Received: 15 April 2022 Accepted: 30 June 2022 Published online: 22 March 2023

DOI: 10.1002/jeq2.20390

SPECIAL SECTION: EXPLORING THE SOIL

H E A L T H – WA T E R S H E D H E A L T H N E X U S

Connecting soil health and water quality in agricultural

landscapes

Ann Marcelle Lewandowski1 Anna Cates2

1 WaterResources Center, Univ. of

Minnesota, 1985 Buford Ave., St. Paul, MN Abstract
55108, USA As soil plays an integral role in the water cycle, the dynamic and inherent attributes
2 Dep.of Soil, Water, and Climate, Univ. of of soil are important drivers of the amount and quality of water in streams, lakes, and
Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St.
Paul, MN 55108, USA
groundwater. Studies have demonstrated links between agricultural soil management
and water movement in soil, to the edge of fields, and across entire watersheds that
Correspondence feed water bodies of interest. Still, not enough is known about linkages between soil
Ann Marcelle Lewandowski, Water
Resources Center, Univ. of Minnesota, 1985 management, soil health, and watershed water quality to adequately predict impacts
Buford Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. of land use changes and to effectively use soil management as a tool for water
Email: [email protected]
resource management. We describe here the mechanisms connecting soil health and
Assigned to Associate Editor William water quality, the state of the science at the nexus of the two fields of study, and an
Osterholz. overview of recent studies on the topic. A fundamental challenge is measuring and
elucidating connections between processes working at different temporal and spatial
scales. Research needs include expansion of field-scale data and analysis of combined
datasets, greater understanding of the mechanisms that explain observed associations
between management practices and water quality, ensuring that hydrologic models
and decision-support tools more effectively reflect these soil–water mechanisms, and
greater use of systems-based research designs.

1 INTRODUCTION Policies and strategies are based on small-scale or indirect evi-

dence, such as soil nitrate reductions directly under growing
Agricultural soil health management systems (SHMSs) are cover crops (Kaspar et al., 2012; Kladivko & Bowling, 2021),
widely indicated in state nutrient management strategies as a modeling landscape-scale impacts of in-field practices (Bon-
means to reduce nutrient loading in both surface water and ner et al., 2014), and in-field or edge-of-field measurements
groundwater (USEPA, 2022). However, the evidence link- of water quality and quantity (Blanco-Canqui, 2018). While
ing farming practices such as cover crops or reduced tillage these connections rest in a firm theoretical understanding of
with watershed-level water quality changes is weak, highly soil and water processes, they fail to connect the measur-
variable, or indirect (Lee et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018). able and measured soil properties associated with soil health,
such as increased aggregate stability or active organic matter
pools, with the water quality outcomes of interest across small
Abbreviations: CEAP, Conservation Effects Assessment Project; LTAR,
Long-Term Agroecosystem Research; SHMS, soil health management
or large watersheds. Understanding this connection between
system. watershed outcomes and soil biophysical measurements and

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Environmental Quality published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and
Soil Science Society of America.

412 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jeq2 J. Environ. Qual. 2023;52:412–421.

 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LEWANDOWSKI and CATES 413

properties is important to help select more meaningful soil

health measures that better indicate soil function, better pre- Core Ideas
dict the impact of a specific practice implementation, and
determine the attributes of soil management practices that ∙ The common approach to the soil–water nexus
explain their positive effects on water quality. If, on the other is correlating land management and edge-of-field
hand, such a connection between soil biophysical attributes water quality.
and watershed quality proves weak, then we must question ∙ Different temporal and spatial scales make soil
the fundamental value of the frequently measured soil prop- health and watershed quality hard to correlate.
erties that together have come to exemplify “soil health” in the ∙ Direct linkages between soil-water mechanisms
scientific literature (Stewart et al., 2018; Wander et al., 2019). and water quality outcomes are needed to improve
We use the USDA-NRCS definition of soil health—“the hydrologic models.
continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ∙ Currently, the soil health concept has limited utility
ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans”—which for water resource managers.
highlights the ability of soil to regulate water, sustain plants
and animals, filter and buffer potential pollutants, cycle nutri-
ents, and provide physical stability (Stott, 2019). Soil health
metrics or indicators include the dynamic soil properties that ment could look like if managers took greater advantage of
are affected by land use and management. A SHMS is an agri- soil health metrics and soil health management.
cultural land management approach that incorporates more To lay the groundwork for the collected studies, we
than one of the common soil health principles: keeping soil explore here the theoretical framework for how soil medi-
covered, minimizing disturbance, keeping living roots in the ates agricultural water quality at small scales to affect water
ground, diversifying plants in rotations, and integrating live- quality outcomes in surface water and groundwater bodies of
stock. Soil health management systems in commodity crop concern. We outline the current conversation on water man-
production most commonly include cover crops and reduced agement and soil health and describe the gaps and research
tillage, but longer rotations, use of perennials, grazing, and needs for advancing our understanding of the relationships
other practices are also important. Significantly, SHMSs are between soil properties, management, and water outcomes.
not these individual practices but a system that prioritizes soil
conservation and function, while accounting for the interac-
tion of seed genetics, weed and pest control, planting and 2 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SOIL
harvest methods, and fertility and water management. HEALTH AND WATER QUALITY
We use the term “soil–water dynamics” to denote how
water travels through and changes in a physical soil matrix, Soil management alters soil attributes, which are an inherent
interacting with soil chemical and physical properties. By part of water movement and storage. Figure 1 summarizes
“water quality,” we are limiting our discussion to the dominant soil interactions with the water cycle. Soil influences how
water resource issues in agricultural landscapes, includ- water is partitioned among the various flow paths, including
ing nitrogen and phosphorus loads in surface water and evapotranspiration, surface runoff, near-surface groundwa-
groundwater, stream sediment loads, and related water quan- ter, agricultural drainage tile, and deeper groundwater. Soil
tity issues such as shallow groundwater flow patterns and properties and processes influence the timing and rate of
streamflow. We are not addressing water issues related to water movement, storage capacity, and storage duration in
agricultural production such as ensuring yields under precip- soil and in depressions of all sizes on the landscape. Water
itation extremes (Leuthold et al., 2021), although this is an partitioning and storage influence the size and shape of the
important motivation for using SHMSs. hydrograph of a stream—both annually and following a runoff
This paper is part of a collection of papers, “Exploring event. In addition to water partitioning, soil plays a central
the Soil Health–Watershed Health Nexus,” that builds off a role in determining water constituents, as it is a matrix for
symposium sponsored by the Universities Council on Water adsorption–desorption and chemical and biological transfor-
Resources in November 2020 bringing together ongoing mations. Water quantity (flow) and quality become linked
research addressing the soil health–water quality connection when soil mediates the rate and path of transport of water
from multiple perspectives. The scale of studies varies from constituents.
plot-scale measurements of specific soil health indicators and A fundamental challenge to making empirical connections
associated hydrological functions, up to watershed-scale mod- between soil health and watershed health is the mismatch
eling to predict the water quality and quantity impact of of spatial scales. Soil health measurements are made on
management practices. Broadly, this collection of research soil samples from a point in an agricultural field, or aggre-
aims to help readers envision what water resource manage- gated samples from multiple points, that represent processes
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
414 LEWANDOWSKI and CATES

F I G U R E 1 How soil properties influence water properties. Soil properties—which are influenced by land management practices—drive
small-scale soil–water interactions and nutrient cycling. Soil processes, in turn, drive properties of the local water cycle, including how water is
partitioned, the rate of flow, and the amount of nutrients and sediment that become part of water flow. In this way, small-scale soil properties lead to
watershed-scale effects. CEC, cation exchange capacity; SOM, soil organic matter.

occurring in a relatively small but heterogeneous area around such as sediment, nutrients, contaminants, and pathogens.
that point. Water quality measurements are commonly taken Water quality and quantity improvements have been observed
at a point in a water channel and reflect a summation of and modeled under management systems such as reduced
processes occurring across a catchment or larger watershed. tillage, cover crops, or perennial cropping systems.
“Edge-of-field” measurements refer to water sampled in agri- Thus, while farm management has been linked to changes
cultural runoff or tile drainage flow, usually expected to in both soil properties and water quality, we lack understand-
directly connect to the agricultural management practices ing of the mechanistic connection between the soil properties
in place, but still may reflect practices further upslope as and the water quality outcomes. Theoretically, applying the
well as a legacy of earlier management. Time scale is also soil health principles—reducing soil disturbance, keeping the
confounding. Soil biological processes respond to tempera- ground covered and living roots in the ground, increasing
ture, moisture, and plant growth variation throughout the day, crop diversity, and incorporating well-managed livestock—is
across seasons, and from year to year. Water quality mea- expected to improve water quality and reduce peak and annual
surements generally lag behind changes to upstream land use flow for several reasons: (a) improved soil structure should
by days, months, or longer depending on the water parame- increase water infiltration and storage, reducing overland
ter being measured and the size and nature of the watershed runoff and increasing soil water storage; (b) increased living
area. Even with sampling methods that are frequent, high den- or dead residue cover should slow overland runoff, reducing
sity, and/or event based, it is challenging to sample soil and peak flow and sediment loss and slowing nutrient delivery; (c)
water adequately to capture critical patterns in time or space. cover crops or perennial crops should reduce nutrient losses
While both soil health measurements and water quality mea- to ground and surface water by increasing annual transpira-
surements are likely to respond to land use change, they may tion and immobilizing excess nutrients (including those from
do so on different time scales. applied manure); and (d) internal provision of nutrients from
Soil health is quantified using indicators of soil func- decomposing organic matter may reduce required inputs of
tions, including measures of soil organic carbon, infiltration, synthetic fertilizer in annual crops. Establishing the relation-
aggregation, and biological activity. Soil health metrics were ship between these outcomes and specific soil indicators could
originally used to assess soil biological activity, or structure, change the target for conservation adoption from practices,
and have been widely presented as evidence that farm man- which may be implemented in various ways with various
agement can change dynamic soil properties (Culman et al., results, to indicators or functions, which could result in a more
2012; Diederich et al., 2019), although the strength of the direct relationship with water outcomes.
effects varies across topography (Beehler et al., 2017; Wick- Graphical representations of soil health versus water qual-
ings et al., 2016), landscape types, and how the management ity measures may show that more is better (e.g., aggregate
is implemented (McClelland et al., 2021; Oates et al., 2011; stability), less is better (e.g., penetration resistance), or a bell-
Osipitan et al., 2019; Souther et al., 2019). Most of these shaped relationship where a middle range is better. These
indicators were not proposed with water quality or quantity relationships have been used as scoring functions to develop
outcomes in mind, yet they intersect with the water movement soil quality indices (Andrews & Carroll, 2001; Fine et al.,
and transformations in the soil. 2017; Wienhold et al., 2009). Importantly, one measure of
Water resource health is quantified by measuring flow char- soil health may have differently shaped relationships with
acteristics, as well as concentrations and loads of constituents various measures of water quality, indicating trade-offs. For
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LEWANDOWSKI and CATES 415

F I G U R E 2 The state of the science of biophysical connections between soil health and water quality. Arrow width represents the relative
amount of research data available describing each relationship. More work is needed to understand the dynamics within the soil–water system that
explain the mechanisms connecting land management to water quality and flow.

example, infiltration may have a more-is-better relationship other precision agriculture technologies in the United States
to in-stream measures of sediment or phosphorus but a (Lowenberg-DeBoer & Ericson, 2019), and soil health indica-
less-is-better relationship to nitrate in tile drain water. Simi- tors are as variable as many other standard soil measurements
larly, management practices may have contradictory relation- (Hurisso et al., 2018). But because of more limited data pools
ships with water quality metrics. For example, conservation and less emphasis on management outcomes, we are far less
tillage and cover crops are promising for their ability to reduce able to predict the effects of land management on soil health
particulate phosphorus losses, but in some cases dissolved indicators relative to standard soil test values. In addition,
phosphorus losses increase under these practices (Duncan publication of dramatic improvements in soil health indica-
et al., 2019). Such trade-offs between specific practices and tors can be misleading to farmers hoping to see rapid shifts
water quality outcomes are context dependent and require on their own property, as well as to policy makers mistak-
careful consideration of how new practices interact with local ing stories for generalizable evidence. Study of soil health
climate, landscape, and agricultural management decisions. indicators is relatively common but needs further develop-
ment to identify measures that are interpretable for relating to
soil functions and guiding decision making (Bünemann et al.,
3 STATE OF THE SCIENCE 2018). Even when field-scale studies do not make direct links
to watershed-scale water quality impacts, they can inform
Figure 2 illustrates the chain of connections between soil larger-scale projects by increasing understanding of how soil
health and water quality. Data collection has focused more on and water processes interact.
the effect of land management on soil and water and less on
connecting soil attributes and water.
3.2 Land management affects water

3.1 Land management affects soil Links have been documented between agricultural field man-
agement practices and water quality and quantity at the
Many studies have documented a shift in soil health indica- field edge (e.g., Blanco-Canqui, 2018; Zopp et al., 2019),
tors in response to contrasting agricultural land management although precipitation quantity and intensity can dominate
practices (A affects B in Figure 2). The results are vari- management effects (Hanrahan et al. 2021). Major research
able and of limited value for generalizing to other settings efforts producing information about the land management-
or informing management decisions, as the indicators are to-water connection (A affects C & D in Figure 2) include
not commonly linked to specific water quantity or quality the USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP,
goals. Farmers understand that soil is variable, as shown by USDA-NRCS, n.d.), specifically dedicated to quantifying
the adoption of grid sampling, variable rate fertilization, and environmental effects of conservation practices, and the
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
416 LEWANDOWSKI and CATES

Long-term Agroecosystem Research network (LTAR, USDA- and fine-tuned. Zimnicki et al. (2020) summarized the chal-
ARS, n.d.), which includes nationwide assessment of the lenges and research needs for integrating soil health into
sustainable intensification of agriculture in different contexts. water quality modeling, while Perez and Cole (2020) reviewed
However, the management-to-water associations identified models and tools from the perspective of the user and their
are generally highly variable—probably reflecting variable decisions.
implementation of the practices and diverse topography, soils,
and cultural contexts. Paired watershed approaches address
some of this variability and have shown evidence of cover
3.4 The human dimension
crops reducing sediment loads but not nutrient loads (Singh
et al., 2018). Modeling individual watersheds can estimate
Missing from Figure 2 is the social, economic, and political
how much of the area must be treated with selected prac-
context of land management and water resource use. In partic-
tices to meet water quality goals and recommends dramatic
ular, rural sociology and related fields have been important in
shifts toward perennial living cover and nutrient reductions
understanding land management patterns (e.g., Prokopy et al.,
(Campbell et al. 2021; VanLoocke et al., 2016). It is possible
2019). For both the biophysical and human dimensions, inter-
to scale back implementation and cost of SHMSs if practices
disciplinary approaches are essential for connecting micro-
are targeted to optimal sites for achieving a water quality goal
and macro-scale processes (Janzen et al., 2021). Janzen and
(e.g., reduced loading of soil and nutrients at critical seasonal
colleagues also described how soil health, as a metaphor, is
high points; Xu et al., 2019). However, models connecting
powerful in its appeal to a wide range of stakeholders. Bal-
land management practices and water quality are primarily
ancing the values and perceptions of these different groups
focused on a few management practices in isolation, with little
will determine how the various trade-offs discussed above are
information about interactions of practices across farms and
managed.
watersheds (Zimnicki, et al. 2020).

3.3 Soil affects water 3.5 A sampling of research strategies

The weak link, we believe, is data connecting soil, the medium The articles in the Journal of Environmental Quality’s special
through which water flows, to both edge-of-field and in- section “Exploring the Soil Health–Watershed Health Nexus”
stream water quality (B affects C & D in Figure 2). Addressing illustrate research strategies ranging from the field scale up to
this gap would allow us to shortcut the endless diversity watershed scale modeling and societal considerations.
of ways that conservation practices are implemented, focus- Beginning at the field scale, Menefee et al. (2022)
ing directly on the functions provided by the soil. Several contributes to the development of soil health indicators,
approaches should be used to tease apart the empirical and examining the usefulness of a phospholipid fatty acid test
mechanistic connection between dynamic soil properties and (PLFA) alongside the Haney Soil Health Tool (a summary
watershed-scale water quality. The smallest scales of these of indicators) in a comparison across a range of crop man-
approaches are plot or agricultural field-based studies, which agement systems in central Texas. Gutknecht et al. (2022)
limit the scale of study by comparing soil attributes to water also addresses the indicator challenge by measuring soil
quality and flow in surface runoff or agricultural tile drainage health differences between cropping systems with and without
from subfield-scale watersheds. Multisite studies attempt to cover crops in Minnesota. In response to farmer observa-
enlarge the scale of inference by examining similar types tions, they quantified soil smell and structure, earthworms,
of field-based data across multiple sites within one water- and single-ring infiltration, along with a more conventional
shed or across multiple regions, but relationships between soil suite of soil health indicators. Although some biological met-
and water properties may still be obscured (Radatz, 2021). rics transcended site variance, generally soil health outcomes
Paired watershed designs face challenges of identifying com- varied depending on how and where the cover crop system
parable watersheds and controlling land management over a was implemented. Their results highlight the need to further
significant portion of the watersheds. Hydrologic modeling refine which soil parameters best indicate the impact of a
could incorporate soil water dynamics but is dependent on particular implementation of a management system before
algorithms predicting relationships between soil management we can link those practices to watershed-scale water quality
and water quality that are generated from small-scale stud- outcomes.
ies and must constantly seek to refine these relationships. Bawa et al. (2021) examined how edge-of-field water
Remote sensing adds a layer of real-time data to larger- quality was affected by interactions of climate and cover
scale studies, but again, algorithms assessing the relationship crop management choices in a no-till corn (Zea mays L.)–
between imagery and field-scale effects must be revisited soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] system. In the study’s three
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LEWANDOWSKI and CATES 417

years, they measured limited response in soil health met- Evenson et al.’s (2022) study also contributes to model
rics and reduced nitrate leaching only following the year development, describing the challenges of accounting for soil
with the highest cover crop biomass production. These results health changes in hydrologic models and demonstrating an
raise questions about which attributes are most useful to approach in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to
measure. making soil parameters responsive to management practices
Osterholz et al. (2021) studied 40 fields across a variety that alter dynamic soil properties. They modified soil organic
of management systems on relatively similar landscapes in carbon and other soil health-related model inputs to reflect
northwest Ohio. The work is important for demonstrating an the expected changes from implementation of cover crops
approach to correlating edge-of-field water quality measures and no-till practices. Then, they explored how the modifica-
to soil measures, rather than to management practices. Using tions impacted estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus loading
two different statistical approaches for revealing these rela- in surface waters. They reported significant effects of these
tionships, they found several pools of organic carbon and adjustments, but the effects were less than the default effects
nitrogen were related to tile nitrate losses, indicating a trade- of changing the management inputs. They concluded that
off between building soil carbon and nitrogen and protecting while the approach generated plausible results, it also high-
water quality. However, the soil parameters measured (which lights the need for observational data to verify results and
did not characterize surface soil conditions) did not explain guide further refinements.
variability in surface runoff discharge. Similarly, Gutknecht Finally, Reimer et al. (2022) explore farmer and indus-
et al. (2022) did a small set of rainfall simulation experiments try adoption of resilient agricultural systems, finding that
wherein cover crops also did not change runoff, sediment, or adoption is constrained by markets, social networks, human
nutrient loading. capital, and conservation programs. Their approach of exam-
Fermanich et al. (2022) examined data from a set of 14 ining the interplay between large- and small-scale social
edge-of-field monitoring sites unique for their spread across and systemic factors and individual decision-making is par-
five U.S. Great Lakes states. They relate field catchment- allel to the need to understand soil–water interactions and
scale runoff and water quality metrics directly to soil health watershed-scale impacts.
measures in addition to land management factors. In the
process, they wrestled with challenges of how to summa-
rize both water and soil data so they can be compared and 4 RESEARCH NEEDS
account for real world variability and interactions while teas-
ing out meaningful relationships. A study by Williamson Research at the nexus of soil health and water quality is
et al. (2021) contributes to our understanding of phospho- urgently needed by public and private actors working in plan-
rus dynamics by examining the link between edge-of-field ning, policy, food and agriculture industry, environmental
and in-stream data (Scale C to D in Figure 2). While they advocacy, and agricultural production. Local and state plan-
did not have enough instances of field management activi- ners and policy makers make decisions about which practices
ties to incorporate inferences about management effects, they and where to allocate resources. They need better estimates of
demonstrated a methodology that could be adapted to make which approaches will help them reach water resource goals,
linkages between soilwater, field edge, and stream water. They and they need guidance on what attributes of land manage-
were able to make connections between antecedent soil-water ment or soil should be monitored to evaluate progress. Food
content and the presence of crops to characterize the drivers industry sustainability leaders are eager to define meaningful
of total stream phosphorus loads. monitoring protocols to show consumers they are reducing
Fortuna et al.’s (2023) work addresses the effects of negative water resource impacts of the farms where they
implementing conservation practices within watersheds that source ingredients, and they want better management guid-
contain integrated conservation cropping and grassland sys- ance to advise producers. And fundamentally, agricultural
tems grazed by cattle. Their study uses historic soil and producers and the agricultural industries that support them
water data to mimic an edge-of-field experiment similar to need information to help them make economically sound deci-
those outlined in NRCS code 201. Nonparametric Spearman sions that will, in fact, improve their impact on water quality.
rank-order correlation was used to relate previously measured Zimnicki et al. (2020, Fig 4) noted that soil attributes and
soil health and water quality indices with land use, manage- function—not water quality outcomes—provide the feedback
ment, and inherent properties (soil texture, aspect, elevation, to farmers to modify their land management practices. What
slope). These approaches could be applied to datasets col- is it that they should be monitoring, and how should they
lected at other long-term experiments such as CEAP and interpret the information they collect?
LTAR networks sites. Their results will help parameterize Many researchers, including those who are part of the
and validate the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender CEAP and LTAR network, are working to meet these needs.
Model (APEX). But far more is needed in five areas: (a) continuing to
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
418 LEWANDOWSKI and CATES

collect soil health data alongside edge-of-field water mon- ping systems affect water storage and availability change
itoring; (b) compiling these data into much larger datasets across spatial and temporal scales, and across climate and
suitable for analysis; (c) defining the mechanisms linking landscape conditions. Tillage disturbance, amount and type
dynamic soil properties to soil hydrologic processes; (d) shift- of roots, and characteristics of the microbial community
ing soil health research methodologies to better account for all interact with landscape and climate to determine soil
agronomic systems and cross-scale analyses; and (e) refin- structure (pore and aggregate size and architecture) and soil
ing existing hydrologic models to better reflect the effects of organic matter attributes (size, age, chemistry, and location).
dynamic soil properties. A better understanding of these processes may allow us
to define the management variables that drive hydrologic
changes, and determine how these drivers vary under dif-
4.1 More soil health and water quality field ferent conditions. Despite highly variable empirical results,
data researchers and planners commonly relate land use to water-
shed outcomes—for the practical reason that watershedwide
More soil health measurements along with in-field and edge- land use and management information is far more acces-
of-field water quality data are needed to reflect the diversity sible than soil health data. Ideally, this reliance on land
of landscape and management situations (including irrigated use data will become less necessary as we increase our
lands, a special circumstance of water management) and to ability to directly connect soil attributes and functions to
characterize the time lag between land management changes watershed impacts. However, without a better definition of
and water quality responses. The data become far more valu- dynamic soil–water mechanisms, we cannot effectively select
able when researchers collect multiyear histories of crops, more meaningful management attributes and soil health indi-
tillage, and weather. These management characteristics may cators for predicting water quality outcomes in a given
be integrated into indices of disturbance or diversity over watershed.
time, which may be more meaningful than qualitative descrip-
tions of tillage systems (Morrow et al., 2016) or rotations
(Weisberger et al. 2019). 4.4 Systems-based research designs

The impact of land management on soil hydrology emerges

4.2 Analysis of combined datasets from the interaction of multiple agronomic variables. The
impact of soil on surface water and groundwater emerges
Data from individual soil health-water quality field studies from the interaction of landscape and management varia-
need to be combined to generate useful analyses (e.g., Nor- tions across the watershed. Conversely, typical agronomic plot
ris et al., 2020. USDA Ag Data Commons, 2017). Combining research designs are meant to control for soil and landscape
datasets requires addressing the challenge of comparing soil variation, as well as for agronomic variables, and thus are not
health measurements across studies using different method- set up to explore emergent properties of systems. Soil health
ologies (Lewandowski & Blair, 2021) and should inform management principles are not intended to be implemented
ongoing discussions on the values and interpretations of individually. However, researchers continue to interrogate
different indicators. Large datasets would be valuable for val- individual practices and are often stymied by no effects on soil
idating decision support tools, to provide landscape-specific carbon, soil biological properties, and water quality outcomes.
guidance to land managers, and to help third-party verifiers For example, Cooper et al. (2020) found that conservation
interpret soil health measures and determine if in-field prac- tillage alone did not improve water quality outcomes or alter
tices are moving them in the right direction to protect water soil physical, chemical, or biological condition in their low-
quality. Data interpretations need to take into account not only land, intensive arable system over 5 yr, and a meta-analysis
landscape and climate variation but also the goals of the land by Daryanto et al. (2017) found that the effect of no-till on
owner and the regional planners. Goals for nitrogen loads, phosphorus loss co-varied with physical and management
phosphorus loads, sediment loads, or flow rates may each be variables. Systemic changes that include multiple manage-
tied to different soil health metrics. ment practices change hydrologic properties more drastically
(Basche & DeLonge, 2017), and the conservation community
remains split as to whether we should promote accessible,
4.3 Mechanisms of soil–water functions incremental changes or fundamental transformations to new
agroecosystems.
There is inadequate understanding of how cropping sys- Thus, if we are to understand the soil health–water quality
tem variables alter soil hydrology. It will be important to connection, more soil health research needs to tie traditional,
define how the mechanisms through which soils and crop- reductionist research to systems approaches used in ecology
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LEWANDOWSKI and CATES 419

and other research disciplines. Examples of these approaches it is not clear what changes to dynamic soil attributes would
are paired watersheds; long-term systemic comparisons; land- significantly affect downstream flow or water constituents. To
scape scale nitrogen, phosphorus, and water balance studies; address these gaps, we need a better understanding of soil–
and appropriate statistical designs to account for field-scale water dynamics so hydrologic models can be improved to
variability. reflect the impact of soil health changes; we need more data
directly linking soil measurements (not just management) to
downstream water quality; and we need more definition and
4.5 Improved models
study of soil health management systems beyond individual
practices.
Models are invaluable in the research arena for scaling up
field data to watershed-scale impacts, and in the program and
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
policy arenas for guiding decision-making. Model develop-
The ideas in this article draw from the “Connecting Soil
ers can take advantage of a growing body of data plus a
Health and Water Quality” symposium sponsored by the Uni-
better understanding of soil–water mechanisms to improve
versities Council on Water Resources in November 2020. The
their ability to infer soil hydrology based on land manage-
authors are grateful for contributions from Dr. Ann-Marie
ment or soil health attributes across a watershed and in turn,
Fortuna and Hava Blair, and for conversations with Dr. Jef-
to better model in-channel water quality and quantity. Ide-
frey Strock and a research discussion group including Drs.
ally, we would like to be able to relate point-scale soil data
Michael Castellano, Randy Jackson, Matthew Liebman, Mar-
to watershed-scale in-channel water data. As Evenson et al.
shall McDaniel, Claire Phillips, Elizabeth Rieke, and Gregg
(2022) concluded, “Our representation of soil health practices
Sanford.
provides a more complete estimate of practice efficacy but
underscores a need for additional observational data to verify
AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S
results and guide further model improvements.”
Ann Marcelle Lewandowski: Conceptualization; Writing –
original draft; Writing – review & editing. Anna Cates: Con-
5 CONCLUSION ceptualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review &
editing.
Soil health management systems benefit agricultural produc-
tion in part because of soil’s role in mediating the water cycle. C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E ST STAT E M E N T
They also benefit off-farm water quality because of the same The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
water regulation function of soil. Despite this critical connec-
tion, studies of dynamic soil attributes and watershed-scale ORCID
water quality have been separated because of differences of Ann Marcelle Lewandowski https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
scale. 0393-1858
Suppose water resource managers, especially in local and
state governments, could make the soil health–water qual- REFERENCES
ity connection. What could water resource management look Andrews, S. S., & Carroll, C. R. (2001). Designing a soil quality
like if it leveraged soil health? Watershed assessments would assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Eco-
incorporate soil health measurements along with land use sur- logical Applications, 11, 1573–1585. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
0761(2001)011[1573:DASQAT]2.0.CO;2
veys to better understand a unique watershed’s hydrology and
Basche, A. D., & DeLonge, M. (2017). The impact of continuous liv-
management opportunities. Implementation plans would use
ing cover on soil hydrologic properties: A meta-analysis. Soil Science
soil health measures to identify critical source areas and areas Society of America Journal, 81(5), 1179–1190. https://doi.org/10.
with the greatest potential to store water or mitigate contam- 2136/sssaj2017.03.0077
inant movement, and water resource managers could provide Bawa, A., MacDowell, R., Bansal, S., McMaine, J., Sexton, P., & Kumar,
landowners with better guidance about how to develop soil S. (2021). Responses of leached nitrogen concentrations and soil
health to protect water. Monitoring would include soil health health to winter rye cover crop under no-till corn–soybean rotation in
measures to assess whether implemented practices are indeed the northern Great Plains. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20294
having the desired functional benefits. Soil health measures
Beehler, J., Fry, J., Negassa, W., & Kravchenko, A. (2017). Impact of
could serve as early indicators of future downstream water cover crop on soil carbon accrual in topographically diverse terrain.
quality improvements or degradation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 72(3), 272–279.
Soil health is not yet part of water resource management in a Blanco-Canqui, H. (2018). Cover crops and water quality. Agron-
significant way because it is not practical or clear how to mon- omy Journal, 110, 1633–1647. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.
itor and summarize soil health across an entire watershed, and 02.0077
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
420 LEWANDOWSKI and CATES

Bonner, I. J., Muth, D. J., Koch, J. B., & Karlen, D. L. (2014). Mod- observations. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.
eled impacts of cover crops and vegetative barriers on corn stover 1002/jeq2.20383
availability and soil quality. Bioenergy Research, 7, 576–589. https:// Hanrahan, B. R., King, K. W., & Williams, M. R. (2021). Controls on
doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9423-y subsurface nitrate and dissolved reactive phosphorus losses from agri-
Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., cultural fields during precipitation-driven events. Science of the Total
de Goede, R., Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T. W., Mäder, P., Environment, 754, 142047.
Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., Willem van Groenigen, J., & Brussaard, L. Hurisso, T. T., Culman, S. W., & Zhao, K. (2018). Repeatability and
(2018). Soil quality: A critical review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, spatiotemporal variability of emerging soil health indicators relative
120, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030 to routine soil nutrient tests. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
Campbell, T. A., Booth, E. G., Gratton, C., Jackson, R. D., & Kucharik, 82(4), 939–948. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.03.0098
C. J. (2021). Agricultural landscape transformation needed to meet Janzen, H. H., Janzen, D. W., & Gregorich, E. G. (2021). The ‘soil health’
water quality goals in the yahara river watershed of southern Wiscon- metaphor: Illuminating or illusory? Soil Biology and Biochemistry,
sin. Ecosystems, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00668- 159, 108167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108167
y Kaspar, T. C., Jaynes, D. B., Parkin, T. B., Moorman, T. B., & Singer, J.
Cooper, R. J., Hama-Aziz, Z. Q., Hiscock, K. M., Lovett, A. A., Vrain, E., W. (2012). Effectiveness of oat and rye cover crops in reducing nitrate
Dugdale, S. J., Sünnenberg, G., Dockerty, T., Hovesen, P., & Noble, losses in drainage water. Agricultural Water Management, 110, 25–
L. (2020). Conservation tillage and soil health: Lessons from a 5- 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.010
year UK farm trial (2013–2018). Soil and Tillage Research, 104648. Kladivko, E. J., & Bowling, L. C. (2021). Long-term impacts of drain
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104648 spacing, crop management, and weather on nitrate leaching to subsur-
Culman, S. W., Snapp, S. S., Freeman, M. A., Schipanski, M. E., face drains. Journal of Environmental Quality, 50, 627–638. https://
Beniston, J., Lal, R., Drinkwater, L. E., Franzluebbers, A. J., Glover, doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20215
J. D., Grandy, A. S., Lee, J., Six, J., Maul, J. E., Mirsky, S. B., Lee, S., Yeo, I.-Y., Sadeghi, A. M., McCarty, G. W., Hively, W. D., &
Spargo, J. T., & Wander, M. M. (2012). Permanganate oxidizable Lang, M. W. (2016). Impacts of watershed characteristics and crop
carbon reflects a processed soil fraction that is sensitive to man- rotations on winter cover crop nitrate-nitrogen uptake capacity within
agement. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76(2), 494–504. agricultural watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay region. PLOS ONE,
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0286 11(6), e0157637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157637
Daryanto, S., Wang, L., & Jacinthe, P. A. (2017). Meta-analysis of phos- Leuthold, S. J., Salmeron, M., Wendroth, O., & Poffenbarger, H. (2021).
phorus loss from no-till soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 46, Cover crops decrease maize yield variability in sloping landscapes
1028–1037. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.03.0121 through increased water during reproductive stages. Field Crops
Diederich, K. M., Ruark, M. D., Krishnan, K., Arriaga, F. J., & Silva, E. Research, 265, 108111.
M. (2019). Increasing labile soil carbon and nitrogen fractions require Lewandowski, A. M., & Blair, H. K. (2021). Measuring soil health in
a change in system, rather than practice. Soil Science Society of Amer- the Upper Midwest to improve soil quality [Paper presentation}. 76th
ica Journal, 83(6), 1733–1745. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2018.11. SWCS International Annual Conference.
0458 Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. M., & Erickson, B. (2019). Setting the record
Duncan, E. W., Osmond, D. L., Shober, A. L., Starr, L., Tomlinson, P., straight on precision agriculture adoption. Agronomy Journal, 111(4),
Kovar, J. L., & Reid, K. (2019). Phosphorus and soil health manage- 1552–1569. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779
ment practices. Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 4(1), 190014. McClelland, S. C., Paustian, K., & Schipanski, M. E. (2021). Manage-
https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2019.04.0014 ment of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic
Evenson, G., Osterholz, W. R., Shedekar, V. S., King, K., Mehan, carbon stocks: A meta-analysis. Ecological Applications, 31(3),
S., & Kalcic, M. (2022). Representing soil health practice effects e02278. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2278
on soil properties and nutrient loss in a watershed-scale hydrologic Menefee, D. S., Collins, H., Smith, D., Haney, R. L., Fay, P., & Polley,
model. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.1002/ W. (2022). Cropping management in a livestock–pasture–crop inte-
jeq2.20338 gration modifies microbial communities, activity, and soil health
Fermanich, K., Meyers, M., Loken, L. C., Bischoff-Gray, M., Turco, R., score. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Stahlheber, K., Duriancik, L., Dornbush, M., & Komiskey, M. (2022). jeq2.20315
Challenges in linking soil health to edge-of-field water quality across Morrow, J. G., Huggins, D. R., Carpenter-Boggs, L. A., & Reganold,
the Great Lakes basin. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi. J. P. (2016). Evaluating measures to assess soil health in long-term
org/10.1002/jeq2.20364 agroecosystem trials. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 80(2),
Fine, A. K., van Es, H. M., & Schindelbeck, R. R. (2017). Statistics, scor- 450–450. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.08.0308
ing functions, and regional analysis of a comprehensive soil health Norris, C. E., Bean, G. M., & Cappellazzi, S. B. (2020). Introducing
database. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 81, 589–601. the North American project to evaluate soil health measurements.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.09.0286 Agronomy Journal, 112, 3195–3215. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.
Fortuna, A.-M., Starks, P. J., Moriasi, D. N., & Steiner, J. L. (2023). 20234
Use of archived data to derive soil health and water quality indicators Oates, L. G., Undersander, D. J., Gratton, C., Bell, M. M., & Jackson,
for monitoring shifts in natural resources. Journal of Environmental R. D. (2011). Management-intensive rotational grazing enhances for-
Quality. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20476 age production and quality of subhumid cool-season pastures. Crop
Gutknecht, J., Journey, A., Peterson, H., Blair, H., & Cates, A. (2022). Science, 51, 892–901. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2010.04.0216
Cover crop management practices to promote soil health and climate Osipitan, O. A., Dille, J. A., Assefa, Y., Radicetti, E., Ayeni, A., &
adaptation: Grappling with varied success from farmer and researcher Knezevic, S. Z. (2019). Impact of cover crop management on level
 15372537, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeq2.20390, Wiley Online Library on [03/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LEWANDOWSKI and CATES 421

of weed suppression: A meta-analysis. Crop Science, 59, 833–842. VanLoocke, A., Twine, T. E., Kucharik, C. J., & Bernacchi, C. J.
https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.09.0589 (2016). Assessing the potential to decrease the Gulf of Mexico
Osterholz, W. R., Schwab, E. R., Duncan, E. W., Smith, D. R., & King, hypoxic zone with Midwest US perennial cellulosic feedstock produc-
K. W. (2021). Connecting soil characteristics to edge-of-field water tion. GCB Bioenergy, 9(5), 858–875. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.
quality in Ohio. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10. 12385
1002/jeq2.20308 Wander, M. M., Cihacek, L. J., Coyne, M., Drijber, R. A., Grossman,
Perez, M., & Cole, E. J. (2020). A guide to water quality, climate, J. M., Gutknecht, J. L. M., & Turco, R. F. (2019). Developments
social, and economic outcomes estimation tools: Quantifying out- in agricultural soil quality and health: Reflections by the Research
comes to accelerate farm conservation practice adoption. American Committee on Soil Organic Matter Management. Frontiers in Envi-
Farmland Trust. https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/guide-to- ronmental Science, 7, 109–109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.
outcomes-estimation-tools/ 00109
Prokopy, L. S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J. G., Church, S. P., Eanes, F. R., Weisberger, D., Nichols, V., & Liebman, M. (2019). Does diversifying
Gao, Y., Gramig, B. M., Ranjan, P., & Singh, A. S. (2019). Adoption crop rotations suppress weeds? A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(7),
of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence e0219847. https://doi.org.10.1371/journal.pone.0219847
from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Wickings, K., Grandy, A. S., & Kravchenko, A. N. (2016). Going with
Conservation, 74(5), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.520 the flow: Landscape position drives differences in microbial biomass
Radatz, T. (2021). Developing diagnostics to improve water quality and activity in conventional, low input, and organic agricultural sys-
and soil health on tile drained lands in Minnesota and Wisconsin tems in the midwestern U.S. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
(NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant final report). Minnesota Agri- 218, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.11.005
cultural Water Resource Center. https://discoveryfarmsmn.org/wp- Wienhold, B. J., Karlen, D. L., Andrews, S. S., & Stott, D. E.
content/uploads/2021/07/210414-Tile-CIG-Full-Report-3.pdf (2009). Protocol for indicator scoring in the soil management
Reimer, A. P., Doll, J. E., Boring, T. J., & Zimnicki, T. (2022). Scal- assessment framework (SMAF). Renewable Agriculture and Food
ing up conservation agriculture: An exploration of challenges and Systems, 24(4), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170509990-
opportunities through a stakeholder engagement process. Journal of 093
Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20317 Williamson, T. N., Dobrowolski, E. G., & Kreiling, R. M. (2021). Phos-
Singh, G., Schoonover, J. E., & Williard, K. W. (2018). Cover crops for phorus sources, forms, and abundance as a function of streamflow and
managing stream water quantity and improving stream water quality field conditions in a Maumee River tributary, 2016–2019. Journal of
of non-tile drained paired watersheds. Water, 10(4), 521. https://doi. Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20290
org/10.3390/w10040521 Xu, Y., Bosch, D. J., Wagena, M. B., Collick, A. S., & Easton, Z.
Souther, S., Loeser, M., Crews, T. E., & Sisk, T. (2019). Complex M. (2019). Meeting water quality goals by spatial targeting of best
response of vegetation to grazing suggests need for coordinated, management practices under climate change. Environmental Manage-
landscape-level approaches to grazing management. Global Ecology ment, 63(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-01133-
and Conservation, 20, e00770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019. 8
e00770 Zimnicki, T., Boring, T., Evenson, G., Kalcic, M., Karlen, D. L., Wilson,
Stewart, R. D., Jian, J., Gyawali, A. J., Thomason, W. E., Badgley, B. D., R. S., Zhang, Y., & Blesh, J. (2020). On quantifying water quality
Reiter, M. S., & Strickland, M. S. (2018). What we talk about when benefits of healthy soils. Bioscience, 70, 343–352. https://doi.org/10.
we talk about soil health. Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 3, 1093/biosci/biaa011
180033. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2018.06.0033 Zopp, Z. P., Ruark, M. D., Thompson, A. M., Stuntebeck, T. D., Cooley,
Stott, D. E. (2019). Recommended soil health indicators and associ- E., Radatz, A., & Radatz, T. (2019). Effects of manure and tillage
ated laboratory procedures (Soil Health Technical Note No. 450-03). on edge-of-field phosphorus loss in seasonally frozen landscapes.
USDA-NRCS. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48(4), 966–977. https://doi.org/10.
USDA Ag Data Commons. (2017). Agricultural Collaborative Research 2134/jeq2019.01.0011
Outcomes System (AgCROS). USDA. https://data.nal.usda.gov/
dataset/agricultural-collaborative-research-outcomes-system-agcros
USDA-ARS. (n.d.). Long-term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) net-
work. https://ltar.ars.usda.gov/ How to cite this article: Lewandowski, A. M., &
USDA-NRCS. (n.d.). Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Cates, A. (2023). Connecting soil health and water
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/ quality in agricultural landscapes. Journal of
nra/ceap/
Environmental Quality, 52, 412–421.
USEPA. (2022). Hypoxia Task Force nutrient reduction strategies.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20390
USEPA. https://www.epa.gov/ms-htf/hypoxia-task-force-nutrient-
reduction-strategies