Soil-Water Effects of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions Should Be Weighed in Conjunction with Carbon Farming
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Primary Data
2.2. Studied Area
2.3. Document Interrogation
3. Results
3.1. GAEC Applicability to Soil-Water Aspects
3.2. GAECs in the Selected Member-States Sample
4. Discussion
4.1. The Scientific Research Prompting GAEC Policy-Makers
4.2. GAEC Effects for Soils and Water
4.3. Resilience Connection
4.4. Carbon Farming Field vs. GAEC
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Article | Note |
1 | Preamble: “resilience of ecosystems to climate” |
2 | Article on Priorities: “resource-efficiency priority … resilient to climate” |
3 | Article on Tasks: “agricultural sector development resilient to climate” |
4 | Article on Advisory: “resilience of farm ownership, farm and climate-related investment” |
5 | Article on Forest Area Development: “resilience of woodland ecosystem” |
6 | Article on woodland ecosystem stability: “resilience of woodland ecosystem” |
7 | Article on European Innovation Partnership: “low-emission economics resilient to climate” |
8 | Annex on Measures |
References
- Desta, M.; McMahon, J. The Common Agricultural Policy and the UN Development Goals: Can do better? J. World Trade 2015, 49, 699–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattler, C.; Nagel, U. Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—A case study from north-eastern. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frelih-Larsen, A.; Bowyer, C.; Albrecht, S.; Keenleyside, C.; Kemper, M. Updated Inventory and Assessment of Soil Protection Policy Instruments in EU Member States; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brodova, M. The agrienvironmental programme in Slovakia, in 2004–2006. Agric. Econ. 2009, 55, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rizov, M.; Pokrivcak, J.; Ciaian, P. CAP subsidies and productivity of the farms. Agric. Econ. 2013, 64, 537–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoate, C.; Báldi, A.; Beja, P.; Boatman, N.; Herzon, I.; van Doorn, A.; de Snoo, G.; Rakosy, L.; Ramwell, C. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 22–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Agriculture. Příručka Průvodce Zemědělce Kontrolou Podmíněnosti Platný Pro Rok 2016; Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2015.
- Dumbrovský, M.; Korsuň, S. Optimisation of soil conservation systems within integrated territorial protection. Soil Water Res. 2009, 4, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frelih-Larsen, A.; Leipprand, A.; Naumann, S.; Beucher, O. Deliverable D11 Climate Change Mitigation through Agricultural Techniques Policy Recommendations PICCMAT Project, 6th Framework Programme; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Daroussin, J.; King, D.; Montanarella, L. Chapter 4 The Soil Geographical Database of Eurasia at Scale 1:1,000,000: History and Perspective in Digital Soil Mapping. Dev. Soil Sci. 2006, 31, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrelli, P.; Paustian, K.; Panagos, P.; Jones, A.; Schütt, B.; Lugato, E. Effect of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions on erosion and soil organic carbon balance: A national case study. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 408–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poláková, J.; Holec, J.; Janku, J.; Maitah, M.; Soukup, J. Effects of agri-environment schemes in terms of the results for soil, water and soil organic matter in Central and Eastern Europe. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaphengst, T.; Bassi, S.; Davis, M.; Gardner, S.; Herbert, S.; Lago, M.; Naumann, S.; Rayment, M. Taking into Account Opportunity Costs When Assessing Costs of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Action; Report for the European Commission; Ecologic Institute: Berlin, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gálya, B.; Tamás, J.; Blaskó, L.; Riczu, P.; Nistor, S.; Fehér, J.; Bozsik, É.; Nagy, A. Water retention possibilities in soils—Hungarian part of Tisza-River Basin. Nat. Resour. Sust. Dev. 2018, 8, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kudrna, K.; Akademia Rolnicza, Wroclaw (Poland); Osrodek Obliczeniowy. Conception of land improvement systems of Czechoslovak agriculture. Sb. CSAZ (CSFR) 1990, 136. [Google Scholar]
- Horáková, E.; Pospíšilová, L.; Vlček, V.; Menšík, L. Changes in the soil’s biological and chemical properties due to the land use. CAAS Agric. J. 2020, 15, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kincl, D.; Formánek, P.; Vopravil, J.; Nerušil, P.; Menšík, L.; Janků, J. Soil-conservation effect of intercrops in silage maize. Soil Water Res. 2022, 17, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barão, L.; Alaoui, A.; Hessel, R. Identifying and comparing easily accessible frameworks for assessing soil organic matter functioning. Agronomy 2023, 13, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawls, W.; Pachepsky, Y. Effect of soil organic carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma 2003, 116, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. A Farm-to-Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament ant the Council; COM(2020) 381 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Van-Camp, L.; Bujarrabal, B.; Gentile, A.; Jones, R.J.A.; Montanarella, L.; Olazabal, C.; Selvaradjou, S. Soil Thematic Strategy: The report of the technical working group on organic matter. In Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Are, M.; Kaart, T.; Selge, A.; Reintam, E. The effects of crops together with winter cover crops on the content of soil water-stable aggregates in organic farming. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frydrych, J.; Hermuth, J.; Lošák, M.; Bradáčová, L. Grasses and Selected C4 Crops as Cover Crops and Their Use in the Conditions of a Changing Climate; Research Institute of Crop Production: Prague, Czech Republic, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Laporta, L.; Domingos, T.; Marta-Pedroso, C. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems services under the proposed MAES european common framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities. Land 2021, 10, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartori, F.; Piccoli, I.; Polese, R.; Berti, A. A multivariate approach to evaluate reduced tillage systems and cover crop sustainability. Land 2022, 11, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.B. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification—Adaptive management for environmental change. BioScience 2011, 61, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meuwissen, M.; Feindt, P.; Reidsma, P. A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 2019, 176, 102656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jongeneel, R.; Brouwer, F.; Farmer, M.; Muessner, R.; de Roest, K.; Poux, X.; Fox, G.; Meister, A.; Karaczun, Z.; Winsten, J.; et al. Compliance with Mandatory Standards in Agriculture. A Comparative Approach of the EU Vis-À-Vis the United States, Canada and New Zealand; Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, H.; Osterburg, B.; Nitsch, H. Strengths and weaknesses of crosscompliance in the CAP. Eurochoices 2006, 5, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvorsky, J.; Jelinek, A.; Koutna, K.; Mana, V.; Semrad, Z.; Smrcek, L. Integrated Handbook with Regard to Principles of Good Agricultural Practice; Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2005.
- Musilová, H. Environmentální Aspekty Podnikání V Zemědělství V Kontextu Pravidel Podmíněnosti. (Environmental Aspects of Agricultural Entrepreneurship in the Context of Rules on Cross-Compliance); Faculty of Law, Masaryk University: Brno, Czech Republic, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, K.; Weingarten, P.; Baldock, D.; Osterburg, B.; Povellato, A.; Vanni, F.; Pirzio-Biroli, C.; Boyes, A. What Tools for the European Agricultural Policy to Encourage the Provision of Public Goods; Policy Department B, European Parliament: Structural and Cohesion Policies: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- BMLFUW (Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft). Agrarumweltmaßnahmen (M214). In Österreichisches Programm für die Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raums 2007–2013; BMLFUW: Wien, Austria, 2009; pp. 224–387. [Google Scholar]
- Scholberg, J.M.S.; Boote, K.J.; Jones, J.W.; McNeal, B.L. Adaptation of the CROPGRO model to simulate the growth of field-grown tomato. In Applications of Systems Approaches at the Field Level; Springer Business+Media Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997; pp. 135–151. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Rural Development Programmes 2014–2020; Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Poláková, J.; Menadue, H.; Hart, K.; Black, H. EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and Climate Change Mitigation Actions with Regard to Good Agricultural and Environmental Practice Standards, Report to DG Climate Action, Contract No. 071303/2011/614488/SER/CLIMA.A2; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nitsch, H.; Osterburg, B.; Roggendorf, W.; Laggner, B. Cross compliance and the protection of grassland—Illustrative analyses of land use transitions between permanent grassland and arable land in German regions. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartošová, L.; Fischer, M.; Balek, J.; Trnka, M. Validity and reliability of drought reporters in estimating soil water content and drought impacts in central Europe. Agric. Meteorol. 2022, 315, 108808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kliková, C.; Kotlán, I. Hospodářská a Sociální Politika, 5th ed.; Vysoká škola sociálně správní: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Poláková, J. Is economic institutional adaptation feasible for agri-environmental policy? Case of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition standards. Agric. Econ. 2017, 64, 458–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zellei, A.; Gorton, M.; Lowe, P. Agri-Environmental Policy Systems in Transition: Problems and Perspectives. In Sustainable Agriculture in Central and Eastern European Countries: The Environmental Effects of Transition and Needs for Change; Gatzweiler, F., Hagedorn, K., Judis, R., Eds.; The ACE Phare Seminar; Shaker Verlag: Aachen, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Slamova, M.; Belcakova, I. The role of small farm activities for the sustainable management of agricultural landscapes: Case Studies from Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Court of Auditors. European Court of Auditors Making Cross Compliance More Effective and Achieving Simplification Remains Challenging, Special Report No 26; European Court of Auditors: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency [EEA]. Water Resources Across Europe—Confronting Water Scarcity and Drought; EEA Report 2/2009; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2010: Assessment of Global Megatrends; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. Resource Efficiency in Europe—Policies and Approaches in 31 EEA Member and Cooperating Countries; EEA Report No. 5/2011; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. Water Exploitation Index; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012; Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/water-exploitation-index-2014-towards (accessed on 11 February 2020).
- EEA. Towards Efficient Use of Water Resources in Europe; EEA Report No 1/2012; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. European Waters—Assessment of Status and Pressures; EEA Report No.8/2012; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources. Communication to the Council and the Parliament, COM/2012/0673 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673:EN:NOT (accessed on 11 February 2020).
- Kertész, Á.; Madarász, B. Conservation agriculture in Europe. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2014, 2, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kilic, O.; Boz, I.; Eryilmaz, G. Comparison of conventional and good agricultural practices farms: A socio-economic and technical perspective. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 258, 120666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorsoe, M.H.; Andersen, M.S.; Brady, M.V.; Graversgaard, M.; Kilis, E.; Pedersen, A.B.; Pitzen, S.; Valve, H. Promise and performance of agricultural nutrient management policy: Lessons from the Baltic Sea. Ambio 2021, 51, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farmer, A.; Dworak, T.; Bogaert, S.; Berglund, M.; Zamparutti, T.; Interwies, E.; Strosser, P.; Stanley, K.; Schmidt, G.; Cools, J.; et al. Service Contract to Support the Impact Assessment of the Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Waters: Assessment of Policy Options for the Blueprint: Final Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Dýrová, E. Conservation and Land Parcelling of Catchments; Nakladatelství technické literatury: Praha, Czech Republic, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Kavdir, Y.; Demirel, K.; Anlauf, R. Using Hydrus-2D simulations to predict soil water contents on soil water retention barriers in turfgrass. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2015, 24, 4322–4332. [Google Scholar]
- Mihalikova, M.; Matula, S.; Dolezal, F. HYPRESCZ—Database of soil hydrophysical properties in the Czech Republic. Soil Water Res. 2013, 8, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burton, R. Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol. Rural. 2008, 48, 16–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- [UZEI] Institute of Agricultural Economics. Podkladové Materiály Pro Přípravu Programovacího Období 2021+; Půda, voda—Zkrácená analýza; Institute of Agricultural Economics of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2018.
- Naorem, A.; Jayaraman, S.; Dalal, R.C.; Patra, A.; Rao, C.S.; Lal, R. Soil inorganic carbon as a potential sink in carbon storage in dryland soils—A review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mercier, A.; Hubert-Moy, L.; Baudry, J. Sentinel-2 images reveal functional biophysical heterogeneities in crop mosaics. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 3607–3628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caddy, J. Harmonisation and asymmetry: Environmental policy coordination between the European Union and Central Europe. J. Eur. Public Policy 1997, 4, 318–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hannus, V. Data on farmers’ perception and acceptance of sustainability standards. Data Brief 2020, 32, 106250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, L.; Isselstein, J.; Chaplin, S.; Peel, S. Agri-environment schemes: Farmers’ acceptance and perception of potential ‘Payment by Results’ in grassland—A case study. Land Use Policy 2013, 32, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trnka, M.; Kyselý, J.; Možný, M.; Dubrovský, M. Changes in central-European soil-moisture availability and circulation patterns in 1881–2005. Int. J. Climatol. 2009, 29, 655–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thaler, S.; Eitzinger, J.; Trnka, M.; Dubravska, M. Impacts of climate change and alternative adaptation options on winter wheat yield and water productivity in a dry climate in Central Europe. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 537–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, A.; DeGraaff, J.; Olsen, P. Farm-level adoption of soil and water conservation measures and policy implications in Europe. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
Regulation at Farm Level | Point | For Period |
---|---|---|
Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) | ||
Nitrate directive requirements s, re | protect water resources reduce nitrates contamination in vulnerable zones | (1994–today) |
‘Environmental measures’ and ‘maximum stocking densities’ a | reduce adverse environmental impacts | (1993–1999) |
‘Environmental protection requirements and ‘usual good farming practice’ a | reduce adverse environmental impacts | (2000–2004) |
GAEC | ||
Ten requirements a | comply with soil-water protection practice to maintain agricultural land | (2004–2013) |
Seven categories s, re | comply with soil-water protection practice to maintain agricultural land | (2015–2022) |
GAEC Topics | Farm Level Enterprise (E)/Landscape Scale (L) |
---|---|
Cover Crop for Soil Vegetation | E |
Retention of Terraces | E, L |
Protection of Permanent Pasture | E, L |
Requirement for Crop Rotation or Soil Carbon (C) Content | E |
Retention of Landscape Features | E, L |
GAEC (% of Area) | Agri-Environment Practice (% of Area) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Area of Water | Area of Soil Management | ||
Czech Republic | 100 | 11.38 | 12.41 |
Hungary | 100 | 3.57 | 8.39 |
Poland | 100 | 7.85 | 10.44 |
Slovakia | 100 | 9.61 | 11.43 |
Member State/GAEC Topic | Identification of Soil Water 1: Most Directly 5: Least Directly | Requirement Details | Effects of the Measure in the Prevention of the Issue Outlined by GAECs E, Farm Enterprise Level L, Landscape Scale | Effectiveness of the Measure in the Prevention of the Issue Outlined by GAECs 1: Most Influential 5: Least Influential |
---|---|---|---|---|
GAEC Topic: Cover Crop for Soil Vegetation | ||||
2005: Czech R. | 1 | Exclusion of growing crops prone to soil erosion | E | 4 |
2011: Czech R. | 1 | Until 30 November, arable land with a topography gradient steeper than 7% must have either soil cover (stubble) on all or part of the plot. The soil concerned is ploughed or tilled so as to enhance water absorption. | E | 4 |
2005: Hungary | 1 | Before spring: sowed crops if vulnerable to erosion. | E | 4.5 |
2011: Hungary | 1 | On arable land with a gradient steeper than 12%, there must be soil cover after the summer harvest and after the autumn harvest. Soil cover is a practice concerning: a) sowing autumn crops, or b) maintaining the stubble until 30 October; low stubble cleaning is allowed provided the stubble is kept weeded. | E | 4.5 |
2005: Poland | 1 | For arable land with slope > 20%: retain soil cover, no crop cultivation with ridge along the slope and no black fallow. | E | 4.5 |
2011: Poland | 1 | On arable land, the land must be cultivated or kept as a fallow land. Where land is fallow, it should be mown/managed at least once a year, by 31 July, to prevent the occurrence and spread of weeds. | E | 4.5 |
2005: Slovakia | 1 | For areas prone to soil erosion at least one of the following five measures must be applied: (a) planting a protective green cover; (b) relief contour line agrotechnology is being used; (c) crop rotation with protective effect is applied; (d) the crop must be mulched and non-ploughing technology has to be used; (e) non-ploughing technology is applied. | E | 3 |
2011: Slovakia | 1 | Minimum green soil cover (40%). Applies winter crops or perennial fodder crops or intercrop or stubble from 15 October to 1 March. Concerns the slope over 12 degrees. | E | 3 |
GAEC Topic: Retention of Terraces | ||||
2005: Czech R. | 2 | Basic | E, L | 4 |
2011: Czech R. | 2 | Basic | E, L | 4 |
2005: Hungary | 2 | Basic | E, L | 4.5 |
2011: Hungary | 2 | No data | E, L | 4.5 |
2005: Poland | 4 | Basic | E, L | 4.5 |
2011: Poland | 4 | No data | E, L | 4.5 |
GAEC Topic: Standards for Soil Carbon (C) Content | ||||
2005: Czech R. | 2 | On sloping land (above 12°) no cultivation of row crops such as maize and tubers. Agrotechnical management and machinery use is applicable only in the form of contour tillage. Furthermore, slopes (gradient above 12°) either must be protected with continuous vegetation cover, or manure, organic and organomineral fertilizers used in soil. | E | 2 |
2011: Czech R. | 2 | On at least 20% of arable land, one must apply solid farm fertilisers or solid organic fertilisers to a minimum dose of 25 tonnes per hectare, with the exception of solid fertiliser from poultry farming, where the minimum dose is 4 tonnes per hectare. For the ploughing in of waste products from growing plants (e.g., straw), a minimum dose is not set. Or cover this area or a corresponding part from 31 May to 31 July of the relevant calendar year with legumes. Crops may be sown as an under-sow into the covering crop or mixed with grasses under the condition that the proportion of grasses does not exceed 50%. | E | 2 |
2005: Hungary | 4 | Contour tillage; row crops on slopes > 12%; preserve uncultivated greenspaces. | E | 2 |
2011: Hungary | 4 | Exceptions: crop rotations where applicable. | E | 2 |
2005: Poland | 2 | Fallow land no longer than 5 years. | E | 3 |
2011: Poland | 2 | Fallow land no longer than 5 years. | E | 3 |
GAEC Topic: Protection of Permanent Pasture | ||||
2005: Czech R. | 1 | Rules are under discussion, the conversion of grassland into arable land is forbidden. | E, L | 1 |
2011: Czech R. | 1 | Obligation to protect and maintain and permanent pasture. | E, L | 1 |
2005: Hungary | 2 | If permanent pasture decreases 10%, re-establishment of permanent pasture that has been converted to arable land is obligatory. | E, L | 3 |
2011: Hungary | 2 | Permanent grassland is protected on farms. | E, L | 1 |
2005: Poland | 1 | Rules are under discussion, the conversion of grassland into arable land is forbidden. | E, L | 2 |
2011: Poland | 1 | The farmer possessing land converted from land under permanent pasture is obliged to re-convert it into land under permanent pasture by May 15 following year. | E, L | 2 |
GAEC topic: Retention of Landscape Features | ||||
2005: Czech R. | 1 | Retention (not maintenance) of defined features. | E, L | 1 |
2011: Czech R. | 1 | Retention (not maintenance) of defined features. | E, L | 1 |
2005: Hungary | 1 | Basic | E, L | 1 |
2011: Hungary | 1 | Basic | E, L | 1 |
2005: Poland | 3 | Basic | E, L | 1 |
2011: Poland | 3 | Basic | E, L | 1 |
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. |
© 2023 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
Poláková, J.; Janků, J.; Holec, J.; Soukup, J. Soil-Water Effects of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions Should Be Weighed in Conjunction with Carbon Farming. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041002
Poláková J, Janků J, Holec J, Soukup J. Soil-Water Effects of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions Should Be Weighed in Conjunction with Carbon Farming. Agronomy. 2023; 13(4):1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041002
Chicago/Turabian StylePoláková, Jana, Jaroslava Janků, Josef Holec, and Josef Soukup. 2023. "Soil-Water Effects of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions Should Be Weighed in Conjunction with Carbon Farming" Agronomy 13, no. 4: 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041002
APA StylePoláková, J., Janků, J., Holec, J., & Soukup, J. (2023). Soil-Water Effects of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions Should Be Weighed in Conjunction with Carbon Farming. Agronomy, 13(4), 1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041002