Cropping systems include listing the crop species with Latin binomial, cultivar, crop rotation, and cropping history. Enough information needs to be provided to understand key parameters if the system is defined as “conventional” or “organic.” Clearly indicate if an organic system adheres to the USDA organic standard (https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Production‐Handling%20Standards.pdf) or another organic certification standard when appropriate because it denotes that specific practices have been followed. When cover crops are included in the system, the corresponding information should be included as noted for crop management.
Amendments
Amendment within this context is used to denote fertilizers, pesticides, or any organic (e.g., animal manure, biochar) or synthetic material applied. The information recommended includes the formulation, active ingredients when applicable, rate, application method, and date applied. For manure, the animal source and nutrient content (C, N, P, etc.) is recommended.
Crop Management
Crop management includes information about planting rate, row spacing, and when and how cover crops were planted. Likewise, how was the crop was harvested, what was harvested (just grain or a portion of the residue), including other residue management practices (e.g., harvest or burning) should be included. The mass of biomass retained in the field is an important aspect of soil health research because it is the raw material for building nascent soil organic matter, driving nutrient cycling. In those studies that include cover crops, detailed metadata are recommended (species; cultivar; planting date, rate, depth, and method; biomass; termination method and date).
Livestock Management
Livestock management needs to include animal species, animal class, stocking rate, duration of grazing, and frequency for rotational grazing. Information related to manure applications should be included under agricultural amendments. Manure management may not directly apply to soil health, but if a greenhouse gas mitigation or lifecycle analysis assessment is being conducted, the information would be desirable.
Sample Collection, Preparation, Storage, and Analysis
Sampling requires its own metadata describing the what, when, where, and how of sample collection. It is the information typically included in the materials and methods section of a paper. What describes the sampled material (e.g., soil, plant, air). The resolution of when is sample dependent; for example, yield may need only a date or simply a year. Biomass sampling should include a crop‐appropriate growth stage description and biomass properties (C, N, or other nutrients). In contrast, if monitoring gas samples, the time scale may be at the sub‐hour scale in addition to date and hour. Data describing where may include slope position, GPS coordinates, a description of position relative to the crop (e.g., mid‐ or within‐row); soil samples, including for root biomass, should have depth and depth interval recorded. Information related to how the sample was collected includes sampling method, e.g., implement used or if hand collected, whether the sample represents a composite, and frequency of sampling for repeated‐measure parameters. Sample handling and preparation documents details such as drying temperature, sieve size, grinding, and storage conditions (e.g., duration, temperature). These details may not be included in a meta‐analysis but are important for assuring that like data are being compared and that the data meet quality control standards. For example, oven drying instead of air drying will compromise many biological properties. Another aspect of how refers to reporting the methods of analysis. For standard methods, a very brief description and citation may suffice, whereas novel methods should be described with substantially more detail.
Discussion
The categorial data used in several meta‐analyses correspond to the metadata recommended in Table 4.1. For example, a meta‐analysis of soil microbial biomass response to C amendments included the following categorical or metadata: microbial biomass method, crop type, cropping system, years of application, type of amendment, soil pH, soil organic content, clay content by depth interval, rate of C input, and rate of N inputs via organic amendments (Kallenbach & Grandy, 2011). Another meta‐analysis used soil pH, texture, SOC, and biochar production conditions (feedstock, pyrolysis temperature) and application rate, plus experiment type (field or pot) and study duration to understand soil microbial biomass responses (Zhou et al., 2017). Laganière, Angers, and Paré (2010) included previous land use, climatic zone, clay content, soil pH, pre‐planting disturbance, plantation density, and tree species planted in a meta‐analysis assessing C accumulation due to afforestation of former agricultural soils. Mahal, Castellan, and Miguez (2018) conducted a meta‐analysis using potential mineralizable N as a soil health indicator and an extensive cadre of metadata including crop type, fertilizer type and rate, cover crop, tillage system, and duration of the experiment in years plus documentation of the incubation method, soil sampling time, soil sampling depth, soil type (texture), pH, bulk density, soil organic matter, SOC, soil total N, NO3 and NH4 concentrations, mean annual temperature and precipitation, crop yield, and state and country where the study was conducted.
Summary
This chapter emphasizes the importance of collecting metadata that provide adequate information to support the wide range of soil biological, chemical, and physical measurements being quantified for various soil health assessments. Examples of metadata or categorical data that may be useful are suggested but should not be viewed as either extensive or exhaustive. Furthermore, it should not be considered necessary to record every item in the list but rather those data that may contribute to understanding the range of soil health indices being measured for a specific assessment.
Acknowledgments
The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the USDA or the ARS of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
References
1 Askari, M. S., & Holden, N. M. (2015). Quantitative soil quality indexing of temperate arable management systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 150, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.01.010
2 Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R., . . . Brussaard, L. (2018). Soil quality: A critical review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 120, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030
3 Delgado, J. A., Weyers, S., Dell, C., Harmel, D., Kleinman, P., Sistani, K., . . . Van Pelt, S. (2016). USDA Agricultural Research Service creates Nutrient Uptake and Outcome Network (NUOnet). Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71, 147A–148A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.6.147A
4 Del Grosso, S. J., White, J. W., Wilson, G., Vandenberg, B., Karlen, D. L., Follett, R. F., . . . James, D. (2013). Introducing the GRACEnet/REAP data contribution, discovery, and retrieval system. Journal of Environmental Quality, 42, 1274–1280. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2013.03.0097
5 Doran, J. W. (2002). Soil health and global sustainability: Translating science into practice. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 88, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167‐8809(01)00246‐8
6 Jawson, M. D., Shafer, S. R., Franzluebbers, A.