2007
DOI: 10.1017/s1742170507001834
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: A critical step in the quantification of soil quality (SQ) is the selection of SQ benchmarks. The benchmarks used in this study were SQ ratings made by 32 farmer collaborators representing a range of farming systems, scales of operation and geographic locations in the Mid-Atlantic region of USA. Soils from 45 pairs of sites identified by their farmers as having good and poor SQ were sampled over three seasons and analyzed for 19 soil parameters. Farmer judgments of SQ were based on many factors, most commonly … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
24
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
(42 reference statements)
2
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such differences can explain why soil testing did not pick up fertility differences perceived by farmers. The reported mismatch is consistent with Gruver and Weil () but contrary to several similar studies that reported good agreement between farmer and laboratory assessments (Berazneva, McBride, Sheahan, & Guerena, ; Laekemariam, Kibret, & Mamo, ; Yageta, Osbahr, Moromoto, & Clark, ; Yeshaneh, ). The differences in farmer‐identified fertility classes in these studies were largely attributed to soil management rather than inherent properties of the soil.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Such differences can explain why soil testing did not pick up fertility differences perceived by farmers. The reported mismatch is consistent with Gruver and Weil () but contrary to several similar studies that reported good agreement between farmer and laboratory assessments (Berazneva, McBride, Sheahan, & Guerena, ; Laekemariam, Kibret, & Mamo, ; Yageta, Osbahr, Moromoto, & Clark, ; Yeshaneh, ). The differences in farmer‐identified fertility classes in these studies were largely attributed to soil management rather than inherent properties of the soil.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Surface soil from both experiments and sampling dates was fractionated into stable macroaggregates (250-2000 µm), slakeable microaggregates (20-250 µm), and slakeable fines (<20 µm) using a modified Gruver (1999) method. Briefly, 25.0 g of air-dried soil was submerged in deionized (DI) water on a sieve with 250-µm mesh openings and shaken orbitally (100 rpm, 5-cm radius) for 1 min.…”
Section: Physical Fractionation Of Soilmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the lack of soil analysis, validation of farmer's knowledge is interesting, because the diagnosis is simple, synthetic and readily available, which is in line with Gruver and Weil [21]. Soils' names deliver key messages needed for their location and fertility levels [18,19].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…While Bekunda et al [17] showed that the fertility concept remains poorly defined. However, the relevance of traditional systems of evaluation [18,19] and the complexity of interactions between soil properties [20] raised the need to develop fertility indicators accessible to all [21]. In the SFZC, it is important to know if traditional knowledge differs from that suggested by scientific data.…”
Section: Introduction mentioning
confidence: 99%