Soil biodiversity enhancement in European agroecosystems to promote their stability and resilience by external inputs reduction and crop performance increase

Project Information

SoildiverAgro

Grant agreement ID: 817819

DOI

10.3030/817819

Project closed

EC signature date 3 May 2019

Start date 1 June 2019

End date 31 May 2025

Funded under

• SOCIETAL CHALLENGES - Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland water research, and the bioeconomy

Total cost

€ 6 999 888,75

EU contribution

€ 6 999 888,75

Coordinated by

UNIVERSIDAD DE VIGO
Spain

Periodic Reporting for period 4 - SoildiverAgro (Soil biodiversity enhancement in European agroecosystems to promote their stability and resilience by external inputs reduction and crop performance increase)

Reporting period: 2023-12-01 to 2025-05-31

Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project

With the long-term view of fostering the synergies between agricultural production, biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services of local, regional and global relevance, the SoildiverAgro consortium developed and deploy innovative soil biodiversity research and crop management innovation. The main objective of SoildiverAgro was the adoption of new management practices and cropping systems that enhance soil genetic and functional biodiversity to reduce the use of external inputs while increasing crop production and quality, the delivery of ecosystem services and the EU agricultural stability and resilience.

Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far

In WP1, UVIGO (project coordinator) has coordinated and supervised the adequate implementation of the work plan to achieve SoildiverAgro objectives, milestones and deliverables.
In WP2 data mining and decision making through a participatory process within a multi-actor approach has been developed (using surveys, discussion groups and regional workshops). With this information an e-book was published, and a set of different management practices and cropping systems were defined, and considered as a baseline to develop a participatory process with stakeholders and end-users by means of development of surveys, discussion groups and regional workshops for each case study.
The main objective of WP3 was to determine the current status of soil biodiversity across the major European pedoclimatic regions, in relation to climate conditions, soil characteristics, cropping systems, and management practices.
The main objective of WP4 is to develop three sensitive and representative methods for the analysis of soil microbial and faunal diversity, to facilitate the evaluation and monitoring of soil biodiversity levels. The main result was based on the optimization of IR spectroscopy method to predict soil biological groups and biodiversity (36 equations to predict biodiversity related properties were delivered).
Regarding WP5, a wide range of management practices adapted to local conditions were identified. The selected practices that increase soil biodiversity, reduce external inputs and/or increase farms profitability were identified together with potential trade-offs between these objectives. Furthermore, SMEs developed formulations/products based on beneficial microorganisms capable of increasing soil quality and fertility while minimizing the incidence of soil-borne diseases
In WP6, the gross-margins were calculated for all the practices tested in the SoildiverAgro cases studies to look for management practices and cropping systems that increase soil biodiversity, reduce external inputs, but also profitable for farms. In additions LCA and CBA analyses were performed for selected case studies to calculate management practices externalities. Moreover, socio-psychological evaluation of farmers’ willingness to adopt innovative practices farmer survey has been implemented in all the regions.
WP7 provided the next main results: 1) Best Management practices guidelines for wheat, potatoes and vegetables, 2) Policy recommendations for policy improves at local and European levels, and 3) A Decision Support Tool to estimate wheat production and bacterial, fungal and nematodes soil biodiversity.
In WP8, Communication, Dissemination, Exploitation and Stakeholders engagement, we made the communication and dissemination plan with the corporative SoildiverAgro image, created and continuously updated SoildiverAgro website in different languages with different news, contents and profiles.

Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far)

SoildiverAgro almost achieved all the expected impacts:
EXPAND THE AGRO-ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE ON THE LINKS AND DYNAMICS BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. SoildiverAgro produced an important amount of data regarding the impact of management practices on soil biodiversity in both, WP3 and WP5.
DELIVER BEST PRACTICES BASED ON PRODUCTION SYSTEMS (BOTH CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC) THAT COMBINE SUPPORT FOR BIODIVERSITY WITH VALUE CREATION. A Best Practice Guidelines book (Deliverable 7.2) was produced based on SoildiverAgro results from WP5 and WP6. The best practices were selected among all those tested based on agronomic performance, soil biodiversity and ecosystem services delivery, but also on gross margins to ensure its potential adoption by farmers.
RESULT IN IMPROVED METHODS AND TOOLS TO ASSESS, EVALUATE AND MONITOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DIVERSITY (GENETIC, SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEM) AS WELL AS THE LINKAGES BETWEEN AGRO-BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. SoildiverAgro worked in three innovative methods to estimate microbial fungal diversity (1), nematodes diversity (2) and a wide range of soil biodiversity variables using Fourier-Transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy plus simple climatic and edaphic parameters (3). Regarding methods 1 and 2, SoildiverAgro demonstrated the applicability to real scenarios, and in the case of nematodes diversity (2), the developed methodology was already applied in other projects (https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.8.111307). Finally, the optimization of IR spectroscopy method allows SoildiverAgro to deliver predictive equations for 36 parameters related with soil biodiversity (Deliverable 4.3).

DEFINE OPERATIONAL BIODIVERSITY TARGETS FROM THE FIELD TO REGIONAL LEVEL
We were unable to stablish threshold for soil biodiversity, a task almost impossible according to discussions with the scientific community during the last 5 years due to complexity of organism relationships and the impact of climate and soil type on soil biodiversity parameters. However, through advanced co-abundance network modelling, over 10,000 Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) belonging to microorganisms, fungi, and nematodes were analysed to identify critical functional patterns related to soil health and functionality. The results were presented in Deliverable 7.1 including recommendations for integration into soil monitoring programs and policy frameworks. Key achievement of this deliverable was the identification of relationships between specific groups of soil organisms and key ecosystem services—such as carbon sequestration and storage, nutrient cycling and fertility, water retention, water infiltration and erosion control, and contamination reduction. We also illustrate how these relationships are shaped by pedoclimatic variables and highlight those that are consistent across different European regions.

DELIVER STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR BIODIVERSITY FOCUSED SOIL MANAGEMENT
A wide range of management strategies with potential positive effects on soil biodiversity were identified (Deliverable 5.4) most of them with absence of negative environmental, social and economic impacts.

REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE ON EXTERNAL INPUTS IN PLANT MANAGEMENT THROUGH EFFECTIVE PLANT-SOIL INTERACTIONS AND THE USE OF SOIL ORGANISMS
Manny of the tested management practices (use of trap crops, legumes or microorganism bases formulations) led to important reductions in external inputs (from 20%-100% depending on the input) without negative effects in crop production, quality and farmers gross margins (See Deliverable 7.2)

Winter wheat field picture