Main authors: Luuk Fleskens, Coen Ritsema, Zhanguo Bai, Violette Geissen, Jorge Mendes de Jesus, Vera da Silva, Aleid Teeuwen, Xiaomei Yang
iSQAPERiS editor: Jane Brandt
Source document: Fleskens, L et al. (2020) Tested and validated final version of SQAPP. iSQAPER Project Deliverable 4.2, 143 pp

 

Finally, agricultural management practices are recommended in response to the underperforming soil properties and most important soil threats. To define the recommended practices two steps were taken:

  1. establishing a classification of agricultural management practices;
  2. establishing an expert-opinion based matrix table of the applicability and effectiveness of AMPs. The final recommendation is made based on simple additive scoring.

Table 13 shows the broad groups (9) of AMPs and AMP categories (34) considered. Under the latter, a total of 89 AMPs has been distinguished (for example, the category cross-slope barriers represents two AMPs, bunds and terraces). A total of 391 example AMPs have been selected to illustrate the different AMPs. The descriptions of AMPs and examples are provided in ┬╗Agricultural management practices recommended by SQAPP where app users and other interested parties can browse through them and link to website providing further information.

Table 13. Overview of AMPs included in SQAPP, classified in AMP broad classes and AMP categories distinguished as possible recommendation domains.

D4.2 3 tab13a D4.2 3 tab13b

The applicability limitations and effects of these AMPs on soil properties and soil threats are established in a matrix. The selection of AMPs on the basis of this matrix to generate recommendations is exemplified in Figure 22. Up to 10 individual AMPs are suggested in a given location where the app user is requesting solutions. Applicability limitations are assessed on the basis of (specific) land use, landform, annual precipitation, slope, soil depth, soil texture and coarse fragments. All AMPs are either scored 0 (not applicable) or 1 (applicable). Effectiveness is considered using a four-class system: definite positive effect (2); probable positive effect (1), unknown or no effect (0) or negative effect (-1).

D4.2 3 fig22
Figure 22

 


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

┬╗References

 

Go To Top