Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Tier 3 — Observational / field trialPeer-reviewed

Soil health quantification via SMAF and CASH across diverse land uses

Xucheng Hu, Manbir K. Rakkar, Steve W. Lyon, Kevin Armstrong, Douglas B. Jackson‐Smith, Van R. Haden, Nicola Lorenz, Shane D. Whitacre, James A. Ippolito

Geoderma · 2025

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

This peer-reviewed study provides the first direct comparison of two widely-used soil health assessment frameworks—SMAF and CASH—using identical datasets across eleven sites representing diverse land uses and management practices in the United States. The findings indicate that managed pastures achieved the highest overall soil health scores in both frameworks, whilst certified organic cropland outperformed conventional crop systems. The study reveals important differences in framework sensitivity and indicator responsiveness, highlighting that whilst most soil health indicators are responsive to management, active carbon and β-glucosidase show limited discriminatory power, suggesting the need for refinement in soil health assessment methodologies.

UK applicability

The comparative framework assessment is methodologically relevant to UK soil health monitoring and agricultural policy, though the specific land use contexts (deciduous/evergreen forests, US-managed pastures) and soil types may differ from UK conditions. The findings on managed pasture performance and organic system benefits could inform UK soil health policy and farm management guidance, though UK-specific validation across British soil types and climates would be prudent.

Key measures

Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) scores, Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH) scores, soil organic carbon (SOC), active carbon, β-glucosidase activity, soil pH, and composite soil health indicators across deciduous forest, evergreen forest, beef pasture, hay pasture, and cropland sites

Outcomes reported

The study compared two soil health assessment frameworks (SMAF and CASH) across eleven sites with different land uses and management practices, measuring soil health indicator responsiveness and overall soil health scores. Most soil health indicators were sensitive to land use differences, with managed pastures demonstrating the highest soil health scores in both frameworks.

Theme
Measurement & metrics
Subject
Soil health assessment & monitoring
Study type
Research
Study design
Field trial
Source type
Peer-reviewed study
Status
Published
Geography
United States
System type
Other
DOI
10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117492
Catalogue ID
SNmp4zks93-djyn3g

Topic tags

Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.