Next Article in Journal
Using GMDH Neural Networks to Model the Power and Torque of a Stirling Engine
Next Article in Special Issue
Soil Quality Indices for Evaluating Smallholder Agricultural Land Uses in Northern Ethiopia
Previous Article in Journal
Bioremediation of Heavy Metals from Soil and Aquatic Environment: An Overview of Principles and Criteria of Fundamental Processes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Threats to Sustainability of Soil Functions in Central and Southeast Europe
Article Menu

Export Article

Sustainability 2015, 7(2), 2213-2242; doi:10.3390/su7022213

Review
Soil Quality Impacts of Current South American Agricultural Practices
1
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná, Ruta 11, km 12,5. Oro Verde, Entre Ríos 3101, Argentina
2
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Centro de Ciências Rurais, Av. Roraima 1000, Santa Maria, RS 97105-900, Brazil
3
Universidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía, Garzón 780, Montevideo 12900, Uruguay
4
Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Unidad Integrada Balcarce. Ruta Nac. 226 Km 73,5. Balcarce, Buenos Aires 7620, Argentina
5
IPNI Latinoamérica-Cono Sur. Av. Santa Fe 910, Acassuso, Buenos Aires B1641ABO, Argentina
6
USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment (NLAE), 2110 University Boulevard, Ames, IA 50011-3120, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen
Received: 19 November 2014 / Accepted: 10 February 2015 / Published: 17 February 2015

Abstract

: Increasing global demand for oil seeds and cereals during the past 50 years has caused an expansion in the cultivated areas and resulted in major soil management and crop production changes throughout Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and southern Brazil. Unprecedented adoption of no-tillage as well as improved soil fertility and plant genetics have increased yields, but the use of purchased inputs, monocropping i.e., continuous soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.), and marginal land cultivation have also increased. These changes have significantly altered the global food and feed supply role of these countries, but they have also resulted in various levels of soil degradation through wind and water erosion, soil compaction, soil organic matter (SOM) depletion, and nutrient losses. Sustainability is dependent upon local interactions between soil, climate, landscape characteristics, and production systems. This review examines the region’s current soil and crop conditions and summarizes several research studies designed to reduce or prevent soil degradation. Although the region has both environmental and soil resources that can sustain current agricultural production levels, increasing population, greater urbanization, and more available income will continue to increase the pressure on South American croplands. A better understanding of regional soil differences and quantifying potential consequences of current production practices on various soil resources is needed to ensure that scientific, educational, and regulatory programs result in land management recommendations that support intensification of agriculture without additional soil degradation or other unintended environmental consequences.
Keywords:
soil degradation; erosion; soil organic matter; no-till; agricultural intensification

1. Introduction

Our global population is anticipated to be 8.1 billion in 2025 and 9.6 billion by 2050, with most of the growth occurring in developing countries [1] and urban settings [2]. In addition to population growth, the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to grow at a rate of 2.1% year−1 from 2005/2007–2050 [3]. Collectively, population growth, increased per capita income, and the resultant anticipated dietary changes (i.e., more meat and dairy consumption) are expected to increase global crop demand by 100%–110% by 2050 [4].

Meeting this global crop demand may be challenging because agricultural production, which grew 2.2% year−1 between 1987 and 2007, is projected to increase at only 1.3% yr−1 between 2005/2007 and 2050 [3]. This estimate was supported by Ray et al. [5] who studied long-term yield trends for maize (Zea mays L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Those four crops represent two thirds of the total agricultural calorie demand. Their study [5] analyzed crop yield data from 1989–2008 and projected yields to 2050 using 2008 as the baseline year. The projections indicated global average increases of 1.6%, 1.0%, 0.9% and 1.3% year−1 for maize, rice, wheat, and soybean, respectively. These values are well below the 2.4% year−1 crop yield increase needed to double current production by 2050.

Fortunately, there are several ways to increase agricultural production. Crop yields can be increased through genetic improvement and perhaps by increasing the amount and types of chemical input. Total production can be increased through more intense land use by reducing the amount of fallow, increasing the number of crops grown per year, and by cultivating new agricultural land. These options were supported by an FAO study [3] that predicted 80% of the future crop production increases will come from developing countries, with 71% of the increase coming from yield increases, 8% through higher cropping intensity and 20% by the addition of arable land.

A portion of the increasing global demand for oil seeds and cereals has been met by increasing the cropping area and converting from conventional tillage (CT) to no-till (NT) throughout Argentina, Bolivia, southern Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay during the past 50 years. Increases in cropping area have been accompanied by changes in land tenancy, tillage practices, and greater overall productivity, but it has also contributed to a loss of crop diversity (i.e., conversion of long-term perennial pastures to grain crop rotations or even monocultures). The transition from CT to NT throughout the region was initially characterized as a tremendous soil management success, but more recently it has been challenged because of the unprecedented expansion of cropland, devoted solely to soybean production, into marginal areas. Our hypothesis is that current agricultural practices are having unanticipated negative effects on soil quality in addition to the impacts associated with the loss of crop diversity.

2. Regional Soil Resource Characteristics

This review focuses on an area of approximately 195 million hectares in South America. The area includes the Pampas and Gran Chaco regions of Argentina and Uruguay, the southern highlands of eastern Paraguay, the eastern lowlands of Bolivia, as well as the Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Parana states of Brazil. Several soil associations are found in this region. Mollisols are dominant throughout the Pampas-Chaco plains and Uruguay [6] and are among the best suited for agriculture because of their high natural fertility. Alfisols are also widespread in the Pampas-Chaco region. Alfisols are generally fertile, with high concentration of nutrient cations. Ultisols and Oxisols are the main soils in southern Brazil and eastern Paraguay; these soils have good physical qualities, but require high lime and phosphorus inputs. Vertisols are located in Entre Rios province at Argentina and Uruguay, with good fertility levels but soil physical properties that demand a careful soil management. Alluvial soils dominate the eastern lowlands of Bolivia, and also have good natural soil fertility.

The development of current agricultural practices throughout the region required the transformation of natural ecosystems into agroecosystems with reduced structural and functional complexity. The agroecosystems are also continuously evolving as the result of natural factors and human actions [7,8,9,10]. At the global scale, agroecosystems have been evolving towards oversimplification characterized by low efficiency of inputs, loss of resilience, intensification of outputs (grains plus stocks, nutrient removal and leaching and soil erosion), increased carbon consumption by the dependence on fossil energy (fertilizers, pesticides and fuel) and loss of soil quality and ecosystem services [11,12,13].

The capacity of agroecosystems to provide ecosystem services mainly depends on the adequate functioning of the soil [9,14]. Soil provides the media for root anchoring and healthy plant growth. In addition, soil health affects availability and transport of water, air and nutrients, the resistance to degradation and erosion, soil temperature, and water and air pollution [14,15]. Soil organic matter (SOM) constitutes one of the most affected soil components by agricultural management practices. SOM depletion is associated with alteration of important soil properties (i.e., fertility, porosity, aeration-water dynamics, resistance to erosion and compaction, among others [16], and to the reduction of the capacity of soil to reorganize and restore its functionality after use or a stressful event [17]. Therefore, the capacity of soil to provide other expected environmental services (i.e., supports biodiversity, regulate water partition and purification, and sequester carbon), is affected [18,19]. Other soil properties important for the adequate functioning of soil as aggregate stability and penetration resistance are impacted. Aggregate stability indicates how aggregates will react to and how porosity will be impacted by environmental events (i.e., precipitation, wetting and drying cycles), while soil penetration resistance indicates the degree of difficulty for roots to grow into the soil, which is related to soil compaction and salinization processes among others that affect nutrient and water use efficiency.

3. Cropping System Changes

The primary cropping systems changed throughout the study area during the past 50 years in response to market globalization and the need to develop an internationally competitive agriculture that was beneficial for the countries, farmers, and society in general [20].

Soybean, maize and wheat have become the primary grain field crops in Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Parana states). These crops represented 63%, 19%, and 12%, respectively, of the total cropped area in 2012 according to FAOSTAT, IGBE and CONAB data [21,22,23]. In the last 54 years, total grain production from those three crops has grown from 14.5 million Mg (16 million tons) in 1961 to over 142 million Mg (156 million tons) in 2013 or roughly a 10-fold increase (Figure 1). Average grain yields for soybean, maize and wheat increased from 1493–2309, from 1489–5485, and from 1114–2386 kg·ha−1, respectively, during this period. According to Manuel-Navarrete et al. [20], agricultural expansion in Argentina has been supported by the adoption of new technologies (i.e., genetic resources, chemical inputs, and agricultural machinery), an increase in grain prices, a relative decrease in input costs, regional agricultural research, active farmer participation, and relatively good and stable climatic conditions [24,25].

The rates of change in cropped area, grain yield, and total production have been different for the various crops and countries within the region (Table 1). In general, soybean has expanded at the expense of other crops and through land use change [26], increasing production at an annual rate of 5.9% from 1961–2013. Most of the increase can be attributed to an increase in production area (5%), with an additional 0.8% attributed to increased grain yield. The largest recent increases in crop area and total soybean production within the study area have occurred in Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay. Increases in southern Brazil have been more moderate, primarily because a significant area in that country was already devoted to soybean in 1961 (Table 1). Wheat production also increased in all the countries except Argentina, mainly due to increased grain yield in southern Brazil and Uruguay, and increased area within Paraguay and Bolivia. For maize, there was a large increase in regional production, primarily due to increased area in southern Brazil and Paraguay and higher grain yield in Uruguay and Argentina. During the 1990s and early 2000s, NT stimulated an increase in soybean/maize rotations which increased diversity, reduced insect pressure, restored SOM, and increased crop residue input and nutrient cycling.

The most significant cropping system changes throughout the region since the mid-1990s were the release and rapid adoption of glyphosate-tolerant (GT) soybean varieties and the unprecedented expansion of NT. Since 1994, soybean production has increased at an annual rate of 6.3%, primarily due to area expansion (+5.5% year−1) at the expense of grasslands, maize, sunflower (Hellianthus annuus L.), and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). By 2012, soybean, maize, and wheat accounted for 67%, 20%, and 13% of the region’s total cropland. With regard to yield, maize showed the highest rate of increase throughout the entire region. Wheat yield increased most rapidly in southern Brazil and Paraguay, while soybean yield increased most rapidly in Paraguay and Uruguay, but overall, yield for both crops increased at a slower pace than maize throughout the region. More recently and despite increases in potential maize yield, the soybean/maize rotation was replaced by a soybean-dominated cropping system. The driver for this change was neither agronomic nor technically based, but simply an economic one. Maize is generally a more expensive crop to grow than soybean. It is also more vulnerable to short drought during critical phenological growth stages and within the region, the commodity price was lower than for soybean.

Figure 1. Fifty-year changes in planted area, grain yield, and total production of wheat, maize, and soybean in Argentina, Bolivia, southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Elaborated with data from FAOSTAT, IBGE and CONAB databases [21,22,23].
Figure 1. Fifty-year changes in planted area, grain yield, and total production of wheat, maize, and soybean in Argentina, Bolivia, southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Elaborated with data from FAOSTAT, IBGE and CONAB databases [21,22,23].
Sustainability 07 02213 g001 1024
Table 1. Rates of change in area, yield, and production for wheat, maize, and soybean in Argentina, Bolivia, southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
Table 1. Rates of change in area, yield, and production for wheat, maize, and soybean in Argentina, Bolivia, southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
PeriodAreaGrain YieldTotal Production
WheatMaizeSoybeanWheatMaizeSoybeanWheatMaizeSoybean
Argentina
1961–2013−0.6%1.1%20.5%1.3%2.5%1.8%0.6%3.6%22.7%
1994–2013−2.5%3.5%6.3%0.8%2.2%1.1%−1.7%5.8%7.4%
Bolivia
1961–20131.7%1.4%16.9%1.3%1.3%1.3%3.1%2.7%18.4%
1994–20133.1%2.3%7.1%2.0%1.5%−0.8%5.1%3.9%6.2%
Southern Brazil (PR-SC-RS)*
1961–20131.8%5.0%2.6%3.2%3.3%1.2%5.0%8.4%3.8%
1994–20135.0%−1.7%3.4%3.3%3.1%1.0%8.5%1.4%4.5%
Paraguay
1961–20138.3%4.7%15.8%2.0%2.3%1.1%10.5%7.1%17.1%
1994–20136.0%8.1%7.7%3.9%3.2%0.7%10.1%11.6%8.4%
Uruguay
1961–20130.6%−1.6%14.3%2.1%3.8%1.9%2.7%2.2%16.4%
1994–20135.9%4.1%26.4%0.0%6.4%2.9%5.9%10.8%30.1%
Total
1961–20130.3%2.0%5.0%1.4%2.5%0.8%1.8%4.6%5.9%
1994–20130.3%1.0%5.5%0.9%2.4%0.8%1.2%3.4%6.3%

Elaborated with data from FAOSTAT, IGBE and CONAB databases [21,22,23]. * PR = Parana; SC = Santa Catarina; RS = Rio Grande do Sul States, Brazil.

Adoption of conservation tillage, including NT, has been a leading practice in South America (Table 2, Figure 2). The initial North American experience with NT (i.e., Shirley Phillips and the University of Kentucky) became an important reference for the first South American experiences with NT during the early 1970s. Pioneer farmers in Brazil and Argentina recognized the importance of maintaining crop residues on the surface to protect against water erosion and to compensate for rapid residue decomposition under high temperature and moisture regimes prevalent throughout the summer cropping season. Although the adoption of NT was relatively slow from the 1970s to 1990s, it increased exponentially following the release of GT soybean varieties. The success of NT in southern Brazil and Argentina became an important reference for its widespread adoption throughout South America. Currently, NT is being used on 70%–90% of the grain crop area in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and Uruguay. Government and farmer associations throughout the region promote adoption of NT for several reasons including its economic benefits, higher or more stable yields through improved water use efficiency, erosion control, saving on fuel and labor/time, and improved soil quality attributes (AUSID, MAGyP) [27,28].

The expansion of GT soybean and NT practices are highly correlated (e.g., 0.90 and 0.73 for Argentina and southern Brazil, respectively) and have been supported by higher soybean prices when compared to other grains within the region (Figure 3). For example, soybean grain prices increased by 196% between 1991 and 2012, compared to increases of 54%, 77%, 59%, 77%, and 96% for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), maize, sorghum, sunflower, and wheat, respectively. Therefore, the main driver for increased soybean production has been the higher price when compared to other grain crops.

It is important to stress that the economic impact of soybean has not only been very positive for farmers but also for the economies of the countries in the region and society as a whole. However, to fully examine the sustainability of this cropping system change, it is important to also examine how it has affected soil resources and overall soil quality.

Table 2. Area under no-tillage in selected South American countries.
Table 2. Area under no-tillage in selected South American countries.
CountryArea under No-Tillage (ha) 2008/2009Percentage of Total Cropped Area
Brazil25,502,00058
Argentina25,553,00070
Paraguay2,400,00090
Bolivia706,00072
Uruguay655,10082

Data source is Friedrich et al. [29].

Figure 2. No-tillage adoption rates in Argentina (a); Brazil (b); and Uruguay (c). Elaborated with data until 2011 for Argentina [30], 2012 for Brazil [23,31], and 2010 for Uruguay [27].
Figure 2. No-tillage adoption rates in Argentina (a); Brazil (b); and Uruguay (c). Elaborated with data until 2011 for Argentina [30], 2012 for Brazil [23,31], and 2010 for Uruguay [27].
Sustainability 07 02213 g002a 1024Sustainability 07 02213 g002b 1024
Figure 3. Twenty-year grain price averages for the primary field crops in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Elaborated with data from FAOSTAT [21].
Figure 3. Twenty-year grain price averages for the primary field crops in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Elaborated with data from FAOSTAT [21].
Sustainability 07 02213 g003 1024

4. Soil Quality Impact of Agricultural Expansion

Assessment of soil quality indicators, including SOM content, N supply, P availability, aggregate stability, bulk density, pH, and others, has received increased attention during the last decade throughout the Pampas and extra-Pampas regions of Argentina as well as in Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, and Paraguay. These assessments have indicated that the cropping system changes, which have generally included removal of pasture from crop rotations, decreased crop diversity with the increased frequency of soybean, and the conversion of marginal land into cropland, are imposing a threat to soil quality [20].

In Argentina, comparisons of soil quality indicators for pristine and agricultural soils show a general reduction in SOM content and aggregate stability and an increase in bulk density with agricultural use (Table 3). Soils with less than 10 years of continuous agriculture had 83%, 62%, and 106% of the pristine SOM content, aggregate stability and bulk density, respectively, while soils 10–20 years of continuous agriculture had 64%, 48% and 116% of the pristine values, respectively (Table 3). These measurements indicate that SOM decreased by approximately 18% per decade of agricultural use.

Table 3. Aggregate stability (AS), soil organic matter (SOM) content, and bulk density (BD) of agricultural and pristine soils in the Pampas region after various years of Agriculture (YOA) and for different soil depth increments.
Table 3. Aggregate stability (AS), soil organic matter (SOM) content, and bulk density (BD) of agricultural and pristine soils in the Pampas region after various years of Agriculture (YOA) and for different soil depth increments.
ZoneSoilYOADepth (m)ASSOMBDSoil pHSoil pHReference
% Relative to Pristine ConditionsPristineCultivated
Extra- pampasO>200–0.1-59143--[32]
Extra-pampasO>200.1–0.2-83126--[32]
Extra-pampasO>200.2–0.3-74128--[32]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls12>0.083757121--[33]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls120–0.084456111--[33]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls>20>0.086483103--[33]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls>200–0.082981105--[33]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls>200–0.23773-6.35.9[34]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls>300–0.22377-6.36.1[34]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls, Natralbolls<10>0.085380106--[33]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls, Natralbolls<100–0.084372122--[33]
Pampas centerM, Argiudolls240–0.202665---[35]
Pampas centerM, Haplustolls, Hapludolls<10>0.084273102--[33]
Pampas centerM, Haplustolls, Hapludolls<100–0.083968110--[33]
Pampas centerM, Haplustolls, Hapludolls>40>0.083775112--[33]
Pampas centerM, Haplustolls, Hapludolls>400–0.083971118--[33]
Pampas center, WM, Hapludolls130–0.204061---[35]
Pampas NI, Haplustept4–230–0.02511575-6.47.3[36]
Pampas NEM, Argiudolls>100–0.1223621166.56.4[37]
Pampas NEM, Argiudolls>200–0.055745109--[38,39]
Pampas NEM, Argiudolls>200.05–0.156084110--[38,39]
Pampas NEM, Argiudolls>200.15–0.3-86---[38,39]
Pampas NEV, Hapluderts>200–0.055745109--[38,39]
Pampas NEV, Hapluderts>200.05–0.156084110--[38,39]
Pampas NEV, Hapluderts>200.15–0.3-86---[38,39]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls200–0.139711137.16.7[40]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls1–40–0.2053731007.57.1[41]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls1–40.20–0.5071721026.97.4[41]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls2–70–0.209585866.97.0[41]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls2–70.20–0.5088861007.77.5[41]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls4–90–0.2091891256.86.8[41]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls4–90.20–0.50661221087.57.2[41]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls30–0.163891055.76.5[42]
Pampas NWM, Haplustolls>100–0.137631205.76.6[42]
Pampas SEM, Argiudolls100–0.204383---[35]

Soil: O: Oxisols, M: Mollisols, V: Vertisols, I: Inceptisols.

In Uruguay, the average SOM decrease in Alfisols after 10+ years of cultivation was 15% [43]. In southern Brazil, Campos et al. [44] reported 23% of decline of SOM in an Oxisol when measured 30 years after the conversion of pasture to grain production with CT practices. Ferreira [45] investigated long-term NT (>20 years) in southern Brazil and reported that compared to native fields, the average SOM declined 12% and 23% for the 0–0.3 and 0–1.0 m soil depths, respectively. In addition to near-surface (≤0.2 m) SOM decline, another soil quality concern is SOM decline in deeper soil layers. This can occur with the current regional cropping systems because of the difficulty in restoring SOM at those depths. The main drivers for SOM decline within the region are: elimination of perennial pasture from long-term rotations, increased soil disturbance associated with tillage, limited rooting depth due to machinery traffic and soil compaction, soil erosion, decreased crop residue input, and less crop diversity. Short-term land tenure, increases in cropland area managed by an individual farmer, and increased inputs of low C/N crop residues also contribute to land use decisions that often reduce SOM levels. Therefore, to prevent current cropping systems from further degrading soil resources, several agronomic, economic and social factors affecting soil quality need to be addressed throughout the region to better understand and improve soil and crop management.

5. Soil Quality Evaluation

The evaluation of soil quality indicators is important to avoid widespread soil degradation due to inappropriate crop management. Previous evaluations at the landscape scale have shown important changes in SOM, pH and P availability (Figure 4) [46,47], and in the soil’s capacity to supply N (Figure 5) [48]. Soil quality assessment within the 0–0.2 m depth of agricultural fields throughout the Pampas and surrounding regions (n > 34,000 samples) indicated that current SOM values ranged from 1 to 83 g·C·kg−1. The highest values were found in the southeast Pampas region and with gradual decline toward the north and west (Figure 4a) [46]. In the same study, low soil pH (<6.0) due to acidity was a concern only in the north Pampas region, while for the majority of the region, soil pH was within normal range for crop production (pH 6.0–7.5) [46]. Assessments of P availability (Bray P) showed low to very low (≤5 mg·kg−1) values throughout the Pampas region (15.2 Mha) and medium to high (≥15 mg·kg−1) values north of that area (12.7 Mha) [47].

Figure 4. Median landscape values for (a) soil organic matter (SOM); (b) soil pH; and (c) available soil phosphorous (Bray P1) in the Pampas region of Argentina. Source: Sainz-Rozas et al., 2011 and 2012 [46,47].
Figure 4. Median landscape values for (a) soil organic matter (SOM); (b) soil pH; and (c) available soil phosphorous (Bray P1) in the Pampas region of Argentina. Source: Sainz-Rozas et al., 2011 and 2012 [46,47].
Sustainability 07 02213 g004 1024
Figure 5. Surface horizon (0–20 cm) potential nitrogen supply (Nan) in cropland soils of Buenos Aires province, Argentina. N = number of observations. Source: Reussi-Calvo et al. 2014 [48].
Figure 5. Surface horizon (0–20 cm) potential nitrogen supply (Nan) in cropland soils of Buenos Aires province, Argentina. N = number of observations. Source: Reussi-Calvo et al. 2014 [48].
Sustainability 07 02213 g005 1024

A similar survey in the 1980s [49] showed that after 25–30 years of cropping, areas that had medium to high levels of P (west and north of the Pampas region) showed a major decrease in p availability due to unbalanced fertilization. On the other hand, areas such as the south of Pampas region which had low to very low levels of P (>10 ppm P-Bray I) had increased P availability due to long term balanced fertilization (Figure 4c) [47]. Nitrogen mineralization potential in Buenos Aires province of Argentina ranged from 12–260 mg·kg−1 with the majority of the fields below 65 mg·kg−1 [48]. Potential N supply showed a high relationship with SOC content and represented a reduction in potential N supply of approximately 50% compared to pristine soils [48]. The availability of these reports constitutes an important step for monitoring and characterizing soil quality indicators and how soil management affects it.

In Uruguay, NT was adopted to mitigate soil loss due to intensive water erosion [50]. This would be expected in improve soil quality and even though other soil and crop management changes are hypothesized to affect the quality of natural resources including soils, quantifying long-term effects has been considered very difficult because of the lack of baseline soil quality data [51]. Therefore, several studies have measured the impact of agricultural practices on soil quality indicators as compared to undisturbed conditions. For example, a 2009–2010 survey of commercial operations in Uruguay showed an average reduction in SOM of 20% [52]. The loss of potentially mineralizable N (PMN) was reported to be as high as 41.5%. These results are consistent with previous findings [53] and are presumed to be real because most PMN is contained in the biologically active SOM fraction which is easily degraded by agricultural operations. The variability of both parameters was very high, with 20% of locations reporting SOM increases between 1% and 20%, and 30% of locations reporting losses between 30% and 60%. This indicates there are important interactions between soil management, soil type, climate, and cropping system. Regarding PMN, 12% of the locations had increases between 1% and 14% while 30% of locations reported losses between 35% and 80% [52]. A different study [51] compared soils under dairy pasture with those from crop production fields and reported that both systems had 20% SOM losses. However, PMN losses from cropland soils were much higher (42%) than in pasture soils (26%). This difference is attributed to higher soil N input by legumes in dairy pastures compared to N removal by grain production.

In 2009, Mori [43] quantified several other soil quality indicators [SOM, PMN, total N (TN), exchangeable bases (EB) and water pH] in agricultural Mollisols within Uruguay (Table 4). The study showed SOM and NPM losses of 15% and 17%, respectively, for agricultural and native systems. Other negatively affected indicators were TN (−23.7%), EB (−10.5%) and pH (−7.3%). The study also demonstrated high correlation among some soil quality indicators (e.g., SOM, TN, EB and pH) (Figure 6) and therefore, soil management strategies that result in the simultaneous losses of C, N and EB are likely to cause a sharp decline in soil quality.

The use of CT in early 1970s in southern Brazil and in the 1980s in Paraguay resulted in severe (>50 Mg·ha−1·year−1) soil erosion due to intensive rainfall during the maize and soybean establishment period of September to December. It was estimated that soil loss for each Mg of harvested grain was 10 Mg·ha−1 throughout the 1970s [54,55]. The use of CT also promoted wind erosion in sandy soils and flat croplands and resulted in significant runoff from bare soil on the undulating topography of southern Brazil and Paraguay croplands [54].

Table 4. The range and average change (agricultural versus undisturbed conditions) in selected soil quality indicators of 15 Argiudolls from Uruguay.
Table 4. The range and average change (agricultural versus undisturbed conditions) in selected soil quality indicators of 15 Argiudolls from Uruguay.
AverageSOMTNPMNEBpH
Young−16.4%−25.0%−21.6%−6.0%−5.7%
San Manuel−14.0%−22.7%−12.8%−14.4%−8.6%
All−15.1%−23.7%−16.9%−10.5%−7.3%
Range
Min−37.0%−41.9%−54.3%−38.2%−17.1%
Max1.8%−1.4%51.0%15.8%5.9%

Elaborated with data from Mori [43]. SOM: Soil organic matter; TN: total nitrogen; PMN: potentially mineralizable nitrogen; EB: exchangeable bases; pH: water-pH.

Figure 6. The statistical relationship between soil quality indicators (SOC, NT, EB and water-pH) in San Manuel (closed) and Young (open) soils from Uruguay. Regression results based on pooled data from both sites. Elaborated with data from Mori [43].
Figure 6. The statistical relationship between soil quality indicators (SOC, NT, EB and water-pH) in San Manuel (closed) and Young (open) soils from Uruguay. Regression results based on pooled data from both sites. Elaborated with data from Mori [43].
Sustainability 07 02213 g006 1024

The intense soil disturbance of Oxisols by CT also resulted in decreased soil aggregate size and, as a consequence, labile fractions of SOC that were previously occluded inside aggregates were exposed to microbial processes. Soil erosion also removed the top soil carrying with it SOM and clay fractions, thus resulting in a sharp decline in soil quality. Biological oxidation of SOM was also stimulated by tillage, mixing of crop residues, and high temperature and moisture conditions during the summer. It was estimated that with CT, crop residue input as high as 16 Mg·ha−1·year−1 would be necessary to maintain SOC content [55]. Needless to say, achieving such a level of crop residue is very difficult with grain crops. For southern Brazil and Paraguay, the first steps toward improving soil quality were associated with reducing soil disturbance by conversion from CT to NT and by increasing crop residue inputs to maintain soil protection throughout the year. Long-term experiments with agricultural grain crop rotations indicated that even under NT it is necessary to design crop systems with high amounts of crop residue input in order to balance the fast SOM decay associated with high temperature and moisture conditions in subtropical and tropical environments of southern Brazil and Paraguay [56]. Furthermore, adoption of higher crop diversity and incorporation of pastures with well-developed root systems will help restore soil structure and relieve soil compaction issues associated with the large soybean expansion area. Equilibrated soil fertilization, lime and use of soil amendments as gypsum, should also be considered as tools to sustain high crop residue input, especially on the naturally acid and low fertility soils of southern Brazil [57].

6. Developing Cropping Systems for Sustained Grain Yield, Maintenance of Soil Quality, and Environmental Protection

In southern Brazil, a recent study carried out by Ferreira [45] in six different croplands showed that there was an average SOM decline of 23% in the 0–100 cm soil layer after 25 years of CT. On-farm research showed SOM values that were similar to those observed in the few long-term experiments carried out in Rio Grande do Sul [44]. On the other side, restoration of SOM with NT in southern Brazil has been shown to be a long term process (>20 years) with increases ranging from 61%–117% (Figure 7) depending upon climate, clay content and crop rotation. With continuous soybean crops in summer and black oat (Avena strigosa Schieb.) or wheat in the winter, there was only a slight increase in SOM under NT in relation to CT. Conversely, crop rotations that included soybean alternated with maize as summer crops and cover crops during winter showed enhanced SOM restoration in the range of 85%–116%. In the region, it is possible to grow crops all year along since there is only a very short window of frost, and rainfall is generally well distributed. Typically, successful farmers use cover crops mixtures that include black oat + vetch (Vicia sativa L.) + oilseed radish (Raphanus sativus var. oleiferus Metzg.) before maize, which is then followed by oilseed radish during a short 3 month window after which wheat followed by soybean are grown. This crop rotation is designed to increase crop residue input, increase crop diversity and sustain high grain yields. In the scenario of long-term soybean as the main summer crop, special attention must be given to the use of cover crops and pastures in the short windows in order to maintain soil quality.

In Argentina, studies on SOM dynamics in Mollisols within the southeast of the Pampas region showed a quick decline in SOC (Figure 8a) and its particulate fraction (POC) when soils under pasture were converted to cropland regardless if they were managed using CT (moldboard plow) or NT management [58,59,60]. Crops used in the rotation had a significant impact on the rate of SOC loss [46] which was primarily associated with the amount of C returned through crop residues input [61,62]. Under continuous grain cropping, adoption of NT resulted in reduced losses, or even increases in SOC and POC in shallow soil layers (0–5 cm) regardless of fertilizer management [60,62,63,64,65], or agricultural intensification levels [66]. However, none of these studies reported improvements in SOC or POC due only to the adoption of NT or to fertilization when the 0–20 cm depth soil layer was taken into account. Nonetheless, the inclusion of a 3-year pasture in the rotation after 7–8 years of grain crops restored SOC (Figure 8a) and POC contents to original contents before cropping after pasture [58,60]. These results suggest that for the naturally rich SOM Mollisols of the southeastern Pampa, restoration and maintenance of SOM content within sustainable levels would require a combination of NT and pasture in rotation with grain crops.

Figure 7. Soil organic matter in the 0–100 cm soil depth following the use of conventional tillage to replace native pasture with grain crops and after conversion to no-till with different soybean-based crop rotations. Source: Ferreira (2014) [45].
Figure 7. Soil organic matter in the 0–100 cm soil depth following the use of conventional tillage to replace native pasture with grain crops and after conversion to no-till with different soybean-based crop rotations. Source: Ferreira (2014) [45].
Sustainability 07 02213 g007 1024

Direct consequences of SOC and POC loss under cropping systems include the reduction of soil N and S supplying capacity [48,67,68,69,70] and an increased dependence on N [71,72] and S [73] fertilizers to maintain crop yields. Under continuous cropping, potential N supply within 85% of farmer fields in the southeast of Pampas region was <100 mg·N·kg−1 while only 35% of soils under crop rotations including short term pastures were below that level [74]. Regarding aggregate stability, both physical breakdown of aggregates and loss of SOM due to soil disturbance contributed to the reduced aggregate stability of soils under agriculture [58,75,76] The use of NT delayed the reduction in aggregate stability compared to CT, but ultimately, aggregate stability reached similar values for both systems [77]. Furthermore, within the 0–20 cm soil depth, aggregate stability under continuous cropping did not improve with the conversion of CT to NT [77]. Aggregate stability was highly related to POC content [78] and particularly with POC content in macro-aggregates [79]. However, the introduction of a pasture in the rotation not only resulted in recovery of SOC and POC contents but also improved aggregate stability (Figure 8b) [58,77,78]. Based on these studies, we conclude that cropping systems need to be designed and developed regionally. For Mollisols in Argentina under temperate climate conditions, crop rotations including pastures were more critical to aggregate stability and SOC content than tillage systems or fertilization. However, for tropical and subtropical environments in southern Brazil and Paraguay, the role of minimum soil disturbance, lime and fertilization were more critical.

Figure 8. Changes in (a) soil organic C; and (b) aggregate stability in the arable layer of Mollisols from the southeast Pampas region of Argentina. Elaborated from Studdert et al. [60] and unpublished data.
Figure 8. Changes in (a) soil organic C; and (b) aggregate stability in the arable layer of Mollisols from the southeast Pampas region of Argentina. Elaborated from Studdert et al. [60] and unpublished data.
Sustainability 07 02213 g008 1024

In a review of long term experiments in Uruguay, Garcia Préchac et al. [80] reported a six-fold erosion reduction under NT compared to CT conditions. Soil losses were similar between continuous pastures and crop rotations that incorporated pasture suggesting the efficacy of pastures to reduce soil erosion was evident even in short-term rotations. Using USLE modeling, they estimated an average annual erosion rate of less than 7 Mg·ha−1·year−1 in a Typic Argiudoll in a soybean/wheat or in a soybean/winter cover crop rotation. This is a moderate level according to Clérici et al. [81]. Using Century modeling [82], the same crop rotations were projected to result in long-term SOC losses.

In another study in Uruguay, Salvo et al. [83] quantified changes in SOC stocks in a long term study that included CT and NT and two crop rotations (continuous grain crops, versus a rotation with three-years of pasture and three years of grain crops). The study was carried on a Typic Argiudoll and the measurements were taken 10 years after initiation of the experiment. The results comparing NT versus CT, showed a SOC increase of 29% within the 0–3 cm depth under NT. Under CT, the rotation that included pastures increased SOC content by 23% at the same soil depth. The inclusion of maize under NT and pasture-crop rotations resulted in a 12% increase in SOC as compared with the treatment with only soybean and sunflower as summer crops. The evolution of SOC and other physical properties after the incorporation of winter pastures such as ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) to continuous soybeans managed under NT was investigated by Sawchik et al. [84]. After six years, SOC within the 0–7.5 cm layer was 17% higher on treatments with soybean and winter pasture than under continuous soybean. Infiltration rates were also higher in treatments with soybean and winter pasture compared to continuous soybean. Thus, in Uruguay, the recommendation for maintaining a stable SOC content requires inclusion of pastures and alternating C3 and C4 summer crops instead of using only C3 summer crops as soybean.

Soil management effects on soil quality in two long-term experiments carried out on Alfisols in Rio Grande do Sul were evaluated by Amado et al. [85]. They found that CO2 respiration, aggregate stability and infiltration rates were the most effective soil quality indicators to discriminate between cropping and tillage systems. In general, the adoption of NT and use of cover crops increased CO2 respiration suggesting higher biological activity (Table 5). Adoption of NT also resulted in enhanced aggregate stability, increased infiltration rates, and reduced soil erosion. In this study, the decline of SOC was associated with decreased CO2 respiration, aggregate stability and infiltration suggesting a loss of soil quality with CT and in association with lack of crop rotation. They also reported that the soil quality kit from USDA/ARS was an efficient tool to evaluate soil quality under contrasting soil management scenarios in the region. From the two long-term experiments, it was determined that improved cropping systems should have legume cover crops or pasture in the crop rotation in order to increase both crop N and C inputs to soil. Therefore, the treatments under NT that have hairy vetch in consortium with black oats, maize in consortium with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.), or tropical legume cover crops such as pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.), lab-lab (Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet) or mucuna (Mucuna sp.) in consortium with maize had the best soil quality. Furthermore, in this case, mineral N fertilization applied to maize did not replace the role of a legume cover crop for improving soil quality.

Campos et al. [44] in a long-term experiment carried out on an Oxisol reported a linear relationship between crop residue input and SOC stock in the 0–30 cm soil depth (Figure 9). This study supports previous research suggesting an annual dry matter input of 8–10 Mg·ha−1·year−1 is needed to maintain or increase SOC stock under NT [55]. In addition, this experiment showed an increase of 16% in crop residue production under NT compared to CT. The increase in crop residue input under NT may be associated with the improvement in soil fertility and soil quality compared to CT [44].

Table 5. Soil respiration (CO2), aggregate stability (AS), pH, nitrate and nitrite content (N-NO3 + N-NO2), bulk density and infiltration rate for different management systems (MGMENT) and two soils using the Soil Quality Kit (SQK) and the reference method (REF).
Table 5. Soil respiration (CO2), aggregate stability (AS), pH, nitrate and nitrite content (N-NO3 + N-NO2), bulk density and infiltration rate for different management systems (MGMENT) and two soils using the Soil Quality Kit (SQK) and the reference method (REF).
MGMENTCO2ASpHN-NO3 + N-NO2Bulk DensityInfiltration Rate
SQKREFSQKREFSQKREFSQKREFSQKREFSQKREF
kg·ha−1·day−1% kg·ha−1Mg·m−3mm·h−1
Rhodic Paleudalf
Bare fallow6.7 b115.9 b33.423.9 b5.6 a5.5 b1.2 b1.21.72 a1.66 a<1 c1
NT Fw/M23.8 b36 b54.978.9 a5.7 a5.6 ab1.9 a3.01.45 ab1.34 b75 b50
NT P/M21.4 b35.3 b61.476.8 a5.6 a5.6 b2.0 a2.51.45 ab1.41 b202 a86
NT M/Lcc54.0 a80.9 a64.177.7 a5.8 a5.8 a2.0 a2.01.33 b1.35 b190 a195
NV43.5 a97.4 a7196.8 a5.2 b5.3 c0.9 b1.21.35 b1.37 b35 bc23
CV (%)12.916.923.17.31.50.75.423.34.62.815.599.6
p-value0.0030.0050.2090.0020.010.0020.0020.0560.0220.0080.0080.216
R0.95 ***0.86 **0.98 ***0.69 *0.85 **0.60 ns
Typic Paleudult
CT O/M 0N16.2 b26.7 e51.5 c52.2 b5.4 a5.5 ab1.7 b2.6 c1.391.37601 ab392
CT O/M17.4 b36.6 de55.6 bc62.7 b5.1 ab5.3 ab2.2 b3.3 bc1.371.42570 ab308
RT O/M16.0 b36.3 de54.7 bc63.8 b5.4 ab5.5 ab5.0 b5.1 bc1.491.46319 abc570
NT O/M20.5 b51.6 cd64.4 ab86.9 a5.7 a5.7 a5.2 b5.9 abc1.491.42188 bc142
NT O + V/M + CB24.5 b58.8 bc64.7 ab88.1 a5.1 ab5.4 ab9.5 a8.4 ab1.341.43461 abc310
NT M+PB39.9 a73.5 ab71.0 a97.2 a4.5 b4.9 b12.1 a11 a1.321.30690 a356
NV40.4 a87.6 a70.0 a93.1 a5.1 ab5.3 ab1.5 b2.1 c1.431.5240 c6
CV (%)1812.56.575.84.727.132.96.76.142.1108.7
p-value0.00010.000020.00040.000020.017620.028460.000040.00070.22230.12780.00560.4593
R0.85 ***0.910.98 ***0.91 ***0.50 *0.42 ns

Source: Amado et al. [85]. 1 Means in a column followed by same letters are similar at the 0.05 probability level using Tukey. (2) ***, **, *: significant at 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05. ns: non-significant. CV (%) = variation coefficient. NV = native vegetation; CT = conventional tillage; RT = reduced tillage; NT = no tillage; P = pasture; Fw = fallow; Lcc = legume cover crop; O = oat; M = maize; V = vetch; CB = cowpea; PB = pigeon pea; 0N = no N fertilization; p-value: probability value; R: correlation coefficient.

Figure 9. The relationship between annual C input and soil organic C stocks (0–0.30 m) within a subtropical Oxisol under conventional (CT) and no-till (NT) systems. Source: Campos et al. [44].
Figure 9. The relationship between annual C input and soil organic C stocks (0–0.30 m) within a subtropical Oxisol under conventional (CT) and no-till (NT) systems. Source: Campos et al. [44].
Sustainability 07 02213 g009 1024

In a study including native vegetation, CT and NT treatments from Argentina, United States and Brazil, the role of biological activity in soil C protection was investigated [86]. The soil types were Mollisol (United States), Vertisol (Argentina) and Oxisol (Brazil) with long-term tillage system adoption. Microbial biomass, evaluated by total phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA), was higher in NT than in CT for the Mollisol and Oxisol probably due to maintained permanent soil protection and high C input by crop residues (Figure 10). Biological activity was also related to the amount of macroaggregates in topsoil (Figure 11). The relationship was stronger in the Mollisol than Oxisol, presumably reflecting the presence of iron and aluminium oxides and higher tillage intensity (eight crops in three years). The presence of macroaggregates has been suggested as an important mechanism for C protection under NT systems. With the exception of the 0–5 cm depth increment in the Oxisol, CT and NT had decreased amounts of macroaggregates and increased amounts of microaggregates when compared to native vegetation (Figure 12). These results agree with aggregate stability findings for long-term tillage experiments on Mollisols from the southeastern Pampas region and Oxisols of Brazil mentioned previously. Long-term NT adoption contributed to the improvement of some soil quality indicators in the region and was crucial for reducing soil erosion. However, quality of agricultural soils in the region has been affected despite the unprecedented adoption of this soil conservation practice. Fortunately, research findings point out that soil quality recovery throughout the region is possible with an integrated soil management approach that includes NT, crop rotations that include short term pasture, and balanced fertilization.

Figure 10. Mean and standard error (SE) values for microbial biomass estimated through PLFA using tilled (T), no-till (NT) and native grassland samples from the 0–0.05 m increments of an Oxisol (Brazil), Mollisol (USA) and Vertisol (Argentina). Source: Fabrizzi et al. [86]. Reproduced with permission from journal of Biogeochemistry.
Figure 10. Mean and standard error (SE) values for microbial biomass estimated through PLFA using tilled (T), no-till (NT) and native grassland samples from the 0–0.05 m increments of an Oxisol (Brazil), Mollisol (USA) and Vertisol (Argentina). Source: Fabrizzi et al. [86]. Reproduced with permission from journal of Biogeochemistry.
Sustainability 07 02213 g010 1024
Figure 11. The relationship between microbial biomass, estimated through the PLFA technique, and the amount of macroaggregates (>250 µm) in an Oxisol (▲), Vertisol (■), and Mollisol (◊). Source: Fabrizzi et al. [73]. Reproduced with permission from journal of Biogeochemistry.
Figure 11. The relationship between microbial biomass, estimated through the PLFA technique, and the amount of macroaggregates (>250 µm) in an Oxisol (▲), Vertisol (■), and Mollisol (◊). Source: Fabrizzi et al. [73]. Reproduced with permission from journal of Biogeochemistry.
Sustainability 07 02213 g011 1024
Figure 12. Distribution of sand-free water stable aggregates (WSA) under tilled (T), no-till (NT) and native grassland within the 0–5, 0–15, and 15–30 cm depth increments for the Oxisol, Vertisol, and Mollisol sites. Error bars represent the standard errors of the means. Source: Fabrizzi et al. [73]. Reproduced with permission from journal of Biogeochemistry.
Figure 12. Distribution of sand-free water stable aggregates (WSA) under tilled (T), no-till (NT) and native grassland within the 0–5, 0–15, and 15–30 cm depth increments for the Oxisol, Vertisol, and Mollisol sites. Error bars represent the standard errors of the means. Source: Fabrizzi et al. [73]. Reproduced with permission from journal of Biogeochemistry.
Sustainability 07 02213 g012 1024

7. Strategies for Protecting and Restoring Regional Soil Quality

Recognizing that soil is a nonrenewable resource, several legislative efforts have been initiated throughout the region to recognize, conserve, and protect both the ecosystem services and capacity for food production provided by agricultural soils. Bolivia and Uruguay have national laws of soil use and conservation under agricultural management, while in Argentina and Brazil several provinces/states have specific legislation for soil conservation. In Uruguay, farmers are currently required to develop a Land Use Management Plan with the advice of a certified agronomist for each specific field under agricultural management [87]. Each management plan is then used to determine potential soil erosion associated with the proposed management by using a software package (Erosion 6.0) based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). For a plan to be approved, the estimated potential erosion needs to be less than the maximum allowable soil loss threshold for that soil. The Environment Protection law in Bolivia states that agricultural activities should maintain soil productive capacity and avoid soil loss and degradation [88]. To obtain and maintain a soil use license, farmers need to comply with the solicitation requirements by presenting a Management Plan and a Study of Environmental Impacts, to follow the conditions stated in the granting documentation (the Environmental Impact Declaration) of the regulatory authority, and to report the plan progress. The license is valid for 10 years if all the requirements are met. In San Luis province (Argentina), there is an enforced legislation with emphasis on peanuts (Arachis hypogeae L.) due to the crop’s high risk for soil erosion. Similar to Uruguay, farmers that want to grow peanuts in San Luis province are required to present a five year management plan with the advice of a certified agronomist for each field under production [89]. The plans are evaluated for the potential soil loss based on soil and landscape characteristics, proposed rotations and technology. In Entre Ríos province, Argentina [90], and Parana State of southern Brazil there are specific legislative actions promoting soil conservation practices (e.g., construction of terraces). The legislation is voluntary with modest government support in Argentina, but mandatory in Brazil. The Argentinean legislation in Entre Ríos province also establishes mandatory and voluntary areas for implementation of conservation practices in the province, where farmers in mandatory conservation areas should abide to the conservation guidelines. While not widely spread in the region, these soil conservation efforts based on research findings constitute a starting point for directing the future agricultural expansion towards socially acceptable, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable systems.

8. Summary and Conclusions

This review provides an overview of research that supports our hypothesis that South America’s current agricultural practices are detrimental to long-term soil quality even though NT has become a cornerstone for those practices. The analysis highlights the impact of monocultures and a general lack of biodiversity on soil degradation through wind and water erosion, SOM depletion and nutrient loss.

We found that regional economic and land tenure conditions are at odds with practices aimed at long term soil quality conservation and improvement. However, there is strong evidence that farmers embrace new practices if they understand the challenges and benefits. In the region, the adoption of NT was a voluntary reaction by farmers, agronomists and researchers in response to the unsustainable soil erosion observed under CT. The region’s adoption of NT was a huge success reaching more than 54 million ha (approximately 45% of global NT area) in less than three decades without direct government financial support for the conversion from CT to NT. In the soybean cropland of the main agroecozones, NT reached adoption rates as high as 90%.

Codifying this trend, Uruguay and Bolivia, and provinces/states in Argentina and Brazil established soil conservation regulations. A couple examples include requiring soil use management plans with a crop rotation program (Uruguay and the San Luis province, Argentina) and promoting the construction of terraces (Entre Ríos province, Argentina and Parana state, Brazil). These government programs differ greatly from those in USA, Canada, and Australia, because they do not stimulate farmers economically for adopting conservation management practices and providing environmental services for the entire society.

Regional farmer adoption of NT without government support needs to be used as an example when looking for solutions to resolve soil degradation problems and the need for increased biodiversity and crop diversification. Developing and achieving adoption of alternative crop rotation systems with equivalent economic return has been a challenge for regional farmers, despite the positive and well-documented impacts of incorporating cover crops, pasture and even maize in the rotation found in agronomic research. There remains a need for multiple types of educational materials and programs that emphasize the importance of conserving the environment and enhancing soil quality. Ultimately, however, farmer compensation (direct and/or market based) for environmental services (i.e., carbon sequestration, reducing nutrient runoff, and increasing biodiversity) may be required to overcome the increasing use of crop monocultures. In developed countries, consumers and retailers are requesting sustainable agricultural commodities. These demands will affect the global supply chain and producers will need to adapt to meet those requirements that often include soil quality performance indicators.

Argentina, Bolivia, southern Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay have tremendous agricultural potential but without aggressive action and changing current crop production trends, the region will suffer soil degradation as the growing global population increases demand for food. New paradigms of agricultural production are needed to improve current soil conditions. Increased cooperation between the government, scientific community and farmers is crucial for developing effective long term solutions. Everyone’s aim should be to develop more sustainable agricultural systems that balance soil quality, environmental sustainability and agricultural production while maintaining economic and social benefits for all.

Acknowledgments

We like to thank the contribution of Emilio Oyarzabal with the conception, discussion, data gathering, and writing of the drafts and revisions of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

Ana Wingeyer, Telmo Amado, Mario Pérez-Bidegain, Carlos Perdomo Varela, Guillermo Studdert and Fernando García were involved in the conception, discussion, and data gathering for this review. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and gave thought to the conclusions. Doug Karlen edited the manuscript and provided critical final review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. United Nations. United Nations World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision Highlights; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tilman, D.; Balzer, C.; Hill, J.; Befort, B.L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 20260–20264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One 2013, 8. Article 6. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Duran, A.; Morrás, H.; Studdert, G.; Liu, X. Distribution, properties, land use and management of Mollisols in South America. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2011, 21, 511–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture; Institute of Technology Publications: London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tivy, J. Agricultural Ecology; Longman Scientific & Technical: Harlow, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lal, R. Tillage effects on soil degradation, soil resilience, soil quality, and sustainability. Soil Tillage Res. 1993, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Elliott, E.T.; Cole, C.V. A perspective on Agroecosystem Science. Ecology 1989, 70, 1597–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Addiscott, T.M. Entropy and sustainability. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1995, 46, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J. Beyond the Limits; Chelsea Green Publishing Company: Post Mills, VT, USA, 1992; p. 205. [Google Scholar]
  13. Viglizzo, E.F. La interacción sistema-ambiente en condiciones extensivas de producción. Rev. Argent. Prod. Anim. 1989, 9, 279–294. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hillel, D. An overview of soil and water management: The challenge of enhancing productivity and sustainability. In Soil Management: Building A Stable Base for Agriculture; Hatfield, J.L., Sauer, T.J., Eds.; Am. Soc. Agron.; Soil Sci. Soc. Am.: Madison, WI, USA, 2011; pp. 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  15. Reicosky, D.C.; Sauer, T.J.; Hatfield, J.L. Challenging balance between productivity and environmental quality: Tillage impacts. In Soil Management: Building A Stable Base for Agriculture; Hatfield, J.L., Sauer, T.J., Eds.; Am. Soc. Agron.; Soil Sci. Soc. Am.: Madison, WI, USA, 2011; pp. 13–37. [Google Scholar]
  16. Weil, R.R.; Magdoff, F. Significance of soil organic matter to soil quality and health. In Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture; Magdoff, F., Weil, R.R., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kanal, A.; Kolli, R. Influence of cropping on the content, composition and dynamics of organic residue in the soil of the plough layer. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1996, 23, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lal, R. Enhancing eco-efficiency in agro-ecosystems through soil C sequestration. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, S120–S131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Powlson, D.S.; Gregory, P.J.; Whalley, W.R.; Quinton, J.N.; Hopkins, D.W.; Whitmore, A.P.; Hirsch, P.R.; Goulding, K.W.T. Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy 2011, 36, S72–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Manuel-Navarrete, D.; Gallopin, G.C.; Blanco, M.; Diaz-Zorita, M.; Ferraro, D.O.; Herzer, H.; Laterra, P.; Murmis, M.R.; Podesta, G.P.; Rabinovich, J.; et al. Multi-causal and integrated assessment of sustainability: The case of agriculturization in the Argentine pampas. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11, 621–638. [Google Scholar]
  21. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division. Economic and Social Development Department; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  22. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (IBGE). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. Available online: http://www.ibge.gov.br/ (accessed on 15 November 2014).
  23. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimiento (CONAB). Companhia Nacional de Abastecimiento. Brazil. Available online: http://www.conab.gov.br (accessed on 15 November 2014).
  24. Sierra, E.M.; Hurtado, R.H.; Spescha, L. Corrimiento de las isoyetas anuales medias decenales en la región pampeana 1941–1990. Rev. Fac. Agron. UBA 1994, 14, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  25. De la Casa, A.C.; Ovando, G.G. Climate change and its impact on agricultural potential in the central region of Argentina between 1941 and 2010. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2014, 195–196, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  26. Viglizzo, E.F.; Frank, F.C.; Carreno, L.V.; Jobbagy, E.G.; Pereyra, H.; Clatt, J.; Pincen, D.; Ricard, F.M. Ecological and environmental footprint of 50 years of agricultural expansion in Argentina. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 959–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Asociación Uruguaya pro Siembra Direta. Guía de Siembra Directa. Available online: http://www.ausid.com.uy (accessed on 15 November 2014).
  28. Pognante, J.; Bragachini, M.; Casini, C. Siembra Directa; Actualización Técnica 58; PRECOP-INTA, MAGyP: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2011; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
  29. Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R.; Kassam, A. Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. Field Actions Sci. Rep. 2012, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  30. Asociación Argentina de Productores en Siembra Directa. Relevamiento de Superficie Agrícola Bajo Siembra Directa 2010. Available online: http://www.aapresid.org.ar/superficie/ (accessed on 10 October 2014).
  31. Federação Brasileira de Plantio Direto na Palha. Área do Sistema Plantio Directo. Available online: http://febrapdp.org.br/area-de-pd (accessed on 10 October 2014).
  32. Toledo, D.M.; Galantinni, J.A.; Ferreccio, E.; Arzuaga, S.; Gimenez, L.; Vazquez, S. Indicadores e índices de calidad en suelos rojos bajo sistemas naturales y cultivados. Cienc. Suelo 2013, 31, 201–212. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferreras, L.; Magra, G.; Besson, P; Kovalevski, E.; García, F. Indicadores de calidad física en suelos de la Región Pampeana Norte de Argentina bajo siembra directa. Cienc. Suelo 2007, 25, 159–172. [Google Scholar]
  34. Urricariet, S.; Lavado, R.S. Indicadores de deterioro en suelos de la pampa ondulada. Cienc. Suelo 1999, 17, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  35. Vázquez, M.E.; Berazategui, L.A.; Chamorro, E.R.; Taquini, L.A.; Barberis, L.A. Evolución de la estabilidad estructural y diferentes propiedades químicas según el uso de los suelos en tres áreas de la Pradera Pampeana. Cienc. Suelo 1990, 8, 203–210. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rojas, J.M.; Buschiazzo, D.E.; Arce, O.E.A. Parámetros edáficos relacionados con la erosión eólica en inceptisoles del Chaco. Cienc. Suelo 2013, 31, 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wilson, M.; Paz-Ferreiro, J. Effects of Soil-Use Intensity on Selected Properties of Mollisols in Entre Ríos, Argentina. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Novelli, L.E.; Caviglia, O.P.; Melchiori, R.J.M. Impact of soybean cropping frequency on soil carbon storage in Mollisols and Vertisols. Geoderma 2011, 167–168, 254–260. [Google Scholar]
  39. Novelli, L.E.; Caviglia, O.P.; Wilson, M.G.; Sasal, M.C. Land use intensity and cropping sequence effects on aggregate stability and C storage in a Vertisol and a Mollisol. Geoderma 2013, 195–196, 260–267. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sanzano, G.A.; Corbella, R.D.; García, J.R.; Fadda, G.S. Degradación física y química de un Haplustol típico bajo distintos sistemas de manejo de suelo. Cienc. Suelo 2005, 23, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
  41. Barbero, M.F. Evolución del Carbono en Suelos Provenientes de Monte Bajo Siembra Directa del Área Subhúmeda Templada y Subtropical de Argentina. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Cordoba, Argentina, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  42. Campitelli, P.; Aoki, A.; Gudelf, O.; Rubenacker, A.; Sereno, R. Selección de indicadores de calidad de suelo para determinar los efectos del uso y prácticas agrícolas en un área piloto de la región central de Córdoba. Cienc. Suelo 2010, 28, 233–231. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mori, C. Cambios en la Abundancia Natural de 15N Debidos a la Perturbación Agrícola. Tesis de Maestría, Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo, Uruguay, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Campos, B.C.; Amado, T.J.C.; Bayer, C.; Nicoloso, R.S.; Fiorin, J.E. Carbon stock and its compartments in a subtropical oxisol under long-term tillage and crop rotation systems. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2011, 35, 805–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ferreira, A.O. Estoque de Carbono em Areas Pioneiras de Plantio Direto no Rio Grande do Sul. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Echeverria, H.E.; Angelini, H.P. Organic carbon and pH levels in agricultural soils of the pampa and extra-pampean regions of Argentina. Cienc. Suelo 2011, 29, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sainz Rozas, H.; Echeverria, H.; Angelini, H. Available phosphorus in agricultural soils of the pampa and extra-pampas regions of Argentina. RIA 2012, 38, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  48. Reussi Calvo, N.; Calandroni, M.; Studdert, G.; Cabria, F.; Diovisalvi, N.; Berardo, A. Nitrógeno incubado en anaerobiosis y carbono orgánico en suelos agrícolas de Buenos Aires. Cienc. Suelo 2014. in press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Darwich, N.A. Niveles de fósforo asimilable en los suelos pampeanos. IDIA 1983, 409–412, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pérez Bidegain, M.; García Préchac, F.; Hill, M.; Clérici, C. La erosión de suelos en sistemas agrícolas. In Intensificación Agrícola: Oportunidades y Amenazas Para un País Productivo y Natura; Universidad de la Republica: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2010; pp. 67–88. [Google Scholar]
  51. Morón, A.; Molfino, J.; Ibañez, W.; Sawchik, J.; Califra, A.; Lazbal, E.; La Manna, A.; Malcuori, E. La calidad de los suelos bajo producción lechera en los principales departamentos de la cuenca: Carbono y nitrógeno. In Seminario: Sustentabilidad Ambiental de los Sistemas Lecheros en un Contexto Económico de Cambios; INIA: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2011; pp. 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  52. Morón, A.; Quincke, A.; Molfino, J.; Ibáñez, W.; García, A. Soil quality assessment of Uruguayan agricultural soils. Agrocienc. Urug. 2012, 16, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
  53. Moron, A.; Sawchik, J. Soil quality indicators in a long term crop-pasture rotation experiment in Uruguay. In Proceedings of the 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok, Thailand, 14–20 August 2002.
  54. Bollinger, A.; Magid, J.; Amado, T.J.C.; Neto, F.S.; Ribeiro, M.; Calegari, A.; Ralisch, R.; Neergaard, A. Taking stock of the brazilian “zero-till revolution”: A review of landmark research and farmer practice. Adv. Agron. 2006, 91, 47–110. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mielniczuk, J.; Bayer, C.; Vezzani, F.M.; Lovato, T.; Fernandes, F.F.; Debarba, L. Manejo de solo e culturas e sua relação com os estoques de carbono e nitrogênio do solo. Top. Cienc. Solo 2003, 3, 209–248. [Google Scholar]
  56. Amado, T.J.C.; Bayer, C.; Conceicao, P.C.; Spagnollo, E.; Costa de Campos, B.H.; da Veiga, M. Potential of carbon accumulation in no-till soils with intensive use and cover crops in southern Brazil. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1599–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Dalla Nora, D.; Amado, T.J.C. Improvement in chemical attributes of oxisol subsoil and crop yields under no-till. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1393–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Studdert, G.A.; Echeverría, H.E.; Casanovas, E.M. Crop-pasture rotation for sustaining the quality and productivity of a typic argiudoll. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 1466–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eiza, M.J.; Fioriti, N.; Studdert, G.A.; Echeverria, H.E. Organic carbon fractions in the arable layer: Cropping systems and nitrogen fertilization effects. Cienc. Suelo 2005, 23, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  60. Studdert, G.A.; Domínguez, G.F.; Agostini, M.A.; Monterubbianesi, M.G. Cropping systems to manage southeastern pampas’ Mollisol health. Organic C and mineralizable N. In International Symposium on Soil Quality and Management of World Mollisols; Liu, X., Song, C., Cruse, R.M., Huffman, T., Eds.; Northeast Forestry University Press: Harbin, China, 2010; pp. 199–200. [Google Scholar]
  61. Studdert, G.A.; Echeverria, H.E. Crop rotations and nitrogen fertilization to manage soil organic carbon dynamics. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1496–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dominguez, G.F.; Diovisalvi, N.V.; Studdert, G.A.; Monterubbianesi, G.M. Soil organic C and N fractions under continuous cropping with contrasting tillage systems on Mollisols of the southeastern Pampas. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 102, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Diovisalvi, N.V.; Studdert, G.A.; Dominguez, G.F.; Eiza, M.J. Effect of two tillage systems under continuous cropping on organic carbon and nitrogen fractions and on the anaerobic nitrogen indicator. Cienc. Suelo 2008, 26, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  64. Divito, G.A.; Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Echeverria, H.E.; Studdert, G.A.; Wyngaard, N. Long term nitrogen fertilization: Soil property changes in an Argentinean pampas soil under no tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 114, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wyngaard, N.; Echeverria, H.E.; Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Divito, G.A. Fertilization and tillage effects on soil properties and maize yield in a southern Pampas argiudoll. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 119, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Martínez, J.P.; Barbieri, P.A.; Cordone, G.; Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Echeverría, H.E.; Studdert, G.A. Secuencias con predominio de soja en ambientes de la región pampeana Argentina y su efecto sobre el carbono orgánico. In Proceedings of the XXIV Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo y II Reunión Nacional Materia Orgánica y Sustancias Húmicas, Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 May 2014.
  67. Echeverria, H.; Bergonzi, R.; Ferrari, J. A model for the estimation of nitrogen mineralization in soils of southeast Buenos Aires, Argentina. Cienc. Suelo 1994, 12, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cozzoli, M.V.; Fioriti, N.; Studdert, G.A.; Domínguez, G.F.; Eiza, M.J. Nitrógeno incubado anaeróbico y fracciones de carbono en macro y microagregados bajo distintos sistemas de cultivo. Cienc. Suelo 2010, 28, 155–167. [Google Scholar]
  69. Urquieta, J.N. Nitrógeno Potencialmente Mineralizable Anaeróbico en Suelos del Sudeste Bonaerense y su Relación con la Respuesta a Nitrógeno en Trigo. Tesis de Ingeniero Agrónomo, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Balcarce, Argentina, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  70. Genovese, M.F.; Echeverria, H.E.; Studdert, G.A.; Sainz Rozas, H. Nitrógeno de amino-azucares en suelos: Calibración y relación con el nitrógeno incubado anaeróbico. Cienc. Suelo 2009, 27, 225–236. [Google Scholar]
  71. Domínguez, G.F.; Studdert, G.A.; Echeverría, H.E.; Andrade, F.H. Sistemas de cultivo y nutrición nitrogenada en maíz. Cienc. Suelo 2001, 19, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
  72. Studdert, G.A.; Echeverría, H.E. Relación entre el cultivo antecesor y la disponibilidad de nitrógeno para el trigo en la rotación. Cienc. Suelo 2006, 24, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  73. Reussi Calvo, N.I.; Echeverria, H.E.; Sainz Rozas, H. Comparison between two plant nitrogen and sulphur determination methods: Impact on wheat sulphur diagnostics. Cienc. Suelo 2008, 26, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  74. Diovisalvi, N.A.; Berardo, A.; Reussi Calvo, N. Nitrógeno anaeróbico potencialmente mineralizable: Una nueva herramienta para mejorar el manejo de la fertilización nitrogenada. In Simposio de Fertilidad; Fertilizar: Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina, 2009; p. 270. [Google Scholar]
  75. Studdert, G.A.; Echeverría, H.E. Soja, girasol y maíz en los sistemas de cultivo del sudeste Bonaerense. In Bases Para el Manejo del Maíz, el Girasol y la Soja; Andrade, F.H., Sadras, V., Eds.; INTA—Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias UNMP: Balcarce, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2002; pp. 413–443. [Google Scholar]
  76. Roldán, M.F.; Studdert, G.A.; Videla, C.C.; San Martino, S.; Picone, L.I. Distribución de tamaño y estabilidad de agregados en molisoles bajo labranzas contrastantes. Cienc. Suelo 2014. in press. [Google Scholar]
  77. Domínguez, G.F.; Andersen, A.; Studdert, G.A. Cambios en la estabilidad de agregados en distintos sistemas de cultivo bajo siembra directa y labranza convencional. In XXI Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo, Potrero de los Funes, San Luis, Argentina, 13–16 May 2008.
  78. Agostini, M.A.; Studdert, G.A.; Domínguez, G.F. Relación entre el cambio en el diámetro medio de agregados y el carbono orgánico y sus fracciones. In XIX Congreso Latinoamericano y XXIII Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 16–20 April 2012.
  79. Studdert, G.A. Materia orgánica y sus fracciones como indicadores de uso sustentable de suelos del Sudeste Bonaerense. In XXIV Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo y II Reunión Nacional Materia Orgánica y Sustancias Húmicas, Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 May 2014.
  80. Garcia-Prechac, F.; Ernst, O.; Siri-Prieto, G.; Terra, J.A. Integrating no-till into crop-pasture rotations in Uruguay. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 77, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Clérici, C.; Baethgen, W.; García Préchac, F.; Hill, M. Estimación del impacto de la soja sobre erosion y C orgánico en suelos agrícolas de Uruguay. In XIX Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo, Paraná, Entre Ríos, Argentina, 24–29 April 2004.
  82. Parton, W.J.; Stewart, J.W.B.; Cole, C.V. Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: A model. Biogeochemistry 1988, 5, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Salvo, L.; Hernández, J.; Ernst, O. Distribution of soil organic carbon in different size fractions, under pasture and crop rotations with conventional tillage and no-till systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 109, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sawchik, J.; Pérez-Bidegain, M.; García, C. Impact of winter cover crops on soil properties under soybean cropping systems. Agrocienc. Urug. 2012, 16, 288–293. [Google Scholar]
  85. Amado, T.J.C.; Conceicao, P.C.; Bayer, C.; Eltz, F.L.F. Soil quality evaluated by “soil quality kit” in two long-term soil management experiments in Rio Grande Do Sul state, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2007, 31, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fabrizzi, K.P.; Rice, C.W.; Amado, T.J.C.; Fiorin, J.E.; Barbagelata, P.; Melchiori, R. Protection of soil organic C and N in temperate and tropical soils: Effect of native and agroecosystems. Biogeochemistry 2009, 92, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. MAGP. Marco Jurídico de los Planes de Uso y Manejo de Suelos; Dirección General de Recursos Naturales Renovables: Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca, de la República Oriental del Uruguay. Available online: http://www.renare.gub.uy/ (accessed on 15 November 2014).
  88. GSL. Ley de Protección y Conservación de Suelos N° IX-0315–2004; Ministerio del Campo del Gobierno: de la Provincia de San Luis, Argentina. San Luis, Argentina. Available online: http://www.campo.sanluis.gov.ar/campoWeb/Contenido/Pagina11/File/Ley Proteccin y Conservacin de Suelo.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2014).
  89. GER. Ley Provincial de Conservación y Manejo de Suelos N° 8318; Secretaria de la Producción del Gobierno: de Entre Ríos, Argentina. Paraná, Argentina. Available online: http://www.entrerios.gov.ar/minpro/userfiles/files/RECNATURALES/RECURSOSNATURALES/RECURSOSNATURALES/LEGISLACION DE SUELOS/legislacion/ley_n8318.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2014).
  90. EPB. Marco Normativo Ley N° 1333 de Protección del Medio Ambiente; Autoridad de Fiscalización y Control Social de Agua Potable y Saneamiento Básico: Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia. Available online: http://www.aaps.gob.bo/?p=334 (accessed on 15 November 2014).
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top