No abstract

No abstract

Soil ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., provisioning, regulation/maintenance, and cultural) and ecosystem disservices (ED) are dependent on soil diversity/pedodiversity (variability of soils), which needs to be accounted for in the economic analysis and business decision-making. The concept of pedodiversity (biotic + abiotic) is highly complex and can be broadly interpreted because it is formed from the interaction of atmospheric diversity (abiotic + biotic), biodiversity (biotic), hydrodiversity (abiotic + biotic), and lithodiversity (abiotic) within ecosphere and the anthroposphere. Pedodiversity is influenced by intrinsic (within the soil) and extrinsic (outside soil) factors, which are also relevant to ES/ED. Pedodiversity concepts and measures may need to be adapted to the ES framework and business applications. Currently, there are four main approaches to analyze pedodiversity: taxonomic (diversity of soil classes), genetic (diversity of genetic horizons), parametric (diversity of soil properties), and functional (soil behavior under different uses). The objective of this article is to illustrate the application of pedodiversity concepts and measures to value ES/ED with examples based on the contiguous United States (U.S.), its administrative units, and the systems of soil classification (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database). This study is based on a combination of original research and literature review examples. Taxonomic pedodiversity in the contiguous U.S. exhibits high soil diversity, with 11 soil orders, 65 suborders, 317 great groups, 2026 subgroups, and 19,602 series. The ranking of “soil order abundance” (area of each soil order within the U.S.) expressed as the proportion of the total area is: (1) Mollisols (27%), (2) Alfisols (17%), (3) Entisols (14%), (4) Inceptisols and Aridisols (11% each), (5) Spodosols (3%), (6) Vertisols (2%), and (7) Histosols and Andisols (1% each). Taxonomic, genetic, parametric, and functional pedodiversity are an essential context for analyzing, interpreting, and reporting ES/ED within the ES framework. Although each approach can be used separately, three of these approaches (genetic, parametric, and functional) fall within the “umbrella” of taxonomic pedodiversity, which separates soils based on properties important to potential use. Extrinsic factors play a major role in pedodiversity and should be accounted for in ES/ED valuation based on various databases (e.g., National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) databases). Pedodiversity is crucial in identifying soil capacity (pedocapacity) and “hotspots” of ES/ED as part of business decision making to provide more sustainable use of soil resources. Pedodiversity is not a static construct but is highly dynamic, and various human activities (e.g., agriculture, urbanization) can lead to soil degradation and even soil extinction.

Soil databases are very important for assessing ecosystem services at different administrative levels (e.g., state, region etc.). Soil databases provide information about numerous soil properties, including soil inorganic carbon (SIC), which is a naturally occurring liming material that regulates soil pH and performs other key functions related to all four recognized ecosystem services (e.g., provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services). However, the ecosystem services value, or "true value," of SIC is not recognized in the current land market. In this case, a negative externality arises because SIC with a positive value has zero market price, resulting in the market failure and the inefficient use of land. One potential method to assess the value of SIC is by determining its replacement cost based on the price of commercial limestone that would be required to amend soil. The objective of this study is to assess SIC replacement cost value in the contiguous United States (U.S.) by depth (0-20, 20-100, 100-200 cm) and considering different spatial aggregation levels (i.e., state, region, land resource region (LRR) using the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) soil database. A replacement cost value of SIC was determined based on an average price of limestone in 2014 ($10.42 per U.S. ton). Within the contiguous U.S., the total replacement cost value of SIC in the upper two meters of soil is between $2.16T (i.e., 2.16 trillion U.S. dollars, where T = trillion = 10 12 ) and $8.97T. States with the highest midpoint total value of SIC were: (1) Texas ($1.84T), (2) New Mexico ($355B, that is, 355 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 10 9 ) and (3) Montana ($325B). When normalized by area, the states with the highest midpoint SIC values were: (1) Texas ($2.78 m −2 ), (2) Utah ($1.72 m −2 ) and (3) Minnesota ($1.35 m −2 ). The highest ranked regions for total SIC value were: (1) South Central ($1.95T), (2) West ($1.23T) and (3) Northern Plains ($1.01T), while the highest ranked regions based on area-normalized SIC value were: (1) South Central ($1.80 m −2 ), (2) Midwest ($0.82 m −2 ) and (3) West ($0.63 m −2 ). For land resource regions (LRR), the rankings were: (1) Western Range and Irrigated Region ($1.10T), (2) Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region ($926B) and (3) Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region ($635B) based on total SIC value, while the LRR rankings based on area-normalized SIC value were: (1) Southwest Plateaus and Plains Range and Cotton Region ($3.33 m −2 ), (2) Southwestern Prairies Cotton and Forage Region ($2.83 m −2 ) and (3) Central Great Plains Winter Wheat and Range Region ($1.59 m −2 ). Most of the SIC is located within the 100-200 cm depth interval with a midpoint replacement cost value of $2.49T and an area-normalized value of $0.34 m −2 . Results from this study provide a link between science-based estimates (e.g., soil order) of SIC replacement costs within the administrative boundaries (e.g., state, region etc.).

Current applications of the Ecosystems Services (ES) framework to soils are narrowly defined (e.g., soil-based, pedosphere-based, etc.), and focus on soil properties while treating soil as a closed system. Because soil is an open system, it receives and loses matter across its boundaries within Earth’s spheres (atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, ecosphere, and anthroposphere), which also need to be accounted for in economic analysis. In market economies, the market transforms resources from the Earth’s pedosphere and related spheres into goods and services for societal welfare with non-market institutions mediating human and environmental interactions. These transformations and mediations can result not only in welfare but damages as well. The concept of soil ES and ecosystem disservices (ED) is a human-centered framework, which can be a useful tool in business decision-making. Soil ES (e.g., provisioning, regulation/ maintenance, and cultural) are used to produce goods and services, but the value of these ES and ED are not always accounted for as a part of business decision-making. The objective of this review is to illustrate the monetary valuation of ecosystem services of soil systems (SS) with examples based on the organizational hierarchy of soil systems. The organizational hierarchy of soil systems can be used in economic valuations of soil ES by scale (e.g., world, continent), time (e.g., soil, geologic), qualitative and quantitative degrees of computation (e.g., mental, verbal, descriptive, mathematical, deterministic, stochastic), and degree of complexity (e.g., mechanistic, empirical). Soil survey databases, soil analyses, Soil Data Systems (SDS), and Soil Business Systems (SBS) provide tools and a wide range of quantitative/qualitative data and information to evaluate goods and services for various business applications, but these sources of soil data may be limited in scope due to their static nature. Valuation of soil resources based on soil and non-soil science databases (e.g., National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) databases, etc.) is critically needed to account for these ES/ED as part of business decision-making to provide more sustainable use of soil resources. Since most ecosystems on Earth have been modified by human activity, “soil systems goods and services” (SSGS) may be a more applicable term to describe soil contributions (benefits/damages) to economic activity, compared to a term such as “soil ecosystem goods and services.”

A "soil carbon hotspot" (SCH) is a geographic area having an abundance of soil carbon, and therefore higher ecosystem services value based on avoided social costs of CO 2 emissions. Soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) are critical data to help identify SCH at the farm scale, but monetary methods of hotspot evaluation are not well defined. This study provides a first of its kind quantitative example of farm-scale monetary value of soil carbon (C), and mapping of SCH based on avoided social cost of CO 2 emissions using both Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database and field measurements. The total calculated monetary value for TSC storage at the Willsboro Farm based on the SSURGO database was about 7.3 million U.S. dollars ($7.3 M), compared to $2.8 M based on field data from averaged soil core results. This difference is attributed to variation in soil sampling methodology, laboratory methods of soil C analyses, and depth of reported soil C results. Despite differences in total monetary valuation, observed trends by soil order were often similar for SSURGO versus field methods, with Alfisols typically having the highest total and area-normalized monetary values

No abstract

No abstract