Response of soil biota to agricultural management practices: A systematic quantitative meta-data-analysis and method selection framework

Soil organisms are vital to soil health, however, their inclusion in monitoring frameworks remains limited. Yet, it is well-known that agricultural management practices distinctively affect soil biota and the functions that they support. In this paper, we systematically evaluated the impact of management practices related to carbon and nutrient, vegetation, pest and disease and soil management, as well as grazing management on soil biota. Using a meta-data analysis approach, we systematically reviewed meta-analyses to quantify management practice(s) effects on soil biological actors, including macrofauna, mesofauna, microfauna, and the microbiome. We identified and screened 698 articles, of which 90 meta-analyses remained eligible after quality control and redundancy analysis, giving rise to a total of 790 pairwise combinations supported by 74′526 observations. In this paper, we demonstrate how specific management practices impact specific soil biota, which in turn may also influence soil processes and functions that these soil biota support. We reveal key knowledge gaps, particularly concerning the soil meso- and macrofauna, but also soil protists. Our study demonstrates which agricultural practices may support or diminish soil biology, providing much needed guidance on the selection of sustainable farming approaches, such as reduced tillage, organic fertilization, cover cropping, and intercropping. Lastly, we introduce a “Utility-Robustness” scoring system for soil actors, using a systematic framework to inform biological indicator selection tailored to specific management contexts. This fully transparent approach is designed to remain adaptable and expandable in the coming years, as new data and insights emerge. • Meta-Data-analysis of 90 studies, 790 pairs, and 74′526 observations. • Shows how management practices impact various soil biota. • Finds gaps in research on soil macrofauna, mesofauna, and protists. • Reduced tillage, organic inputs, and cover crops benefit soil biota. • Developed a Utility-Robustness Score to rank soil health indicators.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2025.109815
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
24.21

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Response of soil biota to agricultural management practices: A systematic quantitative meta-data-analysis and method selection framework

Rachel Creamer, Sarah Symanczik, Luís Cunha, Else K. Bünemann et al.
8 citations
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
24.21
article

Response of soil biota to agricultural management practices: A systematic quantitative meta-data-analysis and method selection framework

Rachel Creamer, Sarah Symanczik, Luís Cunha, Else K. Bünemann, Martina Lori, R. Leitão, Carmen Vázquez, Camille Imbert, F. N. David, Alessio Corti
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Soil organisms are vital to soil health, however, their inclusion in monitoring frameworks remains limited. Yet, it is well-known that agricultural management practices distinctively affect soil biota and the functions that they support. In this paper, we systematically evaluated the impact of management practices related to carbon and nutrient, vegetation, pest and disease and soil management, as well as grazing management on soil biota. Using a meta-data analysis approach, we systematically reviewed meta-analyses to quantify management practice(s) effects on soil biological actors, including macrofauna, mesofauna, microfauna, and the microbiome. We identified and screened 698 articles, of which 90 meta-analyses remained eligible after quality control and redundancy analysis, giving rise to a total of 790 pairwise combinations supported by 74′526 observations. In this paper, we demonstrate how specific management practices impact specific soil biota, which in turn may also influence soil processes and functions that these soil biota support. We reveal key knowledge gaps, particularly concerning the soil meso- and macrofauna, but also soil protists. Our study demonstrates which agricultural practices may support or diminish soil biology, providing much needed guidance on the selection of sustainable farming approaches, such as reduced tillage, organic fertilization, cover cropping, and intercropping. Lastly, we introduce a “Utility-Robustness” scoring system for soil actors, using a systematic framework to inform biological indicator selection tailored to specific management contexts. This fully transparent approach is designed to remain adaptable and expandable in the coming years, as new data and insights emerge. • Meta-Data-analysis of 90 studies, 790 pairs, and 74′526 observations. • Shows how management practices impact various soil biota. • Finds gaps in research on soil macrofauna, mesofauna, and protists. • Reduced tillage, organic inputs, and cover crops benefit soil biota. • Developed a Utility-Robustness Score to rank soil health indicators.

Soil Biology and BiochemistryVol. 207
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (DE), Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau (CH), University of Coimbra (PT), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme, Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
24.21
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.