# Sustainable futures over the next decade are rooted in soil science

Daniel Evans, Victoria Janes-Bassett, Pasquale Borrelli, Claire Chenu, Carla Ferreira, Robert Griffiths, Zahra Kalantari, Saskia Keesstra, Rattan Lal, Panos Panagos, et al.

► To cite this version:

Daniel Evans, Victoria Janes-Bassett, Pasquale Borrelli, Claire Chenu, Carla Ferreira, et al. "Sustainable futures over the next decade are rooted in soil science." European Journal of Soil Science, 2022, 73 (1), pp.e13145. 10.1111/ejss.13145. hal-04282070

HAL Id: hal-04282070

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04282070

Submitted on 11 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
INVITED OPINION ARTICLE

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

WILEY

# Sustainable futures over the next decade are rooted in soil science

Daniel L. Evans<fnref n="1" /> ID

Victoria Janes-Bassett<fnref n="2" /> ID

Pasquale Borrelli<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> ID

Claire Chenu<fnref n="5" />

Carla S. S. Ferreira<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> ID

Robert I. Griffiths<fnref n="8" /> ID

Zahra Kalantari<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="9" />

Saskia Keesstra<fnref n="10" />,<fnref n="11" /> ID

Rattan Lal<fnref n="12" />

Panos Panagos<fnref n="13" />

David A. Robinson<fnref n="8" /> ID

Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> ID

Pete Smith<fnref n="14" /> ID

Tammo S. Steenhuis<fnref n="15" />

Amy Thomas<fnref n="8" />

Saskia M. Visser<fnref n="10" />

**Correspondence**

Daniel L. Evans, School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK.
Email: daniel.l evans@cranfield.ac.uk

**Funding information**

Dutch Knowledge Base Program;
European Commission, Grant/Award
Number: NEW 810; Horizon 2020
Framework Programme, Grant/Award
Numbers: 774378, 869625; Korea
Environmental Industry and Technology
Institute, Grant/Award Number:
2019002820004; Natural Environment
Research Council, Grant/Award Number:
NE/R016429/1; Svenska Forskningsrådet

**Abstract**

The importance of soils to society has gained increasing recognition over the past decade, with the potential to contribute to most of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With unprecedented and growing demands for food, water and energy, there is an urgent need for a global effort to address the challenges of climate change and land degradation, whilst protecting soil as a natural resource. In this paper, we identify the contribution of soil science over the past decade to addressing gaps in our knowledge regarding major environmental challenges: climate change, food security, water security, urban development, and ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. Continuing to address knowledge gaps in soil science is essential for the achievement of the SDGs. However, with limited time and budget, it is also pertinent to identify effective

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2021 The Authors. *European Journal of Soil Science* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society of Soil Science.

<footnote n="1">¹School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵INRAE AgroParisTech, Grignon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Department of Physical Geography and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Navarino Environmental Observatory, Messenia, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸UKCEH, ECW, Bangor, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Soil, Water and Land Use Team, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA</footnote>
INVITED OPINION ARTICLE

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

WILEY

# Sustainable futures over the next decade are rooted in soil science

Daniel L. Evans<fnref n="1" /> ID

Victoria Janes-Bassett<fnref n="2" /> ID

Pasquale Borrelli<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> ID

Claire Chenu<fnref n="5" />

Carla S. S. Ferreira<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> ID

Robert I. Griffiths<fnref n="8" /> ID

Zahra Kalantari<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="9" />

Saskia Keesstra<fnref n="10" />,<fnref n="11" /> ID

Rattan Lal<fnref n="12" />

Panos Panagos<fnref n="13" />

David A. Robinson<fnref n="8" /> ID

Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" /> ID

Pete Smith<fnref n="14" /> ID

Tammo S. Steenhuis<fnref n="15" />

Amy Thomas<fnref n="8" />

Saskia M. Visser<fnref n="10" />

## Correspondence

Daniel L. Evans, School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK.
Email: daniel.l evans@cranfield.ac.uk

## Funding information

Dutch Knowledge Base Program;
European Commission, Grant/Award
Number: NEW 810; Horizon 2020
Framework Programme, Grant/Award
Numbers: 774378, 869625; Korea
Environmental Industry and Technology
Institute, Grant/Award Number:
2019002820004; Natural Environment
Research Council, Grant/Award Number:
NE/R016429/1; Svenska Forskningsrådet

## Abstract

The importance of soils to society has gained increasing recognition over the past decade, with the potential to contribute to most of the United Nations' Sustain-able Development Goals (SDGs). With unprecedented and growing demands for food, water and energy, there is an urgent need for a global effort to address the challenges of climate change and land degradation, whilst protecting soil as a natural resource. In this paper, we identify the contribution of soil science over the past decade to addressing gaps in our knowledge regarding major environ-mental challenges: climate change, food security, water security, urban develop-ment, and ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. Continuing to address knowledge gaps in soil science is essential for the achievement of the SDGs. However, with limited time and budget, it is also pertinent to identify effective

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2021 The Authors. *European Journal of Soil Science* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society of Soil Science.

<footnote n="1">¹School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵INRAE AgroParisTech, Grignon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Department of Physical Geography and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Navarino Environmental Observatory, Messenia, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸UKCEH, ECW, Bangor, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Soil, Water and Land Use Team, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA</footnote>
Formas, Grant/Award Number:
2017-00608; UK Research and Innovation,
Grant/Award Number: NE/P019455/1

methods of working that ensure the research carried out leads to real-world impact. Here, we suggest three strategies for the next decade of soil science, comprising a greater implementation of research into policy, interdisciplinary partnerships to evaluate function trade-offs and synergies between soils and other environmental domains, and integrating monitoring and modelling methods to ensure soil-based policies can withstand the uncertainties of the future.

## Highlights

* We highlight the contributions of soil science to five major environmental challenges since 2010.

* Researchers have contributed to recommendation reports, but work is rarely translated into policy.

* Interdisciplinary work should assess trade-offs and synergies between soils and other domains.

* Integrating monitoring and modelling is key for robust and sustainable soils-based policymaking.

## KEYWORDS

biodiversity, climate change, ecosystems, food security, sustainable development goals, urban development, water security

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

By the end of the decade, the United Nations (UN) Agenda for Sustainable Development – the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – are intended to be substantively realized (United Nations, 2015). Although only six SDGs mention the word “soil” in their descriptions, the importance of maintaining productive soils for sustainable development has been increasingly recognized by scientists and policymakers (Banwart, 2011; IPBES, 2018; Keesstra et al., 2016). This is largely due to the fact that soils are an essential nexus between different spheres of the terrestrial environment, facilitating a diverse array of important functions, such as producing food, purifying water, sequestering carbon, safeguarding energy, supporting critical infrastructure, providing acreage for development and supplying raw materials (Blum, 2005).

In response to an emerging need to better understand soils as key deliverers of these vital services, the make-up of the soil science research community has been transformed. Soil science has arguably shifted from a discipline largely concerned with the fundamental mechanics of soil systems (soil physics, soil biology, soil chemistry, soil hydrology, etc.), to one more focused on confronting contemporary environmental challenges (Hartemink & McBratney, 2008). The importance of, and need to understand, the components of soil systems has not been made

redundant, but more and more fundamental soil science is being translated into applied “real-world” solutions.

This shift in the identity of soil science has arguably motivated soil scientists to work with a more diverse array of environmental disciplines (Hou, Bolan, Tsang, Kirkham, & O'Connor, 2020). As a result of partnering with neighbouring (and sometimes tangential) fields, soil science has become enriched with new methodological capabilities, transformed analytical techniques and more holistic solutions to address the issues of the day.

In this paper, we begin by spotlighting some of the work that soil scientists have carried out over the past decade to confront grand global challenges, including climate change, food security, water security, urban development, and ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. In each of these themes, there are still unanswered research questions and knowledge gaps, and a number of papers in recent years have sought to compile these into a manifesto for soil science (Adewope et al., 2014; Blum, 2006; Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2020). This paper does not aim to embellish these lists. With less than 10 years to go before the SDGs are intended to be achieved, and with finite resources and budget available, we believe that now is the time to consider not *what* should be researched, but *how* soil science can best ensure that the research that has been, and continues to be, carried out can support global efforts to secure sustainable development by 2030. We will suggest three “ways of working”, including
Formas, Grant/Award Number:
2017-00608; UK Research and Innovation,
Grant/Award Number: NE/P019455/1

methods of working that ensure the research carried out leads to real-world impact. Here, we suggest three strategies for the next decade of soil science, comprising a greater implementation of research into policy, interdisciplinary partnerships to evaluate function trade-offs and synergies between soils and other environmental domains, and integrating monitoring and modelling methods to ensure soil-based policies can withstand the uncertainties of the future.

## Highlights

* We highlight the contributions of soil science to five major environmental challenges since 2010.

* Researchers have contributed to recommendation reports, but work is rarely translated into policy.

* Interdisciplinary work should assess trade-offs and synergies between soils and other domains.

* Integrating monitoring and modelling is key for robust and sustainable soils-based policymaking.

## KEYWORDS

biodiversity, climate change, ecosystems, food security, sustainable development goals, urban development, water security

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

By the end of the decade, the United Nations (UN) Agenda for Sustainable Development – the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – are intended to be substantively realized (United Nations, 2015). Although only six SDGs mention the word “soil” in their descriptions, the importance of maintaining productive soils for sustainable development has been increasingly recognized by scientists and policymakers (Banwart, 2011; IPBES, 2018; Keesstra et al., 2016). This is largely due to the fact that soils are an essential nexus between different spheres of the terrestrial environment, facilitating a diverse array of important functions, such as producing food, purifying water, sequestering carbon, safeguarding energy, supporting critical infrastructure, providing acreage for development and supplying raw materials (Blum, 2005).

In response to an emerging need to better understand soils as key deliverers of these vital services, the make-up of the soil science research community has been transformed. Soil science has arguably shifted from a discipline largely concerned with the fundamental mechanics of soil systems (soil physics, soil biology, soil chemistry, soil hydrology, etc.), to one more focused on confronting contemporary environmental challenges (Hartemink & McBratney, 2008). The importance of, and need to understand, the components of soil systems has not been made

redundant, but more and more fundamental soil science is being translated into applied “real-world” solutions.

This shift in the identity of soil science has arguably motivated soil scientists to work with a more diverse array of environmental disciplines (Hou, Bolan, Tsang, Kirkham, & O'Connor, 2020). As a result of partnering with neighbouring (and sometimes tangential) fields, soil science has become enriched with new methodological capabilities, transformed analytical techniques and more holistic solutions to address the issues of the day.

In this paper, we begin by spotlighting some of the work that soil scientists have carried out over the past decade to confront grand global challenges, including climate change, food security, water security, urban development, and ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. In each of these themes, there are still unanswered research questions and knowledge gaps, and a number of papers in recent years have sought to compile these into a manifesto for soil science (Adewope et al., 2014; Blum, 2006; Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2020). This paper does not aim to embellish these lists. With less than 10 years to go before the SDGs are intended to be achieved, and with finite resources and budget available, we believe that now is the time to consider not *what* should be researched, but *how* soil science can best ensure that the research that has been, and continues to be, carried out can support global efforts to secure sustainable development by 2030. We will suggest three “ways of working”, including
(a) implementing research in policy and practice;
(b) working across disciplines to evaluate function trade-offs and synergies between soils and other environmental domains; and (c) integrating monitoring and modelling methods to ensure that soils-based legislation is resilient.

2 | 2010–2020: THE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOIL SCIENCE
TO FIVE GRAND CHALLENGES

2.1 | Climate change

There is a growing recognition that soils have a crucial
role in mitigating climate change, such as reducing meth-
ane and nitrous oxide emissions and sequestering carbon
that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere (Paustian
et al., 2016; Smith, 2012; Smith, 2016). This has led to the
development of high-profile, global initiatives such as
“4p1000”, an international political effort launched at the
2015 COP21 summit in France to preserve and increase
soil organic carbon stocks, improve food security and
help tackle climate change (Chabbi et al., 2017; Rumpel
et al., 2018; Soussana et al., 2019). Almost 50 governments
and local authorities with hundreds of private and public
sector partners are participating in this initiative.

Several studies in the past decade have sought to esti-
mate global soil organic carbon sequestration potential.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
recently collated these estimates (Smith et al., 2019;
Smith et al., 2020a) and found the global potential for soil
organic carbon sequestration to be within the range of
1.3–5.1 GtCO₂e year⁻¹, although the full range reported
in the literature is wider (0.4–8.6 GtCO₂e year⁻¹) (Bossio
et al., 2020; Fuss et al., 2018). This wide range is, in part,
a reflection of the variable efficacy of different soil man-
agement practices to sequester organic carbon, and the
non-linear decline of sequestration rates as fresh soil
organic carbon steady state is reached (Amundson
et al., 2015). In addition, there is vast potential for the
sequestration of soil inorganic carbon as secondary car-
bonates and bi-carbonates (Lal, 2019). For instance, a
recent study showed that although biochar addition can
expand soil organic carbon stocks, it can also increase the
dissolved inorganic carbon content in soils (Shi
et al., 2020).

Cultural, economic and physical barriers constrain the
capacity for soils to mitigate climate change, demonstrat-
ing the need for the soil science community to articulate
the benefits of carbon sequestration in order to achieve
maximum societal impact and acceptance (Amundson &
Biardeau, 2018). However, accurately quantifying soil
organic carbon sequestration potential is also confronted

by the difficulties in monitoring, reporting and verifying
(MRV) changes in soil organic carbon stocks, because
these changes are relatively small and slow, and thus diffi-
cult to detect against large background stocks (Smith
et al., 2020b). In the past decade, soil organic carbon MRV
platforms harnessing new capabilities have been proposed.
Amongst these are long- and short-term field experiments,
well-calibrated models, state-of-the-art spatial datasets,
spatial soil survey data, activity data and remote sensing
(Smith, Soussana, et al., 2020b). Moreover, detailed MRV
protocols are being developed, such as the Food and Agri-
culture Organisation's (FAO's) recarbonization of global
soils (RECSOIL) programme (FAO, 2019a).

Measuring soil organic carbon has, until recently,
generally entailed destructive sampling, soil processing,
and wet chemical analysis or dry combustion. However,
research in the past decade has focused on developing
non-destructive methods to measure soil organic carbon
both in the laboratory and in the field. These methods
rely mainly on reflectance of light by the soil in the mid-
(4,000–600 cm⁻¹) and near- to short-wave infrared region
(2,000–2,500 nm). The concentration of soil organic car-
bon can be estimated from these spectral measurements
by comparing them with spectral libraries derived from
samples on which soil properties have been determined
by traditional laboratory methods and reflectance
measurements (Smith, Soussana, et al., 2020b). The
ultimate aim of these innovations has been to obtain
low-cost, scientifically validated, field-based tools for
the non-destructive measurement of soil organic car-
bon (Dhawale et al., 2015; Hutengs, Ludwig, Jung,
Eisele, & Vohland, 2018; Tang, Jones, & Minasny,
2019). Although these tools are helping with the deter-
mination of soil organic carbon state, further rigorous
testing is required to establish their reliability in deter-
mining soil organic carbon change.

The past decade has also witnessed advances in
remote sensing, by deploying unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV), aeroplanes and satellite infrastructures to detect
changes in soil properties. Although these can infer
changes in soil organic carbon through vegetation
change, remote sensing technology that can directly mea-
sure soil organic carbon is yet to be developed (Smith,
Soussana, et al., 2020b). Hyperspectral imagery can be
interpreted directly in combination with spectral libraries
for quantification of soil organic carbon for the top
centimetre of bare soil (Gomez, Lagacherie, &
Bacha, 2012; Jaber, Lant, & Al-Qinna, 2011), or by using
multivariate imagery to map bare soil patterns to indicate
soil organic carbon or soil class differences (Gallo
et al., 2018; Rogge et al., 2018).

Furthermore, new-generation soil organic carbon
models have been developed since 2010 to complement
(a) implementing research in policy and practice;
(b) working across disciplines to evaluate function trade-offs and synergies between soils and other environmental domains; and (c) integrating monitoring and modelling methods to ensure that soils-based legislation is resilient.

2 | 2010–2020: THE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOIL SCIENCE
TO FIVE GRAND CHALLENGES

2.1 | Climate change

There is a growing recognition that soils have a crucial
role in mitigating climate change, such as reducing meth-
ane and nitrous oxide emissions and sequestering carbon
that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere (Paustian
et al., 2016; Smith, 2012; Smith, 2016). This has led to the
development of high-profile, global initiatives such as
“4p1000”, an international political effort launched at the
2015 COP21 summit in France to preserve and increase
soil organic carbon stocks, improve food security and
help tackle climate change (Chabbi et al., 2017; Rumpel
et al., 2018; Soussana et al., 2019). Almost 50 governments
and local authorities with hundreds of private and public
sector partners are participating in this initiative.

Several studies in the past decade have sought to esti-
mate global soil organic carbon sequestration potential.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
recently collated these estimates (Smith et al., 2019;
Smith et al., 2020a) and found the global potential for soil
organic carbon sequestration to be within the range of
1.3–5.1 GtCO₂e year⁻¹, although the full range reported
in the literature is wider (0.4–8.6 GtCO₂e year⁻¹) (Bossio
et al., 2020; Fuss et al., 2018). This wide range is, in part,
a reflection of the variable efficacy of different soil man-
agement practices to sequester organic carbon, and the
non-linear decline of sequestration rates as fresh soil
organic carbon steady state is reached (Amundson
et al., 2015). In addition, there is vast potential for the
sequestration of soil inorganic carbon as secondary car-
bonates and bi-carbonates (Lal, 2019). For instance, a
recent study showed that although biochar addition can
expand soil organic carbon stocks, it can also increase the
dissolved inorganic carbon content in soils (Shi
et al., 2020).

Cultural, economic and physical barriers constrain the
capacity for soils to mitigate climate change, demonstrat-
ing the need for the soil science community to articulate
the benefits of carbon sequestration in order to achieve
maximum societal impact and acceptance (Amundson &
Biardeau, 2018). However, accurately quantifying soil
organic carbon sequestration potential is also confronted

by the difficulties in monitoring, reporting and verifying
(MRV) changes in soil organic carbon stocks, because
these changes are relatively small and slow, and thus diffi-
cult to detect against large background stocks (Smith
et al., 2020b). In the past decade, soil organic carbon MRV
platforms harnessing new capabilities have been proposed.
Amongst these are long- and short-term field experiments,
well-calibrated models, state-of-the-art spatial datasets,
spatial soil survey data, activity data and remote sensing
(Smith, Soussana, et al., 2020b). Moreover, detailed MRV
protocols are being developed, such as the Food and Agri-
culture Organisation's (FAO's) recarbonization of global
soils (RECSOIL) programme (FAO, 2019a).

Measuring soil organic carbon has, until recently,
generally entailed destructive sampling, soil processing,
and wet chemical analysis or dry combustion. However,
research in the past decade has focused on developing
non-destructive methods to measure soil organic carbon
both in the laboratory and in the field. These methods
rely mainly on reflectance of light by the soil in the mid-
(4,000–600 cm⁻¹) and near- to short-wave infrared region
(2,000–2,500 nm). The concentration of soil organic car-
bon can be estimated from these spectral measurements
by comparing them with spectral libraries derived from
samples on which soil properties have been determined
by traditional laboratory methods and reflectance
measurements (Smith, Soussana, et al., 2020b). The
ultimate aim of these innovations has been to obtain
low-cost, scientifically validated, field-based tools for
the non-destructive measurement of soil organic car-
bon (Dhawale et al., 2015; Hutengs, Ludwig, Jung,
Eisele, & Vohland, 2018; Tang, Jones, & Minasny,
2019). Although these tools are helping with the deter-
mination of soil organic carbon state, further rigorous
testing is required to establish their reliability in deter-
mining soil organic carbon change.

The past decade has also witnessed advances in
remote sensing, by deploying unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV), aeroplanes and satellite infrastructures to detect
changes in soil properties. Although these can infer
changes in soil organic carbon through vegetation
change, remote sensing technology that can directly mea-
sure soil organic carbon is yet to be developed (Smith,
Soussana, et al., 2020b). Hyperspectral imagery can be
interpreted directly in combination with spectral libraries
for quantification of soil organic carbon for the top
centimetre of bare soil (Gomez, Lagacherie, &
Bacha, 2012; Jaber, Lant, & Al-Qinna, 2011), or by using
multivariate imagery to map bare soil patterns to indicate
soil organic carbon or soil class differences (Gallo
et al., 2018; Rogge et al., 2018).

Furthermore, new-generation soil organic carbon
models have been developed since 2010 to complement
traditional models. These represent soil organic carbon turnover with pseudo first-order decay approaches with a range of soil organic carbon pools, controls on turnover times, and decomposition pathways (Smith et al., 2018). In particular, these new models include an explicit description of microbes, mineral-surface interactions, vertical transport, nutrient controls and plant interactions (Smith et al., 2018). It is unclear whether these will lead to more accurate predictions, but there are some processes for which pool-based models are unsuitable, and microbially explicit representations are required. These include soil priming (Georgiou, Koven, Riley, & Torn, 2015), microorganism mortality (Georgiou, Abramoff, Harte, Riley, & Torn, 2017), and the leaching and stabilization of dissolved organic carbon (Dwivedi, Riley, Torn, Spycher, & Maggi, 2017).

Although most of the recent research on soils and climate change has focused on climate mitigation, understanding the role of soils in climate change adaptation has also progressed. Management of soil organic carbon, erosion control, soil-borne diseases, and the prevention and reversal of topsoil salinization have been promoted as actions for climate change adaptation (Dagar, Sharma, Sharma, & Singh, 2016; Qadir, Noble, & Chartres, 2013; UNCTAD, 2011). Because these soil management measures are used to address land degradation, and because restoring degraded land helps to improve resilience to climate change, sustainable soil management has been championed as essential for climate change adaptation.

## 2.2 | Food security

Of the 5 billion hectares of agricultural land used for crops (1.5 billion hectares) and livestock (3.5 billion hectares), one-third of this total area is classified as degraded (FAO, 2015a). Almost 70% of total freshwater withdrawal is used for irrigation, and one-third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to agricultural activities (Crippa et al., 2021). Global agriculture produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet as much as 30% of food is wasted globally (Lal, 2017). Therefore, judicious use of food, and a change in dietary preferences in favour of more plant-based diets, has been increasingly encouraged. Rather than expanding the land area under agriculture, work over the past decade has explored producing “more from less”, by enhancing eco-efficiency of both soil and water, and reducing waste.

Since 2016, improved cropping systems have been studied worldwide, marking a shift from using soils as a substrate to produce food, towards a multiple-goal production system: producing food while improving soil quality. Widespread adoption of soil restorative measures

to enhance soil organic carbon content and reduce erosion are critical for achieving food and nutritional security, particularly in developing countries (Evans, Quinton, Davies, Zhao, & Govers, 2020; Oliver & Gregory, 2015; Rojas, Achouri, Maroulis, & Caon, 2016; Tittonell, 2015). Over the past decade, soil science has focused on recycling biomass to build soil organic carbon content to improve soil health (Oliver & Gregory, 2015; Scharlemann, Tanner, Hiederer, & Kapos, 2014), with “soil health” here being defined as “the vitality of a soil in sustaining the socio-ecological functions of its enfolding land” following Janzen, Janzen, and Gregorich (2021), but see Baveye (2021) for a critical analysis of soil health definitions. For example, implementing zero-till farming, in conjunction with crop residue mulching and cover cropping, has been found to enhance topsoil health (Knapp & van der Heijden, 2018). Improving soil organic carbon content has also been identified conceptually to enrich soil biodiversity and human health (Wall, Nielsen, & Six, 2015), as well as increase drought resilience through enhancing green water supply (i.e., the water stored in soil and available for plant uptake) in the root zone (Marasco et al., 2012; Sposito, 2013). Transformative advancements in soil biology have demonstrated that maintaining soil organic carbon content is critical to the rhizosphere microbiome (Berendsen, Pieterse, & Bakker, 2012), which, in turn, has been shown to drive plant productivity in agroecosystems. For example, Wei et al. (2015) showed that resident soil bacterial communities can significantly reduce the invasion success of pathogens into host plants.

Recent work by Ball, Hargreaves, and Watson (2018) has shown the importance of the soil-society nexus for improving food system sustainability. Their framework, involving three types of connections, includes: (a) direct connections that enhance soil awareness for innovative management, such as organic, no-till or conservation agriculture; (b) indirect connections between soil, food and ecosystem services that can be promoted through home gardening and education (Edmondson et al., 2020; Lal, 2020a); and (c) temporal connections that draw on past usage of soil to raise awareness among policymakers (Evans, Vis, Dunning, Graham, & Isendahl, 2021).

## 2.3 | Water security

Over the past decade, scientists have investigated approaches to boost water use efficiency, through either plant-based interventions, which are beyond the scope of this paper, or water-management strategies. A significant advancement has been to test and develop measures to retain water within the soil by improving soil organic
traditional models. These represent soil organic carbon turnover with pseudo first-order decay approaches with a range of soil organic carbon pools, controls on turnover times, and decomposition pathways (Smith et al., 2018). In particular, these new models include an explicit description of microbes, mineral-surface interactions, vertical transport, nutrient controls and plant interactions (Smith et al., 2018). It is unclear whether these will lead to more accurate predictions, but there are some processes for which pool-based models are unsuitable, and microbially explicit representations are required. These include soil priming (Georgiou, Koven, Riley, & Torn, 2015), microorganism mortality (Georgiou, Abramoff, Harte, Riley, & Torn, 2017), and the leaching and stabilization of dissolved organic carbon (Dwivedi, Riley, Torn, Spycher, & Maggi, 2017).

Although most of the recent research on soils and climate change has focused on climate mitigation, understanding the role of soils in climate change adaptation has also progressed. Management of soil organic carbon, erosion control, soil-borne diseases, and the prevention and reversal of topsoil salinization have been promoted as actions for climate change adaptation (Dagar, Sharma, Sharma, & Singh, 2016; Qadir, Noble, & Chartres, 2013; UNCTAD, 2011). Because these soil management measures are used to address land degradation, and because restoring degraded land helps to improve resilience to climate change, sustainable soil management has been championed as essential for climate change adaptation.

## 2.2 | Food security

Of the 5 billion hectares of agricultural land used for crops (1.5 billion hectares) and livestock (3.5 billion hectares), one-third of this total area is classified as degraded (FAO, 2015a). Almost 70% of total freshwater withdrawal is used for irrigation, and one-third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to agricultural activities (Crippa et al., 2021). Global agriculture produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet as much as 30% of food is wasted globally (Lal, 2017). Therefore, judicious use of food, and a change in dietary preferences in favour of more plant-based diets, has been increasingly encouraged. Rather than expanding the land area under agriculture, work over the past decade has explored producing “more from less”, by enhancing eco-efficiency of both soil and water, and reducing waste.

Since 2016, improved cropping systems have been studied worldwide, marking a shift from using soils as a substrate to produce food, towards a multiple-goal production system: producing food while improving soil quality. Widespread adoption of soil restorative measures

to enhance soil organic carbon content and reduce erosion are critical for achieving food and nutritional security, particularly in developing countries (Evans, Quinton, Davies, Zhao, & Govers, 2020; Oliver & Gregory, 2015; Rojas, Achouri, Maroulis, & Caon, 2016; Tittonell, 2015). Over the past decade, soil science has focused on recycling biomass to build soil organic carbon content to improve soil health (Oliver & Gregory, 2015; Scharlemann, Tanner, Hiederer, & Kapos, 2014), with “soil health” here being defined as “the vitality of a soil in sustaining the socio-ecological functions of its enfolding land” following Janzen, Janzen, and Gregorich (2021), but see Baveye (2021) for a critical analysis of soil health definitions. For example, implementing zero-till farming, in conjunction with crop residue mulching and cover cropping, has been found to enhance topsoil health (Knapp & van der Heijden, 2018). Improving soil organic carbon content has also been identified conceptually to enrich soil biodiversity and human health (Wall, Nielsen, & Six, 2015), as well as increase drought resilience through enhancing green water supply (i.e., the water stored in soil and available for plant uptake) in the root zone (Marasco et al., 2012; Sposito, 2013). Transformative advancements in soil biology have demonstrated that maintaining soil organic carbon content is critical to the rhizosphere microbiome (Berendsen, Pieterse, & Bakker, 2012), which, in turn, has been shown to drive plant productivity in agroecosystems. For example, Wei et al. (2015) showed that resident soil bacterial communities can significantly reduce the invasion success of pathogens into host plants.

Recent work by Ball, Hargreaves, and Watson (2018) has shown the importance of the soil-society nexus for improving food system sustainability. Their framework, involving three types of connections, includes: (a) direct connections that enhance soil awareness for innovative management, such as organic, no-till or conservation agriculture; (b) indirect connections between soil, food and ecosystem services that can be promoted through home gardening and education (Edmondson et al., 2020; Lal, 2020a); and (c) temporal connections that draw on past usage of soil to raise awareness among policymakers (Evans, Vis, Dunning, Graham, & Isendahl, 2021).

## 2.3 | Water security

Over the past decade, scientists have investigated approaches to boost water use efficiency, through either plant-based interventions, which are beyond the scope of this paper, or water-management strategies. A significant advancement has been to test and develop measures to retain water within the soil by improving soil organic
carbon content. Long-established techniques such as mulching and cover cropping (Li, Zhao, Gao, Ren, & Wu, 2018; Wheeler & Marning, 2019) have been complemented with innovations such as using wetting agents (e.g., surfactants) and wax-degrading bacteria to reduce soil water-repellence (Saji, 2020), and developing soil conditioners composed from natural (e.g., cellulose, starch, yeast, chitosan) and biodegradable waste products (Saha, Rattan, Sekharan, & Manna, 2020). Although these novel advancements have been trialled, continued investment is required to validate their effectiveness across a wider array of land-use and climatic contexts.

Groundwater depletion is a rapidly increasing problem globally (Hohne, Esterhuyse, Fourie, Gericke, & Esterhuyse, 2020). To meet increasing demand, several strategies have been developed over the past decade to efficiently manage groundwater conditions (Chatterjee et al., 2020). Artificial groundwater recharge has been performed through water harvesting structures, by collecting surface runoff, and increasing infiltration through a combination of dry wells, percolation tanks and/or bank infiltration recharge, while preventing water-quality decrease (Ahirwar, Malik, Ahirwar, & Shukla, 2020; Sandoval & Tiburan, 2019). This has been upscaled by the deployment of remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) techniques to precisely identify suitable sites to enhance groundwater recharge potential, through analysing relevant factors such as geomorphology, geology, slopes, land use and drainage characteristics (Chandra, Singh, Tiwari, Panigrahy, & Kumar, 2015; Khan, Govil, Taloor, & Kumar, 2020; Machiwal, Jha, & Mal, 2011). Remote sensing has also been used to detect terrestrial water cycling through the detection of changes in Earth's gravitational field (Feng, Shurn, Zhong, & Pan, 2018; Rodell et al., 2007). These data monitoring efforts are essential for ensuring the efficient management of ground-water recharge, and to avoid the failure of aquifer systems.

Quantifying spatiotemporal variations in green and blue water is a mainstay of ensuring water security. Here, 'blue water' is defined as the proportion of water resources stored in rivers, lakes and groundwater that is directly available to humans, whereas "green water" is the water stored in soil and available for plant uptake, following Menzel and Matovelle (2010). Over the past decade, soil scientists have capitalized on major advances in data acquisition and modelling to make an inventory of the spatial distribution of the planet's water supply (Chawla, Karthikeyan, & Mishra, 2020; Obade & Moore, 2018). With these data, and the development of models that link hydrological processes with other environmental, social and economic factors, soil scientists are now better equipped to investigate and quantify water security in terms of scarcity and vulnerability (Bagheri & Babaeian, 2020), and to support integrated water

resource management from a holistic perspective (Babel, Pandey, Rivas, & Wahid, 2011; Mahdavi, Bagheri, & Hosseini, 2019). This data revolution has catalysed the development of several machine learning methods that can forecast the effect of environmental and climate change on future water and pollutant fluxes (Morellos et al., 2016; Yamaç, Şeker, & Negiş, 2020). In addition, soil scientists are working more closely with critical zone scientists to advance current understanding of subsurface water stocks and dynamics (Hahm et al., 2019). For example, recent developments in ground-based gradiometry now allow for more accurate monitoring of subsurface structures and their associated water storage (Parsekian, Singha, Minsley, Holbrook, & Slater, 2014). As well as these technological advancements, the introduction of simplified water indices to indicate water scarcity (Chawla et al., 2020; Veettil & Mishra, 2016) has made it possible for both policymakers and public stakeholders to better understand the need to pay greater attention to water security in the future (Babel, Shinde, Sharma, & Dang, 2020).

## 2.4 | Urban development

Over the past decade, issues relating to, or originating from, urban soils have been addressed in various assessments, resulting in the development and implementation of different innovations, technologies and strategies (Barthel et al., 2019; Biasi, Colantoni, Ferrara, Ranalli, & Salvati, 2015; European Commission, 2015; Salvati, Zambon, Chelli, & Serra, 2018). There has been a rapidly increasing interest in urban soils, such as through the activity of the “Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (SUITMA) working group” (Burghardt, Morel, & Zhang, G.-L., 2015). By assessing the state of urban soils, soil scientists have conceived various strategies to improve soil structure and enhance water infiltration and retention (Kalantari, Ferreira, Keesstra, & Destouni, 2018; Kumar & Hundal, 2016). These include traditional strategies such as tillage to alleviate soil compaction (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011), and more state-of-the-art approaches such as bioremediation to decrease soil contamination and enhance soil biodiversity (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; Sarwar et al., 2017). The application of soil amendments, such as compost, and the installation of blue-green infrastructures has also been tried (Kumar & Hundal, 2016). Blue-green infrastructure is a multifunctional network of natural and designed areas, comprising water bodies, green spaces and open spaces (Ghfrani, Sposito, & Faggian, 2017). Yet, all of these remediation and restoration strategies bring some challenges. For instance, the excavation and removal of contaminated soil can be
carbon content. Long-established techniques such as mulching and cover cropping (Li, Zhao, Gao, Ren, & Wu, 2018; Wheeler & Marning, 2019) have been complemented with innovations such as using wetting agents (e.g., surfactants) and wax-degrading bacteria to reduce soil water-repellence (Saji, 2020), and developing soil conditioners composed from natural (e.g., cellulose, starch, yeast, chitosan) and biodegradable waste products (Saha, Rattan, Sekharan, & Manna, 2020). Although these novel advancements have been trialled, continued investment is required to validate their effectiveness across a wider array of land-use and climatic contexts.

Groundwater depletion is a rapidly increasing problem globally (Hohne, Esterhuyse, Fourie, Gericke, & Esterhuyse, 2020). To meet increasing demand, several strategies have been developed over the past decade to efficiently manage groundwater conditions (Chatterjee et al., 2020). Artificial groundwater recharge has been performed through water harvesting structures, by collecting surface runoff, and increasing infiltration through a combination of dry wells, percolation tanks and/or bank infiltration recharge, while preventing water-quality decrease (Ahirwar, Malik, Ahirwar, & Shukla, 2020; Sandoval & Tiburan, 2019). This has been upscaled by the deployment of remote sensing and geographic information system (GIS) techniques to precisely identify suitable sites to enhance groundwater recharge potential, through analysing relevant factors such as geomorphology, geology, slopes, land use and drainage characteristics (Chandra, Singh, Tiwari, Panigrahy, & Kumar, 2015; Khan, Govil, Taloor, & Kumar, 2020; Machiwal, Jha, & Mal, 2011). Remote sensing has also been used to detect terrestrial water cycling through the detection of changes in Earth's gravitational field (Feng, Shurn, Zhong, & Pan, 2018; Rodell et al., 2007). These data monitoring efforts are essential for ensuring the efficient management of ground-water recharge, and to avoid the failure of aquifer systems.

Quantifying spatiotemporal variations in green and blue water is a mainstay of ensuring water security. Here, 'blue water' is defined as the proportion of water resources stored in rivers, lakes and groundwater that is directly available to humans, whereas "green water" is the water stored in soil and available for plant uptake, following Menzel and Matovelle (2010). Over the past decade, soil scientists have capitalized on major advances in data acquisition and modelling to make an inventory of the spatial distribution of the planet's water supply (Chawla, Karthikeyan, & Mishra, 2020; Obade & Moore, 2018). With these data, and the development of models that link hydrological processes with other environmental, social and economic factors, soil scientists are now better equipped to investigate and quantify water security in terms of scarcity and vulnerability (Bagheri & Babaeian, 2020), and to support integrated water

resource management from a holistic perspective (Babel, Pandey, Rivas, & Wahid, 2011; Mahdavi, Bagheri, & Hosseini, 2019). This data revolution has catalysed the development of several machine learning methods that can forecast the effect of environmental and climate change on future water and pollutant fluxes (Morellos et al., 2016; Yamaç, Şeker, & Negiş, 2020). In addition, soil scientists are working more closely with critical zone scientists to advance current understanding of subsurface water stocks and dynamics (Hahm et al., 2019). For example, recent developments in ground-based gradiometry now allow for more accurate monitoring of subsurface structures and their associated water storage (Parsekian, Singha, Minsley, Holbrook, & Slater, 2014). As well as these technological advancements, the introduction of simplified water indices to indicate water scarcity (Chawla et al., 2020; Veettil & Mishra, 2016) has made it possible for both policymakers and public stakeholders to better understand the need to pay greater attention to water security in the future (Babel, Shinde, Sharma, & Dang, 2020).

## 2.4 | Urban development

Over the past decade, issues relating to, or originating from, urban soils have been addressed in various assessments, resulting in the development and implementation of different innovations, technologies and strategies (Barthel et al., 2019; Biasi, Colantoni, Ferrara, Ranalli, & Salvati, 2015; European Commission, 2015; Salvati, Zambon, Chelli, & Serra, 2018). There has been a rapidly increasing interest in urban soils, such as through the activity of the “Soils of Urban, Industrial, Traffic and Mining Areas (SUITMA) working group” (Burghardt, Morel, & Zhang, G.-L., 2015). By assessing the state of urban soils, soil scientists have conceived various strategies to improve soil structure and enhance water infiltration and retention (Kalantari, Ferreira, Keesstra, & Destouni, 2018; Kumar & Hundal, 2016). These include traditional strategies such as tillage to alleviate soil compaction (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011), and more state-of-the-art approaches such as bioremediation to decrease soil contamination and enhance soil biodiversity (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; Sarwar et al., 2017). The application of soil amendments, such as compost, and the installation of blue-green infrastructures has also been tried (Kumar & Hundal, 2016). Blue-green infrastructure is a multifunctional network of natural and designed areas, comprising water bodies, green spaces and open spaces (Ghfrani, Sposito, & Faggian, 2017). Yet, all of these remediation and restoration strategies bring some challenges. For instance, the excavation and removal of contaminated soil can be
highly or even prohibitively expensive, especially if required over a large area.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are now being widely adopted to specifically address decades of unsustainable spatial planning policies in urban areas (European Commission, 2015; Pan et al., 2018). Mitigating soil degradation in urban environments using NBS is both innovative (Goldenberg, Kalantari, & Destouni, 2018; Kalantari, Ferreira, Deal, & Destouni, 2019a) and also cost-effective, and it simultaneously provides environmental, social and economic benefits that can help achieve numerous SDGs (European Commission, 2015; Jaramillo et al., 2020; Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, Nockrach, & Kalantari, 2019). For example, street trees, parks and wetlands have been shown to intercept dust and toxins, sequester carbon (Jonsson, Page, & Kalantari, 2019), buffer flooding and prevent soil degradation (Jaramillo et al., 2020). In addition, straw mulches (Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2019), vegetative filter strips (Pan et al., 2018) and natural vegetation covers (e.g., green roofs and walls) are important NBS that reduce storm-water runoff and prevent soil erosion in urban areas. Technosols constructed from city waste, such as compost or chipped wood, provide many ecosystem services and contribute to circular economies (Grard et al., 2018).

Demonstrating the benefits of NBS in urban environments through proof-of-concept experiments is critical for underpinning their inclusion in urban planning (Kalantari et al., 2019b). Once implemented, their continuous maintenance requires long-term labour inputs, mostly at the community level (Ferreira, Walsh, Blake, Kikuchi, & Ferreira, 2017). Because soils are central to supporting many urban NBS, soil scientists are beginning to enjoy increasing levels of engagement in urban planning, and are working alongside stakeholders, local communities, authorities, architects and construction companies to ensure that soils are sustainably managed and preserved in urban environments (Keesstra et al., 2016).

**2.5 | Ecosystem functioning and biodiversity**

Over the past decade, the soil science community has transferred an understanding of soils into natural capital and ecosystem service frameworks (Dominati, Patterson, & Mackay, 2010; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2012; Robinson, Lebron, & Vereecken, 2009). One of these frameworks is the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) (Obst, Hein, & Edens, 2016; United Nations, 2012a), which, by providing satellite green accounts alongside Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounts (United Nations, 2012a), considers the soil as one of seven natural

resources. The added value these frameworks bring to GDP accounting is the recognition that natural resources are not free or limitless, and that they can constrain the economy, if not carefully managed. Yet, some have argued that combining data on soil resources with natural capital and economic activity indicators is one of the least developed areas of the SEEA, which has led to more efforts from soil scientists to address this gap over the past decade (Obst, 2015).

Adopting a systems approach emphasizes the importance of monitoring multiple ecosystem cycles to underpin reporting frameworks, including soil formation and erosion, soil carbon gains and losses, soil nutrient release and loss, and soil water and energy balance (Amundson et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2017). Advances in both modelling (Borrelli et al., 2017) and monitoring (Panagos, Meusburger, Ballabio, Borrelli, & Alewell, 2014) over the past decade have rendered this approach feasible. They have also demonstrated a way forward for addressing one of the key challenges identified in the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) report: the need for “state” and “trend” monitoring of soils (ITPS, 2015). Although the development of an SEEA-style soil monitoring and modelling framework is an end in itself for policymaking, it is also important for providing an understanding of soil change.

Accounting for change in soil biodiversity and function remains a substantial challenge in soil science, yet has received significant investment over the past decade. Due to the large variety of soil organisms, ranging from microorganisms to invertebrates and vertebrates, surveys on soil biodiversity require specific tools and methods depending on which group of organisms is studied. Transformative advances in omics have revealed the breadth and distribution of organisms in soils (Prosser, 2015), which are vital for ecosystem functioning (Crowther et al., 2019; Delgado-Baquerizo et al., 2018), and their development in soil science represents a major achievement.

Over the past decade, sequencing and informatics technologies have forged ahead, such that the retrieval of full genomes of previously unknown soil organisms is now becoming more common (Nesme et al., 2016). However, the contribution of soil organisms to health and well-being services has often been overlooked. Most antibiotics in use today were extracted from soil organisms in the 1940s-60s (Lewis, 2013), and the first new antibiotic to be identified for decades was recently extracted from soil (Ling et al., 2015).

Innovations in technology are therefore prompting scientists to revisit soils for biomedical and biotechnological resources (Lewis, 2012), and molecular technologies, which uncover previously unknown soil microbial species and functions, provide many new opportunities in
highly or even prohibitively expensive, especially if required over a large area.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are now being widely adopted to specifically address decades of unsustainable spatial planning policies in urban areas (European Commission, 2015; Pan et al., 2018). Mitigating soil degradation in urban environments using NBS is both innovative (Goldenberg, Kalantari, & Destouni, 2018; Kalantari, Ferreira, Deal, & Destouni, 2019a) and also cost-effective, and it simultaneously provides environmental, social and economic benefits that can help achieve numerous SDGs (European Commission, 2015; Jaramillo et al., 2020; Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, Nockrach, & Kalantari, 2019). For example, street trees, parks and wetlands have been shown to intercept dust and toxins, sequester carbon (Jonsson, Page, & Kalantari, 2019), buffer flooding and prevent soil degradation (Jaramillo et al., 2020). In addition, straw mulches (Rodrigo-Comino et al., 2019), vegetative filter strips (Pan et al., 2018) and natural vegetation covers (e.g., green roofs and walls) are important NBS that reduce storm-water runoff and prevent soil erosion in urban areas. Technosols constructed from city waste, such as compost or chipped wood, provide many ecosystem services and contribute to circular economies (Grard et al., 2018).

Demonstrating the benefits of NBS in urban environments through proof-of-concept experiments is critical for underpinning their inclusion in urban planning (Kalantari et al., 2019b). Once implemented, their continuous maintenance requires long-term labour inputs, mostly at the community level (Ferreira, Walsh, Blake, Kikuchi, & Ferreira, 2017). Because soils are central to supporting many urban NBS, soil scientists are beginning to enjoy increasing levels of engagement in urban planning, and are working alongside stakeholders, local communities, authorities, architects and construction companies to ensure that soils are sustainably managed and preserved in urban environments (Keesstra et al., 2016).

## 2.5 | Ecosystem functioning and biodiversity

Over the past decade, the soil science community has transferred an understanding of soils into natural capital and ecosystem service frameworks (Dominati, Patterson, & Mackay, 2010; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2012; Robinson, Lebron, & Vereecken, 2009). One of these frameworks is the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) (Obst, Hein, & Edens, 2016; United Nations, 2012a), which, by providing satellite green accounts alongside Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounts (United Nations, 2012a), considers the soil as one of seven natural

resources. The added value these frameworks bring to GDP accounting is the recognition that natural resources are not free or limitless, and that they can constrain the economy, if not carefully managed. Yet, some have argued that combining data on soil resources with natural capital and economic activity indicators is one of the least developed areas of the SEEA, which has led to more efforts from soil scientists to address this gap over the past decade (Obst, 2015).

Adopting a systems approach emphasizes the importance of monitoring multiple ecosystem cycles to underpin reporting frameworks, including soil formation and erosion, soil carbon gains and losses, soil nutrient release and loss, and soil water and energy balance (Amundson et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2017). Advances in both modelling (Borrelli et al., 2017) and monitoring (Panagos, Meusburger, Ballabio, Borrelli, & Alewell, 2014) over the past decade have rendered this approach feasible. They have also demonstrated a way forward for addressing one of the key challenges identified in the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) report: the need for “state” and “trend” monitoring of soils (ITPS, 2015). Although the development of an SEEA-style soil monitoring and modelling framework is an end in itself for policymaking, it is also important for providing an understanding of soil change.

Accounting for change in soil biodiversity and function remains a substantial challenge in soil science, yet has received significant investment over the past decade. Due to the large variety of soil organisms, ranging from microorganisms to invertebrates and vertebrates, surveys on soil biodiversity require specific tools and methods depending on which group of organisms is studied. Transformative advances in omics have revealed the breadth and distribution of organisms in soils (Prosser, 2015), which are vital for ecosystem functioning (Crowther et al., 2019; Delgado-Baquerizo et al., 2018), and their development in soil science represents a major achievement.

Over the past decade, sequencing and informatics technologies have forged ahead, such that the retrieval of full genomes of previously unknown soil organisms is now becoming more common (Nesme et al., 2016). However, the contribution of soil organisms to health and well-being services has often been overlooked. Most antibiotics in use today were extracted from soil organisms in the 1940s-60s (Lewis, 2013), and the first new antibiotic to be identified for decades was recently extracted from soil (Ling et al., 2015).

Innovations in technology are therefore prompting scientists to revisit soils for biomedical and biotechnological resources (Lewis, 2012), and molecular technologies, which uncover previously unknown soil microbial species and functions, provide many new opportunities in
this regard (Hover et al., 2018). More generally, these
technologies allow for a better appreciation of the specific
mechanistic roles of soil biodiversity in regulating wider
ecosystem services such as nutrient recycling and storage
(Hartman, Ye, Horwath, & Tringe, 2017), greenhouse gas
regulation (Hester et al., 2018) and plant productivity
(Carrión et al., 2019). Linking soil biodiversity to a natu-
ral capital framework is therefore fundamentally impor-
tant, and remains to be achieved, in SEEA. Significant
challenges remain in how to assimilate the vast amounts
of globally obtained molecular information, and experi-
mentally determined ecological interactions between
organisms, into both soil process and wider ecosystem
service models. Here, advances in digital technologies for
biodiversity data synthesis (Choi et al., 2016), modelling
and dissemination (Větrovský et al., 2020), coupled with
detailed biogeochemical investigation of the functional
relevance of new genes under environmental change con-
texts, provide much scope for future exploration and dis-
covery. In concert, a better understanding of how soil
biodiversity interacts to deliver multiple ecosystem bene-
fits, win-wins and trade-offs, offers the potential for new
ways to both monitor soil health and also move towards
more sustainable approaches to manage and optimize
soil multifunctionality in the face of environmental
change (Rillig et al., 2019).

Ecosystem service models continue to progress
(Bagstad, Semmens, Waage, & Winthrop, 2013), but the
incorporation of soil functions and feedbacks remains an
area warranting further attention if we are to better
understand the impacts of land use, pollution and climate
change. Recent work has improved the understanding of
linkages between soil attributes, functions and ecosystem
service provision (Adhikari & Hartemink, 2016). How-
ever, incorporating this understanding into ecosystem
service modelling has been slow. Some have pointed out
that the majority of ecosystem service models only
account for a single soil function (Greiner, Keller, Grêt-
Regamey, & Papritz, 2017). Failing to represent multiple
functions of soil is a weakness given that a key role of
ecosystem service models is to account for multiple ser-
vices, and understand their relationships, trade-offs and
synergies. Recent work has attempted to address this,
such as the Soil Quality InDex (SQUID), which assesses
the provision of 16 different soil-based ecosystem services
(Drobnik, Schwaab, & Grêt-Regamey, 2020), soil function
assessment methods (Greiner et al., 2017) and the Soil
Navigator decision support system (Debeljak et al., 2019).
However, most of the more widely used models fail to
appropriately incorporate benefits from soils or soil deg-
radation processes, while low availability of spatial soil
data often leads to land cover data being used as a proxy
(Adhikari & Hartemink, 2016). Although biophysical

information is informative in itself, translating changes
in resources into economic impacts is an important goal
for natural capital accounting, yet to be achieved.

Attempts have been made to account for economic
costs at the national scale (e.g., Graves et al., 2015),
which tend to rely on first-order cost evaluation. How-
ever, recent work has tried to use models to link soil deg-
radation to the global economy (Sartori et al., 2019). This
work goes “beyond the use of ‘first-order’ cost evaluation
and captures the ‘second-round’ effects of structural eco-
nomic change that arise owing to shifts in primary
resources, particularly the land factor” (Sartori
et al., 2019). It provides proof of concept for realising a
full benefit chain, from soil monitoring and modelling,
through to economic impact assessment.

3 | TOWARDS 2030: AN
INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR
SUSTAINABILITY

There are less than 10 years to go before the SDGs are
intended to be achieved. At this critical juncture, it is pivotal
to step back and analyse the work that soil scientists should
do to contribute towards the realization of these goals.
There have been a number of papers in recent years that
have synthesized the research questions left outstanding in
soil science and made calls to the community to tackle
them (Adewope et al., 2014; Blum, 2006; Rodrigo-Comino
et al., 2020). These have been useful for prescribing research
agendas, justifying research rationale, and securing funding
for new highlight topics and foci areas. As important as this
process is, we argue that it cannot catalyse real-world
impact alone. Therefore, in this section of the paper, we do
not suggest which specific topics soil scientists should
research next, but begin an important dialogue around *how*
soil scientists can best ensure that their research over the
next decade can best support global efforts to secure sus-
tainable development by 2030.

## 3.1 Implementing research in policy and practice

This paper has summarized the research advances made
over the past decade in soil science with respect to five
critical areas. It is important to ask how this research has
been utilized to drive sustainable development. Figure 1
presents a timeline of some of the global initiatives
towards which soil scientists have contributed over the
past decade. These can be divided crudely into four cate-
gories: (a) guidance documents and recommendations;
(b) status reports; (c) expert group collaborations and public
this regard (Hover et al., 2018). More generally, these
technologies allow for a better appreciation of the specific
mechanistic roles of soil biodiversity in regulating wider
ecosystem services such as nutrient recycling and storage
(Hartman, Ye, Horwath, & Tringe, 2017), greenhouse gas
regulation (Hester et al., 2018) and plant productivity
(Carrión et al., 2019). Linking soil biodiversity to a natu-
ral capital framework is therefore fundamentally impor-
tant, and remains to be achieved, in SEEA. Significant
challenges remain in how to assimilate the vast amounts
of globally obtained molecular information, and experi-
mentally determined ecological interactions between
organisms, into both soil process and wider ecosystem
service models. Here, advances in digital technologies for
biodiversity data synthesis (Choi et al., 2016), modelling
and dissemination (Větrovský et al., 2020), coupled with
detailed biogeochemical investigation of the functional
relevance of new genes under environmental change con-
texts, provide much scope for future exploration and dis-
covery. In concert, a better understanding of how soil
biodiversity interacts to deliver multiple ecosystem bene-
fits, win-wins and trade-offs, offers the potential for new
ways to both monitor soil health and also move towards
more sustainable approaches to manage and optimize
soil multifunctionality in the face of environmental
change (Rillig et al., 2019).

Ecosystem service models continue to progress
(Bagstad, Semmens, Waage, & Winthrop, 2013), but the
incorporation of soil functions and feedbacks remains an
area warranting further attention if we are to better
understand the impacts of land use, pollution and climate
change. Recent work has improved the understanding of
linkages between soil attributes, functions and ecosystem
service provision (Adhikari & Hartemink, 2016). How-
ever, incorporating this understanding into ecosystem
service modelling has been slow. Some have pointed out
that the majority of ecosystem service models only
account for a single soil function (Greiner, Keller, Grêt-
Regamey, & Papritz, 2017). Failing to represent multiple
functions of soil is a weakness given that a key role of
ecosystem service models is to account for multiple ser-
vices, and understand their relationships, trade-offs and
synergies. Recent work has attempted to address this,
such as the Soil Quality InDex (SQUID), which assesses
the provision of 16 different soil-based ecosystem services
(Drobnik, Schwaab, & Grêt-Regamey, 2020), soil function
assessment methods (Greiner et al., 2017) and the Soil
Navigator decision support system (Debeljak et al., 2019).
However, most of the more widely used models fail to
appropriately incorporate benefits from soils or soil deg-
radation processes, while low availability of spatial soil
data often leads to land cover data being used as a proxy
(Adhikari & Hartemink, 2016). Although biophysical

information is informative in itself, translating changes
in resources into economic impacts is an important goal
for natural capital accounting, yet to be achieved.

Attempts have been made to account for economic
costs at the national scale (e.g., Graves et al., 2015),
which tend to rely on first-order cost evaluation. How-
ever, recent work has tried to use models to link soil deg-
radation to the global economy (Sartori et al., 2019). This
work goes “beyond the use of ‘first-order’ cost evaluation
and captures the ‘second-round’ effects of structural eco-
nomic change that arise owing to shifts in primary
resources, particularly the land factor” (Sartori
et al., 2019). It provides proof of concept for realising a
full benefit chain, from soil monitoring and modelling,
through to economic impact assessment.

3 | TOWARDS 2030: AN
INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR
SUSTAINABILITY

There are less than 10 years to go before the SDGs are
intended to be achieved. At this critical juncture, it is pivotal
to step back and analyse the work that soil scientists should
do to contribute towards the realization of these goals.
There have been a number of papers in recent years that
have synthesized the research questions left outstanding in
soil science and made calls to the community to tackle
them (Adewope et al., 2014; Blum, 2006; Rodrigo-Comino
et al., 2020). These have been useful for prescribing research
agendas, justifying research rationale, and securing funding
for new highlight topics and foci areas. As important as this
process is, we argue that it cannot catalyse real-world
impact alone. Therefore, in this section of the paper, we do
not suggest which specific topics soil scientists should
research next, but begin an important dialogue around *how*
soil scientists can best ensure that their research over the
next decade can best support global efforts to secure sus-
tainable development by 2030.

## 3.1 Implementing research in policy and practice

This paper has summarized the research advances made
over the past decade in soil science with respect to five
critical areas. It is important to ask how this research has
been utilized to drive sustainable development. Figure 1
presents a timeline of some of the global initiatives
towards which soil scientists have contributed over the
past decade. These can be divided crudely into four cate-
gories: (a) guidance documents and recommendations;
(b) status reports; (c) expert group collaborations and public
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Timeline highlighting contributions of soil science to international policy and legislation, guidance and recommendation reports, status reports, and collaboration and public awareness campaigns across five major environmental challenges over the past decade. (1) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2011; (2) Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; (3) Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative, 2021; (4) European Commission, 2011; (5) United Nations, 2012a; (6) Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2012; (7) United Nations, 2012b; (8) European Commission, 2012; (9) FAO, (10) European Union, 2014; (11) 4 Per 1000, 2021; (12) FAO, 2015a; (13) European Commission, 2015; (14) FAO, 2015b; (15) FAO, 2015c; (16) United Nations, 2015; (17) FAO, 2016; (18) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017; (19) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2018; (20) European Court of Auditors, 2018; (21) European Commission, 2018; (22) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019; (23) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019; (24) FAO, 2019b; (25) European Union, 2020; (26) European Commission, 2019; (27) European Commission, 2020a; (28) European Commission, 2020b; (29) European Commission, 2020c; (30) European Commission, 2021a; (31) European Commission, 2021b; (32) European Commission, 2021c</figcaption></figure>

awareness campaigns; and (d) policy and legislation. It demonstrates that the majority of activities have either focused on compiling evidence for reports on the state of the world's soils, or making recommendations on how best to manage and conserve them. Although these types of publications are important for conveying the outcomes of scientific research, their capacity to manifest real-world impact is relatively weak in comparison to concrete policy and legislation, of which there are very few examples to highlight.

Effective translation of research into concrete legislation is essential for achieving sustainable development by 2030. Catalysing action requires a national or regional action plan, which reconciles local/national policy agendas and global assessments. An example of this is the new European Green Deal, which represents an ideal opportunity for soil scientists to directly influence the policy agenda, as the European Commission aspires to make the EU the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 through implementing a "Climate Law" (Figure 1) (Montanarella & Panagos, 2021). In order to comply, it is likely that Member States will also conceive and implement national policies over the next decade. This highlights the need to promote closer and more sustained

working relationships between soil scientists and policymakers at national and international levels.

Effective partnerships between soil scientists and policymakers cannot be manifested overnight, but the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, at the very least, demonstrated that science-informed policies can be tabled and implemented efficiently if a significant impetus is present. It therefore seems incumbent that soil scientists will need to tailor their approach to convey urgency and capture the attention of policymakers (Lal, 2020b). Although the publication of status reports and guidance documents can support this, it is also worthwhile to consider recent examples of environmental legislation. In the case of reducing plastic pollution, for example, the development of UK legislation, in part, followed an outreach documentary film and similar public engagement activities. These were largely spearheaded by non-scientist individuals with a sizeable public following, working closely with scientists (Davison et al., 2021). The question for the next decade, therefore, is to whom should soil scientists turn to stimulate public consciousness about the challenges facing soil resources and the importance of sustainable soil management?
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Timeline highlighting contributions of soil science to international policy and legislation, guidance and recommendation reports, status reports, and collaboration and public awareness campaigns across five major environmental challenges over the past decade. (1) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2011; (2) Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; (3) Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative, 2021; (4) European Commission, 2011; (5) United Nations, 2012a; (6) Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2012; (7) United Nations, 2012b; (8) European Commission, 2012; (9) FAO, (10) European Union, 2014; (11) 4 Per 1000, 2021; (12) FAO, 2015a; (13) European Commission, 2015; (14) FAO, 2015b; (15) FAO, 2015c; (16) United Nations, 2015; (17) FAO, 2016; (18) United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017; (19) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2018; (20) European Court of Auditors, 2018; (21) European Commission, 2018; (22) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019; (23) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019; (24) FAO, 2019b; (25) European Union, 2020; (26) European Commission, 2019; (27) European Commission, 2020a; (28) European Commission, 2020b; (29) European Commission, 2020c; (30) European Commission, 2021a; (31) European Commission, 2021b; (32) European Commission, 2021c</figcaption></figure>

awareness campaigns; and (d) policy and legislation. It demonstrates that the majority of activities have either focused on compiling evidence for reports on the state of the world's soils, or making recommendations on how best to manage and conserve them. Although these types of publications are important for conveying the outcomes of scientific research, their capacity to manifest real-world impact is relatively weak in comparison to concrete policy and legislation, of which there are very few examples to highlight.

Effective translation of research into concrete legislation is essential for achieving sustainable development by 2030. Catalysing action requires a national or regional action plan, which reconciles local/national policy agendas and global assessments. An example of this is the new European Green Deal, which represents an ideal opportunity for soil scientists to directly influence the policy agenda, as the European Commission aspires to make the EU the first climate-neutral continent by 2050 through implementing a "Climate Law" (Figure 1) (Montanarella & Panagos, 2021). In order to comply, it is likely that Member States will also conceive and implement national policies over the next decade. This highlights the need to promote closer and more sustained

working relationships between soil scientists and policymakers at national and international levels.

Effective partnerships between soil scientists and policymakers cannot be manifested overnight, but the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, at the very least, demonstrated that science-informed policies can be tabled and implemented efficiently if a significant impetus is present. It therefore seems incumbent that soil scientists will need to tailor their approach to convey urgency and capture the attention of policymakers (Lal, 2020b). Although the publication of status reports and guidance documents can support this, it is also worthwhile to consider recent examples of environmental legislation. In the case of reducing plastic pollution, for example, the development of UK legislation, in part, followed an outreach documentary film and similar public engagement activities. These were largely spearheaded by non-scientist individuals with a sizeable public following, working closely with scientists (Davison et al., 2021). The question for the next decade, therefore, is to whom should soil scientists turn to stimulate public consciousness about the challenges facing soil resources and the importance of sustainable soil management?
**3.2 | Integrating research agendas**

Agenda 2030 comprises goals for the biosphere, societies and their economies. Achieving (and perhaps more importantly, continuing to achieve) all 17 of the SDGs is a large task, but arguably the greatest challenge is coordinating action so that the delivery plans for one goal do not outcompete or nullify the potential to achieve others. Recently, research has examined the trade-offs and synergies between the SDGs, whether some goals act as prerequisites for others, and how perceived trade-offs can be transformed into virtuous cycles of sustainable development (Kroll, Warchold, & Pradhan, 2019; Scherer et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018).

Throughout the decade, there will be more lessons to learn about the ways to identify and convert trade-offs to synergies, and these should inspire new ways of collaborating within and beyond soil science. With limited time and resources allocated to soil science departments, the first step here is to develop new and efficient methods to monitor and evaluate the trade-offs and synergies between functions across soil and other terrestrial/marine systems. A seemingly minor but important shift in our future nexus thinking here is a move from considering “soil functions” or “soil ecosystem services” to acknowledging that life depends on an array of functions and services that are delivered by an integrated terrestrial-marine ecosystem, of which soil is a vital part. This perspective shifts away from one focused on delivering all ecosystem functions and services in soils simultaneously, to one which considers how these are delivered across the wider terrestrial environment. For example, urban food grown using novel (soil-less) growing techniques (e.g., soil simulants, hydroponics, bioarchitecture) may help lessen the burden on soils to deliver on growing food demands and allow those most degraded to undergo extensive restoration treatment. The essential step, therefore, is to establish the role of soils in the wider ecosystem, which will require sustained collaboration between soil scientists and the wider environmental sciences.

The infrastructure to accommodate these more strategic and collaborative networks has started to be developed (see Figure 1). On the ground, for example, Critical Zone Observatories (CZOs) host international and multidisciplinary expertise that encompass atmospheric, soil, ecological, biological, hydrological and geological sciences (Banwart, 2011). Likewise, light houses and living laboratories (Evans, 2021) have also been established to better connect innovation, practitioners and scientists. More broadly, open cloud infrastructure has enabled researchers to share methods, training resources, data analysis toolkits and associated computer codes (Blair et al., 2019). Moreover, open access publishing has enabled greater

availability, accessibility and transparency of research outputs (Laakso et al., 2011). Supplementing these initiatives has been the development of publicly available global databases that not only allow researchers to share data, but standardize them for the benefit of the wider community (Benaud et al., 2020).

**3.3 | Reactive and proactive soil science**

Ultimately the SDGs, the European Green Deal and environmental targets at the national level are both reactive and proactive programmes for the future. They are reactive in the sense that they each acknowledge current challenges, shortfalls, disequilibria and inequalities, and seek to rectify these issues. They are also proactive because they consider how these pressures and demands will evolve over time. If soil science is to support and help achieve these national and international agenda, it is vital that researchers are armed with both a reactive and proactive strategy. In essence, this entails a balanced approach between responding reactively to existing challenges (e.g., monitoring and restoring degraded soils) and developing the foresight to predict how soils may respond to future perturbations (e.g., climate change). In practice, a critical objective is to link communities in monitoring and modelling across soil science.

The relationship between empirical and model-derived data should be considered as symbiotic. The inevitable spatial and temporal limitations of observational data indicate a need for model data, whereas empirical data are crucial to both model development and validation. Both observations and models are required to understand and quantify the current state of the soil system, and to forecast future trajectories and magnitudes of soil change (Robinson, 2015) in order to inform planning and mitigation measures (or state and trend monitoring). This challenge is highlighted in previous sections of this paper in relation to MRV difficulties and the attempts to overcome such issues through combining heterogeneous empirical and model datasets. Addressing this challenge is critical to ensure that the contribution of soils to sustaining Earth system functions is accounted for, and weaknesses in Earth system models are identified (Fatichi et al., 2020). More fundamentally, it is required for furthering scientific advancement of our understanding of the soil system, such as feedbacks (Robinson et al., 2019).

Another challenge will be to generate effective and harmonized map products. Recent advances in cloud computing provide huge potential to address this challenge (Hollaway et al., 2020), including greater data storage and discovery, additional computational capacities
**3.2 | Integrating research agendas**

Agenda 2030 comprises goals for the biosphere, societies and their economies. Achieving (and perhaps more importantly, continuing to achieve) all 17 of the SDGs is a large task, but arguably the greatest challenge is coordinating action so that the delivery plans for one goal do not outcompete or nullify the potential to achieve others. Recently, research has examined the trade-offs and synergies between the SDGs, whether some goals act as prerequisites for others, and how perceived trade-offs can be transformed into virtuous cycles of sustainable development (Kroll, Warchold, & Pradhan, 2019; Scherer et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018).

Throughout the decade, there will be more lessons to learn about the ways to identify and convert trade-offs to synergies, and these should inspire new ways of collaborating within and beyond soil science. With limited time and resources allocated to soil science departments, the first step here is to develop new and efficient methods to monitor and evaluate the trade-offs and synergies between functions across soil and other terrestrial/marine systems. A seemingly minor but important shift in our future nexus thinking here is a move from considering “soil functions” or “soil ecosystem services” to acknowledging that life depends on an array of functions and services that are delivered by an integrated terrestrial-marine ecosystem, of which soil is a vital part. This perspective shifts away from one focused on delivering all ecosystem functions and services in soils simultaneously, to one which considers how these are delivered across the wider terrestrial environment. For example, urban food grown using novel (soil-less) growing techniques (e.g., soil simulants, hydroponics, bioarchitecture) may help lessen the burden on soils to deliver on growing food demands and allow those most degraded to undergo extensive restoration treatment. The essential step, therefore, is to establish the role of soils in the wider ecosystem, which will require sustained collaboration between soil scientists and the wider environmental sciences.

The infrastructure to accommodate these more strategic and collaborative networks has started to be developed (see Figure 1). On the ground, for example, Critical Zone Observatories (CZOs) host international and multidisciplinary expertise that encompass atmospheric, soil, ecological, biological, hydrological and geological sciences (Banwart, 2011). Likewise, light houses and living laboratories (Evans, 2021) have also been established to better connect innovation, practitioners and scientists. More broadly, open cloud infrastructure has enabled researchers to share methods, training resources, data analysis toolkits and associated computer codes (Blair et al., 2019). Moreover, open access publishing has enabled greater

availability, accessibility and transparency of research outputs (Laakso et al., 2011). Supplementing these initiatives has been the development of publicly available global databases that not only allow researchers to share data, but standardize them for the benefit of the wider community (Benaud et al., 2020).

**3.3 | Reactive and proactive soil science**

Ultimately the SDGs, the European Green Deal and environmental targets at the national level are both reactive and proactive programmes for the future. They are reactive in the sense that they each acknowledge current challenges, shortfalls, disequilibria and inequalities, and seek to rectify these issues. They are also proactive because they consider how these pressures and demands will evolve over time. If soil science is to support and help achieve these national and international agenda, it is vital that researchers are armed with both a reactive and proactive strategy. In essence, this entails a balanced approach between responding reactively to existing challenges (e.g., monitoring and restoring degraded soils) and developing the foresight to predict how soils may respond to future perturbations (e.g., climate change). In practice, a critical objective is to link communities in monitoring and modelling across soil science.

The relationship between empirical and model-derived data should be considered as symbiotic. The inevitable spatial and temporal limitations of observational data indicate a need for model data, whereas empirical data are crucial to both model development and validation. Both observations and models are required to understand and quantify the current state of the soil system, and to forecast future trajectories and magnitudes of soil change (Robinson, 2015) in order to inform planning and mitigation measures (or state and trend monitoring). This challenge is highlighted in previous sections of this paper in relation to MRV difficulties and the attempts to overcome such issues through combining heterogeneous empirical and model datasets. Addressing this challenge is critical to ensure that the contribution of soils to sustaining Earth system functions is accounted for, and weaknesses in Earth system models are identified (Fatichi et al., 2020). More fundamentally, it is required for furthering scientific advancement of our understanding of the soil system, such as feedbacks (Robinson et al., 2019).

Another challenge will be to generate effective and harmonized map products. Recent advances in cloud computing provide huge potential to address this challenge (Hollaway et al., 2020), including greater data storage and discovery, additional computational capacities
for model development, and coupling and uncertainty analyses. Integration of datasets creates the potential for geostatistical and machine learning approaches in relation to water and pollution, urban planning and other environmental disciplines (Avanzi et al., 2019; Padarian & McBratney, 2020). It also provides the basis for multi-goals research, such as developing cropping systems that boost food production, improving soil quality, storing carbon in soils, and reducing the use of pesticides. By linking monitoring and modelling in soil science in this way, we can both react to the present-day demands placed on soils and scope out the challenges of the future.

## 4 | CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the importance of soils for realising the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals has been widely demonstrated. Soil scientists have increasingly foregrounded the roles that soils play in combatting grand global challenges such as climate change, food and water security, urban development and ecosystem functioning, and have acknowledged their connectedness. These challenges place strong pressures on the long-term health and functioning of the biosphere. In spite of advancements in the past decade, there still remains a large number of knowledge gaps and research questions. In this paper, we have not set out an itinerary of questions for further research, rather we have argued for three ways of working that will best support global efforts to secure sustainable development by 2030. Implementing research into policy and practice is a key, yet so far under-achieved, objective. Clearly, much of this depends on the actions of policymakers, but soil scientists should acknowledge their responsibility over the next decade to build strategic relationships with them in order to support policy delivery, whilst considering innovative ways of engaging public consciousness about the challenges facing soils. It is also important that soils-based policies are sufficiently coordinated with those in other environmental domains. Here we suggest that specific collaborations between soil scientists and other disciplines to evaluate the trade-offs and synergies between soils and the wider environment are key. Finally, if policies for the future are to be built, it is important that soil scientists consider how soils will change and what issues they will face over time. Modelling can assist with this, and thus it is also vital to sustain and enhance soil monitoring programmes, on which the foundations of our models are based.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The input of PS contributes to the UKRI-funded project Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme

project CIRCASA (grant agreement no. 774378). Funding for DR and AT was provided by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-ScaPE Programme Delivering National Capability, and the EU Interreg FABulous farmers (NEW 810) project. Funding for CF was supported by the Navarino Environmental Observatory (NEO). The input of SMV and SK contributed to the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program EJP SOIL (grant agreement no. 869625), the Dutch Knowledge Base program 34, towards a circular and climate neutral society, and EU H2020 Coordination and support action CIRCASA (grant agreement No 774378). The input of CC contributed to the EU H2020 European Joint programme EJP SOIL (grant agreement no. 869625) "Towards Climate-smart sustainable management of agricultural soils" and the EU H2020 Coordination and support action CIRCASA (grant agreement No 774378). Funding for ZK was supported by a project funded by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Formas (grant agreement No 2017-00608). PB was funded by the EcoSSSoil Project, Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI), Korea (grant No. 2019002820004).

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

There are no data associated with this manuscript.

## ORCID

Daniel L. Evans https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4484-7874

Victoria Janes-Bassett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4882-6202

Pasquale Borrelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-5115

Carla S. S. Ferreira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3709-4103

Robert I. Griffiths https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3341-4547

Saskia Keesstra https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-9080

David A. Robinson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7290-4867

Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5247-4097

Pete Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124

## REFERENCES

4 Pour 1000 (2021) *Welcome to the ‘4 per 1000’ initiative*. Retrieved from https://www.4p1000.org/

Adewope, J. B., VanZomeren, C., Bhomia, R. K., Almaraz, M., Bacon, A., Eggleston, E., ... Tiedeman, M. (2014). Top-ranked
for model development, and coupling and uncertainty analyses. Integration of datasets creates the potential for geostatistical and machine learning approaches in relation to water and pollution, urban planning and other environmental disciplines (Avanzi et al., 2019; Padarian & McBratney, 2020). It also provides the basis for multi-goals research, such as developing cropping systems that boost food production, improving soil quality, storing carbon in soils, and reducing the use of pesticides. By linking monitoring and modelling in soil science in this way, we can both react to the present-day demands placed on soils and scope out the challenges of the future.

## 4 | CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the importance of soils for realising the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals has been widely demonstrated. Soil scientists have increasingly foregrounded the roles that soils play in combatting grand global challenges such as climate change, food and water security, urban development and ecosystem functioning, and have acknowledged their connectedness. These challenges place strong pressures on the long-term health and functioning of the biosphere. In spite of advancements in the past decade, there still remains a large number of knowledge gaps and research questions. In this paper, we have not set out an itinerary of questions for further research, rather we have argued for three ways of working that will best support global efforts to secure sustainable development by 2030. Implementing research into policy and practice is a key, yet so far under-achieved, objective. Clearly, much of this depends on the actions of policymakers, but soil scientists should acknowledge their responsibility over the next decade to build strategic relationships with them in order to support policy delivery, whilst considering innovative ways of engaging public consciousness about the challenges facing soils. It is also important that soils-based policies are sufficiently coordinated with those in other environmental domains. Here we suggest that specific collaborations between soil scientists and other disciplines to evaluate the trade-offs and synergies between soils and the wider environment are key. Finally, if policies for the future are to be built, it is important that soil scientists consider how soils will change and what issues they will face over time. Modelling can assist with this, and thus it is also vital to sustain and enhance soil monitoring programmes, on which the foundations of our models are based.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The input of PS contributes to the UKRI-funded project Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme

project CIRCASA (grant agreement no. 774378). Funding for DR and AT was provided by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-ScaPE Programme Delivering National Capability, and the EU Interreg FABulous farmers (NEW 810) project. Funding for CF was supported by the Navarino Environmental Observatory (NEO). The input of SMV and SK contributed to the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program EJP SOIL (grant agreement no. 869625), the Dutch Knowledge Base program 34, towards a circular and climate neutral society, and EU H2020 Coordination and support action CIRCASA (grant agreement No 774378). The input of CC contributed to the EU H2020 European Joint programme EJP SOIL (grant agreement no. 869625) "Towards Climate-smart sustainable management of agricultural soils" and the EU H2020 Coordination and support action CIRCASA (grant agreement No 774378). Funding for ZK was supported by a project funded by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Formas (grant agreement No 2017-00608). PB was funded by the EcoSSSoil Project, Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI), Korea (grant No. 2019002820004).

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There are no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

There are no data associated with this manuscript.

## ORCID

Daniel L. Evans https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4484-7874

Victoria Janes-Bassett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4882-6202

Pasquale Borrelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-5115

Carla S. S. Ferreira https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3709-4103

Robert I. Griffiths https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3341-4547

Saskia Keesstra https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-9080

David A. Robinson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7290-4867

Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5247-4097

Pete Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124

## REFERENCES

4 Pour 1000 (2021) *Welcome to the ‘4 per 1000’ initiative*. Retrieved from https://www.4p1000.org/

Adewope, J. B., VanZomeren, C., Bhomia, R. K., Almaraz, M., Bacon, A., Eggleston, E., ... Tiedeman, M. (2014). Top-ranked
priority research questions for soil science in the 21st century.
*Soil Science Society of America Journal*, **78**, 337–347.

Adhikari, K., & Hartemink, A. E. (2016). Linking soils to ecosystem services—A global review. *Geoderma*, **262**, 101–111.

Ahirwar, S., Malik, M. S., Ahirwar, R., & Shukla, J. P. (2020). Identification of suitable sites and structures for artificial groundwater recharge for sustainable groundwater resource development and management. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11*, 100388.

Amundson, R., & Biardeau, L. (2018). Opinion: Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, **115**(46), 11652–11656.

Amundson, R., Berhe, A. A., Hopmans, J. W., Olson, C., Sztein, A. E., & Sparks, D. L. (2015). Soil and human security in the 21st century. *Science*, **348**(6235), 1261071.

Avanzi, F., Johnson, R. C., Oroza, C. A., Hirashima, H., Maurer, T., & Yamaguchi, S. (2019). Insights into preferential flow snowpack runoff using random forest. *Water Resources Research*, **55**(12), 10727–10746. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024828

Babel, M. S., Pandey, V. P., Rivas, A. A., & Wahid, S. M. (2011). Indicator-based approach for assessing the vulnerability of freshwater resources in the Bagmati River Basin, Nepal. *Environmental Management*, **48**, 1044–1059.

Babel, M. S., Shinde, V. R., Sharma, D., & Dang, N. M. (2020). Measuring water security: A vital step for climate change adaptation. *Environmental Research*, **185**, 109400.

Bagheri, A., & Babaeian, F. (2020). Assessing water security of Rafsanjan plain, Iran – Adopting the SEEA framework of water accounting. *Ecological Indicators*, **111**, 105959.

Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S., & Winthrop, R. (2013). A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. *Ecosystem Services*, **5**, 27–39.

Ball, B. C., Hargreaves, P. R., & Watson, C. A. (2018). A framework of connections between soil and people can help improve sustainability of the food system and soil functions. *Ambio*, **47**, 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0965-z

Banwart, S. (2011). Save our soils. *Nature*, **474**, 151–152.

Barthel, S., Isendahl, C., Vis, B. N., Drescher, A., Evans, D. L., & van Timmeren, A. (2019). Global urbanisation and food production in direct competition for land: Leverage places to mitigate impacts on SDG2 and on the earth system. *The Anthropocene Review*, **6**, 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619856672

Baveye, P. C. (2021). Soil health at a crossroad. *Soil Use and Management*, **37**(2), 215–220.

Benaud, P., Anderson, K., Evans, M., Farrow, L., Glendell, M., James, M. R., ... Brazier, R. E. (2020). National-scale geodata describe widespread accelerated soil erosion. *Geoderma*, **371**, 114378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114378

Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2012). The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. *Trends in Plant Science*, **17**, 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001

Biasi, R., Colantoni, A., Ferrara, C., Ranalli, F., & Salvati, L. (2015). In-between sprawl and fires: Long-term forest expansion and settlement dynamics at the wildland-urban interface in Rome, Italy. *International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology*, **22**(6), 467–475.

Blair, G. S., Henrys, P., Leeson, A., Watkins, J., Eastoe, E., Jarvis, S., & Young, P. J. (2019). Data science of the natural environment: A research roadmap. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, **7**(121), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00121

Blum, W. E. H. (2005). Functions of soil for society and the environment. *Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology*, **4**, 75–79.

Blum, W. E. H. (2006) European priorities in soil science research, *18th World Congress of Soil Science. Philadelphia, PA*, 9–15 July. Retrieved from http://www.ldd.go.th/18wcss/techprogram/P15830.HTM

Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Fleischer, L. R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., ... Bagarello, V. (2017). An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. *Nature Communications*, **8**(1), 1–13.

Bossio, D. A., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., ... Griscom, B. W. (2020). The role of soils in natural climate solutions. *Nature Sustainability*, **3**, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z

Burghardt, W., Morel, J. L., & Zhang, G.-L. (2015). Development of soil research about urban, industrial, traffic, mining and military areas (SUITMA). *Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition*, **61**(1), 3–21.

Carrión, V. J., Perez-Jaramillo, J., Cordovez, V., Tracanna, V., de Hollander, M., Ruiz-Buck, D., ... Raaijmakers, J. M. (2019). Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. *Science*, **366**(6465), 606–612.

Chabbi, A., Lehmann, J., Ciais, P., Loescher, H. W., Cotrufo, M. F., Don, A., ... Rumpel, C. (2017). The 4‰ initiative: A nexus between agriculture and climate policy to offset CO2 emissions. *Nature Climate Change*, **7**, 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3286

Chandra, S., Singh, P. K., Tiwari, A. K., Panigrahy, B., & Kumar, A. (2015). Evaluation of hydrogeological factor and their relationship with seasonal water table fluctuation in Dhanbad district, Jharkhand, India. *ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering*, **21**(2), 193–206.

Chatterjee, R. S., Pranjal, P., Jally, S., Kumar, B., Dadhwal, V. K., Srivastav, S. K., & Kumar, D. (2020). Potential groundwater recharge in north-western India vs spaceborne GRACE gravity anomaly based monsoonal groundwater storage change for evaluation of groundwater potential and sustainability. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development*, **10**, 100307.

Chawla, I., Karthikeyan, L., & Mishra, A. K. (2020). A review of remote sensing applications for water security: Quantity, quality, and extremes. *Journal of Hydrology*, **585**, 124826.

Choi, J., Yang, F., Stepanauskas, R., Cardenas, E., Garoutte, A., Williams, R., ... Howe, A. (2016). Strategies to improve reference databases for soil microbiomes. *The ISME Journal*, **11**, 829–834.

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. *Nature Food*, **2**, 198–209.

Crowther, T. W., Van den Hoogen, J., Wan, J., Mayes, M. A., Keiser, A. D., Mo, L., ... Maynard, D. S. (2019). The global soil community and its influence on biogeochemistry. *Science*, **365**(6455), eaav0550.
priority research questions for soil science in the 21st century.
*Soil Science Society of America Journal*, **78**, 337–347.

Adhikari, K., & Hartemink, A. E. (2016). Linking soils to ecosystem services—A global review. *Geoderma*, **262**, 101–111.

Ahirwar, S., Malik, M. S., Ahirwar, R., & Shukla, J. P. (2020). Identification of suitable sites and structures for artificial groundwater recharge for sustainable groundwater resource development and management. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11*, 100388.

Amundson, R., & Biardeau, L. (2018). Opinion: Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, **115**(46), 11652–11656.

Amundson, R., Berhe, A. A., Hopmans, J. W., Olson, C., Sztein, A. E., & Sparks, D. L. (2015). Soil and human security in the 21st century. *Science*, **348**(6235), 1261071.

Avanzi, F., Johnson, R. C., Oroza, C. A., Hirashima, H., Maurer, T., & Yamaguchi, S. (2019). Insights into preferential flow snowpack runoff using random forest. *Water Resources Research*, **55**(12), 10727–10746. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024828

Babel, M. S., Pandey, V. P., Rivas, A. A., & Wahid, S. M. (2011). Indicator-based approach for assessing the vulnerability of freshwater resources in the Bagmati River Basin, Nepal. *Environmental Management*, **48**, 1044–1059.

Babel, M. S., Shinde, V. R., Sharma, D., & Dang, N. M. (2020). Measuring water security: A vital step for climate change adaptation. *Environmental Research*, **185**, 109400.

Bagheri, A., & Babaeian, F. (2020). Assessing water security of Rafsanjan plain, Iran – Adopting the SEEA framework of water accounting. *Ecological Indicators*, **111**, 105959.

Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S., & Winthrop, R. (2013). A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. *Ecosystem Services*, **5**, 27–39.

Ball, B. C., Hargreaves, P. R., & Watson, C. A. (2018). A framework of connections between soil and people can help improve sustainability of the food system and soil functions. *Ambio*, **47**, 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0965-z

Banwart, S. (2011). Save our soils. *Nature*, **474**, 151–152.

Barthel, S., Isendahl, C., Vis, B. N., Drescher, A., Evans, D. L., & van Timmeren, A. (2019). Global urbanisation and food production in direct competition for land: Leverage places to mitigate impacts on SDG2 and on the earth system. *The Anthropocene Review*, **6**, 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619856672

Baveye, P. C. (2021). Soil health at a crossroad. *Soil Use and Management*, **37**(2), 215–220.

Benaud, P., Anderson, K., Evans, M., Farrow, L., Glendell, M., James, M. R., ... Brazier, R. E. (2020). National-scale geodata describe widespread accelerated soil erosion. *Geoderma*, **371**, 114378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114378

Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2012). The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. *Trends in Plant Science*, **17**, 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001

Biasi, R., Colantoni, A., Ferrara, C., Ranalli, F., & Salvati, L. (2015). In-between sprawl and fires: Long-term forest expansion and settlement dynamics at the wildland-urban interface in Rome, Italy. *International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology*, **22**(6), 467–475.

Blair, G. S., Henrys, P., Leeson, A., Watkins, J., Eastoe, E., Jarvis, S., & Young, P. J. (2019). Data science of the natural environment: A research roadmap. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, **7**(121), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00121

Blum, W. E. H. (2005). Functions of soil for society and the environment. *Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology*, **4**, 75–79.

Blum, W. E. H. (2006) European priorities in soil science research, *18th World Congress of Soil Science. Philadelphia, PA, 9–15 July*. Retrieved from http://www.ldd.go.th/18wcss/techprogram/P15830.HTM

Borrelli, P., Robinson, D. A., Fleischer, L. R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., ... Bagarello, V. (2017). An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. *Nature Communications*, **8**(1), 1–13.

Bossio, D. A., Cook-Patton, S. C., Ellis, P. W., Fargione, J., Sanderman, J., Smith, P., ... Griscom, B. W. (2020). The role of soils in natural climate solutions. *Nature Sustainability*, **3**, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z

Burghardt, W., Morel, J. L., & Zhang, G.-L. (2015). Development of soil research about urban, industrial, traffic, mining and military areas (SUITMA). *Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition*, **61**(1), 3–21.

Carrión, V. J., Perez-Jaramillo, J., Cordovez, V., Tracanna, V., de Hollander, M., Ruiz-Buck, D., ... Raaijmakers, J. M. (2019). Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. *Science*, **366**(6465), 606–612.

Chabbi, A., Lehmann, J., Ciais, P., Loescher, H. W., Cotrufo, M. F., Don, A., ... Rumpel, C. (2017). The 4‰ initiative: A nexus between agriculture and climate policy to offset CO2 emissions. *Nature Climate Change*, **7**, 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3286

Chandra, S., Singh, P. K., Tiwari, A. K., Panigrahy, B., & Kumar, A. (2015). Evaluation of hydrogeological factor and their relationship with seasonal water table fluctuation in Dhanbad district, Jharkhand, India. *ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering*, **21**(2), 193–206.

Chatterjee, R. S., Pranjal, P., Jally, S., Kumar, B., Dadhwal, V. K., Srivastav, S. K., & Kumar, D. (2020). Potential groundwater recharge in north-western India vs spaceborne GRACE gravity anomaly based monsoonal groundwater storage change for evaluation of groundwater potential and sustainability. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development*, **10**, 100307.

Chawla, I., Karthikeyan, L., & Mishra, A. K. (2020). A review of remote sensing applications for water security: Quantity, quality, and extremes. *Journal of Hydrology*, **585**, 124826.

Choi, J., Yang, F., Stepanauskas, R., Cardenas, E., Garoutte, A., Williams, R., ... Howe, A. (2016). Strategies to improve reference databases for soil microbiomes. *The ISME Journal*, **11**, 829–834.

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. *Nature Food*, **2**, 198–209.

Crowther, T. W., Van den Hoogen, J., Wan, J., Mayes, M. A., Keiser, A. D., Mo, L., ... Maynard, D. S. (2019). The global soil community and its influence on biogeochemistry. *Science*, **365**(6455), eaav0550.
Dagar, J. C., Sharma, P. C., Sharma, D. K., & Singh, A. K. (Eds.). (2016). *Innovative saline agriculture*. New Delhi, India: Springer.

Davison, S. M. C., White, M. P., Pahl, S., Taylor, T., Fielding, K., Roberts, B. R., ... Fleming, L. E. (2021). Public concern about, and desire for research into, the human health effects of marine plastic pollution: Results from a 15-country survey across Europe and Australia. *Global Environmental Change*, 75, 79A-81A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A

Debeljak, M., Trajanov, A., Kuzmanovski, V., Schröder, J., Sandén, T., Spiegel, H., ... Henriksen, C. B. (2019). A field-scale decision support system for assessment and management of soil functions. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, 7, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00115

Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Oliverio, A. M., Brewer, T. E., Benavent-González, A., Eldridge, D. J., Bardgett, R. D., ... Fierer, N. (2018). A global atlas of the dominant bacteria found in soil. *Science*, 359(6373), 320-325.

Dhawale, N. M., Adamchuk, V. I., Prasher, S. O., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Ismail, A. A., & Kaur, J. (2015). Proximal soil sensing of soil texture and organic matter with a prototype portable mid-infrared spectrometer. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 66, 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12265

Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010). A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. *Ecological Economics*, 69(9), 1858-1868.

Drobnik, T., Schwaab, J., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2020). Moving towards integrating soil into spatial planning: No net loss of soil-based ecosystem services. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 263, 110406.

Dwivedi, D., Riley, W. J., Torn, M. S., Spycher, N., & Maggi, F. (2017). Mineral properties, microbes, transport, and plant-input profiles control vertical distribution and age of soil carbon stocks. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 107, 244-259.

ECA. (2018). *Combating desertification in the EU: A growing threat in need of more action*. Retrieved from https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_33/SR_DESERTIFICATION_EN.pdf

Edmondson, J., Cunningham, H., Densley Tingley, D., Dobson, M., Grafius, D., Leake, J., et al. (2020). The hidden potential of urban horticulture. *Nature Food*, 1, 155-159.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). *Evaluation of urban soils: Suitability for green infrastructure or urban agriculture*. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. 905R1103.

European Commission. (2011). *Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects*. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20sealing%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

European Commission. (2012). *Soil sealing*. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20Sealing%20In-depth%20Report%20March%20version_final.pdf

European Commission (EC). (2015). Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & renaturing cities. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials EN (full version). https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/towards-eu-research-and-innovation-policy-agenda-nature-based-solutions-re-naturing-cities

European Commission. (2018). *World atlas of desertification*. Retrieved from https://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

European Commission. (2019). *Communication from the Commission – The European Green Deal*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1596443911913&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640#document2

European Commission. (2020a). *EU biodiversity strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CELEX:52020DC0380

European Commission. (2020b). *A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381

European Commission. (2020c). *Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law)*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588581905912&uri=CELEX:52020PC0080

European Commission. (2021a). *EU soil observatory*. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eu-soil-observatory

European Commission. (2021b). *Pathway to a healthy planet for all*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0400&qid=1623311742827

European Commission. (2021c). *Soil and land.*

European Union. (2014). *LIFE and soil protection.*

European Union. (2020). *Proposal for a soil health mission: Caring for soil is caring for life.*

Evans, D. L., Quinton, J. N., Davies, J. A. C., Zhao, J., & Govers, G. (2020). Soil lifespans and how they can be extended by land use and management change. *Environmental Research Letters*, 15(9), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba2fd

Evans, D. L., Vis, B. N., Dunning, N. P., Graham, E., & Isendahl, C. (2021). Buried solutions: How Maya urban life substantiates soil connectivity. *Geoderma*, 387, 114925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114925

Evans, D. L. (2021). Remaining grounded, Air Water Environment International, 68, pp. 25-34. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/

FAO. (2012). *Global Soil Partnership*. Available at: http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/ (Accessed: 24 June 2021).

FAO. (2015a). *Status of the world soil resources (SWSR) - Technical summary*. Rome, Italy: FAO.

FAO. (2015b). *2015 international year of soils: Healthy soils for a healthy life.*

FAO. (2015c). *Revised world soil charter.*

FAO (2016) *Voluntary guidelines for sustainable soil management*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/0549ec19-2d49-4cfb-9b96-bfbbc7cc40bc/

FAO (2019a) *Recarbonization of global soils: a dynamic response to offset global emissions*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/i7235en/i7235EN.pdf

FAO (2019b) *The international Code of Conduct for the sustainable use and management of fertilizers*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca5253en/
Dagar, J. C., Sharma, P. C., Sharma, D. K., & Singh, A. K. (Eds.). (2016). *Innovative saline agriculture*. New Delhi, India: Springer.

Davison, S. M. C., White, M. P., Pahl, S., Taylor, T., Fielding, K., Roberts, B. R., ... Fleming, L. E. (2021). Public concern about, and desire for research into, the human health effects of marine plastic pollution: Results from a 15-country survey across Europe and Australia. *Global Environmental Change*, 75, 79A-81A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A

Debeljak, M., Trajanov, A., Kuzmanovski, V., Schröder, J., Sandén, T., Spiegel, H., ... Henriksen, C. B. (2019). A field-scale decision support system for assessment and management of soil functions. *Frontiers in Environmental Science*, 7, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00115

Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Oliverio, A. M., Brewer, T. E., Benavent-González, A., Eldridge, D. J., Bardgett, R. D., ... Fierer, N. (2018). A global atlas of the dominant bacteria found in soil. *Science*, 359(6373), 320-325.

Dhawale, N. M., Adamchuk, V. I., Prasher, S. O., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Ismail, A. A., & Kaur, J. (2015). Proximal soil sensing of soil texture and organic matter with a prototype portable mid-infrared spectrometer. *European Journal of Soil Science*, 66, 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12265

Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010). A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. *Ecological Economics*, 69(9), 1858-1868.

Drobnik, T., Schwaab, J., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2020). Moving towards integrating soil into spatial planning: No net loss of soil-based ecosystem services. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 263, 110406.

Dwivedi, D., Riley, W. J., Torn, M. S., Spycher, N., & Maggi, F. (2017). Mineral properties, microbes, transport, and plant-input profiles control vertical distribution and age of soil carbon stocks. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, 107, 244-259.

ECA. (2018). *Combating desertification in the EU: A growing threat in need of more action*. Retrieved from https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_33/SR_DESERTIFICATION_EN.pdf

Edmondson, J., Cunningham, H., Densley Tingley, D., Dobson, M., Grafius, D., Leake, J., et al. (2020). The hidden potential of urban horticulture. *Nature Food*, 1, 155-159.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011). *Evaluation of urban soils: Suitability for green infrastructure or urban agriculture*. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. 905R1103.

European Commission. (2011). *Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects*. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20sealing%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

European Commission. (2012). *Soil sealing*. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/soil/pdf/sealing/Soil%20Sealing%20In-depth%20Report%20March%20version_final.pdf

European Commission (EC). (2015). Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & renaturing cities. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials EN (full version). https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/towards-eu-research-and-innovation-policy-agenda-nature-based-solutions-re-naturing-cities

European Commission. (2018). *World atlas of desertification*. Retrieved from https://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

European Commission. (2019). *Communication from the Commission – The European Green Deal*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1596443911913&uri=CELEX:52019DC0640#document2

European Commission. (2020a). *EU biodiversity strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1590574123338&uri=CELEX:52020DC0380

European Commission. (2020b). *A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381

European Commission. (2020c). *Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law)*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588581905912&uri=CELEX:52020PC0080

European Commission. (2021a). *EU soil observatory*. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eu-soil-observatory

European Commission. (2021b). *Pathway to a healthy planet for all*. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0400&qid=1623311742827

European Commission. (2021c). *Soil and land.*

European Union. (2014). *LIFE and soil protection.*

European Union. (2020). *Proposal for a soil health mission: Caring for soil is caring for life.*

Evans, D. L., Quinton, J. N., Davies, J. A. C., Zhao, J., & Govers, G. (2020). Soil lifespans and how they can be extended by land use and management change. *Environmental Research Letters*, 15(9), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba2fd

Evans, D. L., Vis, B. N., Dunning, N. P., Graham, E., & Isendahl, C. (2021). Buried solutions: How Maya urban life substantiates soil connectivity. *Geoderma*, 387, 114925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114925

Evans, D. L. (2021). Remaining grounded, Air Water Environment International, 68, pp. 25-34. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/

FAO. (2012). *Global Soil Partnership*. Available at: http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/ (Accessed: 24 June 2021).

FAO. (2015a). *Status of the world soil resources (SWSR) - Technical summary*. Rome, Italy: FAO.

FAO. (2015b). *2015 international year of soils: Healthy soils for a healthy life.*

FAO. (2015c). *Revised world soil charter.*

FAO (2016) *Voluntary guidelines for sustainable soil management*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/0549ec19-2d49-4cfb-9b96-bfbbc7cc40bc/

FAO (2019a) *Recarbonization of global soils: a dynamic response to offset global emissions*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/i7235en/i7235EN.pdf

FAO (2019b) *The international Code of Conduct for the sustainable use and management of fertilizers*. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca5253en/
Fatichi, S., Or, D., Walko, R., Vereecken, H., Young, M. H., Ghezzehei, T. A., ... Avissar, R. (2020). Soil structure is an important omission in earth system models. *Nature Communications*, **11**(1), 1–11.

Feng, W., Shurn, C. K., Zhong, M., & Pan, Y. (2018). Groundwater storage changes in China from satellite gravity: An overview. *Remote Sensing*, **10**(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050674

Ferreira, C. S. S., Walsh, R. P. D., Blake, W. H., Kikuchi, R., & Ferreira, A. J. D. (2017). Temporal dynamics of sediment sources in an urbanizing Mediterranean catchment. *Land Degradation & Development*, **28**(8), 2354–2369.

Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., ... Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. *Environmental Research Letters*, **13**(6), 63002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

Gallo, B., Demattê, J., Rizzo, R., Safanelli, J., Mendes, W., Lepsch, I., ... Lacerda, M. P. C. (2018). Multi-temporal satellite images on topsoil attribute quantification and the relationship with soil classes and geology. *Remote Sensing*, **10**(10), 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1010571

Georgiou, K., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., & Torn, M. S. (2015). Towards improved model structures for analyzing priming: Potential pitfalls of using bulk turnover time. *Global Change Biology*, **21**, 4298–4302.

Georgiou, K., Abramoff, R. Z., Harte, J., Riley, W. J., & Torn, M. S. (2017). Microbial community-level regulation explains soil carbon responses to long-term litter manipulations. *Nature Communications*, **8**(1223), 1223. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01116-z

Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., & Faggian, R. (2017). A comprehensive review of blue-green infrastructure concepts. *International Journal of Environment and Sustainability*, **6**(1), 15–36.

Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative. (2021). *Welcome to the global soil biodiversity initiative*. Retrieved from https://www.globalsoilbiodiversity.org/

Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., & Destouni, G. (2018). Increased access to nearby green-blue areas associated with greater metropolitan population well-being. *Land Degradation & Development*, **29**, 3607–3616.

Gomez, G., Lagacherie, P., & Bacha, S. (2012). Using Vis-NIR hyperspectral data to map topsoil properties over bare soils in the Cap Bon region, Tunisia. In B. Minasny, B. P. Malone, & A. B. McBratney (Eds.), *Digital soil assessments and beyond* (pp. 387–392). New York, NY: Springer.

Grard, B. J. P., Chenu, C., Manouchehri, N., Houot, S., Frascari-Lacoste, N., & Aubry, C. (2018). Rooftop farming on urban waste provides many ecosystem services. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, **38**(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0474-2

Graves, A. R., Morris, J., Deeks, L. K., Rickson, R. J., Kibblewhite, M. G., Harris, J. A., ... Truckle, I. (2015). The total costs of soil degradation in England and Wales. *Ecological Economics*, **119**, 399–413.

Greiner, L., Keller, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., & Papritz, A. (2017). Soil function assessment: Review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services. *Land Use Policy*, **69**, 224–237.

Hahm, W. J., Rempe, D. M., Dralle, D. N., Dawson, T. E., Lovill, S. M., Bryk, A. B., ... Dietrich, W. E. (2019).

Lithologically controlled subsurface critical zone thickness and water storage capacity determine regional plant community composition. *Water Resources Research*, **55**(4), 3028–3055. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023760

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2012). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). *European Environment Agency*, **33**, 107.

Hartemink, A. E., & McBratney, A. (2008). A soil science renaissance. *Geoderma*, **148**(2), 123–129.

Hartman, W. H., Ye, R., Horwath, W. R., & Tringe, S. G. (2017). A genomic perspective on stoichiometric regulation of soil carbon cycling. *The ISME Journal*, **11**(12), 2652–2665.

Hester, E. R., Harpenslager, S. F., van Diggelen, J. M. H., Lamers, L. L., Jetten, M. S. M., Lüke, C., ... Welte, C. U. (2018). Linking nitrogen load to the structure and function of wetland soil and rhizosphere microbial communities. *mSystems*, **3**, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00214-17

Hohne, D., Esterhuyse, C., Fourie, F., Gericke, H., & Esterhuyse, S. (2020). Enhancing groundwater recharge in the Main Karoo, South Africa during periods of drought through managed aquifer recharge. *Journal of African Earth Sciences*. 176, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.104007

Hollaway, M. J., Dean, G., Blair, G. S., Brown, M., Henrys, P. A., & Watkins, J. (2020). Tackling the challenges of 21st-century open science and beyond: A data science lab approach. *Patterns*, **1**(7), 100103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100103

Hou, D., Bolan, N. S., Tsang, D. C. W., Kirkham, M. B., & O'Connor, D. (2020). Sustainable soil use and management: An interdisciplinary and systematic approach. *Science of the Total Environment*, **729**, 138961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138961

Hover, B. M., Kim, S.-H., Katz, M., Charlop-Powers, Z., Owen, J. G., Ternei, M. A., ... Brady, S. F. (2018). Culture-independent discovery of the malacidins as calcium-dependent antibiotics with activity against multidruf-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. *Nature Microbiology*, **3**, 415–422.

Hutengs, C., Ludwig, B., Jung, A., Eisele, A., & Vohland, M. (2018). Comparison of portable and bench-top spectrometers for mid-infrared diffuse reflectance measurements of soils. *Sensors* (*Basel*), **18**(4), E993. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18040993

IPBES (Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and Brainich, A.). (2018). *The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration*. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

IPCC. (2019). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, et al. (Eds.), *Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems*. Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

ITPS, FAO. (2015). *Status of the World's soil resources (SWSR)*. Rome, Italy: Main report, food and agriculture. Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils.
Fatichi, S., Or, D., Walko, R., Vereecken, H., Young, M. H., Ghezzehei, T. A., ... Avissar, R. (2020). Soil structure is an important omission in earth system models. *Nature Communications*, **11**(1), 1–11.

Feng, W., Shurn, C. K., Zhong, M., & Pan, Y. (2018). Groundwater storage changes in China from satellite gravity: An overview. *Remote Sensing*, **10**(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050674

Ferreira, C. S. S., Walsh, R. P. D., Blake, W. H., Kikuchi, R., & Ferreira, A. J. D. (2017). Temporal dynamics of sediment sources in an urbanizing Mediterranean catchment. *Land Degradation & Development*, **28**(8), 2354–2369.

Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., ... Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. *Environmental Research Letters*, **13**(6), 63002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

Gallo, B., Demattê, J., Rizzo, R., Safanelli, J., Mendes, W., Lepsch, I., ... Lacerda, M. P. C. (2018). Multi-temporal satellite images on topsoil attribute quantification and the relationship with soil classes and geology. *Remote Sensing*, **10**(10), 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1010571

Georgiou, K., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., & Torn, M. S. (2015). Towards improved model structures for analyzing priming: Potential pitfalls of using bulk turnover time. *Global Change Biology*, **21**, 4298–4302.

Georgiou, K., Abramoff, R. Z., Harte, J., Riley, W. J., & Torn, M. S. (2017). Microbial community-level regulation explains soil carbon responses to long-term litter manipulations. *Nature Communications*, **8**(1223), 1223. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01116-z

Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., & Faggian, R. (2017). A comprehensive review of blue-green infrastructure concepts. *International Journal of Environment and Sustainability*, **6**(1), 15–36.

Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative. (2021). *Welcome to the global soil biodiversity initiative*. Retrieved from https://www.globalsoilbiodiversity.org/

Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., & Destouni, G. (2018). Increased access to nearby green-blue areas associated with greater metropolitan population well-being. *Land Degradation & Development*, **29**, 3607–3616.

Gomez, G., Lagacherie, P., & Bacha, S. (2012). Using Vis-NIR hyperspectral data to map topsoil properties over bare soils in the Cap Bon region, Tunisia. In B. Minasny, B. P. Malone, & A. B. McBratney (Eds.), *Digital soil assessments and beyond* (pp. 387–392). New York, NY: Springer.

Grard, B. J. P., Chenu, C., Manouchehri, N., Houot, S., Frascari-Lacoste, N., & Aubry, C. (2018). Rooftop farming on urban waste provides many ecosystem services. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, **38**(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0474-2

Graves, A. R., Morris, J., Deeks, L. K., Rickson, R. J., Kibblewhite, M. G., Harris, J. A., ... Truckle, I. (2015). The total costs of soil degradation in England and Wales. *Ecological Economics*, **119**, 399–413.

Greiner, L., Keller, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., & Papritz, A. (2017). Soil function assessment: Review of methods for quantifying the contributions of soils to ecosystem services. *Land Use Policy*, **69**, 224–237.

Hahm, W. J., Rempe, D. M., Dralle, D. N., Dawson, T. E., Lovill, S. M., Bryk, A. B., ... Dietrich, W. E. (2019).

Lithologically controlled subsurface critical zone thickness and water storage capacity determine regional plant community composition. *Water Resources Research*, **55**(4), 3028–3055. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023760

Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2012). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). *European Environment Agency*, **33**, 107.

Hartemink, A. E., & McBratney, A. (2008). A soil science renaissance. *Geoderma*, **148**(2), 123–129.

Hartman, W. H., Ye, R., Horwath, W. R., & Tringe, S. G. (2017). A genomic perspective on stoichiometric regulation of soil carbon cycling. *The ISME Journal*, **11**(12), 2652–2665.

Hester, E. R., Harpenslager, S. F., van Diggelen, J. M. H., Lamers, L. L., Jetten, M. S. M., Lüke, C., ... Welte, C. U. (2018). Linking nitrogen load to the structure and function of wetland soil and rhizosphere microbial communities. *mSystems*, **3**, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00214-17

Hohne, D., Esterhuyse, C., Fourie, F., Gericke, H., & Esterhuyse, S. (2020). Enhancing groundwater recharge in the Main Karoo, South Africa during periods of drought through managed aquifer recharge. *Journal of African Earth Sciences*. 176, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.104007

Hollaway, M. J., Dean, G., Blair, G. S., Brown, M., Henrys, P. A., & Watkins, J. (2020). Tackling the challenges of 21st-century open science and beyond: A data science lab approach. *Patterns*, **1**(7), 100103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100103

Hou, D., Bolan, N. S., Tsang, D. C. W., Kirkham, M. B., & O'Connor, D. (2020). Sustainable soil use and management: An interdisciplinary and systematic approach. *Science of the Total Environment*, **729**, 138961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138961

Hover, B. M., Kim, S.-H., Katz, M., Charlop-Powers, Z., Owen, J. G., Ternei, M. A., ... Brady, S. F. (2018). Culture-independent discovery of the malacidins as calcium-dependent antibiotics with activity against multidruf-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. *Nature Microbiology*, **3**, 415–422.

Hutengs, C., Ludwig, B., Jung, A., Eisele, A., & Vohland, M. (2018). Comparison of portable and bench-top spectrometers for mid-infrared diffuse reflectance measurements of soils. *Sensors* (*Basel*), **18**(4), E993. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18040993

IPBES (Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and Brainich, A.). (2018). *The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration*. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

IPCC. (2019). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, et al. (Eds.), *Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems*. Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

ITPS, FAO. (2015). *Status of the World's soil resources (SWSR)*. Rome, Italy: Main report, food and agriculture. Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils.
Jaber, S. M., Lant, C. L., & Al-Qinna, M. I. (2011). Estimating spatial variations in soil organic carbon using satellite hyperspectral data and map algebra. *International Journal of Remote Sensing, 32*, 5077-5103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.494637

Janzen, H. H., Janzen, D. W., & Gregorich, E. G. (2021). The ‘soil health’ metaphor: Illuminating or illusory? *Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 159*, 108167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108167

Jaramillo, F., Desormeaux, A., Hedlund, J., Jawitz, J. W., Clerici, N., Piemontese, L., ... Åhlén, I. (2020). Correction: Jaramillo, F., et al. Priorities and interactions of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with focus on wetlands in Water 2019, 11, 619. *Water 2020, 12*, 88.

Jonsson, E., Page, J., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). Carbon sequestration potential of different land use as nature-based solutions. *Geo-physical Research Abstract, 21*, 1.

Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C. S. S., Keesstra, S., & Destouni, G. (2018). Nature-based solutions for flood-drought risk mitigation in vulnerable urbanizing parts of East-Africa. *Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 5*, 73-78.

Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C. S. S., Deal, B., & Destouni, G. (2019a). Nature-based solutions for meeting environmental and socioeconomic challenges in land management and development. *Editorial in Land Degradation & Development, 31*, 1-4.

Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C. S. S., Page, J., Goldenberg, R., Olsson, J., & Destouni, G. (2019b). Meeting sustainable development challenges in growing cities: Coupled social-ecological systems modeling of land use and water changes. *Journal of Environmental Management, 245*, 471-480.

Keesstra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., ... Fresco, L. O. (2016). The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations sustainable development goals. *Soil, 2*, 111-128.

Khan, A., Govil, H., Taloor, A. K., & Kumar, G. (2020). Identification of artificial groundwater recharge sites in parts of Yamuna River basin India based on Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11*, 100415.

Knapp, S., & van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2018). A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. *Nature Communications, 9*, 3632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1

Kroll, C., Warchold, A., & Pradhan, P. (2019). Sustainable development goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? *Palgrave Communications, 5*, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5

Kumar, K., & Hundal, L. S. (2016). Soil in the city: Sustainably improving urban soils. *Journal of Environmental Quality, 45*, 2-8.

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. *PLoS One, 6*(6), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Lal, R. (2017). Improving soil health and human protein nutrition by pulse-based cropping systems. *Advances in Agronomy, 145*, 167-204.

Lal, R. (2019). Carbon cycling in global drylands. *Current Climate Change Reports, 5*(3), 221-232.

Lal, R. (2020a). Home gardening and urban agriculture for advancing food and nutritional security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. *Food Security, 12*, 871-876.

Lal, R. (2020b). Soil science beyond COVID-19. *Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 75*(4), 79A-81A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A

Lewis, K. (2012). Recover the lost art of drug discovery. *Nature, 485* (7399), 439-440.

Lewis, K. (2013). Platforms for antibiotic discovery. *Nature Reviews, 12*(5), 371-387.

Li, H., Zhao, X., Gao, X., Ren, K., & Wu, P. (2018). Effects of water collection and mulching combinations on water infiltration and consumption in a semiarid rainfed orchard. *Journal of Hydrology, 558*, 432-441.

Ling, L. L., Schneider, T., Peoples, A. J., Spoering, A. L., Engels, I., Conlon, B. P., ... Jones, M. (2015). A new antibiotic kills pathogens without detectable resistance. *Nature, 517*(7535), 455-459.

Machiwal, D., Jha, M. K., & Mal, B. C. (2011). Assessment of groundwater potential in a semiarid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. *Water Resources Management, 25*(5), 1359-1386.

Mahdavi, T., Bagheri, A., & Hosseini, S. A. (2019). Applying the system of environmental and economic accounts for water (SEEA-water) for integrated assessment of water security in an aquifer scale - case study: Azarshahr aquifer, Iran. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 9*, 100261.

Marasco, R., Rolli, E., Ettoumi, B., Vigani, G., Mapelli, F., Borin, S., ... Daffonchio, D. (2012). A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. *PLoS One, 7*, e48479.

Menzel, L., & Matovelle, A. (2010). Current state and future development of blue water availability and blue water demand: A view at seven case studies. *Journal of Hydrology, 384*, 245-263.

Montanarella, L., & Panagos, P. (2021). The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European green deal. *Land Use Policy, 100*, 104950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104950

Morellos, A., Pantazi, X. E., Moshou, D., Alexandridis, T., Whetton, R., Tziotzios, G., ... Mouazen, A. M. (2016). Machine learning based prediction of soil total nitrogen, organic carbon and moisture content by using VIS-NIR spectroscopy. *Bio-systems Engineering, 152*, 104-116.

Nesme, J., Achouak, W., Agathos, S. N., Bailey, M., Baldrian, P., Brunel, D., ... Kruus, K. L. (2016). Back to the future of soil metagenomics. *Frontiers in Microbiology, 7*, 73.

Obade, V. P., & Moore, R. (2018). Synthesizing water quality indicators from standardized geospatial information to remedy water security challenges: A review. *Environment International, 119*, 220-231.

Obst, C. (2015). Account for soil as natural capital. *Nature, 527* (7577), 165-165.

Obst, C., Hein, L., & Edens, B. (2016). National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. *Environmental and Resource Economics, 64*(1), 1-23.

Oliver, M. A., & Gregory, P. J. (2015). Soil, food security and human health: A review. *European Journal of Soil Science, 66*, 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12216

Padarian, J., & McBratney, A. B. (2020). A new model for intra- and inter-institutional soil data sharing. *Soil, 6*, 89-94.
Jaber, S. M., Lant, C. L., & Al-Qinna, M. I. (2011). Estimating spatial variations in soil organic carbon using satellite hyperspectral data and map algebra. *International Journal of Remote Sensing, 32*, 5077-5103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.494637

Janzen, H. H., Janzen, D. W., & Gregorich, E. G. (2021). The ‘soil health’ metaphor: Illuminating or illusory? *Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 159*, 108167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108167

Jaramillo, F., Desormeaux, A., Hedlund, J., Jawitz, J. W., Clerici, N., Piemontese, L., ... Åhlén, I. (2020). Correction: Jaramillo, F., et al. Priorities and interactions of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with focus on wetlands in Water 2019, 11, 619. *Water 2020, 12*, 88.

Jonsson, E., Page, J., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). Carbon sequestration potential of different land use as nature-based solutions. *Geo-physical Research Abstract, 21*, 1.

Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C. S. S., Keesstra, S., & Destouni, G. (2018). Nature-based solutions for flood-drought risk mitigation in vulnerable urbanizing parts of East-Africa. *Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 5*, 73-78.

Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C. S. S., Deal, B., & Destouni, G. (2019a). Nature-based solutions for meeting environmental and socioeconomic challenges in land management and development. *Editorial in Land Degradation & Development, 31*, 1-4.

Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C. S. S., Page, J., Goldenberg, R., Olsson, J., & Destouni, G. (2019b). Meeting sustainable development challenges in growing cities: Coupled social-ecological systems modeling of land use and water changes. *Journal of Environmental Management, 245*, 471-480.

Keesstra, S. D., Bouma, J., Wallinga, J., Tittonell, P., Smith, P., Cerdà, A., ... Fresco, L. O. (2016). The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations sustainable development goals. *Soil, 2*, 111-128.

Khan, A., Govil, H., Taloor, A. K., & Kumar, G. (2020). Identification of artificial groundwater recharge sites in parts of Yamuna River basin India based on Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11*, 100415.

Knapp, S., & van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2018). A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. *Nature Communications, 9*, 3632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1

Kroll, C., Warchold, A., & Pradhan, P. (2019). Sustainable development goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? *Palgrave Communications, 5*, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5

Kumar, K., & Hundal, L. S. (2016). Soil in the city: Sustainably improving urban soils. *Journal of Environmental Quality, 45*, 2-8.

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. *PLoS One, 6*(6), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Lal, R. (2017). Improving soil health and human protein nutrition by pulse-based cropping systems. *Advances in Agronomy, 145*, 167-204.

Lal, R. (2019). Carbon cycling in global drylands. *Current Climate Change Reports, 5*(3), 221-232.

Lal, R. (2020a). Home gardening and urban agriculture for advancing food and nutritional security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. *Food Security, 12*, 871-876.

Lal, R. (2020b). Soil science beyond COVID-19. *Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 75*(4), 79A-81A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0408A

Lewis, K. (2012). Recover the lost art of drug discovery. *Nature, 485* (7399), 439-440.

Lewis, K. (2013). Platforms for antibiotic discovery. *Nature Reviews, 12*(5), 371-387.

Li, H., Zhao, X., Gao, X., Ren, K., & Wu, P. (2018). Effects of water collection and mulching combinations on water infiltration and consumption in a semiarid rainfed orchard. *Journal of Hydrology, 558*, 432-441.

Ling, L. L., Schneider, T., Peoples, A. J., Spoering, A. L., Engels, I., Conlon, B. P., ... Jones, M. (2015). A new antibiotic kills pathogens without detectable resistance. *Nature, 517*(7535), 455-459.

Machiwal, D., Jha, M. K., & Mal, B. C. (2011). Assessment of groundwater potential in a semiarid region of India using remote sensing, GIS and MCDM techniques. *Water Resources Management, 25*(5), 1359-1386.

Mahdavi, T., Bagheri, A., & Hosseini, S. A. (2019). Applying the system of environmental and economic accounts for water (SEEA-water) for integrated assessment of water security in an aquifer scale - case study: Azarshahr aquifer, Iran. *Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 9*, 100261.

Marasco, R., Rolli, E., Ettoumi, B., Vigani, G., Mapelli, F., Borin, S., ... Daffonchio, D. (2012). A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. *PLoS One, 7*, e48479.

Menzel, L., & Matovelle, A. (2010). Current state and future development of blue water availability and blue water demand: A view at seven case studies. *Journal of Hydrology, 384*, 245-263.

Montanarella, L., & Panagos, P. (2021). The relevance of sustainable soil management within the European green deal. *Land Use Policy, 100*, 104950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104950

Morellos, A., Pantazi, X. E., Moshou, D., Alexandridis, T., Whetton, R., Tziotzios, G., ... Mouazen, A. M. (2016). Machine learning based prediction of soil total nitrogen, organic carbon and moisture content by using VIS-NIR spectroscopy. *Bio-systems Engineering, 152*, 104-116.

Nesme, J., Achouak, W., Agathos, S. N., Bailey, M., Baldrian, P., Brunel, D., ... Kruus, K. L. (2016). Back to the future of soil metagenomics. *Frontiers in Microbiology, 7*, 73.

Obade, V. P., & Moore, R. (2018). Synthesizing water quality indicators from standardized geospatial information to remedy water security challenges: A review. *Environment International, 119*, 220-231.

Obst, C. (2015). Account for soil as natural capital. *Nature, 527* (7577), 165-165.

Obst, C., Hein, L., & Edens, B. (2016). National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. *Environmental and Resource Economics, 64*(1), 1-23.

Oliver, M. A., & Gregory, P. J. (2015). Soil, food security and human health: A review. *European Journal of Soil Science, 66*, 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12216

Padarian, J., & McBratney, A. B. (2020). A new model for intra- and inter-institutional soil data sharing. *Soil, 6*, 89-94.
Pan, D., Gao, X., Huang, J., Yang, M., Wu, P., Wang, J., ... Zhao, X. (2018). Vegetative filter strips - effect of vegetation type and shape of strip on runoff and sediment trapping. *Land Degradation & Development, 29*(11), 1-11.

Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., & Alewell, C. (2014). Soil erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. *Science of the Total Environment, 479*, 189-200.

Parsekian, A. D., Singha, K., Minsley, B. J., Holbrook, W. S., & Slater, L. (2014). Multiscale geophysical imaging of the critical zone. *Reviews of Geophysics, 53*(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000465

Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. *Nature, 532*, 49-57.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174

Prosser, J. I. (2015). Dispersing misconceptions and identifying opportunities for the use of ‘omics’ in soil microbial ecology. *Nature Reviews Microbiology, 13*(7), 439-446.

Qadir, M., Noble, A. D., & Chartres, C. (2013). Adapting to climate change by improving water productivity of soils in dry areas. *Land Degradation & Development, 24*(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1091

Rillig, M. C., Ryo, M., Lehmann, A., Aguilar-Trigueros, C. A., Buchert, S., Wulf, A., ... Yang, G. (2019). The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. *Science, 366*(6467), 886-890.

Robinson, D. A. (2015). Moving toward data on soil change. *Science, 347*(6218), 140-140.

Robinson, D. A., Lebron, I., & Vereecken, H. (2009). On the definition of the natural capital of soils: A framework for description, evaluation, and monitoring. *Soil Science Society of America Journal, 73*(6), 1904-1911.

Robinson, D. A., Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., Tye, A., & Obst, C. G. (2017). Soil natural capital in Europe; a framework for state and change assessment. *Scientific Reports, 7*(1), 1-14.

Robinson, D. A., Hopmans, J. W., Filipovic, V., van der Ploeg, M., Lebron, I., Jones, S. B., ... Tuller, M. (2019). Global environmental changes impact soil hydraulic functions through biophysical feedbacks. *Global Change Biology, 25*(6), 1895-1904.

Rodell, M., Chen, J., Kato, H., Famiglietti, J. S., Nigro, J., & Wilson, C. R. (2007). Estimating groundwater storage changes in the Mississippi River basin (USA) using GRACE. *Hydrogeology Journal, 15*, 159-166.

Rodrigo-Comino, J., Giménez-Morera, A., Panagos, P., Pourghasemi, H. R., Pulido, M., & Cerda, A. (2019). The potential of straw mulch as a nature-based solution for soil erosion in olive plantation treated with glyphosate: a biophysical and socioeconomic assessment. *Land Degradation & Development, 31*, 1-13.

Rodrigo-Comino, J., López-Vicente, M., Kumar, V., Rodríguez-Seijo, A., Valkó, O., Rojas, C., ... Panagos, P. (2020). Soil science challenges in a new era: A transdisciplinary overview of relevant topics. *Air Soil and Water Research, 13*, 117862212097749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178622120977491

Rogge, D., Bauer, A., Zeidler, J., Mueller, A., Esch, T., & Heiden, U. (2018). Building an exposed soil composite processor (SCMaP) for mapping spatial and temporal characteristics of soils with Landsat imagery (1984-2014). *Remote

Sensing of Environment, 205, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.004

Rojas, R. V., Achouri, M., Maroulis, J., & Caon, L. (2016). Healthy soils: A prerequisite for sustainable food security. *Environment and Earth Science, 75*, 180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5099-7

Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Koutika, L. S., Smith, P., Whitehead, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2018). Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. *Nature, 564*, 32-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4

Saha, A., Rattan, B., Sekharan, S., & Manna, U. (2020). Quantifying the interactive effect of water absorbing polymer (WAP)-soil texture on plant available water content and irrigation frequency. *Geoderma, 368*, 114310.

Saji, V. S. (2020). Wax-based artificial superhydrophobic surfaces and coatings. *Colloids and Surfaces, A, 602*, 125132.

Salvati, L., Zambon, I., Chelli, F. M., & Serra, P. (2018). Do spatial patterns of urbanization and land consumption reflect different socioeconomic contexts in Europe? *Science of the Total Environment, 625*, 722-730.

Sandoval, J. A., & Tiburan, C. L. (2019). Identification of potential artificial groundwater recharge sites in Mount Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines using GIS and analytical hierarchy process. *Applied Geography, 105*, 73-85.

Sartori, M., Philippidis, G., Ferrari, E., Borrelli, P., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L., & Panagos, P. (2019). A linkage between the biophysical and the economic: Assessing the global market impacts of soil erosion. *Land Use Policy, 86*, 299-312.

Sarwar, N., Imran, M., Shaheen, M. R., Ishaq, W., Kamran, A., Matloob, A., ... Hussain, S. (2017). Phytoremediation strategies for soils contaminated with heavy metals: Modifications and future perspectives. *Chemosphere, 171*, 710-721.

Scharlemann, J. P. W., Tanner, E. V. J., Hiederer, R., & Kapos, V. (2014). Global soil carbon: Understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. *Carbon Management, 5*, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77

Scherer, L., Behrens, P., de Koning, A., Heijungs, R., Sprecher, B., & Tukker, A. (2018). Trade-offs between social and environmental sustainable development goals. *Environmental Science and Policy, 90*, 65-72.

Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Nockrach, M., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). The potential of wetlands in achieving the sustainable development goals of the 2030 agenda. *Water, 11*(3), 609.

Shi, S., Zhang, Q., Lou, Y., Du, Z., Wang, Q., Hu, N., ... Song, J. (2020). Soil organic and inorganic carbon sequestration by consecutive biochar application: Results from a decade field experiment. *Soil Use and Management, 37*, 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12655

Singh, G. G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy, J. A., Kenny, T., ... Ota, Y. (2018). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among sustainable development goals. *Marine Policy, 93*, 223-231.

Smith, P. (2012). Soils and climate change. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4*, 539-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.06.005

Smith, P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. *Global Change Biology, 22*, 1315-1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13178
Pan, D., Gao, X., Huang, J., Yang, M., Wu, P., Wang, J., ... Zhao, X. (2018). Vegetative filter strips - effect of vegetation type and shape of strip on runoff and sediment trapping. *Land Degradation & Development, 29*(11), 1-11.

Panagos, P., Meusburger, K., Ballabio, C., Borrelli, P., & Alewell, C. (2014). Soil erodibility in Europe: A high-resolution dataset based on LUCAS. *Science of the Total Environment, 479*, 189-200.

Parsekian, A. D., Singha, K., Minsley, B. J., Holbrook, W. S., & Slater, L. (2014). Multiscale geophysical imaging of the critical zone. *Reviews of Geophysics, 53*(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000465

Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016). Climate-smart soils. *Nature, 532*, 49-57.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174

Prosser, J. I. (2015). Dispersing misconceptions and identifying opportunities for the use of ‘omics’ in soil microbial ecology. *Nature Reviews Microbiology, 13*(7), 439-446.

Qadir, M., Noble, A. D., & Chartres, C. (2013). Adapting to climate change by improving water productivity of soils in dry areas. *Land Degradation & Development, 24*(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1091

Rillig, M. C., Ryo, M., Lehmann, A., Aguilar-Trigueros, C. A., Buchert, S., Wulf, A., ... Yang, G. (2019). The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. *Science, 366*(6467), 886-890.

Robinson, D. A. (2015). Moving toward data on soil change. *Science, 347*(6218), 140-140.

Robinson, D. A., Lebron, I., & Vereecken, H. (2009). On the definition of the natural capital of soils: A framework for description, evaluation, and monitoring. *Soil Science Society of America Journal, 73*(6), 1904-1911.

Robinson, D. A., Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Jones, A., Montanarella, L., Tye, A., & Obst, C. G. (2017). Soil natural capital in Europe; a framework for state and change assessment. *Scientific Reports, 7*(1), 1-14.

Robinson, D. A., Hopmans, J. W., Filipovic, V., van der Ploeg, M., Lebron, I., Jones, S. B., ... Tuller, M. (2019). Global environmental changes impact soil hydraulic functions through biophysical feedbacks. *Global Change Biology, 25*(6), 1895-1904.

Rodell, M., Chen, J., Kato, H., Famiglietti, J. S., Nigro, J., & Wilson, C. R. (2007). Estimating groundwater storage changes in the Mississippi River basin (USA) using GRACE. *Hydrogeology Journal, 15*, 159-166.

Rodrigo-Comino, J., Giménez-Morera, A., Panagos, P., Pourghasemi, H. R., Pulido, M., & Cerda, A. (2019). The potential of straw mulch as a nature-based solution for soil erosion in olive plantation treated with glyphosate: a biophysical and socioeconomic assessment. *Land Degradation & Development, 31*, 1-13.

Rodrigo-Comino, J., López-Vicente, M., Kumar, V., Rodríguez-Seijo, A., Valkó, O., Rojas, C., ... Panagos, P. (2020). Soil science challenges in a new era: A transdisciplinary overview of relevant topics. *Air Soil and Water Research, 13*, 117862212097749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178622120977491

Rogge, D., Bauer, A., Zeidler, J., Mueller, A., Esch, T., & Heiden, U. (2018). Building an exposed soil composite processor (SCMaP) for mapping spatial and temporal characteristics of soils with Landsat imagery (1984-2014). *Remote

Sensing of Environment, 205, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.004

Rojas, R. V., Achouri, M., Maroulis, J., & Caon, L. (2016). Healthy soils: A prerequisite for sustainable food security. *Environment and Earth Science, 75*, 180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5099-7

Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Koutika, L. S., Smith, P., Whitehead, D., & Wollenberg, E. (2018). Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. *Nature, 564*, 32-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07587-4

Saha, A., Rattan, B., Sekharan, S., & Manna, U. (2020). Quantifying the interactive effect of water absorbing polymer (WAP)-soil texture on plant available water content and irrigation frequency. *Geoderma, 368*, 114310.

Saji, V. S. (2020). Wax-based artificial superhydrophobic surfaces and coatings. *Colloids and Surfaces, A, 602*, 125132.

Salvati, L., Zambon, I., Chelli, F. M., & Serra, P. (2018). Do spatial patterns of urbanization and land consumption reflect different socioeconomic contexts in Europe? *Science of the Total Environment, 625*, 722-730.

Sandoval, J. A., & Tiburan, C. L. (2019). Identification of potential artificial groundwater recharge sites in Mount Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines using GIS and analytical hierarchy process. *Applied Geography, 105*, 73-85.

Sartori, M., Philippidis, G., Ferrari, E., Borrelli, P., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L., & Panagos, P. (2019). A linkage between the biophysical and the economic: Assessing the global market impacts of soil erosion. *Land Use Policy, 86*, 299-312.

Sarwar, N., Imran, M., Shaheen, M. R., Ishaq, W., Kamran, A., Matloob, A., ... Hussain, S. (2017). Phytoremediation strategies for soils contaminated with heavy metals: Modifications and future perspectives. *Chemosphere, 171*, 710-721.

Scharlemann, J. P. W., Tanner, E. V. J., Hiederer, R., & Kapos, V. (2014). Global soil carbon: Understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. *Carbon Management, 5*, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77

Scherer, L., Behrens, P., de Koning, A., Heijungs, R., Sprecher, B., & Tukker, A. (2018). Trade-offs between social and environmental sustainable development goals. *Environmental Science and Policy, 90*, 65-72.

Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Nockrach, M., & Kalantari, Z. (2019). The potential of wetlands in achieving the sustainable development goals of the 2030 agenda. *Water, 11*(3), 609.

Shi, S., Zhang, Q., Lou, Y., Du, Z., Wang, Q., Hu, N., ... Song, J. (2020). Soil organic and inorganic carbon sequestration by consecutive biochar application: Results from a decade field experiment. *Soil Use and Management, 37*, 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12655

Singh, G. G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy, J. A., Kenny, T., ... Ota, Y. (2018). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among sustainable development goals. *Marine Policy, 93*, 223-231.

Smith, P. (2012). Soils and climate change. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4*, 539-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j cosust.2012.06.005

Smith, P. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. *Global Change Biology, 22*, 1315-1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13178
Smith, P., Lutfalla, S., Riley, W. J., Torn, M. S., Schmidt, M. W. I., & Soussana, J.-F. (2018). The changing faces of soil organic matter research. *European Journal of Soil Science*, *69*, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12500

Smith, P., Nkem, J., Calvin, K., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., ... Nkonya, E. (2019). Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes: Synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options. Chapter 6. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Portner, D. C. Roberts, et al. (Eds.), *Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems* (pp. 551–672). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., ... Arneth, A. (2020a). Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land-degradation and desertification? *Global Change Biology*, *26*, 1532–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.14878

Smith, P., Soussana, J.-F., Angers, D., Schipper, L., Chenu, C., Rasse, D. P., ... Klumpp, K. (2020b). How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. *Global Change Biology*, *26*, 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815

Soussana, J.-F., Lutfalla, S., Rosenstock, T., Lamanna, C., Richards, M., Havlík, P., ... Lal, R. (2019). Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000 soils for food security and climate initiative. *Soil & Tillage Research*, *188*, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.12.002

Sposito, G. (2013). Green water and global food security. *Vadose Zone Journal*, *12*, vzj2013.02.0041. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2013.02.0041

Tang, Y., Jones, E., & Minasny, B. (2019). Evaluating low-cost portable near infrared sensors for rapid analysis of soils from south eastern Australia. *Geoderma Regional*, *20*, e00240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2019.e00240

Tittonell, P. (2015). Soil fertility and the role of soils for food security in developing countries. *Geophysical Research Abstracts*, *17*, 1.

United Nations (2012a) *System of environmental-economic accounting 2012 central framework*. Retrieved from https://seea.un.org/content/seea-central-framework

United Nations (2012b) *The future we want: Outcome document of the United Nations conference on sustainable development*. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html

United Nations (2015) *Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development*

UNCTAD (2011). Water for food – Innovative water management technologies for food security and poverty alleviation. Retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/docs/dtlstict2011d2_en.pdf

UNCCD (2017) *Global land outlook*. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/publication/full-report

Veettil, A. V., & Mishra, A. K. (2016). Water security assessment using blue and green water footprint concepts. *Journal of Hydrology*, *542*, 589–602.

Větrovský, T., Morais, D., Kohout, P., Lepinay, C., Algora, C., Hollá, S. A., ... Baldrian, P. (2020). GlobalFungi, a global database of fungal occurrences from high-throughput-sequencing metabarcoding studies. *Scientific Data*, *7*(228), 228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0567-7

Wall, D., Nielsen, U., & Six, J. (2015). Soil biodiversity and human health. *Nature*, *528*, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15744

Wei, Z., Yang, T., Friman, V., Xu, Y., Shen, Q., & Jousset, A. (2015). Trophic network architecture of root-associated bacterial communities determines pathogen invasion and plant health. *Nature Communications*, *6*, 8413. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9413

Wheeler, S. A., & Marning, A. (2019). Turning water into wine: Exploring water security perceptions and adaptation behaviour amongst conventional, organic and biodynamic grape growers. *Land Use Policy*, *82*, 528–537.

Yamaç, S. S., Şeker, C., & Negiş, H. (2020). Evaluation of machine learning methods to predict soil moisture constants with different combinations of soil input data for calcareous soils in a semi arid area. *Agricultural Water Management*, *234*, 106121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106121

**How to cite this article:** Evans, D. L., Janes-Bassett, V., Borrelli, P., Chenu, C., Ferreira, C. S. S., Griffiths, R. I., Kalantari, Z., Keesstra, S., Lal, R., Panagos, P., Robinson, D. A., Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Smith, P., Steenhuis, T. S., Thomas, A., & Visser, S. M. (2022). Sustainable futures over the next decade are rooted in soil science. *European Journal of Soil Science*, *73*(1), e13145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13145
Smith, P., Lutfalla, S., Riley, W. J., Torn, M. S., Schmidt, M. W. I., & Soussana, J.-F. (2018). The changing faces of soil organic matter research. *European Journal of Soil Science*, *69*, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12500

Smith, P., Nkem, J., Calvin, K., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., ... Nkonya, E. (2019). Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes: Synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options. Chapter 6. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. C. Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Portner, D. C. Roberts, et al. (Eds.), *Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems* (pp. 551–672). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., ... Arneth, A. (2020a). Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land-degradation and desertification? *Global Change Biology*, *26*, 1532–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.14878

Smith, P., Soussana, J.-F., Angers, D., Schipper, L., Chenu, C., Rasse, D. P., ... Klumpp, K. (2020b). How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. *Global Change Biology*, *26*, 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14815

Soussana, J.-F., Lutfalla, S., Rosenstock, T., Lamanna, C., Richards, M., Havlík, P., ... Lal, R. (2019). Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000 soils for food security and climate initiative. *Soil & Tillage Research*, *188*, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.12.002

Sposito, G. (2013). Green water and global food security. *Vadose Zone Journal*, *12*, vzj2013.02.0041. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2013.02.0041

Tang, Y., Jones, E., & Minasny, B. (2019). Evaluating low-cost portable near infrared sensors for rapid analysis of soils from south eastern Australia. *Geoderma Regional*, *20*, e00240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2019.e00240

Tittonell, P. (2015). Soil fertility and the role of soils for food security in developing countries. *Geophysical Research Abstracts*, *17*, 1.

United Nations (2012a) *System of environmental-economic accounting 2012 central framework*. Retrieved from https://seea.un.org/content/seea-central-framework

United Nations (2012b) *The future we want: Outcome document of the United Nations conference on sustainable development*. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html

United Nations (2015) *Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development*

UNCTAD (2011). Water for food – Innovative water management technologies for food security and poverty alleviation. Retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/docs/dtlstict2011d2_en.pdf

UNCCD (2017) *Global land outlook*. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/publication/full-report

Veettil, A. V., & Mishra, A. K. (2016). Water security assessment using blue and green water footprint concepts. *Journal of Hydrology*, *542*, 589–602.

Větrovský, T., Morais, D., Kohout, P., Lepinay, C., Algora, C., Hollá, S. A., ... Baldrian, P. (2020). GlobalFungi, a global database of fungal occurrences from high-throughput-sequencing metabarcoding studies. *Scientific Data*, *7*(228), 228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0567-7

Wall, D., Nielsen, U., & Six, J. (2015). Soil biodiversity and human health. *Nature*, *528*, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15744

Wei, Z., Yang, T., Friman, V., Xu, Y., Shen, Q., & Jousset, A. (2015). Trophic network architecture of root-associated bacterial communities determines pathogen invasion and plant health. *Nature Communications*, *6*, 8413. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9413

Wheeler, S. A., & Marning, A. (2019). Turning water into wine: Exploring water security perceptions and adaptation behaviour amongst conventional, organic and biodynamic grape growers. *Land Use Policy*, *82*, 528–537.

Yamaç, S. S., Şeker, C., & Negiş, H. (2020). Evaluation of machine learning methods to predict soil moisture constants with different combinations of soil input data for calcareous soils in a semi arid area. *Agricultural Water Management*, *234*, 106121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106121

**How to cite this article:** Evans, D. L., Janes-Bassett, V., Borrelli, P., Chenu, C., Ferreira, C. S. S., Griffiths, R. I., Kalantari, Z., Keesstra, S., Lal, R., Panagos, P., Robinson, D. A., Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., Smith, P., Steenhuis, T. S., Thomas, A., & Visser, S. M. (2022). Sustainable futures over the next decade are rooted in soil science. *European Journal of Soil Science*, *73*(1), e13145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13145