اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات282
تعداد نشریات سازمان80
تعداد شماره‌ها3,196
تعداد مقالات35,422
تعداد مشاهده مقاله52,238,072
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله91,772,373
سعادت, سعید, اسماعیل نژاد, لیلا, رضایی, حامد, مدنیان, ملیحه. (1404). پایش کیفیت خاک‌، ضرورتی انکارناپذیر. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 39(4), 383-399. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2025.370748.793
سعید سعادت; لیلا اسماعیل نژاد; حامد رضایی; ملیحه مدنیان. "پایش کیفیت خاک‌، ضرورتی انکارناپذیر". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 39, 4, 1404, 383-399. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2025.370748.793
سعادت, سعید, اسماعیل نژاد, لیلا, رضایی, حامد, مدنیان, ملیحه. (1404). 'پایش کیفیت خاک‌، ضرورتی انکارناپذیر', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 39(4), pp. 383-399. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2025.370748.793
سعادت, سعید, اسماعیل نژاد, لیلا, رضایی, حامد, مدنیان, ملیحه. پایش کیفیت خاک‌، ضرورتی انکارناپذیر. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1404; 39(4): 383-399. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2025.370748.793

پایش کیفیت خاک‌، ضرورتی انکارناپذیر

پژوهش های خاک
دوره 39، شماره 4، اسفند 1404، صفحه 383-399    اصل مقاله (1.24 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله مروری
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/ijsr.2025.370748.793
نویسندگان
سعید سعادت* 1؛ لیلا اسماعیل نژاد1؛ حامد رضایی1؛ ملیحه مدنیان2
1مؤسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران.
2بخش تحقیقات خاک و آب، مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و آموزش منابع طبیعی استان اصفهان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، اصفهان، ایران.
چکیده
خاک نقش مهم و تعیین‌کننده‌ای در سلامت و پایداری اکوسیستم‌ها ایفا می‌نماید. آلودگی و تخریب خاک از بزرگترین تهدیدها برای سلامت محیط زیست و انسان در دهه‌های آینده خواهد بود. از این رو، برای تضمین سلامت خاک و نیز برای دستیابی به اهداف توسعه پایدار، نیاز مبرم به پایش ویژگی‌های خاک وجود دارد. پایش خاک می‌تواند ابزاری مناسب برای بررسی توانایی و وضعیت خاک و نیز تغییرات آن با گذشت زمان باشد. افزون بر این، پایش خاک با ارائه نقشه‌ها و آماره‌ها، یکی از بهترین ابزارها برای دانستن تغییرات و محدودیت‌های مربوط به خاک است که می­تواند مبنایی برای تصمیم‌گیری برنامه­ریزان و سیاستمداران باشد و در مورد عواقب و اثرات تخریب­ خاک هشدار دهد. پایش خاک به متولیان خاک و نیز کشاورزان کمک می­کند تا تصمیم‌های بهتری برای انتخاب محصول، کوددهی، آبیاری و مدیریت تولید اتخاذ کنند. در بخش اول این مقاله، با مرور فواید پایش خاک از جمله جلوگیری از تخریب و آلودگی خاک، حفظ کیفیت خاک و دستیابی به اهداف توسعه پایدار، بر لزوم وجود شبکه‌های پایش خاک تأکید شده و در بخش دوم به تشریح تجربه کشورهای مختلف از جمله ایران، اروپا، چین، کانادا، آمریکای لاتین، ژاپن و نیوزیلند در زمینه پایش خاک پرداخته شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
آلودگی خاک؛ تخریب خاک؛ سلامت خاک؛ مدل‌های ارزیابی؛ ویژگی‌های خاک
عنوان مقاله [English]
Soil Quality Monitoring: An Undeniable Necessity
نویسندگان [English]
saeed saadat1؛ leila esmaeelnejad1؛ hamed rezaei1؛ malihe madanian2
1Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.
2Soil and Water Research Department, West Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Background and Objectives: Soil integrity is facing serious challenges worldwide due to multiple pollution sources, including industrial effluents, municipal and domestic waste, agricultural chemicals, and pathogenic organisms. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), roughly one-third of the global soil resource is affected by varying degrees of degradation, with annual economic losses estimated to exceed €50 billion. To safeguard soil functions, continuous and systematic monitoring of soil properties is essential. Despite growing awareness of its importance, a consolidated review of global soil monitoring experiences has been lacking. This study addresses this gap through a structured literature review.
 

 



Methodology: This research used databases such as Science Direct and Scopus. The review is divided into two main sections: the first discusses the advantages and necessity of soil monitoring networks, and the second examines the experiences of several countries, including Europe, China, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Latin America, and Iran.
 
Results: Many countries have established soil monitoring programs; however, considerable differences exist in the approaches used. These include observation density, frequency of sampling, sampling depths, measured parameters, and analytical techniques. Such diversity complicates comparisons across regions and highlights the need for harmonized protocols. In China, the initial nationwide agricultural soil survey in 1958 aimed to evaluate soil fertility and guide crop production using 13 chemical and physical parameters. A subsequent survey in 1979 expanded the analysis to include nutrient status, trace elements, and chemical composition, resulting in detailed provincial soil maps. Presently, China operates 107 national and provincial monitoring sites. Canada launched soil monitoring and the selection of benchmark sites in 1989. Sites were chosen to represent major soil zones or agro-ecological regions, typical physiographic units, and dominant agricultural production systems. Soil parameters were classified based on sensitivity and systematically measured at each site. Japan initiated a nationwide soil identification and performance monitoring program in 1999 across 5,500 sites. In 2008, a national program for monitoring soil carbon content and management practices added approximately 3,500 sites to the network. New Zealand implemented two soil quality monitoring initiatives between 1995 and 2001 to evaluate methodologies and provide data for sustainable land use reporting. Over 500 sites were assessed using seven core indicators encompassing physical, chemical, and biological soil properties. Iran’s soil monitoring program began in 2011 in three phases, covering 18.5 million hectares across 3,278 sites. Sampling depths were 0–30 and 30–60 cm for croplands and 0–30, 30–60, and 60–90 cm for orchards. The second phase focused on approximately 10% of sites as reference locations for detailed biological, chemical, and physical measurements. By 2025, the third phase will cover all provinces and monitoring sites nationwide.

 



Conclusion: Comparative evaluation of national soil monitoring programs demonstrates that, despite their widespread implementation, these initiatives continue to face notable constraints, including technical challenges, incomplete soil datasets, and limited continuity in financial support. Variability in selected indicators and monitoring strategies reflects differences in environmental conditions, land management practices, and institutional capacities among countries. While such heterogeneity is context-dependent, it restricts data interoperability and limits the potential for broader regional and global assessments. The findings emphasize the necessity of developing an integrated and flexible framework that allows for methodological harmonization while accommodating local ecological and managerial conditions. Establishing consistent criteria for indicator selection, sampling design, and analytical procedures would enhance data comparability and strengthen long-term soil assessments. Existing monitoring infrastructures provide a valuable foundation for advancing sustainable land management; however, their effectiveness depends on systematic coordination and long-term commitment. Overall, sustained and well-designed soil monitoring systems are critical for tracking changes in soil condition, supporting adaptive management strategies, and informing policy decisions. Strengthening collaboration among monitoring networks and adopting standardized yet adaptable methodologies can significantly improve the reliability of soil information, thereby contributing to soil conservation efforts, agricultural sustainability, and broader environmental objectives.
 

 
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Soil Pollution, Soil Degradation, Soil Health, Evaluation Models, Soil Properties
مراجع
  1. Arrouays, D., Marchant, B. P., Saby, N. P. A., Meersmans, J., Orton, T. G., Martin, M. P. and Kibblewhite, M. 2012. Generic Issues on Broad-Scale Soil Monitoring Schemes: A Review. Pedosphere, 22(4), pp.456-469. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(12)60031-9
  2. Arrouays, D., Mulder, V. L. and Richer-de-Forges, A. C. 2021. Soil mapping, digital soil mapping and soil monitoring over large areas and the dimensions of soil security – A review. Soil Security, 5(100018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2021.100018
  3. Arrouays, D., Vogel, H., Eckelmann, W., Armstrong-Brown, S., Loveland, P. and Coulter, B. 1998. Soil monitoring networks in Europe 16th World Congress of Soil Science.
  4. Asaadi, M.A. and Najafi Alamdarlo, H. 2023. Estimation of Economic Value of Water and Soil Conservation Function in Northern Central Alborz Protected Area. Journal of Plant Ecosystem Conservation, 11(22), 130-142. http://pec.gonbad.ac.ir/article-1-891-en.html. (In persian)
  5. Bispo, A., Cluzeau, D., Creamer, R., Dombos, M., Graefe, U., Krogh, P. H. and Winding, A. 2009. Indicators for monitoring soil biodiversity. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 5(4), pp.717-719.
  6. Bristol Food Network Website (2022). Save and grow: A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production; https://www.bristolfoodnetwork.org/blog/save-and-grow-apolicymaker%E2%80%99s-guide-to-the-sustainable-intensification-ofsmallholder-crop-production/
  7. Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., De Goede, R. and Moder, P. 2018. Soil quality–A critical review. Soil biology and biochemistry, 120, pp.105-125.
  8. Chen, Y., and Gao, Z. 1989. Development and achievement of soil survey and mapping in China. Soils Fertility, 4, pp.7–12.
  9. Coote, D. R., Dumanski, J. and Ramsey, J. F. 1981. An assessment of the degradation of agricultural lands in Canada. Land Resource Research Institute, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, ON. 86pp. http://hdl.handle.net/10214/15132
  10. Cornforth, I. 1999. Selecting indicators for assessing sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental Management, 56(3), pp.173-179.
  11. Dalkmann, P., Siebe, C., Amelung, W., Schloter, M. and Siemens, J. 2014. Does Long-Term Irrigation with Untreated Wastewater Accelerate the Dissipation of Pharmaceuticals in Soil? Environmental Science & Technology, 48(9), pp.4963-4970. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501180x
  12. De Rosa, D., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Fasiolo, M., Jones, A. and Panagos, P. 2024. Soil organic carbon stocks in European croplands and grasslands: How much have we lost in the past decade? Global Change Biology, 30(1), e16992. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16992
  13. Díaz-Guadarrama, S., Varón-Ramírez, V. M., Lizarazo, I., Guevara, M., Angelini, M., Araujo-Carrillo, G. A., Bolivar, A. 2024. Improving the Latin America and Caribbean Soil Information System (SISLAC) database enhances its usability and scalability. Earth System Science Data, 16(3), pp.1229-1246.
  14. Doran, J. W. and Parkin, T. B. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality [1-21]. Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. SSSA, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 3–21.
  15. Dumitran, C. and Onutu, I. E. C. 2010. Environmental Risk Analysis for Crude Oil Soil Pollution. Journal of Earth & Environment Science, 5, pp.83−92.
  16. EEA report. 2023. Soil monitoring in Europe- Indicators and thresholds for soil health assessments. Available at https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/soil-monitoring-in-europe.
  17. Ernst and Young. 2013. Evaluation of expenditure and jobs for addressing soil contamination in Member States, final report to European Commission Directorate-General for Environment.
  18. Eugenio, N. R., Naidu, R. and Colombo, C. M. 2020. Global approaches to assessing, monitoring, mapping, and remedying soil pollution. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192(9), p.601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08537-2
  19. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. In Thematic Strategy For Soil Protection (COM 2006.231). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities 2006. [Online]. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52006DC0231
  20. European Commission. 2023. “Proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience. 416 (final), Available at https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-directivesoil-monitoring-and-resilience_en.
  21. 2012. LUCAS-a multipurpose land use survey. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/LUCAS_%E2%80%94_a_multi-purposeland_use_survey
  22. Faber, J. H., Creamer, R. E., Mulder, C., Römbke, J., Rutgers, M., Sousa, J. P. and Griffiths, B. 2013. The practicalities and pitfalls of establishing a policy‐relevant and cost‐effective soil biological monitoring scheme. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(2), pp.276-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1398
  23. FAO and ITPS. 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – Main Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5199e.pdf); accessed 26/02/2016.
  24. 2024. Time to address global soil monitoring. ITPS (Intergovernmental Technical Panel On Soils).
  25. FRRCC Report to the Administrator (2015). EPA’s Potential Role in Supporting Soil Health.
  26. Garg, P. K., Garg, R. D., Shukla, G. and Srivastava, H. S. 2020. Digital mapping of soil landscape parameters. Poland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3238-2
  27. GSP and FAO. 2014. Plan of action for pillar four of the global soil partnership. FAO, Rome. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/az921ehttp://www.fao.org/3/az921e); accessed: 25/01/2016.
  28. He, B., Yun, Z., Shi, J. and Jiang, G. 2013. Research progress of heavy metal pollution in China: Sources, analytical methods, status, and toxicity. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(2), pp.134-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-012-5541-0
  29. Hirte, J., Richner, W., Orth, B., Liebisch, F. and Flisch, R. 2021. Yield response to soil test phosphorus in Switzerland: Pedoclimatic drivers of critical concentrations for optimal crop yields using multilevel modelling. Science of the Total Environment, 755, 143453. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143453
  30. Jones, D. L., Cross, P., Withers, P. J. A., DeLuca, T. H., Robinson, D. A., Quilliam, R. S., Haris, L.M., Chadwick, D.R and Edwards-Jones, G. 2013. Review: Nutrient stripping: the global disparity between food security and soil nutrient stocks. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), pp.851-862. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12089
  31. Jones, R. J. A., Houskova, B., Bullock, P. and Montanarella, L. 2005. Soil Resources of Europe second edition. No.9, EUR 20559 EN, (2005), 420pp. Office for Official. Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
  32. Karlen, D. L., and Stott, D. E. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil quality. In Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. SSSA Special Publication Number 35. SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. (Vol. 35). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub35.c4
  33. Keesstra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A. and Fresco, L. O. 2016. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil, 2(2), pp.111-128. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016
  34. Lavelle, P. 1988. Paramètres biologiques à mesurer dans le cadre de l'Observatoire de la Qualité des Sols. Rapport intermediaire Novembre, 1988. Secretariat D'etat A L'environnement.
  35. Lehmann, J., Bossio, D. A., Kögel-Knabner, I. and Rillig, M. C. 2020. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(10), pp.544-553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8
  36. Li, G. 2005. The status and development needs of soil environmental monitoring in China. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Technology, 17(1), pp.8-10.
  37. Li, M., Xi, X., Xiao, G., Cheng, H., Yang, Z., Zhou, G., Jiayu, Y. and Li, Z. 2014. National multi-purpose regional geochemical survey in China. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 139, pp.21-30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.06.002
  38. Lu, S., and He, L. 2013. On the developing of soil environmental monitoring in China. Adm Tech Environ Monit, 25(3), pp.6-12.
  39. Luo, L., Ma, Y., Zhang, S., Wei, D., and Zhu, Y.-G. 2009. An inventory of trace element inputs to agricultural soils in China. Journal of environmental management, 90(8), pp.2524-2530. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.011
  40. Mondal, P., Walter, M., Miller, J., Epanchin-Niell, R., Gedan, K., Yawatkar, V. and Tully, K. L. 2023. The spread and cost of saltwater intrusion in the US Mid-Atlantic. Nature Sustainability, 6(11), 1352-1362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01186-6
  41. Morvan, X., Saby, N. P. A., Arrouays, D., Le Bas, C., Jones, R. J. A., Verheijen, F. G. A. and Kibblewhite, M. G. 2008. Soil monitoring in Europe: A review of existing systems and requirements for harmonisation. Science of The Total Environment, 391(1), pp.1-12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.10.046
  42. Mousavi, S.A. Arzani, H. Sharzei, Gh. Azarnivand, H. Farahpour, M., Engel, S., Alizadeh, S., and Nazari Samani, A.A. 2014. Economic valuation of the role of rangeland plant cover in soil conservation (case study: Middle Taleghan Basin). Scientific-Research Journal of Rangeland and Watershed Management, 67(2), pp. 317-331. 22059/jrwm.2014.51835. (In persian)
  43. Muntwyler, A., Panagos, P., Pfister, S., and Lugato, E. 2024. Assessing the phosphorus cycle in European agricultural soils: Looking beyond current national phosphorus budgets. Science of The Total Environment, 906, 167143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167143
  44. National Soil Survey Office. 1964. Agricultural soils in China. Ministry of Agriculture. (In Chinese)
  45. OECD (Organization for Economic Co‐Operation Development). 2002. Report on the OECD expert meeting on agri‐biodiversity indicators. November 2001: Summary and recommendations. In: OECD Paris. Available at https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/agriculture-and-biodiversity_9789264199217-en.html
  46. O'Sullivan, L., Bampa, F., Knights, K., and Creamer, R. E. 2017. Soil protection for a sustainable future: options for a soil monitoring network for Ireland. Soil Use and Management, 33(2), pp.346-363. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12351
  47. Panagos, P., Jones, A., Lugato, E., and Ballabio, C. 2025a. A Soil Monitoring Law for Europe. Global Challenges, 9(3), 2400336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202400336
  48. Panagos, P., Jones, A., Lugato, E., and Ballabio, C. 2025b. A Soil Monitoring Law for Europe. 9(3), 2400336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202400336
  49. Panagos, P., Standardi, G., Borrelli, P., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L., and Bosello, F. 2018. Cost of agricultural productivity loss due to soil erosion in the European Union: From direct cost evaluation approaches to the use of macroeconomic models. Land Degradation & Development, 29, pp.471-484.
  50. Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y. and Montanarella, L. 2013. Contaminated sites in Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a European network. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 158764. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/158764
  51. Prashar, P. and Shah, S. 2016. Impact of Fertilizers and Pesticides on Soil Microflora in Agriculture. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews (pp.331-361). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26777-7_8
  52. Saadat, S. and Rezaei, H., 2018. Agricultural Soil Quality Monitoring Plan: Investigating Changes in Soil Chemical Properties in Soil Quality Monitoring Study Bases. Soil and Water Research Institute. (In persian)
  53. Saco, P. M., McDonough, K. R., Rodriguez, J. F., Rivera-Zayas, J. and Sandi, S. G. 2021. The role of soils in the regulation of hazards and extreme events. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological. 376(1834), 20200178. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0178
  54. Saiz-Rubio, V. and Rovira-Más, F. 2020. From Smart Farming towards Agriculture 5.0: A Review on Crop Data Management. Agronomy, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020207
  55. Sepulvado, J. G., Blaine, A. C., Hundal, L. S., and Higgins, C. P. 2011. Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of Municipal Biosolids. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(19), pp.8106-8112. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103903d
  56. Shah, F. and Wu, W. 2019. Soil and Crop Management Strategies to Ensure Higher Crop Productivity within Sustainable Environments. Sustainability, 11(5).
  57. 2013. Sistema de Información de Suelos de Latinoamérica –SISLAC. Available at http://www.sislac.org/# (last access: 2 October 2017).
  58. Smith, P., Ashmore, M. R., Black, H. I. J., Burgess, P. J., Evans, C. D., Quine, T. A. and Orr, H. G. 2013. The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), pp.812-829.
  59. Soleimani Morchekhorti, A. and Cheraghi, M., 2024. Investigating the implementation process of the soil protection law with emphasis on the country's soil erosion crisis (from an environmental perspective). Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, pp. 1-35. 22034/report.mrc.2024.1403.32.8.20191. (In persian)
  60. Sparling, G., Schipper, L., Bettjeman, W. and Hill, R. 2004. Soil quality monitoring in New Zealand: practical lessons from a 6-year trial. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment, 104(3), pp.523-534.
  61. Stavi, I., Thevs, N. and Priori, S. 2021. Soil Salinity and Sodicity in Drylands: A Review of Causes, Effects, Monitoring, and Restoration Measures. Frontiers in the Environmental Sciences, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.712831
  62. Tanneberger, F., Birr, F., Couwenberg, J., Kaiser, M., Luthardt, V., Nerger, M. and Närmann, F. 2022. Saving soil carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and the economy: paludiculture as sustainable land use option in German fen peatlands. Regional Environmental Change, 22(2), p.69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01900-8
  63. Tóth, G., Antofie, T. E., Jones, A. and Apostol, B. 2016. The LUCAS 2012 topsoil survey and derived cropland and grassland soil properties of Bulgaria and Romania. Environmental Engineering Management Journal, 15(12). p. 2651-2662. http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/
  64. Tóth, G., Hermann, T., da Silva, M. R. and Montanarella, L. 2018. Monitoring soil for sustainable development and land degradation neutrality. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(2), p.57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6415-3
  65. Turbé, A., De Toni, A., Benito, P., Lavelle, P., Lavelle, P., Camacho, N. R. Van Der Putton, W.H., Labouze, E. and Mudgal, S.H. 2010. Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers. https://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/bioemco-00560420
  66. 1994. United Nations convention to combat desertification. (Part I. Article 1.) Available at http://www.unccd.int/en/about-theconvention/Pages/Text-Part-I.aspx. Accessed 25 Apr 2017.
  67. van Leeuwen, J. P., Saby, N. P. A., Jones, A., Louwagie, G., Micheli, E., Rutgers, M. and Creamer, R. E. 2017. Gap assessment in current soil monitoring networks across Europe for measuring soil functions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(12), 124007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5c
  68. Wang, C., Walker, B., Rees, H., Kozak, L., Nolin, M., Michalyna, W., WebB, K.T., Holmstorm, D.A., King, D, Kenny, E.A. and Woodrow, E. F. 1994. Benchmark sites for monitoring agricultural soil quality-Soil Quality Evaluation Program Report 1. (0660159473). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/10214/15192
  69. Wang, C. 1988. Minutes of workshop on soil quality monitoring (January 19-20), Land Resource Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.
  70. Wang, Y., Zhao, X. and He, L. 2012. The research of technique route for national soil environment monitoring. Environmental Monitoring in China, 28(3), pp.116–120. [In Chinese].
  71. Wilson, B. H., Hattan, G., Kuhn, J., McKay, R. and Wilson, J. T. 2004. Costs and issues related to remediation of petroleum-contaminated sites 2004 NGWA Remediation Conference, New Orleans, LA.
  72. Wu, X. 2006. Arrangement and requirements of national soil pollution survey. Environment Protection, 14, pp.7-10.
  73. Yang, Z., Yu, T., Hou, Q., Xia, X., Feng, H., Huang, C. and Zhang, M. 2014. Geochemical evaluation of land quality in China and its applications. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 139, pp.122-135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.07.014
  74. Zörb, C., Geilfus, C. M. and Dietz, K. J. 2019. Salinity and crop yield. Plant Biology, 21(S1), pp.31-38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12884
 

 

 

 

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 266
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 145


counter
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب