@article{VasićPaulStraussetal.2020, author = {Vasić, Filip and Paul, Carsten and Strauss, Veronika and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Ecosystem Services of Kettle Holes in Agricultural Landscapes}, series = {Agronomy}, volume = {10}, journal = {Agronomy}, number = {9}, publisher = {MDPI}, issn = {2073-4395}, doi = {10.3390/agronomy10091326}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-3407}, pages = {22}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Kettle holes are small water bodies of glacial origin which mostly occur in agricultural landscapes. They provide numerous ecosystem services (ES), but their supply may be negatively affected by agricultural management. We conducted a literature review to identify which ES are supplied by kettle holes and to analyze feedbacks with agricultural management. Taking Germany as a test case, we also analyzed how kettle holes are addressed in policy documents and for which ES they are regulated. This was done to identify the societal value officially associated with kettle holes. The literature review found eight ES attributed to kettle holes, of which hydrological cycle and flood control, chemical condition of freshwaters, nursery populations and habitats and biotic remediation of wastes were addressed most often. In contrast, only the provision of habitat service was addressed in German policy documents related to kettle holes. We identified types of agricultural management that negatively affected the supply of ES by kettle holes, in particular artificial drainage, high levels of pesticide and fertilizer application, and management where tillage and erosion result in elevated sediment inputs. Additionally, climate change may lead to an increased drying up of kettle holes. Based on our finding, we conclude that the intensity of agricultural management around kettle holes threatens the supply of all ES while only the service of providing habitats for biodiversity is addressed in German policy regulations. Further regulation is required to induce agricultural management change towards a conservation of all ES supplied by kettle holes.}, language = {en} } @article{MacPhersonPaulHelming2020, author = {MacPherson, Joseph and Paul, Carsten and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Linking Ecosystem Services and the SDGs to Farm-Level Assessment Tools and Models}, series = {Sustainability}, volume = {12}, journal = {Sustainability}, number = {16}, publisher = {MDPI}, issn = {2071-1050}, doi = {10.3390/su12166617}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-3395}, pages = {19}, year = {2020}, abstract = {A number of tools and models have been developed to assess farm-level sustainability. However, it is unclear how well they potentially incorporate ecosystem services (ES), or how they may contribute to attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Understanding how farm-level assessment tools and models converge on these new paradigms of sustainability is important for drawing comparison on sustainability performances of farming systems, conducting meta-analyses and upscaling local responses to global driving forces. In this study, a coverage analysis was performed for several farm-level sustainability assessment (SA) tools (SAFA, RISE, KSNL, DLG) and models (MODAM, MONICA, APSIM), in regard to their potential for incorporating ES and contribution to attaining the SDGs. Lists of agricultural-relevant CICES classes and SDG targets were compiled and matched against the indicators of the tools and models. The results showed that SAFA possessed the most comprehensive coverage of ES and SDGs, followed by RISE and KSNL. In comparison to models, SA tools were observed to have a higher degree of potential for covering ES and SDGs, which was attributed to larger and broader indicators sets. However, this study also suggested that, overall, current tools and models do not sufficiently articulate the concept of ecosystem services.}, language = {en} } @article{PaulBartkowskiDoenmezetal.2023, author = {Paul, Carsten and Bartkowski, Bartosz and D{\"o}nmez, Cenk and Don, Axel and Mayer, Stefanie and Steffens, Markus and Weigl, Sebastian and Wiesmeier, Martin and Wolf, Andr{\´e} and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Carbon farming: Are soil carbon certificates a suitable tool for climate change mitigation?}, series = {Journal of Environmental Management}, journal = {Journal of Environmental Management}, number = {330}, publisher = {Elsevier}, issn = {0301-4797}, doi = {10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117142}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-8140}, pages = {11}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in agricultural soils removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and contributes towards achieving carbon neutrality. For farmers, higher SOC levels have multiple benefits, including increased soil fertility and resilience against drought-related yield losses. However, increasing SOC levels requires agricultural management changes that are associated with costs. Private soil carbon certificates could compensate for these costs. In these schemes, farmers register their fields with commercial certificate providers who certify SOC increases. Certificates are then sold as voluntary emission offsets on the carbon market. In this paper, we assess the suitability of these certificates as an instrument for climate change mitigation. From a soils' perspective, we address processes of SOC enrichment, their potentials and limits, and options for cost-effective measurement and monitoring. From a farmers' perspective, we assess management options likely to increase SOC, and discuss their synergies and trade-offs with economic, environmental and social targets. From a governance perspective, we address requirements to guarantee additionality and permanence while preventing leakage effects. Furthermore, we address questions of legitimacy and accountability. While increasing SOC is a cornerstone for more sustainable cropping systems, private carbon certificates fall short of expectations for climate change mitigation as permanence of SOC sequestration cannot be guaranteed. Governance challenges include lack of long-term monitoring, problems to ensure additionality, problems to safeguard against leakage effects, and lack of long-term accountability if stored SOC is re-emitted. We conclude that soil-based private carbon certificates are unlikely to deliver the emission offset attributed to them and that their benefit for climate change mitigation is uncertain. Additional research is needed to develop standards for SOC change metrics and monitoring, and to better understand the impact of short term, non-permanent carbon removals on peaks in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and on the probability of exceeding climatic tipping points.}, language = {en} } @article{DonmezSchmidtCileketal.2023, author = {Donmez, Cenk and Schmidt, Marcus and Cilek, Ahmet and Grosse, Meike and Paul, Carsten and Hierold, Wilfried and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Climate change impacts on long-term field experiments in Germany}, series = {Agricultural Systems}, journal = {Agricultural Systems}, number = {205}, publisher = {Elsevier}, doi = {10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103578}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-8150}, pages = {17}, year = {2023}, abstract = {CONTEXT Long-Term Field Experiments (LTEs) were implemented to study the long-term effects of different management practices, including tillage, fertilization and crop rotation under otherwise constant conditions. Climate change is expected to change these conditions, challenging interpretation of LTE data with regard to the distinction between climate change and management effects. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to quantify the expected, spatially differentiated changes of agroclimatic conditions for the German LTE sites as a precondition for modelling and LTE data interpretation. METHODS We developed a framework combining spatially distributed climate data and LTE metadata to identify the possible climatic changes at 247 LTE sites with experiments running for 20 years or more. The LTEs were classified using the following categories: fertilization, tillage, crop rotation, field crops or grassland, conventional or organic. We utilized climate variables (temperature, precipitation) and agroclimatic indicators (aridity, growing degree days, etc.) to compare a baseline (1971-2000) with future periods (2021-2100) under the IPCC's Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP). A comprehensive LTE risk assessment was conducted, based on changes in climate variables and agroclimatic indicators between baseline and future scenarios. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Under the most extreme scenario (SSP585), 150 LTEs are expected to shift from humid and dry sub-humid to semi-arid conditions. Frost days in LTE areas are expected to decline by 81\%, and the growing season to lengthen by up to 92\%. The spatial differentiation of expected climate change also facilitates the identification of suitable sites for future agricultural practices and may inform the design of new LTEs. SIGNIFICANCE Our results may guide the interpretation of LTE data regarding the effect of climate change, facilitating future soil crop modelling studies with LTE data and providing information for planning new LTE sites to support future agricultural research and/or adapting management on existing LTE sites. The framework we developed can easily be transferred to LTE sites in agricultural regions worldwide to support LTE research on climate change impacts and adaptation.}, language = {en} } @article{StraussPaulDoenmezetal.2023, author = {Strauss, Veronika and Paul, Carsten and D{\"o}nmez, Cenk and L{\"o}bmann, Michael and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Sustainable soil management measures: a synthesis of stakeholder recommendations}, series = {Agronomy for Sustainable Development}, volume = {43}, journal = {Agronomy for Sustainable Development}, publisher = {Springer Nature}, doi = {10.1007/s13593-022-00864-7}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-8129}, pages = {26}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Soil degradation threatens agricultural production and soil multifunctionality. Efforts for private and public governance are increasingly emerging to leverage sustainable soil management. They require consensus across science, policy, and practice about what sustainable soil management entails. Such agreement does not yet exist to a sufficient extent in agronomic terms; what is lacking is a concise list of soil management measures that enjoy broad support among all stakeholders, and evidence on the question what hampers their implementation by farmers. We therefore screened stakeholder documents from public governance institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the agricultural industry, and conventional and organic farmer associations for recommendations related to agricultural soil management in Germany. Out of 46 recommended measures in total, we compiled a shortlist of the seven most consensual ones: (1) structural landscape elements, (2) organic fertilization, (3) diversified crop rotation, (4) permanent soil cover, (5) conservation tillage, (6) reduced soil loads, and (7) optimized timing of wheeling. Together, these measures support all agricultural soil functions, and address all major soil threats except soil contamination. Implementation barriers were identified with the aid of an online survey among farmers (n = 78). Results showed that a vast majority of farmers (> 80\%) approved of all measures. Barriers were mostly considered to be economic and in some cases technological, while missing knowledge or other factors were less relevant. Barriers were stronger for those measures that cannot be implemented in isolation, but require a systemic diversification of the production system. This is especially the case for measures that are simultaneously beneficial to many soil functions (measures 2, 3, and 4). Results confirm the need for a diversification of the agricultural system in order to meet challenges of food security and climate change. The shortlist presents the first integrative compilation of sustainable soil management measures supporting the design of effective public or private governance.}, language = {en} } @article{PaulKuhnSteinhoffKnoppetal.2020, author = {Paul, Carsten and Kuhn, Kristin and Steinhoff-Knopp, Bastian and Weißhuhn, Peter and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Towards a standardization of soil-related ecosystem service assessments}, series = {European Journal of Soil Science}, volume = {72}, journal = {European Journal of Soil Science}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {1365-2389}, doi = {10.1111/ejss.13022}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-5801}, pages = {1543 -- 1558}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The concept of ecosystem services (ES) creates understanding of the value of ecosystems for human well-being. With regard to soils, it provides a framework for assessments of soil contributions and soil management impacts. However, a lack of standardization impedes comparisons between assessment studies and the building of synthesis information. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is an important step forward, although its application to soils is not without difficulty. CICES version 5.1 defines 83 ES classes, of which only some are relevant for soils. We compiled two subsets of CICES classes: one set of soil-related ES comprising 29 services defined as directly and quantifiably controlled by soils and their properties, processes and functions, and another set of 40 ES defined as being affected by agricultural soil management. Additionally, we conducted a systematic literature review, searching for published lists of soil-related ES that claim completeness. We identified 11 relevant lists. Of all CICES classes, 12 were included in more than 75\% of the lists, whereas another 36 classes were included in 25-75\% of them. Regarding the suitability of the CICES classification for addressing ES in the context of soils and their agricultural management, we identified constraints, such as overlaps, gaps, and highly specific or very broad class definitions. Close cooperation between the soil research and ES communities could ensure better consideration of soils in future CICES updates. A shortlist of 25 service classes affected by agricultural soil management facilitates a standardized approach and may function as checklists in impact assessments.}, language = {en} } @article{BartkowskiBartkeHelmingetal.2020, author = {Bartkowski, Bartosz and Bartke, Stephan and Helming, Katharina and Paul, Carsten and Techen, Anja-Kristina and Hansj{\"u}rgens, Bernd}, title = {Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy}, series = {PeerJ}, journal = {PeerJ}, doi = {10.7717/peerj.8749}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-6319}, pages = {31}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The concept of ecosystem services, especially in combination with economic valuation, can illuminate trade-offs involved in soil management, policy and governance, and thus support decision making. In this paper, we investigate and highlight the potential and limitations of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy. We formulate a definition of soil-based ecosystem services as basis for conducting a review of existing soil valuation studies with a focus on the inclusion of ecosystem services and the choice of valuation methods. We find that, so far, the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services has covered only a small number of such services and most studies have employed cost-based methods rather than state-of-the-art preference-based valuation methods, even though the latter would better acknowledge the public good character of soil related services. Therefore, the relevance of existing valuation studies for political processes is low. Broadening the spectrum of analyzed ecosystem services as well as using preference-based methods would likely increase the informational quality and policy relevance of valuation results. We point out options for improvement based on recent advances in economic valuation theory and practice. We conclude by investigating the specific roles economic valuation results can play in different phases of the policy-making process, and the specific requirements for its usefulness in this context.}, language = {en} } @article{PerkovićPaulVasićetal.2022, author = {Perković, Stanislava and Paul, Carsten and Vasić, Filip and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Human Health and Soil Health Risks from Heavy Metals, Micro(nano)plastics, and Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria in Agricultural Soils}, series = {Agronomy}, volume = {12}, journal = {Agronomy}, number = {12}, publisher = {MDPI}, issn = {2073-4395}, doi = {10.3390/agronomy12122945}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-3739}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Humans are exposed to agricultural soils through inhalation, dermal contact, or the consumption of food. Human health may be at risk when soils are contaminated; while some soil contaminants such as heavy metals (HMs) have been extensively studied, others such as micro(nano)plastics (MNPs) or antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) pose novel threats. This paper investigates the linkages between soil contamination and human health risk by reviewing the state of knowledge on HMs, MNPs, and ARB in agricultural soils. A keyword-based search in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted, complemented with a backward snowball search. We analysed main sources of contamination for agricultural soils, risks to human health differentiated by uptake pathway (ingestion, inhalation, dermal), and interactions of contaminants with microorganism, soil fauna, and plants. Results show that the emergence and spread of ARB and antibiotic resistant genes from agricultural soils and their contribution to antibiotic resistances of human pathogens is recognized as a significant threat. Likewise, a growing body of evidence indicates that MNPs are able to enter the food chain and to have potentially harmful effects on human health. For HM, knowledge of the effects on human health is well established. Multiple agricultural practices increase HM concentrations in soils, which may lead to adverse health effects from the ingestion of contaminated products or inhalation of contaminated soil particles. Severe knowledge gaps exist about the pathways of the contaminants, their behaviour in soil, and human uptake. Little is known about long-term exposure and impacts of MNPs, antibiotics and ARB on human health or about the possible combined effects of MNPs, ARB, and HMs. Missing monitoring systems inhibit a comprehensive assessment of human health risks. Our research demonstrates the need for human health risk assessment in the context of agricultural soils, in particular to be able to assess risks related to measures reinforcing the concept of the circular economy.}, language = {en} }