Review The Business Side of Ecosystem Services of Soil Systems

Elena A. Mikhailova 1,*, Christopher J. Post 1, Mark A. Schlautman 2 , Gregory C. Post 3 and Hamdi A. Zurqani 1,4 1 Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; [email protected] (C.J.P.); [email protected] (H.A.Z.) 2 Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC 29625, USA; [email protected] 3 Economics Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli 13538, Libya * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-864-656-3535



Received: 19 June 2020; Accepted: 20 July 2020; Published: 22 July 2020
 Abstract: Current applications of the Ecosystems Services (ES) framework to soils are narrowly defined (e.g., soil-based, pedosphere-based, etc.), and focus on soil properties while treating soil as a closed system. Because soil is an open system, it receives and loses matter across its boundaries within Earth’s spheres (atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, ecosphere, and anthroposphere), which also need to be accounted for in economic analysis. In market economies, the market transforms resources from the Earth’s pedosphere and related spheres into goods and services for societal welfare with non-market institutions mediating human and environmental interactions. These transformations and mediations can result not only in welfare but damages as well. The concept of soil ES and ecosystem disservices (ED) is a human-centered framework, which can be a useful tool in business decision-making. Soil ES (e.g., provisioning, regulation/ maintenance, and cultural) are used to produce goods and services, but the value of these ES and ED are not always accounted for as a part of business decision-making. The objective of this review is to illustrate the monetary valuation of ecosystem services of soil systems (SS) with examples based on the organizational hierarchy of soil systems. The organizational hierarchy of soil systems can be used in economic valuations of soil ES by scale (e.g., world, continent), time (e.g., soil, geologic), qualitative and quantitative degrees of computation (e.g., mental, verbal, descriptive, mathematical, deterministic, stochastic), and degree of complexity (e.g., mechanistic, empirical). Soil survey databases, soil analyses, Soil Data Systems (SDS), and Soil Business Systems (SBS) provide tools and a wide range of quantitative/qualitative data and information to evaluate goods and services for various business applications, but these sources of soil data may be limited in scope due to their static nature. Valuation of soil resources based on soil and non-soil science databases (e.g., National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) databases, etc.) is critically needed to account for these ES/ED as part of business decision-making to provide more sustainable use of soil resources. Since most ecosystems on Earth have been modified by human activity, “soil systems goods and services” (SSGS) may be a more applicable term to describe soil contributions (benefits/damages) to economic activity, compared to a term such as “soil ecosystem goods and services.”

Keywords: business ecosystems; information; intelligence; economics; market; pedosphere

1. Introduction Ecological economics developed the concept of soil ecosystem services [1] (provisioning, regulation/ maintenance, and cultural), which provide goods and services for various business systems [2], but its

Earth 2020, 1, 15–34; doi:10.3390/earth1010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/earth Earth 2020, 1 16 Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 2

valuesystems often [2], is but not its recognized value often due is tonot the recognized business community’sdue to the business unfamiliarity community’s with the unfamiliarity importance with of soilthe [ 3importance]. For example, of soil Watson [3]. For and example, Newton Watson (2018) and [2] conducted Newton (2018) a survey [2] conducted of business a survey dependencies of business on variousdependencies Ecosystems on various Services Ecosystems (ES) (including Services soil) in(ES) the (including English county soil) ofin Dorset,the English and foundcounty that of Dorset, many businessesand found indicated that many little businesses or no dependence indicated on little soil. or Indeed, no dependence the value on of soilsoil. ES Indeed, is difficult the tovalue measure of soil andES reportis difficult for theto measure business and community report for because the busi ofness the complexcommunity nature because of soil of [4the]. Whilecomplex some nature may of questionsoil [4].the While need some to monetize may question soil [4], the others need advocate to monetize the use soil of monetary[4], others valuation advocate as the a means use of to monetary engage thevaluation business as community a means to “to engage achieve the scalablebusiness solutions” community to soil“to achieve and environmental scalable solutions” degradation to soil [2 ,and3]. Theenvironmental word “scalable” degradation is key tounderstanding [2,3]. The word the “scalable” complexity is key of soil, to understanding both with its definition the complexity as well of as soil, its ES.both The with current its definitiondefinition of as soil well is “theas its layer(s) ES. The of generallycurrent definition loose mineral of soil and /isor “the organic layer(s) material of generally that are affectedloose mineral by physical, and/or chemical, organic and /materialor biological that processes are affected at/or nearby physical, the planetary chemical, surface and/or and usually biological hold liquids,processes gases, at/or and near biota the and planetary support plants” surface [5 and] (Figure usually1a). Thishold definition liquids, gases, is inclusive and biota of soils and on planetsupport Earthplants” and [5] other (Figure planets 1a). [5 ].This Traditionally, definition theis inclusive definition of of soils soil ison applied planet toEarth Earth, and which other implies planets “the [5]. multi-phaseTraditionally, dimension the definition of soil” of as soil a product is applied of interaction to Earth, ofwhich the Earth’s implies spheres “the multi-phase (atmosphere, dimension biosphere, of hydrosphere,soil” as a product lithosphere) of interaction (Figure1a). Theof the pedosphere Earth’s spheres (from the (atmosphere, Greek pedon biosphere,= ground) ishydrosphere, defined as “thelithosphere) soil mantle (Figure of the Earth”1a). The based pedosphere on the “concept (from the of soilsGreek as specificpedon = bodies ground) in natureis defined that developedas “the soil inmantle time and of the space Earth” in situ based at the on land the surface“concept due of tosoils processes as specific resulting bodies from in nature interactions that developed of soil-forming in time factors:and space parent in material, situ at the climate, land organisms,surface due topography, to processes and resulting time” [6] (Figurefrom interactions1b). According of tosoil-forming Mattson, 1938factors: [7], not parent all soils material, form as climate, a result oforganisms, the interaction topography, of the four and of thetime” Earth’s [6] (Figure spheres, 1b). and According two-sphere, to andMattson, three-sphere 1938 [7], combinations not all soils areform possible. as a result For of example, the interaction some organic of the four soils of are the formed Earth’s from spheres, Earth’s and three-spheretwo-sphere, combinations and three-sphere (atmosphere, combinations hydrosphere, are poss andible. biosphere) For example, (Figure some1b). organic soils are formed from Earth’s three-sphere combinations (atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere) (Figure 1b).

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 1. 1.The The scope scope of: of: (a(a)) soil soil and and relationship relationship between between soil soil components components from from various various Earth’s Earth’s spheres;spheres; (b )(b formation) formation of two-sphere,of two-sphere, three-sphere, three-sphere, and four-sphere and four-sphere (e.g., pedosphere) (e.g., pedosphere) systems systems in nature in (Anature= atmosphere (A = atmosphere;; B = biosphere; B = biosphere;H = hydrosphere; H = hydrosphere;L = lithosphere) L = lithosphere) (adapted from (adapted Mattson, from 1938 Mattson, [7]). 1938 [7]). Humans use market and non-market tools to transform resources from the Earth’s spheres into goodsHumans and use services market for and societal non-market welfare, tools with to transform non-market resources institutions from mediating the Earth’s human spheres and environmentalinto goods and interactions services for[ societal8] (Figure welfare,2). These with transformations non-market institutions and mediations mediating result human not only and in welfareenvironmental but damages interactions as well, adding[8] (Figure another 2). These of Earth’s transformations spheres—the an anthroposphered mediations result (“realm not of only human society”)in welfare [6]. but damages as well, adding another of Earth’s spheres—the anthroposphere (“realm of human society”) [6].

Earth 2020, 1 17 Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 3

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of how the market transforms resources from the Earth’s spheres Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of how the market transforms resources from the Earth’s spheres (A = (A = atmosphere; B = biosphere; H = hydrosphere; L = lithosphere; P = pedosphere; Ecosphere, andatmosphere; Anthroposphere) B = biosphere; into goods H = hydrosphere; and services L for = societallithosphere; welfare P = withpedosphere; non-market Ecosphere, institutions and mediatingAnthroposphere) human andinto environmentalgoods and services interactions for societal (adapted welfare from with Heal, non-market 2000 [8]). institutions These transformations mediating andhuman mediations and environmental can result not interactions only in welfare (adapted but damages from Heal, as well. 2000 [8]). These transformations and mediations can result not only in welfare but damages as well. To understand the complex nature of soil, soil scientists have developed an organizational hierarchyTo understand of soil systems the complex that is widely nature used of soil, for soilsoil classificationscientists have purposes developed [9,10 an]. Chandlerorganizational et al. (2018)hierarchy [11] of proposed soil systems that frameworksthat is widely for used ES should for soil be classification integrated with purposes the organizational [9,10]. Chandler hierarchy et al. of(2018) soil systems,[11] proposed which that can frameworks be used for monetaryfor ES should valuation be integrated of soil ES with by scalethe organizational (e.g., world, continent), hierarchy timeof soil (e.g., systems, human, which geologic), can be qualitative used for monetary and quantitative valuation degrees of soil ofES computation by scale (e.g., (e.g., world, mental, continent), verbal, descriptive,time (e.g., human, mathematical, geologic), deterministic, qualitative stochastic),and quantitative and degree degrees of of complexity computation (e.g., (e.g., mechanistic, mental, empirical)verbal, descriptive, (Table1). Accordingmathematical, to Adhikari deterministic, and Hartemink stochastic), (2016) and [ 12 degree], soilscientists of complexity are reluctant (e.g., tomechanistic, use the term empirical) “ecosystem (Table services” 1). According [13] because to Adhi manykari ecosystemsand Hartemink on Earth (2016) have [12], been soil scientists modified are by humanreluctant activity. to use Therefore,the term “ecosystem soil systems services” goods and [13] services because (SSGS) many may ecosystems be a more on acceptable Earth have term been to describemodified soil by benefitshuman suppliedactivity. Therefore, to human societiessoil systems compared goods to and a term services such as(SSGS) soil ecosystem may be a goodsmore andacceptable services term (Table to 1describe). The National soil benefits Soil Survey supplied Center to human (NSSC) societies provides compared a wide range to a term of Soil such Business as soil Systemsecosystem (SBS) goods tools and to services support (Table the qualitative 1). The Nation and quantitativeal Soil Survey assessment Center (NSSC) of soil systemsprovides business a wide services.range of Soil According Business to Systems USDA/NRCS (SBS) tools (2014) to [ 14suppo], SBSrt “applicationthe qualitative development and quantitative includes, assessment but is not of limitedsoil systems to, NASIS business (National services. Soils According Database), to Web USDA Soil/NRCS Survey, (2014) LIMS [14], (Laboratory SBS “application Management development System), asincludes, well as but 14other is not soil limited applications to, NASIS and (National interfaces.” Soils Soil Database), survey databases Web Soil andSurvey, soil analysesLIMS (Laboratory provide a wideManagement range of System), quantitative as well and as qualitative 14 other soil data applications to evaluate and SSGS interfaces.” for various Soil businesssurvey databases applications, and butsoil theseanalyses sources provide of soil a datawide may range be limitedof quantitative in scope and due qualitative to their static data nature. to evaluate Adhikari SSGS and for Hartemink various (2016)business [12 applications,] provided a but list these of key sources soil properties of soil data related may be to limited ES, but in thisscope list due is basedto their on static commonly nature. usedAdhikari soil propertiesand Hartemink not originally (2016) [12] intended provided for a list soil of ES. key Their soil list,properties therefore, related may to exclude ES, but important this list is soilbased properties on commonly from ESused valuations soil properties (e.g., calciumnot originally carbonates intended (%), for which soil isES. a naturallyTheir list, presenttherefore, liming may materialexclude important in soils, soil soil organic properties matter from (SOM), ES etc.)valuat Forions example, (e.g., calcium soil inorganic carbonates carbon (%), (SIC) which and totalis a soilnaturally carbon present (TSC) currentlyliming material are not in included soils, soil in organic Adhikari matter and Hartemink’s(SOM), etc.) For (2016) example, [12] list, soil but inorganic they do providecarbon (SIC) important and total ES [15 soil–17 ].carbon Rawlins (TSC) et al. currentl [18] alsoy are documented not included the importancein Adhikari of and inorganic Hartemink’s carbon in(2016) soil carbon[12] list, databases but they anddo provide stock estimates important in England.ES [15–17]. The Rawlins list of soilet al. properties [18] also importantdocumented for the ES valuationsimportance may of inorganic depend oncarbon individual in soil/ institutionalcarbon databases preference and stock (e.g., estimates SOC versus in England. SOM, etc.), The and list the of availabilitysoil properties of data important in soil surveyfor ES valuations databases andmay field depend inventories. on individual/institutional preference (e.g., SOC versus SOM, etc.), and the availability of data in soil survey databases and field inventories.

Earth 2020, 1 18

Table 1. Integration of ecosystem services (ES) framework with organizational hierarchy of soil systems (adapted from Dijkerman, 1974 [9]; Hoosbeek and Bryant, 1992 [10]; Chandler et. al., 2018 [11]; Adhikari and Hartemink, 2016 [12]).

Organizational Hierarchy of Soil System Framework for Ecosystem Services Degree of ... Ecosystem Services Computation Complexity Regulation Soil System Time (Qualitative or (Mechanistic or Provisioning and Cultural (Scale) Quantitative) Empirical) Maintenance World i + 6 x x x x x x Continent i + 5 x x x x x x Region i + 4 x x x x x x Watershed i + 3 x x x x x x Catena i + 2 x x x x x x Polypedon i + 1 x x x x x x Pedon i x x x x x x Soil horizon i 1 x x x x x x − Soil structure i 2 x x x x x - − Basic structure i 3 x x x x x - − Molecular interaction i 4 x x x x x - − Note: (i 1) indicates the levels of scale hierarchy according to the organizational hierarchy of soil systems, where the behavior− of a system at the extent scale (i level) can be described in terms of attributes at lower ( ) or upper (+) scale levels (adapted from Dijkerman, 1974 [9]). −

Because soil is an open system, it receives and loses matter across its boundaries within Earth’s various spheres (atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, ecosphere, and anthroposphere), which also need to be accounted for in business decision-making based on other databases (e.g., National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) databases, etc.) The contribution of Earth’s spheres to the pedosphere and SSGSs also can be valued using the organizational hierarchy of soil systems (Table1). Most studies on soil ES overlook the fact that soil is a product of the interactions of Earth’s spheres, which, therefore, make significant contributions to the pedosphere and SSGSs. Adhikari and Hartemink (2016) [12] stressed the importance of using holistic and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding soil ES. These approaches may require non-traditional methods of soil ES monetary valuations, which take into account the contribution of the Earth’s spheres to the pedosphere and SSGSs. The objective of this review is to illustrate the valuation of SSGS (including the contribution of Earth’s spheres to soil ES), with examples primarily from the U.S. based on the organizational hierarchy of soil systems, which may be applicable to other market economies. Earth 2020, 1 19

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Compilation Examples of soil ES (including contribution of Earth’s spheres to soil ES), and its monetary valuations were obtained from various literature sources using the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, 2020 [19]). These examples encompass the three major groups of ES commonly used in the literature: provisioning, regulation/maintenance, and cultural [20].

2.2. The Accounting Framework Table2 provides a conceptual overview of the accounting framework for the market and non-market valuation of benefits/damages from three groups of ES (provisioning, regulation/maintenance, and cultural) based on biophysical and administrative accounts with examples primarily from the U.S. and its soils, as well as the related market-based information obtained from U.S. sources.

Table 2. Conceptual overview of the accounting framework for a systems-based approach in the ecosystem services (ES) valuation of various soil systems goods and services (SSGS) based on organizational hierarchy of soil systems (adapted from Groshans et al., 2018 [15]).

Biophysical Administrative Accounts Accounts Monetary Accounts Benefit/Damage Total Value (Science-Based) (Boundary-Based) Administrative Ecosystem good(s) and Soil extent: Sector: Types of value: extent: service(s): Examples of monetary valuations based on soil properties and organizational hierarchy of soil systems Examples of monetary valuations based on interaction of pedosphere and Earth’s other spheres and organizational hierarchy of soil systems Organizational Administrative Provisioning, Environment, Market and hierarchy of soil organizational regulation/maintenance, agriculture, non-market system hierarchy and cultural industry etc. valuations (i 4 to i + 6) (i 4 to i + 6) − − Note: (i 4) indicates the levels of scale hierarchy according to the organizational hierarchy of soil systems, where the behavior− of a system at the extent scale (i level) can be described in terms of attributes at lower ( ) or upper (+) scale levels (adapted from Dijkerman, 1974 [9]). −

3. Results

3.1. Examples of Monetary Valuations Based on Soil Properties and Organizational Hierarchy of Soil Systems

3.1.1. Soil System (Scale) According to Pachepsky and Hill (2017) [21], scale is used as a central concept in the hierarchical organizations of Earth’s spheres (including the pedosphere), anthroposphere, and the world in general. Since soil ES is a human-centered framework, it requires the integration of soil systems and administrative scales used by humans. Figure3 illustrates an example of using a soil systems scale at the farm to depict the regulating ES of total soil carbon (TSC) and its value based on an avoided social cost of carbon emission (SC-CO2) of USD 42 per metric ton of CO2, where soil map unit (SMU) and the soil order of Entisols represent science-based biophysical accounts within defined soil extent boundaries of the farm. Although useful for the science community, this type of valuation and presentation may not be applicable to the business community. Figure4 illustrates the integration of soil systems and administrative scales, where a market-based valuation of a provisioning ES value (based on liming replacement cost) is used to demonstrate the soil inorganic carbon (SIC) replacement costs calculated from science-based accounts at the administrative scale: square meter, state, region, and country levels. Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 Earth 2020, 1 20 Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 6

Figure 3. Example of a soil system scale. For the soil order Entisols at the Willsboro Farm (NY), an Figure 3. Example of a soil system scale. For the soil order Entisols at the Willsboro Farm (NY), Figureincreasing 3. Example spatial ofscale a soil increases system thescale. value For ofthe tota soill soil order carbon Entisols (TSC) at thestorage Willsboro based Farmon interpolated (NY), an an increasing spatial scale increases the value of total soil carbon (TSC) storage based on interpolated increasingsoil core results spatial (based scale increaseson data fr theom valueMikhailova of tota etl soilal., 2016carbon [22]) (TSC) and anstorage avoided based social on costinterpolated of carbon soil core results (based on data from Mikhailova et al., 2016 [22]) and an avoided social cost of carbon soilemission core results (SC-CO (based2) of USDon data 42 perfrom metric Mikhailova ton of COet al.,2 [23]. 2016 [22]) and an avoided social cost of carbon emission (SC-CO2) of USD 42 per metric ton of CO2 [23]. emission (SC-CO2) of USD 42 per metric ton of CO2 [23].

FigureFigure 4. 4.Example Example of an of administrative an administrative scale. Replacement scale. Replacement cost valuation cost of soil valuation inorganic carbonof soil (SIC) inorganic in carbonFigurethe (SIC) contiguous 4. inExample the United contiguous of States, an administrative basedUnited on States, data reported basedscale. byonReplacement Guodata et reported al. 2006 cost [ 24by ]valuation andGuo the et 2014al. of 2006 U.S.soil average[24] inorganic and the carbon2014price U.S. (SIC) ofaverage USDin the 10.42 pricecontiguous per of U.S. USD ton United 10.42 of agricultural per States, U.S. limestonebased ton of onagricultural (CaCO data3 reported)[25] limestone (i.e., symbolsby Guo (CaCO usedet al. for3 )2006 [25] region [24](i.e., spatial andsymbols the 9 12 scale are USD 2.56B billion, where B = billion = 10 ; USD 3.29 trillion, where T9= trillion = 10 ). 2014used U.S. for averageregion spatial price of scale USD are 10.42 USD per 2.56B U.S. billion, ton of agriculturalwhere B = billion limestone = 10 (CaCO; USD 3.293) [25] trillion, (i.e., symbols where T used= trillion for region = 1012 ).spatial scale are USD 2.56B billion, where B = billion = 109; USD 3.29 trillion, where T = trillion = 1012).

Earth 2020, 1 21 Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 7

ZurekZurek and andHenrichs Henrichs (2007) (2007) [26] [26 suggested] suggested linking linking environmental environmental assessment assessment scenarios acrossacross didifferentfferent geographic geographic scales scales to to better bette understandr understand linkages linkages across across scales. scales. Environmental Environmental assessments assessments will dependwill depend on the on purpose the purpose of the scenarioof the scenario exercise [exerci26]. Forse [26]. example, For Figureexample,3 can Figure be used 3 can to understand be used to theunderstand implications the implications of regulating of ES, regu andlating how potentialES, and how social potential costs of carbonsocial costs emissions of carbon that emissions are avoided that at aare small avoided scale (startingat a small point) scale are (starting totaled point) at larger are scales. totaled In at the larger case ofscales. provisioning In the case ecosystem of provisioning services (Figureecosystem4), small services scale (Figure estimates 4), small of SIC scale replacement estimates costs of SIC can replacement be used for costs larger can multiscale be used scenariosfor larger atmultiscale the state, scenarios region, and at the country state, extentsregion, forand potential country resource extents for planning potential and resource acquisition planning to replace and depletedacquisition ES to provided replace bydepleted SIC. ES provided by SIC. SpatialSpatial scalesscales are are often often used used in in conjunction conjunction with with temporal temporal scales scales for spatio-temporalfor spatio-temporal analyses analyses [27]. Di[27].fferent Different research research approaches approaches (experiments, (experiments, observations, observations, and and models) models) are are available available at at variousvarious spatio-temporalspatio-temporal scales scales (Figure (Figure5) 5) to assessto assess the the range range of potential of potential environmental environmental impacts impacts from short-term,from short- small-scaleterm, small-scale soil C emissionssoil C emissions (e.g., per (e.g., square per meter)square tome theter) soil to orderthe soil extent order (e.g., extent soil (e.g., order soil of Gelisolsorder of onGelisols Earth), on which Earth), can which result can in aresult potential in a tippingpotential point tipping of C point emissions of C emissions with implications with implications to the global to climatethe global [27 ].climate [27].

. Figure 5. Example of a spatio-temporal scale (based on Reyer et al., 2015 [27]). Total values of soil carbon (C)

storageFigure in5. GelisolsExample in of the a upperspatio-temporal 100 cm [28] scale based (based on an avoidedon Reyer social et al., cost 2015 of carbon[27]). Total emissions values (SC-CO of soil2) 12 ofcarbon USD 42(C) per storage metric in ton Gelisols of CO2 [in23 the] (i.e., upper USD 100 60.5 cm trillion [28] U.S. based dollars, on an where avoided T = trillion social =cost10 of). carbon

emissions (SC-CO2) of USD 42 per metric ton of CO2 [23] (i.e., USD 60.5 trillion U.S. dollars, where T The= trillion soil = order 1012). Gelisols is of particular concern regarding the tipping point in climate change because it contains large amounts of soil organic matter (SOM), which has been preserved in a frozen and relativelyThe soil order undecomposed Gelisols are state.of particular Gelisols concern are widely regarding spread the in tipping the world’s point in northern climate regionschange withbecause permafrost they contains (permanently large amou frozennts of ground soil organic at 0 ◦ Cmatter for at (SOM), least two which consecutive has been years)preserved [29– in31 ].a Climaticfrozen and change relatively (e.g., undecomposed warming) in these state. regions Gelisols causes are widely the widespread spread in degradationthe world’s northern and thawing regions of permafrostwith permafrost with a subsequent(permanently release frozen of carbonground dioxide at 0°C and for methaneat least totwo the consecutive atmosphere years) [30]. There [29–31]. are variousClimatic model change predictions (e.g., warming) of carbon in these losses regions as a result causes of thawing the widespread permafrost, degradation but they typicallyand thawing do not of includepermafrost social with cost a estimatessubsequent associated release of with carbon these dioxide losses and [32– methane37]. These to predictions the atmosphere (and associated[30]. There socialare various costs basedmodel on predictions an avoided of social carbon cost losses of carbon as a result emissions of thawing (SC-CO permafrost,2) of USD 42 but per they metric typically ton of COdo 2not[23 ])include have various social cost ranges: estimates 7 to 250 associated Pg C (USD with 1.1T these to USD losses 38.5T) [32–37]. by 2100; These 121 topredictions 302 Pg C (USD (and associated social costs based on an avoided social cost of carbon emissions (SC-CO2) of USD 42 per metric ton of CO2 [23]) have various ranges: 7 to 250 Pg C (USD 1.1T to USD 38.5T) by 2100; 121 to

Earth 2020, 1 22

18.6T to USD 46.5T) by 2200, and 180 to 380 Pg C (USD 27.7T to USD 58.5T) by 2300 for intermediate to high fossil fuel emission scenarios. The social costs associated with thawing permafrost are not just model predictions but are increasingly being realized. For example, Streletskiy (2019) [29] estimated UDS 250B worth of potential damages to infrastructure and structures in northern and eastern Russia from melting permafrost. This estimate was partially realized when, in 2020, melting permafrost was identified as a major factor in a large Siberian fuel spill (15,000 metric tons of diesel fuel were released into the Ambarnaya River and 6000 into the surrounding soil), which caused at least USD 80M (where M = million = 106) in environmental damages [38].

3.1.2. Soil System (Time) The concept of time in soil systems refers to the regolith, which is a layer of loose unconsolidated rock on top of a layer of bedrock [39]. According to Brantley (2008) [39], the interpretation and understanding of soil time depends on the field of study (e.g., geology, biology, etc.) For example, geologists study soil time within a geologic time scale compared to biologists and ecologists who are interested in ecosystem changes within tens to hundreds of years. In view of an ES framework, the concept of time in soil systems depends on the type of ES under consideration. Nutrient cycling and residence time in soils vary with the type of nutrient as well as other major and minor factors. For example, the residence time of soil organic matter (SOM) (global average of 18.5 years) is often life zone dependent, and tends to decrease with an increase in precipitation and temperature (e.g., tundra with an SOM residence time of 213 years compared to wet tropical forests with an SOM residence time of 5 years) [40]. Traditionally, the concept of time in soil systems refers to the degree of weathering and soil development (Table3). Table3 illustrates the science-based relationship between soil orders and the market-based valuation of the provisioning ES value (based on liming replacement cost) of SIC. There is a clear relationship between the degree of weathering/soil development and the value of SIC with strongly weathered soils having no SIC to replace because these are highly leached soils with low nutrient contents.

Table 3. Degree of soil development and area-normalized midpoint values of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage in the upper 2-m soil depth within the contiguous United States (U.S.) based on midpoint

SIC numbers from Guo et al., 2006 [24] and USD 10.42 price per U.S. ton of agricultural lime (CaCO3) in the U.S. (2014) [25].

Slight ————– Degree of Weathering and Soil Development ————- Strong ← → Slight Weathering Intermediate Weathering Strong Weathering Midpoint SIC Midpoint SIC Midpoint SIC Soil Soil Soil Order Value per Area Value per Area Value per Area 2 Order 2 Order 2 ($ m− ) ($ m− ) ($ m− ) Entisols 0.46 Aridisols 1.52 Spodosols 0.06 Inceptisols 0.49 Vertisols 2.22 Ultisols 0.00 Histosols 0.23 Alfisols 0.41 Oxisols - Gelisols - Mollisols 1.10 Andisols 0.00

These biophysical accounts (science-based) can be integrated with administrative accounts (boundary-based) to show the relationship between weathering/soil development and administrative extent (e.g., state, region) (Table4). For example, Table4 reveals that states and regions dominated by slightly and highly weathered soils have no SIC to replace because these soils are either too young to accumulate SIC or too leached of SIC and other nutrients. Earth 2020, 1 23

Table 4. Integration of biophysical accounts (science-based) and administrative accounts (boundary-based). Degree of soil development and area-normalized midpoint values of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) storage in the upper 2-m soil depth within the contiguous United States (U.S.) based on midpoint SIC numbers from

Guo et al., 2006 [24] and USD 10.42 price per U.S. ton of agricultural lime (CaCO3) in the U.S. (2014) [25].

Slight —————————— Degree of Weathering and Soil Development —————— Strong ← → Slight Weathering Intermediate Weathering Strong Weathering Midpoint SIC Midpoint SIC Midpoint SIC State State (Region) Value per Area Value per Area State (Region) Value per Area 2 (Region) 2 2 ($ m− ) ($ m− ) ($ m− ) Connecticut 0.01 Iowa 1.12 Alabama 0.00 Delaware 0.00 Illinois 0.72 Florida 0.06 Maryland 0.00 Indiana 1.13 Georgia 0.01 Maine 0.00 Michigan 1.17 Kentucky 0.01 New Hampshire 0.00 Minnesota 1.35 Mississippi 0.03 New Jersey 0.00 Missouri 0.11 North Carolina 0.00 New York 0.12 Ohio 0.60 South Carolina 0.02 Pennsylvania 0.00 Wisconsin 0.37 Tennessee 0.00 Rhode Island 0.00 (Midwest) 0.82 Virginia 0.00 Vermont 0.06 (Southeast) 0.01 West Virginia 0.00 (East) 0.03

The degree of weathering/soil development places biological and physical constraints on soils, their ES, and any monetary values associated with these services. For example, Mikhailova et al. (2020) [41] have reported the reducing effect of soil-based constraints (e.g., high leaching, low pH, etc.) on the maximum potential SIC sequestration from atmospheric sources in the contiguous U.S. from non-constrained USD 135M/year to soil-based constrained USD 64.36M/year within 54% of the land area. The remaining USD 70.64M associate with Mollisols, Alfisols, and Vertisols will be further reduced to 10% due to economic (e.g., crop growth, trade etc.) and socio-political constraints [41,42]. ≤ The concept of time in a pedological sense usually applies to natural processes in soils, but anthropogenic (human-affected) changes (e.g., land disturbance, climate change, etc.) have been rapidly transforming soils into “human-natural” bodies [43] with implications for both the natural and human world. Trudgill (2006) [44] points out that modern cultural constructs (e.g., mechanization, urbanization, globalization, etc.) can result in the destruction of soil resources, which may not be renewable on a human time scale because soils are composed of biotic and abiotic components renewable at different timescales [45]. Composting can be used to somewhat regenerate the SOM (biotic) component in a human timescale [46], but the mineral fraction of soil is formed from the weathering of rocks and is governed by a geologic timescale [44]. For example, Mikhailova et al. (2018) [47] reported morphological/diagnostic changes, as well as changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) and SIC, in a 50-year period of cultivation of the Russian Chernozem. Some of the human-induced changes to soils are so profound that Drohan and Farnham (2006) [48] have proposed to recognize rare and threatened soils. Warming of the permafrost is reducing the area of Gelisols at a rapid pace and is threatening its existence as a soil order [49]. Plaza et al. (2019) [50] reported a loss of soil carbon of 5.4% per year at an experimental site in Alaska using direct measurements of permafrost thawing and carbon loss. Such changes have significant socio-economic and monetary consequences, which are not always reported through scientific data. The costs associated with climate change are often considered to be “invisible,” “far more distant,” and the markets have “a tough time” dealing with them [51]. Soils are at risk due to anthropogenic and climate changes, but businesses either “do not or are slow” at connecting these risks with market valuations [51]. The lack of orderly market corrections and “climate risk underpricing” can lead to a “correction all at once,” which can be detrimental for both the market and the environment [51]. This indicates the need for systematic monetary valuations of rapid changes in soil properties (e.g., SOC, SIC, nutrients, etc.) due to human activities using market- Earth 2020, 1 24 and non-market valuation methods. It should be noted that some climate-change-induced changes inEarth the 2020 soils, 1, canFOR reachPEER REVIEW thresholds (such as the disappearance of the soil order of Gelisols), which are10 likely irreversible [52], and, therefore, not correctable by the market. Monetary valuations, market- and non-marketcan help human interventions adaptation cannot to its fix changes. the physical Economic world, analysis but they regarding can help soil human actual adaptation and/or potential to its changes.change is Economic important analysis for sustainable regarding soil soil management actual and/or to potentialsustain human change wellbeing is important and for aid sustainable adaptation soilto dynamic management environmental to sustain human conditions. wellbeing and aid adaptation to dynamic environmental conditions.

3.1.3.3.1.3. SoilSoil SystemSystem (Degree(Degree of of Computation Computation and and Degree Degree of of Complexity) Complexity) ValuationValuation startsstarts withwith thethe selectionselection ofof a system (e.g., pedon, pedon, horizon, horizon, etc.) etc.) and and soil soil property property or orproperties properties to be to evaluated. be evaluated. Valuat Valuationion of soil ofES soilcan vary ES can by the vary degree by the of degreecomputation of computation (qualitative (qualitativevs. quantitative) vs. quantitative) and the anddegree the degreeof complexity of complexity (mechanistic (mechanistic vs. vs.empirical) empirical) [10,11] [10,11 ](Figure (Figure 66).). DistinctionsDistinctions amongamong thesethese valuationsvaluations provideprovide examples examples of of their their possible possible use. use. TheThe selectionselection ofof anan appropriateappropriate valuationvaluation methodmethod willwill dependdepend onon thethe stakeholders,stakeholders, scope,scope, scale,scale, andand otherother factors.factors. QualitativeQualitative models models in in soil soil science science often often use use expert expert knowledge knowledge to to extrapolate extrapolate soil soil information information across across a landscapea landscape [10 [10].]. Quantitative Quantitative models models use use mathematical mathematical models models to abstractto abstract soil soil characteristics characteristics [10]. [10].

Qualitative Qualitative Empirical Mechanistic

Quantitative Quantitative Empirical Mechanistic

Figure 6. Possible combinations for the degree of computation and the degree of complexity that can beFigure used in6. Possible the valuation combinations of soil systems for the goods degree and of comput servicesation (SSGS). and the degree of complexity that can be used in the valuation of soil systems goods and services (SSGS). Qualitative-empirical valuations can vary from simple verbal valuations of soil ES (e.g., “dirt cheap,” fertile,Qualitative-empirical productive, etc.) [44,53 valuations] to soil ES can valuation vary from maps. simple For verbal example, valuations Lobry de of Bruyn soil ES and (e.g., Abbey “dirt (2003)cheap,” [54 ]fertile, examined productive, farmers’ valuesetc.) [44,53] related to to soil soil ES health valuation and sustainability maps. For example, using interviews Lobry de with Bruyn farmers and toAbbey identify (2003) the language[54] examined and techniques farmers’ values in relation related to identifiable to soil health themes, and suchsustainability as soil feel, using organic interviews matter, soilwith life, farmers soil texture, to identify soil management, the language etc. and Although techniques farmers in relation were not to directly identifiable asked themes, about soil-based such as ES,soil farmersfeel, organic understood matter, the soil link life, between soil texture, soil health, soil management, productive soil, etc. andAlthough profitability. farmers Soil were maps not are directly also qualitativeasked about empirical soil-based models ES, whichfarmers show understood soil distribution the link within between a landscape soil health, based productive on soil map soil, units and (SMUs)profitability. that are Soil identified maps are by also soil qualitative scientists using empirical “a mental models version which of show the soil-landscape soil distribution model” within [55]. a Typically,landscape SMU based boundaries on soil map are units based (SMUs) on a combination that are identified of limited by soil field scientists data as using well as “a vegetation mental version and topographicof the soil-landscape associations model” that are [55]. determined Typically, by SMU the soilboundaries scientist are in the based field. on This a combination qualitative-empirical of limited approachfield data to asdefine well as soil vegetation boundaries and thentopographic can be associated associations with that soil are property determined data by and the/or soil monetary scientist valuation.in the field. For This example, qualitative-empirical the legend for the approach soil map to shown define in soil Figure boundaries7 displays then monetary can be associated soil ES values with averagedsoil property over thedata SMUs. and/or monetary valuation. For example, the legend for the soil map shown in FigureGeospatial 7 displays technologies monetary soil (e.g., ES values Geographic averaged Information over the SMUs. Systems, etc.) enable soil scientists to useGeospatial various interpolation technologies techniques(e.g., Geographic to create Informatqualitative-mechanisticion Systems, etc.) enablevaluations soil scientists where to field use datavarious are usedinterpolation for the extrapolation techniques to of create point-based qualitative-mechanistic information across valuations the farm for where soil ES field valuations data are (Figureused for8). theQuantitative-empirical extrapolation of point-based valuations informatiocan be demonstratedn across the byfarm an examplefor soil ES of avaluations linear regression (Figure relationship8). Quantitative-empirical between soil CO valuations2 fluxes and can soil be temperature demonstrated during by winteran example (p = 0.009) of a underlinear long-termregression erelationshipffects of vehicular between passages soil CO in a2 no-tillfluxescorn-soybean and soil temper rotationature on during a Crosby winter silt loam(p=0.009) in Central under Ohio, long-term USA, witheffects associated of vehicular daily passages social costs in ofa no-till carbon corn-soybean dioxide emissions rotation [56] on (Figure a Crosby9). Quantitative-mechanistic silt loam in Central Ohio, valuationsUSA, with can associated be illustrated daily by social an SOM costs model of carbon (CENTURY) dioxide (Parton emissions et al., [56] 1994 (Figure [57]), 9). which Quantitative- was used tomechanistic track SOM valuations dynamics can after be the illustrated conversion by an of SOM native model grassland (CENTURY) to long-term (Parton (50-year) et al., 1994 continuous [57]), which was used to track SOM dynamics after the conversion of native grassland to long-term (50-year) continuous fallow [58] (Figure 10). Figure 10 demonstrates that social costs associated with SOC can be added into the model output to inform decision-makers about these costs.

Earth 2020, 1 25 fallow [58] (Figure 10). Figure 10 demonstrates that social costs associated with SOC can be added into EarthEarth 2020 2020, 1,, 1FOR, FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 11 11 the model output to inform decision-makers about these costs.

Figure 7. Example of qualitative-empirical valuation of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) based on Figure 7. Example of qualitative-empirical valuation of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) based on replacement Figurereplacement 7. Example cost method of qualitative-empirical using the 2014 U.S. valuation average priceof soil of $10.42inorganic per U.S.carbon ton of(SIC) agricultural based on cost method using the 2014 U.S. average price of $10.42 per U.S. ton of agricultural limestone (CaCO3)[25] replacementlimestone (CaCO cost method3) [25] at using the Willsboro the 2014 Farm, U.S. averageWillsboro, price NY offrom $10.42 SSURGO per U.S. results ton averaged of agricultural over at the Willsboro Farm, Willsboro, NY from SSURGO results averaged over soil map units (SMUs) limestonesoil map (CaCOunits (SMUs)3) [25] (basedat the Willsboroon data from Farm, Mikhailova Willsboro, et al., NY 2016 from [22]). SSURGO results averaged over (based on data from Mikhailova et al., 2016 [22]). soil map units (SMUs) (based on data from Mikhailova et al., 2016 [22]).

Figure 8. Example of qualitative-mechanistic valuation of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) based on Figure 8. Example of qualitative-mechanistic valuation of soil inorganic carbon (SIC) based on replacement cost method using the 2014 U.S. average price of $10.42 per U.S. ton of agricultural replacement cost method using the 2014 U.S. average price of $10.42 per U.S. ton of agricultural limestone (CaCO3)[25] at the Willsboro Farm, Willsboro, NY interpolated from soil core sample results Figurelimestone 8. Example (CaCO3 ) of[25] qualitative-mechanistic at the Willsboro Farm, valuation Willsboro, of NY soil interpolated inorganic fromcarbon soil (SIC) core basedsample on (based on data from Mikhailova et al., 2016 [22]). replacementresults (based cost on method data from using Mikhailova the 2014 et al.,U.S. 2016 average [22]). price of $10.42 per U.S. ton of agricultural limestone (CaCO3) [25] at the Willsboro Farm, Willsboro, NY interpolated from soil core sample

results (based on data from Mikhailova et al., 2016 [22]).

Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 12

EarthEarth2020 2020, 1, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 12 26

Figure 9. Example of quantitative-empirical valuation using the linear regression relationship betweenFigure 9. soilExample CO2 fluxes of quantitative-empirical and soil temperature valuation during using winter the linear(p=0.009) regression in a no-till relationship corn-soybean between Figure 9. Example of quantitative-empirical valuation using the linear regression relationship rotationsoil CO 2onfluxes a Crosby and soilsilt temperatureloam in Central during Ohio, winter USA, (p under= 0.009) long-term in a no-till effects corn-soybean of vehicular rotation passages. on a between soil CO2 fluxes and soil temperature during winter (p=0.009) in a no-till corn-soybean RegressionCrosby silt loamequation in Central shown Ohio, in the USA, figure under is long-term for soil CO effects2 flux of vehicularvs. soil temperature. passages. Regression The associated equation rotation on a Crosby silt loam in Central Ohio, USA, under long-term effects of vehicular passages. values/disservicesshown in the figure shown is for soilon COthe 2rightflux vs.y-axis soil are temperature. based on an The avoided associated SC-CO values2 of/disservices USD 42/metric shown ton on Regression equation shown in the figure is for soil CO2 flux vs. soil temperature. The associated ofthe CO right2 [22] y-axis (based are on based data on from an avoidedYadav et. SC-CO al., 20192 of [56]). USD 42/metric ton of CO2 [22] (based on data from values/disservices shown on the right y-axis are based on an avoided SC-CO2 of USD 42/metric ton Yadav et. al., 2019 [56]). of CO2 [22] (based on data from Yadav et. al., 2019 [56]).

Figure 10. Example of quantitative-mechanistic valuation of soil organic carbon (SOC) simulated Figureby the 10. CENTURY Example modelof quantitative-mechanistic (Parton et al., 1994 [57 valuation]) based onof soil data organic from Mikhailova carbon (SOC) et al.simulated (2000) [58by]. Figure 10. Example of quantitative-mechanistic valuation of soil organic carbon (SOC) simulated by theThe CENTURY associated valuesmodel shown(Parton on et theal., right1994 y-axis[57]) based are based on data on an from avoided Mikhailova SC-CO 2etof al. USD (2000) 42/ metric[58]. The ton the CENTURY model (Parton et al., 1994 [57]) based on data from Mikhailova et al. (2000) [58]. The associatedof CO2 [23 values]. shown on the right y-axis are based on an avoided SC-CO2 of USD 42/metric ton of associated values shown on the right y-axis are based on an avoided SC-CO2 of USD 42/metric ton of CO2 [23]. 3.2. ExamplesCO2 [23]. of Monetary Valuations Based on Interaction of Pedosphere with Earth’s Other Spheres and Organizational Hierarchy of Soil Systems 3.2. Examples of Monetary Valuations based on Interaction of Pedosphere with Earth’s other Spheres and 3.2. Examples of Monetary Valuations based on Interaction of Pedosphere with Earth’s other Spheres and Organizational Hierarchy of Soil Systems OrganizationalThe pedosphere Hierarchy forms of asSoil a Systems result of interactions with Earth’s other spheres (atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, ecosphere, and anthroposphere) and exchanges flows of ecosystem goods The pedosphere forms as a result of interactions with Earth’s other spheres (atmosphere, and servicesThe pedosphere with these forms spheres as (Table a result5), which of interact can beions of utilitywith Earth’s to humans other [ 59 spheres]. These (atmosphere, flows of goods biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, ecosphere, and anthroposphere) and exchanges flows of andbiosphere, services arelithosphere, often excluded hydros fromphere, monetary ecosphere, valuations and anthropo of soilsphere) ES, even and though exchanges they are flows intricately of ecosystem goods and services with these spheres (Table 5), which can be of utility to humans [59]. linkedecosystem with soilgoods properties and services and functions,with these and spheres make (Tab remarkablele 5), which monetary can be contributionsof utility to humans to soil ES[59]. and TheseThese flows flows of of goods goods and and services services areare oftenoften excludexcluded from monetarymonetary valuationsvaluations of of soil soil ES, ES, even even disservices (e.g., social costs) (Table5). Contributions of Earth’s spheres to soil ES have a wide range

Earth 2020, 1 27 of applications (e.g., provisioning, maintenance, regulation, etc.) There are various ways to estimate the value of contributions of Earth’s spheres to the pedosphere. For example, produced substitutes (e.g., liming, fertilizer materials, etc.) are often used to value the ES provided by Earth’s spheres (Table5), but these substitutes are rarely perfect and can be costly [ 59]. Future research should examine how to add (without double-counting) these important ES to the monetary valuation of the total supply of ES provided by the soil systems. Disservices (e.g., social costs of carbon dioxide emissions) should be accounted for as well.

Table 5. Examples of monetary valuations based on the interaction of the pedosphere with Earth’s other spheres and organizational hierarchy of soil systems.

Soil System Earth’s Sphere(s) Example (Valuation) Type Source(s) (Scale) Ecosystem Services: Provisioning, maintenance Atmosphere, Atmospheric Ca2+ deposition (market, Hydrosphere, Abiotc i + 4 [60] liming replacement costs) Anthroposphere Atmospheric Mg2+ deposition (market, Abiotc i + 4 [61] liming replacement costs) Atmospheric K+ deposition (market, Abiotc i + 4 [62] fertilizer replacement costs) Lithosphere, Soil inorganic carbon (SIC)–2-m soil Abiotc i + 4 [15,17] Anthroposphere depth (market, liming replacement costs) Ecosystem Services: Regulation Atmosphere, Atmospheric Ca2+ and Mg2+ deposition Hydrosphere, (avoided social costs of carbon dioxide Abiotc i + 4 [41] Anthroposphere emissions, SC-CO2) Soil inorganic carbon (SIC)–2-m soil Lithosphere, depth (avoided social costs of carbon Abiotc i + 4 [63] Anthroposphere dioxide emissions, SC-CO2) Soil organic carbon (SOC)–2-m soil depth Biosphere, (avoided social costs of carbon dioxide Biotic i + 4 [64] Anthroposphere emissions, SC-CO2) Biosphere, Total soil carbon (TSC)–2-m soil depth Biotic + Lithosphere, (avoided social costs of carbon dioxide i + 4 [16] Abiotic Anthroposphere emissions, SC-CO2) Note: (i + 4) indicates the levels of scale hierarchy according to the organizational hierarchy of soil systems, where the behavior of a system at the extent scale (i level) can be described in terms of attributes at lower ( ) or upper (+) scale levels (adapted from Dijkerman, 1974 [9]). −

Despite the various limitations associated with economic valuations of ES provided by the pedosphere and Earth’s other spheres, these tools are important in decision making (e.g., benefit-cost analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, etc.) when it comes to natural resource management. Examples of monetary valuations in Table5 vary in scale, and Brown et al. (2005) [ 59] point out that economic valuation can be more accurate in evaluating small changes in ES because “existing prices indicate the marginal value of the resource, and the marginal value applies best to a small change in quantity or quality.” Many ES provided from interactions between the pedosphere and Earth’s other spheres are provided for free because they are viewed as non-scarce with non-attenuated property rights [59].

4. Discussion Ecosystem goods, services, and disservices provided by soils are an integral part of business ecosystems [2,65], but they have been narrowly defined (e.g., soil-based, pedosphere-based, etc.) [12,66] Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 14 or quality.” Many ES provided from interactions between the pedosphere and Earth’s other spheres orare quality.” provided Many for freeES provided because they from are interactions viewed as betweennon-scarce the with pedosphere non-attenuated and Earth’s property other rights spheres [59]. are provided for free because they are viewed as non-scarce with non-attenuated property rights [59]. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion Ecosystem goods, services, and disservices provided by soils are an integral part of business Earth 2020, 1 28 ecosystemsEcosystem [2,65], goods, but services, they have and been disservices narrowly provided defined by(e.g., soils so areil-based, an integral pedosphere-based, part of business etc.) ecosystems[12,66] leading [2,65], to abut potential they have underestimation been narrowly of thdefinedeir value (e.g., to human soil-based, society pedosphere-based, (Figure 11). Since manyetc.) [12,66]leadingecosystems leading to a on potential to Earth a potential have underestimation beenunderestimation modified of by their of human th valueeir value activity, to humanto human there society issociety a need (Figure (Figure to expand 11 11).). SinceSince the scope many of ecosystemsthe soil (and onon pedosphere) EarthEarth havehave beenbeen definitions modified modified to byinclude by human human the activity, anthroposphereactivity, there there is ais need (Figuresa need to expandto 2 expandand 12). the the scope scope of the of thesoil soil (and (and pedosphere) pedosphere) definitions definitions to include to include the anthropospherethe anthroposphere (Figures (Figures2 and 2 12and). 12).

Societal values Societal values Government Governmentvalues Shared values values Individual Shared values Individualvalues values Business values Business values

Figure 11. Relationship between different types of stakeholders and their values: societal, government, Figurebusiness,Figure 11. Relationshipand 11. individualRelationship between with between regards different di fftoerent soil types ecosystem types of stakeholders of stakeholders goods and and andservices. their their values: values: societal, societal, government, government, business,business, and individual and individual with regards with regards to soil to ecosystem soil ecosystem goods goods and services. and services.

(a) (b) (a) (b) FigureFigure 12. 12.The The newly newly expanded expanded scope scope of of the the definition definition of of soil: soil: (a ()a soil) soil and and relationship relationship between between soil soil Figurecomponentscomponents 12. The from from newly Earth’s Earth’s expanded various various scope spheres; spheres; of the (b ()b definition formation) formation of of of soil: two-sphere, two-sphere, (a) soil and three-sphere, three-sphere, relationship and and between four-sphere four-sphere soil (e.g.,components(e.g., pedosphere) pedosphere) from systemsEarth’s systems various in in nature nature spheres; (A (A= atmosphere;= atmosphere;(b) formationB B= of =biosphere; biosphere;two-sphere,H H= three-sphere, =hydrosphere; hydrosphere; andL L= =four-spherelithosphere; lithosphere; (e.g.,Ecosphere,Ecosphere, pedosphere) and and Anthroposphere) Anthroposphere) systems in nature (adapted (a (Adapted = atmosphere; from from Mattson, Mattson, B = biosphere; 1938 1938 [7 ]).[7]). H = hydrosphere; L = lithosphere; Ecosphere, and Anthroposphere) (adapted from Mattson, 1938 [7]). The anthroposphere has impacted all of the Earth’s spheres, and it is sometimes difficult to separateThe anthroposphere the human-derived has impacted from natural all of ES.the ThisEarth’s review spheres, introduces and it is soil sometimes systems goodsdifficult and to services separate (SSGS)Thethe anthroposphere human-derived as a more inclusive hasfrom impacted natural term to ES.all describe of This the review Earth’s a combination introduces spheres, of and anthropogenicsoil it systems is sometimes goods and difficult naturaland services to goods separate (SSGS) and theservicesas human-deriveda more provided inclusive by from term the soils,natural to describe which ES. This area combination open review systems introduces of [anthropogenic67] (Figures soil systems2 and and 12goods natural). and goods services and (SSGS)services asprovided a moreEcological inclusive by the economics soils, term which to [1 describe] developed are open a combination systems the concepts [67] of (Figures of anthropogenic natural 2 capital,and 12). and ecosystem natural goods,goods and services,services whichprovided are by essential the soils, for which human are wellbeing. open systems According [67] (Figures to Guerry 2 and et al. 12). (2015) [68], there is a fundamental asymmetry of the most current economic systems which very often reward short-term gains (at the human-scale) at the expense of human wellbeing in the long-term (at the geologic scale). Business and economics are alongside each other, where businesses offer goods and services that generate economic output, while economics determines the supply and demand of these products. Moore (1993) [65] describes business ecosystems with a new ecology of competition between predators and prey, Earth 2020, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 15

Ecological economics [1] developed the concepts of natural capital, ecosystem goods, and services, which are essential for human wellbeing. According to Guerry et al. (2015) [68], there is a fundamental asymmetry of the most current economic systems which very often reward short-term gains (at the human-scale) at the expense of human wellbeing in the long-term (at the geologic scale).

BusinessEarth 2020 and, 1 economics are alongside each other, where businesses offer goods and services that29 generate economic output, while economics determines the supply and demand of these products. Moore (1993) [65] describes business ecosystems with a new ecology of competition between predatorscomparing and them prey, to naturalcomparing ecosystems them to which natural can ec sometimesosystems collapsewhich can if the some environmentaltimes collapse conditions if the environmentalchange too rapidly conditions (e.g., comparablechange too rapidly to Stephen (e.g., Jay comparable Gould’s evolutionary to Stephen theoryJay Gould’s [69] and evolutionary punctuated theoryequilibrium [69] and [70 punctuated]). According equilibrium to Moore (1993) [70]). [Acco65], successfulrding to Moore businesses (1993) must [65], attract successful resources, businesses capital, mustpartners, attract supplies, resources, and capital, create partners, cooperative supplies, networks, and whichcreate hopefullycooperative will networks, be sustainable which nothopefully only for willthese be businessessustainable butnot alsoonly to for the these humans busine theysses serve. but also to the humans they serve. SoilsSoils are are complex complex entities entities which which are are organized organized in intoto soil soil systems systems with with different different organizational organizational hierarchies,hierarchies, which which can bebe integratedintegrated within within the the framework framework of ecosystem of ecosystem services services (Table (Table1) and business1) and businessinformation information systems systems (BIS) (Figure (BIS) (Figure 13). This 13). organizationalThis organizational hierarchy hierarchy of soil of systemssoil systems can becan used be usedby businessesby businesses (e.g., (e.g., BIS, BIS, business business intelligence intelligence (BI), (BI), etc.) etc.) inin the economic valuation valuation of of soil soil ES/ED ES/ED byby scale scale (e.g., (e.g., world, world, continent), continent), time time (e.g., (e.g., soil, soil, geologic), geologic), qualitative qualitative and and quantitative quantitative degrees degrees of of computationcomputation (e.g., mental,mental, verbal, verbal, descriptive, descriptive, mathematical, mathematical, deterministic, deterministic, stochastic), stochastic), and complexity and complexity(e.g., mechanistic, (e.g., mechanistic, empirical) (Tableempirical)1). This (Table review 1). introducesThis review soil introduces systems goods soil systems and services goods (SSGS) and servicesto human (SSGS) business to human activity business because activity it describes because soil it benefits describes/damages soil benefits/damages supplied to human supplied societies, to humangovernments, societies, businesses, governments, individuals businesses, (e.g., farmers, individuals etc.), and (e.g., shared farmers, values etc.), between and entities shared (Figure values 11 ). betweenThis review entities has (Figure also provided 11). This examples review has of also monetary provided valuations examples of of SSGS monetary based onvaluations the interaction of SSGS of basedthe pedosphere on the interaction with Earth’s of the otherpedosphere spheres with (Table Earth’s5). other spheres (Table 5).

Business Information Systems (BIS)

Business intelligence (BI)

Customer Soil systems Supply chain Enterprise relationship goods and Suppliers management resource Customers management services (SSGS) (SCM) planning (ERP) (CRM)

Figure 13. Integration of soil systems goods and services (SSGS) (including goods and services provided Figureby interaction 13. Integration of soil withof soil various systems Earth’s goods spheres) and intoservices the enterprise(SSGS) (including resource planninggoods and (ERP) services within providedthe Business by interaction Information of Systemssoil with (BIS) various (adapted Earth’ froms spheres) Rajnoha into et al.,the 2014enterprise [71]). resource planning (ERP) within the Business Information Systems (BIS) (adapted from Rajnoha et al., 2014 [71]). Ecosystem goods, services, and disservices (including soil systems ones) are not typically integratedEcosystem with goods, BIS (Figure services, 13). and In thedisservices business (including environment, soil supplierssystems areones) often are associatednot typically with integratedhumans, with but these BIS (Figure suppliers 13). rely In the on rawbusiness or transformed environment, ecosystem suppliers goods are often and servicesassociated from with the humans,Earth’s spheres.but these Suppliers suppliers (e.g., rely farmers, on raw etc.)or tran relysformed on ecosystem ecosystem goods goods and servicesand services provided from by the the Earth’spedosphere spheres. and Suppliers Earth’s other (e.g., spheres; farmers, therefore, etc.) rely they on ecosystem need data andgoods information and services provided provided by businessby the pedosphereintelligence and (BI) toEarth’s make other sustainable spheres; purchasing therefore, decisions they need which data will and subsequently information impact provided other partsby businessof the BI intelligence system (Figure (BI) to 13 make) to deliver sustainable to customers purchasing more decisions sustainable which products. will subsequently This inclusion impact will otherprovide parts businesses of the BI withsystem various (Figure short-term 13) to deli andver long-term to customers benefits more including sustainable sustainable products. sources This inclusionof raw materials, will provide a positive businesses public viewwith ofvarious corporate short-term social responsibility and long-term [72], benefits climate resilienceincluding in sustainablesupply chain sources management of raw materials, (SCM) (Figure a positive 13), improved public view risk analysis of corporate and reduction, social responsibility the opportunity [72], to climateparticipate resilience in carbon in supply markets, chain tax breaks, management and many (SCM) others. (Figure A business 13), improved role is essential risk analysis in overcoming and market failures when it comes to ecosystem goods and services/disservices provided by soil systems at various scales [73]. Although economic valuations of ES are “serious underestimates of infinity” (Costanza et al., 1997) [74], they are useful in identifying unsustainable, inefficient use of resources, and comparing between use options during the decision-making process [73]. Earth 2020, 1 30

5. Conclusions Current applications of the human-centered ES framework to soils are narrowly defined (e.g., soil-based, pedosphere-based, etc.) and focus on soil properties while treating soil as a closed system. Soils are complex open systems that form from the interaction of Earth’s various spheres (atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, ecosphere, and anthroposphere), which contribute to ES/ED but are not accounted for in current ES/ED valuations. Since many ecosystems on Earth have been modified by human activity, there is a need to expand the scope of the soil (and pedosphere) definitions to include the anthroposphere. The anthroposphere has impacted all of the Earth’s spheres, and it is sometimes difficult to separate the human-derived from natural ES. The market transforms resources from the Earth’s spheres into goods and services/disservices for societal welfare with non-market institutions mediating the human and environmental interactions. These transformations and mediations can result not only in welfare but damages as well. This review proposes to use soil systems and its organizational hierarchy integrated with an ES framework in the economic valuations of soil ES/ED by scale (e.g., world, continent), time (e.g., soil, geologic), qualitative and quantitative degrees of computation (e.g., mental, verbal, descriptive, mathematical, deterministic, stochastic), and complexity (e.g., mechanistic, empirical). Soil ES/ED can be valued using spatial, temporal, and spatial-temporal scales applicable to both science-based and administrative-based boundaries. In order to value ES/ED, data are required; however, humans can only do experiments over small-scale areas using a short-term temporal scale. This experimental data can be used to help parameterize models that can make predictions over large geographic extents and longer time frames to help access the full potential economic impact of soil change (e.g., thawing of permafrost in Gelisols and the massive release of various greenhouse gasses). Time in soil systems often shows a relationship between the degree of soil weathering and the value of ES/ED. The degree of weathering/soil development puts bio-physical constraints on soils, its ES/ED, and monetary values associated with these services. This review demonstrated the effect of the degree of weathering on the value of provisioning ES from SIC using biophysical and administrative accounts with strongly weathered soils having essentially no SIC available in the soil. This would influence the fertilizer and liming investments required for agriculture. There is a common misconception that all soils can sequester carbon, but carbon sequestration potential is often directly limited by the degree of weathering. The pedological concept of time refers to natural soil processes, however anthropogenic pressures are rapidly transforming soils into “human-natural” bodies. These human impacts can result in the destruction of soil resources, which cannot be renewed on a human timescale. Valuations of soil ES/ED can be done with various degrees of computation (quantitative or qualitative) and complexity (mechanistic or empirical), and examples of these valuations range from soil maps to the CENTURY model simulation of soil carbon dynamics and associated social costs of carbon dioxide emissions. This review provides examples of monetary valuations of ES/ED based on the interaction of the pedosphere with Earth’s other spheres using various market and non-market valuation methods (e.g., liming replacement costs, fertilizer replacement costs, etc.). Ecosystem goods and services are not typically integrated with BIS. Suppliers rely on ecosystem goods and services provided by the pedosphere and Earth’s other spheres and need information provided by business intelligence (BI) to identify sustainable purchasing options which will deliver to customers more sustainable products. The integration of BIS with ES/ED valuations will provide businesses with benefits including more sustainably sourced raw materials, a more positive public perception, as well as climate resilience and risk reduction in supply chain management (SCM), the ability to participate in carbon markets, and other related regulatory incentives. This review introduces soil systems goods and services (SSGS) as a more inclusive term to describe the combination of anthropogenic and natural goods and services/disservices provided by soils. Although monetary valuations can be useful in human decision making, changes in soil systems are governed by natural processes and human induced changes may not be reversible on a human time scale. Earth 2020, 1 31

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.A.M.; methodology, M.A.S., E.A.M., and G.C.P.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.M., and C.J.P.; writing—review and editing, E.A.M., C.J.P., and M.A.S.; visualization, E.A.M., H.A.Z., G.C.P., and C.J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive comments and suggestions. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Farley, J. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 40–49. [CrossRef] 2. Watson, S.C.L.; Newton, A.C. Dependency of businesses on flows of ecosystem services: A case study from the county of Dorset, UK. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1368. [CrossRef] 3. Davies, J. The business case for soil. Nature 2017, 543, 309–311. [CrossRef][PubMed] 4. Baveye, P.C.; Baveye, J.; Gowdy, J. Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4.[CrossRef] 5. Van Es, H. A new definition of soil. CSA News 2017, 62, 20–21. [CrossRef] 6. Targulian, V.O.; Arnold, R.W.; Miller, B.A.; Brevik, E.C. Pedosphere. In Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 4, pp. 162–168. 7. Mattson, S. The constitution of the pedosphere. Ann. Agric. Coll. Swed. 1938, 5, 261–279. 8. Heal, G. Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. 9. Dijkerman, J.C. Pedology as a science: The role of data, models and theories in the study of natural soil systems. Geoderma 1974, 11, 73–93. [CrossRef] 10. Hoosbeek, M.R.; Bryant, R.B. Towards the quantitative modeling of pedogenesis—A review. Geoderma 1992, 55, 183–210. [CrossRef] 11. Chandler, R.D.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Moysey, S.M.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Sharp, J.L.; Motallebi, M. Integrating soil analyses with frameworks for ecosystem services and organizational hierarchy of soil systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 1835–1843. [CrossRef] 12. Adhikari, K.; Hartemink, A.E. Linking soils to ecosystem services—A global review. Geoderma 2016, 262, 101–111. [CrossRef] 13. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. 14. USDA/NRCS. National Soil Survey Center: Partnership, Technical Excellence, Service; Brochure; National Soil Survey Center: Lincoln, NE, USA, April 2014. 15. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A. Accounting for soil inorganic carbon in the ecosystem services framework for the United Nations sustainable development goals. Geoderma 2018, 324, 37–46. [CrossRef] 16. Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Valuation of total soil carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 157. [CrossRef] 17. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Zhang, L. Determining the value of soil inorganic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 119. [CrossRef] 18. Rawlins, B.G.; Henrys, P.; Breward, N.; Robinson, D.A.; Keith, A.M.; Garcia-Bajo, M. The importance of inorganic carbon in soil carbon databases and stock estimates: A case study from England. Soil Use Manag. 2011, 27, 312–320. [CrossRef] 19. Clarivate Analytics. Web of Science. Subscription-Based Website. 2020. Available online: https://clarivate. com/tag/web-of-science/ (accessed on 21 July 2020). 20. Pavan, A.L.R.; Ometto, A.R. Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A novel conceptual framework for soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 1337–1347. [CrossRef][PubMed] 21. Pachepsky, Y.; Hill, R.L. Scale and scaling in soils. Geoderma 2017, 287, 4–30. [CrossRef] 22. Mikhailova, E.A.; Altememe, A.H.; Bawazir, A.A.; Chandler, R.D.; Cope, M.P.; Post, C.J.; Stiglitz, R.Y.; Zurqani, H.A.; Schlautman, M.A. Comparing soil carbon estimates in glaciated soils at a farm scale using geospatial analysis of field and SSURGO data. Geoderma 2016, 281, 119–126. [CrossRef] Earth 2020, 1 32

23. EPA. The Social Cost of Carbon. EPA Fact Sheet. 2016. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa. gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html (accessed on 15 March 2019). 24. 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. [CrossRef] 25. USGS. Minerals Yearbook, 2014: Stone, Crushed (Advance Release); USA Department of the Interior, USA Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, April 2016; p. 71.2. Available online: https://minerals.usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs/commodity/stone_crushed/myb1-2014-stonc.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2018). 26. Zurek, M.B.; Henrichs, T. Linking scenarios across geographical scales in international environmental assessments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2007, 74, 1282–1295. [CrossRef] 27. Reyer, C.P.O.; Brouwers, N.; Rammig, A.; Brook, B.W.; Epila, J.; Grant, R.F.; Holmgren, M.; Langerwisch, F.; Leuzinger, S.; Lucht, W.; et al. Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: Approaches and challenges. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 5–15. [CrossRef] 28. Bockheim, J.G.; Hinkel, K.M. The importance of “deep” organic carbon in permafrost-affected soils of Arctic Alaska. SSSAJ Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1889–1892. [CrossRef] 29. Streletskiy, D.A.; Suter, L.J.; Shiklomanov, N.I.; Porfiriev, B.N.; Eliseev, D.O. Assessment of climate change impacts on buildings, structures and infrastructure in the Russian regions on permafrost. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 025003. [CrossRef] 30. Ping, C.L.; Jastrow, J.D.; Jorgenson, M.T.; Michaelson, G.J.; Shur, Y.L. Permafrost soils and carbon cycling. Soil 2015, 1, 147–171. [CrossRef] 31. Waelbroeck, C.; Monfray, P.; Oechel, W.C.; Hastings, S.; Vourlitis, G. The impact of permafrost thawing on the carbon dynamics of tundra. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1997, 24, 229–232. [CrossRef] 32. Zhuang, Q.; Melillo, J.M.; Sarofim, M.C.; Kicklighter, D.W.; McGuire, A.D.; Felzer, B.S.; Sokolov,A.; Prinn, R.G.;

Steudler, P.A.; Hu, S. CO2 and CH4 exchanges between land ecosystems and the atmosphere in northern high latitudes over the 21st century. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, L17403. [CrossRef] 33. Koven, C.D.; Ringeval, B.; Friedlingstein, P.; Ciais, P.; Cadule, P.; Khvorostyanov, D.; Krinner, G.; Tarnocai, C. Permafrost carbon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 14769–14774. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Schaefer, K.; Zhang, T.; Bruhwiler, L.; Barrett, A.P. Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming. Tellus B 2011, 63, 165–180. [CrossRef] 35. Burke, E.J.; Hartley, I.P.; Jones, C.D. Uncertainties in the global temperature change caused by carbon release from permafrost thawing. Cryosphere 2012, 6, 1063–1076. [CrossRef] 36. MacDougall, A.H.; Avis, C.A.; Weaver, A.J. Significant existing commitment to warming from the permafrost carbon feedback. Nat. Geosci. 2012, 5, 719–721. [CrossRef] 37. Schneider von Deimling, T.; Meinshausen, M.; Levermann, A.; Huber, V.; Frieler, K.; Lawrence, D.M.; Brovkin, V. Estimating the near-surface permafrost-carbon feedback on global warming. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 649–665. [CrossRef] 38. Gershkovich, E. In Siberian Fuel Spill, Climate Change Is Seen as Major Factor. The Moscow Times, 2020. Available online: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/05/in-siberian-fuel-spill-climate-change-is- seen-as-major-factor-a70494 (accessed on 5 June 2020). 39. Brantley, S.L. Understanding soil time. Science 2008, 321, 1454–1455. [CrossRef][PubMed] 40. Amundson, R. The carbon budget in soils. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2001, 29, 535–562. [CrossRef] 41. Mikhailova, E.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A. Assessing ecosystem services of atmospheric calcium and magnesium deposition for potential soil inorganic carbon sequestration. Geosciences 2020, 10,‘200. [CrossRef] 42. Smith, P.; Andrén, O.; Karlsson, T.; Perälä, P.; Regina, K.; Rounsevell, M.; Van Wesemaels, B. Carbon sequestration potential in European croplands has been overestimated. Global Change Biol. 2005, 11, 2153–2163. [CrossRef] 43. Richter, D.B.; Bacon, A.R.; Brecheisen, Z.; Mobley, M.L. Soil in the Anthropocene. Soil change matters. 2014. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia, 24–27 March 2014; Volume 25, p. 012010. [CrossRef] 44. Trudgill, S. “Dirt cheap”—Cultural constructs of soil: A challenge for education about soils? J. Geogr. Higher Educ. 2006, 30, 7–14. [CrossRef] 45. Stockmann, U.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B. How fast does soil grow? Geoderma 2014, 216, 48–61. [CrossRef] Earth 2020, 1 33

46. Mikhailova, E.A.; Schlautman, M.A.; Darnault, C.J.G.; Sharp, J.L.; Post, C.J.; Hall, K.C.; Outz, E.V.; Barfield, M.A. Effects of compost on the chemistry of an urban Upper Piedmont South Carolina soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2015, 22, 2787–2797. [CrossRef] 47. Mikhailova, E.A.; Bryant, R.B.; Galbraith, J.M.; Wang, Y.; Post, C.J.; Khokhlova, O.S.; Schlautman, M.A.; Cope, M.P.; Shen, Z. Pedogenic carbonates and radiocarbon isotopes of organic carbon at depth in the Russian Chernozem. Geosciences 2018, 8, 458. [CrossRef] 48. Drohan, P.J.; Farnham, T.J. Protecting life’s foundation: A proposal for recognizing rare and threatened soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 2086–2096. [CrossRef] 49. Pearce, F. Arctic permafrost set to disappear over next century. New Sci. 2006, 2537, 15. 50. Plaza, C.; Pegoraro, E.; Bracho, R.; Celis, G.; Crummer, K.G.; Hutchings, J.A.; Pries, C.E.H.; Mauritz, M.; Natali, S.M.; Salmon, V.G.; et al. Direct observation of permafrost degradation and rapid carbon loss in tundra. Nat. Geosci. 2019, 12, 627–631. [CrossRef] 51. Duncombe, J. How Financial Markets Can Grow More Climate Savvy. Available online: https://doi.org/10. 1029/2020EO143124 (accessed on 22 April 2020). 52. Lin, H. Three principles of soil change and pedogenesis in time and space. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 2049–2070. [CrossRef] 53. Davidson, E.A. Dirt cheap soil. Nature 2007, 447, 777–778. [CrossRef] 54. Lobry de Bruyn, L.A.; Abbey, J.A. Characterisation of farmers’ soil sense and the implications for on-farm monitoring of soil health. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2003, 43, 285–305. [CrossRef] 55. Hoosbeek, M.R.; Amundson, R.G.; Bryant, R.B. Pedological modeling. In Handbook of Soil Science; Sumner, M.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; p. E-77. 56. Yadav, G.S.; Lal, R.; Meena, R.S. Long-term effects of vehicular passages on soil carbon sequestration and carbon dioxide emission in a no-till corn-soybean rotation on a Crosby silt loam in Central Ohio, USA. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2019, 182, 126–136. [CrossRef] 57. Parton, W.J.; Ojima, D.S.; Cole, C.V.; Schimel, D.S. A general model for soil organic matter dynamics: Sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. In Quantative Modeling in Soil Forming Processes; Bryant, R.B., Arnold, R.W., Eds.; SSSA Special Publications: Madison, WI, USA, 1994; p. 39. 58. Mikhailova, E.A.; Bryant, R.B.; DeGloria, S.D.; Post, C.J.; Vassenev, I.I. Modeling soil organic matter dynamics after conversion of native grassland to long-term continuous fallow using the CENTURY model. Ecol. Model. 2000, 132, 247–257. [CrossRef] 59. Brown, T.C.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Loomis, J.B. Defining, valuing, and providing ecosystem goods and services. Nat. Resour. J. 2007, 47, 329–376. 60. Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Cope, M.P.; Zhang, L. A systems-based approach to ecosystem services valuation of various atmospheric calcium deposition flows. Resources 2019, 8, 66. [CrossRef] 61. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Cope, M.P.; Zhang, L. Ecosystem services assessment and valuation of atmospheric magnesium deposition. Geosciences 2019, 9, 331. [CrossRef] 62. Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, G.C.; Cope, M.P.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Zhang, L. Quantifying and mapping atmospheric potassium deposition for soil ecosystem services assessment in the United States. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7.[CrossRef] 63. Groshans, G.R.; Mikhailova, E.A.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Zurqani, H.A.; Zhang, L. Assessing the value of soil inorganic carbon for ecosystem services in the contiguous United States based on liming replacement costs. Land 2018, 7, 149. [CrossRef] 64. Mikhailova, E.A.; Groshans, G.R.; Post, C.J.; Schlautman, M.A.; Post, G.C. Valuation of soil organic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources 2019, 8, 153. [CrossRef] 65. Moore, J.F. Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 75–86. [PubMed] 66. Bartkowski, B.; Hansjürgens, B.; Möckel, S.; Bartke, S. Institutional economics of agricultural soil ecosystem services. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2447. [CrossRef] 67. Nicolodi, M.; Gianello, C. Understanding soil as an open system and fertility as an emergent property of the soil system. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2015, 4, 94–105. [CrossRef] Earth 2020, 1 34

68. Guerry, A.D.; Polasky, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Griffin, R.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Bateman, I.J.; Duraiappah, A.; Elmqvist, T.; et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7348–7355. [CrossRef] 69. Gould, S.J. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2002. 70. Gould, S.J. Punctuated Equilibrium; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 2007. 71. Rajnoha, R.; Kádárová, J.; Sujová, A.; Kádár, G. Business information systems: Research study and methodological proposals for ERP implementation process improvement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 109, 165–170. [CrossRef] 72. Alvarado-Herrera, A.; Bigne, E.; Aldas-Manzano, J.; Curras-Perez, R. A scale for measuring consumer perceptions of corporate social responsibility following the sustainable development paradigm. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 243–262. [CrossRef] 73. Robinson, D.A.; Jackson, B.M.; Clothier, B.E.; Dominati, E.J.; Marchant, S.C.; Cooper, D.M.; Bristow, K.L. Advances in soil ecosystem services: Concepts, models, and applications for Earth system life support. Vadose Zone J. 2013.[CrossRef] 74. Costanza, R.R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, S.; Farber, M.; Grasso, B.; Hannon, K.; Limburg, S.; Naeem, R.V.; O’neill, J.; Paruelo, R.G.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [CrossRef]

© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).