Accepted Manuscript

Soil quality index of an Oxisol under different land uses in the

Brazilian savannah

Henrique M. Leite Chaves, Clara M. Concha Lozada, Ricardo O.

Gaspar

PII: S2352-0094(17)30028-7
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2017.07.007
Reference: GEODRS 136
To appear in: Geoderma Regional
Received date: 9 February 2017
Revised date: 24 July 2017
Accepted date: 25 July 2017

Please cite this article as: Henrique M. Leite Chaves, Clara M. Concha Lozada, Ricardo
O. Gaspar , Soil quality index of an Oxisol under different land uses in the Brazilian
savannah, Geoderma Regional (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2017.07.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Soil quality index of an Oxisol under different land uses in the Brazilian Savannah

Henrique M. Leite Chaves

Forestry Department, University of Brasília
Brasília, DF Brazil 70910-900
hchaves@unb.br

Clara M. Concha Lozada

Forestry Department, University of Brasília
Brasília, DF Brazil 70910-900
claraconcha@gmail.com

PT
Ricardo O. Gaspar

RI
Forestry Department, University of Brasília
Brasília, DF Brazil 70910-900
ricogaspar@unb.br

SC
NU
MA

Our reference: GEODRS 136

Article reference: GEODRS_2017_28
Article title: Soil quality index of an Oxisol under different land uses in the Brazilian Savannah
D

To be published in: Geoderma Regional

E
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Quality of an Oxisol under different land uses assessed by an index of soil chemical, physical,

and biological attributes

Abstract – One of the challenges of Soil Science in the last 20 years has been the development of

soil quality indicators and indices that are sensitive, integrative, universal, and accessible to

different users. However, some of the existing indices are not comprehensive, and others lack the

PT
simplicity to be applicable in developing countries. The objective of the present study was the

development of a soil quality index-SQI that incorporates those criteria, and to apply it to an Oxisol

RI
under different land uses in the Brazilian savannah. The proposed SQI is based on relevant soil

SC
functions, assessed by chemical (organic matter, CEC, pH, total phosphorous, and base saturation),

physical (soil infiltrability and modified penetration index), and biological (percent soil cover and
NU
number of dung beetles captured) attributes. The index was normalized by the number of attributes
MA

utilized, so that none of the three soil disciplines was over or underestimated. To illustrate the

utilization of the SQI, it was applied to six experimental areas, varying from natural forest to
D

cropland, in the region of Planaltina-DF (Central Brazil). The soil was a sandy-clay-loam
E

‘Latossolo Vermelho-Amarelo distrófico típico’ (Typic Haplustox), and the local climate type is Aw
PT

(Köppen). The SQI scores and their respective classification were: ‘Cerradão’ (natural woodland):

5.0  high soil quality; 10 yr-old reforestation: 3.2 – medium; ‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ (natural
CE

savannah): 2.9 – medium; Maize: 2.5 – medium; Pasture: 2.2 – low; and 1 yr-old Reforestation: 2.2
AC

– low. A similar trend in soil quality was found by other authors in the tropics, studying other

Oxisols, and using different indices.

Keywords: Soil quality, indicators, modeling, sustainability.

1. Introduction

Soil quality, defined as the capacity of a soil to adequately function in natural or human

ecosystems, sustaining plant and animal productivity and maintaining human and environment

health (Karlen et al., 1997), is a critical component of the agricultural production (Doran and Zeiss,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2000).

Although the concept of soil quality is relatively new, it is long known that soils vary

naturally in quality, as a function of its intrinsic properties, and that this quality also depends on the

type of use and management utilized (Larson and Pierce, 1994).

To assess soil quality, indicators have been used, evaluating different soil functions, utilizing

chemical, physical, and biological attributes (Doran and Parkin, 1996). Soil quality indices, formed

PT
by the integration of soil indicators, facilitate the comparison between different land uses and

management practices over the same type of soil (Nortcliff, 2002).

RI
With the help of pedotransfer functions, indices also allow the assessment of soil quality of

SC
different soil classes (Larson and Pierce, 1994). Furthermore, appropriate indices can assess soil

quality in time, indicating its improvement, stability or degradation (Karlen et al., 2003; Nortcliff,
NU
2002).
MA

Whereas numerous attempts have been made to estimate the soil quality for major soils of the

world, there is no standard method established, and there is a strong need for a user-friendly and
D

credible soil quality index (Mukherjee and Lal, 2014).

E

Among the existing soil quality indices are those of Karlen and Stott (1994), Islam and Weil
PT

(2000), Andrews et al. (2004), and Mukherjee and Lal (2014). The first index uses an additive

equation, utilizing relevant soil chemical, physical, and biological attributes, whose weights are
CE

proportional to their importance (Karlen and Stott, 1994).

AC

Islam and Weil (2000) developed an index that calculates soil quality of different land uses

based on the deterioration of chemical, physical, and biological properties with respect to a forested

(baseline) condition.

Andrews et al. (2004) used an expert system to select a minimum set of soil quality indicators,

based on pre-established management goals. Mukherjee and Lal (2014), on the other hand,

developed three soil quality indices with different complexity levels (simple additive, weighed

additive, and PCA-based), and correlated them to crop yields.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Assessing soil quality of Oxisols under forests in southeastern Brazil, Freitas et al. (2012)

used the indices of Karlen and Stott (1994) and of Islam and Weil (2000). Those authors concluded

that soil quality in eucalyptus plots was reduced in 20% compared to natural savannah (baseline),

while agroforestry systems improved natural soil quality in 16%. Melo Filho et al. (2009), using the

index of Karlen and Stott (1994) to a yellow Oxisol in northeastern Brazil, under natural forest,

obtained a medium score for soil quality (0.52).

PT
Araújo et al. (2007), on the other hand, utilized an index similar to the one developed by

Islam and Weil (2000), where the quality of a Brazilian red-yellow Oxisol under different uses was

RI
calculated using a soil quality diagram. Those authors found an inverse relationship between land-

SC
use intensity and soil quality, the latter decreasing from natural savannah (100 % quality) to

conventional tillage agriculture (23%). Other land-uses presented intermediate soil quality scores.
NU
In spite of the agronomic and ecological potential of the existing indices in the assessment of
MA

soil quality, some authors question their structure and applicability. The criticisms include the

selection of indicators of one or two soil disciplines (Karlen et al., 2003), the excessive importance
D

given to soil organic matter (Sojka et al., 2003), the lack of soil organisms as integrative indicators
E

(Govaerts et al., 2006), and the selection of soil attributes that are difficult to measure in the field by
PT

non-technical users (Vezzani and Mielniczuk, 2009; Nortcliff, 2002).

Additionally, the utilization of an excessive number of indicators can lead to undesired

CE

multicollinearity in the indices (Mukherjee and Lal, 2014), and the use of different indicator
AC

weights, without the previous knowledge of their relative importance, can reduce index robustness

(Chaves and Alípaz, 2007).

Furthermore, the use of complex algorithms such as expert systems and PCA in the

development of soil quality indices could hinder their utilization by non-skilled users (Nortcliff,

2002), particularly in developing countries.

Considering these aspects, the objective of this work was the development of a user-friendly

and statistically robust soil quality index, and to apply it in the assessment of the quality of an
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Oxisol of the Brazilian savannah, under different land uses.

2. Methodology

2.1 Development of the Soil Quality Index

Following the recommendation of Larson and Pierce (1994), the proposed index focused in

the dynamic dimension of soil quality, namely the assessment of the effects of land use and

management, and not in the evaluation of the intrinsic properties of different soil classes.

PT
The proposed soil quality index-SQI was developed in three steps, as suggested by Karlen et

al. (2003): i) Selection of appropriate indicators, assessing the main soil functions related to

RI
sustainability; ii) Scoring of the selected indicators, using the score functions ‘more is better’,

SC
‘optimum value’, and ‘less is better’ (Figure 1); and iii) Development of the integrated soil quality

index, using a linear and additive model, combining the indicator scores.
NU
(Figure 1)
MA

The chemical, physical, and biological indicators for the soil quality index were selected

based on their appropriateness to the task, including the ease, sensitiveness, and reliability of
D

measurement (Nortcliff, 2002). Their corresponding functions, as defined by Doran and Parkin
E

(1996), are presented in Table 1.

PT

(Table 1)

In Table 1, all five chemical indicators are relevant to soil quality (Doran and Parkin, 1996;
CE

Nortcliff, 2002), and presented the ‘more is better’ behavior. In the case of pH, though it
AC

theoretically behaves as an ‘optimum value’ function (Karlen et al., 2003), many tropical soils, such

as Oxisols, remain slightly acid, even after liming (Sanchez, 1977). Therefore, the ‘optimum value’

parabolic function in Figure 1 was restricted to its ascension branch (pH< 7.0), resulting, in

practice, in a ‘more is better’ relationship.

In the case of the selected physical indicators (soil infiltrability and penetration resistance),

both are correlated to soil quality, allowing for higher water availability and root development,

respectively (Doran and Parkin, 1996).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As for the biological indicators, soil cover protects the soil against the weather, adds nutrients

and maintains the soil fauna (van Elsas et al., 2007). The dung beetle (Scarabaeidae), on the other

hand, is a cosmopolitan soil macro-organism, and therefore highly sensitive to changes in soil

conditions (Nortcliff, 2002), contributing to the cycling of nutrients, and facilitating water

infiltration (Nichols et al., 2008). Both indicators present the ‘more is better’ behavior.

Once the minimum set of chemical, physical, and biological indicators was defined with their

PT
corresponding scoring functions (Larson and Pierce, 1994), arithmetic operations were performed in

those indicators which did not fall in the ‘more is better’ category.

RI
This procedure was necessary because of the linear additive model approach of Karlen et al.

SC
(2003), and to allow the soil quality indicators to be positively correlated with soil quality (assessed

by the index).
NU
Since soil penetration resistance was the only soil quality indicator that did not present the
MA

“more is better’ behavior, a modified soil penetration index was established (equation 1), so that the

original ‘less is better’ function was transformed in a ‘more is better’ relationship.

PI = 10 – PR
D

(1)
E

Where: PI (MPa) = modified soil penetration index; PR (MPa) = soil penetration resistance,
PT

measured by the Stolf impact penetrometer (Stolf et al., 2014).

The next step was the aggregation of the soil quality indicators, based on the soil discipline
CE

and on the ranking of the soil quality attributes. To facilitate this aggregation process for a wide
AC

range of users, a simple additive method was used (Karlen et al., 2003), where all soil attributes,

after being measured in appropriate experimental areas in the field, over the same soil type, and

ranked from the highest to the lowest by their means, are grouped in three sub-indices, namely:

SQIc = 3Tci1 + 2Tci2 + Tci3 [2a]

SQIp = 3Tpi1 + 2Tpi2 + Tpi3 [2b]

SQIb = 3Tbi1 + 2Tbi2 + Tbi3 [2c]

Where: SQIc= chemical sub-index; SQIp= physical sub-index; SQIb= biological sub-index; Tci1 =
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
number of times that the ith treatment had the highest mean in the group of the chemical indicators;

Tci2 = number of times that the ith treatment had the 2nd highest mean in the group of the chemical

indicators, Tci3 = number of times that the ith treatment had the 3rd highest mean in the group of the

chemical indicators. The same procedure is applied for the physical and biological indicators.

The different weights in equations (2a-c) reflect the ranking of soil quality in the treatments,

assessed by the different soil attributes. Several land-use types can be assessed at the same time. If

PT
only two types of land-use are to be assessed, only the first two terms in the right side of equation

(2) would be used.

RI
Finally, the integrated soil quality index is simply the normalized sum of the chemical,

SC
physical, and biological sub-indices, namely:

SQI = (SQIc / Ic) + (SQIp / Ip) + (SQIb / Ib) [3]

NU
Where: SQI = soil quality index; SQIc= chemical sub-index; SQIp= physical sub-index; SQIb=
MA

biological sub-index; Ic = number of chemical indicators, Ip = number of physical indicators; Ib =

number of biological indicators. The normalization of equation (3) is important to avoid the bias of
D

over or underestimating soil disciplines with more or less soil attributes, respectively.
E

2.2 Description of the Study Site

PT

The study site was formed by six experimental areas, with six different land uses typically

found in the savannah region of Brazil. All experimental areas were located within a 600 m radius,
CE

in Planaltina (DF), in order to reduce the probability of intrinsic soil variability (Mulla &
AC

McBratney, 2002). The geometrical centroid of the site has the coordinates 15.657º S and 47.505º

W, and the mean altitude is 1,100 m.

The climate type is Cwa (Köppen), with annual mean temperature of 21.5 oC and annual

precipitation of 1,400 mm (Chaves and Piau, 2008). The soil in all six experimental areas is a

sandy-clay-loam ‘Latossolo Vermelho-Amarelo distrófico típico’ (Typic Haplustox). Table 2

presents the soil texture in each experimental area.

(Table 2)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The six experimental areas studied were: i) ‘Cerradão’ (natural woodland); ii) ‘Cerrado sensu

strictu’ (open savannah); iii) Pasture (B. decumbens); iv) Maize crop (Z. mays); v) 1 yr-old

Reforestation; and vi) 10 yr-old Reforestation (Figure 2).

(Figure 2)

The study was carried between May and June of 2015. The ‘Cerradão’ experimental area

remained intact during the last 25 years, presenting high biological integrity in the different forest

PT
strata, and a significant amount of soil litter. The ‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ area was composed of

sparse trees, herbs, and natural grass. The area has experienced three fire events in the last 10 years,

RI
common in the Brazilian savannah.

SC
The Pasture area was formed of Brachiaria decumbens, and was maintained under extensive

grazing for the last 10 years, with the grass presenting an average height of 0.2 m during the study
NU
period.
MA

The crop area was Maize (Zea mays), in a corn-soybean rotation, under no-tillage system. The

line spacing was 1.0 m and the distance between plants was 0.25 m. The crop was fertilized with

250 kg ha-1 of a 4:30:16 (NPK) formula at the planting time, and 60 kg ha-1 of N was applied after
E D

the seedling emergence. The experimental measurements were made during the bolting and pre-
PT

harvest stages.

The 1-yr Reforestation experimental area, formerly under pasture, was planted with 21 native
CE

tree species of the Brazilian savannah, in the 7:4:1 (pioneer: secondary: climax) proportion, on a
AC

4x3 m spacing scheme. The trees had an average height of 1.0 m during the study, and were

surrounded by Brachiaria decumbens grass.

The 10-yr Reforestation experimental area was formed by Enterolobium gummiferum trees,

planted in a 5x3 m spacing scheme. The trees had an average height of 10 m, with a small amount

of plant litter and no undercover stratum.

2.3 Experimental Design

The experiment followed a completely randomized design, since the six experimental areas
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
were topographically, climatically, and pedologically homogeneous. The only factor (treatment)

analyzed was the type of land use. Three reps (samples) were used for the chemical and physical

parameters, and 15 reps for the biological parameters, since the latter present higher spatial

variabilities. Each experimental unit had an area of approximately 0.5 ha.

2.4 Measurements in the Experimental Areas

Three composite soil samples were collected for chemical analyzes in each of the

PT
experimental areas, obtained from 10 randomly excavated micro-trenches (0-0.3 m). The composite

samples were later analyzed in the laboratory, following Embrapa’s (2011) standard procedures.

RI
For the soil physical analyzes, soil infiltrability was assessed by the double-ring infiltration

SC
test (ASTM, 2009), with three reps in each experimental area. Soil infiltrability was obtained

graphically from the plot of infiltration velocity vs. time, and taken as the asymptote of the adjusted
NU
infiltration curve, following Horton’s infiltration model (Shukla, 2014).
MA

Soil penetration resistance was obtained from an impact penetrometer (Stolf et al., 2014), with

a cone diameter of 12.8 mm, in the depth of 0-0.30 m, with three reps per experimental area. Due to
D

the low moisture content of the soil during the penetration tests, no correction for humidity was
E

necessary (Silveira et al., 2010).

PT

In the biological analyzes, soil cover was estimated by the Kline (2010) ruler, randomly

placed over the soil litter (in the forested areas) or over the soil mulch (in the maize and pasture
CE

areas). Fifteen reps were obtained in each experimental area.

AC

In the case of the dung beetles (Scarabaeidae:Scarabaeinae) with rolling or perforating habit,

they were collected in 0.5 L pitfall traps (Figure 3), installed flush with the soil surface, using fresh

pig feces as bait (Concha et al., 2009). Fifteen traps were placed in each experimental area, in an L-

shaped scheme, with 10m between traps. The traps remained in the field for two periods of three

days, with the baits renewed daily.

(Figure 3)

Once collected, the dung beetles were preserved in 70% alcohol, and later identified in the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
laboratory using the taxonomy key of Mello et al. (2011). After the genus and species classification,

the beetles abundance and richness were calculated for each experimental area. The biological

indicator of soil quality was the mean number of dung beetles captured by trap, in each

experimental area.

2.5 Statistical Analyzes and SQI Calculation

The following statistical tests were performed in the experimental data, using the Statistica

PT
7® package: i) Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) normality test; ii) Homoscedasticity test; and iii) Multi-

collinearity test.

RI
Whenever the experimental data were not normally distributed, the original data were

SC
transformed using the function y = log (x) (Kutner et al., 2008). Once normality was obtained, the

Tukey multiple range test (p<0.05) was applied to the experimental means of the nine soil
NU
indicators.
MA

The nine soil indicator means of all experimental areas were then ranked from the highest to

the lowest values, and the three highest scores were used to calculate the chemical, physical, and
D

biological sub-indices (Eq. 2). Subsequently, the SQI was calculated for each experimental area,
E

according to Eq. (3).

PT

Finally, the soil quality index of the experimental areas was classified according to the

following inequalities:
CE

SQIi ≥ E[SQI] + 0.5 s[SQI] (high soil quality) [4a]

AC

E[SQI] – 0.5 s[SQI] ≤ SQIi < E[SQI] + 0.5 s[SQI] (medium soil quality) [4b]

SQIi < E[SQI] – 0.5 s[SQI] (low soil quality) [4c]

Where: SQIi = soil quality index of treatment i; E[SQI] = global SQI mean of all treatments; s[SQI]

= standard deviation of SQI of all treatments.

To assess the reliability and robustness of the SQI (eqs. 2-4), a cluster analysis was carried,

using the Euclidian distance / Ward algorithm (Everitt et al., 2011), within the Statistica 7.0 ®

package. The groups identified in this method were then compared to the ones established by the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SQI (eq. 4).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Soil Chemical Indicators

The means of the soil chemical attributes, obtained in the six experimental areas, with the

respective Tukey class, are presented in Table 3.

(Table 3)

PT
Except for the pH and organic matter, where only two different mean groups were obtained,

all chemical indicators were statistically different in the six experimental areas. Table 3 indicates

RI
that the natural forest areas (‘Cerradão’ and ‘Cerrado s. strictu’) had the highest organic matter

SC
content, which decreased in the anthropic areas. Araujo et al. (2007) also found the same trend,

namely, higher values of organic matter in natural forested plots, with a decrease in the plots with
NU
anthropic use.
MA

As expected, the phosphorous concentration was higher in the Maize area, because of the

annual NPK fertilization, and the fact that P is naturally rare in the Oxisols of the Brazilian
D

savannah (Pinto et al., 2013). Souza and Alves (2013) also reported higher P values in cropped
E

areas in a ‘Latossolo Vermelho’ (Oxisol), compared to other uses in the savannah region of Brazil.
PT

Only the area of the 10-yr Reforestation had a base saturation higher than 50% (eutrophic

condition). This could have resulted from the significant litter cover and the relative high nutrient
CE

cycling rates of the Enterolobium gummiferum site, as reported by Siddique et al. (2008).
AC

3.2 Soil Physical Indicators

The means of the soil physical properties, measured in the six experimental areas, are

presented in Table 4.

(Table 4)

In Table 4, the areas of ‘Cerradão’ and ‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ had the highest infiltrability

means, whereas Pasture area had the lowest mean. With respect to the modified penetration index,

the Pasture area had the lowest mean, which differed significantly from the means of the other five
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
areas.

A similar trend, namely the worsening of the physical soil attributes with the increase of

soil use intensity, was reported by Araújo et al. (2007). This was expected, since the cattle

trampling in the Pasture area and the machinery traffic in the Maize area tend to increase soil

compaction and to reduce water infiltration (Lanzanova et al., 2007).

3.3 Soil Biological Indicators

PT
The species abundance and richness of dung beetles with rolling and perforating habits,

captured in the six experimental areas, are presented in Table 5. The biological indicators are

RI
presented in Table 6.

SC
(Table 5)

(Table 6)
NU
As indicated in Table 5, 885 dung beetles, distributed in 10 genera and in 23 species, were
MA

captured in the six experimental areas. The Dichotomius nisus species (Figure 4) was captured in all

six areas, indicating that it may be cosmopolitan, and consequently of high ecological importance. A
D

similar finding was reported by Concha et al. (2009) in Colombia.

E

(Figure 4)
PT

According to Table 6, the Maize area had the highest number of beetles captured per trap

(284), followed by the Pasture and ‘Cerradão’ areas, all six sites being statistically different from
CE

each other. A possible explanation for large number of beetles in the crop area is the high food
AC

supply (corn stalks and ears), which attracts the terrestrial fauna and, consequently, its feces

(Noriega et al., 2012). In the case of the Pasture area, cattle manure was probably a natural attractor

of dung beetles (Halffter & Arellano, 2002), and explain the high number of insects captured.

In Table 6, the areas of ‘Cerradão’ and 1-yr and 10-yr Reforestation presented the highest

soil cover. This was also expected, since land uses with larger plant biomass tend to generate higher

volumes of plant litter (Silva et al., 2007; Facelli & Pickett, 1991). In the case of the 1-yr

Reforestation, the high percent cover (92.3%) was due to the root and mulch cover of the B.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
decumbens grass, surrounding the seedlings.

3.4 Soil Quality Index

The distribution of the three highest means obtained in the six experimental areas for the

chemical, physical, and biological indicators, and the resulting Soil Quality Index (SQI) are

presented in Table 7.

(Table 7)

PT
The highest score of SQI (5.0 = high) was obtained in ‘Cerradão’ area (Table 7), followed by

10-yr Reforestation (3.2 = medium) and by ‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ (2.9 = medium). All three areas

RI
are consolidated forests.

SC
Soil quality decreased with the intensity of soil use (i.e., Maize, Pasture, and 1-yr

Reforestation), as indicated by their SQI scores, in Table 7. A similar trend was found in Brazilian
NU
soils by Melloni et al. (2008), Araújo et al. (2007), and Freitas et al. (2012), using different soil
MA

quality indices. An explanation for the low SQI score in the Pasture area is the soil compaction due

to cattle trampling, the small plant biomass, and the poor chemical status of the soil.
D

In the case of the 1-yr Reforestation, the low SQI results from the short period since
E

reforestation from previous pastureland, with a small canopy cover and consequently low plant
PT

biomass. Consequently, its SQI was identical (2.2 – low) to that of the Pasture area.

The relatively wide range observed in the SQI scores in the six experimental areas (2.2-5.0)
CE

and the presence of all three soil quality classes (low, medium, high) in the study indicate that the
AC

proposed index was sensitive to the different land use types, as recommended by Andrews et al.

(2004) and Nortcliff (2002).

The cluster analysis of the six experimental areas also showed three clusters formed at a

70% Euclidian distance: G-I) ‘Cerradão’ and ‘Cerrado s. strictu’; G-II) Maize; and G-III) 10-yr

Reforestation, Pasture, and 1-yr Reforestation (Figure 5), which are similar to the SQI classification

of Table 7. Furthermore, Pasture and 1-yr Reforestation were clustered at a 55% distance,

corroborating the classification of Table 7. These results indicate that the scoring process of the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SQI, though simple and user-friendly, is statistically robust.

(Figure 5)

Though the levels and trends of SQI scores shown in Table 7 are corroborated by the

findings of other authors in Brazilian Oxisols, using similar indices, further studies are required to

assess the robustness of the proposed index, particularly in different soils, climates, and land-use

conditions.

PT
4. Conclusions

Following the recommendations in the literature, and overcoming the limitations of existing

RI
indicators, a soil quality index-SQI was proposed. The index utilizes relevant chemical, physical,

SC
and biological indicators, which can easily be measured, by non-technical users.

Applied to different land use types, over the same type of soil (Typic Haplustox) in the Federal
NU
District (Brazil), the SQI scores and classes were: ‘Cerradão’ (5.0  high soil quality); 10 yr-old
MA

reforestation (3.2 – medium); ‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ (2.9 – medium); Maize crop (2.5 – medium);

Pasture (2.2 – low); and 1 yr-old Reforestation (2.2 – low). A similar trend in soil quality was found
D

by other authors, in Brazilian soils, using different indices.

E

Considering its balanced structure, its sensitivity to different land-use types, and its user-
PT

friendliness, the proposed index has a good potential for application in tropical, developing

countries. However, complementary studies, carried in different soils and land-uses, are required to
CE

fully assess the robustness of the index.

AC

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the owners of the Bromelia farm (Planaltina, Brazil), for

permitting the sampling and field analyses. This research did not receive any specific grant from

funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

American Standard of Testing Materials-ASTM. 2009. Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of

Soils in Field Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer. ASTM, West Conshohocken.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L., Cambadella, C.A. 2004. The soil management assessment framework:

A quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 1945-1962.

Araújo, R., Goedert, W.J., Lacerda, M.P.C. 2007. Soil quality under different uses and native

Cerrado. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 31, 1099-198.

Chaves, H.M.L., Piau, L.P. 2008. Effect of rainfall variability and land use on runoff and sediment

in the Pipiripau river basin, in the Federal District, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 32, 333-43. doi:

PT
10.1590/S0100-068320080010031

Chaves, H.M.L., Alípaz, S. 2007. An integrated indicator based on basin hydrology, environment,

RI
life, and policy: The watershed sustainability index. Water Res. Mgt. 21:883-95. doi:

SC
10.1007/s11269-006-9107-2

Concha, C.M, Gallego, M.C.R., Figueroa, C.A. 2009. Escarabajos estercoleros (Coleóptera:
NU
Scarabaeinae) en tres usos del suelo, vereda Clarete, Popayán-Cauca, in: Figueroa, C.A. (Ed.),
MA

Fragmentación y coberturas vegetales de ecosistemas andinos. Univ. del Cauca, Popayan, p. 21-42

(in Spanish).
D

Doran, J.W., Parkin, T.B. 1996. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: A minimum data set, in:
E

Doran, J.W. (Ed.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality, SSSA, Madison, pp. 25-37.
PT

Doran, J.W., Zeiss, M.R. 2000. Soil health and sustainability: Managing the biotic component of

soil quality, Appl . Soil Ecol. 15:3-11.

CE

Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária-Embrapa. 2011. Soil analysis manual, 2nd. ed.
AC

Embrapa, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).

Everitt, B.S., Landau, S., Leese, M., Stahl, D. 2011. Cluster analysis, Wiley, N. York, 330 p.

Facelli, J., Pickett, S.T.A. 1991. Plant litter: Its dynamics and effects on plant community structure.

The Botan. Rev. 7(1):2-13.

Freitas, D.A.F., Silva, M.L.N., Cardoso, E.L., Curi, N. 2012. Soil quality índices under different

forestry and adjacent native scrubland use and management systems. Rev. Cienc. Agron. 43:417-28.

doi: 10.1590/S1806-66902012000300002
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., Deckers, J. 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality assessment of

wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil Till. Res. 87:163-74.

Halffter, G., Arellano, L. 2002. Response of dung beetle diversity to human-induced changes in a

tropical landscape. Biotropica 34(1):144-154. Doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2002.tb00250.x

Islam, K.R., Weil, R,R. 2000. Land use effects on soil quality in a tropical ecosystem in

Bangladesh. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 79: 9-16.

PT
Karlen, D.L., Ditzler, C.A., Andrews, S.S. 2003. Soil quality: Why and how? Geoderma 114:145-

56.

RI
Karlen, D.L., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J.W., Cline, R.G., Harris, R.F., Schuman, G.E. 1997. Soil

SC
quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am J. 61:4-10.

Karlen, D.L., Stott, D.E. 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indicators of soil
NU
quality, in: Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdiceck, D.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Defining soil quality
MA

for a sustainable environment. SSSA, Madison, pp.53-72.

Kline, R. 2010. Estimating crop residue cover for soil erosion control, British Columbia Ministry of
D

Agriculture and Food, Victoria.

E

Kutner, M., Nachsheim, C., Neter, J. 2008. Applied linear regression models, McGraw-Hill, N.
PT

York.

Lanzanova, M.E., Nocoloso, R.S., Lovato, T., Eltz, F.L.F., Amado, T.J.C., Reinert, D.J. 2007. Soil
CE

physical atttributes in integrated cattle raising-crop production system under no-tilage, Rev. Bras.
AC

Cienc. Solo 31:1131-40.

Larson, W.E., Pierce, F.J. 1994. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable

development, in: Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdiceck, D.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Defining soil

quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA, Madison, pp. 37-51.

Mello, F.Z.V., Edmond, W.D., Ocampo, F.C., Schoolmeesters, P. 2011. A multilingual key to the

genera and subgenera of the subfamily Scarabaeinae of the New World (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae),

Zootaxa 2854:3-73.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Melloni, R., Melloni, E.G.P., Alvarenga, M.I.N., Vieira, F.B.M. 2008. Evaluation of soil quality

under different forest covers and pasture in Southern Minas Gerais state, Brazil, Rev. Bras. Cienc.

Solo 32:2461-70.

Melo Filho, J.F., Carvalho, L.L., Silveira, D.C., Sacramento, J.A.A.S., Silveira, E.C.P. 2009.

Quality index in a cohesive yellow latosol cultivated with citrus, Rev. Bras. Frutic. 31:1168-77. Doi:

10.1590/S0100-2945200900400034

PT
Mukherjee, A., Lal, R. 2014. Comparison of soil quality index using three methods. PLOS One

9(8):e105981. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105981.

RI
Mulla, D.J., McBratney, A.B. 2002. Soil spatial variability, in: Warrick, A.W. (ed.), Soil physics

SC
companion, CRC, Washington, pp. 343-375.

Nichols, E., Spector, S., Louzada, J., Larsen, J., Amezquita, S., Favila, M.E. 2008. Ecological
NU
functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol. Conserv. 141:1461-
MA

74. doi: 10.1590/1809-4392201304472

Noriega, J.A., Palacio, J.M., Monroy, J.D., Valencia, D. 2012. Estructura de un ensamblaje de
D

escarabajos coprofagos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) en tres sitios con diferente uso del suelo en
E

Antioquia, Colombia. Actual .Biol. 34:43-54. (in Spanish)

PT

Nortcliff, S. 2002. Standardisation of soil quality attributes. Agric. Ecosyst. & Envir. 88:161-168.

Pinto, F.A., Souza, E.D., Paulino, H.B., Curi, N., Carneiro, M.A.C. 2013. P-sorption and desorption
CE

in Savannah Brazilian soils as a support for fertilizer managment. Cienc. Agrotec. 37(6):521-530.
AC

Sanchez, P. A. 1977. Properties and management of soils in the tropics. Wiley, N. York, 618 p.

Shukla, M.K. 2014. Soil physics - An introduction. CRC, Boca Raton.

Siddique, I., Engel, V.L., Parrotta, J.A., Lamb, D., Nardoto, G.B., Ometto, J.P.H.B., Martinelli, L.A.,

Schmidt, S. 2008. Dominance of legume trees alters nutrient relations in mixed forest restoration

plantings within seven years. Biogeochemistry 88:89-101. doi: 10.1007/s10533-008-9196-5

Silva, C.J., Sanches, L., Bleich, M.E., Lobo, F.A., Nogueira, J.S. 2007. Litterfall production in the

Brazilian mid-western Amazonia-Cerrado transition forest. Acta Amaz. 37:543-8.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Silveira, D.C., Melo Filho, J.F., Sacramento, J.A.A.S., Silveira, E.C.P. 2010. Relationship between

the soil water content and root penetration resistance of a dystro-cohesive yellow argisol. Rev. Bras

Cienc. Solo 34:659-67. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832010000300007

Sojka, R.E., Upchurch, D.F., Borlaug, N.E. 2003. Quality soil management: Performance versus

semantics. Adv. Agron.79:1-68. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(02)79001-9

Souza, Z.M., Alves, M.C. 2013. Chemical properties of a red Cerrado latosol under different use

PT
and management conditions. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 27:133-9. doi:10.1590/S0100-

06832003000100014

RI
Stolf, R., Muramaki, J.H., Brugnaro, C., Silva, .LG., Margarido, L.A.C. 2014. Stolf impact

SC
penetrometer – Computer data program in Excel-VBA. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 8:774-82.

Van Elsas, J.C., Kansson, J.K., Trevors, J.T. 2007. Modern soil microbiology, CRC, Boca Raton.
NU
Vezzani, F.M., Meiniczuk, J. 2009. Na overview of soil quality. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 33:743-55.
MA

doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832009000400001
D

Figure 1. Types of score functions for soil quality indicators. Adapted from Karlen et al. (2003).
E
PT

Figure 2. Location of the six experimental areas of the study.

CE

Figure 3. Pitfall trap used in the six experimental areas.

AC

Figure 4. An example of a Dichotomius nisus beetle captured in the study.

Figure 5. Clusters of the chemical, physical and biological indicators in the six experimental areas.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Fig. 1
DE
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
DE
PT
CE
AC

Fig. 2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig. 3

SC
NU
MA
DE
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
D

Fig. 4
E
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Fig. 5
DE
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Chemical, physical, and biological indicators used in the soil quality index, with
the corresponding units and soil functions, as defined by Doran and Parkin (1996).
Discipline Indicator Unit Soil Functions
Organic matter content g kg-1 Nutrient cycling, buffering
CEC cmolc kg-1 Nutrient cycling, buffering
Chemistry Base saturation % Nutrient cycling
pH (H2O) - Buffering
Phosphorous content mg kg-1 Nutrient availability/cycling
Soil infiltrability mm h-1 Water availability

PT
Physics
Penetration resistance MPa Water availability
Soil cover % Nutrient cycling, biodiversity
Biology

RI
Number of dung beetles - Nutrient cycling, water availability

SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Soil texture and bulk density of the six experimental areas analyzed (0-30 cm, N=3).
Area Altitude Bulk density (kg Soil texture (g kg-1)
Experimental Area -3
(ha) (m) dm ) Clay Sand Silt
‘Cerradão’ 0.5 1,100 1.26 325.0 650.0 25.0
‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ 0.5 1,135 1.18 300.0 650.0 50.0
Pasture 0.5 1,130 1.22 350.0 550.0 100.0
Maize 0.5 1,140 1.33 275.0 575.0 150.0
1-yr Reforestation 0.5 1,112 1.23 325.0 575.0 100.0
10-yr Reforestation 0.5 1,120 1.10 300.0 550.0 150.0

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Means of the soil chemical indicators in the six experimental areas (N=3). Means
followed by distinct letters are statistically different at 95% probability.
Organic Base
CEC P
Experimental Area Matter (g saturation (%) pH (H2O)
(cmolc kg-1) (mg kg-1)
kg-1)
‘Cerradão’ 48.8 b 7.1 d 30.0 c 5.4 ab 0.9 c
‘Cerrado s. strictu’ 47.3 b 3.9 a 12.0 a 5.2 a 0.1 a
Pasture 24.1 a 5.3 c 39.0 e 5.9 b 1.2 d
Maize 26.5 a 5.0 b 31.0 d 5.4 ab 18.3 f

PT
1-yr Reforestation 23.7 a 5.3 c 29.0 b 5.5 ab 0.6 b
10-yr Reforestation 28.7 a 10.3 e 52.0 f 5.6 ab 2.6 e

RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Means of the soil physical indicators obtained in the six

experimental areas (N=3). Means followed by distinct letters are
statistically different at 95% probability.
Penetration Modified Soil
Experimental Area resistance penet. index infiltrability
(MPa) (MPa) (mm h-1)
‘Cerradão’ 4.0 b 6.0 b 1,200.0 c
‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ 1.7 b 8.3 b 1,146.0 c

PT
Pasture 9.2 a 0.8 a 48.0 a
Maize 5.4 b 4.6 b 162.0 b

RI
1-yr Reforestation 3.7 b 6.3 b 174.0 b
10-yr Reforestation 4.7 b 5.3 b 180.0 b

SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5. Abundance and richness of dung beetles captured in the six experimental areas (N=15).
Experimental Area
Genus Species M CSS PT R1 CE R10 Total
Agamopus Agamopus viridis (R) - - 1 - - - 1
Canthon conformis (R) 85 11 - 3 - - 99
Canthon
Canthon lituratos (R) 2 - 1 - - - 3
Canthidium sp.1 (P) 14 3 - - - - 17
Canthidium sp.2 (P) 4 - - - 26 3 33
Canthidium sp.3 (P) 1 - - 2 - - 3
Canthidium Canthidium sp.4 (P) 1 - - 1 - - 2

PT
Canthidium sp.5 (P) - - - - 2 - 2
Canthidium marseuli (P) 3 4 - - - - 7
Canthidium megathopoides (P) 4 4

RI
Coprophaneus Coprophaneus horus (P) 1 - - - - - 1
Dichotomius aff. assifer sp.1 (P) - - - - 19 5 24

SC
Dichotomius bicuspis (P) 31 8 - 2 12 1 54
Dichotomius bos (P) - 1 4 - - - 5
Dichotomius
Dichotimius crinicollis (P) 6 - 16 2 2 - 26
Dichotomius nisus (P) 46 24 40 4 58 17 189
NU
Dichotomius aff. quadratriceps (P) - 1 - - - - 1
Deltochilum Deltochilum komareki (R) - - - - 2 - 2
Digitonthophagus Digitonthophagus gazela (P) - - 1 - - - 1
MA

Ontherus Onterus apendiculatus (P) 22 41 6 - 8 - 77

Onthophagus buculus (P) 32 10 19 15 - - 76
Onthophagus
Onthophagus hirculus (P) 36 9 91 53 - 3 192
Uroxys Uroxys sp.1 (P) 11 1 11 41 2 66
D

Abundance (Total number of individuals) 284 127 180 93 170 31 885

Richness (Total number of species) 14 12 10 10 9 6 23
E

R = roller habit; P = perforating habit; M = Maize; CSS = ‘Cerrado stricto sensu’; PT = Pasture; R1 = 1-yr
Reforestation; CE = ‘Cerradão’; R10 = 10-yr Reforestation.
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6. Means of the soil biological indicators obtained in

the six experimental areas (N=15). Means followed by
distinct letters are statistically different at 95% probability.
# of dung beetles Soil cover
Experimental Area
per trap (%)
‘Cerradão’ 11.3 d 92.7 b
‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ 8.5 c 23.3 a
Pasture 12.0 e 14.0 a

PT
Maize 14.2 f 16.0 a
1-yr Reforestation 6.2 b 92.3 b
10-yr Reforestation 4.4 a 38.3 a

RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7. Frequency of the 3 highest means of the soil chemical, physical and biological indicators,
obtained in the six experimental areas, the normalized SQI and the corresponding soil quality
category.
Chemical Physical Biological Soil
Experimental Area SQI Quality
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Category
‘Cerradão’ 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 1 5.0 High
10-yr Reforestation 2 2 1 - - 1 - - 1 3.2 Medium
‘Cerrado sensu strictu’ - 1 1 1 - - - - 2.9 Medium

PT
Maize 1 - 2 - - - 1 - - 2.5 Medium
1-yr Reforestation - - 2 - 1 - - 1 - 2.4 Low

RI
Pasture 1 1 1 - - - - 1 - 2.2 Low

SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
 A simple and yet robust soil quality index was developed based on soil properties
 The index followed the guidelines and recommendations of the literature
 The index was applied to six different land-uses overlaying an Oxisol in Brazil
 The soil quality of natural vegetation was higher than that of anthropic uses
 Other authors found a similar trend using different indices in Oxisols

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC