The effect of sole and intercropping of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) on crop yield, fertilizer and soil nitrogen (N) use was tested on a sandy loam soil at three levels of urea fertilizer N (0, 4 and 8 g N m À2 ) applied at sowing. The 15 N enrichment and natural abundance techniques were used to determine N accumulation in the crops from the soil, fertilizer and symbiotic N 2 fixation. Intercrops of pea and wheat showed maximum productivity without the supply of N fertilizer. Intercropping increased total dry matter (DM) and N yield, grain DM and N yield, grain N concentration, the proportion of N derived from symbiotic N 2 fixation, and soil N accumulation. With increasing fertilizer N supply, intercropped and sole cropped wheat responded with increased yield, grain N yield and soil N accumulation, whereas the opposite was the case for pea. Fertilizer N enhanced the competitive ability of intercropped wheat recovering up to 90% of the total intercrop fertilizer N acquisition and decreased the proportion of pea in the intercrop, but without influencing the total intercrop grain yield. As a consequence, Land Equivalent Ratios calculated on basis of total DM production decreased from a maximum of 1.34 to as low as 0.85 with increased fertilizer N supply. The study suggests that pea-wheat intercropping is a cropping strategy that use N sources efficiently due to its spatial self-regulating dynamics where pea improve its interspecific competitive ability in areas with lower soil N levels, and vice versa for wheat, paving way for future option to reduce N inputs and negative environmental impacts of agricultural crop production.

The challenges of achieving both food security and environmental sustainability have resulted in a confluence of demands on land within the European Union (EU): we expect our land to provide food, fiber and fuel, to purify water, to sequester carbon, and provide a home to biodiversity as well as external nutrients in the form of waste from humans and intensive livestock enterprises. All soils can perform all of these five functions, but some soils are better at supplying selective functions. Functional Land Management is a framework for policy-making aimed at meeting these demands by incentivizing land use and soil management practices that selectively augment specific soil functions, where required. Here, we explore how the demands for contrasting soil functions, as framed by EU policies, may apply to very different spatial scales, from local to continental scales. At the same time, using Ireland as a national case study, we show that the supply of each soil function is largely determined by local soil and land use conditions, with large variations at both local and regional scales. These discrepancies between the scales at which the demands and supply of soil functions are manifested, have implications for soil and land management: while some soil functions must be managed at local (e.g., farm or field) scale, others may be offset between regions with a view to solely meeting national or continental demands. In order to facilitate the optimization of the delivery of soil functions at national level, to meet the demands that are framed at continental scale, we identify and categorize 14 policy and market instruments that are available in the EU. The results from this inventory imply that there may be no need for the introduction of new specific instruments to aid the governance of Functional Land Management. We conclude that there may be more merit in adapting existing governance instruments by facilitating differentiation between soils and landscapes.

Soils are vital for supporting food security and other ecosystem services. Climate change can affect soil functions both directly and indirectly. Direct effects include temperature, precipitation, and moisture regime changes. Indirect effects include those that are induced by adaptations such as irrigation, crop rotation changes, and tillage practices. Although extensive knowledge is available on the direct effects, an understanding of the indirect effects of agricultural adaptation options is less complete. A review of 20 agricultural adaptation case‐studies across Europe was conducted to assess implications to soil threats and soil functions and the link to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The major findings are as follows: (a) adaptation options reflect local conditions; (b) reduced soil erosion threats and increased soil organic carbon are expected, although compaction may increase in some areas; (c) most adaptation options are anticipated to improve the soil functions of food and biomass production, soil organic carbon storage, and storing, filtering, transforming, and recycling capacities, whereas possible implications for soil biodiversity are largely unknown; and (d) the linkage between soil functions and the SDGs implies improvements to SDG 2 (achieving food security and promoting sustainable agriculture) and SDG 13 (taking action on climate change), whereas the relationship to SDG 15 (using terrestrial ecosystems sustainably) is largely unknown. The conclusion is drawn that agricultural adaptation options, even when focused on increasing yields, have the potential to outweigh the negative direct effects of climate change on soil degradation in many European regions.

A key narrative within climate change science is that conserving and improving soil carbon through agricultural practices can contribute to agricultural productivity and is a promising option for mitigating carbon loss through sequestration. This paper examines the potential disconnect between science and practice in the context of communicating information about soil carbon management. It focuses on the information producing process and on stakeholder (adviser, farmer representative, policy maker etc) assessment of the attributes credibility, salience and legitimacy. In doing this it draws on results from consultations with stakeholders in the SmartSOIL project which aimed to provide decision support guidelines about practices that optimise carbon mitigation and crop productivity. An iterative methodology, used to engage stakeholders in developing, testing and validating a range of decision support guidelines in six case study regions across Europe, is described. This process enhanced legitimacy and revealed the importance, and the different dimensions, of stakeholder views on credibility and salience. The results also highlight the complexities and contested nature of managing soil carbon. Some insights are gained into how to achieve more effective communication about soil carbon management, including the need to provide opportunities in projects and research programmes for dialogue to engender better understanding between science and practice.

Soil and its ecosystem functions play a societal role in securing sustainable food production while safeguarding natural resources. A functional land management framework has been proposed to optimize the agro-environmental outputs from the land and specifically the supply and demand of soil functions such as (a) primary productivity, (b) carbon sequestration, (c) water purification and regulation, (d) biodiversity and (e) nutrient cycling, for which soil knowledge is essential. From the outset, the LANDMARK multi-actor research project integrates harvested knowledge from local, national and European stakeholders to develop such guidelines, creating a sense of ownership, trust and reciprocity of the outcomes. About 470 stakeholders from five European countries participated in 32 structured workshops covering multiple land uses in six climatic zones. The harmonized results include stakeholders' priorities and concerns, perceptions on soil quality and functions, implementation of tools, management techniques, indicators and monitoring, activities and policies, knowledge gaps and ideas. Multi-criteria decision analysis was used for data analysis. Two qualitative models were developed using Decision EXpert methodology to evaluate "knowledge" and "needs". Soil quality perceptions differed across workshops, depending on the stakeholder level and regionally established terminologies. Stakeholders had good inherent knowledge about soil functioning, but several gaps were identified. In terms of critical requirements, stakeholders defined high technical, activity and policy needs in (a) financial incentives, (b) credible information on improving more sustainable management practices, (c) locally relevant advice, (d) farmers' discussion groups, (e) training programmes, (f) funding for applied research and monitoring, and (g) strengthening soil science in education. K E Y W O R D S DEX model, farmers and multi-stakeholders, locally relevant advice, participatory research, soil quality This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.