A RESEARCH EDITORIAL BY CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS

have been recorded (Andrews et al., 2003),

Soil quality: Humankind’s soil quahty is certainly relevant and of interest.
Most soil quahty research and education
foundation for survival efforts have been driven by the desire to use
our science to help people make better deci-
D.L. Karlen, S.S. Andrews, B.J. Weinhold, and J.W. Doran sions regarding soil management and how to
make the best possible use of their finite soil,
ABSTRACT: During the past decade, soil quality research and education programs have water, and energy resources (Doran et al.,
increased exponentially throughout the world. Educational and assessment approaches, 1996; Herrick, 2000; Karlen et al., 2001).
ranging from simple scorecard and test-kit monitoring t o comprehensive quantitative Why then has there been so much controversy
over such laudable goals? To protect our
assessments and indexing using soils databases, have been pursued. The programs have
world’s soil resources, traditional research and
emphasized that soil quality is not “an end in itself” but rather a tool for evaluating and
development paradigms must now ensure the

Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
understanding the effects of soil management on a specific soil resource. The approaches have development of a more complete informa-

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org

stressed that to determine how well a soil is functioning, inherent and dynamic soil properties
and processes must be evaluated using biological, chemical, and physical indicators. No soil
quality researcher has ever envisioned the concept would replace modern soil survey programs
or diminish the importance of scientifically based soil management strategies. Herein, we
present the scientific merits of soil quality research.
Keywords: Soil health, soil management, soil ratings for plant growth (SRPG) model, soil
resource assessment, soil tilth, sustainable agriculture
Many of our current soil management deci-
sions are not sustainable and lead to envi-
ronmental degradation (e.g.; salinization,
compaction, erosion, contamination of
ground and surface waters with nitrate,
phosphorus, pesticides, or other materials).
The concept of soil quahty, dehed as “the
capacity of a spec& kind of soil to hnction
w i t h natural or managed ecosystem bound-
aries to sustain plant and animal productivity,
maintain or enhance water and air quality, and
support human health and habitation” (Karlen
et al., 1997) provides a focal point for assessing
the severity of this degradation. In fact, for
many soil scientists,ecologsts, agronomists, and
other professionals around the world, the con-
tinuing degradation of natural resources is close-
ly associated with a loss of soil quality Their
rationale is that if soils are managed or main-
tained in a manner that ensures the biological,
chemical, and physical properties and processes
are sustained and finctioning properly,much of
the current degradation can be mitigated.
Many people around the world intuitively
understand the concept of soil quahty and are
using it to improve their soil management
practices. Soil quality efforts are especially
important for the two billion people who are
malnourished and for an equal number who
tion base, monitoring, and indicators to estab-
lish the prevailing soil conditions. The results
must be made available more quickly to more
people and used to evaluate the impact of
diverse policies and practices to ensure that
the best management strategies for each soil
resource are recommended and adopted.
We agree with the goal given by Sojka and
Upchurch (1999): “Our children and grand-
chddren of 2030 wdl not care whether we
live below the poverty level (Eswaran et al.,
crafted our definitions or diagnostics well.
1999). Examples include Ouedraogo et al.
They will care if they are well fed, whether
(2001) for Africans near the Sahel Desert and
there are stdl woods to walk in and streams to
Lamarca (1996) for Latin America. In New
splash in-in short, whether or not we helped
Zealand, Kiwi land managers have accepted
solve their problems, especially given a thrty-
soil quality (Shepherd et al., 2001) as a tool to
year warning.” Preventing the continued
help make sustainable land management deci-
degradation of our world’s natural resources is
sions. For the German citizen, where the
the first and foremost important goal. Where
Federal Soil Protection Act (BbodSchG,
we differ is with regard to what tools to
1998) recognized soil as 1) a basis for life and
develop and how they should be used to
habitat for animals, plants, and soil organisms;
improve soil management practices.
2) part of natural systems, especially water and
Evolution of the soil quality concept.
nutrient cycles; and 3) a filter and buffer;
Alexander (197 1) first suggested developing
improved soil quahty is closely associated
soil quality criteria while discussing agricul-
with water quality and protection. For edu-
ture’s role in environmental improvement.
cators and farmer-cooperators in Alberta,
The soil quahty concept per se was intro-
Canada (Cannon, 2001), soil quality provides
duced by Warkentin and Fletcher (1977) as an
a foundation for developing improved nutri-
ent management practices. For farmers in
the CentralVdey of Cahfornia, where state- Douglas 1. Karlen is is a research soil scientist
ments such as: with the U S . Department of Agriculture-Agricul-
tural Research Service at Iowa State University i n
Ames, Iowa. Susan S. Andrews is an ecologist
“. . .It is astonishing to me.. .that they’re
with the U S . Department of Agriculture-Natural
stdl only giving me a one page soil Resources Conservation Service, Soil Quality
test ...you need a more sophisticated tool Institute in Ames, Iowa. Brian J.Weinhold and
than that, ... this [soil quality index] is John W. Doran are research soil scientists with
great.. .I’m sure hoping I can get more the U S . Department of Agriculture-Agricultural
than one page now.. .something that I can Research Service at the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, Nebraska.
u d z e to manage my soil”

I 171 1 JOURNALOF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JIA 2003 I

approach to facllitate better land use planning
for the multiple hnctions that soil resources
must provide or accommodate. In Canada,
the term soil health emerged as soil manage-
ment research gradually shifted &om control-
ling soil erosion and minimizing its effect on
crop productivity, to broader issues includmg
sustainable agriculture, environmental health,
and prevention of further soil degradation
(Karlen et al., 2003). Throughout the 1990s,
research, education, and institutional changes
occurred exponentially as the concept of soil
quality began to be implemented worldwide
(Karlen et al., 2001). Important accomplish-
ments included the publication by Larson and
Pierce (1991) that outhned a quantitative for-
mula for assessing soil quality and relating the
changes to soil management practices. As a
result, soil quahty was recogruzed and inter-
preted as a more sensitive and dynamic way
to measure soil condtion response to man-
agement changes and reshence to stresses
imposed by natural forces or human uses.
Many researchers participated in developing
the soil quality concept by contributing to the
publications entitled, “Defining Soil Quality
for a Sustainable Environment” (Doran et al.,
1994) and “Methods for Assessing Soil
Quahty” (Doran and Jones, 1996). Studies
were also conducted to: 1) establish monetary
land values, 2) monitor soil degradation, and
3) address challenges affecting food security.
The latter is especially important in develop-
ing countries where loss of per capita land area
and water resources often result in decreased
soil quahty &al, 1999).
Soil quality research and education pro-
grams have evolved even where political lead-
ers and ofien scientists do not understand or
agree upon the effects that land use decisions
have on soil resources. The programs have
grown in part because obvious linkages
between soil quahty, management decisions,
and sustainabhty are often overlooked or
even ignored. They have grown because
questions regarding organic farming, conser-
vation tdlage, safer pesticide use, protection
and maintenance of terraces, integrated crop
management, management of low-intensity
pasture systems, lowering stock density, use of
certified compost, or urban and suburban
development effects on soil quahty abound
and currently remain unanswered.
The soil quahty concept has always been
closely associated with the critical bnctions
that soil resources perform in the biosphere
(Doran et al., 1996). Therefore, we maintain
that the simplest definition for the concept is
“the capacity [of soil] to function” (Karlen et
al., 1997) or stated another way, “how well is
the soil functioning” for a specific goal or use.
Ths closely parallels many other definitions
(i.e., suitability for chosen uses or range of
possible uses) that have been used (Doran et
al., 1996). The close association between soil
fbnction and soil quahty also helps lllustrate
the concept of soil services used to describe
the concept of sustainability and soil
reshence (Blum, 1998). Those services have
been grouped in two categories. The first,
focusing on agriculture, includes biomass
production (food, fiber, and energy), soil as a
reactor (filtering, buffering, and transforming
actions), or soil as a biological habitat and
genetic reserve. The second, focusing on
nonagricultural uses, considers soil as a phys-
ical medmm, a source of raw materials, and a
repository for cultural heritage that helps
preserve the hstory of earth and humanlund
(Doran et al., 1996).
Future soil quality developments. Tools for
monitoring soil quahty and building a knowl-
edge base for coherent hture actions are
needed. The monitoring should be estab-
lished using existing information systems and
databases where possible. It should be
designed in such a way that the data can be
integrated into more comprehensive, multi-
layered monitoring and reporting programs.
Based on systematic sampling and analysis,
soil monitoring systems should aim to deliver
information on changing soil parameters,
important for soil functions such as nutrient
and organic matter cycling, biodwersity, or
resilience afier contamination by pesticides,
heavy metals, or other anthropogenicmaterials.
The focus for ongoing soil quahty efforts
must be on protecting or restoring critical soil
functions (Hoper, 2000) and using good agri-
cultural management practices. Soil protec-
tion and prevention of further degradation
requires an integrated approach based on
existing and new knowledge. It also requires
the development of a long-term approach
through which soil protection is based on a
more complete knowledge of both the direct
and indirect impacts of human activities and
the best practices and measures to address soil
resource degradation.
As the soil quality concept continues to
evolve, there are several issues that need to
be resolved. Two associated with indlcator
selection are the spatial and temporal scale
(Halvorson et al., 1997; Wander and
Drinkwater, 2000). Another is the need to
demonstrate causal relationshps between soil
quahty indicators and ecosystem functions
(Herrick, 2000). The accuracy, precision,and
cost of identlfjrlng minimum sets of inhcator
variables, sometimes described as a minimum
data set (MDS), are questions that have not
been resolved.
We anticipate that the use of soil quahty
assessment d increase and will help quantify
resistance [defined as the capacity of a system
to continue fimctioning without change
through a dwurbance (Herrick and Wander,
1998; Pimm, 1984)] to degradation and the
resilience of a soil resource to recover follow-
ing degradation. Although a single mini-
mum data set wdl probably never be defined
because of the inherent variabhty among
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
soils, a flexible suite of biological, chemical,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
and physical indicators will ultimately be
identified and used to evaluate site-specific,
temporal trends in soil quality. Whether or
not the indicators are used to develop index
values is not an issue. The appropriate use
for soil quality assessments is to evaluate the
temporal trends for a specdic soil at a specif-
ic location or to determine the effects of dif-
ferent practices on a simdar soil. Soil survey
information provides a basic geographic
framework and context for the assessment of
soil quality for a given location and for a
given point in time. Traditional soil survey
documents the inherent hfferences among
soils in the landscape and makes
recommendations regarding potential uses.
Thus, we suggest an important role for soil
scientists is to determine appropriate indica-
tors for various management goals or land
uses. Doing so wdl ensure that assessments
will be usefbl and understandable to farmers
and other land managers who are, and wdl
continue to be, the stewards of soil quahty
(Doran and Zeiss, 2000).
Undoubtedly, many issues need to be
resolved before the soil quahty concept is
fully operational. However, we feel that it is
important to stress in this ehtorial that, to
our knowledge, no soil quahty researcher has
ever implied that the concept would replace
modern soil survey programs or dminish the
importance of technology and scientifically
based soil management strategies. For the
benefit of everyone, it is imperative that
the misconceptions regardmg soil quahty
concepts be corrected through rigorous sci-
entific debate and ddogue.
[ J l A2003 VOLUME 58 NUMBER 4 I 172 I
 Correcting the misinterpretations. Rigorous
scientific debate is essential to help elucidate
the truth, and as stated by Nowotny (1975),
“Controversies are an integral part of the
collective production of knowledge; hsagree-
ment on concepts, methods, interpretations
and applications are the very lrfeblood of
science and one of the most productive fac-
tors in scientific development.” Scientific
debate must focus on full and balanced
information and not on personal biases and
perceptions. We acknowledge that the soil
quality concept needs worldwide effort to
continue its evolution into usefd science-
based research and education tools. Since we
are convinced that in the near future we are
going to have to make efficient use of all our
agricultural resources to meet growing socie-
tal needs, we offer the following corrections
to previously published assertions regarding
the soil quality concept.
Figure i
The soil ratings for plant growth (SRPG) model for rain-fed, nonirrigated production throughout the United States (USDA-NRCS, 1996).
1 173 I JOURNALOF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JIA 2003
Misrepresentation of the soil ratings for
plant growth (SRPG) model. In both the
Sojka and Upchurch (1999) and Sojka et al.
(2003) publications, a figure illustrating the
soil ratings for plant growth model has been
reproduced with the caption “A relative
index of inherent soil quality for the USA.”
The accompanying text states, “the index
demonstrated a bias toward Mollisol and
Alfisol soil properties and their regional farm-
ing conltions and cropping system choices.”
The misconception put forward was that the
soil ratings for plant growth map (Figure l),
termed the Sinclair index by Sojka and
Upchurch (1999), is an example of how the
soil quality concept was prematurely institu-
tionahzed (U.S. Department of Agriculture-
Natural Resources Conservation Service
[USDA-NRCS], 1996) and therefore not
subjected to the rigors of scientific evaluation.
The map in question was not developed as an
I
index of soil quahty, as defined by Larson and
Pierce (1991), Doran et al. (1996), Karlen et
al. (2001),or any scientist considered to be a
student of soil quahty.
The soil ratings for plant growth model
(Soil Survey Staff, 2000) was developed by
arraying all United States soils for their inher-
ent (i.e., under natural rainfall conhtions
and without supplemental irrigation) capaci-
ty to produce seed, fiber, and biomass within
the unique biome and climatic region in
which they are formed. Inherent productiv-
ity is considered nearly invariant over time or
fi-om place to place for a given soil identified
in the United States survey. Temporal fluctu-
ations in productivity due to good or bad
management (one proposed application for
soil quality assessment) are not addressed.
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
The soil ratings for plant growth model was
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
developed for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), w h c h used inherent soil
capacity for commodity crop production as
one factor for adjusting soil rental rates. The
model used inherent soil properties so that it
was consistent across political boundaries and
over time. In contrast, efforts to develop
inhces of relative soil quality (Karlen et al.,
2001) have focused on dynamic soil proper-
ties. The soil ratings for plant growth was
designed to use only the soil survey database
because the system had to be usable for all
soils and all arable land on which commodi-
ty crops were grown. Soil quality assessments
utllize recent visual, on-site, or laboratory data
that may or may not be interpreted using
information fi-om soil survey databases.
The procedures used to develop the soil
ratings for plant growth model also provided
information needed to develop a national map
debeating root zone avadable water capacity
The values were computed by summing the
available water capacity for each layer above
an identified rooting constraint within the
Figure 2
Plant available water holding capacity for soils within the United States (USDA-NRCS, iggga).
profile and were very influential in determin-
ing inherent productivity (Figure 1). The root
zone avadable water map (USDA-NRCS,
1999a) &splays a pattern (Figure 2) that nearly
coincides with the extent of former prairie or
grassland soh. Those soils, often formed in
medium textured Aeolian or glacial parent
material with few rooting constraints are, in
soil taxonomy terminology, Mollisols. The
strong positive relationshp between root zone
available water and soil ratings for plant growth
model resulted in a close association between
Figure 1 and the dominant soil orders (Figure
3) associated with United States soil taxono-
my (USDA-NRCS, 1999b). This close asso-
ciation apparently led some (e.g.: Sojka and
Upchurch, 1999; Sojka et al., 2003) to the
incorrect conclusion that soil quahty evalua-
tion and indexing are taxonomically biased.
To demonstrate t h s error, the soil ratings
for plant growth model was rerun for an irri-
gated condition where root zone available
water (Figure 2) was not limiting plant
growth (USDA-NRCS, 2002). T h s resulted
in an irrigated soil ratings for plant growth
model map (Figure 4)that closely mirrors the
“market value” map presented by Sojka et al.
(2003). However, with regard to long-term
sustainability, it is absolutely imperative to
recognize that achieving the irrigated soil rat-
ings for plant growth levels has a real cost for
water, energy, and nutrients that must be con-
sidered. Failure to account for all input costs
is not acceptable.
Incomplete reviews. Sojka and Upchurch
(1999) and Sojka et al. (2003) contend that
the practical reahties associated with inter-
preting indicators of the multiple functions
that soils perform have not been addressed.
We feel ths perception is incorrect because
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
even though Sojka et al. (2003) cite more
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
than 340 references, they ignore Andrews
and Carroll (2001), Andrews et al. (2001,
2002), Herrick et al. (2002), Karlen et al.
I IIA 2003 VOLUME 58 NUMBER 4 I 174 1
 (1998), Karlen et al. (1999) and numerous
international websites where those challenges
have been recowzed.
Sojka et al. (2003) also contend that no
procedural approach for integrating various
soil quality indicators has been offered and
suggest that the complexity and confltct of
values makes the process insurmountable.
Other authors (e.g.; Schjsnning et al., 2003)
have also questioned the feasibility of assess-
ing soil quality because of the vast inherent
differences among soil resources. WMe we
agree with Sparrow et al. (2000) that devel-
opment of soil quality assessment is in its
infancy, substantial progress has been made in
the United States (Andrews et al., 2001,
2002; Herrick et al., 2002) and around the
world (Shepherd, 2000; Beare et al., 1999).
Once again, Sojka et al. (2003) chose to
ignore those efforts, opting instead to return
to their criticism of the nonexistent “Sinclair
model of soil quality” and their position that
Figure 3
D o h n a n l s o i l orders within the United States (USDA-NRCS, 1gggb).
1 175 1 IOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION IIA 2003
soil quality evaluations were primarily quali-
tative and sensory.
Misconceptions regarding soil quality
assessment. Undoubtedly, selection, inter-
pretation, and integration of indicator data
are among the more difficult and controver-
sial issues associated with the soil quahty
concept. This was recognized and has been
an integral part of the soil quality research
and education program since our first evalu-
ations of crop residue management and
tillage treatments using a soil quahty index
(Karlen et al., 1994a,b). Despite assertions to
the contrary (e.g.: Sojka and Upchurch,
1999; Sojka et al., 2003), substantial progress
in soil quality assessment and quantification
has been made during the past decade.
The selection of indicators for evaluation
is most often based on expert opinion (e.g.;
Doran and Parlun, 1994) but also can be
accomplished with statistical procedures such
as principal components or factor analysis
1
(e.g.: Andrews and Carroll, 2001; Brejda et
al., 2000). Expert opinion requires expert
knowledge of the system and carries the
possibility of disciplinary biases; statistical
approaches require large existing data sets
and are also ultimately subject to disciplinary
bias as well because results depend on the
number and type of indicators in the origi-
nal data pool. Both approaches produced
s i d a r results in a comparison of indexing
approaches using data from a vegetable pro-
duction study on irrigated soils in northern
California, USA (Andrews et al., 2002).
Scoring and combining the inlcators into
inlces can be done in a variety of ways
(Andrews et al., 2001). Linear scoring can be
used and may be desirable for indicators that
change gradually along a continuum. Step-
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
hnctions (i.e.; good or bad, yes or no) may
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
be appropriate for inlcators that measure
‘contaminated versus noncontaminated’ situ-
ations. Nonlinear scoring accommodates
threshold and optimum values as well
as transition areas where small changes in
indlcator values represent large changes in
soil fbnction and thus the indicators’ score
(Herrick et al., 2002). Andrews et al. (2002)
found nonlinear scoring more accurately
reflected soil function when compared to a
linear method.
Development of nonlinear scoring func-
tions requires in-depth knowledge of each
indicator’s behavior and relationship to func-
tions withn the system. For each indicator,
basehe and threshold levels are defined
based on inherent soil properties. Several
methods, including the use of benchmark
sites, have been suggested for establishing
baseline values. Benchmarks may be most
appropriate for remediation applications.
For agronomic uses, thresholds should be
based on studies showing the relationshps
between indicator values and soil function.
We prefer to use measurements for a specific
Figure 4
The soil ratings for plant growth (SRPG) model for irrigated production throughout the United States (USDA-NRCS, 2002).
-
SOlL SURVEY ATUS Of AGROECOUIGY CONTERMINOUSUNITEDSTATES
soil at TO and to then determine the net
change (i.e.; aggrading, degrading, or stable)
at future times (TN) that are appropriate for
each indicator.
A user-friendly soil management assess-
ment fi-amework has been proposed and
tested (Andrews et al., 2001; Karlen and
Stott, 1994). The framework consists of
three steps: 1) indicator selection, which sug-
gests appropriate chemical, biological and
physical indicators; 2) indicator interpreta-
tion, offering site-specific interpretations of
those indcators in relation to soil function;
and 3) integration into an index, which pro-
vides an overall assessment of the indicator
interpretations. The framework utilizes a
nested hierarchy for expert opinion-based
indicator selection based on management
goals, soil functions, and site-specific criteria.
This allows it to be flexible for various land
uses across multiple scales, and for soils
with different inherent characteristics.
Interpretations, using nonlinear scoring,
accommodate different indicator thresholds
for multiple soil, climate, and crop
combinations, thereby addressing important
spatial and temporal issues (sensu Halvorson
et al., 1997) that are based on these inherent
soil and/or climatic factors. Site-specific
factors that can affect indicator selection or
interpretation include management goals,
such as productivity or waste disposal;inher-
ent soil properties, as in organic matter or
texture; climate factors, such as annual pre-
cipitation and temperature; or crop require-
ments. Prototypes have been developed in
Excel spreadsheet and object-oriented Java
programming formats for further evaluation
and refinement (Karlen et al., 2003). Several
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Research Service (USDA-ARS) scientists con-
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
tributing to the Soil Resource Management
National Program and other researchers
around the world are currently evaluating the
Soil Rating for Piant Cmwth 2002 -Irrigated Condition
I llA 2003 VOLUME 58 NUMBER4 1 176 1
 framework for several hfferent soil manage-
ment applications.
Misconceptions regarding individual
indicators. Sojka and Upchurch (1999) and
Sojka et al. (2003) objected strenuously to
the importance given to soil organic matter
by many soil quality researchers. One reason
that soil organic matter has received so much
attention is the well-documented fact that
worldwide, soil organic matter levels have
decreased by 50% or more during the past
century. This degradation of soil quality is
important because of the numerous fknctions
that soil organic matter influences (e.g.;
nutrient cycling, water retention, aggregation,
surface sealing, energy substrate, etc.). The
potential need for an increased rate of soil-
incorporated herbicides on h g h organic mat-
ter soils is used as one reason why some sug-
gest that increased soil organic matter should
not be given a h g h priority in soil quality
assessment (Sojka and Upchurch, 1999; Sojka
et al., 2003). Whde we agree that soil organic
matter levels can and do influence herbicide
application rates, the relative proportion of
soil-incorporated herbicide is declining.
Furthermore, in the 6amework being devel-
oped to evaluate soil quahty indcators, the
scoring curves can easily be given a declining
slope (and therefore lower rating) for combi-
nations of management systems and soil
organic matter levels where ths might occur.
A sirmlar adjustment may be needed for for-
est areas where, due to litter accumulation,
soil organic matter levels can become so high
that runoff actually increases (personal com-
munication, B. Hudson, USDA-NRCS
(Retired),August 2003).
Sojka et al. (2003) express concern regard-
ing the use of earthworms as a biological in&-
cator because of their potential to increase
bypass flow and rapid movement of surface-
applied contaminants to groundwater. While
this is possible, they f d to acknowledge that
earthworm effects are species dependent, as
not all create permanent vertical burrows
(Berry and Karlen, 1993). As with soil organ-
ic matter, the 6amework being developed for
assessment of soil quahty indxators can be
moddied through the scoring curves based on
available data and subsequent site-specific
knowledge such as the predominant earth-
worm species at a given location.
Sojka et al. (2003) state that Karlen et al.
(2001) failed to address how soil quahty
assessment could cope with the dynamic
indicators such as soil respiration. This is not
1 177 1 JOURNALOF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION J)A 2003
true if the entire body of soil quahty literature
is examined. Parlun et al. (1996) state that
respiration is an indcator of organic matter
decomposition in soil, and therefore it reflects
two general processes: 1) loss of carbon (C)
from the soil system, and 2) recycling of
nutrients. Either process can be viewed as
detrimental or beneficial dependmg upon the
intended use of the soil, the magnitude of the
respiration activity, and the temporal and spa-
tial dwributions exhbited by those processes.
Parkin et al. (1996) also outline an analytical
process whereby respiration, normahzed to
organic carbon inputs, may be a promising
soil quahty inlcator. Specific targets or val-
ues for precise interpretation of soil respiration
s d need to be established, and ths may have
to be done on a site-by-site basis to account
for the intended use of the soil, local manage-
ment practices, and the climate. Other bio-
logical indicators, such as microbial biomass,
seasonal, and climatic fluctuations in expected
range, have been incorporated into nodnear
interpretation curves withn the fianiework
currently being evaluated.
Soil respiration is also an important soil
quality indicator with regard to its education-
al value as evidenced by the sale of more than
500 soil quahty test luts. Simple,semi-quanti-
tative measures of carbon &oxide (CO2) pro-
duction have been used to demonstrate the
living and dynamic nature of soils to many
dfferent audiences (USDA-NRCS, 1998).
Sojka et al. (2003) dispute the use of
compaction, salinity, microbial biomass,
microbes (e.g., E. coli), and almost any other
potential indicator of how a soil is fbnction-
ing. Repeatedly, they continue to state that
“the first institutional use of a soil quality
index devalued United States arid-zone
soils.” This occurred because they misused
the soil ratings for plant growth model, an
error that we have hopefully corrected
(Figure 4). We f d y acknowledge the diffi-
culty associated with identieing the most
critical factors affecting soil resources.
Indicator evaluation and indexing have suc-
cessfklly demonstrated that soil management
practices have multiple effects on soil hnc-
tion. However, viewing indwidual indcators
fiom the perspective of only one disciplin-
chemical, physical, or biological-can result
in conflicting messages to the land manager
who needs to take a specific action on a
particular soil resource.
1
Summary and Conclusion
We strongly disagree with Sojka et al. (2003),
who imply that the soil quality effort is a
scientific distraction that has resulted in a fail-
ure of soil scientists, agronomists, ecologists,
and others to “stay on message’’ with regard
to issues such as soil erosion. They quote
Pimental (2000) who stated that soil erosion
control has not received the research and mit-
igation support it deserves because: 1) erosion
is insidious, 2) erosion occurs very slowly
relative to human perception, and 3) the pub-
lic has little regard for the value of soil. To
the contrary, one of the underlying reasons
for focusing on soil quahty since the publica-
tion entitled, “Soil and Water Quality: An
Agenda for Agriculture” was released,
(National Research Council, 1993) was the
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
need to improve public awareness about soil
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
resources and to help them understand how
soil management decisions affect not only
the soil itself but other resources (i.e., water
and air) as well. Soil quality has been accept-
ed as a concept for guidmg and developing
improved soil management practices
throughout the world (e.g.: Beare et al.,
1999; Shepherd, 2000; Shepherd et al., 2001).
Educational programs, including the use of
relatively simple tools and techniques, have
been used to increase awareness that soils are
indeed living and dynamic. The effort has
increased awareness regarding the fragile
nature of many soils. This conclusion was
verified through surveys in the United States
(Andrews et al., 2003) and New Zealand
(Shepherd et al., 2001). In the latter, 85% to
99% of the participants in visual soil assess-
ment workshops (including 92% farmers)
found visual soil assessment scorecards and
field guides easy to use and technically appro-
priate. Educational activities sponsored by
the USDA-NRCS Soil Quahty Institute have
also been very effective in promoting a better
understandmg of soil science among field staff
and other natural resource personnel.
We hope that the misuse of the soil ratings
for plant growth model will stop following
ths exchange of research editorials. The soil
ratings for plant growth model is not, and
never was intended to be, a model of soil
quahty. We have tried to set the record
straight regarding why and how the maps
were generated. In addition, we have
attempted to refute other misconceptions
about quantification of soil quality using
indxators or indices.
We described a three-step framework for
indicator selection, interpretation, and inte-
gration. It evaluates soil quality by first”estab-
lishing the goals or purpose for conducting an
assessment, then identifies the critical soil
hnctions associated with those goals, and
finally develops the key indicators associated
with each of the hnctions. Interpretation in
terms of performance of critical soil fbnctions
is achieved using nodnear scoring curves
with site-specific controlling factors that
determine thresholds. This tool was released
in Excel and Java formats for initial testing.
This has resulted in substantial interest from
many scientists throughout the United States
and around the world. We acknowledge and
r e c o p z e the concerns raised by Sojka and
Upchurch (1999) and Sojka et al. (2003)
regardmg this process, but we’re confident
that the degree of flexibihty offered through
the fiamework d enable us to address the
concerns where appropriate. We plan to
continue moving forward with the world-
wide soil quality efforts because what’s really
important is that all children throughout the
world d one day be well fed and enjoy a
quahty of life that reflects the sustainable use
of all our resources.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Thanh H. Pham, technical infor-
mation specialist, National Cartographic and
Geospatial Center, Fort Worth, Texas; Sharon W.
Waltman, soil scientist and geographer, National
Soil Service Center, Lincoln, Nebraska; and H.
Raymond Sinclair, Jr., soil scientist, National Soil
Service Center, Lincoln, Nebraska for preparing
the color graphics.
References Cited
Alexander, M. 1971. Agriculture’s responsibility in
establishing soil quality criteria, In: “Environmental
Improvement-Agriculture’s Challenge in the
Seventies.” Pp. 66-71. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
Andrews, S.S. and C.R Carroll, 2001. Designing a decision
tool for sustainable agroecosystem management: Soil
quality assessment of a poultry litter management case
study. Ecological Applications 1l(6): 1573-1 585.
Andrews, S.S., D.L. Karlen, and J.P Mitchell. 2001. A com-
parison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable pro-
duction systems in northern California. Agricultural
Ecosystems and Envimnment 1760:1-21.
Andrews, S.S.,J.l? Mitchell, R. Mancinelli, D.L. Karlen, T.K.
Hartz, WR. Horwath, G.S. Pettygrove, K.M. Scow, and
D.S. Mu&. 2002. On-farm assessment of soil quahty in
California’s central valley. Agronomy Journal 94(1):12-22.
Andrews, S. S., C. B. Flora, J. l? Mitchell, and D. L.
Karlen. 2003. Farmers’ perceptions and acceptance of
soil quality indices. Geoderma 114:187-213. (In prm)
BbodSchG. 1998. Federal soil protection act (Bundes-
Bodenschutzgesetz) of the 17.03.1998. Pp. 502.
Federal Law Gazette I.
Beare, M.H., PH. Williams, and K.C. Cameron. 1999. On-
farm monitoring of soil quality for sustainable crop pro-
duction. Pp. 81-90. In: Currie, L.D., M.J. Hedley, D.J.
Horne, and I? Loganaathan (eds.).Best Soil Management
Practices for Production. Proceedings of the 1999
Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre Conference,
Occasional Report Number 12, Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Berry, E.C., and D.L. Karlen. 1993. Comparison of alterna-
tive farming systems. 11. Earthworm population density
and species diversity. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture. 8(1):21-26.
Blum,W.E.H. 1998. Basic concepts: Degradation, resilience,
and rehabilitation. Pp. 1-16. In: R. La1,WE.H. Blum,
C. Valentine, and B.A. Stewart (eds.). Methods for
Assessment of Soil Degradation. C R C Press, Boca
Raton, NewYork, NewYork.
Brejda, J.J., T.B. Moorman, D.L. Karlen, and T.H. Dao.
2000. Identification of regional soil quality factors and
indicators: I. Central and Southern High Plains. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 64(6):2115-2124.
Cannon, K. 2001. Soil Quality Benchmark Newsletter.
Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development,
Alberta, Canada.
Doran, J.W., D.C. Coleman, D.E Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart
(eds.). 1994. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable
Environment. Soil Science Society of America Special
Publication Number 35, Soil Science Society of
America, Inc. and American Society of Agronomy, Inc.,
Madison, Wisconsin. 244 pp.
Doran, J.W. and T.B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and assessing
soil quality. Pp. 3-21. In: J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman,
D.E Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart (eds.). Defining Soil
Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science
Society ofAmerica Special Publication Number 35, Soil
Science Society of America, Inc. and American Society
of Agronomy, Inc., Madison,Wisconsin.
Doran, J.W. and AJ. Jones. 1996. Methods for Assessing
Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special
Publication Number 49, Soil Science Society of
America, Inc., Madison,Wisconsin. 410 pp.
Doran, J.W., M. Sarrantonio, and M.A. Liebig. 1996. Soil
health and sustainability. Pp. 1-54. In: D.L. Sparks
(ed.). Advances in Agronomy, Volume 56., Academic
Press Inc., San Diego, California.
Doran, J.W. and M.R. Zeiss. 2000. Soil health and
sustainability: Managing the biotic component of soil
quality. Applied Soil Ecology 15:3-11.
Eswaran, H., E Beinroth, and l? Reich. 1999. Global land
resources and population-supporting capacity. American
Journal ofAlternative Agriculture 14:136.
Halvorson,J.J.. J.L. Smith, and R.I. Papendick. 1997. Issues
of scale for evaluating soil quality. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 52( 1): 26-30.
Herrick, J.E. 2000. Soil quality: An indicator of sustainable
land management?Applied Soil Ecology 15:75-83.
Herrick, J.E. and M.M. Wander. 1998. Relationships
between soil organic carbon and soil quality in cropped
and rangeland soils:The importance of distribution, com-
position and soil biological activity. Pp. 405-425. In: R .
La1 (ed.).Advancesin Soil Science: Soil Processes and the
Carbon Cycle. C R C Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Herrick, J.E., J.R. Brown, A.J. Tugel, P.L. Shaver, and
K.M. Havstad. 2002. Application of soil quality to
monitoring and management: paradigms from rangeland
ecology. Agronomy Journal 94(1): 3-1 1.
Hoper, H. 2000. The German Federal Soil Protection Act.
In: National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference
Proceedings, 1998-2001: Southern Cooperative Soil
Survey Conference Proceedings, Auburn, Alabama. June
18-22, 2000. [CD-ROM Computer file], National Soil
Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Karlen, D.L. and D.E. Stott. 1994. A fkamework for evaluat-
ing physical and chemical indicators of soil quality.
Pp. 53-72. In: J.W. Doran, D.C. Coleman, D.E
Bezdicek, and B.A. Stewart (eds.).Defining Soil Quality
for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of
America Special Publication Number 35, Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., Madison,Wisconsin.
Karlen, D.L., N.C. Wollenhaupt, D.C. Erbach, E.C. Berry,
J.B. Swan, N.S. Eash, and J.L. Jordahl. 1994a. Crop
residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till
corn. Soil and Tillage Research 31:149-167.
Karlen, D.L., N.C. Wollenhaupt, D.C. Erbach, E.C. Berry,
J.B. Swan, N.S. Eash, and J.L. Jordahl. 1994b. Long-
term tillage effects on soil quality. Soil and Tillage
Research 32:313-327.
Karlen, D.L., M.J. Mausbach, J.W. Doran, R.G. Cline, R.E
Harris, and G.E. Schuman. 1997. Soil quality: A con-
cept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil
Science Society ofAmerica Journal 61(1):4-10.
Karlen, D.L., J.C. Gardner, and MJ. Rosek. 1998. A soil
quality framework for evaluating the impact of C W .
Journal of Production Agriculture. 11(1):56-60.
Karlen, D.L., M.J. Rosek, J.C. Gardner, D.L. Allan, M.J.
Alms, D.E Bezdicek, M. Flock, D.R. Huggins, B.S.
Miller, and M.L. Staben. 1999. Conservation reserve
Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
program effects on soil quality indicators. Journal of Soil
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org
and Water Conservation 54(1):439-444.
Karlen, D.L., S.S. Andrews, and J.W. Doran. 2001. Soil
quality: Current concepts and applications. Advances in
Agronomy 74: 1-40.
Karlen, D.L., S.S. Andrews, and BJ. Wienhold. 2003. Soil
quality, f e d t y , and health-historical context, status and
perspectives. Pp. 17-33. In: P. Schjenning, B.T.
Christensen, S. Elmholt (eds.).Managing Soil Quality-
Challenges in Modern Agriculture. CABI International
Publishers, Oxon, United Kingdom (In prpss)
Lal, R . 1999. Soil management in the developing coun-
tries. Soil Science 165:57-72.
Lamarca, C.C. 1996. Stubble over the soil: The vital role
of plant residue in soil management to improve soil
quality. Agronomy Society of America, Madison,
Wisconsin. 264 pp.
Larson, W.E. and F.J. Pierce. 1991. Conservation and
enhancement of soil quality. Pp. 175-203. In: J.
Dumanski et al. (eds.). Evaluation for sustainable land
management in the developing world. Volume 2:
Technical papers. Procedings of the International
Workshop, Chiang Rai, Thailand. Sept. 15-21, 1991.
International Board for Soil Research and Management,
Bangkok, Thailand.
National Research Council (NRC). 1993. Soil and water
quahty: An agenda for agriculture. National Academy
Press,Washington, D.C. 516 pp.
Nowotny, H. 1975. Controversies in science: Remarks on
the different modes of production of knowledge and their
use. Zeitschrifi fir Sociologie 4:37.
Ouedraogo, E., A. Mando, and N.P Zombre. 2001. Use of
compost to improve soil properties and crop productivi-
ty under low input agricultural system in West Af?ica.
Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 84:259-266.
Parkin, T.B., J.W. Doran, and E. Franco-Vizcaino. 1996.
Field and laboratory tests of soil respiration. In: J.W.
Doran and A.J. Jones (eds.). Methods for Assessing Soil
Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special
Publication Number 49, Soil Science Society of
America, Inc., Madison,Wisconsin. 410 pp.
Personal communication, B. Hudson. USDA-NRCS
(Retired),August 2003.
Pimental, D. 2000. Soil erosion and the threat to food security
and the environment. Ecosystem Health 6: 221-226.
Pimm, S.L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosys-
tems. Nature 307:321-326.
Schjenning, I?, B.T. Christensen,and S. Elmholt. 2003. Soil
quality management--concepts, terms and delimitations.
Pp. 1-16. In: I? Schjenning, B.T. Christensen and S.
Elmholt (eds.) Managing Soil Quality-Challenges in
Modern Agriculture, CABI, London. (Inpren)
I JIA 2003 VOLUME 58 NUMBER 4 I 178 I
 Shepherd, T.G. 2000. Visual soil assessment. Vol. 1. Field
guide for cropping and pastoral grazing on flat to rolling
country. Horizons.m2 and Landcare Researh,
Palmerstown, North. New Zealand. 84 pp.
Shepherd, T.G., L.J. Bird, M.R. Jessen, D.J. Bloomer, D.J.
Cameron, S.C. Park, and P.R. Stephens. 2001. Visual
soil assessment of soil quality-trial by workshops. Pp.
119-126. In: L. D. Currie and P. Loganathan (eds.).
Precision tools for Improving Land Management.
Occasional report number 14. Fertilizer and Lime
Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North.
Sojka, R.E., and D.R. Upchurch. 1999. Reservations
regarding the soil quality concept. Soil Science Society
ofAmerica Journal 63(5):1039-1054.
Sojka, R.E., D.R. Upchurch, and N.E. Borlaug. 2003.
Quality soil management or soil quality management:
performance versus semantics. Pp. 1-68. In: D.L. Sparks
(ed.).Advances in AgronomyVolume 79.Academic Press,
New York, New York.
Sparrow, L.A., A.N. Sharpley, and D.J. Reuter. 2000.
Safeguarding soil and water quality. Communications in
Soil Science and Plant Analysis 31:1717-1742.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources

Copyright © 2003 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1996. Soil rat-

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58(4):171-179 www.swcs.org

ings for plant growth (SRPG) 1:7,500,000scale color
map for the conterminous United States based on the
State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) and nonir-
rigated conduion in the SRPG model. Soil Survey Atlas
Map Series National Soil Survey Center-4007-0897-48.
National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
US. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1998. Soil quali-
ty test kit guide. Section 1. Test procedures, and Section
2. Background and interpretive guide for individual tests.
Soil Quality Institute, Ames, Iowa. 82 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1999a. Root
zone available water capacity (inches) 1:7,500,000 scale
color map for the conterminous United States based on
the State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) and
SRPG model rooting depth rule set. Soil Survey Atlas
Map Series NSSC-NSSC-5499-0899-16. National Soil
Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1999b. Soil tax-
onomy-a basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys, Second edition,Agricultural
Handbook 436. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2000. Soil rat-
ing for plant growth. A system for arraying soils accord-
ing to their inherent productivity and suitability for crops.
C.S. Holzhey and H.R. Sinclair,Jr. (eds.). National Soil
Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 96 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2002. Soil rat-
ings for plant growth (SRPG) 1:7,500,000 scale color
map for the conterminous United States based on the
State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) and irrigat-
ed condition in SRPG model. Soil Survey Atlas Map
Series NSSC-NSSC-4007-12122002-1. National Soil
Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Wander, M.M., and L.E. Drinkwater. 2000. Fostering soil
stewardship through soil quality assessment. Applied Soil
Ecology 1561-73.
Warkentin, B.P., and H.E Fletcher. 1977. Soil quality
for intensive agriculture. Pp. 594-598. Proceedings of
the International Seminar on Soil Environment and
Fertilizer Management in Intensive Agriculture. Society
for Science of Soil and Manure, National Institute of
Agricultural Science,Tokyo,Japan.

I 179 1 JOURNALOF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION JIA 2003 1