The Soil Under Our Feet – A Dark Matter

Let’s roll up our sleeves and get started. There’s a lot to do. The Ecosystem Services Approach teaches us to shift our focus from the profit nexus to the service nexus.

A post by Sabine Hueber

Tuesday, 5 October 2021

Essentially, all life depends on the soil. There can be no life without soil and no soil without life; they have evolved together. Kellogg, C. E. (1938)

These words, written by the soil scientist Charles Edwin Kellogg in the early decades of the 19th century – there is no doubt – carry great weight. Yet we still do not care enough about the soil. We do not even know what vast biodiversity exists beneath our feet. “The number of microorganisms in a teaspoon of soil (1 × 10⁹) is the same as the number of people currently living in Africa, and the fraction of microbial diversity that we have sampled to date is effectively zero (cf. Microbiology by numbers, 2011).” More than 95 per cent of soil microbial species are non-culturable, but metagenomic analysis of nucleic acids is transforming our ability to understand the breadth and diversity of soil microbial communities and their functional capabilities (Gupta, 1997). The fact that this hidden world is non-culturable is why it is often referred to as ‘microbial dark matter’.

The Misunderstood Species

The Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative aims to address this by presenting an online atlas (Fig. 01 – see attached PDF), which seeks to synthesise global soil biodiversity research and its importance to the living world (Orgiazzi, A et al., 2016). Showing images of these unfamiliar, invisible worlds is important, as many people feel uneasy and uncomfortable around microbiota – a perception that is quite mistaken, given that human pathogens account for far less than 1 per cent of the total number of microbial species on the planet (Microbiology by numbers, 2011). Media such as the German TV programme ‘VISITE’, which portray the microbiota in garden compost as dangerous because they can cause life-threatening infections, help to perpetuate these frames.

Of particular interest in this context are the concepts of framing and attribution, which Goffman (1974) introduced in his book *Frame Analysis*. He found that people attempt to organise their experiences by attributing interpretations and meanings to them. These contextual frames are shared through communication media within society and generate common interpretative frameworks. Frames help us to locate, perceive, identify and label. The frameworks provided by the media are often adopted by recipients without being questioned. As Goffman stated: ‘The type of framework we employ provides a way of describing the event to which it is applied’. Once established, a frame system is difficult to break down.

Biologists’ Framing

A completely different classification is proposed by (Coleman et al., 2018). Biologists describe detrital food webs, with their complex interactions, as performing basic functions that provide ecosystem services such as promoting nutrient cycling, ecosystem stability and long-term carbon balance. Other academic work highlights that the functional capacity of the plant microbiome is not equal to the sum of its individual components, as microbial species interact strongly and frequently with one another and form a complex network (van der Heijden, 2016).

These networks can be visualised by calculating correlations between the abundance of individual entities. Recent studies are seeking to answer the question – with the aid of machine learning and network research methods – of whether microbiome functioning depends on the organisation, complexity and interconnectivity of microbial networks. The example provided by Connor (2016) (see attached PDF for illustration) shows a small microbiome network and its interconnections. Unfortunately, the biologists’ framing of this issue is confined to the media.

The Ecosystem Services Approach

‘The ecosystem services approach examines the environment from the perspective of the benefits people derive from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber and fibre; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, waste and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling. The human species, whilst buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, is fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystem services.” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

Interconnected and Crucial: How Microbiome Networks Teach Us a More Holistic View

Degraded soils lacking humus (and its associated species) would no longer provide sufficient ecosystem services. However, we cannot view microbial networks in isolation from other systems and simply focus on mitigation strategies when, for example, soil erosion leads to flooding or our groundwater becomes polluted. From a holistic ecosystem perspective, the functioning of the very foundations of our existence depends on interconnections between different spheres, the complexity of which is difficult to fully grasp. (Lal, 2013) adds a new sphere, called the pedosphere, to the four well-known spheres of the Earth. Its function is to provide ecosystem services. The entire system can only function if all the spheres involved are healthy and the interconnections operate without disruption. If one sphere is out of balance, the state of equilibrium is disrupted and all the other spheres are affected.

Moving Beyond an Ego-Centred Worldview as a Core Objective of the New Century

The concept of the anthroposphere was developed by (Baccini & Bader, 1996). It encompasses ‘our own sphere of life’ and its metabolic processes. The relationships between Earth systems and the anthroposphere were demonstrated by (Prikryl et al., 2016). In their concept, the anthroposphere consists of the technosphere and social systems. Earth systems provide a habitat for all species on the planet, including microbial communities as well as human societies and beyond. From this perspective, we begin to gain a small insight into the factors that influence sustainability. As human beings, we bear a great responsibility; to fulfil this, we must move away from an ego-centred world view that considers only the needs of humankind.

A holistic view implies that everyone must practise active soil management. Rather than being treated as ‘dark matter’, soil management – as a crucial part of the ecosystem – must become a matter of course, harmoniously integrated into both our technosphere and our social systems. We all must show greater respect for these hidden worlds. The humus layer, also known as topsoil, can reduce soil erosion and act as a carbon sink. It is between ten and thirty centimetres deep. Depending on soil quality and land use, the humus content in the topsoil varies (cf. Düwel 2007). It is estimated that soil organic matter consists of 58 per cent carbon (Doran, 2012).

Optimal Soil Management with Precision Farming Systems

Effective land use is unavoidable, but to achieve climate-smart soil biodiversity, it is crucial to understand how to manage and protect this dark and secretive world. Key target groups for active soil management are landowners, such as farmers. Precision farming could offer an opportunity to bring us a decisive step closer to achieving these targets. (Gupta, 1997) defines conservation agriculture (CA) as a form of land management in which food webs and trophic levels remain intact and the biodiversity of microorganisms is high. It comprises four basic elements: reduced or no-tillage; retention of plant/crop residues; diverse crop rotations; and precision agriculture, including controlled traffic. Each of these elements has a significant impact on soil microbial communities, their function and system productivity.

Precision farming, as noted by (Bach & Mauser, 2018), is an important step towards sustainable agriculture. ‘Talking fields’, for example, are information products offering various analytical functions, such as yield potential maps or biomass maps. The monitoring system enables farmers to respond accurately using site-specific farming techniques and also to meet foreseeable future needs. Combining data from Earth observation and navigation satellites with information from ground-based sensors (provided by robots, drones or fixed devices) enables the analysis of correlations between various indicators: crop types, biomass development, current growth status, crop development, water-holding capacity, soil properties, yield or nitrogen uptake, and many more. In-field variations can be visualised and taken into account, a development which facilitates precisely tailored fertilisation. Precision farming leads to lower production costs, as resources such as water, seeds and fertiliser are not wasted. Sustainability can be achieved. Less fertiliser leaches into the groundwater, thereby preventing over-fertilisation.

Challenging Attributions to the Innovative Concept for Refining the Technosphere

Precision farming to achieve greater sustainability would be a great idea. Wouldn’t it? Looking at the media, there are indications that the framing of the discussion is taking a different direction. Using a monitoring tool that provides information analysis across sources and media channels, the author of this article carried out a web search. The monitoring covered web entries from across the globe. It ran from 27 February 2021 to 27 March 2021. Two searches were carried out. The first extracted all entries in which the terms ‘precision farming’ and ‘profit’ appeared together; the other identified occurrences of the terms ‘precision farming’ and ‘rural development’. The ‘profit’ nexus yielded 355 entries, whilst the ‘rural development’ or ‘service’ nexus yielded only 65 entries. This provides initial indications that the global discussion is primarily driven by a profit-nexus. Further findings are needed to confirm this. As a first step, the question arises: Could the profit-nexus in precision farming be a global framing?

If we come to associate precision farming in our minds with profit and have no idea how it can promote ecosystem services and rural development, where might this lead? Imagine what would happen if these powerful new technologies were used primarily in a profit-oriented manner? This would reinforce the global tendency to exploit natural resources, with the aid of these new techniques, much more intensely than ever before.

Crossing the Borders: Reframing from a Profit-Nexus to a Service-Nexus

“The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems whilst meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios considered by the MA, but these involve significant changes to policies, institutions and practices that are not currently underway.” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

For many years, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has sought to establish sustainable development goals, but it is very difficult to put all these concepts relating to sustainability into practice. The underlying facts remain unclear. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that EU subsidies are paid per hectare, which leads to increasing yields for large-scale agricultural industries and exploitative land use, whilst small farms are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, the various countries do not incorporate the CAP’s objectives into their political programmes, which could be an indication that the service nexus has not yet emerged in either the media or the political landscape.

It is not enough simply to set targets. Furthermore, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has upheld an appeal by young climate activists who draw attention to the fact that there are no binding provisions that could lead to a quantifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2021)

As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment criticised as far back as 2005, existing institutions face significant barriers. Greater cross-sectoral cooperation is needed. Increased focus on transparency and accountability within government and the private sector, coupled with enhanced coordination, is crucial to bringing about change.

If the institutions and parliaments of the EU and its Member States fail to take action or continue to rely on vague formulations, the elimination of subsidies that encourage the excessive use of ecosystem services (and, where possible, the transfer of these subsidies to payments for non-marketed ecosystem services) will remain a distant dream for years to come. Only precision farming concepts utilising computer applications and satellite systems – provided not by the private sector but by public institutions – combined with revised policy programmes tailored to the needs of the new technology and designed to deliver measurable results, could lead to ecosystem-friendly agriculture.

Shed Light on all the Dark Matters

Let’s roll up our sleeves and get started. There is a lot to do. We must, so to speak, tackle another kind of dark matter: people’s thinking and what it is based on. It is therefore the right time for each of us to reflect on our own mental frameworks and reassess whether they are still up to date.

Sources

Bader, H.P., Baccini, P. (1996). System models and simulation programmes in environmental management – A critical analysis of the state of the art. DOI: doi.org/10.14512/gaia.5.6.3

Bach, H., Mauser, W. (2018). Sustainable Agriculture and Smart Farming. In: Mathieu, P.P., Aubrecht, C. (eds) Earth Observation, Open Science and Innovation. ISSI Scientific Report Series, vol. 15. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65633-5_12

Federal Constitutional Court. (29 April 2021). Constitutional complaints against the Climate Protection Act partially successful. www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/ SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-031.html

Coleman, D.C., Callaham, M.A., Crossley Jr, D. (2017). Fundamentals of Soil Ecology. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom. (14) (PDF) Fundamentals of Soil Ecology: Third Edition. www.researchgate.net/publication/321148966_Fundamentals_of_Soil_Ecology_Thir_Edition.

Connor, N., Barber, A. & Clauset, A. (2016). Using null models to infer microbial co-occurrence networks, PLOS ONE doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.01767518
Doran, P. (2012). Bioprocess Engineering Principles. Academic Press.

Düwel, O., Siebner, C.S., Utermann, J. & Krone, F. (2007). Organic matter content in topsoils in Germany.https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Boden/Produkte/Schriften/Downloads/Humusgehalte_Bericht.pdf

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. Harvard University Press.

Gupta, V., Roper, M. & Thompson, J. (1997). Life in the Soil. Adelaide, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Soil & Land Management. CSIRO, The University of Adelaide. pp. 237–253. cdn.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3246548/Australian-Agriculture-in-2020-Pt4Ch15.pdf

van der Heijden MGA, Hartmann M (2016). Networking in the Plant Microbiome. PLoS Biol 14(2):e1002378. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002378
Kellog, C. E. (1938). Soils and Men, USDA, Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington DC

R. Lal, K. Lorenz, R. Hüttl, B. Schneider, J. Braun (2013). Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere. Springer Netherlands.
Microbiology by numbers. (12 August 2011). Nature Reviews Microbiology. www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2644

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Orgiazzi, A., R.D. Bardgett, E. Barrios, V. Behan-Pelletier, M. J. I. Briones, J. L. Chotte, G. B. De Deyn, P. Eggleton, N. Fierer, T. Fraser, K. Hedlund, S. Jeffrey, N. C. Johnson, A. Jones, E. Kandeler, N. Kaneko, P. Lavelle, P. Lemanceau, L. Miko, L. Montanarella, F. M. de Souza Moreira, K. S. Ramirez, S. Scheu, B. K. Singh, J. Six, W. H. van der Putten, and D. H. Wall. (2016). Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas. European Commission, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Pickel, P. (2018). The ‘Smart Farming’ innovation trend from the perspective of agricultural machinery manufacturers. In 27th Hülsenberger Talks – Agriculture and Digitalisation (pp. 89–98). H. Wilhelm Schaumann Foundation. www.schaumann-stiftung.de/statics/www_schaumann_stiftung_de/downloads/H%c3%bclsenberger%20Gespr%c3%a4che/bro_hwss_huelsenberger_gespraeche_2018.pdf

Přikryl, Richard & Török, Ákos & Theodoridou, Magdalini & Gomez-Heras, Miguel & Miskovsky, Karel. (2016). Geomaterials in construction and their sustainability: Understanding their role in modern society. 10.1144/SP416.21.

VISITE – NDR TV programme www.ndr.de/ratgeber/gesundheit/Gartenarbeit-Schwere-Infektionen-verhindern,garten1554.html

Blog_Article_Hueber