4.7 Editorial Material

A soil science renaissance

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 148, 期 2, 页码 123-129

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.10.006

关键词

Soil science; Student numbers; Soil science publications; Environmental soil science; UN organisations; Soil science impact; Research funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The renaissance was an intellectually-rich period following a period of stasis in the medieval period. Something analogous appears to be currently taking place in soil science where novel approaches to thought are combined with a revival of ideas from the past. Renewed interest in agriculture (food, feed, fuel) and numerous publications have brought soils back onto the global research agenda. The need for up-to-date and fine resolution soil information and the revival of soil research has been highlighted and prioritised in several recent studies by the UN and other international organizations. Soil erosion, nutrient depletion and pollution are key issues that have been brought up in many recent reports - in most cases in relation to environmental degradation, climate change and world-food production. There is also an increased interest in soils in the popular press and media, and soils have entered the policy arena in many countries and several continents. We guestimate that about (sic)3.2 billion is annually spent on soil research in Europe, North America, and some of the main countries in Asia and Oceania. For the global soil science community, there are challenges ahead to address the questions raised in these reports. There is a whole set of new techniques and methodologies in the wings waiting to take centre stage. There is a direct need to educate a new generation of soil scientists and to increase the influx of soil science students in many universities. The soil science community should benefit from the current upsurge in soil science, but the community has to deliver the goods and information that is wanted and much needed. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据