but previous analyses have found limited evidence that stocks in urban land cover vary through the soil profile or with vegetation cover (Alloroy et al., 2021). 4.3.4 Acceptance Studies in Urban Contexts In the European urban context, there is a need for further research into acceptance of management practices other than agriculture; as we have not found evidence for urban agriculture improving the health of urban soils. Future work should consider investigating the social and economic acceptability of the other practices explored, like measures for biodiversity improvement (Figure 10) or to prevent soil sealing. There are studies on urban agriculture from Italy, Spain, Germany, and This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Poland (Camps-Calvet et al., 2016; Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018; Specht et al., 2016; Sroka et al., 2021). In a study on citizens of Berlin done by Specht et al. (2016), 60% of the respondents indicated previous knowledge of urban agriculture. However, a survey of 380 residents of Bologna by Sanyé-Mengual et al., (2018) showed that urban agriculture was relatively unknown. Over half of those surveyed were unfamiliar with the concept and no socio-demographic variables were found to explain prior knowledge of the concept. Urban agriculture is supported in theory by most respondents studied. Over 50% of respondents in Bologna favoured all types of urban agriculture with gardens and peri-urban agriculture even showing approval rates of around 90% (SanyéMengual et al., 2018). A lower level of acceptance was observed in a Polish survey of six cities (Sroka et al., 2021), with more than 70% of the 577 participants accepting urban farming. No socio-demographic characteristics could explain the variation in urban farming acceptance in this case. Only the perceived risk and the social distance from agriculture were decisive to some degree (Sroka et al., 2021). More specifically, factors that reduce the acceptance of urban agriculture were found to be risks regarding health and soil-less cultivation methods and clashes with traditional agricultural management (Specht et al., 2016; Sroka et al., 2021). Among urban green space options, public parks and urban gardens were the most popular in Italy and Germany (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018; Specht et al., 2016). In comparison, meadows were the least popular (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018). Residential gardens had a higher acceptance among the population than community or educational gardens (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018). In Bologna, aquaponics and vertical farming were more accepted than rooftop gardens (SanyéMengual et al., 2018). In Germany, these high-tech initiatives were the least popular (Specht et al., 2016). While more than 70% of the respondent favoured urban farming, only 52% approved of public support. Citizens acknowledge ecosystem services generated by urban green spaces and agriculture. Recreation and entertainment, education and training, and "contact with nature and artistic expression were the most valued services in Bologna (Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2018). In several cities, biodiversity and pollination were among the most important services (Camps-Calvet et al., 2016; SanyéMengual et al., 2018; Sroka et al., 2021). Emission reduction, increased water efficiency, and improved organic waste recycling were benefits expected by the German and, partly, the Polish respondents (Specht et al., 2016; Sroka et al., 2021). Recognized economic benefits included food security and local production. Important social benefits were education, contact with nature, and visual aspects (Camps-Calvet et al., 2016; Sroka et al., 2021). Ecosystem services with the lowest valuations were the reduction of effects of extreme events, contributions to political realisation and prevention of soil erosion and maintenance of soil fertility (SanyéMengual et al., 2018). This differs, for example, from the study done by Camps-Calvet et al. (2016) in Barcelona, where soil erosion was one of the most important ecosystem services. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 5. Integrating Soil Health Findings and Acceptance of Soil Health Improving Practices in Europe Identifying any gaps between the best strategies identified to improve soil health and their acceptance amongst land managers is key to ensuring the future sustainability of land management strategies in Europe. This section of the report highlights a few general adoption factors for sustainability factors. We bring together both strands of the work conducted: the evidence base for soil health improvements of each management practice, and the corresponding acceptance rate. Table 12: Summary of the evidence for soil health benefits, likelihood of adoption and economic barriers for selected management practices Cool temperate climate zones Management Soil health benefit Likelihood of adoption Economic barrier Agroforestry High Low High Cover Crops Medium High Medium Crop Rotations High High Medium Organic Farming Low Low Medium Organic Amendments livestock/mixed farms High High Low Organic Amendments arable farms High Medium High Reduced Tillage Medium High Medium Afforestation Medium Medium High Urban forestry High Medium Low Green spaces High High Medium Urban farming Low Medium High Mediterranean climate zones Agroforestry High Medium High Cover Crops Medium High Medium Crop Rotations Medium High Medium Organic Farming Low Low Medium Organic Amendments livestock/mixed farms Medium High Medium Organic Amendments arable farms Medium Medium High Reduced Tillage High High Medium Afforestation Medium Medium High Urban forestry Medium Medium Low Green spaces Medium High Medium Urban farming Low Medium High A core aspect for acceptance of sustainable practices, like erosion control measures, is the knowledge of potential threats (Bielders et al., 2003; Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). Knowledge can be generated through agricultural training and advice (Schaub et al., 2023) or experience with practices (Bartkowski and Bartke, 2018). Higher levels of education have been found to increase the number of sustainable This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 practices implemented on farm (Fantappiè et al., 2020; Erwin Wauters et al., 2010) as well as the acceptance rate of agri-environmental policies (Vanslembrouck et al., 2002). Based on the summary of soil health, acceptance rates and barriers (Table 12), results allow us to make recommendations for how best to improve uptake of the most promising management practices. For agroforestry, both financial incentives and improved education for farmers about the environmental improvements from adopting the practice are necessary to improve awareness and uptake. At present, converting to agroforestry is very time-consuming, thus there is a need for innovation in the field. Diversifying crop rotation may cause high opportunity costs (e.g. crops with high contribution margins such as root crops are no longer available). In Germany, there are already agri-environmental measures that make compensation payments for more diverse crop rotations. This could be one way of strengthening crop rotation diversification acceptance. However, it is possible that climate change and growing ecosystem instability will lead to a shift towards a more diverse crop rotation anyway. Organic amendment uptake findings are split between mixed/livestock farms and arable crop farms. Since livestock farms produce liquid manure anyway, they also want to spread it. Economic barriers arise here primarily due to political restrictions. For example, when spreading close to the ground is introduced and farmers need new technology for this. The economic barrier is significantly greater for cash crop farms. Products must be transported there from other farms. Transportation is very expensive, especially over long distances. The problem of lowemission application must also be considered here. In the long term, area-based animal husbandry is a way of ensuring the application of organic nutrients in an optimum quantity ratio. When it comes to the technology required for lowemission spreading, practicable solutions must be found for existing farms. This includes long-term planning security, support for the purchase of new technology or for joining together to form application communities. Reducing tillage was found to effectively improve soil health in Mediterranean zones, and the review of farmer adoption found that the practice is already widespread. On farms that still work with ploughs, it can be assumed the high level of acceptance and new machines will lead to a switch to conservation seeding methods. The biggest barrier to reduced tillage adoption are not economic, but rather the fear of being confronted with weeds without a plough. Solutions here therefore centre around ensuring that farmers receive adequate training and evidence of success from research stations and living labs to ensure confidence and availability of information and experience. 5.1. Behavioural Factors affecting Likelihood of Adoption Our recommendations draw from the finding that European farmers are more willing to adopt soil conservation practices if they see other farmers doing it (Prager and Posthumus, 2010). Appreciation by society is an additional factor influencing adoption (Hannus and Sauer, 2021). Regarding the farmer’s personal opinions, a pro-environmental attitude increases their willingness to implement soil conservation practices (Bartkowski and Bartke, 2018; Sattler and Nagel, 2010; Schaub et al., 2023). Farmers with a higher lifestyle and social motivation rate opportunity costs for conservation practices lower than farmers with higher This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 9. References Achat, D., Fortin, M., Landmann, G. et al. Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Sci Rep 5, 15991 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15991 Alakukku L., Weisskopf P., Chamen W.C.T., Tijink F.G.J., Van Der Linden J.P., Pires S., Sommer C., Spoor G. “Prevention strategies for field traffic-induced subsoil compaction: A review Part 1. Machine/soil interactions” Soil and Tillage Research, 73(1-2), pp. 145 – 160 (2003). DOI: 10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00107-7 Allory, V., Séré, G., & Ouvrard, S. “A meta-analysis of carbon content and stocks in Technosols and identification of the main governing factors”. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(1), e13141 (2022). DOI: 10.1111/ejss.13141. Augusto, L., Bonnaud, P., Ranger, J. Impact of tree species on forest soil acidification, Forest Ecology and Management, 105: 1–3. Pages 67-78, ISSN 03781127, (1998). DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00270-3. Autret, B. et al. “Alternative arable cropping systems: A key to increase soil organic carbon storage? Results from a 16 year field experiment.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 232, 150–164 (2016). Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., López-Felices, B. & del Moral-Torres, F. 2020. "Barriers and Facilitators for Adopting Sustainable Soil Management Practices in Mediterranean Olive Groves." Agronomy 10(4):506. DOI:10.3390/agronomy10040506. Barão, L., Alaoui, A., Ferreira, C., Basch, G., Schwilch, G., Geissen, V., Sukkel, W. et al. 2019. "Assessment of Promising Agricultural Management Practices." The Science of the total environment 649:610–619. Bartkowski, B. & Bartke, S. 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making." Sustainability 10(9):3179. DOI:10.3390/su10093179. Beckert, M. R., Smith, P., Lilly, A. & Chapman, S. J. Soil and tree biomass carbon sequestration potential of silvopastoral and woodland-pasture systems in North East Scotland. Agroforest Syst 90, 371–383 (2016). Beesley, L.; Moreno-Jiménez, E.; Jenn, P.; Lepp, N.W. Carbon and Metal(loid)s in Parkland and Road Verge Surface Soils in the City of Liverpool, UK. Agronomy 2020, 10, 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030335 Bielders, C. L., Ramelot, C. & Persoons, E. 2003. "Farmer perception of runoff and erosion and extent of flooding in the silt-loam belt of the Belgian Walloon Region." Environmental Science & Policy 6(1):85–93. DOI:10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00117-X. Bijttebier, J., Ruysschaert, G., Hijbeek, R., Werner, M., Pronk, A. A., Zavattaro, L., Bechini, L. et al. 2018. "Adoption of non-inversion tillage across Europe: Use of a behavioural approach in understanding decision making of farmers." Land Use Policy 78:460–471. This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Bijttebier, J., Ruysschaert, G., Marchand, F., Hijbeek, R., Pronk, A., Schlatter, N., Guzman, G. et al. 2014. "Assessing farmers’ intention to adopt soil conservation practices across Europe." 11th European IFSA Symposium. Blanco-Canqui, H. & Wortmann, C.S. Does occasional tillage undo the ecosystem services gained with no-till? A review. Soil and Tillage Research. Volume 198, April 2020, 104534 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104534 Boardman, J., Poesen, J. & Evans, R. 2003. "Socio-economic factors in soil erosion and conservation." Environmental Science & Policy 6(1):1–6. DOI:10.1016/S14629011(02)00120-X. Bretzel F., Caudai C., Tassi E., Rosellini I., Scatena M., Pini R. “Culture and horticulture: Protecting soil quality in urban gardening” Science of the Total Environment, 644, 45 – 51 (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.289 Breil, N.L., Lamaze, T., Bustillo, V., Marcato-Romain, C.E., Coudert, B., Queguiner, S., Jarosz-Pellé, N. Combined impact of no-tillage and cover crops on soil carbon stocks and fluxes in maize crops, Soil and Tillage Research, 233, 105782, (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2023.105782. Brouwer, R., Lienhoop, N. & Oosterhuis, F. 2015. "Incentivizing afforestation agreements: Institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers." Journal of Forest Economics 21(4):205–222. DOI:10.1016/j.jfe.2015.09.003. Brown, W.M., Ferguson, S.M., Viju-Miljusevic, C. Farm size, Technology Adoption and Agricultural Trade Reform: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Agricultural Economics. (2020). doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12372 Bünemann, E.K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R.E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T.W., Mäder, P., Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., van Groenigen, J.W., Brussaard, L., Soil quality – A critical review, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 120, 105 – 125 (2018). ISSN 0038-0717, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030. Calatrava, J. & Franco, J. A. 2011. "Using Pruning Residues as Mulch: Analysis of Its Adoption and Process of Diffusion in Southern Spain Olive Orchards." Journal of environmental management 92(3):620–629. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.023. Cambi M., Certini G., Neri F., Marchi E., “The impact of heavy traffic on forest soils: A review”, Forest Ecology and Management, 338, p.p.124-138 (2015). DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.022. Camponi, L., Cardelli, V., Cocco, S., Serrani, D., Salvucci, A., Cutini, A., Agnelli, A., Fabbio, G., Bertini, G., Roggero, P.P., Corti, G. Effect of coppice conversion into high forest on soil organic C and nutrients stock in a Turkey oak (Quercus cerris L.) forest in Italy, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 132, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114935 This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. 2016. "Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning." Environmental Science & Policy 62:14–23. Cárceles Rodríguez, B.; Durán-Zuazo, V.H.; Soriano Rodríguez, M.; García-Tejero, I.F.; Gálvez Ruiz, B.; Cuadros Tavira, S. Conservation Agriculture as a Sustainable System for Soil Health: A Review. Soil Syst. 2022, 6, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6040087 Cenini, V. L. et al. Chronic nitrogen fertilization and carbon sequestration in grassland soils: evidence of a microbial enzyme link. Biogeochemistry 126, 301–313 (2015). Chatzimichael, K., Genius, M. & Tzouvelekas, V. 2014. "Informational cascades and technology adoption: Evidence from Greek and German organic growers." Food Policy 49:186–195. Christensen, B. T., Petersen, J. & Schacht, M. Long-term field experiments--a unique research platform: proceedings of NJF Seminar 407, Askov Experimental Station and Sandbjerg Estate, 16-18 June 2008, Denmark. (Aarhus Universitet, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, 2008). Clifton-Brown, J. C., Breuer, J. & Jones, M. B. Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Global Change Biol 13, 2296–2307 (2007). Constantin, J. et al. Effects of catch crops, no till and reduced nitrogen fertilization on nitrogen leaching and balance in three long-term experiments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 135, 268–278 (2010). Cooper, H. V., Sjögersten, S., Lark, R. M. & Mooney, S. J. To till or not to till in a temperate ecosystem? Implications for climate change mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 054022 (2021). Cundy, A.B., Bardos, R.P., Puschenreiter, M., Mench, M., Bert, V., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I., Li, X.N., Weyens, N., Witters, N., Vangronsveld, J. “Brownfields to green fields: Realising wider benefits from practical contaminant phytomanagement strategies”, Journal of Environmental Management, 184(1), 67-77 (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.028. Dahlgren, R.A., Driscoll, C.T. The effects of whole-tree clear-cutting on soil processes at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. Plant Soil 158, 239e262. (1994). De Clercq, T., Merckx, R., Elsen, A. & Vandendriessche, H. Impact of long-term compost amendments on soil fertility, soil organic matter fractions and nitrogen mineralization. Acta Hortic. 79–86 (2016) doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1146.10. Derrien, D., Barré, P., Basile-Doelsch, I. et al. Current controversies on mechanisms controlling soil carbon storage: implications for interactions with practitioners and policy-makers. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 21 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00876-x This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J. & van Bavel, R. 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review." European Review of Agricultural Economics 46(3):417–471. DOI:10.1093/erae/jbz019. Deuffic, P., Sotirov, M. & Arts, B. 2018. "“Your policy, my rationale”. How individual and structural drivers influence European forest owners’ decisions." Land Use Policy 79:1024–1038. Dimassi, B. et al. Long-term effect of contrasted tillage and crop management on soil carbon dynamics during 41 years. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 188, 134–146 (2014). Doran, J. W. Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88(2), 119-127, ISSN 0167-8809, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00246-8. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment, Agri-environment schemes – Impacts on the agricultural environment, Publications Office, (2017). https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/633983 European Commission. “Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing” Brussels, 15.5.2012 SWD101 final/2 (2012). Faber, J.H., Creamer, R.E., Mulder, C., Römbke, J., Rutgers, M., Sousa, J.P., Stone, D. and Griffiths, B.S. The practicalities and pitfalls of establishing a policy-relevant and cost-effective soil biological monitoring scheme. Integr Environ Assess Manag, 9:276-284, (2013). DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1398 Fahad, S.; Chavan, S.B.; Chichaghare, A.R.; Uthappa, A.R.; Kumar, M.; Kakade, V.; Pradhan, A.; Jinger, D.; Rawale, G.; Yadav, D.K.; et al. Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214877 Fantappiè, M., Lorenzetti, R., Meo, I. de & Costantini, E. A. 2020. "How to improve the adoption of soil conservation practices? Suggestions from farmers' perception in western Sicily." Journal of Rural Studies 73:186–202. Felten, D. & Emmerling, C. Accumulation of Miscanthus ‐derived carbon in soils in relation to soil depth and duration of land use under commercial farming conditions. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 175, 661–670 (2012). Fornara, D. A. et al. Increases in soil organic carbon sequestration can reduce the global warming potential of long-term liming to permanent grassland: LIMING EFFECTS ON SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION. Global Change Biology 17, 1925–1934 (2011). Fornara, D. A. et al. Land use change and soil carbon pools: evidence from a longterm silvopastoral experiment. Agroforest Syst 92, 1035–1046 (2018). Fornara, D. A., Wasson, E.-A., Christie, P. & Watson, C. J. Long-term nutrient fertilization and the carbon balance of permanent grassland: any evidence for sustainable intensification? Biogeosciences 13, 4975–4984 (2016). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Frawley, J. P. & Leavy, A. 2001. Farm Forestry: Land Availability, Take-up Rates and Economics. Teagasc. http://t-stor.teagasc.ie/handle/11019/1259. Gauder, M. et al. Soil carbon stocks in different bioenergy cropping systems including subsoil. Soil and Tillage Research 155, 308–317 (2016). Gebrezgabher, S. A., Meuwissen, M. P. M., Kruseman, G., Lakner, D. & Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. 2015. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Manure Separation Technology in the Netherlands." Journal of environmental management 150:1–8. Glisczynski, F. V., Pude, R., Amelung, W. & Sandhage‐Hofmann, A. Biochar‐compost substrates in short‐rotation coppice: Effects on soil and trees in a three‐year field experiment. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 179, 574–583 (2016). Hansen, E. M., Christensen, B. T., Jensen, L. S. & Kristensen, K. Carbon sequestration in soil beneath long-term Miscanthus plantations as determined by 13C abundance. Biomass and Bioenergy 26, 97–105 (2004). Gomes, A. & Reidsma, P. 2021. "Time to Transition: Barriers and Opportunities to Farmer Adoption of Soil GHG Mitigation Practices in Dutch Agriculture." Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5. Gómez-Muñoz B., Valero-Valenzuela,J.D, Hinojosa, M.B., García-Ruiz R. “Management of tree pruning residues to improve soil organic carbon in olive groves”, European Journal of Soil Biology, 74 ,p.p. 104-113, (2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.03.010. Gregory, A.S., Dungait, J.A., Watts, C.W., Bol, R., Dixon, E.R., White, R.P., Whitmore, A.P. Long-term management changes topsoil and subsoil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a temperate agricultural system. Eur J Soil Sci. 67(4):421-430. (2016). DOI: 10.1111/ejss.12359. Greiner, R. & Gregg, D. 2011. "Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia." Land Use Policy 28(1):257–265. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006. Haddaway, N.R., Hedlund, K., Jackson, L.E. et al. Which agricultural management interventions are most influential on soil organic carbon (using time series data)?. Environ Evid 5, 2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0053-z Hannus, V. & Sauer, J. 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: the Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use." Sustainability 13(19):10788. DOI:10.3390/su131910788. Hannus, V., Venus, T. J. & Sauer, J. 2020. "Acceptance of Sustainability Standards by Farmers - Empirical Evidence from Germany." Journal of environmental management 267:110617. Hermle, S., Anken, T., Leifeld, J. & Weisskopf, P. The effect of the tillage system on soil organic carbon content under moist, cold-temperate conditions. (2008). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Heyburn, J., McKenzie, P., Crawley, M. J. & Fornara, D. A. Effects of grassland management on plant C:N:P stoichiometry: implications for soil element cycling and storage. Ecosphere 8, e01963 (2017). Hijbeek, R., Pronk, A. A., van Ittersum, M. K., Berge, H. ten, Bijttebier, J. & Verhagen, A. 2018. "What drives farmers to increase soil organic matter? Insights from the Netherlands." Soil Use and Management 34(1):85–100. DOI:10.1111/sum.12401. Hiller E., Pilková Z., Filová L., Mihaljevič M., Špirová V., Jurkovic L. “Metal(loid) concentrations, bioaccessibility and stable lead isotopes in soils and vegetables from urban community gardens” Chemosphere, 305, (2022). DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135499 Holeplass, H., Singh, B. R. & Lal, R. Carbon sequestration in soil aggregates under different crop rotations and nitrogen fertilization in an inceptisol in southeastern Norway. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 70, 167–177 (2004). Hu, T., Sørensen, P. & Olesen, J. E. Soil carbon varies between different organic and conventional management schemes in arable agriculture. European Journal of Agronomy 94, 79–88 (2018). Irga, P.J., Burchett, M.D., Torpy, F.R. “Does urban forestry have a quantitative effect on ambient air quality in an urban environment?” Atmospheric Environment, 120, 173-181, (2015). DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.050. Jandl R., Lindner M., Vesterdal L., Bauwens B., Baritz R., Hagedorn F., Johnson D.W., Minkkinen K., Byrne K.A., “How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration?”, Geoderma, 137(3–4), p.p. 253-268 (2007) DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.09.003. Jaworski, C. C., Krzywoszynska, A., Leake, J. R. & Dicks, L. V. 2023. "Sustainable soil management in the United Kingdom : A survey of current practices and how they relate to the principles of regenerative agriculture." Soil Use and Management. Johnston, A. E. et al. Effects of one to six year old ryegrass-clover leys on soil nitrogen and on the subsequent yields and fertilizer nitrogen requirements of the arable sequence winter wheat, potatoes, winter wheat, winter beans (Vicia faba ) grown on a sandy loam soil. J. Agric. Sci. 122, 73–89 (1994). Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., Coleman, K., Macdonald, A. J. & White, R. P. Changes in soil organic matter over 70 years in continuous arable and ley-arable rotations on a sandy loam soil in England: Carbon sequestration and losses over 70 years. Eur J Soil Sci 68, 305–316 (2017). Kahle, P., Beuch, S., Boelcke, B., Leinweber, P. & Schulten, H.-R. Cropping of Miscanthus in Central Europe: biomass production and influence on nutrients and soil organic matter. European Journal of Agronomy 15, 171–184 (2001). Kahle, P., Möller, J., Baum, C. & Gurgel, A. Tillage-induced changes in the distribution of soil organic matter and the soil aggregate stability under a former short rotation coppice. Soil and Tillage Research 133, 49–53 (2013). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A. & Rounsevell, M. 2014. "Identifying the Factors That Influence Farmer Participation in Environmental Management Practices in Switzerland." Human Ecology 42(6):951–963. DOI:10.1007/s10745-0149701-5. Kätterer, T., Bolinder, M. A., Andrén, O., Kirchmann, H. & Menichetti, L. Roots contribute more to refractory soil organic matter than above-ground crop residues, as revealed by a long-term field experiment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 141, 184–192 (2011). Kaufmann, P., Stagl, S. & Franks, D. W. 2009. "Simulating the diffusion of organic farming practices in two New EU Member States." Ecological Economics 68(10):2580–2593. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.001. Keller, T. & Or, D. Farm vehicles approaching weights of sauropods exceed safe mechanical limits for soil functioning. PNAS 119(21) e2117699119 (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2117699119 Keresztesi, Á., Birsan, MV., Nita, IA. et al. Assessing the neutralisation, wet deposition and source contributions of the precipitation chemistry over Europe during 2000– 2017. Environ Sci Eur 31, 50 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-019-0234-9 Khangura, R.; Ferris, D.; Wagg, C.; Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032338 Kirschner, V., Macků, K., Moravec, D. et al. Measuring the relationships between various urban green spaces and local climate zones. Sci Rep 13, 9799 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36850-6. Kirchmann, H., Haberhauer, G., Kandeler, E., Sessitsch, A. & Gerzabek, M. H. Effects of level and quality of organic matter input on carbon storage and biological activity in soil: Synthesis of a long-term experiment: ORGANIC MATTER DECOMPOSITION IN SOIL. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 18 (2004). Knowler, D. & Bradshaw, B. 2007. "Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research." Food Policy 32(1):25–48. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003. Körschens, M. et al. Effect of mineral and organic fertilization on crop yield, nitrogen uptake, carbon and nitrogen balances, as well as soil organic carbon content and dynamics: results from 20 European long-term field experiments of the twentyfirst century. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 59, 1017–1040 (2013). Krajewski, S.; Žukovskis, J.; Gozdowski, D.; Cieśliński, M.; Wójcik-Gront, E. Evaluating the Path to the European Commission’s Organic Agriculture Goal: A Multivariate Analysis of Changes in EU Countries (2004–2021) and Socio-Economic Relationships. Agriculture 2024, 14, 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture1403047 Landschoot, S. et al. Does shifting from conventional to zero tillage in combination with a cover crop offers opportunities for silage maize cultivation in Flanders? J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 182, 980–989 (2019). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Läpple, D. & Kelley, H. 2015. "Spatial Dependence in the Adoption of Organic Drystock Farming in Ireland." European Review of Agricultural Economics 42(2):315–337. DOI:10.1093/erae/jbu024. Läpple, D. & Kelley, H. 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers." Ecological Economics 88:11– 19. Li, G., Sun, G.-.-X., Ren, Y., Luo, X.-.-S. and Zhu, Y.-.-G. “Urban soil and human health: a review”. Eur J Soil Sci, 69: 196-215. (2018) DOI: 10.1111/ejss.12518 Li, X. et al. Management effects on soil nematode abundance differ among functional groups and land-use types at a global scale. J. Anim. Ecol. 91, 1770–1780 (2022). Lienhoop, N. & Brouwer, R. 2015. "Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes." Land Use Policy 42:568–577. López-Vicente, M., Gómez, J.A., Guzmán, G., Calero, J., García-Ruiz, R. The role of cover crops in the loss of protected and non-protected soil organic carbon fractions due to water erosion in a Mediterranean olive grove, Soil and Tillage Research, 213, 105119, (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105119. Madrid, L., Dıaz-Barrientos, E., Madrid, F. “Distribution of heavy metal contents of urban soils in parks of Seville”, Chemosphere, 49 10, 1301-1308 (2002). DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00530-1. Mäkipää, R., Menichetti, L., Martínez-García, E., Törmänen, T., Lehtonen. A. Is the organic carbon-to-clay ratio a reliable indicator for soil health? Geoderma, Vol 144, 116862 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.116862 Mangalassery, S. et al. To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Sci Rep 4, 4586 (2014). Matos, E. S., Freese, D., Böhm, C., Quinkenstein, A. & Hüttl, R. F. Organic Matter Dynamics in Reclaimed Lignite Mine Soils under Robinia pseudoacacia L. Plantations of Different Ages in Germany. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 43, 745–755 (2012). Mayer, M., Prescott, C.E., Abaker, E.A.W., Augusto, L., Cécillon, L., Ferreira, G.W.D., James, J., Jandl, R., Katzensteiner, K., Laclau, J., Laganière, J., Nouvellon, J., Paré, D., Stanturf, J.A., Vanguelova, E.I., Vesterdal, L. “Tamm Review: Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis”, Forest Ecology and Management, 466, (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118127. Matus, F.J. Fine silt and clay content is the main factor defining maximal C and N accumulations in soils: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 11, 6438 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84821-6 Medina-Roldán, E., Paz-Ferreiro, J. & Bardgett, R. D. Grazing exclusion affects soil and plant communities, but has no impact on soil carbon storage in an upland grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 149, 118–123 (2012). This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 Medinski, T. V., Freese, D., Böhm, C. & Slazak, A. Soil carbon fractions in short rotation poplar and black locust coppices, Germany. Agroforest Syst 88, 505–515 (2014). Mills, J., Ingram, J., Dibari, C., Merante, P., Karaczun, Z., Molnar, A., Sánchez, B., Iglesias, A. & Ghaley, B. B. 2020. "Barriers to and opportunities for the uptake of soil carbon management practices in European sustainable agricultural production." Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44(9):1185–1211. DOI:10.1080/21683565.2019.1680476. Minasny, B., Malone, B.P., McBratney, A.B., Angers, D.A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., Chaplot, V., Chen, Z., Cheng, K., Das, B.S., et al. Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292 59-86 (2017). ISSN 0016-7061, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002. Mok, HF., Williamson, V.G., Grove, J.R. et al. Strawberry fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed countries: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 21–43 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0156-7 Müller, T. S., Dechow, R., & Flessa, H. (2022). Inventory and assessment of pH in cropland and grassland soils in Germany. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 185, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202100063 Mzoughi, N. 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?" Ecological Economics 70(8):1536– 1545. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.016. Nandan, R., Singh, V., Singh, S.S., Kumar, V., Hazra, K.K., Nath, C.P., Poonia, S., Malik, R.K., Bhattacharyya, R., McDonald, A. Impact of conservation tillage in rice–based cropping systems on soil aggregation, carbon pools and nutrients. Geoderma, Vol 340, 104-111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.001 Nave, L.E., Vance, E.D., Swanston, C.W., Curtis, P.S., “Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests”, Forest Ecology and Management, 259(5), p.p. 857866 (2010). DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.009. Nave, L.E., DeLyser, K., Domke, G.M. et al. Land use change and forest management effects on soil carbon stocks in the Northeast U.S.. Carbon Balance Manage 19, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00251-7 Neal, C., Reynolds, B., Norris, D., Kirchner, J.W., Neal, M., Rowland, P., Wickham, H., Harman, S., Armstrong, L., Sleep, D., Lawlor, A., Woods, C., Williams, B., Fry, M., Newton, G. and Wright, D. Three decades of water quality measurements from the Upper Severn experimental catchments at Plynlimon, Wales: an openly accessible data resource for research, modelling, environmental management and education. Hydrol. Process., 25:3818-3830. (2011) https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8191 Nunes, I., Jacquiod, S., Brejnrod, A., Holm, P.E., Johansen, A., Brandt, K.K., Priemé, A., Sørensen, S.J. Coping with copper: legacy effect of copper on potential activity of soil bacteria following a century of exposure, FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 92(11). (2016) https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiw175 Nunes, M.R., Kristen, SV., Parker, P.A., Holan, S.H., Karlen, D.L., Amsili, J.P., van Es, H.M., Wills, S.A., Seybold, C.A., Moorman, T.B. The soil health assessment protocol and This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-AG - HORIZON Action Grant Budget-Based research and innovation programme under grant agreement GA 101091268 evaluation applied to soil organic carbon. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2021;85:1196–1213. DOI: 10.1002/saj2.20244 Nyéki, A., Milics, G., Kovács, A.J. et al. Effects of Soil Compaction on Cereal Yield. CEREAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS 45, 1–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1556/0806.44.2016.056 Obrycki, J.F., Basta, N.T. & Culman, S.W. “Management options for contaminated urban soils to reduce public exposure and maintain soil health”. Journal of Environmental Quality, 46, 420–430. (2017). O'Riordan, R.; Davies, J.; Stevens, C.; Quinton, J.N.; Boyko, C. “The ecosystem services of urban soils: A review”, Geoderma, Volume 395 (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115076. Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Borrelli, P., Köninger, J., Ballabio, C., Orgiazzi, A., Lugato, E., Liakos, L., Hervas, J., Jones, A., & Montanarella, L. (European Soil Data Centre 2.0: Soil data and knowledge in support of the EU policies. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(6), e13315, (2022). DOI: 10.1111/ejss.13315 Paul K.I., Polglase P.J., Nyakuengama J.G., Khanna P.K. “Change in soil carbon following afforestation”, Forest Ecology and Management, 168(1–3) p.p. 241-257, (2002). DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00740-X. Payen, F. T., Moran, D., Cahurel, J.-Y., Aitkenhead, M., Alexander, P. & MacLeod, M. 2022. "Factors influencing winegrowers’ adoption of soil organic carbon sequestration practices in France." Environmental Science & Policy 128:45–55. Picchio, R., Mederski, P.S. & Tavankar, F. How and How Much, Do Harvesting Activities Affect Forest Soil, Regeneration and Stands?. Curr Forestry Rep 6, 115–128 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00113-8 Piepenschneider, M., De Moor, S., Hensgen, F. et al. “Element concentrations in urban grass cuttings from roadside verges in the face of energy recovery”. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 7808–7820 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3881-9 Plaza-Bonilla, D., Nolot, J.-M., Passot, S., Raffaillac, D. & Justes, E. Grain legumebased rotations managed under conventional tillage need cover crops to mitigate soil organic matter losses. Soil and Tillage Research 156, 33–43 (2016). Poeplau, C., Aronsson, H., Myrbeck, Å. & Kätterer, T. Effect of perennial ryegrass cover crop on soil organic carbon stocks in southern Sweden. Geoderma Regional 4, 126– 133 (2015). Poulton, P., Johnston, J., Macdonald, A., White, R. & Powlson, D. Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom. Glob Change Biol 24, 2563–2584 (2018). Powlson, D. S. & Jenkinson, D. S. A comparison of the organic matter, biomass, adenosine triphosphate and mineralizable nitrogen contents of ploughed and direct-drilled soils. J. Agric. Sci. 97, 713–721 (1981).