Sustainability 13 13438 v2
Sustainability 13 13438 v2
Article
A GIS-Based Approach for the Quantitative Assessment of Soil
Quality and Sustainable Agriculture
Mostafa A. Abdellatif 1,2 , Ahmed A. El Baroudy 2 , Muhammad Arshad 3 , Esawy K. Mahmoud 2 ,
Ahmed M. Saleh 1 , Farahat S. Moghanm 4 , Kamal H. Shaltout 5 , Ebrahem M. Eid 6,7, *
and Mohamed S. Shokr 2, *
1 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Science (NARSS), Cairo 11843, Egypt;
[email protected] (M.A.A.); [email protected] (A.M.S.)
2 Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt;
[email protected] (A.A.E.B.); [email protected] (E.K.M.)
3 Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61321,
Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
4 Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt;
[email protected]
5 Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt;
[email protected]
6 Biology Department, College of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61321, Saudi Arabia
7 Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh 33516, Egypt
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] (E.M.E.);
[email protected] (M.S.S.)
Citation: Abdellatif, M.A.; Abstract: Assessing soil quality is considered one the most important indicators to ensure planned
El Baroudy, A.A.; Arshad, M.; and sustainable use of agricultural lands according to their potential. The current study was carried
Mahmoud, E.K.; Saleh, A.M.; out to develop a spatial model for the assessment of soil quality, based on four main quality indices,
Moghanm, F.S.; Shaltout, K.H.; Eid,
Fertility Index (FI), Physical Index (PI), Chemical Index (CI), and Geomorphologic Index (GI), as well
E.M.; Shokr, M.S. A GIS-Based
as the Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing data (RS). In addition to the GI, the
Approach for the Quantitative
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) parameter were added to assess soil quality in the study
Assessment of Soil Quality and
area (western part of Matrouh Governorate, Egypt) as accurately as possible. The study area suffers from
Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability
2021, 13, 13438. https://doi.org/
a lack of awareness of agriculture practices, and it depends on seasonal rain for cultivation. Thus, it is very
10.3390/su132313438 important to assess soil quality to deliver valuable data to decision makers and regional governments to
find the best ways to improve soil quality and overcome the food security problem. We integrated a
Academic Editor: Jeroen Meersmans Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with Sentinel-2 satellite images to extract landform units of the study
area. Forty-eight soil profiles were created to represent identified geomorphic units of the investigated
Received: 23 October 2021 area. We used the model builder function and a geostatistical approach based on ordinary kriging
Accepted: 1 December 2021 interpolation to map the soil quality index of the study area and categorize it into different classes. The
Published: 4 December 2021 soil quality (SQ) of the study area, classified into four classes (i.e., high quality (SQ2), moderate quality
(SQ3), low quality (SQ4), and very low quality (SQ5)), occupied 0.90%, 21.87%, 22.22%, and 49.23% of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
the total study area, respectively. In addition, 5.74% of the study area was classified as uncultivated area
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
as a reference. The developed soil quality model (DSQM) shows substantial agreement (0.67) with the
published maps and institutional affil-
weighted additive model, according to kappa coefficient statics, and significantly correlated with land
iations.
capability R2 (0.71). Hence, the model provides a full overview of SQ in the study area and can easily be
implemented in similar environments to identify soil quality challenges and fight the negative factors
that influence SQ, in addition to achieving environmental sustainability.
Assessing and managing soil is considered one of the key ways to achieve food security
by helping to bridge the food demand gap [2]. Political instability in most African coun-
tries affects agricultural practices and leads to underdeveloped and underexploited lands,
having direct consequences for society [3].
In Egypt, agricultural lands are located in the Nile valley and the delta, which represent
about 4% of the total area of Egypt [4]. The agricultural sector in Egypt plays a vital role in
economic growth as it contributes 14.5%, 30%, and 41% of national gross domestic product,
provision of foreign currency, and reducing unemployment, respectively [5].
The definition of soil quality (SQ) is the ability of soil included the ecosystem to supply
plants with the nutrients needed throughout growth stages for the purpose of preserving
crop yield [6–8]. Since SQ supports sustainable soil management as it is linked to soil
productivity, a reliable assessment requires an accurate, multi-faceted quantification [9].
Maintaining soil productivity by soil quality management should be considered earnestly
to ensure sufficient food for the burgeoning world population [10]. Soil quality is influenced
by physical indicators such as bulk density, root depth, and soil texture, and chemical
indicators, such as cation exchange capacity (CEC), electric conductivity (EC), and pH.
There are highly significant correlations between these indictors and soil quality [11,12].
Soil quality could be negatively affected by conversion of land use as soil properties are
significantly influenced by this practice, as it decreases, for example, soil organic carbon
and total nitrogen. In addition, soil contamination by heavy metals may cause risks to
humans and the ecosystem, decrease land suitability for agricultural production, and cause
food insecurity and land tenure problems [13]. Potentially toxic elements have negative
effects on plant growth, crop yield, and quality due to phytotoxicity [14]. Therefore, it is
very important to focus on the sustainable use of agricultural lands to increase the soil
quality [15,16]. To improve soil and water quality, precise measurements and efficient
methods should be conducted [17]. Index indicators are the most appropriate method for
assessing SQ [18]. Developing a soil quality index (SQI) requires selecting an indicator,
scoring it, and then integrating scores into a single value [18]. The weighted additive
index is one of the most used for SQ evaluation based on integrating indicator weights
with corresponding scores [19]. The geometric mean algorism (GMA) and the nth root
of a series of numbers are commonly utilized in assessments of desertification sensitivity
and land suitability [20,21]. The GMA is used to characterize the data average or central
tendency [22]. Analysis of land capability can be used to assess agricultural potential to
face increasing drought impacts [23]. The land assessment concept belongs to the land
performance rate and its capacity for crop production, while land capacity depends on
many factors, such as location and the physical and chemical properties of soil, in addition
to soil potential for agricultural production [24].
Currently, there are many land capability models established to introduce a quantified
procedure to match land with actual and proposed uses, especially for arid and semi-arid
regions, including the study area. An example is the Agricultural Land Evaluation System
for arid and semi-arid regions (ALESarid), developed by Ismail et al. [25]. This model is
combined with Geographic Information System (GIS) software to assess land capability
and could provide a sensible solution given its accuracy, ease of application, and moderate
data required [26]. GIS technology has enabled the spatial variability computation of
different phenomena [27], including investigations of soil properties. Thus, combined GIS
and geostatistical analyses can be very important in assessing the spatial variation of soil
properties and those expected in un-sampled sites [28]. For instance, using variogram
analyses can accurately map the complex spatial relationships between soil data layers [29].
One of the most commonly used interpolation methods is Kriging. This method is based
on the identification of homogeneous subsets of similar yield-limiting factors; thus, it can
sufficiently support precise farming [30,31].
The study area suffers from a lack of awareness of agriculture practices and scarcity
of water as it depends on seasonal rain for cultivation [32]. As the study area is an impor-
tant part of the existent economic activities in Egypt [33], the current study (1) identifies
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 3 of 24
geomorphologic units of the study area and (2) quantitatively assesses soil quality using
the developed model based on four indicators, i.e., chemical, physical, fertility, and geo-
morphologic indices. In addition to the GI, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI) parameter were added as a new factors to reflect the specific soil quality and
categorize it into different classes as accurately as possible. Finally, (3) the results from this
model were validated with the weight additive index and correlated with land capability.
To our knowledge, only few studies assess soil quality in the study area, so this paper
offers valuable data to decision makers and regional governments to find the best ways
to increase soil quality and overcome the food security problem, which is one of the most
important challenges in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Figure
Figure
Figure1. Location
1.1.Location of
Locationof investigated
ofinvestigated area.
investigatedarea.
area.
2. Landuse
Figure2.
Figure use andland
land coverof
of studyarea.
area.
Figure 2.Land
Land useand
and landcover
cover ofstudy
study area.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 5 of 24
In these equations, a is the actual ranges for the spherical, circular, exponential, and
Gaussian functions, respectively. h is the spatial lag, C0 is the nugget, and C is the partial sill.
The spatial variation of the soil samples for these variograms was isotropic. Traditional OK
can introduce equitable estimates with minimum error. The OK function was expressed as:
n
Z ( x0 ) = ∑ λi(x0 )Z(xi ) (6)
i=1
where: ∑ni = 1λi(x0 ) = 1; Z × (x0 ) is the predicted value of variable z at location x0 ; Z(xi ) is
the measured data; λi(x0 ) refers to the weights linked with the measured values; and n is
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 6 of 25
the number of predicted values within certain neighbor soil samples. The OK was applied
utilizing the Create Fishnet tool in ArcGIS (Version 10.7, Esri, Inc., Redlands, CA, USA).
where: PI = physical index; PD = profile depth; PT = soil texture; PBD = bulk density
(g/cm3 ); PHC = hydraulic conductivity (cm/h); WHC = water holding capacity (%); and
Ps = % surface stoniness.
The chemical index was described according to Equation (10):
1/6
CI = CEC × CpH × CCaCO3 × CCaSO4 × CESP × CCEC (10)
where: CI = chemical index; CEC = soil salinity; CpH = soil reaction; CCaCO3 = proportion of
soil calcium carbonate; CCaSO4 = prcentage of gypsum CESP = soil exchangeable sodium
percentage; and CCEC = cation exchange capacity.
The final DSQM index was described according to Equation (11):
where: DSQM = Developed soil quality model; CI = chemical index; PI = physical index; FI
= fertility index; and GI = geomorphologic index. The parameters or factors were rated
(Tables S1–S4) based on experts’ suggestions and a review of literature [15,54,63–68].
The NDVI values ranges from –1 to +1 [69], negative values express bare surface,
water and clods while positive values represent vegetated surfaces [70,71]. Sentential 2
data have the ability to distinguish vegetation cover [72].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 8 of 24
2.8.
2.8. Validation
Validation of of Developed
Developed Model
Model
2.8.1. Validation Using Kappa
2.8.1. Validation Using Kappa Analysis
Analysis
Weighted Additive
Weighted method
Additive waswas
method used according
used to the
according tofollowing Equation
the following (12) for
Equation val-
(12) for
idation:
validation: n
WAI = ∑i=1 Wi × Si (12)
WAI=∑ni=1 Wi × Si (12)
where: WAI = Weighted Additive index; Si = the indicator score; n = number of indicators;
and Wi = the weight of indicators.
All parameters were weighted according to communality of each indicator which
calculated by mathematical statistics means of factor analysis using (IBM, SPSS Statics 22).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 9 of 24
where: WAI = Weighted Additive index; Si = the indicator score; n = number of indicators;
and Wi = the weight of indicators.
All parameters were weighted according to communality of each indicator which
calculated by mathematical statistics means of factor analysis using (IBM, SPSS Statics 22).
The calculation of weight value for each parameter depended on divided each value by
summation of overall values, on other words, as a ratio [73]. Kappa coefficient was used
to assess the level of agreement between model and weighted additive model. It is a
quantitative measure of consistency for two rates that are rating the same thing according
to the following Equation (13):
k=I (13)
where: K = the kappa coefficient; P(A) = the percentage of times that the coders agreIand
P(E) = the percentage of times that we would expect them to agree by chance. Levels of
agreement are shown in (Table 1).
1 N
N ∑ i=1 1 1
Mean standardized error (MSE) = [Z (X ) − Z2 (X2 )] (15)
r
1 N N 2
Average standard error (ASE) = + ∑I=1 [Z1 (xi ) − [∑i=1 Z2 (xi )]/N] (16)
N
r
1 N
N ∑ I=1 1
Root mean square error (RMSE) = [Z (xi ) − Z2 (xi )]2 (17)
r
1 N
N ∑ I=1 1
Root mean square standardized error (RMSSE) = [Z (xi ) − Z2 (xi )]2 (18)
1978.13, 462.27, 193.85, 113.70, and 705.73 hectares, respectively, it formed by erosion of the
plateau. Soils of this unit are very important for agriculture due their flatness. Wadi unit
consider one of the most diagnosed geomorphological units in the study area and extends
in large areas of the north-western coast of Egypt [32] and occupying the north part of the
study area. It receives high amounts of runoff in comparison to surrounding upland due to
it is location in gentle slopes. This landscape covers about 733.05 hectare (3.34%) of total
area including two landforms’ units (wadi and wadi outlet). Terraces units are formed
by alluvial sediments cyclic erosion and deposition stages (cut and fill) in a setting that
generates a staircase [76]. This unit classified into very high alluvial terraces (1227.42 ha),
high alluvial terraces (1241.03 ha), slightly moderate alluvial terrace (1615.76 ha), moderate
alluvial terrace (885.84 ha), and low alluvial terraces (2179.60 ha). Basins are defined as
lowland where the accumulation of rainfall and drained water done on their outlet. Basins
include both of the accumulative surface runoff, and nearby streams which, downslope
towards the shared outlet represent 399.27 ha of total area. Pavement plain unit occupies
3588.68 ha (16.8%) of the total area and formed by the erosion processes over a long time.
This unit is divided into Pediment plain (high, moderate and low with areas 444.14, 659.26
and 1054.62 hectares, respectively, and peneplain (1430.66 ha). The included landforms in
the reference’s terms landscape are plateau (1444.62 ha), escarpment (774.97 ha), table land
(3444.89), waterlogging, and rock outcrop (380.94 ha).
1.2 to 7.0 cmole/kg. The low values of it due to low content of clay and organic matter as
there are significant positive correlations between CEC, clay, and organic matter [28], while
organic matter percentage (OM%) content ranges from 0.04% to 0.71%. There is no specific
distribution pattern of OM in the study area (Figure S4d) while, soils of the study area
were characterized as having low content of OM, in agreement with [71]. OM play very
important role in improving soil physical and chemical properties [81,82]. Texture differs
between sandy clay loam, sandy loam, and sandy. Hydraulic conductivity (HC) expresses
of water movement and pore structure in soil [83], it ranged from 1.61 to 15.66 (cm/h) in
addition water holding capacity is relatively low due to coarse texture. Hydraulic conduc-
tivity is an important indicator of water movement and pore structure in soil. Soil depth
ranged between 40 and 90 cm while surface stoniness is less than 20%. The study area is
diagnosed by none to high salinity soils due to ECe values varying from 0.1 to 14.89 dS/m
with an average value of 5.04 dS/m [84]. According to the interpolated map the highest
value of EC was found in the north part of study area it might due to sea water (Figure S4k).
Most salinized soils are present in arid and semi-arid conditions due to low precipitation
and high evaporation [2]. CaCO3 ranges between 2.12% and 34%. Areas near to sea had
the highest value of CaCO3 ; it might be due to shell fragments. The highest CaCO3 value
in some areas can cause formation of very hard layers impermeable to water and crop roots
in addition, phosphorus fixation fertilizer in calcareous soils [85] areas in the southeast of
study area has the highest values of CaCO3 it might due to shell fragments (Figure S4k).
CaSO4 ranged from 0.2% to 3.1% with an average 0.6%. The available N ranges from 20.3 to
66.14 mg/kg (45.4 to 148.15 kg N/ha) demonstrating that the nitrogen content in the study
area differ from low to moderate [71] while, high content of N located in the middle part of
study area due to agriculture practices (Figure S4n). The available P and K content in the
study area are classified as low according to [77] as the average values are 9.18 kg P/ha and
186.74 kg K/ha. To estimate and map the unknown soil properties, the OK interpolation
method was used (Figure S4). Accuracy of the model was confirmed for each soil property
depending on mean standardized error (MSE), average standard error (ASE), root mean
square error (RMSE), and root mean square standardized error (RMSSE) (Table 4). The
results indicate that spherical model is suitable for EC, pH, bulk density, HC, WHC, and
CaSO4 , the Gaussian model is suitable for OM, ESP, sand% N, P, and K. Finally, the circular
and exponential models are suitable for K and clay%, as RMSSE and MSE are close to one
and zero, respectively, thus the mentioned models are the appropriate for predicting the
unsampled location [67,86].
Standard
Properties Min. Max. Mean
Division (STD)
pH 7.90 8.54 7.28 0.35
ESP 7.93 12.61 10.24 1.03
CEC (cmole/kg) 1.19 6.98 3.46 1.68
OM% 0.05 0.71 0.38 0.17
Bulk density (g/cm3 ) 1.12 1.68 1.48 0.16
HC (cm/h) 1.61 15.66 11.09 3.25
WHC (%) 10 20 10.79 2.43
EC (dS/m) 0.10 14.89 5.04 3.67
CaCO3 (%) 2.12 34 12.59 5.10
CaSO4 (%) 0.22 3.10 0.62 0.49
N (ppm) 20.3 45.47 66.15 9.63
P (ppm) 2.01 6.84 4.18 1.40
K (ppm) 24.13 174.59 83.37 30.64
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 13 of 24
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Spatial
Spatial distribution
distribution of
of GI
GI in
in the
thestudy
studyarea.
area.
Figure7.7.Spatial
Figure Spatialdistribution
distributionof
ofFI
FIin
inthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.
3.5.
3.5.Physical
PhysicalIndex
Index
The
Thedata
datagiven
givenininTable
Table77and
andFigure
Figure88andandindicate
indicatethat
thatPI
PIininthe
thestudy
studyarea
areaisisvaried
varied
from very high physical index (P1) to very low (P5). Rating of soil physical index
from very high physical index (P1) to very low (P5). Rating of soil physical index indicates indicates
that
thataround
around 77(ha)
(ha)of
ofstudy
studyarea
areaisisvery
veryhigh-quality
high-qualitysoil
soildue
dueto todeep
deepsoil
soilprofiles,
profiles,low
low
content
content of gravels, while 6457.6, 6634.14, 6409.43, and 331.80 (ha) of total agricultureareas
of gravels, while 6457.6, 6634.14, 6409.43, and 331.80 (ha) of total agriculture areas
are
areclassified
classifiedasashigh
high(P2),
(P2),moderate
moderate(P3),
(P3),low
low (P4),
(P4), and
and very
very low
low (P5)
(P5) classes,
classes, respectively.
respectively.
The
The soil limiting factors are coarse texture, high values of bulk density, and shallowdepth.
soil limiting factors are coarse texture, high values of bulk density, and shallow depth.
Table 7. Areas of physical index.
Figure8.8.Spatial
Figure Spatialdistribution
distributionofofphysical
physicalindex
indexininthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.
3.6.
3.6.Chemical
ChemicalIndex
Index(CI)
(CI)
Soil
Soildegradation
degradation (chemical,
(chemical, physical, and biological),
biological), means
meansreducing
reducingofofsoil
soilquality
qual-
ity [89].
[89]. Spatial
Spatial distribution
distribution mapofofchemical
map chemicalindex
index(Figure
(Figure 9)9) shows
shows that aa wide
widerange
rangeofof
chemical
chemicalquality
qualityranging
rangingfrom fromvery
verylowlowquality
quality(C5)
(C5)totovery
veryhigh
high(C1).
(C1).The
Theareas
areaschemical
chemical
index
indexare
areasasthe
thefollows:
follows:7291.9
7291.9hahaisisvery
veryhigh
highquality,
quality,3794.7 haha
3794.7 is high quality,
is high 3407
quality, ha is
3407 ha
moderate quality, 3773.91 ha is low quality, and 1872.83 ha is very low. C1 class
is moderate quality, 3773.91 ha is low quality, and 1872.83 ha is very low. C1 class charac- character-
ized by low
terized values
by low of ECe,
values ESP, ESP,
of ECe, and pHandon pHtheonother hand,hand,
the other low values of CEC
low values ofwhich may
CEC which
causing chemical degradation [90] and high content of CaCO are the main
may causing chemical degradation [90] and high content of3 CaCO3 are the main limiting limiting factors
offactors
C5 class soils
of C5 (Table
class soils8).(Table 8).
Classes Symbol Area (ha)
Very high C1 7291.49
High C2 3794.64
Moderate C3 3407.02
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 Low C4 3773.91 17 of 24
Very high C5 1872.83
Reference terms 1229.82
Figure9.9.Spatial
Figure Spatialdistribution
distributionofofCI
CIininthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.
3.7. Assessment
Table of Soil Quality
8. Areas of chemical index.
Soil physical, chemical, and biological quality parameters are the key indicators of
Classescombination of these parameters
SQ. An optimal Symbol increases agronomicArea (ha)
productivity and
reach to management
Very high systems sustainabilityC1[91], furthermore geomorphologic
7291.49 properties
have a directHigh
effect on land state throughC2 increasing of hydric erosion3794.64
process [51]. Ac-
Moderate C3 3407.02
cording to (Figure 10) the DSQM the study area classified into four classes. The first class
Low C4 3773.91
is characterized by high quality representC5
Very high
around 194 ha (0.9%) of the total study area.
1872.83
The second class is characterized by Reference
moderateterms
quality occupied 4748.61 ha (22.22%) of the
1229.82
total study area. The soil third quality class (low) covers 4675 ha (21.87%) of the total study
area and, finally, the very low-quality class is the most representative class as it occupies
3.7. Assessment of Soil Quality
10522.45 ha (49.23%) of total area. Around 5.7% of study area is reference, i.e., table land,
Soil physical, chemical, and biological quality parameters are the key indicators of SQ.
waterlogging and rock outcrop, these areas are not cultivated. It could be concluded from
An optimal combination of these parameters increases agronomic productivity and reach
the interpolated map that; the highest class of soil quality is located in the wadi unit (Fig-
to management systems sustainability [91], furthermore geomorphologic properties have
ure 10a). Low values of OM%, CEC, N, P, K led to negative effect on soil quality in
a direct effect on land state through increasing of hydric erosion process [51]. According
to (Figure 10) the DSQM the study area classified into four classes. The first class is
characterized by high quality represent around 194 ha (0.9%) of the total study area. The
second class is characterized by moderate quality occupied 4748.61 ha (22.22%) of the
total study area. The soil third quality class (low) covers 4675 ha (21.87%) of the total
study area and, finally, the very low-quality class is the most representative class as it
occupies 10522.45 ha (49.23%) of total area. Around 5.7% of study area is reference, i.e.,
table land, waterlogging and rock outcrop, these areas are not cultivated. It could be
concluded from the interpolated map that; the highest class of soil quality is located in the
wadi unit (Figure 10a). Low values of OM%, CEC, N, P, K led to negative effect on soil
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 18 of 24
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 19 of 25
quality in addition physical properties, i.e., shallow depth, coarse texture affect particles
addition physical properties, i.e., shallow depth, coarse texture affect particles and pores
and pores organization and therefor, impacts on root growth, speed of plant emergence,
organization and therefor, impacts on root growth, speed of plant emergence, and agri-
and agricultural cultural
practices water infiltration [83].
practices water infiltration [83].
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Spatial distribution of SQ in the study area: (a) developed soil quality model (DSQM); and (b) weighted addi-
Figure 10. Spatial distribution of SQ in the study area: (a) developed soil quality model (DSQM); and
tive.
(b) weighted additive.
Generally, soil quality is affected by agricultural practices and climatic conditions,
Generally, soil quality
which, is affected
in turn, byphysical,
affect the agricultural practices
chemical, and climatic
and fertility conditions,
properties of the soil [25].
which, in turn, affect the physical, chemical, and fertility properties of the soil [25]. Calcula-
tion of SQ in the study area by weighted additive index were according to the following
Equation (19):
Sustainability 2021, 13, x 20 of 25
SQ = (0.047 × SS) + (0.038 × SA) + (0.047 × PC) + (0.03 × SPRC) + (0.036 × SN) ×
SQ =×
(0.042 (0.047 × SS) +×
SP)(0.044 SK) ×
(0.038 + SA ) + (0.047
(0.024 × PC) + (0.03 ×
× SOM)+(0.037 ×SPRC ) + (0.036
S NDVI) × SN)×
+ (0.039 × SD) +
( 0.042 × SP )( 0.044 × SK ) + ( 0.024 × SOM ) + ( 0.037 × SNDVI ) + (
(0.046 × ST) + (0.047 × SBD) + (0.05 × SHC) + (0.043 × SWHC) + (0.04 × SSS) + 0.039 × SD )+ (19)
(0.046 × ST) + (0.047 × SBD) + (0.05 × SHC) + (0.043 × SWHC) + (0.04 × SSS)+ (19)
(0.004 × SEC) + (0.047 × SpH) + (0.045 × SCaCO3) + (0.046 × SCaSO4) +
(0.004 × SEC) + (0.047 × SpH) + (0.045 × SCaCO3) + (0.046 × SCaSO4)+
(0.04
(0.04 ××SESP
SESP)
) ++ (0.037
(0.037 × SCEC)
× SCEC )
The results
The results shows
shows that
that 3635.76
3635.76 ha
ha (17%)
(17%) of
of soils
soils are
are moderate
moderate quality, 4792 ha
quality, 4792 ha (22.4%)
(22.4%)
of soils
of soils are
are fell
fellinto
intolow
lowclass,
class,and
andwhile, most
while, of of
most study area
study areare
area characterized by very
characterized low
by very
class around 11,712.11 ha (54.8%) (Figure 10b). These results indicate high agreement
low class around 11,712.11 ha (54.8%) (Figure 10b). These results indicate high agreement be-
tween weighted additive index and developed model as most of study
between weighted additive index and developed model as most of study area around area around
49.23% is
49.23% is classified
classified as
as very
very low-quality
low-quality class
class according
according to to developed
developedmodel.
model.
parameters regardless their relative importance or weights [18]. Although, the geometric
mean algorism provides enhanced assessment of central conditions due to the arithmetic
mean may be skewed away from the median because the presence of outliers and anoma-
lous results [22]. DSQM is s significantly high correlated with CI (R2 = 0.71, p < 0.001),
these results indicate that the DSQM is accurate model for assessment of soil quality in the
agreement of [2]. The CI is chosen because it is using for assessing the potential of land for
a specific type of use like DSQM, but the DSQM is a newly developed approach, while CI
has been in use since 1961 [92].
4. Conclusions
Generally, soil quality assessment is very important for sustainable agricultural prac-
tices management and for precision farming especially. In this study soil physical, chemical,
biological, and geomorphological properties were used for SQ evaluation. For this purpose,
GMA jointly used with GIS to quantitative assessment of SQ and map it. The results
indicated that the soil quality (SQ) of study area classified into four classes, i.e., high quality
(SQ2), moderate quality (SQ3), low quality (SQ4), and very low quality (SQ5) occupied
0.90%, 21.87%, 22.22%, and 49.23% of the total study area in addition 5.74% of study area
is uncultivated. The results were validated by calculation kappa coefficient and showed
substantial agreement with weighted additive index, moreover significantly high correlated
with CI. As a whole, the developed soil quality model (DSQM) is qualified to assess soil
quality actuary in the study area and re applied in the same environments. Improving
SQ in the study area requires some agriculture practices for instance; reduce risks of soil
erosion which might occurs due to, geomorphologic properties of study area, increase
the rainwater and fertilizers efficiency used as, the cultivation in the study area depends
on winter rains and minimize losing of organic matter and nutrients. In conclusion, it is
very important to assess soil quality periodically to identify limiting factors of SQ and
try to maintain high crop yield, for the purpose of reduce a gap between production and
consumption and it is suggested that increasing field work and approaches of soil quality
calculation in the future studies.
References
1. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017.
2. Shokr, M.S.; Abdellatif, M.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Elnashar, A.; Ali, E.F.; Belal, A.A.; Attia, W.; Ahmed, M.; Aldosari, A.A.; Szantoi,
Z.; et al. Development of a spatial model for soil quality assessment under arid and semi-arid conditions. Sustainability 2021,
13, 2893. [CrossRef]
3. MVODO; Stéphanie, M.E. Political Instability in Africa: Impacts on Agricultural Value Chains, Note d’ analyses sociopolitiques, N◦ 06, 07
Janvier 2019; CARPADD: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2019.
4. Bakr, N.; Bahnassy, M.H. Egyptian Natural Resources. In The Soils of Egypt; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 33–49.
5. Satoh, M.; Aboulroos, S. Irrigated Agriculture in Egypt: Past, Present and Future; Satoh, M., Aboulroos, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2017.
6. Doran, J.; Coleman, D.; Bezdicek, D.; Stewart, B. A Framework for Evaluating Physical and Chemical Indicators of Soil Quality; Soil
Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1994; Volume 35, pp. 53–72.
7. Karlen, D.L.; Stott, D.E. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil quality. Defin. Soil Qual. Sustain.
Environ. 1994, 35, 53–72.
8. Mukherjee, A.; Lal, R. Comparison of soil quality index using three methods. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105981.
9. Lal, R.; Stewart, B.A. Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems; CRC Press, Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2013; p. 568.
10. Antony, S.; Thomas, C.G. Soil health management for food security. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Managing Soils for Food
Security and Climate Change Adaptions, Kottayam, India, December 2013; pp. 69–82.
11. Aprisal, I.; Bambang, J.; Harianti, M. Soil quality index analysis under horticultural farming in Sumani upper watershed. Int. J.
Geomate. 2019, 16, 191–196. [CrossRef]
12. Moore, F.; Sheykhi, V.; Salari, M.; Bagheri, A. Soil quality assessment using GIS-based chemometric approach and pollution
indices: Nakhlak mining district, Central Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 214. [CrossRef]
13. Ling, W.; Shen, Q.; Gao, Y.; Gu, X.; Yang, Z. Use of bentonite to control the release of copper from contaminated soils. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 2007, 45, 618–623. [CrossRef]
14. Elbana, T.; Gaber, H.M.; Kishk, F.M. Soil chemical pollution and sustainable agriculture. In The Soils of Egypt; El-Ramady, H.,
Alshaal, T., Bakr, N., Elbana, T., Mohamed, E., Belal, A.-A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019;
pp. 187–200.
15. Bakhshandeh, E.; Hossieni, M.; Zeraatpisheh, M.; Francaviglia, R. Land use change effects on soil quality and biological fertility:
A case study in northern Iran. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2019, 95. [CrossRef]
16. Zeraatpisheh, M.; Bakhshandeh, E.; Hosseini, M.; Alavi, S.M. Assessing the effects of deforestation and intensive agriculture on
the soilquality through digital soil mapping. Geoderma 2020, 363, 114139. [CrossRef]
17. Shokr, M.S.; El Baroudy, A.A.E.; Fullen, M.A.; El-Beshbeshy, T.R.; Ali, R.R.; Elhalim, A.; Guerra, A.J.T.; Jorge, M.C.O. Mapping of
heavy metal contamination In alluvial soils of the Middle Nile Delta of Egypt. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2016, 24, 218–231.
[CrossRef]
18. Abuzaid, A.S.; Abdellatif, D.; Fadl, M. Modeling soil quality in Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt using GIS techniques. Egypt. J.
Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2021, 24, 255–264. [CrossRef]
19. Nabiollahi, K.; Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, R.; Kerry, R.; Moradian, S. Assessment of soil quality indices for salt-affected agricultural
land in Kurdistan Province. Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 482–494. [CrossRef]
20. Mohamed, E.S.; Schütt, B.; Belal, A. Assessment of environmental hazards in the north western coast-Egypt using RS and GIS.
Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2013, 16, 219–229. [CrossRef]
21. El Baroudy, A.A. Mapping and evaluating land suitability using a GIS-based model. Catena 2016, 140, 96–104. [CrossRef]
22. Mikkonen, H.G.; Clarke, B.O.; Dasika, R.; Wallis, C.J.; Reichman, S.M. Evaluation of methods for managing censored results when
calculating the geometric mean. Chemosphere 2018, 191, 412–416. [CrossRef]
23. Ippolito, T.A.; Herrick, J.E.; Dossa, E.L.; Garba, M.; Ouattara, M.; Singh, U.; Stewart, Z.P.; Prasad, P.V.V.; Oumarou, I.A.; Neff,
J.C. A Comparison of Approaches to Regional Land-Use Capability Analysis for Agricultural LandPlanning. Land 2021, 10, 458.
[CrossRef]
24. FAO. Guidelines for Soil Description; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006.
25. Ismail, H.A.; Bahnassy, M.H.; El-kawy, O.R.A. Integration GIS and Modelling for agricultural land suitability evaluation at East
Wadi El-Natrun Egypt. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2005, 45, 297–322.
26. Elnashar, A.; Abbas, M.; Sobhy, H.; Shahba, M. Crop Water Requirements and Suitability Assessment in Arid Environments: A
New Approach. Agronomy 2021, 11, 260. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 22 of 24
27. Burrough, P.A.; McDonnell, R.; McDonnell, R.A.; Lloyd, C.D. Principles of Geographical Information Systems, 3rd ed.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015.
28. Abdel-Fattah, M.K.; Mohamed, E.S.; Wagdi, E.M.; Shahin, S.A.; Aldosari, A.A.; Lasaponara, R.; Alnaimy, M.A. Quantitative
evaluation of soil quality using principal component analysis: The case study of El-Fayoum Depression Egypt. Sustainability 2021,
13, 1824. [CrossRef]
29. Doerge, T. Defining management zones for precision farming. Crop Insights 1999, 8, 1–5.
30. Khosla, R.; Shaver, T. Zoning in on nitrogen needs. Colo. State Univ. Agron. Newsl. 2001, 21, 24–26.
31. Mohamed, E.; Abdellatif, M.; Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Khalil, M. Estimation of surface runoff using NRCS curve number in some
areas in northwest coast, Egypt. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, Barcelona, Spain, 10–12 February 2020; EDP
Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2020; Volume 167, p. 2002.
32. Said, M.E.S.; Ali, A.M.; Borin, M.; Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Aldosari, A.A.; Khalil, M.M.N.; Abdel-Fattah, M.K. On the Use of
Multivariate Analysis and Land Evaluation for Potential Agricultural Development of the Northwestern Coast of Egypt.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1318. [CrossRef]
33. Gomaa, H.A.; Yacout, D.; Shaheen, S.F.; Rabia, A.H. Assessment of Climate Change Impacts on Barley Production in Rain-Fed
Areas in Northern Egypt. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Biotechnology and Environment (ICBE 2018),
Alexandria, Egypt, 28–30 March 2018.
34. Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources (MIMR). The Egyptian Geological Survey and Mining Authority Scale 1:2:000.000;
Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1981.
35. Afirah, T.; Sharifah, S.; Syed, A.; Asmala, A. Classification of Landsat 8 satellite data using NDVI thresholds. J. Telecommun.
Electron. Comput. Eng. 2016, 8, 4.
36. Dobos, E.; Daroussin, J.; Montanarella, L. An SRTM-Based Procedure to Delineate SOTER Terrain Units on 1:1 and 1:5 Million Scales;
EUR 21571 EN; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2005; 55p.
37. Planchon, O.; Darboux, F. A fast, simple and versatile algorithm to fill the depressions of digital elevation models. Catena 2001, 46,
159–176. [CrossRef]
38. Olaya, V.; Conrad, O. Chapter 12. Geomorphometry in SAGA. In Developments in Soil Sciences; Hengl, T., Reuter, H.I., Eds.;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 293–308.
39. Dobos, E.; Norman, B.; Worstell, B. The Use of DEM and Satellite Images for Regional Scale Soil Database. Agrokem Talajt. 2002,
51, 263–272. [CrossRef]
40. Fawzy, H.A.; Yacoub, R. Land resource assessment and development of landmine-affected and de-mined areas, Northwest coast,
Egypt. In Proceedings of the Symposium. SUITMA 2005 Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic, Mining and Military Areas, Cairo,
Egypt, 19–21 November 2005.
41. Soil Survey Sta. Soil Survey Sta. Soil Survey Field and Laboratory Methods Manual. In Soil Survey Investigations Report Version 2.0;
No. 51; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
42. Rhoades, J.D. Salinity: Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3, Chemical Methods; Soil
Science Society of America Book Series, No. 5; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy:
Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 417–435.
43. Thomas, G.W. Soil pH and Soil Acidity. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3, Chemical Methods; Soil Science Society of America
Book Series, No. 5; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996;
pp. 475–490.
44. Summer, M.E.; Miller, W.P. Cation Exchange Capacity and Exchange Coefficients. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3. Chemical
Methods; Soil Science Society of America Book Series, No. 5; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America, American Society
of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 1201–1229.
45. Lavkulich, L.M. Methods Manual: Pedology Laboratory; Department of Soil Science, University of British Colum-bia: Vacouver, BC,
Canada, 1981.
46. Page, A.L.; Miller, R.H.; Keeney, D.R. Methods of Soil Analysis (Part 2): Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed.; The American
Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982.
47. Klut, A. Methods of Soil Analysis (Part 1) Physical and Mineralogical Methods; American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science
Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1986.
48. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis; Prentice Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1967.
49. Van Reeuwijk, L.P. Procedures for soil analysis; ISRIC: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002.
50. Goovaerts, P. Geostatistics for Natural Resource Evaluation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997.
51. Caravaca, F.; Masciandaro, G.; Ceccanti, B. Land use in relation to soil chemical and biochemical properties in a semiarid
Mediterranean environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2002, 68, 23–30. [CrossRef]
52. Andrews, S.S.; Karlen, D.L.; Cambardella, C.A. The soil management assessment framework: A quantitative soil quality
evaluation method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2004, 68, 1945–1962. [CrossRef]
53. Mandal, S.; Choudhury, B.U.; Satpati, L. Soil site suitability analysis using geo-statistical and visualization techniques for selected
winter crops in Sagar Island, India. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 122, 102249. [CrossRef]
54. Prăvălie, R.; Patriche, C.; Săvulescu, I.; Igor, S.; Georgeta, B.; Lucian, S. Spatial assessment of land sensitivity to degradation
across Romania. A quantitative approach based on the modified MEDALUS methodology. Catena 2020, 187, 104–407. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 23 of 24
55. Kosmas, C.; Ferrara, A.; Briassouli, H.; Imeson, A. Methodology for Mapping Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to Desertification.
The MEDALUS Project—Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use. Manual on Key Indicators of Desertification and Mapping
Environmentally Sensitive Areas to Desertification 1999 EUR 18882; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
56. Symeonakis, E.; Karathanasis, N.; Koukoulas, S.; Panagopoulos, G. Monitoring sensitivity to land degradation and desertification
with the Environmentally Sensitive Area Index: The case of Lesvos Island. Land Degrad. 2016, 27, 1562–1573. [CrossRef]
57. Prăvălie, R.; Săvulescu, I.; Patriche, C.; Dumitraşcu, M.; Bandoc, G. Spatial assessment of land degradation sensitive areas in
southwestern Romania using modified MEDALUS method. Catena 2017, 153, 114–130. [CrossRef]
58. Blaga, L. Aspects regarding the signifiance of the curvature types and values in the studies of geomorphometry assisted by GIS.
Anal. Univ. Oradea Ser. Geogr. 2012, 2012, 327–337.
59. Kornejady, A.; Ownegh, M.; Bahremand, A. Landslide susceptibility assessment using maximum entropy model with two
different data sampling methods. Catena 2017, 152, 144–162. [CrossRef]
60. Virto, I.; Imaz, M.J.; Fernández-Ugalde, O.; Gartzia-Bengoetxea, N.; Enrique, A.; Bescansa, P. Soil Degradation and Soil Quality in
Western Europe: Current Situation and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2015, 7, 313–365. [CrossRef]
61. Bernardi, A.C.d.C.; Grego, C.R.; Andrade, R.G.; Rabello, L.M.; Inamasu, R.Y. Spatial variability of vegetation index and soil
properties in an integrated crop-livestock system. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2017, 21, 513–518. [CrossRef]
62. Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B.; Sayre, K.D.; Deckers, J.; François, I.M.; Dendooven, L. Using NDVI and soil quality analysis to assess
influence of agronomic management on within-plot spatial variability and factors limiting production. Plant Soil 2009, 317, 41–59.
[CrossRef]
63. Yao, R.-J.; Yang, J.-S.; Zhang, T.-J.; Gao, P.; Yu, S.-P.; Wang, X.-P. Short-term effect of cultivation and crop rotation systems on soil
quality indicators in a coastal newly reclaimed farming area. J. Soils Sediments 2013, 13, 1335–1350. [CrossRef]
64. Soil Science Division Staff. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Handbook 18; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
65. FAO. Salt-Affected Soils and Their Management; Soils Bulletin No. 39; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1988.
66. Soltanpour, P.N. Determination of nutrient availability and elemental toxicity by AB-DTPA soil test and ICPS. In Advanced in Soil
Science; Stewart Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 16, pp. 165–190.
67. Mohamed, E.S.; Baroudy, A.A.E.; El-beshbeshy, T.; Emam, M.; Belal, A.A.; Elfadaly, A.; Aldosari, A.A.; Ali, A.M.; Lasaponara, R.
Vis-NIR Spectroscopy and Satellite Landsat-8 OLI Data to Map Soil Nutrients in Arid Conditions: A Case Study of the Northwest
Coast of Egypt. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3716. [CrossRef]
68. Hazelton, P.; Murphy, B. Interpreting Soil Test Results: What do All the Numbers Mean? CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, VIC,
Australia, 2016.
69. Rouse, J.W.; Hass, R.H.; Schell, J.A.; Deering, D.W. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. In Proceedings of
the Third Earth Resources Technology Satellite 1 Symposium, Greenbelt; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1974; pp. 3010–3017.
70. Lillesand, T.M.; Kiefer, R.W. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1994;
750p.
71. Mather, P.M. Computer Processing of Remotely SENSED Images: An Introduction, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2001;
292p.
72. El Baroudy, A.A.; Ali, A.M.; Mohamed, E.S.; Moghanm, F.S.; Shokr, M.S.; Savin, I.; Poddubsky, A.; Ding, Z.; Kheir, A.M.S.;
Aldosari, A.A.; et al. Modeling Land Suitability for Rice Crop Using Remote Sensing and Soil Quality Indicators: The Case Study
of the Nile Delta. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9653. [CrossRef]
73. Chen, Y.-D.; Wang, H.-Y.; Zhou, J.-M.; Xing, L.; Zhu, B.-S.; Zhao, Y.-C.; Chen, X.-Q. Minimum data set for assessing soil quality in
farmland of Northeast China. Pedosphere 2013, 23, 564–576. [CrossRef]
74. Cohen, J. Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37–46. [CrossRef]
75. McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 2012, 22, 276–282. [CrossRef]
76. Oldknow, C.J.; Hooke, J.M. Alluvial terrace development and changing landscape connectivity in the Great Karoo, South Africa.
Insights from the Wilgerbosch River catchment, Sneeuberg. Geomorphology 2017, 288, 12–38. [CrossRef]
77. Baruah, T.; Barthakur, H. A Textbook of Soil Analysis; Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1997.
78. Neina, D. The role of soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2019, 2009, 5794869. [CrossRef]
79. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008; Volume 13.
80. Abrol, I.; Yadav, J.S.P.; Massoud, F. Salt-Affected Soils and Their Management; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 1988;
p. 131.
81. Alam, M.; Mishra, A.; Singh, K.; Singh, S.K.; David, A. Response of sulphur and FYM on soil physico-chemical properties and
growth, yield and quality of mustard (Brassica nigra L.). J. Agric. Phys. 2014, 14, 156–160.
82. Fabrizio, A.; Tambone, F.; Genevini, P. Effect of compost application rate on carbon degradation and retention in soils. Waste
Manag. 2009, 29, 174–179. [CrossRef]
83. Semih, Ç.; Kenan, B. Hydraulic Conductivity Values of Soils in Different Soil Processing Conditions. Alinteri J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 35,
132–138.
84. FAO; United Nations Environment Programme; United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. A Provisional
Methodology for Soil Degradation Assessment; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1980.
85. Von Wandruszka, R. Phosphorus retention in calcareous soils and the effect of organic matter on its mobility. Geochem. Trans.
2006, 7, 6. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13438 24 of 24
86. Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Mansour, H.; Hussein, A.; Mohamed, E.S.; Zhang, Z.; Anaya-Romero, M.; Jordán, A. Influence of irrigation
water quantity on the land capability classification. Plant Arch. 2019, 2, 2253–2261.
87. Abdel-Kader, F.H. Assessment and monitoring of land degradation in the northwest coast region, Egypt using Earth observations
data. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2019, 22, 165–173. [CrossRef]
88. Sanchez, P.A. En route to plentiful food production in Africa. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 1–2. [CrossRef]
89. Lal, R. Restoring Soil Quality to Mitigate Soil Degradation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 5875–5895. [CrossRef]
90. Lal, R. Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food Sec. 2009, 1, 45–57. [CrossRef]
91. Martinez-Salgado, M.; Gutiérrez-Romero, V.; Jannsens, M.; Ortega-Blu, R. Biological soil quality indicators: A review. Curr. Res.
Technol. Educ. Top. Appl. Microbiol. Microb. Biotechnol. 2010, 1, 319–328.
92. De Laurentiis, V.; Secchi, M.; Bos, U.; Horn, R.; Laurent, A.; Sala, S. Soil quality index: Exploring options for a comprehensive
assessment of land use impacts in LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 63–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]