<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">SOIL</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>SOIL</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">SOIL</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">SOIL</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">2199-398X</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/soil-1-173-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>Identification of sensitive indicators to assess the interrelationship
between soil quality, management practices and human health</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Identification of sensitive indicators}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. Zornoza et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zornoza</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name>
          <email>raul.zornoza@upct.es</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7291-5742</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Acosta</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Bastida</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Domínguez</surname><given-names>S. G.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Toledo</surname><given-names>D. M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Faz</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Sustainable Use, Management and Reclamation of Soil and Water Research
Group. Department of Agrarian Science and Technology, Universidad
Politécnica de Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 48,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> 30203 Cartagena, Spain</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Soil and Water Conservation, CEBAS-CSIC, Campus
Universitario de Espinardo, <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>30100 Murcia, Spain</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Cátedra de Edafología, Departamento de Suelo y Agua, Facultad
de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Sargento Cabral
2131, 3400 Corrientes, Argentina</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">R. Zornoza (raul.zornoza@upct.es)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>6</day><month>February</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>1</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>173</fpage><lpage>185</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>25</day><month>August</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>September</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>17</day><month>December</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>January</month><year>2015</year></date>
           
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/1/173/2015/soil-1-173-2015.html">This article is available from https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/1/173/2015/soil-1-173-2015.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/1/173/2015/soil-1-173-2015.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/1/173/2015/soil-1-173-2015.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Soil quality (SQ) assessment has long been a challenging issue, since soils
present high variability in properties and functions. This paper aims to
increase the understanding of SQ through the review of SQ assessments in
different scenarios providing evidence about the interrelationship between
SQ, land use and human health. There is a general consensus that there is a
need to develop methods to assess and monitor SQ for assuring sustainable
land use with no prejudicial effects on human health. This review points out
the importance of adopting indicators of different nature (physical,
chemical and biological) to achieve a holistic image of SQ. Most authors use
single indicators to assess SQ and its relationship with land uses – soil
organic carbon and pH being the most used indicators. The use of nitrogen
and nutrient content has resulted sensitive for agricultural and
forest systems, together with physical properties such as texture, bulk
density, available water and aggregate stability. These physical indicators
have also been widely used to assess SQ after land use changes. The use of
biological indicators is less generalized, with microbial biomass and enzyme
activities being the most selected indicators. Although most authors assess
SQ using independent indicators, it is preferable to combine some of them
into models to create a soil quality index (SQI), since it provides
integrated information about soil processes and functioning. The majority of
revised articles used the same methodology to establish an SQI, based on
scoring and weighting of different soil indicators, selected by means of multivariate
analyses. The use of multiple linear regressions has been successfully used
for forest land use. Urban soil quality has been poorly assessed, with a lack
of adoption of SQIs. In addition, SQ assessments where human health
indicators or exposure pathways are incorporated are practically inexistent.
Thus, further efforts should be carried out to establish new methodologies
to assess soil quality not only in terms of sustainability, productivity and
ecosystem quality but also human health. Additionally, new challenges arise
with the use and integration of stable isotopic, genomic, proteomic and
spectroscopic data into SQIs.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <title>Concept of soil quality</title>
      <p>Soil is a complex environmental medium with high heterogeneity where solid,
liquid and gaseous components interact within a multitude of physical,
chemical and biological interrelated processes. Soil provides ecosystem
services (benefits people obtain from the soil) such as food, water,
timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease,
waste and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational,
aesthetic and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient
cycling (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Nonetheless, owing to
unsustainable land uses, soil is degrading by loss of organic matter,
salinization/alkalinization, compactness, structural destruction, sealing,
contamination, acidification, etc., compromising the maintenance of further
productivity. Thus, there is a tendency towards preservation of soils to
promote its sustainable use (Blum, 2003). Because of the intrinsic
association between soil and economy, several economic activities depend on
soil quality, which include agriculture, forestry, industry and tourism,
which could benefit from establishment of methods for soil quality
assessments (Bone et al., 2010).</p>
      <p>The definition of soil quality (SQ) has long been a challenging issue, since soils
present high variability in properties, characteristics and functions. To
our knowledge, the first user of the concept was Alexander (1971), who
recommended the establishment of SQ criteria (Bone et al., 2010). Subsequent
to that, several definitions were also created (e.g., Larson and Pierce, 1991;
Parr et al., 1992; Doran and Parkin, 1994; Harris et al., 1996). The most
integrative definitions are those established by Doran and Parkin (1994) and
Harris et al. (1996), who defined SQ as the capacity of a soil to function
within the limits of use, landscape and climate (ecosystem) to protect air
and water quality, and to sustain productivity and plants, animals and human
health. Nonetheless, despite the different definitions for SQ, there is no
general consensus yet, likely due to the innate difficulty of definition of
soil (Carter, 2002).</p>
      <p>This paper aims to provide new insights through the review of soil quality
assessments in different scenarios linked to forest management, agricultural
management, urban systems and land use changes. The selection of indicators
or indices to assess soil quality in an effective and sensitive way in terms
of the ecological ambient and the purpose of the assessment is synthesized.
Major concerns about the effect of land use or management are incorporated to
select suitable indicators, providing evidence about the interrelationship
between soil quality, environmental quality and human health.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <title>Interrelationship between soil quality, land management and human health</title>
      <p>Management practices in agriculture, forestry or urban environments can have
negative or positive impacts on SQ, favoring the exhaustion of nutrients,
loss of SOM, pollution, biodiversity reduction, etc., or favoring trends in
the opposite direction. Suitable management practices for each land use
within each geographical area are essential to preserve soil functions and
thus promote SQ. Additionally, there is always a feedback interaction
between SQ and the management practice selected, since modifications in SQ
could also warn the land manager to change a practice which is no longer
suitable or needed.</p>
      <p>Less attention has been given to soil degradation and its direct or indirect
effects on human health, despite the fact that SQ deterioration may possibly
lead to a variety of human diseases (Deng, 2011). Bone et al. (2010)
suggested that this is because the links to human health are not evident for
soil to the same extent as for water and air. To assess the effects of SQ on
organisms, soil quality standards (SQSs) are normally developed, which
represent the concentration of a chemical or group of chemicals or pathogen
in soil that should not be exceeded in order to prevent harmful effects
(Rodríguez and Lafarga, 2011).</p>
      <p>Thus, SQ has interconnections with management practices, productivity and
other ecosystem aspects, showing an interdependence controlled by feedback
mechanisms. SQ is also connected to human health since soil can act as
source and/or pathway of disease vectors. Management practices can directly
affect productivity, ecosystem functioning and human health, as well as
indirectly through shifts in SQ (Fig. 1). Doran (2002) postulated that soil
management practices are primary determinants of SQ, and SQ indicators must
not only identify the condition of the soil resource but also define the
economic and environmental sustainability of land management practices. One
of the greatest challenges for researchers is “translating science into
practice” through identifying soil indicators capable of showing rapid
changes in the performance of an ecosystem, needed by land managers and decision
makers to assess the economic, environmental, social and health impacts of
management practices.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Interconnection between management practices, soil quality,
productivity, environmental functions and soil health. Only indirect effects
of management practices on other components through soil quality are taken
into consideration.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/1/173/2015/soil-1-173-2015-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS3">
  <title>Approaches to assess soil quality and the selection of suitable indicators</title>
      <p>There is increasing acknowledgement and international interest in developing
methodologies to characterize and define management practices which control
degradation and enhance SQ. A methodology is necessary to select indicators
to assess SQ with the aim of identifying problems in productivity, monitoring
changes in ecosystem sustainability, tracking ecological effects after land use
changes or reducing risks to human health. Although many studies have been
conducted on SQ assessment, there is not a general methodology to
characterize SQ and define a set of indicators. SQ indicators are measurable
properties or characteristics which provide information about the ability of
the soil to provide essential environmental services. Those attributes most
sensitive to management practices or land use changes are the most adequate
as indicators (Arshad and Martin, 2002). A wide range of physical, chemical
and biological properties are available to be measured on a routine basis,
but due to the impossibility of considering them all, it is necessary to
make a selection. Larson and Pierce (1991) (cited in Larson and Pierce,
1994) suggested a minimum data set (MDS) for SQ assessment, with the
objective of standardizing methodologies and procedures at an international
level. This list was later extended, including biological properties by
Doran and Parkin (1994). These proposals were further adapted, modified
or extended in posterior studies. Physical properties reflect limitation for
the development of roots, seedling emergence, infiltration, water retention
or movement of fauna (Burger and Kelting, 1999). The chemical condition
affects the soil–plant relations, water quality, buffering capacity,
availability of nutrients and contaminants (Muckel and Mausbach, 1996).
Biological indicators are more sensitive and rapidly respond to
perturbations and changes in land use; soil organisms, in addition, play a
direct role in the ecosystems processes, mainly in nutrient recycling and
soil aggregation (Doran and Zeiss, 2000; Rillig, 2004). The selection of
indicators of different nature (physical, chemical and biological) is
essential to achieve a holistic image of SQ (Nannipieri et al., 1990).</p>
      <p>Even though most authors assess SQ using different independent indicators,
others prefer their combination into models or expressions in which various
properties are involved (Fig. 2). These expressions are called soil quality
indices (SQI), which can help in determining SQ trends and thereby indicate whether
one or more changes in practice are necessary (Karlen et al., 2001). Despite
computer modeling simplifying this process, novel approaches that recognize
relationships among highly disparate types of data associated with SQ are
needed to assess the value of different indicators for guiding land
management decisions. In recent years a new approach has emerged for
integrating great amounts of data, the artificial neural networks, which
extract and recognize patterns in relationships among descriptive variables
and are used to predict specific outputs variables (Mele and Crowley, 2008).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>Flowchart of steps involved in soil quality assessment.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/1/173/2015/soil-1-173-2015-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Agricultural practices and soil quality indicators </title>
      <p>SQ has been assessed in agricultural systems in different agroclimatic
regions and soil types under different crops and management practices. Even
though crop productivity is the main concern in agriculture due to economic
issues, there is a need to maintain SQ to preserve global sustainability.
Assessment of SQ is needed to identify problems in production areas and to
assist in formulation and evaluation of realistic agricultural and land use
policies (Doran, 2002).</p>
      <p>Soil organic carbon (SOC) has been suggested as the most important single
indicator of SQ and agricultural sustainability since it affects most soil
properties (Reeves, 1997; Arias et al., 2005). In the literature reviewed,
SOC is the most used indicator for SQ assessments, followed by pH,
electrical conductivity (EC) and nutrients (indicators of soil fertility)
(Table 1). Physical indicators have been applied in about 70 % of the
reviewed literature, with particle size, aggregates stability and bulk density
being the most common used. About 50 % of the authors incorporated biological
properties, mainly microbial biomass carbon (MBC) or nitrogen (MBN) and
enzymatic activities, probably owing to its high sensitivity and ease of
measuring. Fewer studies (around 40 % of the consulted literature)
included organisms like earthworms and arthropods as indicators, even though
they respond sensitively to land management practices (Doran and Zeiss,
2000), likely because they are useful only at a local scale (Rousseau et
al., 2013).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star" orientation="landscape"><?xmltex \hack{\centering}?><caption><p>Most common indicators used in soil quality assessment under
different land uses and approaches.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.65}[.65]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="85.358268pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="156.490157pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="156.490157pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="156.490157pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="156.490157pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="156.490157pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soil indicator</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Agricultural systems</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Forest systems</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Land use changes</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Urban systems</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Human health</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soil organic carbon</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Qi et al. (2009), Merril et al. (2013), D'Hose et al. (2014), Li et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2014b), Rahmanipour et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Franzluebbers (2002), Pang et al. (2006), Amacher et al. (2007), Chaer et al. (2009), Zornoza et al. (2007), Toledo et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Li et al. (2013), Singh et al. (2014), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Rodrigues et al. (2009), Santorufo et al. (2012a, b), Gavrilenko et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Murray et al. (2011), Cachada et al. (2012), Qin et al. (2013), Rafiq et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total nitrogen</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Qi et al. (2009), Ramos et al. (2010), Laird and Chang (2013), Rousseau et al. (2013), D'Hose et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2014a, b)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Trasar-Cepeda et al. (1998), Leirós et al. (1999), Pang et al. (2006), Amacher et al. (2007)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">pH</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Qi et al. (2009), Moscatelli et al. (2012), Giacometti et al. (2014), D'Hose et al. (2014), Rahmanipour et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Burger and Kelting (1999), Amacher et al. (2007), Zornoza et al. (2007),</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Rodrigues et al. (2009), Santorufo et al. (2012a, b)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Murray et al. (2011), Zhao et al. (2012), Landa-Cansigno et al. (2013), Rafiq et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Electrical conductivity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Merrill et al. (2013), Li et al. (2014), Rahmanipour et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Zornoza et al. (2007, 2008a)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Landa-Cansigno et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Available nutrients</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Qi et al. (2009), Merrill et al.(2013), Liu et al. (2014a), Rousseau et al. (2013), D'Hose et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Pang et al. (2006), Amacher et al. (2007), Zornoza et al. (2007, 2008a)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Singh et al. (2014), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cation exchange<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>capacity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">García-Ruiz et al. (2008), Qi et al. (2009), Rahmanipour et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Pang et al. (2006), Zornoza et al. (2007),</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Rodrigues et al. (2009)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Rafiq et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soluble carbon and/or<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>nitrogen</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Merrill et al. 2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Wang and Wang (2011),</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Heavy metals</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Qi et al. (2009), Rahmanipour et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Singh et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Peijnenburg et al. (2007), Papa et al. (2010), Rodrigues et al. (2013), Santorufo et al. (2012a)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Murray et al. (2011), Zhao et al. (2012), Pelfrêne et al. (2013), Qin et al. (2013), Rafiq et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Organic pollutants</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Wenrui et al. (2009), Cachada et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Particle size</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Armenise et al. (2013), Merrill et al. (2013), Rousseau et al. (2013),</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Singh et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Rodrigues et al. (2009), Gavrilenko et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Murray et al. (2011), Landa-Cansigno et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Bulk density</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Merrill et al.(2013), Rousseau et al. (2013),</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Sanchez et al. (2009)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Rodrigues et al. (2009), Gavrilenko et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soil aggregation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rousseau et al. (2013), D'Hose et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Zornoza et al. (2007, 2008a)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Available water<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>content/water holding<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>capacity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Armenise et al. (2013),</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Burger and Kelting (1999), Pang et al. (2006), Amacher et al. (2007), Zornoza et al. (2007)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Santorufo et al. (2012a, b)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Porosity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Burger and Kelting (1999)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Penetration resistance</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rousseau et al. (2013), D'Hose et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Burger and Kelting (1999)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Carbon mineralization</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biau et al. (2012), Laird and Chang (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Jiménez-Esquilín et al. (2008), Blecker et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Papa et al. (2010), Gavrilenko et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Nitrogen<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>mineralization</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biau et al. (2012), Laird and Chang (2013), Merrill et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Trasar-Cepeda et al. (1998), Leirós et al. (1999)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Microbial biomass<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>carbon and/or nitrogen</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bi et al. (2013), D'Hose et al. (2014), Li et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2014a)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Trasar-Cepeda et al. (1998), Chaer et al. (2009), Mataix-Solera et al. (2009), Zhao et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010), Li et al. (2013), Veum et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Papa et al. (2010), Gavrilenko et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Microbial communities</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Giacometti et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Zornoza et al. (2009), Banning et al. (2011), Blecker et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Liang et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Enzyme activities</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">García-Ruiz et al. (2008), Li et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2014b)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Trasar-Cepeda et al. (1998), Leirós et al. (1999), Zornoza et al. (2007), Chaer et al. (2009)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Li et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Papa et al. (2010)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ergosterol/fungal mycelium</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">D'Hose et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Marzaioli et al. (2010)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Invertebrates</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Biau et al. (2012), D'Hose et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Ruiz et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Hankard et al. (2005), Santorufo et<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>al. (2012a, b)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Landa-Cansigno et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pathogens</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Liang et al. (2011), Benami et al. (2013), Ceuppens et al. (2014), Sepehrnia et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Despite the fact that most authors assess SQ by analysis and description of
single indicators, others consider the importance of an SQI to relate SQ to
crop production and management practices. The majority of revised articles
used the same methodology to establish an SQI, based on scoring and weighing
different soil indicators (Hussain et al., 1999; Andrews and Carroll, 2001).
A MDS was used to create the index, being selected in most cases by means of
multivariate analyses (such as principal component analysis (PCA)). The
most common parameters used were pH, EC, SOC, total nitrogen (Nt) and
available P. Other indicators such as NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, NH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Na, K,
Ca, Mg, bulk density, sand, silt, clay and available water content have also
been used by various authors. After indicators have been transformed using a
linear or nonlinear scoring curve into unitless values and then weighted, SQIs
are normally calculated using the integrated quality index equation
(IQI) (Doran and Parkin, 1994) or the Nemoro quality index equation (NQI)
(Qin and Zhao, 2000) by summation of the weighted scored indicators. Qi et
al. (2009) measured 14 chemical indicators (SOC, Nt, pH, cation exchange
capacity (CEC) and several nutrients) and compared the IQI and NQI in
combination with three methods for indicator selection: total data set
(TDS), MDS, and Delphi data set (indicators selected by the opinion of
experts). They concluded that results were similar regardless of the method
or model applied. Rahmanipour et al. (2014) compared two sets of indicators
– TDS (composed of 10 physical and chemical properties, mainly the erodibility
factor, pH, EC, SOC, CEC and heavy metals) and MDS (indicators reduced by
PCA) – and two different indices: IQI and NQI. These authors concluded that
an IQI/MDS approach was the most suitable tool to evaluate the effects of
land management practices on SQ.</p>
      <p>D'Hose et al. (2014) assessed the relationship between SQ and crop
production under different management practices by the adoption of the IQI,
using five soil indicators selected by PCA (SOC, Nt, earthworms, nematodes
and MBC). These authors concluded that SQ was higher when farm compost was
applied and SOC was pointed out as the most important indicator influencing
crop production. Liu et al. (2014a) calculated an SQI in acid sulfate paddy
soils with different productivity. They scored five soil chemical and
biochemical indicators after their selection by PCA (pH, Nt, MBC, Si and
Zn), which were integrated into an index, showing lower SQ in systems with
low productivity. Liu et al. (2014b) validated their SQI (Liu et al., 2014a)
in low-productivity albic soils from eastern China, and observed significant
correlations between the SQI and crop yield.</p>
      <p>Merrill et al. (2013) assessed SQ in two different soil types sampled at
different depths. For these purposes, the authors made use of the Soil
Management Assessment Framework (SMAF), a pre-established SQI (Andrews et
al., 2004) which evaluates SQ on the basis of critical soil functions.
The authors highlighted that soil surface and subsurface properties should be
integrated for SQ assessments. Li et al. (2014) also used the SMAF to assess
SQ in agrosystems where mulch was added, concluding that MBC and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-glucosidase activity were the most responsive indicators to mulching and
production systems.</p>
      <p>There have been fewer attempts to calibrate SQIs based on other
methodologies. For instance, García-Ruiz et al. (2008) established an
SQI by the calculation of the geometric mean of several enzyme activities
(GMea). Soil enzymes and the GMea were suitable to discriminate between a
set of organic and comparable conventional olive oil orchard crops.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Forest management and soil quality indicators</title>
      <p>About 31 % of the world's land surface is covered by
forests (FAO, 2012), which provide different goods and services, such as
water reservoirs, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, timber, gum,
recreation, etc. Previous research mainly focused on the assessment of SQ to
promote highest forest productivity. Nonetheless, in recent years,
international environmental concern about forest management has experienced a shift in
research focus towards the sustainability of the forest ecosystem functions.</p>
      <p>In order to assess forest SQ, the most used indicators are SOC, followed by
pH, nutrient levels, MBC and mineralizable N (Table 1). Miralles et al. (2009) observed that most soil properties measured in forest soils from
southeastern Spain were highly correlated with SOC. They established SQ
indicators consisting of ratios to SOC, which inform about the specific
activity (per C unit) or performance of the organic matter, independently of
its total content. These authors concluded that these ratios are more
effective for assessing SQ since they provide information about soil
resilience. Physical attributes have been used in about 23 % of the
reviewed literature, with water availability or water holding capacity (WHC),
soil porosity and aggregate stability being the most common indicators. In
the recent years, there has been a general concern about the importance of
soil biological indicators and their ecological relevance for assessing SQ,
and some authors have included microbial indicators such as
microbial community composition in their studies (Zornoza et al., 2009; Banning et al., 2011;
Blecker et al., 2012). The adoption of SQIs under forest use has been less
developed than for agroecosystems. Most authors have applied simple ratios,
such as C / N, the metabolic quotient or qCO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (soil respiration to MBC),
enzyme activities / microbial biomass, SOC and N stratification ratios,
MBC / SOC, MBN / Nt, ATP / MBC, ergosterol / MBC, or fungal / bacteria
biomass (Trasar-Cepeda et al. 1998; Franzluebbers, 2002; Dinesh et al.,
2003; Mataix-Solera et al., 2009; Toledo et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2014).
However, using only two soil indicators to create an SQI does not provide
enough information about soil processes and functioning. Despite this fact,
the development of algorithms in which different indicators are combined,
has not been generalized, likely because they are limited to the area and
situation in which they have been described (Gil-Sotres et al., 2005).</p>
      <p>Burger and Kelting (1999) provided an index to assess the net effect of
forest management using different soil physical, chemical and biological
indicators such as porosity, available water capacity, pH, SOC or
respiration. They applied the principles proposed by Gale et al. (1991), and
the SQI was calculated as the summation of five weighted indicators
(sufficiency for root growth; water supply; nutrient supply; sufficiency for gas exchange; and biological activity). Trasar-Cepeda et al. (1998) obtained
a biochemical SQI using natural soils under climax vegetation where Nt can
be estimated by means of multiple linear regression using MBC, mineralizable N and
enzyme activities as independent variables. This index was validated by
Leirós et al. (1999) in soils disturbed by contamination and tillage,
concluding that it can be used for the rapid evaluation of soil degradation,
since it distinguished between high-quality soils, soils in a transient
status, and degraded soils. This methodology, based on the calculation of a
soil property via multiple regressions, which suggests a balance among soil
properties, has also been used by other authors. Zornoza et al. (2007) obtained, under semiarid Mediterranean
conditions, two SQIs to assess soil
degradation by estimation of SOC through linear combination of physical,
chemical and biological indicators (pH, CEC, aggregate stability, WHC, EC
and enzyme activities). These indices were further validated by Zornoza et
al. (2008a) in 11 undisturbed forest soils, confirming their viability
and accuracy. Chaer et al. (2009) calibrated an SQI using multiple linear
regressions with SOC as a combination of MBC and phosphatase activity,
confirming previous evidence of a balance in soil properties in undisturbed
soils, this balance being disrupted after perturbations.</p>
      <p>Pang et al. (2006) established an integrated
fertility index (IFI) in forest soils from China with the objective of detecting changes in soil
fertility in relation to vegetation, climate and disturbance practices. They
applied PCA to 14 physical and chemical indicators, and calculated a value
for each identified PC as the summation of each indicator value multiplied
by its loading. The IFI was calculated as the summation of each weighted PC.
The authors found that IFI was highly correlated with tree growth.</p>
      <p>Amacher et al. (2007) developed an SQI that integrated 19 physical and
chemical properties (bulk density, water content, pH, SOC, inorganic C, Nt
and nutrients) with the aim of creating a tool for establishing baselines
and detecting forest health trends in USA. These authors arranged each soil
indicator into different categories, selecting threshold levels according to
its functional significance in soil, and assigned an individual index value
for each category. For instance, SOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 % was assigned an index
value of 0, while SOC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 % was assigned an index value of 2.
The SQI is then calculated as the summation of all individual soil property
index values. Contrary to the common procedure, these authors did not reduce
the quantity of indicators before calculating the SQI, which greatly
contributes to reducing time and resources. The authors strongly recommend the
measurement of the 19 selected soil properties, since using less quantity
could provide a distorted assessment of soil quality.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Land use changes and soil quality </title>
      <p>Changes in land use are human-derived impacts with high affection in
ecosystem functioning. Land uses have a strong impact on the level of SOC,
which has been widely used as indicator of SQ (Table 1). Overall, soil
management that leads to an accumulation of SOC is related to ecosystem
benefits. However, land misuse can cause degradation of soil as a
consequence of reducing SOC levels (Lal, 2004). Land conversion from native
forest to cropland is prone to soil C losses (Camara-Ferreira et al., 2014).
Conversion of croplands to grasslands has been elucidated as a successful
approach for C sequestration (Chen et al., 2009). Albaladejo et al. (2013)
studied the effect of climate with regards to land use in southeastern Spain.
These authors concluded that C sequestration in cropland through appropriate
land management can be suitable when forestland is limited by bedrock
surfaces. Gelaw et al. (2014) revealed that conversion of Ethiopian
croplands to grasslands or integration of appropriate agroforestry trees in
cropping fields has a huge potential for C sequestration. Agroforestry, the
practice of growing trees and crops in interacting combinations on the same
unit of land, can be proposed as a promising strategy for C sequestration
with special emphasis on arid and semiarid areas that are usually degraded
by SOC losses.</p>
      <p>Microbial biomass and enzyme activity have been widely used to assess
impacts of land use changes on SQ. In Brazilian semiarid ecosystems, Nunes
et al. (2012) reported that MBC was highly sensitive to shifts in land use.
Mijangos et al. (2014) observed that replacing meadows with pine plantations
under a temperate climate influences enzyme activities and nutrient cycling.
Moreover, enzyme activity was sensitive to human-induced alterations in a
land use sequence from natural forest pastures and shrublands (Tischer et
al., 2014). Zhao et al. (2013) evaluated natural forest, park, agriculture,
street garden and roadside tree land uses using MBC and microbial functional
diversity as indicators. In comparison to forest, MBC was lower for the rest
of land uses but functional diversity was higher in the roadside-tree
soils.</p>
      <p>The simple index most used in the reviewed literature is the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. This
ratio has resulted a suitable indicator to provide evidence of soil
perturbation after deforestation or other land use changes (Dilly et al.,
2003; Bastida et al., 2006a). The establishment of multiparametric indices
has been used as an adequate tool for integrating greater information of
soil quality, and some of them have been recently applied to assess the
impact of land use changes on SQ. Veum et al. (2014) evaluated SQ of
perennial vegetation plots in comparison to agricultural soils under
no tillage or conventionally treated plots, using for these purposes the
SMAF with indicators such as aggregate stability, bulk density, EC, pH, SOC,
MBC, mineralizable N and nutrients. SQ was greatest under native, perennial
vegetation, and declined with increasing levels of soil disturbance
resulting from cultivation.</p>
      <p>Singh et al. (2014) selected indicators from a data set of 29 soil
properties by PCA and produced an SQI which indicated that SQ in the natural
forest land and grasslands was higher than in the cultivated sites.
Interestingly, these authors highlighted that SOC and exchangeable Al were
the two most powerful indicators of SQ in the eastern Himalayan region of
India. Ruiz et al. (2011) elaborated an index of biological soil quality
(IBSQ) based on macroinvertebrates and concluded that well-managed crops and
pastures may have better SQ than some forests.</p>
      <p>Marzaioli et al. (2010) established an SQI (without minimum data set
selection) using physical, chemical and biological indicators such as
aggregate stability, WHC, bulk density, particle size, pH, EC, CEC, SOC, Nt,
nutrients, MBC, respiration and fungal mycelium. The authors observed a low SQ
in almost all permanent crops; an intermediate SQ in shrublands,
grazing lands, coniferous forest and middle-hill olive grove; and a high SQ in mixed forests.</p>
      <p>Li et al. (2013) measured the impact of human disturbances in SQ, developing
an SQI based on Bastida et al. (2006b). The SQI was evaluated in alpine
grasslands with different levels of degradation, based on plant cover,
production, proportion of primary plant and height of the plant. Fifteen
indicators (chemical, physical and biological) were used to build up the SQI
after selection of a MDS by PCA. Indicators related to nitrogen cycling
(urease, MBN / Nt, proteinase) and SOC were found to be the most sensitive
indicators.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Urban management and soil quality indicators </title>
      <p>Soil is an essential element in urban ecosystems (Luo et al., 2012).
However, urban soil receives a major proportion of pollutants from
industrial, commercial and domestic activities (Cheng et al., 2014).
Therefore, urban SQ must be included in urban management practices by
selection of appropriate indicators (Vrscaj et al., 2008). Since pollution
is the factor which drives the most intense degradation in urban
environments (Zhang et al., 2003), most research has dealt with the
distribution and dispersion of pollutants (Davidson et al., 2006; Rodrigues
et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2006; Szolnoki et al., 2013). Urban soil
pollution is normally assessed by relating pollutant levels to the
environmental guidelines, or by establishment of different simple indices.
In this context, several simple indices have been developed and applied in
urban soil for heavy metal pollution (Muller, 1969; Sutherland, 2000): a geo-accumulation index (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mtext>geo</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> log<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>]), pollution index (PI <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
integrated pollution index (IPI <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> PI <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), enrichment
factor (EF<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–sample/<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–sample] <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–background/<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–background]),
where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of measured elements, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (sample) is the metal
concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (background) is the baseline concentration, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(sample) is the content of the reference element in the sample and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ref</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the content of the reference element in the reference soil. However, metals
can be present in soils with different speciation, and so with different
bioavailability and solubility. Hence, to assess urban SQ, the soluble or
bioavailable fractions of the metals should be taken into account besides
total concentrations (Rodrigues et al., 2013). There are several methods
based on single or sequential schemes of chemical extraction to determine
the availability of metals in urban soils (Li et al., 2001).</p>
      <p>Besides heavy metals, other indicators such as particle size distribution,
SOC, pH and CEC should be included in urban SQ studies to integrate soil
functions with pollution effects (Pouyat et al., 2008). Rodrigues et al. (2009) studied the influence of metal concentration and soil properties on
urban SQ. These authors concluded that the concentrations of metals are not
the dominant factor controlling variability in SQ, and soil texture, pH and
SOM must be considered to affect this variability, which has often been
ignored in urban systems. Papa et al. (2010) determined urban SQ evaluating
the influence of soil trace metal concentrations in relation to distance
from urban roads on MBC, respiration and eight enzyme activities, observing
a negative relationship between microbial activity and metal concentration.
Santorufo et al. (2012a) assessed urban SQ by integrating chemical and
ecotoxicological approaches. They revealed that the toxicity to
invertebrates seemed to be related to heavy metals, since the largest
effects were found in soils with high metal concentrations. However, SOC and
pH played an important role in mitigating the toxicity of metals. Santorufo
et al. (2012b) studied soil invertebrates as bioindicators of urban SQ,
being the community more abundant and diverse in the soils with high SOM and
water content and low metal concentrations. The taxa more resistant to the
urban environment included Acarina, Enchytraeidae, Collembola and Nematoda.
Gavrilenko et al. (2013) used the soil-ecological index (SEI), which was
created for agricultural soils, to assess SQ in different ecosystems
including urban areas. The SEI is a product of several indices accounting
for seven physical and chemical properties and for the climatic
characteristics of the region. They concluded that this SEI was correlated
with MBC and thus reflects the ecological function of the soil.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Soil quality indicators directly related to\hack{\break} human health }?><title>Soil quality indicators directly related to<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> human health </title>
      <p>Relating the state of the soil to effects on human wellbeing is a
challenging task, being that it is difficult to monitor, quantify and model. Kentel et al. (2011) highlighted the importance of taking into account the human health
perspective on SQ assessment. They postulated that health-risk-based
decision making may help to manage associated costs and to identify priority
sites with regard to health risks. This allows better allocation of
available resources and identification of necessary actions that are
protective of human health. Because of these reasons, traditional SQ
assessment should include health-risk-based indicators such as pollutants or
pathogens, taking into account the potential exposure pathways.</p>
      <p>Since soil pollution is a threat to public health, the study of soil
pollutants has been an important topic in the literature. The
source–pathway–receptor pollutant linkage has been used extensively in the
risk assessment of polluted soils. Risk assessment aims to characterize the
potential adverse health effects of human exposures to environmental hazards
(Murray et al., 2011). A potential risk exists if there is a source of
pollutants, a receptor sensitive to the pollutant at the exposure level, and
a pathway linking both (Bone et al., 2010). Soil can be a source of
pollutants with humans as a receptor through pathways such as direct ingestion
of soil particles, ingestion of plants or animals which bioaccumulated the
contaminants, inhalation, and dermal contact (Collins et al., 2006;
Sjöström et al., 2008). The levels of pollutants that reach humans
through the above pathways are normally calculated by the use of different
quotients or equations, which relate the concentration of the pollutant in
soil to SQS, ingestions/inhalation/adhesion rates, body weight, exposure
time or exposure frequency (Masto et al., 2011; Nadal et al., 2011;
Pelfrêne et al., 2013).</p>
      <p>Most studies about soil pollution deal with the presence of heavy metals. In
the attempt to assess the mobility of trace elements and thus to quantify
their transmission from soil to other organisms, the use of bioaccumulation
or bioconcentration factors, which describe the
concentration of an element in a biological tissue relative to the
concentration in the soil, are gaining acceptance (Murray et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2012). Even
though it is not recognized as an SQI, it could be stated that soils with low
bioconcentration factors are less hazardous for a population. It has been
assessed that there are physicochemical soil characteristics controlling
metal availability such as pH, SOM or clay contents. Fordyce et al. (2000)
identified that Se bioavailability in villages from China with high Se
toxicity was controlled by pH. Zhao et al. (2012) reported that the spatial
patterns of the heavy metal concentrations and soil pH indicated that the
areas with the highest human health risk did not directly coincide with the
areas of highest heavy metal concentrations but instead with the areas of lower
soil pH. Qin et al. (2013) observed that the concentration of Se in rice
plants was associated with the soil fraction bound to SOM, suggesting that
SOM controls Se uptake by rice and thus increases hazards to human health.
Pelfrêne et al. (2011) concluded that the inclusion of bioavailability
analyses during health risk assessment (fraction of pollutant that is
soluble in the gastrointestinal environment and potentially available for
absorption) would provide a more realistic assessment of heavy metal
exposure than traditional measurements.</p>
      <p>Very few studies treat the problem of soil organic pollution and human
health, possibly due to the higher difficulty in analysis and identification,
and temporal decay through physicochemical and biological processes. Wenrui
et al. (2009) established the levels of different pollutants in soil and
assessed the affection to the population by bioaccessibility evaluations
(e.g., in vitro simulators of human digestion) or development of exposure
scenarios and health hazard equations. In general, no other soil properties
are measured together with the target contaminant to relate its dynamics and
fate. However, Cachada et al. (2012) found that SOC was an important factor
for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and organochlorides retention in soils.</p>
      <p>Despite the broad concern about soil pollution and human health,
very few studies directly and explicitly relate pollution to SQ and how
deterioration of SQ can affect human wellbeing (Poggio et al., 2008; Masto
et al., 2011; Pelfrêne et al., 2013). Abrahams (2002), although not
explicitly, related SQ and human health by stating the deleterious impacts
that soil properties pose to human societies. Murray et al. (2011) reported
the need to include soil characteristics, specifically SOM quantity and
quality, pH or clay content, when setting threshold criteria for metal
content under human risk evaluations. The study of Rafiq et al. (2014) was the only
study dealing with health risk assessment that established SQ
standards for potential dietary toxicity to humans. They observed that soil
pH, CEC and SOM were the main factors which influenced the Cd
bioavailability in different soil types.</p>
      <p>The sanitary status of the soil is evaluated on the basis of indicator
bacteria, usually <italic>Escherichia coli</italic>, faecal streptococci, <italic>Salmonella</italic> sp., <italic>Shigella</italic> sp. and the persistent
sporulated <italic>Clostridium</italic> (e.g., Liang et al., 2011; Benami et al., 2013; Ceuppens et al.,
2014). Some of these studies also use protozoa or helminths (e.g., Landa-Cansigno et
al., 2013). All revised articles identify different taxonomic groups in soil
and monitor their survival, persistence and movement with time in terms of
different soil characteristics and management practices (Benami et al.,
2013; Sepehrnia et al., 2014). Voidarou et al. (2011) related the
presence of pathogens/parasites to SQ, indicating that a systematic
monitoring of the soil ecosystems must include bacteriological parameters to
obtain information adequate for assessing their overall quality. It has been
reported that SOM, pH, EC and clay contents are determinant on the
adsorption capacity of pathogen bacteria, protozoa or nematodes
(Landa-Cansigno et al., 2013), and thus they should be considered when
assessing the persistence of pathogens in soil. The complexity of the soil
microbial community can also affect the survival of pathogens. Liang et al. (2011) observed that the die-off rate of <italic>E. coli</italic> progressively declined with the
reduction of microbial community diversity.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions and researchable challenges</title>
      <p>There is a need to develop methods to assess and monitor soil quality for
assuring sustainable land use with no prejudicial effects on human health. A
review of different soil quality assessment studies indicated that there is
an increased concern of using indicators of different nature to assess soil
quality. The most used indicators are soil organic carbon and pH, since
different management practices strongly affect their value. Total nitrogen
and nutrient content are often used in agricultural and forest systems,
since they provide information about the fertility of a soil, essential to
supporting adequate production. Regarding physical features, particle size
distribution, bulk density, available water and aggregate stability are the
most widely used parameters, mainly to assess the impact of agricultural
management and changes in land use on soil quality. Biological indictors are
less generalized in the literature, with enzyme activities and microbial biomass
being the most common indicators used on a routine basis in agricultural and
forest systems. Despite the attempts to calibrate soil quality indices, the
establishment of a global index for general use seems to be difficult at present due to the wide range of soils, conditions and management
practices. The transformation (by linear or nonlinear scoring functions) and
weighting of indicators and their summation into an index is the tool most
widely used and validated in the literature for most land uses. Nonetheless, the
use of multiple linear regressions has been successfully used under forest
land use.</p>
      <p>Although urban soil quality has been linked with wellbeing for city
residents, it has been less studied than other soil uses, with a lack of
adoption of soil quality indices. In consequence there is an urgent need to
establish a framework that can be adjusted based on different management
goals for urban soil quality evaluation. There is also a lack of concern
about the influence of soil on human health, with the result that soil quality
assessments where human health indicators or exposure pathways are
incorporated are practically inexistent. Further efforts should be carried
out to establish new methodologies to assess not only soil quality in terms
of sustainability, productivity and ecosystems quality but also human
health. This gap is mainly due to the extreme difficulty of relating a per se
complicated concept as that of soil quality to soilborne diseases, owing to the vast
existent pathways of exposure.</p>
      <p>The application and development of new methodologies such as stable
isotopes, genomic and proteomic tools addressing the structure of microbial
communities, as well as the functionality of microbial populations in soil,
might be potentially used as indicators of soil quality (Bastida et al.,
2014). Spectroscopy is becoming a powerful tool in the assessment of soil
quality as well, for it is accurate, inexpensive and rapid – essential
attributes for the adoption of these techniques in soil quality
establishment (Zornoza et al., 2008b). Nevertheless, the integration of
these new parameters into soil quality index is still a challenge.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors would like to thank Ellena Louise Hall for improving the English
writing of the manuscript.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>Edited by: A. A. Berhe</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abrahams, P. W.: Soils: their implications to human health, Sci. Total
Environ., 291, 1–32, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Albaladejo, J., Ortiz, R., García-Franco, N., Ruíz-Navarro, A.,
Almagro, M., García-Pintado, J., and Martínez-Mena, M.: Land-use
and climate change impacts on soil organic carbon stocks in semi-arid Spain,
J. Soils Sediments, 13, 265–277, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Alexander, M.: Agriculture's responsibility in establishing soil quality
criteria, Environmental improvement – agriculture's challenge in the
seventies, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, USA, 1971.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Amacher, M. C., O'Neil, K. P., and Perry, C. H.: Soil vital signs: A new Soil
Quality Index (SQI) for assessing forest soil health, Res. Pap.,
RMRS-RP-65WWW, Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, 12 pp., available at: <uri>http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp065.pdf</uri> (last access: 25 June 2014),
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Andrews, S. S. and Carroll, C. R.: Designing a soil quality assessment tool
for sustainable agroecosystem management, Ecol. Appl., 11, 1573–1585, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., and Cambardella, C. A.: The soil management
assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method, Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68, 1945–1962, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Arias, M. E., González-Pérez, J. A., González-Vila, F. J., and  Ball,
A. S.: Soil health – a new challenge for microbiologists and chemists, Int.
Microbiol., 8, 13–21, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Armenise, E., Redmile-Gordon, M. A., Stellacci, A. M., Ciccarese, A., and
Rubino, P.: Developing a soil quality index to compare soil fitness for
agricultural use under different managements in the Mediterranean
environment, Soil Till. Res., 130, 91–98, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Arshad, M. A. and  Martin, S.: Identifying critical limits for soil quality
indicators in agro-ecosystems, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 88, 153–160, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Banning, N. C., Gleeson, D. B., Grigg, A. H., Grant, C. D., Andersen, G. L.,
Brodie, E. L., and Murphy, D. V.: Soil Microbial Community Successional
Patterns during Forest Ecosystem Restoration, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 77, 6158–6164, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Bastida, F., Moreno, J. L., Hernández, T., and García, C.:
Microbiological activity in a soil 15 years alter its devegetation, Soil
Biol. Biochem., 38, 2503–2507, 2006a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Bastida, F., Moreno, J. L., Hernández, T., and García, C.:
Microbiological degradation index of soils in a semiarid climate, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 38, 3463–3473, 2006b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Bastida, F., Hernández, T., and García, C.: Metaproteomics of soils
from semiarid environment: functional and phylogenetic information obtained
with different protein extraction methods, J. Proteomics., 101, 31–42, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Benami, M., Gross, A., Herberg, M., Orlofsky, E., Vonshak, A., and Gillor, O.:
Assessment of pathogenic bacteria in treated graywater and irrigated soils,
Sci. Total Environ., 458–560, 298–302, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Bi, C. J., Chen, Z. L., Wang, J., and Zhou, D.: Quantitative Assessment of Soil
Health under Different Planting Patterns and Soil Types, Pedosphere, 23, 194–204, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Biau, A., Santiveri, F., Mijangos, I., and Lloveras, J.: The impact of
organic and mineral fertilizers on soil quality parameters and the
productivity of irrigated maize crops in semiarid regions, Europ. J. Soil
Biol., 53, 56–61, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Blecker, S. W., Stillings, L. L., Amacher, M. C., Ippolito, J. A., and
DeCrappeo, N. M.: Development of vegetation based soil quality indices for
mineralized terrane in arid and semi-arid regions, Ecol. Indic., 20, 65–74,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Blum, W.: European soil protection strategy, J. Soils Sediments, 3, p. 242,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Bone, J., Head, M., Barraclough, D., Archer, M., Scheib, C., Flight, D., and
Voulvoulis, N.: Soil quality assessment under emerging regulatory
requirements, Environ. Int., 36, 609–622, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Burger, J. A. and Kelting, D. L.: Using soil quality indicators to assess
forest stand management, Forest Ecol. Manag., 122, 155–166, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Cachada, A., Pato, P., Rocha-Santos, T., Ferreira da Silva, E., and Duarte,
A. C.: Levels, sources and potential human health risks of organic pollutants
in urban soils, Sci. Total Environ., 430, 184–192, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Camara-Ferreira, A. C., Carvalho-Leite, L. F., Ferreira de Araujo, A., and
Eisenhauer, N.: Land-use type effects on soil organic carbon and microbial
properties in a semi-arid region of Northeast Brazil, Land Degrad. Dev.,
online first,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2282" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/ldr.2282</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Carter, M. R.: Soil quality for sustainable land management: organic matter
and aggregation interactions that maintain soil functions, Agron. J., 94,
38–47, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Ceuppens, S., Hessel, C. T., de Quadros Rodrigues, R., Bartz, S., Tondo, E.
C.,
and Uyttendaele, M.: Microbiological quality and safety assessment of
lettuce production in Brazil, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 181, 67–76, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Chaer, G. M., Myrold, D., and Bottomley, P. J.: A soil quality index based on
the equilibrium between soil organic matter and biochemical properties of
undisturbed coniferous forest soils of the Pacific Northwest, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 41, 822–830, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, H., Marhan, S., Billen, N., and Stahr, K.: Soil organic-carbon and
total nitrogen stocks as affected by different land uses in
Baden-Württemberg (southwest Germany), J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 172,
32–42, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Cheng, H. X., Li, M., Zhao, C. D., Li, K., Peng, M., and Qin, A. H.: Overview of
trace metals in the urban soil of 31 metropolises in China, J. Geochem.
Explor., 139, 31–52, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Collins, C., Fryer, M., and Grosso, A.: Plant uptake on non-ioninc organic
chemicals, Environ. Sci. Technol., 40, 45–52, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Davidson, C. M., Urquhart, G. J., Ajmone-Marsan, F., Biasioli, M., da Costa
Duarte, A., and Diaz-Barrientos, E.: Fractionation of potentially toxic elements
in urban soils from five European cities by means of a harmonised sequential
extraction procedure, Anal. Chim. Acta, 565, 63–72, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Deng, X.: Land Quality: Environmental and Human Health Effects, in:  Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental
Sciences, edited by: Elias,
S. A.,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 362–365, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
D'Hose, T., Cougnon, M., De Vliegher, A., Vandecasteele, B., Viaene, N.,
Cornelis, W., Van Bockstaele, E., and Reheul, D.: The positive relationship
between soil quality and crop production: A case study on the effect of farm
compost application, Appl. Soil Ecol., 75, 189–198, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Dilly, O., Blume, H. P., Sehy, U., Jiménez, M., and Munch, J. C.:
Variation of stabilised, microbial and biologically active carbon and
nitrogen soil under contrasting land use and agricultural management
practices, Chemosphere, 52, 557–569, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Dinesh, R., Ghoshal Chaudhuri, S., Ganeshamurthy, A. N., and Chanchal, D.:
Changes in soil microbial indices and their relationships following
deforestation and cultivation in wet tropical forests, Appl. Soil Ecol., 24,
17–26, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Doran, J. W.: Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into
practice, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 88, 119–127, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Doran, J. W. and Parkin, T. B.: Defining and Assessing Soil Quality, in:
Defining
soil quality for a sustainable environment, edited by: Doran, J. W., Coleman, D. F., Bezdicek, D. F., and Stewart, B. A., Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Special
Publication 35, Madison, WI, 3–21, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Doran, J. W. and Zeiss, M. R.: Soil health and sustainability: managing the
biotic component of soil quality, Appl. Soil Ecol., 15, 3–11, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>FAO: El estado de los bosques del mundo, Organización de las Naciones
Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura,
available at: <uri>http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010s/i3010s.pdf</uri> (last access: 25 June 2014),  Rome,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Fordyce, F. M., Guangdi, Z., Green, K., and Xinping, L.: Soil, grain and water
chemistry in relation to human selenium-responsive diseases, in: Enshi
District, China, Appl. Geochem., 15, 117–132, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Franzluebbers, A. J.: Soil organic matter stratification ratio as an
indicator of soil quality, Soil Till. Res., 66, 95–106, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Gale, M. R., Grigal, D. F., and Harding, R. B.: Soil productivity index:
predictions of site quality for white spruce plantations, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J., 55, 1701–1708, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
García-Ruiz, R., Ochoa, V., Hinojosa, M. B., and Carreira, J. A.:
Suitability of enzyme activities for the monitoring of soil quality
improvement in organic agricultural systems, Soil Biol. Biochem., 40,
2137–2145, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Gavrilenko, E. G., Ananyeva, N. D., and  Makarov, O. A.: Assessment of Soil Quality
in Different Ecosystems (with Soils of Podolsk and Serpukhov Districts of
Moscow Oblast as Examples), Eurasian Soil Sci., 46, 1241–1252, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Gelaw, A. M., Singh, B. R., and Lal, R.: Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen
stocks under different land uses in a semi-arid watershed in Tigray,
Northern Ethiopia, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 188, 256–263, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Giacometti, C., Demyan, M. S., Cavani, L., Marzadori, C., Ciavatta, C., and
Kandeler, E.: Chemical and microbiological soil quality indicators and their
potential to differentiate fertilization regimes in temperate
agroecosystems, Appl. Soil Ecol., 64, 32–48, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Giacometti, C.,  Cavani, L.,  Baldoni, G., Ciavatta, C., Marzadori, C., and Kandeler, E.:
Microplate-scale fluorometric soil enzyme assays as tools to assess soil quality
in a long-term agricultural field experiment, App. Soil Ecol., 75, 80–85, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Gil-Sotres, F., Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leirós, M. C., and Seoane, S.:
Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical
properties, Soil Biol. Biochem., 37, 877–887, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Hankard, P. K., Bundy, J. G., Spurgeon, D. J., Weeks, J. M., Wright, J., and
Weinberg, C.: Establishing principal soil quality parameters influencing
earthworms in urban soils using bioassays, Environ. Pollut., 133, 199–211,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Harris, R. F., Karlen, D. L., and Mulla, D. J.: A conceptual framework for
assessment and management of soil quality and health, in:  Methods for assessing soil quality, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 61–82, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Hussain, I., Olson, K. R., Wander, M. M., and Karlen, D. L.: Adaptation of soil
quality indices and application to three tillage systems in southern
Illinois, Soil Till. Res., 50, 237-249, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Jiménez Esquilín, A. E., Stromberger, M. E., and Shepperd, W. D.: Soil
Scarification and Wildfire Interactions and Effects on Microbial Communities
and Carbon, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 72, 111–118, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Karlen, D. L., Andrews, D. D., and Doran, J. W.: Soil quality: Current concepts
and applications, Adv. Agron., 74, 1–40, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Kentel, E., Aksoy, A., Büyüker, B., Dilek, F., Girgin, Ipek, M. H.,
Polat, Ş., Yetiş, Ü., and Ünlü, K.: Challenges in
Development and Implementation of Health-Risk-Based Soil Quality Guidelines:
Turkey's Experience, Risk Anal., 31, 657–667, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Laird, D. A. and Chang, C. W.: Long-term impacts of residue harvesting on
soil quality, Soil Till. Res., 134, 33–40, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Lal, R.: Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate global change, Geoderma, 123,
1–22, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Landa-Cansigno, O., Durán-Álvarez, J. C., and Jiménez-Cisneros,
B.: Retention of Escherichia coli, Giardia lamblia cysts and Ascaris
lumbricoides eggs in agricultural soils irrigated by untreated wastewater,
J. Environ. Manag., 128, 22–29, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Larson, W. E. and Pierce, F. J.: Conservation and enhancement of soil quality.
in:   Evaluation for sustainable land
management in the developing world, Vol. 2: Technical papers, edited by: Dumanski, J., Pushparajah, E., Latham, M., and  Myers, R., Proc. Int.
Worksh., Chiang Rai, Thailand, 15–21 Sept. 1991. Int. Board. For. Soil Res.
Manage., Bangkok, Thailand, 175–203,  1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Larson, W. E. and Pierce, F. J.: The dynamics of soil quality as a measure
of sustainable mangement,   in:  Defining soil
quality for a sustainable environment, edited by: Doran, J. W., Coleman, D. C., Bezdicek, D. F., and Stewart, B. A., SSSA-Special Publication 35,  Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, WI,  37–51, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Leirós, M. C., Trasar-Cepeda, C., García-Fernández, F., and
Gil-Sotres, F. : Defining the validity of a biochemical index of soil
quality, Biol. Fert. Soils, 30, 140–146, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Liang, Z., He, Z., Powell, C. A., and Stoffella, P.: Survival of Escherichia
coli in soil with modified microbial community composition, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 43, 1591–1599, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Y., Dong, S., Wen, L., Wang, X., and Wu, Y.: Assessing the soil quality of
alpine grasslands in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau using a modified soil
quality index, Environ. Monit. Assess., 185, 8011–8022, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Li, C., Moore-Kuceraa, J., Leeb, J., Corbin, A., Brodhagen, M., Miles, C.,
and Inglise, D.: Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil quality, Appl. Soil
Ecol., 79, 59–69, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Li, X. D., Poon, C. S., and Liu, P. S.: Heavy metal contamination of urban
soils and street dusts in Hong Kong, Appl. Geochem., 16, 1361–1368, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Z., Zhou, W., Shen, J., Li, S., Liang, G., Wang, X., Sun, J., and Al,
C.: Soil Quality Assessment of Acid Sulfate Paddy Soils with Different
Productivities in Guangdong Province, China, J. Integ. Agric., 13,
177–186, 2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Z., Zhou, W., Shen, J., Li, S., He, P., and Liang, G.: Soil quality
assessment of Albic soils with different productivities for eastern China,
Soil Till. Res., 140, 74–81, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, X. S., Yu, S., Zhu, Y. G., and Li, X. D.: Trace metal contamination in
urban soils of China, Sci. Total Environ., 421, 17–30, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Marzaioli, R., D'Ascoli, R., De Pascale, R. A., and Rutigliano, F. A.: Soil
quality in a Mediterranean area of Southern Italy as related to different
land use types, Appl. Soil Ecol., 44, 205–212, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Masto, R. E., Ram, L. C., George, J., Selvi, V. A., Sinha, A. K., Verma, S.
K., Rout, T. K.,  Priyadarshini, and Prabal, P.: Status of some soil trace
elements and their potential human health risks around a coal beneficiation
plant, Int. J. Coal Prep. Util., 31, 61–77, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Mataix-Solera, J., Guerrero, C., García-Orenes, F., Bárcenas, G. M.,
and Torres M. P.: Forest Fire Effects on Soil Microbiology, in: Fire Effects
on Soils and Restoration Strategies, Science Publishers, Inc., 133–175,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Mele, P. M. and Crowley, D. E.: Application of self-organizing maps for
assessing soil biological quality, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 126, 139–152,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Merrill S. D., Liebig, M. A., Tanaka, D. L., Krupinsky, J. M., and Hanson, J.
D.: Comparison of soil quality and productivity at two sites differing in
profile structure and topsoil properties, Agr. Ecosist. Environ., 179,
53–61, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Mijangos, I., Epelde, L., Garbisu, C., and González-Oreja, J. A.:
Modification of soil enzyme activities as a consequence of replacing meadows
by pine plantations under temperate climate, Pedobiologia, 57, 61–66, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis,
Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Miralles, I., Ortega, R., Almendros, G., Sánchez-Marañón, M., and
Soriano, M.: Soil quality and organic carbon ratios in mountain
agroecosystems of South-east Spain, Geoderma, 150, 120–128, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Moscatelli, M. C., Lagomarsino, A., Garcillo, A. M. V., Pignataro, A., and Grego, S.:
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">β</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-Glucosidase kinetic parameters as indicators of soil quality under conventional and
organic cropping systems applying two analytical approaches, Ecol. Indic., 13, 322–327, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.031" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.031</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Muckel, G. B. and Mausbach, M. J.: Soil quality information sheets, in:
Methods for Assessing Soil Quality, edited by: Doran, J. W. and  Jones, A. J.,  Soil
Sci. Soc. Am., Special Publication 49, Madison, WI, 393–400, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Muller, G.: Index of geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine River,
Geojournal, 2, 108–118, 1969.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Murray, H., Pinchin, T. A., and Macfie, S. M.: Compost application affects
metal uptake in plants grown in urban garden soils and potential human
health risk, J. Soils Sediments, 11, 815–829, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Nadal, M., Schuhmacher, M., and Domingo, J. L.: Long-term environmental
monitoring of persistent organic pollutants and metals in a
chemical/petrochemical area: Human health risks, Environ. Pollut., 159,
1769–1777, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Nannipieri, P., Grego, S., and Ceccanti, B.: Ecological significance of the
biological activity in soils, in:  Soil
Biochemical, edited by: Bollag, J. M. and  Stotzky, G., Marcel Dekker, New York, 293–355, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Nunes, J. S., Araújo, A. S. F., Nunes, L. A. P. L., Lima, L. M.,
Carneiro, R. F. V., Tsai, S. M., and Salviano, A. A. C.: Land degradation on
soil microbial biomass and activity in Northeast Brazil, Pedosphere, 22,
88–95, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Pang, X. Y., Bao, W. K., and Zhang, Y. M.: Evaluation of Soil Fertility under
different <italic>Cupressus chengiana</italic> forests using multivariate approach, Pedosphere, 16, 602–615,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Papa, S., Bartoli, G., Pellegrino, A., and Fioretto, A.: Microbial activities
and trace element contents in an urban soil, Environ. Monit. Assess., 165,
193–203, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Parr, J. F., Papendick, R. I., Hornick, S., and Meyer, R. E.: Soil quality:
Attributes and relationship to alternative and sustainable agriculture, Am.
J. Alternative Agr., 7, 5–11, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Peijnenburg, W. J., Zablotskaja, M., and Vijver, M. G.: Monitoring metals in
terrestrial environments within a bioavailability framework and a focus on
soil extraction, Ecotox. Environ. Safe., 67, 163–79, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Pelfrêne, A., Waterlot, C., and Douay, F.: In vitro digestion and DGT
techniques for estimating cadmium and lead bioavailability in contaminated
soils: Influence of gastric juice pH, Sci. Total Environ., 409, 5076–5085,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Pelfrêne, A., Douay, F., Richard, A., Roussel, H., and Girondelot, B.:
Assessment of potential health risk for inhabitants living near a former
lead smelter. Part 2: site-specific human health risk assessment of Cd and
Pb contamination in kitchen gardens, Environ. Monit. Assess., 185,
2999–3012, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Poggio, L., Vrščaj,. B., Hepperle, E., Schulin, R., and Marsan, F.
A.: Introducing a method of human health risk evaluation for planning and
soil quality management of heavy metal-polluted soils – An example from
Grugliasco (Italy), Landscape Urban Plan., 88, 64–72, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Pouyat, R. V., Yesilonis, I. D., Szlavecz, K., Csuzdi, C., Hornung, E., and
Korsos, Z.: Response of forest soil properties to urbanization gradients in
three metropolitan areas, Landscape Ecol., 23, 1187–1203, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Qi, Y., Darilek, J. L., Huang, B., Zhao, Y., Sun, W., and Gu, Z.: Evaluating
soil quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China,
Geoderma, 149, 325–334, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Qin, H., Zhu, J., Liang, L., Wang, M., and Su, H.: The bioavailability of
selenium and risk assessment for human selenium poisoning in high-Se areas,
China, Environ. Int., 52, 66–74, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Qin, M. Z. and Zhao, J.: Strategies for sustainable use and characteristics
of soil quality changes in urban-rural marginal area: a case study of
Kaifeng, Acta Geogr. Sin., 55, 545–554,
2000 (in Chinese with English abstract).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>Rafiq, M. T., Aziz, R., Yang, X., Xiao, W., Rafiq, M. K., Ali, B., and Li,
T.: Cadmium phytoavailability to rice (<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> L.) grown in representative Chinese
soils. A model to improve soil environmental quality guidelines for food
safety, Ecotox. Environ. Safe., 103, 101–107, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>
Rahmanipour, F., Marzaiolib, F., Bahramia, H. A., Fereidounia, Z., and
Bandarabadi, S. R.: Assessment of soil quality indices in agricultural lands
of Qazvin Province, Iran, Ecol. Ind., 40, 19–26, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Ramos, M. E., Benítez, E., García, P. A., and Robles, A. B.: Cover crops
under different managements vs. frequent tillage in almond orchards in semiarid conditions: Effects on soil quality, App. Soil Ecol., 44, 6–14, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
Reeves, D. W.: The role of organic matter in maintaining soil quality in
continuous cropping systems, Soil Till. Res., 43, 131–167, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Rillig, M. C.: Arbuscular mycorrhyzae, glomalin, and soil aggregation, Can.
J. Soil Sci., 84, 355–363, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Rodrigues, S., Pereira, M. E., Duarte, A. C., Ajmone-Marsan, F., Davidson,
C. M., Grčman, H., Hossack, I., Hursthouse, A.S., Ljung, K., Martini, C.,
Otabbong, E., Reinoso, R., Ruiz-Cortés, E., Urquhart, G. J., and
Vrščaj, B.: Mercury in urban soils: a comparison of local spatial
variability in six European cities, Sci. Total Environ., 368, 926–936, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Rodrigues, S., Urquhart, G., Hossack, I.: Pereira, M. E., Duarte, A. C., and
Davidson, C.: The influence of anthropogenic and natural geochemical factors
on urban soil quality variability: a comparison between Glasgow, UK and
Aveiro, Portugal, Environ. Chem. Lett., 27, 141–148, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
Rodrigues, S. M., Cruz, N., Coelho, C., Henriques, B., Carvalho, L., Duarte,
A. C., Pereira, E., and Römkens, A. M.: Risk assessment for Cd, Cu, Pb
and Zn in urban soils: Chemical availability as the central concept,
Environ. Pollut., 183, 234–243, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>
Rodríguez, M. D. F. and Lafarga, J. C. T.: Soil quality criteria for
environmental pollutants, in:   Encyclopedia of
Environmental Health, edited by: Nriagu, J. O., Elsevier, 124–142, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>
Rousseau, L., Fonte, S. J., Téllez, O., Van der Hoek, R., and Lavelle,
P.: Soil macrofauna as indicators of soil quality and land use impacts in
smallholder agroecosystems of western Nicaragua, Ecol. Indic., 27, 71–82,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>
Ruiz, N., Jerome, M., Leonide, C., Christine, R., Gerard, H., Etienne, I.,
and Lavelle, P.: IBQS: A synthetic index of soil quality based on soil
macro-invertebrate communities, Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, 2032–2045, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>
Sanchez, F. G., Carter, E. A., and Leggett, Z. H.: Loblolly pine growth and
soil nutrient stocks eight years after forest slash Incorporation, Forest
Ecol. Manage., 257, 1413–1419, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>
Santorufo, L., Van Gestel, C. A. M., and Maisto, G.: Ecotoxicological
assessment of metal-polluted urban soils using bioassays with three soil
invertebrates, Chemosphere, 88, 418–425, 2012a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>
Santorufo, L., Van Gestel, C. A. M., Rocco, A., and Maisto, G.: Soil
invertebrates as bioindicators of urban soil quality, Environ. Pollut., 161,
57–63, 2012b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation>
Sepehrnia, N., Mahboubi, A. A., Mosaddeghi, M. R., Safari Sinejani, A. A., and
And Khodakaramian, G.: Escherichia coli transport through intact gypsiferous
and calcareous soils during saturated and unsaturated flows, Geoderma,
217–218, 83–89, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib107"><label>107</label><mixed-citation>
Singh, A. K., Bordoloi, L. J., Kumar, M., Hazarika, S., and Parmar, B.: Land use
impact on soil quality in eastern Himalayan region of India, Environ. Monit.
Assess., 186, 2013–2024, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib108"><label>108</label><mixed-citation>
Sjöström, A. E., Collins, C. D., Smith, S. R., and Shaw, G.:
Degradation and plant uptake of nonylphenol (NP) and
nonylphenol-12-ethoxylate (NP12EO) in four contrasting agricultural soils,
Envion. Pollut., 156, 1284–1289, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib109"><label>109</label><mixed-citation>
Sutherland, R. A.: Bed sediment-associated trace metals in an urban stream,
Oahu, Hawaii, Environ. Geol., 39, 611–627, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib110"><label>110</label><mixed-citation>
Szolnoki, Z., Farsang, A., and Puskás, I.: Cumulative impacts of human
activities on urban garden soils: Origin and accumulation of metals,
Environ. Pollut., 177, 106–115, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib111"><label>111</label><mixed-citation>
Tischer, A., Blagodatskaya, E., and Hamer, U.: Extracellular enzyme
activities in a tropical mountain rainforest region of southern Ecuador
affected by low soil P status and land-use change, Appl. Soil Ecol., 74,
1–11, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib112"><label>112</label><mixed-citation>
Toledo, D. M., Galantini, J. A., Vazquez, S., and Arzuaga, S.: Soil organic
carbon stock and stratification ratio as indicators of soil quality, 19th
ISTRO International Soil Tillage Research Organization Conference and IV
SUCS Meeting Striving for sustainable high productivity, 24–28 September
2012, Montevideo, Uruguay, Published on DVD, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib113"><label>113</label><mixed-citation>
Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leirós, C., Gil-Sotres, F., and Seoane, S.: Towards a
biochemical quality index for soils: an expression relating several
biological and biochemical properties, Biol. Fert. Soils, 26, 100–106, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib114"><label>114</label><mixed-citation>
Veum, K. S., Goyne, K. W., Kremer, R., Miles, R. J., and Sudduth, K. A.:
Biological indicators of soil quality and soil organic matter
characteristics in an agricultural management continuum, Biogeochemistry,
117, 81–99, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib115"><label>115</label><mixed-citation>
Voidarou, C., Bezirtzoglou, E., Alexopoulos, A., Plessas, S., Stefanis, C.,
Papadopoulos, I., Vavias, S., Stavropoulou, E., Fotoua, K., Tzora, A., and
Skoufos, I.: Occurrence of Clostridium perfringens from different cultivated
soils, Anaerobe, 17, 320–324, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib116"><label>116</label><mixed-citation>
Vrscaj, B., Poggio, L., and Marsan, F. A.: A method for soil environmental
quality evaluation for managementand planning in urban areas, Landscape
Urban Plan., 88, 81–94, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib117"><label>117</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Q. and Wang, S.: Response of labile soil organic matter to changes in
forest vegetation in subtropical regions, Appl. Soil Ecol., 47, 210–216,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib118"><label>118</label><mixed-citation>Wenrui, Y., Rusong, W., Chuanbin, Z., and Feng, C.: Distribution and health
risk assessment of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in industrial site
soils: A case study of urban renewal in Beijing, China. J. Environ. Sci.,
21, 366–372, 2009.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib119"><label>119</label><mixed-citation>
Wong, C. S. C., Li, X., and Thornton, I.: Urban environmental geochemistry of
trace metals, Environ. Pollut., 142, 1–16, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib120"><label>120</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, G. L., Zhu, Y. G., and Fu, B. J.: Quality changes of soils in urban and
suburban areas and its eco-environmental impacts-a review, Acta Ecol.
Sin., 23, 539–546, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib121"><label>121</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, D., Li, F., Yang, Q., Wang, R., Song, Y., Tao, Y.: The influence of
different types of urban land use on soil microbial biomass and functional
diversity in Beijing, China, Soil Use Manage., 29, 230–239, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib122"><label>122</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, F., Yang, G., Han, X., Feng, Y., and Ren, G.: Stratification of Carbon
Fractions and Carbon Management Index in Deep Soil Affected by the Grain-to-
Green Program in China, PLOS ONE, 9, e99657, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib123"><label>123</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, H., Xia, B., Fan, C., Zhao, P., and Shen, S.: Human health risk from soil
heavy metal contamination under different land uses near Dabaoshan Mine,
Southern China, Sci. Total Environ., 417–418, 45–54, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib124"><label>124</label><mixed-citation>
Zornoza, R., Mataix-Solera, J., Guerrero, C., Arcenegui, V., Mayoral, A. M.,
Morales, J., and Mataix-Beneyto, J.: Soil properties under natural forest in
the Alicante Province of Spain, Geoderma, 142, 334–341, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib125"><label>125</label><mixed-citation>
Zornoza, R., Mataix-Solera, J., Guerrero, C., Arcenegui, V., Mataix-Beneyto,
J., and Gómez, I.: Validating the effectiveness and sensitivity of two
soil quality indices based on natural forest soils under Mediterranean
conditions, Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, 2079–2087, 2008a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib126"><label>126</label><mixed-citation>
Zornoza, R., Guerrero, C., Mataix-Solera, J., Scow, K. M., Arcenegui, V.,
and Mataix-Beneyto, J.: Near infrared spectroscopy for determination of various
physical, chemical and biochemical properties in Mediterranean soils. Soil
Biol. Biochem., 40, 1923–1930, 2008b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib127"><label>127</label><mixed-citation>
Zornoza, R., Guerrero, C., Mataix-Solera, J., Scow, K. M., Arcenegui, V., and
Mataix-Beneyto, J.: Changes in soil microbial community structure following
the abandonment of agricultural terraces in mountainous areas of Eastern
Spain, Appl. Soil Ecol., 42, 315–323, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
