The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA)

Mikhailova, Elena A.; Zurqani, Hamdi A.; Lin, Lili; Hao, Zhenbang; Post, Christopher J.; Schlautman, Mark A.; Post, Gregory C.; Highberger, Gretchen A.; Shepherd, George B.

doi:10.3390/biosphere1010003

Open AccessArticle

The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA)

by

Elena A. Mikhailova

^1,*

,

Hamdi A. Zurqani

^2,3

,

Lili Lin

⁴

,

Zhenbang Hao

⁵

,

Christopher J. Post

¹,

Mark A. Schlautman

⁶

,

Gregory C. Post

⁷,

Gretchen A. Highberger

⁶ and

George B. Shepherd

⁸

¹

Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA

²

College of Forestry, Agriculture, and Natural Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656, USA

³

The Libyan Center for Palm Tree Research, Libyan Authority for Scientific Research, Tripoli 00218, Libya

⁴

Department of Biological Science and Biotechnology, Minnan Normal University, Zhangzhou 363000, China

⁵

Department of Electronic Information, Zhangzhou Institute of Technology, Zhangzhou 363000, China

⁶

Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA

⁷

Clemson Center for Geospatial Technologies, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA

⁸

School of Law, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Biosphere 2025, 1(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.3390/biosphere1010003

Submission received: 2 April 2025 / Revised: 8 May 2025 / Accepted: 22 May 2025 / Published: 13 June 2025

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is an important agreement committing 196 countries (the United States is not part of GBF) to reduce and stop the loss of biodiversity by 2030. Biodiversity and soil diversity (pedodiversity) are intricately linked by sharing biosphere. Similarly to biodiversity, pedodiversity is classified using various classification systems adopted by countries in the world (e.g., United States Soil Taxonomy). The loss of pedodiversity is often caused by land use and land cover (LULC) changes, which impact biodiversity. These losses need to be acknowledged and accounted for by the GBF. The innovation of this study is that it proposes to include pedodiversity and its metrics into the GBF using the contiguous United States of America (USA) and GBF targets as an example. This study proposes to use geospatial technologies (e.g., land cover change matrix) linked to soil databases to monitor temporal changes and no net loss in pedodiversity. Loss of pedodiversity can result in damages (e.g., pollution), which can harm biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (ES). As of 2021, over two million square kilometers were anthropogenically degraded in the contiguous USA, with all ten soil orders being affected by this degradation (relevant to target ten focused on the sustainable use of natural resources). Analysis of changes in LULC between 2001 and 2021 showed an increase in anthropogenic land degradation (LD) (+3.4%), which resulted in a net loss of pedodiversity and affected all of the ten soil orders in the contiguous USA. Future GBF refinements could use pedodiversity metrics to analyze the ability to support biodiversity.

Keywords:

climate; land use; monitoring; pollution; Sustainable Development Goals

1. Introduction

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted by 196 countries in an attempt to curb biodiversity loss [1,2]. The major purpose of the framework is to “halt and reverse biodiversity loss”, which is guided by 23 targets to be accomplished by 2030, along with four long-term goals to accomplish the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity [1]. Biodiversity and soil diversity (pedodiversity) are intricately linked by sharing the biosphere (Figure 1); therefore, GBF recognizes the role of soils in its targets (e.g., soil health, etc.) but falls short of actually including soils as a measurable biodiversity indicator [1]. Indeed, soils are complex and dynamic bodies that are interaction products of four Earth’s spheres (biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere) within the ecosphere impacted by the anthroposphere (the human influence sphere) [3]. Soils are not discrete entities but form a continuum called the pedosphere [3] within the landscape of the Earth. Variability of soils in the landscape is described by pedodiversity, which is the “variability of soil in a specific area or region, as determined by its constitution, types, attributes and the conditions under which the various types were formed” [4]. There are different types of pedodiversity: taxonomic (different classification categories), genetic (variability of genetic horizons), functional (soil behavior under different uses), and parametric (variability of soil properties) [3]. Pedodiversity can be quantified, including using metrics on soil extinction by soil classification category and administrative unit (e.g., state, county, etc.) [5]. This quantification provides an opportunity for being included in the GBF as one of the biodiversity metrics since pedodiversity and biodiversity are integrated with each other.

Our study intends to demonstrate the practical methods of evaluating the role of pedodiversity in the GBF using the contiguous USA as an example because it has a high level of pedodiversity (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows pedodiversity distribution at the country and state levels, which is represented by soil orders grouped by the slightly weathered, moderately weathered, and highly weathered categories (Table 1). Each of the soil orders is an integral part of the biodiversity it supports. For example, the Mollisols soil order is most commonly associated with grasslands, while the Aridisols soil order is commonly found in deserts [8].

Many current challenges in implementing the GBF are associated with “practicalities of land use and biodiversity conservation”, which are documented by numerous studies [9,10]. These challenges extend beyond land use because land also includes soil, but conventional land use/land cover (LULC) analyses do not provide information on soil, as was noted by Mikhailova et al. (2024) [11].

Figure 2. Generalized soil map of the contiguous United States of America (USA) created using the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database [12] with overlaid state boundaries [13].

Table 1. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) is expressed as taxonomic diversity at the level of soil order.

Soil Order	General Characteristics and Constraints
	Slight Weathering
Entisols	Embryonic soils with ochric epipedon
Inceptisols	Young soils with ochric or umbric epipedon
Histosols	Organic soils with ≥20% of organic carbon
Andisols	Volcanic soils
	Moderate Weathering
Aridisols	Dry soils. Common in desert areas
Vertisols	Soils with swelling clays
Alfisols	Clay-enriched B horizon with base saturation ≥35%
Mollisols	Carbon-enriched soils with base saturation ≥50%
	Strong Weathering
Spodosols	Coarse-textured soils with albic and spodic horizons
Ultisols	Highly leached soils with base saturation <35%

There is an identified need to transition from targets to actionable landscape-level strategies to balance conservation with sustainable development by defining specific metrics for conservation to overcome the many GBF implementation challenges [9]. For successful implementation, there is also a need to identify financial resources to support conservation while tailoring conservation to local needs with a focus on improving the capacity of local institutions and governance [9]. There is also a demonstrated lag in beginning the implementation of conservation plans and actions, because of the long years spent planning before actual efforts begin, while also having knowledge and data gaps to support action [9]. Finally, powerful entities with economic interests can provide barriers to conservation and biodiversity protection [9]. Hughes and Grumbine (2023) [10] also analyzed the GBF document and made a list of improvements necessary to enhance GBF implementation, including clarifying the vague language and providing a glossary containing key term definitions, and concepts; providing baseline data for biodiversity conservation; assessing temporary changes in biodiversity metrics; developing standards for long-term biodiversity monitoring; need for global biodiversity monitoring system; providing data for biodiversity monitoring for all contracting parties; defining nature-based solutions (NBS); understanding causes of biodiversity loss; addressing mismatches between indicators and targets and developing new indicators. All these improvements need to be included in the systematic conservation planning (SCP), which encompasses the cost-benefit analysis of management decisions [14]. Our study attempts to address some of these challenges by proposing monitoring of GBF using geospatial analysis and soil databases (Figure 3).

This study hypothesizes that pedodiversity is an inherent and quantifiable component of biodiversity that the GBF should utilize to better understand land cover change impacts on biodiversity over time and space (Figure 3). The existing GBF targets mention soils but do not utilize soil information to reduce biodiversity and biodiversity loss. Modern spatial data sets and remote sensing platforms can be used to identify and evaluate the impact of land cover change on pedodiversity as it relates to biodiversity by associating changes in land cover with the soil type and inherent soil characteristics. The objectives of this study were to: (1) analyze the current GBF goals, targets, and indicators with example applications to the contiguous US, (2) investigate quantitative and qualitative methods to measure pedodiversity as it relates to GBF, (3) use geospatial technologies and soil databases to track progress in GBF implementation in the contiguous US as an example, and (4) recommend legal pathways to enhancing GBF.

2. Materials and Methods

This study demonstrates a proposed method to track changes in pedodiversity, which is linked to biodiversity, by combining spatial soil information with land cover change analysis to track the impact of human activities over time. While it is not yet possible to track soil changes directly using remote sensing technology, changes in human activity can now routinely be monitored worldwide using multiple remote sensing platforms. This study used classified medium-resolution satellite data (30m) from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [16], which provides classified land cover maps for the USA from as early as 1985 through the present. Similar land cover data are available globally. This study first identified changes in land cover between 2001 and 2021 and then converted the output to a vector format so it could be joined to the high-resolution SSURGO soil data [12] (Figure 3 and Figure 4) using ArcGIS Pro 2.6 [17]. This joined file was then summarized by the administrative area to identify changes over time. Soil C [18] and the social cost of C [19] (Table S1) were calculated using the methodology described in Mikhailova et al. (2023) [15].

3. Results

3.1. The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework outlines the broad 2050 vision and 2030 mission of GBF, which are aligned with the principles of the “theory of change” [20] as applied to sustainable development, including the concept of “undesirable change” to identify the drivers of biodiversity loss (Section E) [2]. The 2050 vision is described as “by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people” [2]. The 2030 mission towards the 2050 vision includes “to take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery for the benefit of people and planet by conserving and sustainably using biodiversity and by ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources, while providing the necessary means of implementation” [2]. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework lists four global goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030, two of which (Goal A and Goal B) are applicable to the results of this study.

3.1.1. Global Goals of GBF for 2050: Goal A and Goal B

In order to halt the drivers of undesirable change that have contributed to major biodiversity loss, Goal A requires that the area of natural ecosystems be substantially increased by 2050, and Goal B urges sustainable use and management of biodiversity [2]. Figure 5 shows the state of “natural” and “non-natural” ecosystems based on land use/land cover (LULC) analysis for 2021. It should be noted that historically, the contiguous USA experienced extensive land degradation, which resulted in almost non-remaining “natural” ecosystems [21]. Analysis by Li et al. (2023) [21] provides a detailed geospatial analysis of LULC transition for almost 400 years (1630–2020) in the contiguous USA. This analysis documents long-term undesirable changes affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, this analysis does not consider soil types. The innovation of our study is that it disaggregated LULC analysis by soil type (Table 2 and Table 3), which shows pedodiversity loss as soil is degraded. The results of the analysis between 2001 and 2021 in the contiguous USA show undesirable changes towards developments in LULC across all soil types, with only small gains in the wetlands LULC classes (Table 2).

3.1.2. Global Targets of GBF for 2030

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework lists 23 targets for 2030, most of which are relevant to the results of this study.

● Target 1: Relevant aspects of this target are associated with land use change including zero loss of high biodiversity areas [1,2]. Table 3 shows a positive overall loss of pedodiversity in the contiguous US as a result of anthropogenic land degradation (+3.4%) and in all ten soil orders. Loss of taxonomic pedodiversity (at the soil order level) was primarily due to land conversion to developments (+18.8%), with the Vertisols soil order showing the highest increase (+28.9%) (Table 3).

● Target 2: This target focuses on ensuring that at least 30% of the terrestrial land that is degraded is being restored by 2030. This study’s analysis shows (Table 3) that between 2001 and 2021, there was an overall increase in degraded lands because of development. While data are not available for the amount of land that is currently being restored, this increase in degraded lands is an indication that this target has likely not been met.

● Target 3: This target calls for effective conservation of at least 30% of terrestrial areas [1,2]. A previous study found that not even 8% of the land area of the contiguous US is currently protected (Figure 6), with only 3% being both protected and ecologically connected [22]. None of the states in the contiguous US meet the 30% terrestrial area conservation goal (Figure 6) [22]. Alaska, which is not in the contiguous US, is the only state with more than 30% of PA (35.7%) [22]. States in the midwestern US with high fertility soils have low percentages of protected areas (PA) (Figure 6) but high levels of anthropogenic LD (Figure 7). The current study found that the contiguous US has 34% anthropogenic LD, but this area is composed of 48 states with variable proportions of anthropogenically degraded lands (Figure 7). Figure 7 demonstrates that several states (Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana) cannot meet this Target 3 conservation goal of 30% because their anthropogenic LD is above 70%. Upward trends in anthropogenic LD in all states can make it even more challenging to meet the conservation goal (e.g., Ohio) (Figure 7). Furthermore, the high levels of private land ownership in many states are another impediment to reaching the 30% terrestrial conservation goals (Figure 8).

● Target 7: This target focuses on reducing pollution and its negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services from all sources by 2030 [1,2]. Anthropogenic LD of pedodiversity leads to loss of land to absorb pollution (e.g., C sequestration potential) and greenhouse gas emissions, GHG (e.g., CO₂ loss), which impacts could be measured using the concept of social costs of C (SC-CO₂) [19]. Table 4 provides just a few examples of damages to biodiversity as a result of the loss of pedodiversity both in “historical” and more recent contexts.

Damage to biodiversity and pedodiversity can result from the loss of land that could have been used for potential soil carbon (C) sequestration because of the process of land development within the contiguous USA, with 393,877.4 km² of land area converted from other land covers to developments before and through 2021 (Table S2). Developments caused the largest area losses in Alfisols (89,465.0 km²), Mollisols (82,061.2 km²), and Ultisols (79,650.7 km²) (Table S2). Also, geospatial analysis can quantify the temporal change in land cover between two points in time. As an example, between 2001 and 2021, new developments resulted in a total of 62,371.5 km² that was converted to developments (Table 4). The largest area losses from development were found in Ultisols (15,211.4 km²), Alfisols (15,099.0 km²), and Mollisols (11,005.7 km²) (Table 4).

Damage to biodiversity and pedodiversity can result from total soil carbon (TSC = SOC + SIC) loss and the associated emissions from soil and land developments, with an estimated midpoint total C losses of 6.3 × 10¹² kg C prior to and through 2021 (Table 4, Tables S2 and S3) in the contiguous USA. The highest midpoint total soil C losses occurred in Mollisols (2.1 × 10¹² kg C), Alfisols (1.1 × 10¹² kg C), and Inceptisols (6.7 × 10¹¹ kg C) (Table 4). New developments between 2001 and 2021 resulted in a total of 9.6 × 10¹¹ kg in C losses (Table 4). The highest midpoint total soil C losses occurred in Mollisols (2.8 × 10¹¹ kg C), Alfisols (1.8 × 10¹¹ kg C), and Ultisols (1.1 × 10¹¹ kg C) (Table 4).

Damage to biodiversity and pedodiversity can be measured as “realized” social costs of carbon (C) (SC-CO₂) released from the process of land development before and through 2021, with a total midpoint projected value of $1.1T SC-CO₂ within the contiguous USA (Table 4, Tables S2 and S3). The highest emission costs originated from Mollisols ($345.5B, 32% of total SC-CO₂), Alfisols ($178.0B, 17%), and Inceptisols ($112.6B, 11%) (Table 4). Between 2001 to 2021, new developments resulted in $162.5B in SC-CO₂ (Table 4). The highest costs for this most recent time period originated from Mollisols ($46.3B, 29%), Alfisols ($30.0B, 19%), and Ultisols ($18.3B, 11%) (Table 4). The above estimates are based on the assumption of a fixed social cost of CO₂, which does not represent the actual market-based cost of climate-related disasters.

Damage to pedodiversity from the loss of natural soils to urban land. Urbanization is often accompanied by a high degree of disturbance. Furthermore, soil taxonomy does not classify these soils as natural, functional soils, but as urban land based on the detailed US Soil Survey (SSURGO) [12].

● Target 8: This target calls for the minimization of climate change by various actions, including nature-based solutions (NBS). Table 5 shows the potential land area for NBS to compensate for anthropogenic LD by soil order [1,2] with minimum change in current land use. Most soil orders have a negative balance between the potential land for NBS and the area of anthropogenically degraded lands, with the largest negative balance for the soil order of Alfisols (−325,589 km²). Soils with a positive balance are mostly low-soil quality soils such as Entisols and Aridisols (Table 5).

● Target 10: This target aims at ensuring sustainable management of agriculture and forestry [1,2]. Table 6 shows that there was an increase in agriculture overall (+0.5%) and in some soil types, with the largest increases in Vertisols (+16.5%) and Aridisols (+5.6%). Both Aridisols and Vertisols tend to be found in drier environments, and the increase in agriculture here is most likely to be accompanied by irrigation with increased pressure on scarce water resources. In terms of forestry, there was an overall decrease in forests (−3.0%) as well as in all soil orders except for Vertisols (Table 6). These results demonstrate undesirable changes and a lack of restoration efforts to compensate for forest losses and GHG emissions from agricultural production.

● Target 11: This target is focused on the restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of nature and its contributions to humans through ecosystem functions and services, as well as soil health and NBS [1,2]. The results of this study demonstrate a negative balance between anthropogenic LD and potential land for NBS (Table 5) for most soil orders at a scale that is unrealistic and requires astronomical financial investments. The concept of soil health is commonly used at the farmer’s field scale; however, Mikhailova et al. (2023) [24] proposed to extend the application of this concept to the country scale (Table 2), where geospatial analysis and soil data are used to monitor soil health continuum changes. Table 2 shows mostly negative changes in the overall soil health continuum in the contiguous USA between 2001 and 2021 by soil order because of the conversion of land with higher soil health status (e.g., forest) to lower soil health status (developments).

● Target 15 and Target 16: These targets call for information on sustainable consumption patterns of consumers to reduce detrimental impacts on biodiversity and reduce waste and the global footprint of consumption [1,2]. Since pedodiversity is intricately connected with biodiversity, it is also impacted by human consumption. The Kunming-Montreal GBF stresses the importance of wetlands in Goal A in the complementary indicator “Wetland Extent Trends Index”, which measures trends in wetland areas over time [25]. This complementary indicator can be enhanced using a land use/land cover (LULC) change matrix to monitor the undesirable changes in wetlands, which shows consumptive patterns and the global footprint of consumption by LULC classes. For example, the state of Georgia (USA) experienced an overall change of 161.7 km² of wetlands to non-wetlands land classes between 2001 and 2021, and the distribution of this change by LULC is shown in Table 7. Developments consumed 96.2 km² of wetlands, which resulted in a total loss of 6.6 × 10¹¹ kg of C with associated midpoint “realized” social costs of carbon dioxide (SC-CO₂) [19] of $2.3B calculated based on the methodology described in Mikhailova et al. (2023) [15] and assuming that these wetlands contained soil order of Histosols. This global footprint of wetlands consumption is a large underestimate of actual market-based social costs since it is based on just one of the GHGs (carbon dioxide, CO₂) and a fixed price of CO₂.

3.2. Enhancing Existing Metrics and Potential New Metrics for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

The results of this study are beneficial for enhancing the current metrics and creating new metrics for the GBF. The following section re-visits some of the targets from the previous section with proposed enhancements and proposes additional targets and indicators.

● Target 3: This target calls for effective conservation of at least 30% of terrestrial areas [1,2]. The limitation of this target is that it is obscure, especially in large, aggregated states (e.g., US, European Union (EU), etc.), because it can be difficult to assess terrestrial areas “of particular importance” [2] for ecosystem function and biodiversity. Protected areas are most often protected for public appeal, enhanced by the above-ground biomass and C storage (e.g., forests), with little consideration given to the protection of soil and below-ground C storage [3]. Mikhailova et al. (2024) [26] identified that the current LD definition by the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) [27,28] is focused on anthropogenic LD (Figure 7) and does not consider inherent LD as a result of low soil quality, which can lead to an underestimation of total LD [26]. Also, some locations that have been considered to have high above-ground biodiversity (e.g., forests) can be found in areas with inherently degraded (low soil quality) soil (e.g., Ultisols). The GBF should account for these differences between below-ground (soil) and above-ground biodiversity when identifying areas to conserve. Limiting the consideration of LD to only anthropogenic LD (as currently defined by the UN) could lead to giving preference to places solely based on above-ground biodiversity while ignoring soil resources. The current study illustrates this problem by mapping the total LD (anthropogenic + inherent), which shows that the contiguous US has 70% total LD and that many of the states cannot meet this Target 3 conservation goal of 30% because their total LD is above 70% (Figure 9).

This study proposes to enhance this indicator with soil information to help identify important terrestrial areas. Soil type provides critical information on the potential importance of land areas and should be considered when determining the proportion of land that is conserved for the GBF. The overall value of anthropogenic LD in the contiguous US is 34% (2021), but this area is composed of 10 soil orders with variable proportions of anthropogenic LD from as low as 4.8% for Andisols (volcanic soils) to as high as 48.2% for Mollisols (agriculturally productive grassland soils) (Table 5). Many arid areas in the western US are dominated by Aridisols and Entisols, which are largely undisturbed and conserved, while more productive soils (e.g., Molisolls and Alfisols) have been largely utilized for agriculture and other consumptive uses (Table 5 and Table 8). Table 8 shows that soil orders of Alfisols and Mollisols exceed 70% of anthropogenic LD in Iowa, Indiana, and Illinois. Conservation goals within administrative boundaries should be considered for each soil to ensure the preservation of the wide biodiversity that is closely linked to soil resources. This example from the US demonstrates the challenges and differentiated capabilities to realize area-based conservation targets of the GBF because biodiversity and pedodiversity are not evenly distributed in the landscape [29]. These challenges are also typical for other countries in the world [29]. Shen et al. (2023) [29] discuss potential ways to improve the area-based GBF targets by linking them to specific criteria (e.g., species diversity, C content, etc.). Most likely, there is no one solution for the area-based conservation of biodiversity and pedodiversity, but it needs to be considered on an individual basis, and afterward, all of these areas need to be considered beyond national boundaries [29]. Area-based global conservation of biodiversity and pedodiversity involves tradeoffs and sacrifices. For example, many valuable areas and soils are currently under consumptive land uses that are unlikely to change (e.g., agriculture) because of societal needs and economic drivers. Therefore, GBF needs to determine how it will manage these tradeoffs on both local and global scales to ensure “fair sharing of conservation burden” between countries [29].

Accounting for pedodiversity loss from land cover change analysis.

Monitoring of biodiversity should include monitoring of pedodiversity as well. Land cover change analysis can identify areas that have changed to land cover types that have degraded or consumed soil resources and compare these developments to the GBF vision. Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30] tested an approach for comparing agricultural related development to societal visions in a Swiss case study and proposed the use of a land-use change matrix to track landscape changes that correspond to different societal visions, including the view on sustainability in general, sustainable agriculture, and future of sustainability. Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30] reported that observed landscape changes consisted of agricultural expansion and intensification, which mostly aligned with desired changes by the free-market interest group.

Our study adopted this matrix as a landcover change matrix [30] to all ten soil orders (Figures S1–S9) and used the agriculturally important soil order of Alfisols in the contiguous US between 2001 and 2021 to demonstrate how to evaluate the impact of land cover change on soil resources (Figure 10). The gray squares indicate land cover that remained unchanged between 2001 and 2021, while land cover categories that have changed are shaded in red in proportion to the amount of change, with the highest shade of red indicating a relatively large area change in land cover. Conversions to agriculture or development land use likely represent a loss of biodiversity in both below- and above-ground systems. Evaluating the landcover change matrix by soil type (e.g., soil order) has the advantage of providing added information about the capacity of the soils subject to the landcover change, which varies widely by property and soil C content.

Land cover change matrices provide a quantitative assessment of this change, and it is important to note that the satellite-derived land cover maps [16] represent this change with a high degree of accuracy, which is assessed using high-resolution aerial images that are used in place of field validation. As an example, in Greenville County, SC (USA), Figure 11 shows an area where forest lands were directly converted to housing developments. The high-resolution ortho imagery (Figure 11a,b) clearly indicates how housing developments replaced forest areas between 2006 and 2021. The land cover data from classified satellite imagery from the same location (Figure 11c,d) in 2001 and 2021 also documents this conversion, demonstrating this data’s utility to document land cover change.

Accounting for biodiversity and pedodiversity loss from climate change, including sea level rise.

Although climate change was identified as one of the key factors driving global biodiversity loss [31], its role in pedodiversity loss is often overlooked. Climate change endangers the existence of the soil order of Gelisols because of permafrost thawing [3]. The potential effects of projected sea level rise on pedodiversity are demonstrated in Figure 12, and Table 9 using the state of South Carolina (SC) in the USA as an example. In SC, all seven soil orders will be impacted by the projected sea level rise, with less common in SC soil orders of Histosols, Entisols, and Mollisols experiencing the worst losses and having a remarkable effect on the state’s pedodiversity dominated by the soil order of Ultisols (70% of the state area). With the projected loss of soil resources, many of the highest C-content soil orders will be lost, which will have a proportionally larger impact on GHG emissions, while also removing soils that support high levels of biodiversity in the critical coastal areas.

4. Discussion

4.1. Significance of the Results for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

4.1.1. Benefits and Limitations of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

The GBF is a legally non-binding framework with typical attributes of framework conventions in international law; therefore, it can be seen as the beginning of the legal process where overall principles and objectives are agreed upon, which are subsequently refined with obligations and duties [33]. The GBF’s general goal of protecting biodiversity is crucially important since biodiversity has been decreasing at a rate “faster than at any time in human history” [34]. Typical of framework conventions, most of the GBF’s goals and targets are broad and somewhat ambiguous; however, there are also some measurable metrics as well [2]. Long-term goals by 2050 include increasing the natural ecosystem area and the sustainable use and management of biodiversity [2]. In addition to the long-term goals, there are short-term goals to be achieved by 2030, which include Target 2, aimed at restoring at least 30% of degraded terrestrial areas by 2030, while the goal in Target 3 of 30 × 30—protecting from development 30% of land by 2030 [2].

However, the GBF has limitations and may actually impede the achievement of the GBF’s professed goals rather than helping the world to achieve the goals. There are five main limitations. First, many of the 2030 targets lack specificity, which is typical of framework conventions. For example, it may be difficult to determine whether a country engages in “inclusive spatial management” [2].

The second and third GBF limitations involve the 30 × 30 initiative, which was inspired by the California executive order in 2020 [35] and the US initiative adopted in 2021 [36]. The 30% target appears to have arisen from two articles published in 2019 and 2020 by Dinerstein and co-authors in Science Advances [37,38]. These two articles collectively highlighted the need for expanded nature conservation efforts to mitigate the loss of biodiversity and climate change. Their 2020 publication suggested that the 15% protected land area (or 17% according to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets) was insufficient and that 35% of the land area is needed to conserve additional sites of particular importance for biodiversity and stabilize the climate.

The second limitation is that a few specific goals are deceptively too easy to accomplish. For example, California is the only state in the contiguous US that has close to 30% of the state area already protected (22.6%) (Figure 6) [22,39]. Also, many countries have already achieved the goal of 30% terrestrial land conservation. For example, in Spain, 36% of the land area is a protected area (PA), more than the 30% that would be required to achieve the GBF’s requirements [40]. Thus, in Spain, the 30% terrestrial land conservation goal will achieve nothing because even if Spain does nothing until 2030, it has already achieved the goal.

The third limitation of GBF dealing with the 30 × 30 initiative is that any country can achieve the 30% terrestrial land conservation goal by setting aside unproductive land for which no economic incentive exists to develop. Countries can achieve the goal by setting aside frozen rocky mountaintops or arid deserts—areas that have both low biodiversity and low economic value. No requirement exists instead to protect areas with the soil types and adequate rainfall that truly promote biodiversity. This drew criticism, including the focus on area-based conservation, which could prioritize large isolated areas instead of more difficult to protect, but more ecologically critical areas [41]. Furthermore, there is a recognition that not all land is “created equal” in its conservation value, where protecting wetlands may be more valuable than preserving rocks in alpine environments [42].

The 30 × 30 program creates an incentive for countries to set aside areas both with little rainfall and with soil types that provide little support for biodiversity. Some soil types are far more important for achieving biodiversity than other types. The role of soils in the ecosystem is to enable and support biodiversity primarily because of their C storage. Soil C storage is so critical because it represents an asset because it supports biodiversity, including animal and human life, and is a threat because of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. Some soils—Histosols, Mollisols, and Alfisols—are far more important for promoting biodiversity than other soil types. The 30 × 30 goal does not distinguish among the soil types. Because Histosols, Mollisols, and Alfisols are not only the most important for biodiversity but also the most economically valuable for farming and other uses, economic forces will cause countries to preserve arid areas with other soil types rather than the areas where preservation would create large benefits in biodiversity.

Fourth, the 2050 targets are too far in the future with no enforcement mechanism. It is always tempting for a politician to promise little current action but instead to agree to much for the distant future. By the time the distant future arrives, politicians cannot be held accountable for failed promises because they will have retired. Instead, the problems will need to be addressed by later leaders representing later generations. This incentive to do nothing now but instead delays immediate action, especially when a plan, such as the GBF, lacks any mechanism for enforcing the distant promises.

Fifth, the GBF can appear to be greenwashing because it can mislead people into thinking that their countries are taking action on the environment and climate change. Therefore, the GBF may distract people from insisting that their governments take real action.

4.1.2. Refining the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

There are ways to enhance and improve the impact of the GBF. The goals for both 2030 and 2050 should be revised to be precise and specific. An enforcement mechanism should be created. Achievable goals for the near future should be established and enforced. Unenforceable aspirations for the distant future should be avoided. Merely protecting 30% of available land may leave humanity without the soil-based resources (e.g., carbon) to continue.

Rarely protected areas are set aside based on soil. The role of soils in the ecosystem is to enable and support biodiversity primarily because of their C storage. Soil C storage is so critical because it represents an asset because it supports biodiversity, including animal and human life, and is a threat because of the consequences of GHG emissions. In terms of the 30 × 30 initiative, soils should be prioritized based on soil organic C and other related attributes because merely protecting 30% of terrestrial land may leave humanity without soil-based resources (e.g., soil organic C) to continue. Histosols, commonly found in wetlands, have the highest C content and also support many critical habitats for wildlife, which is important for humans. Mollisols and Alfisols also contain large amounts of SOC, making them the most important agricultural soils that feed the world. Our data shows that about half of the Alfisols and Mollisols are anthropogenically degraded in the contiguous US (Table 3), most often because of agricultural use; however, the remaining areas of these soils are likely not suitable for agriculture because of limited rainfall. Expected changes in the future climate from rising temperatures and changes in precipitation will provide further challenges for using Mollisols and Alfisols for agriculture in the contiguous USA.

Based on the reported results, this study proposes to use the “area + soil + soil organic carbon-based” selection process in terrestrial land conservation to support the GBF. Table 10 shows a soil matrix that includes soil types, their areas, land degradation status, and SOC stocks, which could be used to evaluate land for conservation instead of solely focusing on the total area to conserve. For example, Table 10 lists 4,052,100 km² of land that is potentially not anthropogenically degraded, along with the remaining SOC storage. The table shows that Mollisols and Alfisols have the highest remaining SOC storage, which can better enable biodiversity. Although Histosols represent a small overall area, they have a disproportionate amount of SOC, making them another priority for conservation. The soil information could be combined with connectivity analysis [22] to further improve the biodiversity potential of protected lands. It should be noted that the potential terrestrial land conservation can be complicated by legal issues associated with land ownership in these countries. For example, the states of the contiguous US have a high proportion of privately owned lands (Figure 8) [23].

4.2. Significance of the Results to Other United Nations (UN) Initiatives

The GBF is closely intertwined with other UN initiatives, which include the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [43], the UN Convention to Combat Desertification [27,28], the UN Convention on Biological Diversity [1], the Paris Agreement [44], and the Revised World Soil Charter [45]:

● From 2001 to 2021, the contiguous US had an overall increase in anthropogenic LD (+3.4%) and all soil orders as well (Table 3). There was a decline in soil health of all soil orders (Table 2). There was an overall area reduction of hay/pasture (−8.4%), impacting all soil types (Table 2). (Relevant to UN SDG 2: Zero Hunger; UN Convention to Combat Desertification; UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and UN SDG 15: Life on land; Revised World Soil Charter);

Table 10. Soil matrix for potential selection of terrestrial areas in need of conservation for the contiguous United States of America (USA) in 2021.

Soil Order	Total Land Area		Total Midpoint Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) Storage	Anthropogenically Degraded Land	Total Area − Anthropogenically Degraded Land	Remaining Midpoint Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) Storage
	Total Land Area			Anthropogenically Degraded Land
	(km²)	(%)	(kg of SOC)	(km²)	(km²)	(kg of SOC)
Slightly Weathered Soils
	1,743,804	28.4	2.8 × 10¹³	371,482	1,372,322	4.7 × 10¹²
Entisols	819,170	13.3	6.6 × 10¹²	182,793	636,377	1.5 × 10¹²
Inceptisols	767,973	12.5	6.8 × 10¹²	173,900	594,073	1.5 × 10¹²
Histosols	97,366	1.6	1.4 × 10¹³	11,966	85,400	1.7 × 10¹²
Andisols	59,296	1.0	6.3 × 10¹¹	2822	56,474	3.0 × 10¹⁰
Moderately Weathered Soils
	3,451,510	56.2	3.5 × 10¹³	1,449,577	2,001,933	1.6 × 10¹³
Aridisols	537,759	8.8	2.2 × 10¹²	47,818	489,941	1.9 × 10¹¹
Vertisols	157,752	2.6	2.3 × 10¹²	75,954	81,798	1.1 × 10¹²
Alfisols	1,055,770	17.2	7.9 × 10¹²	505,881	549,889	3.8 × 10¹²
Mollisols	1,700,229	27.6	2.3 × 10¹³	819,923	880,306	1.1 × 10¹³
Strongly Weathered Soils
	949,325	15.4	7.8 × 10¹²	271,482	677,843	2.1 × 10¹²
Spodosols	207,912	3.4	2.6 × 10¹²	33,031	174,881	4.1 × 10¹¹
Ultisols	741,414	12.0	5.3 × 10¹²	238,450	502,964	1.7 × 10¹²
All Soils
Totals	6,144,640	100.0	7.1 × 10¹³	2,092,540	4,052,100	2.3 × 10¹³

Note: Andisols, Aridisols, Vertisols, Alfisols, Mollisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, Spodosols, and Ultisols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Total land area was calculated as the sum of the land cover classes, including woody wetlands; shrub/scrub; mixed forest; deciduous forest; herbaceous; evergreen forest; emergent herbaceous wetlands; hay/pasture; cultivated crops; development (developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity), and barren land. Anthropogenically degraded land was calculated as a sum of degraded land from development (developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity), barren, and from agriculture (hay/pasture, and cultivated crops) land.

● From 2001 to 2021, the contiguous US experienced an overall increase in developments (+18.8%) as well as in all soil orders, including soils critical for agricultural food production (e.g., Mollisols, Alfisols) and C-rich wetland soils, Histosols (Table 3).

(Relevant to UN SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; UN SDG 2: Zero Hunger; UN Convention to Combat Desertification; UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and UN SDG 15: Life on land; Revised World Soil Charter);

● Pedodiversity loss from developments in the contiguous US resulted in various losses and damages, including loss of land for C sequestration (393,877.4 km² of land area converted to developments before and up through 2021). The largest area losses from developments were found in Alfisols (89,465.0 km²), Mollisols (82,061.2 km²), and Ultisols (79,650.7 km²). Between 2001 and 2021, new developments resulted in a total of 62,371.5 km², with the largest area losses from developments in Ultisols (15,211.4 km²), Alfisols (15,099.0 km²), and Mollisols (11,005.7 km²). Pedodiversity losses resulted in soil C loss and associated realized SC-CO₂ with an estimated midpoint total of 6.3 × 10¹² kg of C losses ($1.1T in SC-CO₂) prior to and through 2021. The highest midpoint total soil C losses occurred in Mollisols (2.1 × 10¹² kg C; $345.5B), Alfisols (1.1 × 10¹² kg C; $178.0B), and Inceptisols (6.7 × 10¹¹ kg C; $112.6B). New development activity between 2001 and 2021 caused a total of 9.6 × 10¹¹ kg in C losses ($162.5B in SC-CO₂). The highest midpoint total soil C losses occurred in Mollisols (2.8 × 10¹¹ kg C; $46.3B), Alfisols (1.8 × 10¹¹ kg C; $30.0B), and Ultisols (1.1 × 10¹¹ kg C; $18.3B). The above SC-CO₂ estimates are based on a fixed social cost of CO₂, which does not reflect the actual market-based cost associated with climate-related disasters. (Relevant to UN SDG 13: Climate Action; Paris Agreement).

4.3. Limitations of the Study and Future Research Needs

While adding spatial soil information on pedodiversity likely provides critical insights to help evaluate biodiversity conservation, this study did not include an evaluation of above-ground biomass, and the related diversity and species richness associated with some ecosystems. This study focused on the analysis at administrative unit levels; however, critical ecosystems commonly cross these boundaries, and there is a need to evaluate lands to be conserved on a more holistic level that looks at regions and other areas instead of just the country and units within countries. This study did not consider climate regimes, which may also help identify the most diverse areas, although soil types include aspects of climate that help drive their formation. Also, there may be increased uncertainties associated with combining multiple spatial data products [46]; however, this is unlikely to change the results and conclusions of this study. Numerous limitations are associated with damage estimates from pedodiversity loss, such as the fixed (non-market) price of GHG emissions, which is just a component of overall damages not accounted for in this study.

Future research could focus on identifying the boundaries of critical ecosystems that are important to conserve and that have not been subject to significant levels of anthropogenic land degradation. Novel indicators, such as soil biota, could be linked to spatial data to help understand the linkage between soils and biodiversity change over time [47]. Research could consider realistic scenarios that consider current land use and future human sustainable development. Future analysis could also evaluate the soil resources in currently protected areas to see how well they represent pedodiversity. New and future technologies (space Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), radar, and hyperspectral sensing) will allow for assessing both the type and biomass of areas, as well as soil moisture regimes, to more precisely evaluate and compare ecosystems that should be targeted for conservation. These advances, when available on a near-real-time basis, will allow the evaluation of landform changes and soil removal during urbanization. Furthermore, these technological advances will allow links of biodiversity loss to specific communities or even species, as well as soil resources [48].

5. Conclusions

Biodiversity and soil diversity (pedodiversity) are interconnected in a complex way, which is currently not accounted for in the GBF. This study proposed newly developed both qualitative and quantitative land and soil-related indicators and measures to support the implementation of the GBF, which demands responsible and transparent mechanisms to plan, monitor, and report national contributions towards the GBF in a synchronized and cyclical way. The innovation of this study is that it uses publicly available remote sensing tools and soil databases to track progress toward GBF goals and targets, which can be used worldwide. This study used 48 states in the contiguous USA for demonstration, showing that these states experienced remarkable losses in pedodiversity historically and more recently. These losses were accompanied by transboundary losses and damages (e.g., pollution from GHG emissions, loss of C sequestration potential, etc.), which are currently not accounted for in the GBF. This study also proposed to account for climate-change-related pedodiversity losses using an example of soil loss because of sea level rise. Proposed innovations to the GBF are also interrelated with other global sustainability initiatives such as the UN SDGs, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the Ramsar Convention.

A revised GBF could achieve valuable change. For example, the 30 × 30 target should be improved by seeking, instead of just preserving 30% of each country’s land area, to maintain a substantial proportion of each country’s ability to support biodiversity. That is, the focus should be on safeguarding regions with adequate rainfall and containing soil orders of Histosols, Mollisols, and Alfisols when present in countries. Soil can provide critical SOC stocks that can enable biodiversity in many environments; therefore, soil type and SOC are vital to the ability of land to support biodiversity and human existence.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biosphere1010003/s1, Figure S1: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Entisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S2: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Inceptisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S3: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Histosols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S4: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Andisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S5: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Aridisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S6: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Vertisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S7: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Mollisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S8: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Spodosols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Figure S9: Landcover change matrix for the soil order of Ultisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). Table S1: Area-normalized content (kg m⁻²) and monetary values ($ m⁻²) of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC = SOC + SIC) by soil order using data developed by Guo et al. (2006) [18] for the upper 2-m of soil and an avoided social cost of carbon (SC-CO₂) of $46 per metric ton of CO₂, applicable for 2025 (2007 U.S. dollars with an average discount rate of 3% [19]). Table S2: Minimum estimates of pollution and its negative impacts on biodiversity and pedodiversity, including ecosystem functions and services (e.g., regulating) because of land conversion to developments by soil order for the contiguous United States of America (USA) prior to and through 2021 and recent changes (2001–2021); Table S3: Maximum estimates of pollution and its negative impacts on biodiversity and pedodiversity, including ecosystem functions and services (e.g., regulating) because of land conversion to developments by soil order for the contiguous United States of America (USA) prior to and through 2021 and recent changes (2001–2021).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A.M.; methodology, E.A.M., M.A.S. and H.A.Z.; formal analysis, E.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.M., G.A.H. and G.C.P.; writing—review and editing, E.A.M., C.J.P., G.B.S. and M.A.S.; visualization, H.A.Z., L.L. and Z.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

C	Carbon
CO₂	Carbon dioxide
ES	Ecosystem services
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
EU	European Union
GBF	Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
GHG	Greenhouse gases
LD	Land degradation
L&D	Loss and damage
LULC	Land use/land cover
NBS	Nature-based solutions
NLCD	National Land Cover Database
NRCS	Natural Resources Conservation Service
PA	Protected area
SC-CO₂	Social cost of carbon emissions
SDGs	Sustainable Development Goals
SOC	Soil organic carbon
SIC	Soil inorganic carbon
SSURGO	Soil Survey Geographic Database
STATSGO	State Soil Geographic Database
TSC	Total soil carbon
UN	United Nations
UNCCD	United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
USA	United States of America
USD	United States dollar
USDA	United States Department of Agriculture

References

UN. Convention on Biological Diversity. Treaty Collection. 1992. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
UN. Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. 2022. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222 (accessed on 29 January 2025).
Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) and ecosystem services. Land 2021, 10, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ibáñez, J.J.; De-Alba, S.; Lobo, A.; Zucarello, V. Pedodiversity and global soil patterns at coarse scales (with Discussion). Geoderma 1998, 83, 171–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Amundson, R.; Guo, Y.; Gong, P. Soil diversity and land use in the United States. Ecosystems 2003, 6, 470–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mattson, S. The constitution of the pedosphere. Ann. Agric. Coll. Swed. 1938, 5, 261–279. [Google Scholar]
Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C.; Zurqani, H.A. The business side of ecosystem services of soil systems. Earth 2020, 1, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 13th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
Li, Q.; Ge, Y.; Sayer, J.A. Challenges to Implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Land 2023, 12, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hughes, A.C.; Grumbine, R.E. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: What it does and does not do, and how to improve it. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1281536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Shepherd, G.B. Possible integration of soil information into land degradation analysis for the United Nations (UN) Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Concept: A case study of the contiguous United States of America (USA). Soil Syst. 2024, 8, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. n.d.a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online: https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/soils (accessed on 30 January 2025).
The United States Census Bureau. TIGER/Line Boundary Shapefiles. 2018. Available online: https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.2018.html (accessed on 30 January 2025).
Giakoumi, S.; Richardson, A.J.; Doxa, A.; Moro1, S.; Andrello, M.; Hanson, J.O.; Hermoso, V.; Mazor, T.; McGowan, J.; Kujala, H.; et al. Advances in systematic conservation planning to meet global biodiversity goals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2024, 40, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Shepherd, G.B. Opportunities for monitoring soil and land development to support United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Case study of the United States of America (USA). Land 2023, 12, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium—MRLC. Available online: https://www.mrlc.gov/ (accessed on 30 January 2025).
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). ArcGIS Pro 2.6. Available online: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/2.6/get-started/whats-new-in-arcgis-pro.htm (accessed on 29 January 2025).
Guo, Y.; Amundson, R.; Gong, P.; Yu, Q. Quantity and spatial variability of soil carbon in the conterminous United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Social Cost of Carbon. EPA Fact Sheet. 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html (accessed on 10 February 2025).
United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Group. Theory of Change. UNDAF Companion Guidance. 2017. Available online: https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/UNDG-UNDAF-Companion-Pieces-7-Theory-of-Change.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2025).
Li, X.; Tian, H.; Lu, C.; Pan, S. Four-century history of land transformation by humans in the United States (1630–2020): Annual and 1 km grid data for the HIStory of LAND changes (HISLAND-US). Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2023, 15, 1005–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frazier, A.E.; Kedron, P.; Yang, W.; Quan, H. America the Beautiful: Meeting “30 × 30” conservation goals through connected protected areas. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2024, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991; U.S. Bureau of the Census: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; p. 201. [Google Scholar]
Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C.; Shepherd, G.B.; Dixon, R.M. Quantifying damages to soil health and emissions from land development in the state of Illinois (USA). Land 2023, 12, 1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
UN. Convention on Biological Diversity. 15/5. Monitoring Framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. 2022. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-05-en.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C.; Shepherd, G.B. Accounting for climate and inherent soil quality in United Nations (UN) land degradation analysis: A case study of the state of Arizona (USA). Climate 2024, 12, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/convention/overview (accessed on 18 March 2025).
United Nations (UN) Convention to Combat Desertification. Decision 3/COP.12 (COP 12, Ankara, 2015). Integration of the Sustainable Development Goals and Target into the Implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the Intergovernmental Working Group Report on Land Degradation Neutrality. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/official-documentscop-12-ankara-2015/3cop12 (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Shen, X.; Liu, M.; Hanson, J.O.; Wang, J.; Locke, H.; Watson, J.E.; Ellis, E.C.; Li, S.; Ma, K. Countries’ differentiated responsibilities to fulfill area-based conservation targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. One Earth 2023, 6, 548–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Helfenstein, J.; Diogo, V.; Bürgi, M.; Verburg, P.H.; Schüpbach, B.; Szerencsits, E.; Mohr, F.; Siegrist, M.; Swart, R.; Herzog, F. An approach for comparing agricultural development to societal visions. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mantyka-Pringle, C.S.; Martin, T.G.; Rhodes, J.R. Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2012, 18, 1239–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Climate.gov. Available online: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data (accessed on 17 March 2025).
Ekardt, F.; Günther, P.; Hagemann, K.; Garske, B.; Heyl, K.; Weyland, R. Legally binding and ambitious biodiversity protection under the CBD, the global biodiversity framework, and human rights law. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
IPBES. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Brondízio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; 1144p, ISBN 978-3-947851-20-1. [Google Scholar]
Government of the State of California, United States of America (USA). Executive Order N-82-20. Available online: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/10.07.2020-EO-N-82-20-.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Biden, J.R. Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 2021. Available online: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/ (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Dinerstein, E.; Vynne, C.; Sala, E.; Joshi, A.R.; Fernando, S.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Mayorga, J.; Olson, D.; Asner, G.P.; Baillie, J.E.M.; et al. A global deal for nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaaw2869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dinerstein, E.; Joshi, A.R.; Vynne, C.; Lee, A.T.; Pharand-Deschênes, F.; França, M.; Fernando, S.; Birch, T.; Burkart, K.; Asner, G.P.; et al. A “global safety net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabb2824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Harrison, S.; Franklin, J.; Hernandez, R.R.; Ikegami, M.; Safford, H.D.; Thorne, J.H. Climate change and California’s terrestrial biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2310074121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zabala, A.; Palomo, I.; Múgica, M.; Montes, C. Challenges beyond reaching a 30% of area protection. npj Biodivers. 2024, 3, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Villagomez, A.; Hidayat, A. The U.S. Terminated Its 30 × 30 Conservation Plan But This also Presents an Opportunity (Commentary). Mongabay. 2025. Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2025/02/the-u-s-terminated-its-30x30-conservation-plan-but-this-also-presents-an-opportunity-commentary/ (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Reed, B. America the Beautiful: How Biden Is Conserving Land and Water as Trump Looms. The Guardian, 10 June 2024. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/10/land-water-conservation-biden-environment (accessed on 18 March 2025).
United Nations (UN). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; The Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; 35p. [Google Scholar]
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 12 December 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Revised World Soil Charter. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/65be618a-f5e8-4f67-9cbb-d77f1f5cd31e/content (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Heuvelink, G.B.; Burrough, P.A.; Stein, A. Propagation of errors in spatial modelling with GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1989, 3, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bhaduri, D.; Sihi, D.; Bhowmik, A.; Verma, B.C.; Munda, S.; Dari, B. A review on effective soil health bio-indicators for ecosystem restoration and sustainability. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 938481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conciatori, M.; Tran, N.T.C.; Diez, Y.; Valletta, A.; Segalini, A.; Lopez Caceres, M.L. Plant species classification and biodiversity estimation from UAV images with deep learning. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Soil diversity (pedodiversity) and biodiversity are intricately linked to the biosphere. Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework (GBF) [1,2] recognizes this link in its goals and targets. (a) Soils have both abiotic and biotic components from the Earth’s spheres. (b) Relationship between two-sphere, three-sphere, and four-sphere (e.g., pedodiversity) systems (A = atmospheric diversity (abiotic + biotic); B = biodiversity (biotic); H = hydrodiversity (abiotic + biotic); L = lithodiversity (abiotic) (adapted from Mattson, 1938 [6]; Mikhailova et al., 2020 [7]; Ibáñez et al., 1998 [4]). Pedodiversity is influenced by extrinsic (environmental) (e.g., atmospheric deposition) and intrinsic (within the soil itself) factors.

Figure 3. Proposed monitoring of the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in relation to soil diversity (pedodiversity) using geospatial analysis of the convergence of soil type and land cover change (adapted from Mikhailova et al. (2023) [15]).

Figure 4. Data flow diagram outlining the geospatial analysis used to first determine land cover change, combine the change raster with spatial soil data and then identify the change areas by soil type. The data were subsequently summarized by the administrative area.

Figure 5. Land cover map by state of the contiguous United States of America (USA) for 2021 (based on data from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) [16]).

Figure 6. Proportion of protected area (PA) in each state for the contiguous United States of America (USA) (data for the 48 contiguous states) (adapted from Frazier et al., 2024) [22]).

Figure 7. Anthropogenic land degradation status is shown as the proportion of degraded land over the total land area (%) in 2021 in each state for the United States of America (USA) (data for the 48 contiguous states). Anthropogenically degraded land was calculated by summing the degraded land from development (developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity), barren land, and agriculture (hay/pasture and cultivated crops).

Figure 8. The proportion of private land ownership in each state for the contiguous United States of America (USA) (data for the 48 contiguous states) (based on data from the US Bureau of the Census (1991) [23]).

Figure 9. Total land degradation (anthropogenic + inherent) status is presented as the proportion of degraded land over the total land area (%) in 2021 for the contiguous United States of America (USA). Anthropogenically degraded land was calculated as the sum of degraded land from agriculture, development, and barren land. Inherently degraded land was considered as areas of Entisols, Inceptisols, Ultisols, and Aridisols (when present), adjusted for land originally identified as anthropogenically degraded.

Figure 10. Landcover change matrix for the agriculturally important soil order of Alfisols in the contiguous United States of America (USA) (matrix layout was adapted from Helfenstein et al. (2022) [30]). The matrix reveals the amount of each land cover that was converted to another land cover from 2001 to 2021. The diagonal values (shaded in gray color) indicate areas of each land use that did not change. The darkest shades of red correspond to the largest area changes.

Figure 11. High-resolution aerial imagery of (a) mostly undeveloped forest areas in Greenville County, SC (SC) (USA) in 2006 [28], and (b) the same area in 2021 [29] showing new housing developments. Land cover data of (c) mostly undeveloped forest area (light and dark green areas) in 2001 and (d) developed areas in 2021 (red areas) in the same location as the high-resolution aerial imagery (based on data from MRLC [16]).

Figure 12. Projections of future sea level rise and land loss due to climate change in some coastal counties of the state of South Carolina (SC) (USA). Note: 1 foot = 0.3048 m.

Table 2. Land use/land cover (LULC) change between 2001 and 2021 by soil order for the contiguous United States of America (USA).

Soil Quality Continuum
NLCD Land Cover Classes (LULC), Dynamic Soil Quality (Soil Health Continuum)		Change in Area, 2001–2021 (%)	Inherent Soil Quality (Soil Suitability)
			Degree of Weathering and Soil Development
			Slight				Moderate				Strong
			Enti- sols	Incepti- sols	Histo- sols	Andi- sols	Verti- sols	Alfi- soils	Molli- soils	Aridi- sols	Spodo-sols	Ulti- sols
			Change in Area, 2001–2021 (%)
Woody wetlands	Higher	3.6	2.6	2.8	2.9	10.6	25.5	6.1	4.8	0.3	3.4	0.1
Shrub/Scrub		−0.5	−0.5	7.3	−11.8	10.2	−1.1	3.6	−3.0	−2.2	−9.7	17.3
Mixed forest		−5.8	−7.4	−4.1	−1.4	11.4	7.4	−15.2	−12.4	−6.2	2.0	−4.8
Deciduous forest		−3.8	−4.7	−2.9	−7.7	2.2	−5.6	−1.4	−2.5	−8.3	−3.0	−7.1
Herbaceous		−1.0	−1.4	2.5	−1.5	29.8	−6.9	−1.6	−2.8	2.6	−8.5	13.5
Evergreen forest		−1.0	−2.9	−5.9	−3.2	−1.0	16.3	−1.4	−4.4	−3.8	−1.5	7.7
Emergent herbaceous wetlands		5.3	1.7	9.3	−3.4	14.5	10.5	4.6	9.0	18.6	3.2	55.1
Hay/Pasture		−8.4	−7.2	−7.2	−16.2	−5.6	−1.5	−9.1	−7.8	−3.2	−5.4	−10.3
Cultivated crops		4.4	4.0	3.9	−1.1	2.7	22.4	4.1	3.8	6.6	0.8	0.4
Developed, open space		−2.9	−9.5	−1.0	−8.7	6.1	−6.4	−2.5	−8.3	1.5	−4.9	4.3
Developed, low intensity		27.6	12.0	28.3	18.2	26.5	26.3	29.0	29.0	23.1	26.6	38.6
Developed, medium intensity		96.5	59.0	78.4	94.4	83.0	110.9	114.1	103.8	115.3	111.8	130.7
Developed, high intensity		95.9	66.1	85.7	111.9	90.8	107.5	113.7	98.7	163.3	100.7	119.8
Barren land	Lower	−1.8	−3.1	−3.1	−5.5	−1.1	1.2	13.3	27.8	−6.4	−15.9	−5.4

Note: Aridisols, Andisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, Entisols, Mollisols, Spodosols, Ultisols, and Vertisols are mineral soils. Histosols are typically organic soils.

Table 3. Anthropogenic land degradation status and potential land for nature-based solutions by soil order for the contiguous United States of America (USA) in 2021. Percent changes in area from 2001 to 2021 are shown in parentheses. Reported values have been rounded; therefore, calculated sums and percentages may exhibit minor discrepancies.

Soil Order	Total Area		Anthropogenically Degraded Land	Types of Anthropogenic Degradation			Potential Land for Nature-Based Solutions
	Total Area		Anthropogenically Degraded Land	Barren	Developed	Agriculture	Potential Land for Nature-Based Solutions
	(km²)	(%)	(km²)	(km²)	(km²)	(km²)	(km²)
Slightly Weathered Soils
	1,743,804	28.4	371,482 (+3.6)	19,479 (−3.1)	104,002 (+15.3)	248,001 (−0.1)	636,824 (+0.7)
Entisols	819,170	13.3	182,793 (+3.8)	16,418 (−3.1)	51,272 (+13.8)	115,104 (+0.9)	455,868 (−1.0)
Inceptisols	767,973	12.5	173,900 (+3.5)	2689 (−3.1)	47,730 (+17.2)	123,481 (−0.9)	168,327 (+4.9)
Histosols	97,366	1.6	11,966 (+0.1)	146 (−5.5)	3256 (+13.0)	8564 (−4.0)	1462 (−7.5)
Andisols	59,296	1.0	2822 (+9.5)	227 (−1.1)	1744 (+17.2)	851 (−0.9)	11,167 (+15.0)
Moderately Weathered Soils
	3,451,510	56.2	1,449,577 (+3.6)	10,075 (+2.1)	194,085 (+19.1)	1,245,416 (+1.6)	1,389,497 (−1.9)
Aridisols	537,759	8.8	47,818 (+9.0)	5887 (−6.4)	12,535 (+28.6)	29,397 (+5.6)	485,106 (−1.2)
Vertisols	157,752	2.6	75,954 (+17.8)	830 (+1.2)	10,025 (+28.9)	65,100 (+16.5)	57,635 (−4.4)
Alfisols	1,055,770	17.2	505,881 (+1.9)	1358 (+13.3)	89,465 (+20.3)	415,058 (−1.4)	180,292 (+1.1)
Mollisols	1,700,229	27.6	819,923 (+3.3)	2000 (+27.8)	82,061 (+15.5)	735,862 (+2.0)	666,465 (−2.9)
Strongly Weathered Soils
	949,325	15.4	271,482 (+2.2)	1928 (−8.3)	95,790 (+22.2)	173,764 (−6.1)	67,778 (+9.8)
Spodosols	207,912	3.4	33,031 (+5.1)	484 (−15.9)	16,139 (+15.6)	16,408 (−2.8)	11,598 (−9.4)
Ultisols	741,414	12.0	238,450 (+1.9)	1444 (−5.4)	79,651 (+23.6)	157,356 (−6.4)	56,181 (+14.8)
All Soils
Totals	6,144,640	100.0	2,092,540 (+3.4)	31,482 (−1.8)	393,877 (+18.8)	1,667,181 (+0.5)	2,094,099 (−0.7)

Note: Aridisols, Andisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, Entisols, Mollisols, Spodosols, Ultisols, and Vertisols are mineral soils. Histosols are typically organic soils. Anthropogenically degraded land was calculated as a sum of degraded land from development (developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity), barren land, and agriculture (hay/pasture, and cultivated crops). Developed land includes multiple categories: developed, low intensity; developed, open space; developed, high intensity; developed, medium intensity. Agriculture includes categories: hay/pasture; and cultivated crops. Potential land for nature-based solutions (NBS) is limited to barren land, shrub/scrub, and herbaceous land cover classes, to provide potential land areas without impacting current land uses.

Table 4. Pollution and its negative impacts on pedodiversity and biodiversity, including ecosystem services (e.g., regulating) and functions because of land conversion to developments by soil order for the contiguous United States of America (USA) prior to and through 2021 and recent changes (2001–2021).

Soil Order	Prior to and Through 2021			Recent (2001–2021)
	Developed Area	Midpoint Total Soil C Loss	Midpoint SC-CO₂	Developed Area	Midpoint Total Soil C Loss	Midpoint SC-CO₂
	(km²)	(kg C)	($, USD)	(km²)	(kg C)	($, USD)
Slightly Weathered Soils
	104,002.0	1.8 × 10¹²	$305.3B	13,838.9	2.3 × 10¹¹	$39.4B
Entisols	51,271.8	6.6 × 10¹¹	$111.3B	6203.5	7.9 × 10¹⁰	$13.5B
Inceptisols	47,729.8	6.7 × 10¹¹	$112.6B	7006.6	9.8 × 10¹⁰	$16.5B
Histosols	3256.3	4.6 × 10¹¹	$78.2B	373.4	5.3 × 10¹⁰	$9.0B
Andisols	1744.1	1.9 × 10¹⁰	$3.3B	255.4	2.7 × 10⁹	$459.7M
Moderately Weathered Soils
	194,085.4	3.7 × 10¹²	$629.7B	31,139.8	5.9 × 10¹¹	$100.1B
Aridisols	12,534.6	2.5 × 10¹¹	$42.2B	2789.4	5.6 × 10¹⁰	$9.4B
Vertisols	10,024.6	3.8 × 10¹¹	$64.1B	2245.7	8.5 × 10¹⁰	$14.4B
Alfisols	89,465.0	1.1 × 10¹²	$178.0B	15,099.0	1.8 × 10¹¹	$30.0B
Mollisols	82,061.2	2.1 × 10¹²	$345.5B	11,005.7	2.8 × 10¹¹	$46.3B
Strongly Weathered Soils
	95,790.0	7.7 × 10¹¹	$130.6B	17,392.8	1.4 × 10¹¹	$23.0B
Spodosols	16,139.3	2.1 × 10¹¹	$35.0B	2181.5	2.8 × 10¹⁰	$4.7B
Ultisols	79,650.7	5.7 × 10¹¹	$95.6B	15,211.4	1.1 × 10¹¹	$18.3B
All Soils
Totals	393,877.4	6.3 × 10¹²	$1.1T	62,371.5	9.6 × 10¹¹	$162.5B

Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Andisols, Aridisols, Vertisols, Alfisols, Mollisols, Spodosols, and Ultisols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Developed land includes categories: developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity. C = carbon. Total soil C = Soil organic C + Soil inorganic C. USD = United States dollar. SC-CO₂ = Social costs of carbon dioxide. M = million = 10⁶, B = billion = 10⁹, T = trillion = 10¹².

Table 5. Anthropogenic land degradation (LD) status and potential land for nature-based solutions (NBS) in 2021 by soil order for the contiguous United States of America (USA). Percent area changes from 2001 to 2021 are shown in parentheses. Reported values are rounded, so the calculated sums and percentages may have minor discrepancies.

Soil Order	Anthropogenically Degraded Land	Proportion from Total Soil Order Area	Potential Land for Nature-Based (NBS) Solutions	Difference (NBS − Anthropogenic LD)
Soil Order	km² (%)	%	km² (%)	km²
Slightly Weathered Soils
	371,482 (+3.6)	21.3	636,824 (+0.7)	265,343
Entisols	182,794 (+3.8)	22.3	455,868 (−1.0)	273,074
Inceptisols	173,900 (+3.5)	22.6	168,327 (+4.9)	−5573
Histosols	11,966 (+0.1)	12.3	1462 (−7.5)	−10,504
Andisols	2822 (+9.5)	4.8	11,167 (+15.0)	8345
Moderately Weathered Soils
	1,449,576 (+3.6)	42.0	1,389,498 (−1.9)	−60,080
Aridisols	47,818 (+9.0)	8.9	485,106 (−1.2)	437,287
Vertisols	75,954 (+17.8)	48.1	57,635 (−4.4)	−18,320
Alfisols	505,881 (+1.9)	47.9	180,292 (+1.1)	−325,589
Mollisols	819,923 (+3.3)	48.2	666,465 (−2.9)	−153,459
Strongly Weathered Soils
	271,482 (+2.2)	28.6	67,779 (+9.8)	−203,704
Spodosols	33,031 (+5.1)	15.9	11,598 (−9.4)	−21,434
Ultisols	238,451 (+1.9)	32.2	56,181 (+14.8)	−182,270
All Soils
Totals	2,092,540 (+3.4)	34.1	2,094,099 (−0.7)	1559

Note: Alfisols, Andisols, Aridisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, Vertisols, Mollisols, Ultisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Anthropogenically degraded land was calculated as a sum of degraded land from development (developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity), barren land, and agriculture (hay/pasture, and cultivated crops). Potential land for nature-based solutions (NBS) was limited to herbaceous, shrub/scrub, and barren land cover classes, to provide potential land areas without impacting current land uses. Change in the area was calculated using the following method: ((2021 Area − 2001 Area)/2001 Area) × 100%.

Table 6. Distribution of agriculture and forest land by soil order in 2021 for the contiguous United States of America (USA). Percent area changes from 2001 to 2021 are shown in parentheses. Reported values have been rounded, which may exhibit minor discrepancies in calculated sums and percentages.

Soil Order	Agricultural Land	Forest Land
Soil Order	km² (%)	km² (%)
Slightly Weathered Soils
	248,000.7 (−0.1)	533,262.5 (−4.0)
Entisols	115,103.8 (+0.9)	125,050.8 (−4.3)
Inceptisols	123,481.2 (−0.9)	351,883.2 (−4.3)
Histosols	8564.2 (−4.0)	11,242.1 (−4.3)
Andisols	851.4 (−0.9)	45,086.5 (−0.5)
Moderately Weathered Soils
	1,245,416.2 (+1.6)	509,570.3 (−3.5)
Aridisols	29,397.0 (+5.6)	8673.9 (−3.9)
Vertisols	65,099.5 (+16.5)	9322.5 (+6.4)
Alfisols	415,057.6 (−1.4)	324,522.1 (−3.4)
Mollisols	735,862.1 (+2.0)	167,051.8 (−4.2)
Strongly Weathered Soils
	173,764.2 (−6.1)	530,784.7 (−1.4)
Spodosols	16,407.9 (−2.8)	134,940.3 (−1.1)
Ultisols	157,356.3 (−6.4)	395,844.4 (−1.5)
All Soils
Totals	1,667,181.0 (+0.5)	1,573,617.5 (−3.0)

Note: Andisols, Aridisols, Vertisols, Alfisols, Entisols, Inceptisols, Mollisols, Ultisols, and Spodosols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Agriculture includes categories: hay/pasture and cultivated crops. Forest land includes categories: mixed, deciduous, and evergreen forests. Change in the area was calculated using the formula: ((2021 Area − 2001 Area)/2001 Area) × 100%.

Table 7. Proposed monitoring of undesirable change of wetlands for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework using a land use/land cover (LULC) change matrix. This matrix shows wetlands changes to non-wetlands land covers for the state of Georgia (GA) in the United States of America (USA) (2001–2021).

NLCD Land Cover Classes (LULC)	Area (km²) in 2001	Total Wetlands Area (km²) in 2021; Change (2001–2021) (km²)	Woody Wetlands Area (km²) in 2021	Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Area (km²) in 2021
Total wetlands	26,494.2	26,332.5 (−161.7)	23,767.1	2565.5
Woody wetlands	24,125.0	23,991.8	23,164.0	827.8
Emergent herbaceous wetlands	2369.2	2340.7	603.0	1737.7
−	−	Change in the Wetlands Area (2001–2021) (km²) to Non-Wetland Types
Shrub/Scrub	−	+4.6	+3.7	+0.8
Mixed forest	−	+2.9	+2.3	+0.5
Deciduous forest	−	+4.7	+3.5	+1.2
Herbaceous	−	+5.5	+2.8	+2.6
Evergreen forest	−	+24.5	+19.1	+5.5
Hay/Pasture	−	+2.2	+0.7	+1.5
Cultivated crops	−	+16.9	+13.1	+3.8
Developed, open space	−	+53.3	+48.5	+4.8
Developed, low intensity	−	+21.8	+18.6	+3.2
Developed, medium intensity	−	+14.7	+13.0	+1.7
Developed, high intensity	−	+6.4	+5.8	+0.6
Barren land	−	+4.2	+2.0	+2.2

Note: Hyphen symbol = not applicable.

Table 8. Anthropogenic land degradation (LD) status by soil order for selected states in the contiguous United States of America (USA) in 2021.

Soil Order	Proportion of Anthropogenically Degraded Soil Area from Total Soil Order Area (%)
Soil Order	Contiguous USA	Iowa	Indiana	Illinois	Arizona	Nevada	Georgia
	Slightly Weathered Soils (21.3%)
Entisols	22.3	75.0	68.1	66.6	11.6	6.3	13.3
Inceptisols	22.6	93.7	49.7	50.9	2.4	9.8	12.6
Histosols	12.3	59.0	77.9	77.3	−	51.5	0.1
Andisols	4.8	−	−	−	−	10.1	−
	Moderately Weathered Soils (42.0%)
Aridisols	8.9	−	−	−	9.3	3.7	−
Vertisols	48.1	97.9	−	−	0.9	6.2	−
Alfisols	47.9	79.7	73.8	77.5	0.9	0.6	20.3
Mollisols	48.2	92.9	89.1	93.0	4.1	3.0	29.8
	Strongly Weathered Soils (28.6%)
Spodosols	15.9	−	32.6	−	−	−	12.7
Ultisols	32.2	−	27.3	5.4	−	−	34.7
	All Soils (34.1%)
Overall	34.1	88.7	73.3	82.2	8.6	4.3	29.7

Note: Entisols, Inceptisols, Andisols, Aridisols, Vertisols, Alfisols, Mollisols, Spodosols, and Ultisols are mineral soils. Histosols are mostly organic soils. Anthropogenically degraded land was calculated as the sum of degraded land from agriculture (hay/pasture and cultivated crops), from development (developed, open space; developed, low intensity; developed, medium intensity; developed, high intensity), and barren land. Hyphen symbol = not applicable.

Table 9. Soil order area loss due to sea level rise in the state of South Carolina (SC) (USA) (based on original ArcGIS Pro 2.6 [17] analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [32]).

Soil Orders (Affected by Sea Level Rise)	Total Soil Order Area in the State (km²)	Soil Order Area Loss due to Sea Level Rise, km² Proportion of Loss from Total Soil Order Area (%)
Soil Orders (Affected by Sea Level Rise)	Total Soil Order Area in the State (km²)	1 Foot	3 Feet	6 Feet	9 Feet
Slightly Weathered Soils
Entisols	6833.0	1751.6 (25.6)	1891.0 (27.7)	1998.2 (29.2)	2095.3 (30.7)
Inceptisols	7277.7	127.6 (1.8)	210.6 (2.9)	389.1 (5.3)	556.9 (7.7)
Histosols	522.2	267.6 (51.2)	288.7 (55.3)	291.7 (55.9)	293.3 (56.2)
Moderately Weathered Soils
Alfisols	7390.6	78.7 (1.1)	221.1 (3.0)	480.5 (6.5)	728.1 (9.9)
Mollisols	229.7	22.0 (9.6)	46.8 (20.4)	78.3 (34.1)	110.9 (48.3)
Strongly Weathered Soils
Spodosols	1335.5	15.0 (1.1)	55.7 (4.2)	141.3 (10.6)	200.8 (15.0)
Ultisols	53,151.2	73.9 (0.1)	209.8 (0.4)	486.2 (0.9)	808.5 (1.5)

Note: 1 foot = 0.3048 m.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C.; Highberger, G.A.; Shepherd, G.B. The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA). Biosphere 2025, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/biosphere1010003

AMA Style

Mikhailova EA, Zurqani HA, Lin L, Hao Z, Post CJ, Schlautman MA, Post GC, Highberger GA, Shepherd GB. The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA). Biosphere. 2025; 1(1):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/biosphere1010003

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mikhailova, Elena A., Hamdi A. Zurqani, Lili Lin, Zhenbang Hao, Christopher J. Post, Mark A. Schlautman, Gregory C. Post, Gretchen A. Highberger, and George B. Shepherd. 2025. "The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA)" Biosphere 1, no. 1: 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/biosphere1010003

APA Style

Mikhailova, E. A., Zurqani, H. A., Lin, L., Hao, Z., Post, C. J., Schlautman, M. A., Post, G. C., Highberger, G. A., & Shepherd, G. B. (2025). The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA). Biosphere, 1(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/biosphere1010003

Article Menu

The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Example of the Contiguous United States of America (USA)

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

3. Results

3.1. The Role of Soil Diversity (Pedodiversity) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

3.1.1. Global Goals of GBF for 2050: Goal A and Goal B

3.1.2. Global Targets of GBF for 2030

3.2. Enhancing Existing Metrics and Potential New Metrics for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

4. Discussion

4.1. Significance of the Results for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

4.1.1. Benefits and Limitations of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

4.1.2. Refining the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

4.2. Significance of the Results to Other United Nations (UN) Initiatives

4.3. Limitations of the Study and Future Research Needs

5. Conclusions

Supplementary Materials

Author Contributions

Funding

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

Abbreviations

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI