Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUMMARY
This review introduces the main concepts behind integrated soil management (ISM) and examines
the ways in which it currently operates. It suggests the scope for future technological development. The
review also highlights the potential of ISM to address the challenge of meeting the demands of the
increasing world population, while maintaining sustainable agro-ecosystems, as judged from longterm soil fertility, environmental and socio-economic perspectives. Changes to policy, governance and
funding worldwide will be needed to conserve and manage the soil resource, and to restore already
degraded systems. Research should be prioritized to ensure continued delivery of new soil technologies. Such changes must engage all land-use stakeholders, must involve educational, training and
extension programmes and must embrace the multidisciplinarity required for effective soil
conservation and management.
INTRODUCTION
Denitions
Email: ken.killham@remedios.uk.com
C U R R E N T D E V E LO P M E N T S I N ISM
Global perspective
The doubling of global food demand projected for the
next 50 years (Beddington 2009) poses a challenge for
sustainability of food production and the environment.
The greatest requirement for soil management technologies to best use soil and water resources is in
the arid and semi-arid developing world, including
K. K I L L H A M
Water
management
Crop
management
Nutrient
management
Integrated
soil
management
Soil tillage
and
conservation
management
Land
use
management
K. K I L L H A M
Despite benets of precision farming, there are obvious economic and social constraints to its adoption
in developing countries, restricting it to large-scale,
commercial farms. It may be, however, that some
models of precision farming, particularly communitybased models with associated learning groups of
farmers and companies (Shibusawa 2004), can be
applied to smaller-scale farms.
Soil in relation to land reclamation
Because ISM combines improvement of the supply of
available soil water, restoring and improving soil
fertility with organic and inorganic nutrient management and soil conservation techniques, it offers great
potential for reclamation of structurally and chemically degraded soils, particularly in arid and semi-arid
zones (Kauffman et al. 2000).
Crop productivity loss due to soil degradation
(from erosion) is estimated at 18 million tonnes of
food staples per year at 1990 yield levels for subSaharan Africa and 272 million tonnes worldwide at
1996 production levels (Lal 2000). This may represent
a yield loss at the landscape level or even total crop
failure at the farm level. Much soil structural integrity
comes from organic matter, including the living
fraction (soil microbial biomass). The mining of soil
organic matter through agriculture is common and
threatens structural integrity, particularly in tropical
soils (Lal 2004), as organic matter mediates short term
and more persistent binding. Loss of soil structure can
also occur through slaking and dispersion, often
linked to intensive cultivation (Lal 2008), causing compaction and vital loss of the pore size distribution
needed to maintain soil fertility. Because of these
different processes, mechanisms of soil structural
collapse and degradation vary climatically and from
one soil type to another.
Technologies that enhance soil structure (residue
incorporation and mulching, soil conditioning, manuring and some forms of agroforestry) and conserve
soil (cover cropping, contour ploughing, riparian
zones, minimum tillage and efcient/appropriate irrigation) have to be selected on a soil-/site-specic basis
but offer ISM tools of soil restoration from physical
degradation worldwide.
Uptake of ISM
Current policy approaches in many developing
countries may prevent the transition to ISM (Koning
et al. 2001). The time lags involved in adopting new
technologies, in applying them to local conditions,
and in harvesting the benets of soil fertility investments ideally call for dual support of agricultural incomes and educational/extension/advisory
programmes through policy change. The changes
K. K I L L H A M
REFERENCES
AUERNHAMMER, H. (2001). Precision farming the environmental challenge. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 30, 3143.
BALE, J. S., VAN LENTEREN, J. C. & BIGLER, F. (2008).
Biological control and sustainable food production. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London B. Biological
Sciences 363, 761776.
BAUER, W. D. & ROBINSON, J. B. (2002). Disruption of
bacterial quorum sensing by other organisms. Current
Opinion in Biotechnology 13, 234237.
BEDDINGTON, J. (2009). Food, Energy, Water and the Climate:
A Perfect Storm of Global Events? London: Government
Ofce for Science.
BOUWMAN, A. F. (1996). Direct emission of nitrous oxide
from agricultural soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 46, 5370.
DINNES, D. L., KARLEN, D. L., JAYNES, D. B., KASPAR, T. C.,
HATFIELD, J. L., COLVIN, T. S. & CAMBARDELLA, C. A.
(2002). Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate
leaching in tile-drained midwestern soils. Agronomy
Journal 94, 153171.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA) (2000). The State of the Environment of England and Wales: The Land. London: HMSO.
FREIBAUER, A., ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A., SMITH, P. &
VERHAGEN, J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma 122, 123.
HARRIER, L. A. & WATSON, C. A. (2004). The potential role
of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the bioprotection
of plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/or
other sustainable farming systems. Pest Management
Science 60, 149157.
INSAM, H., RIDDECH, N. & KLAMMER, S. (2002).
Microbiology of Composting. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
JONER, E. J. & LEYVAL, C. (2003). Phytoremediation
of organic pollutants using mycorrhizal plants: a new
K. K I L L H A M