Fostering soil management PRACtices and uptake and developing decision support TOols through LIVing labs in EU (PRAC2LIV) Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report — Stocktake and Stakeholder Exchanges on Decision Support Tools for Soil Organic Matter, Nutrient Use Efficiency, and Water Retention Across EJP SOIL Countries Due date of deliverable: M57, Oct 2024 Actual submission date: 31th Oct 2024 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 2 GENERAL DATA Grant Agreement: 862695 Project acronym: EJP SOIL Project title: Fostering soil management PRACtices and uptake and developing decision support TOols through LIVing labs in EU (PRAC2LIV) Project website: https://ejpsoil.eu/soil-research/prac2liv Start date of the project: November 1st, 2022 Project duration: 24 months Name of lead contractor: Wageningen Research (WR) Funding source: H2020-SFS-2018-2020 / H2020-SFS-2019-1 Type of action: European Joint Project COFUND DELIVERABLE NUMBER: 5.1 DELIVERABLE TITLE: PRAC2LIV Final Report — Stocktake and Stakeholder Exchanges on Decision Support Tools for Soil Organic Matter, Nutrient Use Efficiency, and Water Retention Across EJP SOIL countries DELIVERABLE TYPE: Report WORK PACKAGE N: WP5 WORK PACKAGE TITLE: Stock-take Evaluation DELIVERABLE LEADER: Timo A. Räsänen AUTHOR: DOI: Timo A. Räsänen, Dylan Warren Raffa, Sofia Delin, Meriem Jouini, Raimonds Kasparinskis, Baiba Dirnēna, Alessandra Trinchera, Daniëlle Ooms, Ardy Saarloos, Imants Kukuļs, Valentina Baratella, Ülfet Erdal, Zeynep Demir, Daniel Simonse, Marjoleine Hanegraaf 10.5281/zenodo.14197806 LICENSE: CC BY 4.0 DISSEMINATION LEVEL: PU Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 3 ABSTRACT The project PRAC2LIV conducted a stocktake of Decision Support Tools (DSTs) focused on three key themes: soil organic matter, nutrient use efficiency, and water retention, currently in use in EJP SOIL countries. Building on previous stocktakes and an extensive literature review, this assessment included DSTs ranging from simple tools to next-generation support systems. Both the scientific basis of these DSTs, as well as their implementation and adoption at the farm level, were evaluated. In addition, mock-up designs for DSTs (mobile apps) related to the three themes were created. The results of the stocktake were discussed with various stakeholders through regional workshops, within the broader context of soil health. Further elaboration was conducted using a novel visualization method, in a participatory approach, with a focus on “DSTs for Soil Health in Living Labs.” By combining the findings from the literature, stocktake, workshops, mock-up designs, and visualization, conclusions and recommendations were made for the future development of DSTs in agro-ecosystems across Europe. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 4 Table of contents ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................................3 Table of contents....................................................................................................................................4 List of Tables...........................................................................................................................................5 List of Figures .........................................................................................................................................6 List of acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................................6 List of Annexes .......................................................................................................................................6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................7 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................13 1.1. Background ...........................................................................................................................13 1.2. Objectives .............................................................................................................................14 2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................16 2.1. Literature review ..................................................................................................................16 2.2. Stocktake and evaluation of DSTs .........................................................................................17 2.2.1. Survey of EJP SOIL national coordinators on DSTs ........................................................17 2.2.2. Survey of stakeholders on DSTs ....................................................................................18 2.3. Stakeholder exchanges on the use of DSTs ..........................................................................19 2.3.1. Regional multi-stakeholder workshops ........................................................................19 2.3.2. Exchanges in other meetings ........................................................................................20 2.3.3. Participatory approach in designing future development of DSTs ................................20 2.4. Mock-up designs for DSTs ....................................................................................................21 2.5. Artificial Intelligence assisted synthesis ................................................................................21 3. Results and discussion ..................................................................................................................22 3.1. Literature review ..................................................................................................................22 3.1.1. Overview of DSTs ..........................................................................................................22 3.1.2. Drivers for DST use .......................................................................................................24 3.1.3. DSTs in the context of soil quality .................................................................................26 3.1.4. Soil quality and decision support in the context of agricultural policies .......................27 3.2. Stocktake and evaluation of DSTs .........................................................................................28 3.2.1. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL .....................................................28 3.2.2. Questionnaire to stakeholders .....................................................................................46 3.3. Stakeholder exchanges .........................................................................................................49 3.3.1. Regional Workshops .....................................................................................................49 3.3.2. Exchanges in other meetings ........................................................................................55 3.3.3. Participatory Approach .................................................................................................56 3.4. Mock-up designs for DSTs ....................................................................................................58 3.5 Towards a web portal to support Soil Health within Living labs .................................................59 4. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................62 5. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................64 Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................67 List of references ..................................................................................................................................68 Annex 1. Stocktake and evaluation ......................................................................................................79 Annex 2. Regional workshops ..............................................................................................................97 Annex 3. Contribution to policy workshop (ASD, 2024) .......................................................................99 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 5 List of Tables Table 1. Examples of DSTs used by European stakeholders for policy planning (based on Sánchez et al., 2020 with author’s modifications). ............................................................................................24 Table 2. The most used DSTs on soil water availability and retention according to the responses. Both the DSTs aligning and not aligning with our definition (Section 1) are shown. ...............................30 Table 3. The most used DSTs on soil organic carbon according to the responses. Both the DSTs aligning and not aligning with our definition (Section 1) are shown. ..............................................32 Table 4. The most used DSTs on soil nutrient use efficiency according to the responses. Both the DST’s aligning and not aligning with our definition (Section 1) are shown......................................34 Table 5. Matrix with number of the reported DSTs with overlapping use across user groups. Total number of DSTs in the analysis was 91, and the number of DSTs used per user group is shown on the diagonal of the table in bold. ....................................................................................................37 Table 6. Average rating of DST by the respondents. ............................................................................38 Table 7. Percentage of responses on the type of tools are now not available but are needed and/or planned to be developed and the relevant scales for each parameter. ..........................................41 Table 8. Farmers’ and regional goals that could be reached more easily if tools indicated in Question 11 are used. .....................................................................................................................................43 Table 9. The respondent’s views on factors determining the use of DSTs. ..........................................44 Table 10. Additional aspects that were not mentioned in the questionnaire but could be considered in the use and development of DST’s related to soil water retention, soil organic carbon, and nutrient use efficiency.....................................................................................................................45 Table 11. Stakeholders’ questionnaire: Respondent’s occupation and farming activities. Note that respondents may have given more than one answers for each question and percentages refer to share of respondents. .....................................................................................................................46 Table 12. Reported farming challenges. Note that respondents may have given more than one answers and percentages refer to share of respondents. ...............................................................47 Table 13. Average agreement with statements on DSTs. The values in the table are calculated from relative shares (%) of answers from each country to account for the imbalanced number of answers per each country. ..............................................................................................................48 Table 14. Most important featured of DST on average according to the respondents (1=most important, 2= second most important etc.). The values in the table are calculated from averages of answers of each country to account for the imbalanced number of answers per each country. ........................................................................................................................................................48 Table 15. How decisions are made concerning nutrient, water, and soil organic matter management. ........................................................................................................................................................49 Table 16. Workshop participants at the different workshops. .............................................................50 Table 17. Main soil related challenges identified by participants at the workshops in the different countries. The figures indicate the numbers of participants voting for each challenge ..................50 Table 18. Objectives for using a DST as mentioned by the workshop participants in the different countries. ........................................................................................................................................51 Table 19. Barriers identified and solutions suggested from the workshops in Latvia and Italy. ...........52 Table 20. Summary from each workshop of the responses during group discussions to different statements. .....................................................................................................................................53 Table 21. Recommendations for enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of DSTs in promoting sustainable soil management practices across Europe. ..................................................................65 Table 22. Recommendations to create a comprehensive, user-friendly, and effective DST-based web portal that empowers users to manage soil health sustainably and efficiently across diverse agricultural landscapes in Europe. ..................................................................................................66 Table 23. The national coordinators of EJP SOIL and experts who responded to the questionnaire on DSTs.................................................................................................................................................67 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Framework for rapid literature review, based on framework for systematic literature search and review by Bathaei and Štreimikienė (2023). .............................................................................16 Figure 2. Analytical Framework for impact assessment of agricultural soil management and soil functions. Numbers refer to the five steps of the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) system (Paul and Helming 2019 with modifications by authors). ...................................................25 Figure 3. EU and non-EU participants of the survey on the national coordinators of EJP SOIL on DSTs. ........................................................................................................................................................28 Figure 4. Results of integrated evaluation of 4 selected features for DST’s; averages indicated by coloured lines. Top- DST on nutrient management; middle- DST on soil organic matter management; below- DST on water management; axes are scaled 1-5..........................................39 Figure 5. Percentage of DST types that can be improved defined by EJP SOIL national coordinators. .41 Figure 6. Final version of the visualisation in a poster format. .............................................................57 Figure 7. Different carbon input sources on field level. .......................................................................58 Figure 8. Soil organic matter input on farm level. ................................................................................59 List of acronyms and abbreviations ASD EJP Soil Annual Science Days EJP SOIL European Joint Programme on Agricultural Soil Management EU European Union DST Decision Support Tool KPI Key Performance Indicator MOI Soil Moisture Retention NUE Nutrient use Efficiency SOM Soil Organic matter WP Work Package List of Annexes Annex 1. Stocktake and evaluation Annex 2. Regional workshops Annex 3. Contribution to policy workshop Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and objectives EJP SOIL is a European Joint Programme on Agricultural Soil Management (EJP SOIL) addressing key societal challenges, including climate change and future food supply. Threats to soil health and climate change are increasingly impacting farming conditions across Europe, creating an urgent need for advanced Decision Support Tools (DSTs) to effectively manage soil health, water retention, and nutrient efficiency. However, the adoption of these tools varies significantly due to challenges including accessibility, data availability, and regional variations in tool reliability. In response to these challenges, EJP SOIL commissioned a stocktake on the availability and use of DSTs in the EU, focusing on nutrient use efficiency, soil organic matter, and moisture retention. In support of the EU Soil policy, e.g. the Soil Deal for Europe (European Commission, 2022) and the Soil Monitoring Law (European Commission, 2023), PRAC2LIV also discusses DSTs with a wide variety of stakeholders during live meetings. The overall objective of the PRAC2LIV project was to assess the availability and uptake of DSTs within EJP SOIL countries, and to provide recommendations for their development and broader adoption to promote sustainable soil management. This objective was pursued through a comprehensive research approach that included a detailed literature review, systematic stocktake and evaluation of existing DSTs via surveys, stakeholder workshops, development and testing of mock-up designs, and an example for DSTs for soil health in Living Labs, contributing to a common vision on the advancement of sustainable soil management practices across Europe. The work covered the majority of EJP SOIL countries, providing insights across different agricultural and environmental conditions in Europe. Key findings Literature review Agricultural management practices are significantly shaped by socio-economic, biophysical, and technological factors, including policies, market dynamics, technological advancements, and climate change. These influences affect soil management decisions, ultimately impacting crucial soil functions such as carbon sequestration, water retention, and nutrient cycling, all of which are vital for sustainable agriculture. The literature emphasizes the need for robust monitoring networks and the integration of soil quality into environmental and agricultural policies. These policies aim to establish common criteria for soil health, promote restoration efforts, and improve data sharing among EU countries, formalizing comprehensive data collection and reporting processes. DSTs play a crucial role in analysing complex soil data, supporting policymakers, and ensuring sustainable land management practices. The review further calls for simple, accurate tools to enhance decision-making at the farm level. However, current DSTs often prioritize productivity over the multi-functionality of soils, limiting their adoption for diverse soil functions due to weak drivers and insufficient legislation. Implementing DSTs in agriculture is further complicated by the varied needs and conditions of farms. A holistic approach that incorporates multiple soil functions and engages stakeholders is essential for effective adoption. The review underscores the importance of aligning DSTs with farmers' real-world needs, supported by appropriate policy frameworks. The literature review also reveals that scientifically validated DSTs are limited and often obscured by non-scientific ("grey") publications, leading to poor information exchange between researchers, developers, and end-users. Additionally, an expert-driven approach is recommended for regional Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 8 case studies to better incorporate diverse insights, compared to strict scientific protocols. To enhance transparency and accessibility, a centralized public database of DSTs should be developed, allowing farmers, researchers, and policymakers to access organized and practical information, thereby bridging communication gaps and promoting broader adoption of DSTs. Stocktake and evaluation of Decision Support Tools The stocktake was conducted with two questionnaires, one distributed via email to the national coordinators of EJP SOIL countries, and the other to farmers’ groups. These questionnaires focussed on a wide range of tools for soil organic matter, water retention, and nutrient use efficiency. Survey responses were received from 18 European countries, including Türkiye, and they identified 156 DSTs with 112 fitting the project's definition of digital DSTs. These tools vary significantly in type, technology, and purpose, ranging from simple calculators and activity planners to more complex models, monitoring systems, and remote sensing-based systems. The primary users of these DSTs include agronomists, consultants, advisors, and farmers, with less frequent use by researchers, private companies, NGOs, and policymakers (Figure ES1). Figure ES1. Users of the commonly used DSTs. The evaluation shows that the adoption of DSTs by end-users is generally moderate, with factors such as user-friendly interfaces, low costs, and alignment with user goals contributing to their adoption (Table ES1). However, the involvement of end-users in the development of these tools has been modest, indicating a need for greater stakeholder participation in the design process. The information available on the reported DSTs was often limited, presenting another potential hindrance to their adoption. Table ES1. Average values of features ratings of commonly used DSTs.. Question Rating Value Adoption by end-user 1= little or no use, 5= widely adopted 3.1 Is the use of the tool optional? 1= Yes, 2= No 1.1 Data input 1= few data needed, 5=many data needed 2.7 User friendly interface 1= too complex for users, 5= very user friendly 3.7 Perceived reliability of the DST 1= low reliability, 5= very high reliability 3.8 Cost of the DST 1= Free of charge, 5=Very expensive 1.8 The tool has been developed with participatory approach 1= no users involvement, 5=user-centred design 3.3 Suitable to reach national goals 1= not suitable, 5= very suitable 3.5 Suitable to reach regional goals 1= not suitable, 5= very suitable 3.6 Suitable to reach farmers goals 1= not suitable, 5= very suitable 4.1 78 80 51 27 23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Farmers Agronomists, consultants, advisors Researchers Private companies, NGOs Monitoring policymakers P er ce n ta ge o f re p rt ed D ST s [% ] Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 9 The evaluation emphasizes the importance of accounting for local and regional conditions in the development of Decision Support Tools (DSTs) and highlights the need for enhancements to existing tools. Farming needs and challenges differ across regions, and very few DSTs were commonly reported across multiple countries. Proposed improvements include integrating newer practices, such as organic farming and agroforestry, refining process descriptions and data inputs, and optimizing user interfaces to enhance usability (Figure ES2). Additionally, there is a call for new DSTs that address various spatial scales—from individual farms to regional levels—and provide comprehensive data integration. Overall, the evaluation stresses the need for DSTs that are adaptable to local and regional conditions, scientifically rigorous, and user-centered, to better support sustainable soil management practices across Europe. Figure ES2. Percentage of reported development needs in commonly used DSTs by type. Stakeholder exchanges on DSTs The results of the stocktake were discussed with a wide variety of stakeholders during live meetings. Regional workshops were held with farmers, advisors, and researchers, following a similar script in Sweden, Latvia, Italy, and Türkiye. Taking into account regional differences in soils and climate, soil- related challenges were addressed, emphasizing the need for DSTs specifically designed for soil nutrient management, particularly for optimizing fertilization practices. Several barriers to DST adoption were identified, including the high cost of technology, insufficient user-friendliness, lack of technical support, and resistance to change, particularly among older generations. The adoption of DSTs by small and medium-sized farmers was highlighted as a challenge in all four workshops, with participants noting that DSTs are generally more suitable and viable for larger farms. Proposed solutions included positive demonstrations by experienced farmers, financial and technical support for implementation, and the development of simpler, more user-friendly tools accessible to all generations. The magnitude of these barriers varied across different contexts, underscoring the need for tailored solutions and implementation strategies. In addition, DSTs were also discussed in meetings organized by other parties, such as National Hubs, EJP Soil Annual Science Days, and bilateral meetings with experts in agro-ecological agriculture and business models. The purpose of these meetings was to communicate the results of the stocktake and invite input for the future development of DSTs. Valuable input was obtained on socio-economic and policy aspects of DSTs. A participatory design approach was also used to develop a common vision on the broader topic of "DSTs for Soil Health in Living Labs." In subsequent meetings led by a moderator, stakeholders discussed this topic while a designer simultaneously created sketches and drawings, which were incorporated into the overall visualization. The final version was reached after several iterations Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 10 (Figure ES3). During this process, new subtopics were identified, such as ‘digital twin,’ ‘business model,’ and ‘ecosystem services.’ Furthermore, it was found that the participatory process enhanced stakeholder commitment to the outcomes. Figure ES3. A poster presenting the results of a participatory design approach for developing a common vision on the wider topic of “DSTs for Soil Health in Living Labs”. Decision Support Tool mock-ups DSTs may be developed in many different ways, and thus their actual (digital) form and presentation may vary, such as mobile apps, web portals, sensors/instruments, etc. Good DSTs will have algorithms that fit their purpose and deliver satisfying results. This is true not only in terms of reliability and accuracy but also with respect to the desired functions, such as monitoring, registration, or providing advice. Additionally, for high adoption rates of DSTs by end-users, the interface and presentation are considered to be very important. Mock-up designs for DSTs are a Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 11 means to visualize the desired tools, inviting feedback and supporting structured programming. The mock-up designs developed for PRAC2LIV emphasize the importance of user-friendly interfaces, real- time data integration, and adaptability to different farming conditions. A Web Portal on Decision Support Tools Finally, the report discusses the development of a web portal for soil health, transitioning from single, stand-alone DSTs to integrated tools that support soil health across various scales. This shift aligns with broader European policy initiatives, such as the Green Deal, Soil Mission, and Climate Change Regionalization, which emphasize the need for tools that address multiple aspects of soil health simultaneously at different levels. While single-purpose tools remain valuable, there is growing interest in creating web portals that integrate multiple tools to provide comprehensive support for soil health management. The report suggests that these portals should be scientifically robust, user-friendly, and adaptable to various agricultural contexts, supporting sustainable practices in line with European policy objectives. Conclusions The report underscores the transformative potential of decision support tools (DSTs) in advancing sustainable agricultural practices while highlighting several gaps that hinder their full effectiveness in enhancing soil management across Europe. Many current DSTs are primarily focused on productivity or single purposes, often neglecting the combined effects of crucial soil functions such as carbon sequestration, water retention, and nutrient cycling, which are vital for long-term environmental and social sustainability. Addressing this limitation requires a shift toward integrated, multifunctional DSTs that not only optimize agricultural outputs but also promote the health and resilience of entire agro-ecosystems. These tools should align with evolving European agricultural and environmental policies, such as the Green Deal and the Soil Mission, to contribute to broader societal goals. The report’s assessment of existing DSTs reveals a diverse range of tools with varying levels of adoption. However, significant improvements are needed in areas such as user-friendliness, adaptability to different farming systems, and better integration of diverse data sources. Additionally, the importance of designing DSTs that can adapt to different scales of operation, from small farms to larger agricultural enterprises, is emphasized. This can be achieved through active user involvement and co-creation during the development process, ensuring that tools are practical, intuitive, and aligned with the realities faced by farmers. Furthermore, the report advocates for the creation of a European web portal for Soil Health, a centralized platform where various DSTs can be accessed, offering region-specific tools and data integration. This portal would provide a comprehensive solution for managing soil health at multiple scales, enabling farmers and other stakeholders to make informed decisions that align with both productivity and sustainability goals. The incorporation of user feedback, continuous evaluation, and alignment with policy frameworks are also crucial for ensuring the long-term success and relevance of these tools. Ultimately, the future of DSTs in European agriculture lies in their ability to evolve from simple productivity tools into comprehensive systems that integrate the ecological, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability. This evolution will require collaboration among researchers, policymakers, farmers, and technology developers to design tools that are scientifically sound, practically applicable, and adaptable to local contexts. By addressing the challenges outlined in this report and leveraging emerging technologies, DSTs have the potential to play a key role in achieving sustainable soil management and enhancing agricultural resilience across Europe. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 12 Recommendations The work presented here offers a broad understanding of the current use, challenges, and potential of DSTs in enhancing agricultural practices and sustainable soil management. Building on these insights, specific recommendations have been formulated to guide the development and increased adoption of DSTs, as well as the creation of a European web portal for Soil Health. These recommendations are summarized in Table ES2, with a more detailed explanation provided in Section 5. Table ES2. Summary of recommendations for enhanced adoption and effectiveness of DSTs and for web portal on DSTs for soil health. Enhanced adoption and effectiveness of DSTs Web portal on DSTs for soil health Existing DST effectiveness: • Improve data integration and accessibility • Increase usability and flexibility • Monitor and evaluate DST performance DST improvement: • Include soil health and economic indicators • Explore new technologies and guarantee continuous improvement • Focus on multi-functional and integrated tools Participatory approach on DST use and development: • Promote knowledge exchange and capacity building • Enhance user engagement and co-creation EU policy: • Align with policy and regulatory frameworks • Foster collaboration and cross-border integration Participatory approach on web portal on DST development and use: • Use a participatory approach • Functional design, an architecture • Customizable user dashboards User-friendly and interoperable interface: • Centralized access to diverse tools • Interoperability with existing systems • Scalable solutions for different users • Interactive decision-making tools • Real-time data integration • User support and community forums Data ownership and security: • Data privacy and security Customization and user exploitation: • Regional customization and localization • Educational resources and best practices • Continuous feedback and improvement loop • Integration with policy and regulatory frameworks Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 13 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Climate change will gradually modify the environmental conditions for farming practices and farm strategies. Some agricultural advisory services across Europe are well equipped with flexible, high- quality Decision Support Tools (DSTs) to address this. Additionally, open-source DSTs may be available, such as those mentioned by Leroux et al. (2018). The trend is toward more complex DSTs that combine production with environmental services. However, the level of implementation of DSTs and guidelines for sustainable soil management in Europe varies considerably among farmers and regions. Limiting factors for adoption include access to the tools, availability of required input data, and uncertainty regarding the reliability of the tools given regional conditions (Nicholson et al., 2020). At the national level, DSTs may be available and could be adapted for wider use across the EU. Scientific papers allow for the export of underlying principles and approaches; however, exchanges at the practical farm level are less frequent. Previous studies have identified a wide range of limiting factors, including differences in advisory frameworks, country-specific data and calibration requirements, and language barriers (Hvarregaard Thorsøe et al., 2019; Rose et al., 2016). DSTs can be defined in various ways, encompassing different types of tools, media, and services. In PRAC2LIV, the focus was on digital DSTs addressing soil organic matter, water retention, or nutrient efficiency (see Call text), using the following definition: “Digital tools that farmers, advisors, and/or policymakers can use to monitor and/or make decisions addressing soil organic matter, water retention, or nutrient efficiency. Tools can be software, apps, web portals, or other digital platforms. The tool would typically require some data about the soil, crop, field history, and weather, and then use an evidence-based algorithm to calculate an output. The output could be an analysis of the effect of current or improved soil, water, and nutrient management practices at different scales (e.g., field, farm, regional, national).” In practice, categorizing DSTs is challenging, or at least limiting, as there are many types of DSTs consisting of different technologies, data, and media, and their purposes vary greatly. An important step to secure food production in Europe under climate change and restrictive conditions could be the design and development of a web portal that would enable farmers and advisory services to optimize farm management in terms of agricultural production and environmental services. Such a web portal would include the best DSTs for monitoring Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and/or evaluating farm and field practices (e.g., Gallardo et al., 2020). The platform could utilize and reference region-specific tools, reference values, and/or targets to provide qualitative or quantitative information from available tools. To ensure reliable and accurate data, a science-driven foundation is essential, and for success, actionable recommendations are necessary. Therefore, there is a need for apps that emphasize knowledge exchange rather than simply information delivery (Eichler Inwood and Dale, 2019). The co-production of climate-driven decision support tools has been reported as a success factor for adaptation by farmers (Lu et al., 2022). With this in mind, EJP SOIL commissioned research to perform a stocktake on the availability of DSTs for fostering soil management in the areas of nutrient use efficiency, soil organic matter, and moisture retention within the EU (Leppälä et al., 2022). During the preliminary phase of the project, it was observed that these three topics are part of the broader concept of soil health, which is embraced by the EU’s agricultural policy. The Soil Mission aims for 100 Living Labs on soil health by Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 14 2030 (European Commission, 2022). Supporting soil health in Living Labs is a complex issue, both in terms of registration and planning, as well as monitoring. The adoption and use of DSTs within farming communities may play a key role. Therefore, it is necessary not only to collect information on current DSTs for farm-level use but also to inspire conversations to understand the needs and expectations of various stakeholders at higher scales, such as Living Labs and the regional level. 1.2. Objectives The overall objective of PRAC2LIV was to assess the availability and use of DSTs by performing a stocktake focusing on DSTs for the themes of Soil Organic Matter, Nutrient Use Efficiency, and Water Retention across the EJP SOIL countries. The research was carried out with consideration of current issues such as soil degradation, climate change, other environmental impacts, farm economy, and the EU policy aimed at addressing these issues, particularly soil degradation, through the implementation of living labs. The specific objectives were: • Perform a literature review on DSTs and their use. • Conduct a stocktake on the availability and use of DSTs across Europe. • Investigate farmers’ and stakeholders’ experiences with DSTs and their future needs. • Develop mock-up designs for DSTs focused on the three themes. • Facilitate stakeholder exchanges to discuss the outcomes of the research with stakeholder groups. • Provide recommendations for enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of DSTs. These objectives were achieved through a series of research activities described in this report, which is structured as follows. First, a description of the division of work and the respective methodologies is provided, following the division of work packages and tasks of the project (Section 2). The results of these research activities are then presented in the subsequent sections (Section 3). The literature review was conducted to explore the definition, types, and drivers of use for Decision Support Tools (DSTs) (Section 3.1). This review also discussed DSTs in the context of living labs, soil quality, and EU policy. The stocktake was undertaken to assess the availability and use of DSTs across Europe (Section 3.2). The stocktake was based on two surveys, distributed to national coordinators of EJP SOIL and various stakeholders, including farmers and advisors. These surveys examined the use, users, features, and improvement needs of DSTs, along with challenges faced by farmers. The stakeholder exchanges were held through regional workshops and other meetings (Section 3.3). They served as a platform to discuss the stocktake results and identify further steps to accelerate the successful implementation of DSTs. They were also aimed at investigating the experiences of farmers and other stakeholders with current DSTs and understanding their needs for future tools. The mock-up designs for DSTs were developed, focusing on three key themes: soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient use efficiency (NUE), and soil moisture indicators (MOI) (Section 3.4). These designs were intended to address the identified gaps and propose practical improvements to enhance DST functionality. The report presents also a discussion on the development of a web portal for soil health, designed for use in Living Labs. This discussion, informed by the findings from the research activities, outlines potential pathways for future implementation and broader adoption of DSTs (Section 3.5). Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 15 Finally, the conclusions from each part of the research are summarized in Section 4, followed by a comprehensive list of recommendations for the further development and adoption of DSTs, as well as the creation of a web portal dedicated to DSTs in Section 5. An AI-assisted approach was employed in developing these sections to enable more data-driven analysis and synthesis. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 16 2. Methodology 2.1. Literature review To collect literature, a rapid review methodology was applied (Tricco et al. 2015), recognised as a useful tool for evidence-based decision-making at the policy level (Yost et al. 2014). It was based on the SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis) framework and was conducted in stages (Figure 1) to ensure the demarcation of literature to be as comprehensive and accurate as possible and to gather as much relevant literature as possible while minimizing the inclusion of irrelevant literature. Figure 1. Framework for rapid literature review, based on framework for systematic literature search and review by Bathaei and Štreimikienė (2023). The first stage – Search: The literature search was conducted by strictly following the identified keywords (decision, support, system, tool, model, living labs, Europe, national, agriculture, land, soil, water, retention, nutrients, carbon) in order to minimize subjectivity. Only peer-reviewed, published papers describing empirical, original research was included. Search was carried out using the online scientific database SCOPUS. The search was conducted only in English language. For example, the final search combinations for literature connected to soil water retention DSTs and DSSs were: • ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( decision AND support ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( water AND retention ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( agriculture ) ) • ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( living AND labs ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( water AND retention ) ) • ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( decision AND support) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( water AND retention ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( soil ) ). The second stage – Appraisal: All results from the search results were reviewed at title and abstract level to ensure they met a set of defined criteria. Key words were selected for exploratory analysis of the available literature including following criteria: • Type of DST: decision support system; decision support tool; decision support model; living labs • Scale: Europe; national/country scale; regional; local • Target groups: policy decision makers; stakeholders; farmers • Target objects: land quality; soil productivity; soil functions; soil properties; soil threats; soil degradation risks, soil carbon, soil organic carbon, soil organic matter; soil water, water retention; soil nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, nutrient use efficiency • Agroecological conditions: Controlled; actual • Agricultural lands: croplands; arable lands; grasslands; abandoned lands • Agricultural systems: conventional agriculture; organic farming • Agricultural management: intensive; extensive. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 17 The third stage – Synthesis: Publications that passed the inclusion criteria were collected into the database and read in full to extract the relevant information and additional sources to the report. The fourth stage – Data analysis, comparison of results and conclusions: relevant studies were collected, and their findings were summarized based on key topics such as the characterization and classification of DSTs, their relevance to water retention, soil nutrient and SOM management, connections to living labs, and their role within agricultural policies and soil health. Results were compared across the selected literature by identifying similarities, discrepancies, and patterns. The collected information was then synthesized to provide a holistic understanding of the topic. Practical and policy implications were discussed, leading to conclusions about the effectiveness of DSTs, their impact on agriculture, and recommendations for future development and implementation. A concise summary of the literature review findings is presented in this report. Several thousand publications were retrieved from the first stage of the literature search. After the appraisal stage most of the papers were selected as inadequate for the literature review. The full scope and analysis of the available literature, provided by the key words used is available in Deliverable D2.1 ‘’Report on WP2 Scope and demarcation – Literature review’’ (Internal Report). 2.2. Stocktake and evaluation of DSTs 2.2.1. Survey of EJP SOIL national coordinators on DSTs The PRAC2LIV team iteratively developed the questionnaire for EJP SOIL National Coordinators. The goal was to gather quantitative and qualitative information on the most common DSTs used in each EJP country and to identify critical points and opportunities for future improvements in DSTs related to soil organic carbon, soil moisture retention, and nutrient use efficiency. The questionnaire also examined the current use of different DSTs based on specific farm management practices (e.g., organic vs. conventional), problems encountered, adaptation experiences, and future development needs. The questionnaire consisted of eight sections: personal details of the EJP SOIL national coordinators, definition of DST, current Use of DSTs in the country, users of DSTs, assessment of the reported DSTs, Improvements, factors determining the use of DSTs, and other important aspects not addressed by the questionnaire. It included both open and closed questions. Before distribution, the questionnaire was tested with four researchers. It was then sent as an Excel file to 27 national coordinators from 25 EJP SOIL member countries, including Türkiye. National coordinators were recommended to mobilize their network in order to gather representative data on the use of DTSs in their country. A help desk was established to assist the national coordinators, and two webinars were conducted to support them in completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire is available in Annex I. Data collected through the national coordinator’s questionnaires were analysed using descriptive statistics. The scores of various criteria for DSTs were compared with the highest adoption rates to the average scores of all reported DSTs, highlighting features that can enhance adoption by end users. Furthermore, DSTs were grouped and analysed by specific themes—soil organic matter, water retention, and nutrient use efficiency—to identify needs and potential improvements within each category. Finally, we run a correlation analysis to relate the different criteria proposed in the assessment section of the questionnaire. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 18 Current DSTs have been developed with specific goals in mind, often focussing on improving a specific situation that occurs in the respective country. These goals may have little to do with the goals of EJP Soil and/or EU-policies. For instance, tools at farm level may be geared towards advice on crop and soil management, whereas at the European level quantitative data on reducing losses and/or sequestration are required. Important questions to be discussed are: • How well are current DSTs perceived in terms of user-friendliness and other features? • In what respect do highly adopted DSTs stand out from the general collection? • (How) may a DST at farm or regional level be used for monitoring at EU-level? An integrated evaluation of selected features was made on the base of scores per DST as provided by the national coordinators. For this purpose, DSTs were grouped per functionality (i.e., SOM, NUE, MOI) and the features with highest scores were visualized in polygons. The resulting figures were used for further evaluation by means of comparing and contrasting. In response to question 9 of the national coordinators’ questionnaire, 4 topics with majors scores were: Required data-input, User friendliness, Participatory approach, and Costs. As there was no information available on the relative importance of these topics from the literature review, they were considered to be equally important. No normalization and/or weighing was performed on the data which comprised a total of c. 70 DSTs for the types NUE, SOM, and MOI including some biased. Polygons were used to assess differences between the three types. For this purpose, scores per features were re-arranged, if needed, so that high scores represent the most desired feature. 2.2.2. Survey of stakeholders on DSTs Similarly, as the NC-questionnaire, the questionnaire for stakeholders, which included farmers, agronomists, consultants, and other experts was designed as a collective effort of the PRAC2LIV team. The goal of this questionnaires was to collect data by end users on: the use of DST to take decision in the farming activity, assessment of DSTs and suggestions to improve the current DSTs. This questionnaire was meant to be shorter and easier to be compiled compared with the NC questionnaires and it was based on closed questions. The questionnaire was anonymous and consisted in 6 sections, namely: responder's details, most important farming challenges in the area, farming and DST (usefulness and criteria important to assess a DSTs), assessment of the DSTs used, DST to take decision at the field level, other aspect that were not taken into account in the questionnaires. The questionnaire was translated in Italian, Latvian, Swedish, Turkish, Finnish and Dutch and uploaded on Netigate and shared with the national stakeholders. The questionnaire was sent to the following stakeholders in the different country: • Italy: Coldiretti (farmers union) dispatched the questionnaire through its network to agricultural technicians, agronomists and consultants, farmers and representatives of agricultural companies and associations, an official from a public body, researchers and a representative of the E. Mach Foundation. • Sweden: The questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders through three channels: 1) to farmers within “Odling i Balans”, which is a network of 16 pilot farms that focus on balanced agriculture, 2) to farmers’ advisors within the national advisory program “Greppa Näringen” and 3) to different stakeholders through a newsletter sent out by “Svensk Kolinlagring”, which is an organisation that connects different actors to enable increased carbon storage in agricultural soils. • The Netherlands: the questionnaire was emailed to stakeholders within the network of WUR, mostly researchers, advisors and/or farmers from regional farmers’ groups. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 19 • Türkiye: the questionnaire was dispatched to farmers, researchers, consultants, employees of a private company working in agriculture or food production, and employees of farmers' cooperatives • Latvia: The questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders representing various sectors including policy-makers, research community, educational institutions, advisors, farmers' organizations, agro-industry, and NGOs. • Finland: The questionnaire was dispatched to Living Labs, and other well-known farms and farming communities, including researchers involved in farming activities. 2.3. Stakeholder exchanges on the use of DSTs The results of the stocktakes were discussed with a wide variety of stakeholders in live meetings: 1) regional workshops were organised with farmers, advisors, and researchers; 2) contributions were given to meetings organised by others, e.g. National Hubs, EJP Soil Annual Sciences Days, and/or bilateral meetings with experts; 3) a participatory approach was used to develop a common vision for future use of DSTs. The methodology and results of these have been described in D4.1. Therefore, the present report includes the highlights of the activities only. 2.3.1. Regional multi-stakeholder workshops Regional workshops were organised to discuss results from the stocktake with stakeholders and assess which steps are needed to accelerate successful implementation of tools. For this purpose, a script was developed that not only suited the communication of results, but also the discussion on the larger topic of improving sustainable soil management. The following types of stakeholders were to be invited: farmers, advisors, DST providers, researchers, and policy makers. The aim was to limit the number of participants to around 25, to create good conditions for discussion. Parts of the discussions were made in smaller groups. Each workshop started with a plenary session with an introduction of the EJP SOIL and PRAC2LIV project and a presentation of some selected findings and examples from the European and national stocktake of available DSTs. In the first part of the workshop, participants were asked individually what they thought was main soil-related challenge, what was their objective with using a DST and if they had any other DSTs to add to the list. In the second part of the workshop, the participants were divided in smaller groups to facilitate the discussions on specific topics. They discussed in smaller groups about barriers to DST adoption, and potential solutions to break them. They were also asked to discuss what features they miss in DSTs that they currently use and for what decisions the tools are still missing but needed and to make a ranking of the most important features of a tool. Some statements were selected to participants for opening a discussion about their agreement/disagreement and why. After the group discussions, the main results were presented to all participants, in order to draw the main conclusions of the workshop. If so desired by the contact person of the respective workshop, in a third part of the workshop specific attention would be given to either one of the themes soil organic matter, nutrient use efficiency, and/or soil moisture retention. As part of each workshop, an interview was set up with one or a few of the participants. These interviews have been recorded and presented in the form of short videos summarizing highlights of each workshop, the main discussions and results. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 20 2.3.2. Exchanges in other meetings National Hubs In addition to mere ’sending’ information about the research via the newsletter, interaction was actively sought with participants of the national hub in The Netherlands. For this purpose, contributions were given to two meetings of the national hub. During the first one, participants were informed about the project and the questionnaires, and in the second, their cooperation was sought as part of the participatory approach for making a visualisation on DSTs (see also next paragraph). A meeting with the national hub of in Türkiye is scheduled for a later date in 2024. EJP SOIL Annual Science days (ASD) 2023 and 2024 During ASD 2023, exchanges with fellow researchers were facilitated by presentation of two posters, i.e. one to invite stakeholder groups, in particular Living Labs, to participate in the workshops, and the other on a candidate stakeholder group in The Netherlands. In addition, exchanges with researchers were organised in the co-convened session ‘Using participatory design for developing farmer friendly tools for soil practices and schemes ‘. The session focused on the EJP SOIL aims to promote the use of regionally specific tools to provide either qualitative or quantitative information on agricultural soil-based ecosystem services, e.g., climate change. In ASD2024, exchanges with fellow researchers were sought to discuss results of the stocktake during the co-convened session “Leveraging different approaches in the development of farmer-friendly tools for sustainable soil practices and schemes”, to engage in the participatory approach for making a visualisation on DSTs, and for engaging in policy related aspects during the science to policy session focused on future development and adoption of DSTs. Lighthouse Farm Intermediate results of the research indicated the importance of a business model for living labs. With that in mind, researchers from EU projects ‘InBestSoil’ and ‘SoilValues’ were consulted. During these discussions, attention was drawn to Ekoboerderij De Lingehof in the Betuwe region, the Netherlands, and subsequently a meeting was organised. In this case with only stakeholders from the farm, a different agenda was followed than the above-mentioned script. Major focus of the discussion was the ambition for being a lighthouse and the possible involvement in a Living Lab. 2.3.3. Participatory approach in designing future development of DSTs The aim of this part of the research was to explore the use of narrative mapping for inspiring and discussing the perspectives for integrated DSTs to support soil health in living labs. For this purpose, a method based on ‘narrative mapping’ has been used. This method is an innovative technique to support and inspire discussion among a variety of stakeholders in complex case studies (Lapum et al., 2015). The method derives from the technical design domain in which complex systems are visualised, often complemented with a textual narrative on the discussions and background justification (‘pictorial’). A major advantage of this method is the opportunity to document and present qualitative research that would otherwise not be seen in a traditional paper. The narrative mapping method was used following the steps outlined by Ooms (2021, 2022): 1. Extracting key points for a visualisation out of a moderated team discussion 2. Presenting these visualised key points in several expert groups to receive feedback, eacht time improving the visualisation 3. Finally, using the visualisation as an inspiration for discussion. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 21 Throughout the process, the draft visualisation was presented as ‘work in progress’ with the goal of igniting fruitful discussions on the topic ‘perspectives for integrated DSTs to support soil health in living labs. Ideas and information were collected to add to the picture. After several iterations, the endpoint was reached as major stakeholder groups had been involved and few new discussion points were given. 2.4. Mock-up designs for DSTs As DSTs can be developed in many different ways, their actual (digital) form and presentation of the DST may vary, e.g. mobile app, web portal, sensor/instrument, etc. Good DSTs will have algorithms that fit the purpose and deliver satisfying results. The latter is true not only in terms of reliability and accuracy, but also with respect to the desired function(s), e.g. monitoring, registration, advice, etc. In addition, for high adoption rates of DSTs by end-users, the interface and presentation of DSTs are considered to be very important. To illustrate this, examples (mock-ups) were made for SOM, NUE, and MOI. They are based on the design and format of a mock-up for agricultural biodiversity (Van Opstal & Van der Gugten, 2023), which is currently being elaborated into a real app by Earthwatch Europe and Wageningen University. Preliminary, a specification shortlist was written to indicate major considerations and acquire the necessary information for the designing phase. It also indicates the functionality of the DSTs to fulfil the needs of stakeholder groups. The specification shortlist covers three subjects: Aim of the DST, expected end-users, and required elements. With these requirements in mind, mock-ups designs were made for SOM, NUE and MOI dedicated for use at farm level as covering all options (functions) for the design of DSTs would be beyond the scope of this project. A two-step process was used. First, a flow-diagram was drawn including and connecting all proposed elements of the DST. Secondly, the actual designs of the respective screens were made in MS Powerpoint. To show how these would be aligned, the presentations were made into an interactive pdf. This report presents the mock-up for SOM only. Full results of this part of the research are described in a separate report (D5.2). 2.5. Artificial Intelligence assisted synthesis The content of the report is extensive covering results from different research methods with range of diverse findings on DSTs and their use. Therefore, ChatGPT 4o from OpenAI (https://openai.com) was used to assist the development of report sections that synthesise the findings from different parts of the report: executive summary, conclusions, and recommendations. First, draft texts were written of the contents of these sections by the authors, and ChatGPT4o was asked to provide texts for these sections based on its reading of the other sections of the report. The content from these two texts were then merged and revised to accurately reflect the findings and the authors perceptions. This approach was used to ensure a more thorough and data-driven analysis and synthesis of the findings. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 22 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Literature review 3.1.1. Overview of DSTs To characterize decision support systems and determine the scope of decision support tools available in literature, it was important to understand the decision support process. It was best described in detail by Sullivan (2002) and can be summarized as a process that integrates expert knowledge and specific data to address particular problems by developing and analysing conceptual models. This process typically involves five stages: gathering site-specific information, creating simple conceptual models, analysing the information with computer tools, interpreting the results, and presenting the findings to decision-makers. The output helps evaluate different remedial options, balancing technical feasibility, cost, and regulatory compliance. Ultimately, decision-makers review this structured, transparent information, incorporating stakeholder feedback, to reach an informed decision, potentially repeating the process if further data is needed. When analysing what exactly is a decision support system or specific tool that could participate in this process, various definitions and characterization were offered by different authors (Sánchez et al., 2020; Mir et al., 2015; Power, 2002; Shim et al., 2002; Druzdzel and Flynn, 1999; Turban, 1995; Finlay et al., 1994; et al.), showing that various models and systems could be used as DST and that it is not possible to restrict development of DST into one particular framework. Although, some key features were reported, like ability to support end-users in different scales, ability to support various input and processing styles as well as interactive use to support changing environment and that benefits of these systems should exceed the cost. It was clarified that decision support for agriculture can come in the form of a specific tool with specific purpose (e.g. P index) or a support system that integrates several separate tools (e.g. farmer conservation plans, nutrient calculators, independent databases, weather forecasts, external computer models, etc.) (Rose et al., 2016). Literature analysis revealed that geographic information system (GIS) incorporation into DST was a very important stepping stone for improving regional agricultural management (Huy, 2009; Yongzheng, 2002; Guhathakurta, 1999). It was reported that even though GIS provides all the biophysical information for DST, geospatial technologies can be too difficult for non-professionals to understand. DST should be developed using only some GIS features and in such a manner that they are easy understandable and attractive to the end-users (Huy, 2009; Esnard and MacDougall, 1997). More detailed focus and analysis in the DST that provide specific information for water retention, nutrient efficiency, and soil organic matter showed additional features and conditions. For example, in water management, DST provide the needed support for the precise management of crop water requirements, therefore optimizing yields and reducing costs (FAO, 2017; Payero and Irmak, 2013; Ventura et al., 2001). Traditional methods for estimating these requirements often fall short due to discrepancies between actual crop characteristics and published coefficients. Advances in agronomic models, remote sensing, and GIS have improved the ability to assess drought impacts more accurately (McVicar et al., 1992). On-site monitoring techniques and advanced DSTs are emerging to enhance water management (Rallo et al., 2017; Gharsallah et al., 2013), though it was mentioned that many existing systems may be overly complex for general use (Ramírez-Cuesta et al., 2019; Dzikiti et al., 2018; Soulis et al., 2018; Rana et al., 2005). It was noted that recent developments seek to simplify this process, providing reliable water estimations without relying on site-specific data. Additionally, integrating remote sensing technology into DSTs helps address spatial heterogeneity in crop water needs. The literature review shows that several DSTs have been developed for water and drought management, including tools that model water flow and predict landscape responses (Ramírez-Cuesta et al., 2019; Mir et al., 2015; Verrelst et al., 2012; Moreno-Rivera et al., 2009; Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 23 Steduto et al.,2009; Loi and Tangtham, 2004; Watkins and McKinney, 1995; Sojda et.al, 1994). Overall, employing these innovative tools and models can significantly improve water retention and management practices in agriculture. When analysing literature on DSTs that focus on nutrient management, it was obvious that they play an important role in helping farmers manage nutrients effectively, cutting down on fertilizer costs and reducing environmental risks (Mir et al., 2015; Karmakar et al., 2007; Gibbons et al., 2005; Lemberg et al., 1992). These systems can simulate cropping schemes to provide tailored recommendations based on site-specific conditions, optimizing fertilizer use and improving crop yield efficiency (Quemada and Cabreva, 1995; Chai et al., 1994). With many DSTs now available online, farmers can easily access them to plan nutrient use and irrigation without needing direct access to advanced technology (Achilea et al., 2005; Jorgensen et al., 2005). In many regions, DSTs are being developed to enhance nutrient and micronutrient management, contributing to more sustainable agricultural practices (Mir et al., 2015). The literature review showed that when managing nutrients, DSTs focus mainly on Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) management (Drohan et al., 2019; Teagasc, 2017; Nicholson et al., 2013; Chambers et al., 1999). Even though implementation of DST for P management can be challenging in large scale, as there are many different variables connected to P leaching (Withers and Bowes, 2018). Literature review on DST on soil organic matter (SOM) revealed, that SOM is usually one of the key components of soil health indication, therefore majority of DST on SOM content are parts of tools with broader aim. Some studies link management practices on sustainability indicators with environmental targets (Cabrera-Pérez et al., 2022; Vaudour et al., 2022; Young et al., 2021; Greiner et al., 2018; Schröder et al., 2018; Dal Ferro et al., 2016). For example, Young et. al (2021) based their framework on meta-analysis data and long-term experimental sites across several European regions, therefore it could be used in different climatic and soil regions for management production mapping to achieve, for example, soil organic carbon targets. While analysing the scope of various agricultural DST available in literature, it was noticed that many available DST are not specific to farmers, but can be focused on other stakeholders, for example, policy makers (Table 1). Various DSTs were mentioned, that can be used for political decisions, land management planning, evaluation of environmental risks or evaluation of ecosystem services provided by soil. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 24 Table 1. Examples of DSTs used by European stakeholders for policy planning (based on Sánchez et al., 2020 with author’s modifications). Name of DST Purpose of the DST Source DeSurvey System aims to support political decisions related to sustainable agriculture, water resource management, and land degradation. Van Delden et.al, 2009 Water Resources An educational tool for non-technical users and stakeholders to simulate and predict likely impacts in sectors such as agriculture. Zaman et.al, 2009 AQUATOOL For basins and water resource planning and management. Andreu et.al, 2009 MicroLEIS Multifunctional evaluation of the biophysical quality of the soil, using the characteristics of the soil such as place, climate, and cultivation as input data. De la Rosa and Anaya-Romero, 2010 Environmental Risk Software (FARMERS) For the safe and sustainable management of livestock manure as a fertilizer in order to control and limit the accumulation of metals in the soil and to reduce metal bio-transference from the floor to other compartments. Río et.al, 2011 VULPES System aims to transfer scientific knowledge for evaluating environmental risks from pesticides. Di Guardo and Finizio, 2015 ALL_WATER_gw Developed for groundwater management (water demand, minimization of water cost, maximum reduction, and compliance with water salinity restrictions). Nouiri et.al, 2015 DESTISOL Evaluates the ecosystem services that are provided by the soil, such as food production, air quality, flood mitigation, or climate regulation. Anne et al., 2018 FaST Digital service platform for farmers, farm advisors, EU Member States’ Paying Agencies and researchers about environment and agriculture sustainability. Fast, 2020 The other objective of the literature review also was to characterise the DST status considering Living Labs. Even though there were not that many resources in SCOPUS describing Living labs as they are still an innovative way of conducting research, it was possible to discuss the potential of living labs in connection to DSTs. They function as both practical entities that promote open, collaborative innovation and as real-life settings where user-driven innovation processes can be observed, tested, and refined, leading to the development of new solutions. By actively involving users and communities, living labs ensure that innovations are relevant to real-world needs while also contributing to the academic understanding of open and user innovation principles (Schuurman and Tõnurist, 2017). They also serve as platforms for research groups to engage with practical cases, fostering inter-organizational knowledge sharing through events, publications, and collaborative efforts (Dutilleul et al., 2010). This knowledge exchange helps bridge the gap between science and society, particularly in contexts like agriculture, where individual stakeholders, such as farmers, may selectively adopt innovations based on their specific needs and conditions (Bouma et al., 2021; Leminen and Westerlund, 2017). It was concluded that the scientific community must acknowledge this selective approach as a valid method for applying research outcomes in real-world situations. Especially, when research and soil-related policies have predominantly targeted enhancing individual soil functions, leading to inconsistent and often conflicting recommendations that complicate management decisions for farmers (ten Berge et al., 2017). To aid in their daily decision-making, farmers and farm advisors would significantly benefit from the real-life evidence-based DST (Debeljak et al., 2019). 3.1.2. Drivers for DST use The literature analysis highlighted different driving forces behind the use of DST, which can be combined in three main categories – biophysical, socio-economic, and technological drivers. One of the main biophysical drivers is climate change, its importance and weight was highlighted in the context of water scarcity. In terms of extreme weather events, the role of the complex water systems and reservoirs management is increasing (Yordanova and Ilcheva, 2019). For various countries, Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 25 especially in southern part of Europe, managing water for its various necessary functions, especially under drought conditions might be a big challenge, making it crucial to adapt irrigation practices to conserve water resources effectively (Mirás-Avalos et al., 2019; Turral et al., 2011). This may be the primary rationale behind the initial development of water regulating DST. Socio-economic drivers such as policy regulations, subsidies, prices, etc. were mentioned as one of the main drivers for agricultural soil management as governments have the potential to shape soil management practices and adjust them through policy changes to align with society goals. Also, technological drivers such as different tillage technology, communication technology and robotics can be an important driver for farmers to choose to implement new methods. It was concluded that all these drivers should be looked from soil health perspective. As it is important to assess the impact of agricultural soil management on soil functions, which further will impact the soil health and yield. It can be best described by analytical framework put together by Paul and Helming (2019) which describes five steps of the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) system (Figure 2). Figure 2. Analytical Framework for impact assessment of agricultural soil management and soil functions. Numbers refer to the five steps of the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) system (Paul and Helming 2019 with modifications by authors). This system shows that relationships between the DST, farmers and soil are not as simple. The interconnected relationship between external factors and agricultural soil management, which in turn influences key processes within the soil is complicated. These processes directly affect soil functions, contributing to critical outcomes like biomass production and nutrient cycling. The use of DST can play a significant role in optimizing resource use, including maximizing outputs like biomass and energy while improving efficiency. Although, there might be other external factors influencing the decision of scientist developing the tool and farmer choosing to implement the tool. The complicated scheme shows that there cannot be such thing as a one size (or soil) fits all soil strategy, which is in line with the findings of Sandén et al. (2018). Decisions must therefore be based on careful considerations accounting for local demands, their soils’ potential to deliver functions and Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 26 even ecosystem services, as well as synergies and trade-offs between soil functions and the weightings of alternative options for achieving these services (Debeljak et al., 2019). 3.1.3. DSTs in the context of soil quality Assessing soil quality is challenging due to soil's heterogeneous nature, making it difficult to establish universal standards. Proper soil functioning involves sustaining its natural, social, and economic roles over time (Blum, 2008). The extent of soil degradation varies significantly across European countries, with no specific legislation in place for soil protection. A single soil management strategy cannot accommodate the diverse soil types, regions, and uses across Europe (Virto et al., 2015). The first step in decision modelling for DST is identifying the decision problem. In the agricultural sector, if the other strong drivers or legislative framework is absent (Bünemann et al., 2018), farmers and advisers typically focus on maximizing primary productivity, such as crop and livestock outputs, with limited emphasis on soil multifunctionality like water purification, carbon sequestration, habitat for biodiversity and recycling of nutrients and (agro)chemicals (Schulte et al., 2014). However, farmers tend to prioritize soil health when they notice reduced yields, often due to soil degradation or climate change impacts (Olesen et al., 2011). Despite this, accessing information on whether current management practices support soil multifunctionality, or how to improve them, remains challenging. As a result, determining the best agricultural practices to enhance all soil functions is a complex decision-making process (Debeljak et al., 2019). A multi-criteria decision analysis framework, focusing on functions essential for soil health, such as supporting primary production and the cycling of vital nutrients like carbon, water, nitrogen, and phosphorus is needed to assess soil quality, and further policies in soil protection may serve as the main driving factors for the development of such tools. The study by Volchko et al. (2014) demonstrates that DSTs like that are feasible, as shown by their model originally developed to assess soil quality in remediated sites using key indicators such as soil texture, organic matter, available water, pH, mineralizable nitrogen, and phosphorus availability. This tool integrates all indicators into a comprehensive soil quality index, providing a clear picture of how well the soil functions after remediation. This approach offers a systematic way to measure the success of soil restoration by evaluating how effectively these essential functions are restored, meaning it could be used to assess the soil functions on a farm level. The systematic monitoring of farm management practices, their environmental effects, and their compliance with recommended or legislated standards can facilitate the early detection and comprehensive assessment of soil quality degradation (Piorr, 2013). This corresponds to strategies offered by Virto et al. (2015) for increasing the awareness of soil quality. Some of them can be connected with DST use, like research for accurate, yet ideally simple, tools for monitoring soil quality, alongside the implementation of multi-actor and multi-target strategies to raise awareness and effectively promote the adoption of management practices that enhance soil health. A significant challenge for the future is developing a suitable soil quality index (Kibblewhite et al., 2008) and understanding how its levels relate to soil functions across different areas and land uses in Western Europe, particularly regarding soil organic matter (Hanegraaf et al., 2009). While progress has been made in areas such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, research on soil quality assessment tools and indices in other domains remains incomplete. Several decision model descriptions for soil functions were offered by different authors (Debeljak et al., 2019; Rutgers et al., 2019; Sandén et al.,2019; Schröder et al., 2018; Wall et al., 2018; Rose et al., 2016). Some of the above-mentioned models cover primary productivity decision model that incorporates environmental conditions, inherent soil properties, soil management, and crop characteristics to evaluate a soil's biomass production capacity. Other focuses on the nutrient cycling by assessing soil's nutrient provision and cycling capabilities through sub-models that focus on fertilizer replacement value, nutrient uptake by crops, and harvest efficiency. Additionally, the Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 27 climate regulation and carbon sequestration model that examines carbon inputs and emissions, distinguishing between direct and indirect N2O emissions and factors affecting CH4 emissions. The water regulation and purification model that includes sub-models for water storage, runoff, and percolation to analyse soil water pathways. Also, the biodiversity and habitat provisioning model that integrates various aspects of soil nutrients, biology, structure, and hydrology. However, we need to keep in mind that for holistic approach these models need to be designed to address both croplands and grasslands, resulting in enhanced sensitivity of output to input data changes complicating the DST usage. Rose et at. (2016) offers a specific DST ‘’Soil Navigator’’ that integrates various components to facilitate above mentioned tasks while still providing a user-friendly graphical interface that helps farmers and advisors achieve sustainable agricultural practices. This leads to a question, whether complexity of DST usage might impact the actual use of the DST. 3.1.4. Soil quality and decision support in the context of agricultural policies The EU Soil Strategy for 2030 (European Commission, 2019) aims to protect and restore soil health while promoting sustainable usage, with a vision for healthy soils by 2050 and specific actions by 2030. A new Soil Health Law is set to be introduced in 2023 to enhance environmental and health protections, contributing to the broader goals of the European Green Deal (Fetting, 2020). Healthy soils are crucial for achieving climate neutrality, fostering a clean circular economy, and combating desertification and biodiversity loss, while also ensuring food security and public health. The mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” focuses on research and innovation to implement this strategy by identifying solutions for soil health restoration (European Commission, 2019). The European Commission has also released a Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles, promoting carbon farming as a viable green business model through initiatives under the Common Agricultural Policy (Kyriakarakos et.al, 2024). Various carbon farming practices, such as no-till and biochar application, have been discussed as effective strategies for improving soil health. However, it is reported (Juerges and Hansjürgens, 2018; Paleari, 2017; Glæsner et al., 2014; Kutter et al., 2011) that soil governance in the EU is currently under-researched, with existing policies lacking coherence due to the absence of a Soil Framework Directive, resulting in insufficient sustainable soil management efforts. It is highlighted by Paul and Helming et al. (2019) that future governance frameworks should leverage existing knowledge while adapting to new political objectives. The assessment of agricultural soil management needs to balance ecological interactions with socio-economic influences, where governance serves as a bridge to facilitate sustainable bioeconomic strategies. The promotion of Living Labs is also encouraged (European Commission, 2022), as these can act as influential models for other stakeholders, emphasizing the importance of engaging land users, particularly farmers, in achieving successful soil management outcomes. This only validates the before mentioned statement that policy restrictions have potential to be one of the most influential drivers that can regulate the implementation of DST. With successfully regulated DST implementation (both quality of the supply and demand from farmers) it is possible to prevent the situation when one or more soil functions are impeded and threats to soil functions may arise (e.g., compaction, erosion, loss of biodiversity, loss of organic matter, etc.) (Creamer et al., 2010; Stolte et al., 2016; Creamer and Holden, 2010; Blum et al., 2004). Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 28 3.2. Stocktake and evaluation of DSTs 3.2.1. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL Respondents and definition of DST Q2: Country and institution? Responses were received from the national coordinators of EJP SOIL from 18 countries, including 14 EU countries, as well as Norway, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Türkiye (Figure 3, Table A1.3 in Annex 1). Two responses were received from Belgium, representing the regions of Flanders and Wallonia, respectively. The national coordinators were based at research institutes, universities, and government agencies, and many reached out to experts for support in filling out the questionnaire. In Norway, responses were also provided by the private sector. The responses covered 75% of EJP SOIL countries (24), 52% of EU member states (27), and 39% of European countries, in addition to Türkiye. The countries represented a range of agricultural conditions across Europe, from North to South and West to East. Figure 3. EU and non-EU participants of the survey on the national coordinators of EJP SOIL on DSTs. Q3: Would you agree with this definition for DSTs: “DST are digital tools that farmers, advisors or policymakers can use to make decisions addressing soil organic matter, water retention or nutrient efficiency. Tools can be software, apps, web portals or on other digital supports. The tool would typically require some data about the soil, crop, field history and weather and then use an evidence-based algorithm to calculate an output. The output could be an analysis of the effect of current or improved soil, water, and nutrient management practices at different scales (e.g., field, farm, regional, national)”? The majority of respondents agreed with the provided definition of DSTs, except for one respondent from Finland and one of the six respondents from Norway. They indicated that other decision support technologies could exist and that digital tools do not have to be exclusively based on algorithms. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 29 Use and users Q4: What type of decisions can be facilitated by using DST? The respondents considered that DSTs can support decision-making at farm, advisory, regional, and policy levels (Table A1.4 in Annex 1). All respondents (100%) who answered the question indicated that DSTs can facilitate decisions at the farm level, 94% considered that DSTs can facilitate decisions at the advisory level, 56% suggested that DSTs can facilitate decisions at the regional level, and 63% indicated that DSTs can facilitate decisions at the policy level. Additionally, field and national levels were mentioned as relevant in the responses. The types of decisions that DSTs can facilitate at the farm level, according to the respondents, include soil management, yield improvement, farm management, economic profitability of the farm, nutrient use, fertilization schedules, fertilization limits, soil compaction risk, field mapping, water management, irrigation scheduling, estimation of soil properties (organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and pH H2O), SOM preservation and build-up, and reduction of soil erosion (Table A1.5 in Annex 1). At the advisory level, DSTs were seen to facilitate similar decisions as at the farm level. However, one respondent noted that DSTs enable advisors to validate, objectify, and make their advice to farmers more reliable and trustworthy in technical, economic, and environmental terms. At the regional level, DSTs were reported to facilitate decisions related to nutrient input, water management, and soil organic matter, but also broader-level decisions or uses (Table A1.5 in Annex 1). DSTs were seen as tools that enable the collection and synthesis of information for the development of agricultural policies and regulations that align with society's expectations. At the policy level, DSTs were reported to support the development of agricultural policies, regulations, and environmental support (Table A1.5 in Annex 1). The respondents also highlighted similar decisions as those at the farm and advisory levels, including nutrient inputs, water management, soil organic matter, and economic considerations, indicating that this level of information is also valuable at the policy level. Q5, Q6, and Q7: What is/are the most used DSTs in your country on soil water availability and retention, soil organic carbon, and soil nutrient use efficiency? The respondents reported a broad range of DSTs, not all of which aligned with our DST definition (Section 1). For soil water availability and retention, 41 DSTs were reported, of which 31 aligned with our definition (Table 2) For soil organic carbon, 50 DSTs were reported, of which 37 aligned with our definition (Table 3). For soil nutrient use efficiency, 75 DSTs were reported, of which 64 aligned with our definition (Table 4). The DSTs that did not align with the PRAC2LIV definition were typically maps with static information, web pages or portals with static information, guideline documents, etc. Interestingly, agricultural advisors were also reported as DSTs, emphasizing their role in decision making, although they do not align with our definition. The resulting stock-take includes a total of 115 DSTs that align with our definition. The classification of DSTs according to our definition, however, involved some subjectivity, as the reported tools varied considerably in type, technology, and purpose. The reported DSTs cover a range of tool types (activity planners, simple calculators, monitoring-based, remote sensing-based, models), technologies (online, offline, mobile applications, tools with hardware components), and purposes (single-purpose, multi-purpose). Interestingly, each DST was mainly reported by only one country, except for AquaCrop (Salman et al., 2021) Atfarm (Atfarm, 2023), which were reported by two countries. The level of detail provided for each DST also varied, and the DSTs listed in Table 2, Table Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 30 3, and Table 4 may be variably included in further analyses of this report. In some questions, the responses were not complete for all DSTs. The resulting stock-take of 115 DSTs can be considered a representative sample of commonly used DSTs in Europe across the three subject categories, but it does not include all the tools in use and is therefore not exhaustive. The number of reported DSTs in each subject category indicates that more emphasis has been placed on developing DSTs for nutrient management compared to DSTs for carbon and water management. Additionally, it appears that the same tools are rarely used across different countries, which may suggest that tools are being developed and used for local requirements in local languages and that they are not well-marketed across country borders. Table 2. The most used DSTs on soil water availability and retention according to the responses. Both the DSTs aligning and not aligning with our definition (Section 1) are shown. Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition Austria eo4water Earth observation-based tool for optimizing water and fertilizer inputs. Uses satellite images, agro-meteorological data, and a suite of models that consider soil, plants, and crop management. IVFL and ASAP, 2023. Belgium (Flanders) AquaCrop A crop-water productivity model that assess the effect of the environment and management on crop production. Salman et al 2021. Belgium (Flanders) SWAP- WOFOST A combined agro-hydrological (Soil Water Atmosphere Plant, SWAP) and crop growth model (WOrld FOod Studies, WOFOST). Kroes et al. 2017. De Wit et al., 2019. Belgium (Flanders) Waterradar A tool for searching alternative water sources for agriculture. Inagro, ILVO, VITO and Vlakwa, 2021. Denmark Vandregnskab Online Water management tool for irrigation. SEGES Innovation, 2023. Finland Soil Scout sensor A real time soil moisture monitoring tool with soil sensors and dashboard. Soil Scout, 2023. Finland Field Observatory An online field observatory that collects near real-time data on vegetation, soil, and the atmosphere from farms and study sites, and use these data for modelling and to estimate carbon storage and other ecosystem functioning. Carbon action, 2023. Finland EU MARS crop monitoring Remote sensing-based monitoring information on crop growing conditions and quantitative crop yield forecasts in the EU. EU JRC, 2023. France MAELIA Multi-agent platform for integrated assessment of low-water management issues (MAELIA). Tribouillois et al. 2022a, 2022b. Italy vite.net An interactive web tool for wine-grape growers, using sustainable and precision viticulture techniques. Supports for example, scheduling of irrigation and fertigation based on actual soil water levels. HORT@, 2023. Italy granoduro.net An interactive web tool for durum wheat growers, using sustainable and precision agriculture techniques. Supports for example, scheduling of irrigation and fertigation based on actual soil water levels. HORT@, 2023. Italy Elaisian AI decision support system to treat, irrigate, and fertilise your fields at the right time. Elaisan, 2023. Netherlands FarmSoilWaterPlan (‘bedrijfsbodemwaterplan’) Evaluates and provides recommendations for clean water and nutrient use efficiency. NMI and ZLTO, 2024 Netherlands Irrigation Advice Estimates soil moisture content per plot, gives tailor-made advice. Farmmaps, 2024. Netherlands Trijntje Helps in making the soil climate proof. Farmmaps, 2024. Norway Calculating water balance Online calculator for water balance and irrigation. NIBIO, 2023. Norway Agdir Freeland sensor Outdoor sensor on air and soil with real-time connection to mobile/web. Agdir, 2023. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 31 Table 2. (Continued). Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition Portugal IrrigaSys A web-based irrigation decision support system. Simionesei et al 2020. Portugal Irristrat Irrigation management tool processing real-time field information. Hidrosoph, 2023. Portugal MOGRA Irrigation management model. COTR, 2023. Portugal Calendário de Rega (Irrigation calendar) Decision support system for monitoring evolution of irrigation needs, with real time irrigation alerts and notifications COTR, 2023. Sweden Vattennivå i brunn (Water level in wells) A real-time ground water monitoring system. Aqvify, 2023. Sweden Raindancer Irrigation management and monitoring system. IT-Direkt Business Technologies, 2023. Sweden Soil Moisture Sensor Soil moisture sensor system for real time-monitoring. SenseFarm, 2023. Sweden P-T Soil Station Service Real-time monitoring system for soil conditions. Paul-Tech, 2023. Sweden Hur mår min jord? (How is my soil doing?) An application on soil properties for improving soil quality Swedish Agricultural Agency and SLU, 2021. Türkiye TAGEM -SuET TAGEM SuET; is water management and plant water consumption of online system, including irrigation requirements and planning. TAGEM 2023 Türkiye TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System. Under development. TAGEM-SFWRCRI, 2023 Türkiye AgroCares Digital Soil Analysis Device Tool for analysing and planning fertilizer input. AgroCares, 2024. Türkiye Filiz& Filizpro Filiz Agricultural Sensor on soil and weather conditions in the field, irrigation needs, disease risks, optimal spraying times. DHOT, 2024 Türkiye AquaCrop AquaCrop is a crop modeling software developed for optimizing water use in crop production and managing agricultural resources more efficiently Salman et al. 2021. DSTs not aligning with our definition Estonia EstSoil-EH Dataset of modelled (by pedotransfer functions) soil hydrological parameters integrated to large-scale (1:10000) soil map. Kmoch et al. 2021. Finland Soil NIR -analysis Soil NIR-analysis on soil properties, including soil water retention characteristics. Eurofins Agro, 2023. Hungary Trained advisors and experts - - Portugal SAGRA NET Platform for access to daily meterological information from SAGRA weather stations. COTR, 2023. Slovakia Hydrological reporting On-line real-time information on hydrological conditions . SHMU, 2023. Slovakia Intersucho - Interdrought, Online map service for soil drought, vegetation, and yield conditions. Historical data and predictions. Intersucho, 2023. Sweden SmartNet System for managing irrigation. Östorps Bevattning 2023. Sweden RIC online Control and monitoring system for irrigation Rosenqvists, 2023. Switzerland Water Retention map. Online water storage capacity map. FOAG, 2023. Türkiye Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) is the agricultural database created by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, where farmers are registered. TAGEM 2023. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 32 Table 3. The most used DSTs on soil organic carbon according to the responses. Both the DSTs aligning and not aligning with our definition (Section 1) are shown. Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition Austria Austrian Carbon calculator A tool for humus management based on CANDY Carbon Balance (CCB) model describing turnover of decomposable carbon in annual time steps for average site conditions. Franko and Spiegel, 2015; BWSB, 2015. Belgium (Flanders) Demeter tool Tool for calculating optimal and sustainable fertilization that considers also organic matter content in the soil, based on ROTHCa. VLM, 2023. Belgium (Flanders) C-slim A web application that allows to estimate the long-term evolution of the organic carbon content in arable land. Soil Survey of Belgium, 2023. Belgium (Flanders) CARAT A tool for calculating soil organic carbon development, based on RothC model. Vanneste et al., 2022. Belgium (Walloon) DECIDE A tool for the agroecological transition to carbon neutrality. CRA-W, 2023. Belgium (Walloon) Cool Farm Tool A tool for decreasing emissions in agriculture. Gold Standard, 2023. Belgium (Walloon) CAP'2ER A calculator for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with a farm and to identify options for mitigation French Livestock Institute, 2023. Denmark ESGreenTool Climate; Calculator for the climate impact of farms SEGES Innovation, 2023. Estonia Humus balance calculator (Huumusbilansi kalkulaator Spreadsheet-based tool for calculating field scale soil organic carbon stock change is mineral arable soils. Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2023. Estonia RothC model A model for the turnover of organic carbon in topsoil. Applied in few local studies and testing its suitability for upgrading national GHG inventory to Tier3 level. Rothamsted research, 2023. Estonia Yasso model Dynamic model of the cycling of organic carbon in soil. Applied in few local studies and testing its suitability for upgrading national GHG inventory to Tier3 level. Viskari, et al. 2022. Finland Pro Agria-WISU A general tool for planning agricultural activities, includes a carbon balance calculator. Proagria, 2023. Finland Agrineuvos A general tool for planning agricultural activities. Suonenetieto, 2023. Finland Crop rotation comparison tool Viljelykierto-laskuri) A spreadsheet-based tool for planning and comparing crop rotations. Mattila et al. 2023. France SIMEOS AMG A tool for simulating the evolution of soil organic C contents and stocks at plot and farm scale. Clivot et al. 2019; INRA, Agro-Transfert RT, Arvalis, LDAR, Terres Innovia, 2023. France ABC'Terre A tool for quantifying, on a regional scale, the impacts of agricultural practices on long-term variations in organic carbon stocks in the surface layer of soils, including these stock variations in the GHG assessment. Agro-Transfert RT, 2023. France MAELIA Multi-agent platform for integrated assessment of low- water management issues (MAELIA) Tribouillois et al 2022a, 2022b. Ireland Carbon Navigator A tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production systems Murphy et al., 2013.; Teagasc, 2023. Ireland AgNav A tool to support decision making on farm to help meet agriculture’s Climate Action Teagasc, ICBF, and Bord Bia 2023. Italy vite.net An interactive web tool for wine-grape growers, using sustainable and precision viticulture techniques. HORT@, 2023. Italy granoduro.net An interactive web tool for durum wheat growers, using sustainable and precision agriculture techniques. HORT@, 2023. Italy Elaisian AI decision support system to treat, irrigate, and fertilise your fields at the right time. Elaisan, 2023. Netherlands Soil C Tool Gives insight in SOM change and support field and farmlevel decisions for improvement Farmmaps, 2024. Netherlands Carbon calculator Calculate the effect of crop rotation plan and fertilization on the carbon storage. Eurofins Agro, 2024. Netherlands Veris Soilscan Scan for EC, pH and organic matter. CZAV, 2024 Norway Jordplan A web-based tool for planning work on the farm, including management of soil samples, fields, and crops with maps. Jordplan, 2023. Norway Skifteplan A tool for planning fertilization. Agromatic, 2023. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 33 Table 3. (Continued). Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition Portugal VirtuaCrop An application for precision farming. Enables mobile phone- based soil analysis. VirtuaCrop, 2023. Portugal Fertile A program for managing fertilization, acidity, alkalinity, and organic carbon in the soil. Softimbra, 2023. Sweden Hur mår min jord? (How is my soil doing?) An application on soil properties for improving soil quality. Swedish Agricultural Agency and SLU, 2021. Sweden Odlingsperpektiv (Cultivation perspective) Advisory service with simulation of humus content. Greppa Näringen, 2023. Switzerland Humus balance calculator (Humusbilan-Rechner) A calculator for maintaining humus content. Agrosope, 2023. Türkiye TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System. Under development. TAGEM-SFWRCRI, 2023 United Kingdom PLANET A nutrient management decision support tool or field level nutrient planning and for assessing and demonstrating compliance with the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) rules. ADAS, 2023. United Kingdom MANNER-NPK A software tool that provides farmers and advisers with a quick estimate of crop available nitrogen, phosphate, and potash supply from applications of organic manure. ADAS, 2023. United Kingdom Farm Crap App Pro A tool for slurry and manure management. SWARM, 2023. DSTs not aligning with our definition Finland Soil analysis Soil analyses based on soil samples. Eurofins Agro, 2023. Finland Carbon check Analysis package for the assessment of soil carbon sequestration: how much carbon has been stored in the soil, in which for the carbon is, and how to improve the soil carbon content. Eurofins Agro, 2023. Finland NIR analysis Soil NIR-analysis on soil properties, including soil organic matter. Eurofins Agro, 2023. Finland Greenhouse gas inventory Greenhouse gas inventory Statistics Finland, 2023. Hungary Trained advisors and experts - - Lithuania Soil organic carbon studies in agricultural land A document with information and recommendations on soil organic carbon and its management. LAMMC, 2022a. Lithuania Code of Good Agricultural Practice A document with information and recommendations on good agricultural practices. Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, 2019. Norway Soil analyses Soil analyses based on soil samples. Eurofins Norway, 2023. Slovakia Soil Portal An online system for information on soils. NPPC, 2019. Türkiye Farmer Registration System (ÇKS)* Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) is the agricultural database created by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, where farmers are registered. TAGEM, 2023. Türkiye The National SOC Map The National Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) map was produced using above data in 2017 and it contributed FAO GSP GSCO Map for Country. It is available for all users. FAO and ITPS. 2018 Türkiye The National SOCseq Map The National SOCseq Potential Map was produced using above data in 2021 and it contributed FAO GSP GSOCseq Map. It is available for all users. FAO 2022. United Kingdom MuddyBoots Digital solutions provider. Muddyboots, 2023. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 34 Table 4. The most used DSTs on soil nutrient use efficiency according to the responses. Both the DST’s aligning and not aligning with our definition (Section 1) are shown. Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition Austria ÖDüPlan Plus Fertilization planning ÖDüPlan Plus, 2023 Austria Terrazo Tool for making fertilization maps from vegetation maps. Wieselburg, 2023. Belgium (Flanders) NEMO model used to provide insight into current and future water quality N and P losses are calculated at subcatchment level. Scenarios are used to calculate the effect of proposed management measures in agriculture. VMM, 2024 Belgium (Flanders) DEMETER Evaluate and assess fertilisation and soil organic matter VLM, 2023 Belgium (Walloon) REQUAFERTI Computer module for laboratories for advisory service to farmers in Wallonia Requasud, 2024 Belgium (Walloon) FaST Digital tool on nutrient management, provides data about their parcel of land Goffart, 2023 Belgium (Walloon) BELCAM Free services to improve agricultural practices in Belgium. Satellite imagery, vegetation and nutrition indices, site-specific meteorology, advices for fertilisation based on different data sources. Belcam, 2003 Belgium (Walloon) DECIDE Tool to assess the environmental impacts, socio-economic performance and overall sustainability CRA-W, 2023. Denmark CropManager Program to retrieve and manage spatial data for precision farming – coupled to other crop planning programs SEGES Innovation, 2023. Denmark MarkOnline Program for crop management planning SEGES Innovation, 2023. Estonia NPK balance calculator Excel based tool for calculating field scale NPK balances. EMU, 2023 Estonia Fertilizer requirement maps Rule-based model gives based on agro-chemical soil sample analysis, crop type, yield goal etc. site-specific recommendation for N, P and K requirement Metk, 2023 Estonia Lime requirement maps Rule-based model gives based on agro-chemical soil sample analysis, soil map data etc site-specific recommendation for liming requirement. Not available Estonia EstModel Calculates annual load and retention of nitrogen and phosphorus from catchment areas. Estmodel, 2023 Finland Phosphorus planning tool A tool for estimating the economically optimal amount of phosphorus fertilization of field plots LUKE, 2023 Finland Nitrogen balance calculator A method to assess the nitrogen levels of field plots and apply the information to develop farming with both the environment and financial results in mind LUKE, 2023 Finland Pro Agria-WISU A crop planning software with nutrient balance calculation Proagria, 2023. Finland PeltotukiPro An arable farming planning and monitoring program. Includes crop planning, field plot accounting, electronic subsidy application support, restrictions on the use of pesticides, and calculates also profitability. Softsalo Ltd, 2023 Finland Agrineuvos A tool for planning agricultural activities. Includes calculation of the difference between nutrient accumulation and nutrient demand and calculation of nutrient requirements and fertilization Suonentieto, 2023 Finland Nutrient calculator Regional and national scale calculator and planning tool of nutrient and biomass balances and recycling. LUKE, 2023. Finland Biomassa-atlas (Biomass Atlas) A map service for viewing, reporting, and analysing forest, field, manure, and waste biomass. Supports planning of investments and acquisition of raw materials. (Open access version of Nutrient calculator) LUKE, 2023. France Syst-N Estimate nitrogen losses. Works at the plot scale and over the long term of a succession of crops. It is a software that includes a database where nitrogen loss results from measurements or simulations RMT Bouclage, 2003 France Azofert Software based on a complete and dynamic balance of nitrogen input and output. Reports the couplings between carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Machet et al., 2017; RMT Bouclage, 2003b Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 35 Table 4. (Continued). Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition France MAELIA Tool to assess the environmental, economic and social impacts of combined changes in agricultural activities, including recycling. Works at plot-, farm- and territory scales. Misslin et al., 2022 Hungary PROPLANTA Tool for fertilization decisions based on data from long term field experiments Proplanta, 2023 Ireland NMP On-line Tool for making nutrient balances at plot & farm scale. Teagasc, 2023 Ireland Pasturebase Irl Grassland/pasture management Teagasc, 2023 Italy vite.net An interactive web tool for wine-grape growers, using sustainable and precision viticulture techniques Hort@, 2023 Italy granoduro.net An interactive web tool for the cultivation of high-quality durum wheat according to the principles of sustainable and precision agriculture Hort@, 2023 Italy Elaisian AI to treat, irrigate, and fertilise your fields at the right time. Elaisian, 2003 Lithuania Digital N-fertilization with sensors (agriPORT?) From the demand analysis to automatic balancing Agricon, 2023 Lithuania Apply nitrogen fertilizer in various proportions Fertilization maps Agricon, 2023 Lithuania Geoface Nitrogen fertilization mapping Geoface, 2003 Netherlands NDICEA Choices related to crops, crop sequence, green manures and fertilizer application rate and timing (both manure and articifial fertilizer) can be evaluated in backview and preview. Louis Bolk Instituut, 2024 Netherlands VRA Top-Dress N App to create maps for variable N top dressing in potatoes Farmmaps, 2024 Netherlands Dutch Fertilizer Recommendation Advice An R package giving the required agronomic nutrient dose at field level. Applied in various studies on field, farm and regional scale and in use by agricultural labs. Nutrient Management Institute, 2024 Norway Skifteplan (Agromatic) A tool for planning fertilization that uses data from soil samples and expected yield to calculate doses. Skifteplan, 2023 Norway Jordplan Fertilization plan and storage of soil data. Jordplan, 2023 Norway Klimakalkulatoren Overview of emissions and what opportunities exist both to reduce emissions and sequester carbon that exists at farm level Klimatsmartlantbruk, 2023 Norway Atfarm Fertilization maps from satellite images Atfarm, 2023 Norway Cropplan Web-based tool to plan, document and analyze crops Dataväxt, 2023 Norway Pix4dFields Web portal for analyzing drone data for creating fertilizing maps Pix4d, 2023 Norway Biodrone Web portal for analyzing drone data for creating fertilizing maps Biodrone, 2023 Portugal OneSoil Tool for precision fertilization Onesoil, 2023 Portugal Fertil Calculation of fertilization and corrections of acidity and alkalinity, as well as the Organic Correction of the soil. Softimbra, 2023 Portugal WiseCrop Tool for analysing water stress, plant heath, fertilization etc. Wisecrop, 2023 Slovakia ÚKSÚP Calculator for nutrients calculating Uksup, 2023 Slovakia Fertilization schedule Tool for planning fertilization Uksup, 2023 Slovakia Animal storage capacities Manure storage and planning Uksup, 2023 Sweden Atfarm Fertilization maps from satellite images Atfarm, 2023 Sweden Yara N-sensor N fertilization recommendation from sensor measurements for within field vartiable rate Yara, 2023 Sweden CropSat Fertilization maps from satellite images Cropsat, 2023 Sweden Winter oilseed rape nitrogen estimator (Kvävevågen) N fertilization to winter oilseed rape SFO, 2023 Sweden Fertilizer calculator (Gödselkalkylen) Compare different fertilization strategies of manure Greppa näringen, 2023b Sweden Vera Nutrient balance Greppa näringen, 2023c Sweden Växtnäringsbalans på nätet Nutrient balance, web based Greppa näringen, 2023d Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 36 Table 4. (Continued). Country Name Description References DSTs aligning with our definition Sweden Yara Växtnäringsberäkning (Yara palnt nutrient calculator) Tool for calculating field balance of nutrients (NPK) to assess plant nutrient efficiency. Yara, 2023 Sweden Yara Checkit Help to identify nutrient deficiency symptoms in various crops Yara, 2023 Türkiye TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System was established in 2015 with in collaboration FAO. The system includes soil physical, chemical soil properties provided by more than 30 000 soil samples colllected from agricultural areas at national scale. The system sis till under construction and when completed, it will serve the benefit of all users including farmers, researchers, academia and policy makers in relation to these soil properties. TAGEM, 2023a. UK PLANET (Planning Land Applications of Nutrients for Efficiency and the environmenT) Nutrient management decision support tool for use by farmers and advisers for field level nutrient planning and for assessing and demonstrating compliance with the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) rules ADAS, 2023 UK MANNER-NPK (MANure Nitrogen Evaluation Routine) Practical software tool that provides farmers and advisers with a quick estimate of crop available nitrogen, phosphate and potash supply from applications of organic manure ADAS, 2023 UK Gatekeeper - Farmplan Manage all cropping activities in one place Farmplan, 2023 UK Farm Crap App Pro Manage and record slurry spreading information and data on manure SWARM, 2023 DSTs not aligning with our definition Belgium (Flanders) KNS Flanders Fertilizer recommendation system for vegetables that takes current season into consideration. VLM, 2014. Lithuania Novel recomendations for different crops with different practices Yearly booklet with recommendations LAMMC, 2023 LAMMC, 2022b LAMMC, 2021 Lithuania Code of Good Agricultural Practice Integrated Plant Protection Information System for Information, Consultation and Training Ikimis, 2023 Norway Aena skifte Aena Field helps you to log field work, keep track of work done, and delegate tasks Mimiro, 2023 Norway NLR Surfôrtolken Excel-fil Assess fertilization and adjust the fertilization plan NLR, 2024. Norway Handelsbalanse/ Næringsstoff-regnskap excel- fil Excel file that can be used for calculating nutrient balances Agropub, 2023 Norway Gårdskart/Kilden NIBIO Provide maps with data that could be input for a DST NIBIO, 2023b Türkiye Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) is the agricultural database created by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, where farmers are registered. inspected, and used in the formation of agricultural policies. TAGEM, 2023b. Türkiye Fertilizer Tracking System (GTS) Fertilizer Tracking System to ensure that the fertilizers supplied to the market are tracked from the packaging stage to the end user, to prevent imitation, adulteration and counterfeiting of the fertilizers used in the country's agriculture and to distribute them in accordance with their purpose, to use them safely and in this sense to increase agricultural productivity and to record fertilizer production and consumption. MAF,2023 Türkiye Türkiye National Boron Map Türkiye National Boron Map was produced by TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute in collaboration with The National Boron Institute in 2010. TAGEM- SFWRCRI, 2023 UK MuddyBoots Digital solutions provider. Muddyboots, 2023 Q8: Who are the major users of the main DSTs in your county (same DSTs as indicated in Q5, Q6 and Q7)? According to the responses, 80% of the DSTs are used by agronomists, consultants, and advisors; 78% by farmers; 51% by researchers; 27% by private companies and NGOs; and 23% by policymakers responsible for monitoring. One respondent also noted education as a user group, and another Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 37 highlighted that users consist of two groups: those who use the models and those who use only the outputs of the models. The user groups for individual DSTs are shown in Table A1.6 in Annex 1. There is also overlap in the use of the same DSTs across different user groups, though with some variation. For example, 78% of the DSTs used by agronomists, consultants, and advisors; 78% by researchers; 68% by private companies and NGOs; and 52% by policymakers responsible for monitoring are also used by farmers (Table 5). These findings indicate that agronomists, consultants, advisors, and farmers make up the largest user groups. While some DSTs serve multiple groups, others are better suited to specific user groups. Table 5. Matrix with number of the reported DSTs with overlapping use across user groups. Total number of DSTs in the analysis was 91, and the number of DSTs used per user group is shown on the diagonal of the table in bold. Farmers Researchers Agronomists, consultants, advisors Private companies, NGO’s Monitoring policy makers Farmers 71 36 57 17 11 Researchers 36 46 41 18 19 Agronomists, consultants, advisors 57 41 73 22 18 Private companies, NGO’s 17 18 22 25 11 Monitoring policy makers 11 19 18 11 21 Assessment Q9: How would YOU rate from 1 to 5 the DST you indicated in questions 5, 6 and 7 in terms of… According to the ratings of DSTs (on a scale of 1-5) provided by the respondents, the adoption of DSTs by end-users is not very high (Table 6). The average rating for adoption was 3.1. In terms of suitability for reaching goals, the DSTs were considered well-suited for achieving farmer goals, with an average rating of 4.1. They were rated slightly less suitable for reaching regional and national- level goals, with average ratings of 3.6 and 3.5, respectively. The DSTs were considered to have modest levels of participation or co-innovation in their development, with an average rating of 3.3 (Table 6). Data input requirements were also viewed as modest, with an average rating of 2.7. The interfaces were mostly considered user-friendly, receiving an average rating of 3.7. The cost of using DSTs was found to be low for users, with an average rating of 1.8. A positive finding was that the DSTs were largely perceived as reliable, with an average rating of 3.9 (Table 6). The DSTs with the highest adoption rate (rating = 5; 15% of all DSTs) were found to have more user- friendly interfaces (average rating +0.8) (Table 6). They were also considered more suitable for reaching farmer, regional, and national goals (+0.5 to +1.0). Additionally, their costs were somewhat lower (-0.3), but their data input requirements were higher (+0.5) compared to the average for all DSTs. The ratings of individual DST varied considerably. These ratings are shown Table A1.7 in Annex 1. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 38 Table 6. Average rating of DST by the respondents. Question Rating Average Standard deviation n A. Adoption by end-user 1= little or no use 5= widely adopted 3.1 1.3 81 B. Is the use of the tool optional? 1= Yes 2= No 1.1 0.4 87 C. Data input 1= few data needed 5=many data needed 2.7 1.2 82 D. User friendly interface 1= too complex for users 5= very user friendly 3.7 1.0 83 E. Perceived reliability of the DST 1= low reliability 5= very high reliability 3.8 0.8 80 F. Cost of the DST 1= Free of charge 5=Very expensive 1.8 1.2 82 G. The tool has been developed with participatory research/co-innovation 1= no users involvement in the design 5=user-centred design 3.3 1.3 74 H. Suitable to reach national goals 1= not suitable 5= very suitable 3.5 1.4 80 I. Suitable to reach regional goals 1= not suitable 5= very suitable 3.6 1.4 79 J. Suitable to reach farmers goals 1= not suitable 5= very suitable 4.1 1.0 89 The correlation analysis of the ratings given for individual DSTs revealed mostly low to modest correlations, which were statistically significant (p < 0.01) across the ten questions in Table 6 (Annex 1, Table A1.8). The highest statistically significant correlations were observed between the suitability of DSTs for farmer, national, and regional goals. DSTs that were suitable for regional goals were also found to be suitable for national goals, with a high correlation of 0.82. Additionally, some DSTs that were suitable for reaching farmer goals appeared to also be suitable for regional and national goals, with correlations of 0.52 and 0.38, respectively. This indicates that many DSTs can be suitable for reaching goals at multiple levels, but those suited for farmer goals tend to differ more from those suited for national goals. The analysis further showed that adoption by end-users depends on the suitability of the DSTs to reach goals at all three levels, with correlations ranging from 0.4 to 0.52, and on the user-friendly nature of the interface, with a correlation of 0.41. Surprisingly, the adoption by end-users did not show a clear relationship with data input requirements, perceived reliability, cost, or participatory development, as the correlations in these areas were not statistically significant, ranging from -0.12 to 0.13. However, a statistically significant correlation was found between perceived reliability and the suitability to reach farmer and regional goals, with correlations of 0.42 and 0.35, respectively. Integrated evaluation of selected features Visualizing the integrated evaluation of selected features, the polygons are drawn such that wider circles represent the most desired scores. The average scores for DSTs related to nutrient use efficiency (NUE) (Figure 4A) and water management (Figure 4B) showed higher (i.e., ‘best’) scores for costs and user-friendliness compared with DSTs related to soil organic matter (SOM) management (Figure 4C). Data input scores were comparable across the different DST types. End-user participation in the design phase of DSTs was modest overall for all DST types. Notably, we observed higher variability in the national coordinators' responses regarding DSTs related to NUE compared with other DST types. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 39 Figure 4. Results of integrated evaluation of 4 selected features for DST’s; averages indicated by coloured lines. Top- DST on nutrient management; middle- DST on soil organic matter management; below- DST on water management; axes are scaled 1-5. High adoption DSTs showed some differences as compared to the total dataset. Figure 2 shows the results for data input, participation level, cost and user-friendliness for those DSTs that scored high on adoption. Focusing on the selected features, these high adopted DSTs are characterised low costs high user-friendliness. A similar trend is shown for the most adopted DSTs on nutrient management (Figure 2, B) as compared to all DSTs on NUE. The most adopted DSTs on water management stand out by lower data-input (Figure 2C). For SOM no figure could be made as there were not enough DSTs with high adoption. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 40 Figure 2. Assessment of major features in highly adopted DST’s; averages indicated by coloured lines. Top- Most adopted DST (all) (n=13); middle- most adopted DST on nutrient management; below- most adopted DST on water management; axes are scaled 1-5. Improvement Q10: How could the specific DSTs you indicated in question 5,6 and 7 as main DSTs be improved? The respondents provided a range of views on how different DSTs could be improved for nutrient use efficiency, soil carbon, and soil water availability and retention, based on the lists of the most used tools in each country. The responses indicated that 45% of the DSTs identified for improvement relate to soil nutrient use efficiency, 24% to soil organic carbon, and 18% to soil water availability and retention. Only 10% of the DSTs identified for improvement are integrated tools (Figure 5). Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 41 Figure 5. Percentage of DST types that can be improved defined by EJP SOIL national coordinators. The suggested improvements address various aspects. Most often, they concern the inclusion of new systems (e.g., organic farming, agroforestry), the incorporation of additional processes (e.g., SOC stocks and sequestration, P and K fertilization), enhancements in calculations and estimations (e.g., improved process descriptions, suitability for different conditions), and better validation against observations across diverse conditions. Other common areas for improvement include data inputs (e.g., more up-to-date data, greater user flexibility, the ability to incorporate various data sources, and reduced data input requirements) and user-friendliness (e.g., design, user interface, visualization, and interpretation of results). Additional reported improvement needs include the development of web and mobile applications, options for scenario calculations, scalability across space and time, and suitability to support regulatory compliance. Detailed improvement needs for individual DSTs are listed in Table A1.9 in Annex 1. Q11: Which type of tools are now not available but are needed and/or planned to be developed? The responses regarding DSTs that are not currently available but are needed and/or planned to be developed were limited, with only about half of the respondents answering this question. Most respondents did not identify any integrated tools that could be developed. However, the results emphasized the importance of using decision support tools at different scales, ranging from field and farm levels to regional and national scales (Table 7). The responses indicated that the DSTs needed for development are primarily tools to aid decision-making at the farm and field levels. For the parameter of soil water availability and retention, a different scale was identified: the catchment scale, to support water management planning. Table 7. Percentage of responses on the type of tools are now not available but are needed and/or planned to be developed and the relevant scales for each parameter. Soil organic matter (%) Nutrient use efficiency (%) Water retention (%) Field 9 24 18 Farm 36 47 35 Catchment - - 6 Regional 27 18 18 National 27 12 18 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 42 The responses regarding the types of tools that could be developed provided a wide range of suggestions for soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient use efficiency (NUE), and water retention. The respondents identified a general need for software, applications, and web-based tools, as well as sensors, monitoring tools, remote sensing, and forecasting tools. For soil organic matter, suggestions included DSTs that account for soil health indicators, thresholds for SOM/SOC, carbon credits, regional carbon balances, and life cycle analysis. For nutrient use efficiency, DSTs were recommended to address soil nutrient status, fertilization balance, and over-fertilization. For water retention, DSTs were suggested to account for soil moisture status, water requirements, and irrigation needs, as well as tools that forecast soil moisture conditions. Additionally, a DST providing information on the trafficability of fields was proposed. In the case of integrated DSTs, respondents suggested developing a single-entry web portal instead of multiple individual tools. For example, one suggestion was a tool that integrates multiple sustainability goals related to soil functions, such as primary production, water quality, climate change, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity. The individual suggestions are listed in Table A1.10 in Annex 1. According to the respondents, the use of these tools could help achieve both farmers' and regional objectives (Table 8). DSTs could aid in making informed management decisions, achieving regional SOC targets, and developing sustainable climate policies. For farmers, DSTs could help reduce inputs and increase the economic profitability of farms while offering sustainable recommendations for soil management, fertility, and crop rotation. Additionally, DSTs could help meet environmental targets, optimize resource and input use, and boost productivity. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 43 Table 8. Farmers’ and regional goals that could be reached more easily if tools indicated in Question 11 are used. Which regional goals could be reached more easily if those tools are used? Which farmers goals could be reached more easily if those tools are used? Soil organic matter • LULUCF targets • Climate policies • Retention of soil carbon, Soil C balance • Regional SOC targets • Informed management decisions • Need to better identify Corg • Sustaining / improving soil carbon • In terms of soil fertility and soil health, it could contribute to monitor, maintain and increase SOC • Strategies to gain carbon credit • Reduce inputs and increase the economic profitability of farms • Recommendations for crop rotations • Soil management • Farm-level carbon budget calculation • Increase carbon content • Reduce costs and sustainable production • To make informed management decisions • Sustainable soil management monitoring • Sustaining/improving soil fertility and moisture retention • Increasing and maintaining the productivity of farmer's land, will provide more income, protect soil against climate change Nutrient use efficiency / nutrient management • Reduce GHG emission without reducing yield • Reduced nitrate leaching • Nitrates Directive • Environmental policies • Water quality maintenance / improvement and GHG mitigation • Less soil package and use of nutrition • Informed management decisions • In terms of soil fertility and soil health, it could contribute to achieve nutrient balance and better nutrient management in soil. • Fertilizer use efficiency • Reduce inputs and increase the economic profitability of farms • Reduce N & P surplus and risk of loss per hectare. • Reduce fertiliser quantity & costs. • Increased soil fertility due to improved nutrient (incl. manure) distribution within the farm • Better yield, more sustainable farm, historical data • Reduce costs and sustainable production • To make informed management decisions • Increasing and maintaining the productivity of farmer's land, will provide more income, protect soil against climate change. Water retention • Demand of water for irrigation • Drought preparedness • Improving soil health and soil functions. Minimising the risk of nutrient runoff due to reduced water infiltration rates • Water saving • Proper irrigation management and early detection of drought • Reduced use of irrigation water • Irrigation scheduling, yield estimations • Farm specific and cost-effective interventions • Irrigation efficiency • Optimising soil moisture • Increasing and maintaining the productivity of farmer's land, will provide more income, protect soil against climate change. Integrated tools • Reducing nutrient losses and carbon footprint of agriculture, etc • Profit, lower environmental impact (incl. preserving soil health/quality) • All farmers and advisory services Factors related to the use Q12: What are the factors determining the use of DSTs in your country? The majority of respondents (68%) considered farmer education as a key driver for the use of DSTs by farmers (Table 9). In contrast, farmers' participation in associations or cooperatives was seen as a less important factor, with 50% of responses falling between "strongly agree" and "somewhat agree." Similarly, respondents reported that crop farmers are more likely to use DSTs compared to livestock farmers (50% of responses), although a quarter of the respondents indicated limited knowledge on this topic. Around 40% of the responses indicated unfamiliarity with activities related to DSTs in living labs. Responses concerning digital illiteracy were inconclusive. Lastly, respondents Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 44 indicated that the use of DSTs is not significantly influenced by specific management approaches, such as biodynamic or organic farming. Table 9. The respondent’s views on factors determining the use of DSTs. Strongly agree (%) Somewhat agree (%) Neither agree or disagree (%) Somewhat disagree (%) Strongly disagree (%) I don’t know (%) Farmer education is a critical factor in determining the use of DSTs by farmers 32 36 14 14 0 5 Members of farmers' associations and cooperatives tend to use DSTs more than individual farmers 10 40 30 5 5 10 Crop farmers tend to use DSTs more than livestock farmers 10 40 20 5 0 25 DSTs are used by living labs 21 11 26 5 0 37 DSTs are used by living labs Digital illiteracy is among the main factors hampering the use of DSTs 14 29 19 19 14 5 Organic and biodynamic farmers tend to use DSTs more than conventional farmers 0 17 30 22 9 22 Other aspects Q13 and Q15: In your opinion, what additional aspects – that we did not mention -should be considered concerning the use and the improvement of DST related to soil water retention (13), soil organic carbon (14), and nutrient use efficiency (15)? The respondent’s answers covered several themes for enhancing DST concerning soil water retention, soil organic matter, and nutrient use efficiency (Table 10, individual answers are shown in Table A1.11 Annex 1). Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 45 Table 10. Additional aspects that were not mentioned in the questionnaire but could be considered in the use and development of DST’s related to soil water retention, soil organic carbon, and nutrient use efficiency. Theme Additional aspects Soil water retention Comprehensive Data Integration Respondents emphasized the necessity of integrating accurate and comprehensive data on soil characteristics and soil hydrology into DSTs. These data serve as foundational elements for effective decision-making in soil water retention and irrigation management. Incorporating Farming Practices To enhance the practicality and relevance of DSTs, it is recommended to include information on farming practices, such as the use of cover crops and tillage. These practices significantly impact soil water dynamics and should be integral components of the decision-making process. Pedotransfer Functions The inclusion of pedostransfer functions within DSTs is advised to improve the accuracy of soil hydrological data. Pedostransfer functions enable the estimation of essential hydrological parameters directly within the model, thereby enhancing precision in soil water retention predictions. Economic Module Integration Given the increasing profitability of irrigation in regions like Finland due to climate change, there is a compelling argument for integrating an economic module into DSTs. This module would support farmers in making economically sound decisions regarding irrigation and water management, not limited to Finland. Co-creation during DST development Engaging end users during the development stage of DST was flagged as a critical step to ensure (i) relevance of the DST for end users and (ii) actual use of the DST by end user in the decision- making process. Soil organic carbon Comprehensive Soil Testing NCs emphasized the importance of accurate soil testing that incorporates a broad spectrum of soil parameters. This includes specific considerations for sampling depth. Such comprehensive data are crucial for improving the precision and utility of DSTs in SOM management. Temporal Considerations Recognizing the temporal dimension of SOM stabilization emerged as a significant recommendation. Soil organic matter processes can span years, and DSTs should account for this extended timeframe to provide realistic and effective results based on different management strategies. Historical Data Integration To enhance the robustness of DSTs, it is advisable to incorporate historical data. Historical information allows for accurate validation and calibration of models, thereby increasing their reliability in predicting SOM dynamics. Influence on Soil Health Respondents recommended integrating the influence of SOM on chemical, physical, and biological soil health. This addition can make the benefits of improving SOM more explicit to end users and emphasize the broader positive impacts on soil quality and productivity. Microorganism Modules An intriguing suggestion is the integration of specific modules related to microorganisms. These modules would offer a more comprehensive view of the processes associated with SOM stabilization, considering the critical role microorganisms play in SOM dynamics. Nutrient use efficiency Incorporating SOM Data Respondents underscored the significance of incorporating data on soil organic matter into DSTs. This inclusion would enable DSTs to provide estimates of soil nutrient pools and the nutrients available for mineralization, offering critical information for nutrient management. Integration of Farm Management and Crop Yield Data It is recommended to integrate farm management practices and crop yield data into DSTs. This integration would facilitate the calculation of nutrient use efficiency under varying circumstances, enabling farmers to optimize nutrient utilization. Multi-Year Monitoring Acknowledging the temporal dynamics of soil processes, respondents advocated for multi-year monitoring within DSTs. Such an approach would enhance tool reliability by accounting for variability across cropping seasons and capturing long-term trends in nutrient management. Expanded Analytical Scales To provide a more holistic perspective, respondents suggested expanding the analytical scales beyond the farm gate. Assessing nutrient efficiency at regional and national levels would offer valuable insights into the environmental performance of specific areas or countries, supporting more informed policy decisions. Integration of GHG module Given the potential negative impact of over N-fertilization, respondents recommended to include a module able to calculate potential and actual gaseous N losses in DST related to nutrient use efficiency. This would serve to make visible the impact of fertilization on GHG emission. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 46 3.2.2. Questionnaire to stakeholders Respondents Q1: Responder details. A total of 125 responses were received for the questionnaire from Finland (n=2), the Netherlands (n=7), Italy (n=5), Latvia (n=14), Sweden (n=13), and Türkiye (n=84). The responses cover only a few European countries and are imbalanced in terms of the number of responses per country. Additionally, the responses from Finland and Italy were largely incomplete. Therefore, the results from this survey are primarily interpreted using country averages (average response by country) to allow for comparison without bias from the varying number of responses per country. Only questions that had an adequate number of answers to allow meaningful analysis are included here. While the results of the stakeholder survey are not fully representative of Europe as a whole, they still provide useful insights from different regions and conditions across Europe. The respondents consisted of farmers, consultants or agronomists, and researchers (Table 11). The largest share of farmers was in Latvia, Sweden, and Türkiye, while in the Netherlands, a large share of respondents were employees of farmers' cooperatives. Among the respondents who practiced farming, the majority were crop farmers, with the most common farming types being conventional and organic agriculture. More details on the respondents are provided in Table A1.12 in Annex 1. Table 11. Stakeholders’ questionnaire: Respondent’s occupation and farming activities. Note that respondents may have given more than one answers for each question and percentages refer to share of respondents. Occupation Finland Netherlands Italy Latvia Sweden Türkiye A. Farmer 0% 0% 20% 79% 62% 56% B. Researcher 0% 29% 0% 29% 0% 11% C. Consultant/Agronomist 0% 29% 60% 7% 46% 25% D. Employee of a private company working in agriculture or food production 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 5% E. Employee of a farmer’s cooperative 0% 43% 0% 0% 0% 1% F. Others 100% 29% 60% 7% 8% 15% n of respondents 2 7 5 14 13 84 Crop and livestock farming A. Livestock farmer - 0% 0% 36% 43% 86% B. Crop farmer - 100% 100% 64% 57% 14% n of respondents - 1 1 11 7 49 Farming type A. Conventional agriculture 0 % 100 % 0 % 64 % 75 % 52 % B. Agro-ecological approach – not certified 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 0 % 21 % C. Organic certified 100 % 100 % 100 % 27 % 25 % 23 % D. Biodynamic 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 % E. Other 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 0 % 20 % n of respondents 1 1 1 11 8 56 Farming challenges Q2: What do you think are the most important soil related challenges of the local agriculture? Out of the listed soil challenges, "low soil organic matter or soil organic matter depletion" and "soil water management" were the most frequently reported challenges (Table 12). "Soil compaction" was also commonly reported in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland, while "low nutrient use efficiency" was often reported in Latvia. In Sweden, "soil compaction" was the most reported challenge, whereas "low soil organic matter or soil organic matter depletion" was less frequently mentioned compared to other countries. Soil erosion was reported by only one-fifth of the respondents in Italy Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 47 and Sweden and even less in other countries. Additional soil-related challenges mentioned included soil fertility in Italy and Türkiye, and biodiversity management in Italy. Table 12. Reported farming challenges. Note that respondents may have given more than one answers and percentages refer to share of respondents. Farming challenge Finland Netherlands Italy Latvia Sweden Türkiye A. Soil erosion 0 % 0 % 20 % 7 % 23 % 14 % B. Low soil organic matter or soil organic matter depletion 50 % 57 % 100 % 64 % 38 % 53 % C. Low nutrient use efficiency (Fertilizers are applied but crops have low response) 50 % 14 % 0 % 43 % 8 % 28 % D. Soil water management 50 % 71 % 60 % 36 % 31 % 65 % E. Soil compaction 50 % 43 % 20 % 36 % 54 % 15 % F. Others 50 % 0 % 20 % 21 % 8 % 13 % n of respondents 2 7 5 14 13 80 Farming and DSTs Q3: Are you familiar with decision support tools (DST) or systems? Respondents' familiarity with DSTs was highest in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Italy, where 50-72% (n=4-11) of respondents reported having used or currently using them (Table A1.13 in Annex 1). In Latvia, the usage rate was 23% (n=13), and in Türkiye, it was 11% (n=67). These rates are based on the experiences of a relatively small number of respondents and may not be representative of the countries as a whole. Q4: Do you agree with the following statements on DSTs? According to the average agreement with the seven statements, the majority of respondents tend to believe that DST results can be trusted and that DSTs are useful, though some reservations were expressed (Table 13). Specifically, 47% of respondents disagreed with the statement "I do not trust DST results," while 22% agreed. Similarly, 56% disagreed with the statement "I do not think DSTs are useful," but 12% agreed. In terms of use-related statements (Table 13), DSTs were sometimes reported as too complex, but respondents generally indicated that they have the necessary devices to use them and can provide the required data. Additionally, DSTs were often considered not time-consuming and helpful. Specifically, 57% disagreed with the statement "I do not have devices to use DSTs," while 9% agreed. Similarly, 30% disagreed with the statement "DSTs require too much data that I cannot provide," and 13% agreed. Regarding time consumption, 30% disagreed with the statement "Working with DSTs is time-consuming and not so helpful," while 22% agreed. The variation in responses between countries is detailed in Table A1.14 in Annex 1. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 48 Table 13. Average agreement with statements on DSTs. The values in the table are calculated from relative shares (%) of answers from each country to account for the imbalanced number of answers per each country. Statements Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree or disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know n A. I do not trust DSTs results 2 % 20 % 17 % 35 % 12 % 14 % 44 B. I do not think DSTs are useful 1 % 11 % 19 % 34 % 22 % 13 % 44 C. DSTs are usually too complex 6 % 25 % 16 % 30 % 8 % 15 % 42 D. I do not have devices to use DSTs 7 % 2 % 15 % 27 % 30 % 19 % 45 E. DTSs require too many data that I cannot provide 1 % 12 % 39 % 19 % 11 % 17 % 43 F. Working with DSTs is time consuming and not so helpful 1 % 21 % 30 % 11 % 19 % 18 % 40 Q7: If you use DSTs, how would you rank from 1 to 5 the most important features of a DST (where 1 is the most important, 2 the second most important etc.)? Very few responses were received for this question, which limits the generalizability of the results. However, based on the average responses from each country, low data requirements were identified as the most important feature (average rating 2.3), followed by trust and confidence in the results (average rating 2.7) (Table 14). Additionally, respondents valued DSTs that provide outcomes that are easily applicable and delivered in real time (average rating 2.9). The least important features were whether the design of the DST was carried out in collaboration with end-users (average rating 3.9) and the clear visualization of results (average rating 3.9). Detailed country-specific answers are provided in Table A1.15 in Annex 1. Table 14. Most important featured of DST on average according to the respondents (1=most important, 2= second most important etc.). The values in the table are calculated from averages of answers of each country to account for the imbalanced number of answers per each country. Feature Average Stdev Min Max n A. Do not require too many data from my hand 2.3 1.1 1 3.3 21 B User-friendly interface 3.5 0.4 3 4 16 C. Clear visualization of results 3.9 0.9 2.7 5 22 D. Trust/confidence in the results (based on scientific publications or on-farm calibration) 2.7 0.7 2.1 3.7 20 E. Easy to access both in terms of costs and hardware requirement 3.1 0.3 2.8 3.7 23 F. The design of the DST has been carried out in collaboration with end-users 3.9 1.3 2.5 5 11 G. DST provide outcomes which are easy applicable and in real time (when I need info to manage the crop and not too late) 2.9 1.4 1 4 22 Question 8-10. How do you make decisions concerning nutrient (8), water (9), and soil organic matter management (10)? Please, list here what tools, data sources, platforms, sensors, remote sensing, etc. are used concerning nutrient management and nutrient use efficiency. (For example, soil nutrient status, fertilizer recommendation, predicting nutrient release from mineralization, predicting crop residues from harvesting, estimating crop production, exploring the effect of cover crop on soil nutrient status etc.) Very few responses were received for these questions, but those that were received are shown in Table 15. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 49 Table 15. How decisions are made concerning nutrient, water, and soil organic matter management. Theme Additional aspects Nutrient management Italy Most of the responders argued the decision-making process is based on the observation and analysis of crops and soils. One responder specified that the importance of the humic balance to make decision concerning soil organic matter management. Sweden Use guidelines, soil maps, zero-fertilized plots, crop sensors (Green-seeker, Yara N-sensor, Yara N-stester) or satellite images (Cropsat, Atfarm), use the winter oilseed rape nitrogen estimator, do tissue analysis, my advisor´s equipment, nutrient balances, own experience and advice from agricultural community. Türkiye Soil analyses, fertilisers and fertilisation guidelines, remote monitoring and sensor technology, my own experience and advice from agricultural advisors. Water management Italy Visual observation of crop and soil were reported to be the primary source of information to guide decision making process concerning water management. One responder reported the use of soil moisture sensor. Sweden Weather forecast, visual judgement, spade or hand on soil, inspection of drainage wells, inspection of map for erosion risk and water movement Türkiye Climate data, humidity sensors, based on my own experience and then consulting with authorised persons or consultants, meteorological stations in the field, sensors measuring parameters such as soil moisture, air relative humidity and air temperature, tensiometer, soil moisture analysis, early warning system thanks to remote monitoring and sensor technology. Soil organic carbon management Sweden Few or no tools. My advisor (Växtab), modules in GREPPA (cultivation perspective), soil maps, use organic fertilizers Türkiye Soil analysis devices, based on my experience, then consulting with competent persons, taking into account the results of soil analysis, farm manure application to increase organic matter, using microbiological soil fertiliser. 3.3. Stakeholder exchanges This section includes the highlights of the stakeholder exchanges in the workshops, national hub, ASDs, Lighthouse farm, and from the participatory approach. For a full report on this part of the research see project deliverable D4.1. 3.3.1. Regional Workshops Stakeholders' participation and representation in the workshops Table 16 Stakeholder participation in the four regional workshops varied between 20 and 30 participants per workshop (Table 16). Each workshop aimed to involve a diverse representation of stakeholders, including farmers, advisors, DSTs developers, as well as other relevant actors if possible (Table 16). Farmers and advisors were the main participants, with the exception of Latvia, where policy-makers and farmers union representatives were also invited, bringing insightful perspectives to the issues addressed. In addition, the farmers could also represent different types of farms, where for instance the farmers in Sweden were selected by their advisors to represent those with special interest in and experiences of DSTs. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 50 Table 16. Workshop participants at the different workshops. Profession Sweden Latvia Italy Türkiye Farmers 11 2 9 12 Advisors 2 2 10 7 DST providers 4 4 - 1 Researchers 4 9 5 12 Farmers union representatives - 2 - - Policy makers - 4 1 - Total 21 23 25 32 Soil related challenges and objectives for using DST The main soil related challenges as indicated by the workshop participants (Table A2.1) varied between the different workshops. In Latvia and Italy, soil fertility and soil organic matter was the top mentioned challenges, whereas in Sweden, soil compaction was considered the main challenge (Table 17). In Türkiye, they considered water management the most important challenge. Several workshop participants in Italy also mentioned water availability. These align with the regional differences in the farming challenges reported in the questionnaire for stakeholders (Section 3.2.2). Table 17. Main soil related challenges identified by participants at the workshops in the different countries. The figures indicate the numbers of participants voting for each challenge Sweden Latvia Italy Türkiye Soil compaction 5 1 1 2 Soil fertility 1 3 6 5 Soil erosion - 2 - 2 Soil organic matter 2 9 6 3 Acidification - 4 - - Climate adaption 1 - 2 1 Nitrogen efficiency 1 - 0 - Water availability 2 - 5 - Soil water management - - - 14 Although different challenges were identified, common objectives for using DSTs are related to fertilization (Table 18). This includes both seasonal adjustments of nitrogen with regard to crop status and fertilization and liming according to soil maps. This applies also to several Italian big or medium companies, involved in industrial crops production, which utilize DSTs to manage their fertilization based on maps. Similarly, by mapping soil moisture, it is possible to anticipate the crop need in terms of water supply and irrigation. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 51 Table 18. Objectives for using a DST as mentioned by the workshop participants in the different countries. Country Objective Sweden The general objective for using a DST mentioned by farmers was to increase profitability by minimizing inputs and optimize production. Advisors also mentioned “facilitate daily work” and “comply with regulations” as objectives. More specifically farmers mentioned objectives mainly related to fertilization, such as “Know optimal fertilization”, “Distribution of fertilizers between fields”, “Detect deficiencies in nutrients”, and “Choose the right type of fertilizer”. They also mentioned objectives connected to soil water such as “choose the right tillage for optimising soil moisture based on the season” and “when to irrigate”. One also mentions “strategy for improved organic matter.” Researchers added “yield forecast” as that is an unsolved challenge they are working on. Lativa In Latvia the objective with using DST is first of nitrogen fertilization doses, in order to save money and not fertilize fields unnecessarily. They also mentioned soil agrochemical analyses to monitor the general condition of the field, but also because regulation requires it and soil pH to plan initial and repeated liming and to be able to apply for support. The objective can also be to bypass obstacles and accurately draw boundaries between fields with GPS or to follow the development of the crop and the health of the plant. The objective can also be to improve the efficiency of work volume planning. Italy Several Italian big or medium companies, involved in industrial crops production, utilize decision support systems to manage their fertilization plan and optimize the crop nutrient use efficiency, based on a graphical mapping of the field, where the soil N content is associated to a colour gradient. Similarly, mapping soil water moisture it is possible to anticipate the crop need in terms of water supply and irrigation mode for saving water. Türkiye In Türkiye, the farmers as well as researchers, DST providers and advisors mentioned the general objective “increase yield and quality” and support regarding fertilization, irrigation ,and pesticide use. In addition to this, advisors also mentioned “saving time”, “reducing costs”, “contributing to the ecosystem” and “implementation in sustainable agricultural policies”. Researchers added “growing heathy products” and “prevent environmental pollution”. The reason behind such a discrepancy between the farming challenge mentioned and the use of DTS for fertilizers, could be that challenges were considered as “major” just because they are still not as easily solved with using a DST. The commonly used DSTs are mainly supporting tools to decision making related to fertilization and irrigation. These are decisions that require a lot of inputs that may vary spatially and in time and therefore a DST with access to detailed and updated data is often very useful. But when it comes to challenges related to soil organic matter content, soil compaction and how to cope with weather fluctuations or drought and flooding, sometimes in the same season, completely different type of decisions and consequently also different types of tools are required. For water, these could include everything from planning water regulation through drainage and the construction of dams to adapting the tillage for adequate drying for the upcoming crop or adapting the choice of crops to ones that can withstand strong weather fluctuations. About the soil organic matter, more long-term decisions come into picture, such as regular supply of stable manure, straw return, catch crops, etc.: for this reason, several Italian farmers are asking for advanced DSTs able to adequately support the management of organic inputs (selection of cover crops, organic amendments, time of application) to increase soil organic carbon in function of soil properties and weather conditions. Barriers and solutions for adoption The barriers for implementation and suggestions for how to break these barriers were mainly discussed at the two workshops in Latvia and Italy. At both workshops, very similar barriers were addressed (Table 19). Even though DSTs are adopted on larger farms, small farms, which for instance are common in Italy, have more difficulties in using DSTs, mainly due to lower economic resources, lack of easy-to-access solutions for farmers and average age of farmers, not always so friendly with digital tools. In Latvia, farmers use their experience of their farm, passed down through generations, and many of them already think they know what to do, depending on visual characteristics of the crop, their soil tests and weather conditions and that a digital DST would not add anything more useful. Not enough user-friendly technology and lack of technical support was also addressed at the Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 52 Swedish workshop, and the differences in adoption between generations was mentioned also in the Netherlands. Table 19. Barriers identified and solutions suggested from the workshops in Latvia and Italy. Identified barriers Suggested solutions Expensive technology and not enough economic resources for adoption Positive demonstrations by experienced farmers without economic interests in the tool, Not enough user-friendly technology and lack of technical support and Financial and technical support for implementation Old generation with sticking to traditions. Simplified data-entry (also by farmers) and tools that all generations can understand. Good technical support was addressed as something very important for adoption also at the Swedish workshop. One suggestion to improve the support was to bring farmers using the same tool together into farmers groups that can exchange experiences either in physical meetings or just in a chat group. In Türkiye, they also addressed that the tools need to be user friendly, meaning that the need to be easy to operate, understandable, with available user manual and support in the local language and possible to use also without internet connection. They also addressed the importance of accuracy, reliability and up to date information compatible with the terrain. Suggested features At the workshops in Sweden and Türkiye much of the discussion concerned requested features of a tool. In Sweden, where the workshop participants were mainly farmers with large farms with experience of several tools, much of the discussion was based on experiences on tools they already use and the requests they listed were focused on functionality of the tools. They think transparency is important, so that the user can understand what lies behind. In that way they can more easily judge whether it is relevant and valid for their situation. Some decisions need to be taken in real time, such as when fertilization is adapted to current crop status and weather conditions. On the other hand, some settings in the tool may need adjustments to fit their farm and if they have the knowledge and data for that they would like to be able to do so. Therefore, they want to be able to get answers quickly when needed through an app in the mobile phone, and at the same time have the opportunity to influence settings etc. in a computer version when time is available. Through the app, they want to be able to access the tools and previous documentation anytime and anywhere. They also want to easily store new observations through the app when they are out in the field. It should also be possible to share data between different tools, so that a soil map made from one company could easily be combined with satellite data from another in any DST most suitable for their purpose. At the Italian workshop it was also addressed that it is important to be able to access different databases on private and public platforms. In Türkiye and the other workshops with larger part of the participants from other stakeholder groups than farmers this discussion was generally broader. They addressed that functionality and usefulness for farmers is important and that that the tools should be user-friendly both concerning interface and operation, that they should benefit yield, quality and environmental impact and be reliable. Responses to statements The response to the statement “All tools should have an app for a smartphone” had very similar answers at all four workshops (Table 20). The common answer was that it would be useful in many cases as it allows for real-time updates when you are in the field. However, some functions such as more advanced data management may be much better on the computer, so in most cases the tool Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 53 should be able to use in both a computer version and in an app on the smartphone. The statement “In addition to plant production and soil quality, tools should also provide information on environmental impact” got a bit various response (Table 20). In Türkiye, all agreed that it would be important not only for the sake of the environment, but also for warning to take precautions in case of natural disasters. In Latvia they were also positive and mentioned it would be educating, provided it has a solid scientific base. In Sweden, there were some scepticisms whether it should be mandatory to combine it in all tools, since making it more complex may contribute to that the development of the tool is slowed down and that the tool is unnecessary complicated. At all workshops it was agreed that weather is important for many decisions, and that updated and site- specific weather forecasts therefor are needed. However, it is difficult to get reliable weather forecasts, and it is not realistic that all decision support tools can cover all details. Table 20. Summary from each workshop of the responses during group discussions to different statements. Country Responses to statement All tools should have an app for a smartphone Sweden Often, but not necessarily. It depends on how quickly you need the answer and for what you need it. Latvia Yes, for functions that need to and can be used in the field, as it allows for real-time changes. But there should also be a PC version, because data management and other databases and programs are more easily available on the computer. Italy It was remarked that, even if it is preferable to use DSTs as mobile apps, sometimes map viewing requires the use of PC. Türkiye Yes, it is necessary, accessible and quite practical in the field, provided that it is easy to understand. There may be a computer version for detailed information. In addition to plant production and soil quality, tools should also provide information on environmental impact Sweden Not necessarily. It could slow down the development of the tool if it is unnecessarily complicated and not focused enough. Could be coupled to environmental labelling. Latvia Many agree, as it is important and nobody wants to harm the environment and it is mandatory to take the environment into account, considering regulations. It could also be educating. But it is only useful if it has a solid scientific base. Some think it should instead be already built into the algorithm that gives advice to the farmer. Türkiye Yes, it should provide information of the negative or positive effects of crop production and soil quality as well as environmental impacts. Warnings can be given in advance of natural disasters, measuring the economic damage threshold of diseases and pests and taking precautions. For example, it is necessary to investigate whether plant protection products harm bees. The persistence, pollution, etc. of the pesticides we use should also be investigated. Yes. It should be useful in all areas so that a single decision support tool is useful. Yes. It is also necessary to provide information on environmental impacts for sustainable agriculture. Tools must be flexible and take into account actual weather conditions Sweden Flexibility is important, but not always weather forecast. It is also difficult to get reliable weather forecasts. Latvia Yes, farming is greatly influenced by the weather and the more detailed the data in real time, the better the conclusions and the better the decisions. However, only if accuracy can be ensured. Türkiye It should be flexible and take into account real weather conditions. Since weather conditions are constantly changing, data should be updated. It is very important to have it in real time. Time is crucial for correct technique application and precaution. But it is difficult to get reliable weather forecasts, and it is not possible for decision support tools to cover every point. Similarities and differences between the workshop outputs The workshops organized in the various countries involved different types of agricultural stakeholders, which may have influenced what was discussed. In the Swedish workshop most participants were farmers that were all early adopters of DSTs and did not represent an average farmer in Sweden. Their discussions concerned much about how to improve DSTs that they already used and was additional DSTs they would like. At the other workshops it was more difficult to attract farmers, and the discussion was more focused on barriers to use DSTs and have to overcome these barriers. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 54 Common conclusions and differences emerged from the discussions. During the workshops, it was emphasized that simpler, more user-friendly interfaces are needed. Farmers appreciated that the tools should have a smartphone application. However, DST providers, advisors and researchers all agreed that it is preferable to use DSTs in the form of mobile applications, but not always possible. Therefore, using a tool on a smartphone depends on the type of tool. However, with a PC version parallel to the app, there is the possibility to get the advantage of having both the advantage of detailed functions and visualisation in the PC simultaneously as the tool is always at all times and locations in the app. It was agreed that DSTs should be flexible and easy to use. Another important point concerns the clear visualization of results. A tool should not require a lot of information to be entered by users. While farmers focus on the ease of use of decision support tools and the real-time application decision. Other stakeholders all underlined the importance of results being reliable and based on science and farm calibration in the region. Another point discussed at the workshops was whether the tools should also provide information on environmental impact. For Italy and Latvia, all stakeholders indicated the importance of this functionality in order to know how practices affect the environment and to ensure food quality and safety. However, in the case of Sweden, participants pointed out that this could make the tool unnecessarily complicated, and that the buyers define what should be done for measures for environmental labelling and the market then decides whether they want to pay extra. A similarity between the countries was that all stakeholders in the various countries indicated the need for even simpler and more accessible tools. However, in some countries there were at the same time wishes for more complex tools. In the case of Italy, participants would like DSTs to take account not only of SOC, nutrients and water supply, but also of information on introduced cover crop species, inorganic vs organic inputs, weeding strategies, management of crop residues, etc. However, in Latvia, it was noted that it was not possible to combine the different functions of separate tools into a single multifunctional tool, as there are too many actors involved in DST activities and each actor has his or her own format, making it is impossible to combine them successfully. Discussions on data management and use varied between the different countries. For Italy and Latvia, stakeholders indicated that the tool should be able to interface easily with existing databases. For the Latvian workshop, it was suggested that the tool should be synchronized with a database shared by all institutions and research centres involved in agriculture. This database would contain the latest information from the whole country, and would therefore be relevant for all Latvia, and it would be possible to select locally specific information relevant to each farm. For the Swedish workshop, the discussion on this point focused on access to historical data of the farm. Future DSTs should allow easy access to previous documentation at any time and in any place, preferably via an application on the phone. Finally, only for the atelier in Italy, it was suggested that future tools should enable calculation of the farm's carbon footprint. Consistency between stocktake and workshop outputs The outputs from the workshop do confirm much of what was found from the stocktake. For instance, the concerning main soil related challenges and objectives for using DSTs. However, there was a difference concerning costs, where stocktake results indicated that most DSTs are for free or at low costs, whereas stakeholders mentioned cost as one of the major barriers for implementation. Even when the cost for the software is insignificant, there could be other costs for other implements or infrastructure that are necessary for the use of the tool that is costly and something that many small farmers cannot afford. Only the workshop in Sweden had many participating farmers that Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 55 already used several DSTs. In that workshop three additional tools on water management and five additional tools related to nutrient management were added to the list of tools in Sweden from the stock-take. Even though some of these tools were mentioned by other counties, the additions implies that the list of tools from the stocktake is not complete. 3.3.2. Exchanges in other meetings National Hubs In addition to contributions via the newsletter, two contributions were given to meetings of the national hubs in The Netherlands. During the first one, participants were informed about the project and the questionnaires, and in the second, their cooperation was sought as part of the participatory approach for making the visualisation on DSTs (see next paragraph). A major outcome of the discussion was the notion to respect anonymity and ownership when sharing (farm) data. EJP SOIL Annual Science days (ASD) 2023 and 2024 During ASD 2023, exchanges with fellow researchers were facilitated by presentation of two posters, i.e. one to invite stakeholder groups, in particular Living Labs, to participate in the workshops, and the other on a candidate stakeholder group in The Netherlands. These encounters highlighted differences between Member States with respect to the use of DSTs and also yielded suitable literature to read. In addition, PRAC2LIV co-convened a session with the title ‘Using participatory design for developing farmer friendly tools for soil practices and schemes ‘. The session focused on the EJP SOIL aims to promote the use of regionally specific tools to provide either qualitative or quantitative information on agricultural soil-based ecosystem services, e.g., climate change. One of the outcomes was the importance of explaining to stakeholders the need for, i.e. carbon sequestration to have them engaged. Also, soil management was discussed as part of a farming system that may be evaluated by an integral tool such as FAO’s “Tool for Agroecological Performance Evaluation” (2019). During ASD2024, exchanges with fellow researchers involved the making of the visualisation (Figure 6). At a higher scale-level than individual DSTs, the socio-economic impacts and challenges of implementing sustainable practices was discussed and the possible role that DSTs may play. PRAC2LIV also co-convened a session intitled “Leveraging different approaches in the development of farmer-friendly tools for sustainable soil practices and schemes”. The session aimed to elucidate experiences from projects concerning end-users' engagement, development and adoption of new tools and methods or implementation of new agroecological strategies. A common outcome was the importance of participatory approach for future agriculture development and the need for tailored solutions and recommendation for sustainable soil management. Moreover, PRAC2LIV participated in the science to policy session, fostering soil management practices and uptake in Europe, involving by expertise from other EJP Soil projects. The outcomes of the discussion were: 1. The importance of considering different spatial scales in assessment and monitoring, including DSTs, from the field and farm scales to the regional and national scales 2. The adoption by end-users depends on the suitability for reaching end-user goals 3. Regional scale is relevant but more focus is needed for farm scale to consider farmers conditions ensuring sustainable development and policies at different level 4. Regional stakeholder is needed for future development of DSTs, such as Living Labs where participatory approach is essential and can be implemented to involve all concerned parties in the implementation of DSTs to support soil health in Europe and to coordinate the different initiatives aimed at this matter. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 56 In addition, in the Workshop Advisors, the point was stressed that researchers may not be familiar with the role of advisors in a changing context and therefore their opinions need not reflect those of real advisors, and the present role of advisors is often focussed on a specific theme, and hence it was suggested to invest in the broadening of their scope and skills. Again, the need for a bottom-up approach was mentioned. Lighthouse Farm The meeting yielded insight in the natural emergence of a Living Lab. The initiative and challenge for the Ekoboerderij was discussed in view of being an organic farm and labour availability. The farm has developed several collaborations with local parties, also to sell produce locally. In the future, the farm may evolve to being the centre of a living lab with other farms in the region. A major point mentioned in the discussion on DST was the safety and ownership of data. 3.3.3. Participatory Approach During the iteration process of the visualization, drafts were presented to, and discussed with, several expert groups at various scale levels both national and international. These included: Project team PRAC2LIV; National Hub (NL); Soil Health Institute (USA); Annual Sciences Days 2024. After ASD2024, final comments were included in the drawing and the visualisation made finite. New Insights from the method Regarding the topic “DSTs for Soil health in Living Labs”, all relevant aspects to consider for developing DSTs/web portals have been integrally discussed, while the participatory process enhances commitment for the outcomes. In addition, new subtopics could be identified that were not explicitly included in the questionnaires, e.g. ‘digital twin’, ‘business model’, and ‘ecosystem services. As for the method itself, it was found that a participatory approach method has high potential for inspiring, focussing and accelerating the development of a common vision on complex matters such as soil health in living labs in the EU (Figure 6). It was considered a useful additional research method for conceptual (‘vision') data collection and interpretation, combining research and communication. At a more general terms, the method may need some standardisation for quality assurance. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 57 Figure 6. Final version of the visualisation in a poster format. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 58 3.4. Mock-up designs for DSTs To illustrate what a DST on soil organic matter, water holding capacity of nutrient use efficiency could look like, three different mock-ups have been designed. The mock-ups are presented in the separate report D5.2. To give an indication of what the mock-up could look like, this section will give a short description of the soil organic matter mock-up. Note that the mock-ups that have been designed are solely meant to give inspiration on what the visualisation of the app might look like and what a DST should at least contain. Yet, they are not actually working apps and do not give a complete description of the application to be made. Starting screens The first few screens of the app give farmers the possibility to create an account and specify their farm type. This is done for all the mock-up designs, as they require similar data like the location of the farm and the corresponding soil type. After the starting screens, a farmer can decide whether he wants to create an organic matter balance on field or farm level. Field level The field level calculation consists of the screens, which are the input, output, and the actual balance. In the input screen, a farmer can indicate what organic matter inputs are applied on the field. This can be different kind of fertilizers, such as manure or compost. Another source of organic matter are the possible crop residues. Finally, the cultivation of a cover crop can be indicated. This is presented in Figure 7. Figure 7. Different carbon input sources on field level. The output level allows the calculation of the organic matter degradation. A default rate can be chosen based on the soil type, but another rate can be indicated when a farmer has more insight in this. The final screen subtracts the output from the input, thus calculating the organic matter balance on field level. All input is calculated as the effective organic matter input, which is the organic matter that is still present in a soil one year after application. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 59 Farm level The organic matter balance on farm level is calculated in a similar way but combines the activities on all the fields. This includes the different input sources, such as the crop residues, fertilizer type and the possible cover crop that was grown. Figure 8 gives an indication on what the input of a cover crop on a specific field might look like. After adding all the inputs, a degradation rate can be indicated. After subtracting both numbers, the organic matter balance on farm level is calculated. At present, in some countries more elaborate DST for soil organic matter are available of being developed. These tools may be based on dynamic SOC-models such as the ROTHC model, and/or include other ecosystem services, e.g. the Cool Farm Tool (Cool Farm Tool, https://coolfarm.org/). Figure 8. Soil organic matter input on farm level. 3.5 Towards a web portal to support Soil Health within Living labs During the course of PRAC2LIV, the scope of the project transgressed from a focus on single stand- alone DSTs (on nutrient use efficiency, soil organic matter and moisture retention) to a focus on the development of DSTs for soil health in living labs. Single stand-alone apps may possibly remain very useful for farmers, in particular for nutrient use efficiency (EU-project NutriCheck (https://nutri- checknet.eu/). In view of the proposed Green Deal, Soil Mission, Climate Change, Regionalisation, and other policies initiatives, the development of web portals with several apps may be favoured. These are certainly the more complex, in particular if outcomes of the apps are required at various scale levels, e.g. field, farm, living lab or catchment. Current and expected initiatives for discussing the design of a web portal for next generation tools include those initiated by the Mission Board on Soil Health and Food, e.g., lighthouse farms and PREPSOIL, as well as EUSO and the FaST digital service platform. The uptake of soil management measures to sustain food production and safeguard and/or improve ecosystem services such as moisture retention capacity of the soil, nutrient management, soil organic matter, carbon sequestration and biodiversity will remain on the agenda in the coming Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 60 decades. Natural boundaries and social interactions have put a focus on stakeholder communities at regional level. Taking living labs as an example, the development of a web portal for soil health in living labs could support cooperation and reaching targets. The web portal would allow the performing a series of functions (e.g. registration, monitoring, planning) in an intuitive and effective way. It could comprise both agricultural production and environmental services. Such web portals may thus have a major impact on promoting soil health and supporting agricultural and environmental decision-making on the above-mentioned topics. Consulting with target groups about their potential uses is an important first step. This could involve: • Farmers and their advisors: obtain recommendation, registration, planning, learning • Regional government (city/province) and NGOs: monitoring, policy development and implementation’; education, facilitation • Living lab communities: regional ambitions and boundaries • National government: policy development and implementation • EU: policy development and implementation, research • A methodology for participatory approach could be used such as the one in PRAC2LIV, with a moderator from the socio-economic sciences or with ecological/agricultural background. Next steps require IT-expertise to develop the architecture of the web portal, identifying its layers and interactions. It is advisable to invest in a “functional design” of a web portal and dashboard, including architecture, criteria, specifications, and design considerations. This design can serve as a blueprint for technical design and elaboration of a wide range of dashboards depending on regional requirements. Alternatively, integration of parts of the functional design with existing web portals could be an option. In general, elements to consider are: • Participatory approach from beginning, testing to end-result • End result with high user friendliness, ‘foolproof’, help function • Flexible design, to allow for a large variation in agro-ecological systems and goals • Multi-purpose, meeting stakeholders needs, commitment, and acceptance Business Models for DSTs Business models for developing web portals or Decision Support Tools (DSTs) for agriculture require careful consideration. Good service and continuous development are essential for the successful uptake and use of DSTs. These tools must be maintained, user support needs to be provided, and new features must be added to meet evolving user needs. The key question is, what are the optimal business models for ensuring good service and continuous development? DSTs are often developed by universities, research institutes, and the private sector, with end-users sometimes included in the development process. Academia has a strong knowledge foundation for developing these tools, but long-term maintenance and development may be limited by the interests and capabilities of individual researchers or research groups, and there is often no long-term funding for these purposes. In project-oriented organizations, sustaining long-term commitment can be challenging. The private sector may have a long-term commitment through financial incentives, but they may lack the necessary knowledge and data base for developing DSTs. End-users, in turn, have the best understanding of day-to-day farming activities and the specific needs DSTs should address. Depending on the type of tool and whether it is part of a regulatory system, different business models may be appropriate. A potentially fruitful business model could involve collaboration among academia, the private sector, and end-users. In this model, academia provides the knowledge base during the development phase, end-users ensure the tools support day-to-day decision-making, and Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 61 the private sector handles the long-term maintenance and development of DSTs as a business activity. Such business models could be established through tailored EU funding calls that engage academia, farmers or Living Labs, and private companies or startups in equal collaboration. Ideally, such collaboration could advance the development of an industry towards a wider variety and better quality of DSTs. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 62 4. Conclusions The exploration of DSTs included a diverse range of methods, including literature review, surveys, stakeholder consultations, mock-ups, and visualizations, creating an integrative, participatory, and user-centred research approach. The AI-assisted synthesis of findings proved to be highly effective in generating data-driven conclusions and recommendations from these varied research methods. The results underscored the crucial role that DSTs can play in advancing agricultural practices toward greater sustainability. However, they also revealed significant gaps and challenges that need to be addressed to fully utilize the potential of DSTs in enhancing soil management across Europe. One key conclusion is the recognition that while DSTs have been developed to address specific agricultural needs, their current scope is often too narrow, focusing primarily on productivity or a single purpose rather than encompassing the full range of soil functions, such as carbon sequestration, water retention, and nutrient cycling. This narrow focus limits the ability of DSTs to contribute to broader environmental and social goals, which are increasingly important in the context of European agricultural and environmental policies. To overcome this limitation, a shift toward more integrated, multi-functional DSTs is essential. These tools must be designed not only to optimize agricultural outputs but also to support the sustainability of the entire agro-ecosystem. This will require a more holistic approach to DST development, one that incorporates diverse soil functions and actively engages stakeholders throughout the design process. By doing so, DSTs can become powerful instruments for achieving the dual goals of productivity and sustainability. The report’s stocktake of existing DSTs across Europe reveals a landscape marked by diversity in tool types, technologies, and user adoption. The largest share of reported tools focused on nutrient use efficiency, but many tools were also reported for soil organic matter and water retention management. While some tools have seen moderate uptake, there is a clear need for improvement, particularly in areas such as user-friendliness, data integration, and adaptability to different scales of operation. The findings suggest that for DSTs to be more widely adopted, they must be more aligned with the practical realities and constraints faced by farmers and other end-users, including better coverage of different types of farming systems. Additionally, DSTs need to be accessible, cost- effective, and supported by robust technical assistance. The stakeholder exchanges conducted as part of this study further underscore the importance of a user-centered approach to DST development and the consideration of local conditions in DST functionality. Barriers to adoption, such as technical complexity and resistance to change, must be addressed through targeted interventions. These could include providing technical support and designing tools that are intuitive and easy to use. The active involvement of end-users in the co- creation of DSTs will be crucial in ensuring that these tools meet their needs and gain their trust. The findings from the stakeholder exchanges aligned well with the findings from the stocktake. The development of mock-up designs for DSTs serves as a practical demonstration of how future tools can be both scientifically sound and user-friendly. These prototypes show that it is possible to create tools that are not only effective in optimizing soil management practices but also adaptable to the diverse conditions and challenges faced by farmers across Europe. Additionally, the novel pictorial visualization method proved valuable for discussing and exchanging information around DSTs and soil health. At a higher level, the visualization method was useful for generating new directions for programs such as EJP SOIL, including important topics that could be (re)evaluated. Together, mock-up designs and pictorial visualization methods offer a fruitful approach for engaging end-users and stakeholders in the development of DSTs and aligning research efforts. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 63 Moreover, the concept of a web portal for Soil Health represents a forward-thinking approach to DST integration. By creating a platform that brings together multiple tools and resources, this web portal could serve as a comprehensive solution for managing soil health at various scales, from individual fields to broader regional landscapes. This approach aligns with European policy initiatives such as the Green Deal and the Soil Mission, which call for innovative tools that can address multiple dimensions of soil health and sustainability. To actualize the significant opportunities provided by DSTs, a series of specific recommendations have been proposed to enhance both the adoption and effectiveness of DSTs, as well as the development of a European web portal (Section 5). These recommendations address key areas such as tool development, usability, functionality, adaptability to diverse regional conditions, integration of soil health and economic indicators, data integration, and interoperability with existing systems. They also emphasize continuous evaluation and improvement, as well as alignment with policy and regulatory frameworks. By summarizing the report's findings, these recommendations offer clear and practical guidance for advancing DSTs that simultaneously meet the practical needs of users and broader societal sustainability goals. In conclusion, the future of DSTs in European agriculture lies in their ability to evolve beyond simple productivity tools to become integral components of a sustainable farming system. This evolution will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders—researchers, policymakers, farmers, and technology developers—to collaborate in the design and implementation of tools that are both scientifically robust and practically applicable. By addressing the challenges identified in this report and building on the opportunities presented by emerging technologies and policies, DSTs can play a transformative role in achieving sustainable soil management and advancing the broader goals of environmental sustainability and agricultural resilience in Europe. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 64 5. Recommendations The work presented here offers a broad understanding of the current use, challenges, and potential of DSTs in enhancing agricultural practices and sustainable soil management. Building on these insights, specific recommendations were formulated to guide the development, increased adoption, and effectiveness of DSTs, as well as the creation of a European web portal for Soil Health. These recommendations are presented in in Table 21 and Table 22. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 65 Table 21. Recommendations for enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of DSTs in promoting sustainable soil management practices across Europe. Recommendations for DSTs Existing DST effectiveness Improve data integration and accessibility Ensure that DSTs incorporate accurate, use case- and region-specific data inputs, such as soil characteristics, climate conditions, and crop history. Enhance the accessibility of these tools by developing user-friendly interfaces that allow seamless integration of various data sources, including real-time sensor data. Increase usability and flexibility Simplify the user interfaces of DSTs to make them more accessible to a wider range of users, including those with limited technical expertise. Develop tools that are flexible and adaptable to different farming systems, regions, and spatial and temporal scales, allowing users to customize the tools according to their specific needs and conditions. Monitor and evaluate DST performance Establish monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the effectiveness of DSTs in improving soil management practices. Use these evaluations to identify areas for improvement and to guide future development efforts, ensuring that DSTs remain relevant and effective in addressing emerging challenges in agriculture. DST improvement Include soil health and economic indicators Incorporate indicators that align with both soil health and economic objectives, providing measurable targets to assess the impact of farming decisions. These indicators promote a more holistic approach, encouraging practices that support both sustainable soil management and economic viability. Explore new technologies and guarantee continuous improvement Promote the continuous development and improvement of DSTs by integrating the latest scientific research and technological advancements. Encourage innovation through research collaborations, pilot projects, and the exploration of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and remote sensing, to enhance the capabilities of DSTs to meet the needs of users. Focus on multi- functional and integrated tools Develop DSTs that support multiple soil functions simultaneously, such as soil organic matter, water retention, and nutrient efficiency, while considering crop yield and economic outcomes. This integrated approach will help address the broader goals of sustainable soil management and align with European policy initiatives like the Green Deal and Soil Mission, while considering the user goals. Participatory approach on DST use and development Promote knowledge exchange and capacity building Create platforms that emphasize knowledge exchange rather than simply delivering information. Facilitate the sharing of best practices, case studies, and success stories to demonstrate the effectiveness of DSTs in improving soil management. Provide training and support to build the capacity of farmers and advisors to effectively use these tools. Enhance user engagement and co- creation Actively involve end-users, including farmers and advisors, in the design and development process of DSTs. This will ensure tools to meet the practical user’ needs and enhance adoption rates. Engage stakeholders through participatory methods, such as workshops, focus groups, and co- design of DST mock-up’s, to capture diverse perspectives and tailor DSTs to local conditions. EU policy Align with policy and regulatory frameworks Ensure that DSTs are aligned with national and European policy frameworks, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the EU Soil Strategy. This alignment will encourage the adoption of DSTs by demonstrating their relevance to achieving policy goals and compliance with regulations. Foster collaboration and cross-border integration Encourage cross-border collaboration among EU and EJP SOIL Member States to share knowledge, tools, and best practices related to DSTs. Develop standardized frameworks that allow for the adaptation and use of DSTs across different regions, considering the specific pedo-climatic conditions of each area. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 66 Table 22. Recommendations to create a comprehensive, user-friendly, and effective DST-based web portal that empowers users to manage soil health sustainably and efficiently across diverse agricultural landscapes in Europe. Recommendations for web portal on DSTs Participatory approach on web portal on DST development and use Use a participatory approach Ambitions and options on the web portal to be discussed with stakeholders, favoring exchanges to set common goals and restrictions Functional design, an architecture Web portal design should encompass the levels of available knowledge and their interactions, to be enough flexible allowing further adaptation and extension Customizable user dashboards Implement customizable dashboards that allow users to select and display the most relevant tools and data for their specific needs. This feature should enable users to integrate various data sources, visualize trends, and monitor soil health indicators in real-time. User-friendly and interoperable interface Centralized access to diverse tools Create a web portal that serves as a centralized hub where users can access a wide range of DSTs tailored to different aspects of soil health (e.g., SOM, water retention, nutrient efficiency). Ensure the portal provides easy navigation and categorization based on user needs, such as crop type, climate zone, or specific soil issues. Interoperability with existing systems Ensure the portal is interoperable with existing farm management systems, databases, and other digital tools. This will allow users to import and export data seamlessly, enhancing the utility of the portal within the broader ecosystem of agricultural technology Scalable solutions for different users Design the web portal to accommodate a wide range of users, from smallholder farmers to large agribusinesses. Provide scalable solutions that can address the needs of users at different operational scales, whether they manage small plots or extensive agricultural enterprises Interactive decision- making tools Incorporate interactive tools that allow users to simulate different soil management scenarios and visualize potential outcomes. These tools should provide actionable insights and recommendations based on the specific conditions of the user's farm or region Real-time data integration Enable the portal to integrate real-time data feeds from sensors, weather stations, and remote sensing technologies. This feature will allow users to make informed decisions based on the latest available data, improving the accuracy of soil health assessments User support and community forums Provide robust user support through FAQs, helpdesks, and live chat options. Additionally, create community forums where users can share experiences, ask questions, and collaborate on soil health management strategies Data ownership and security Data privacy and security Ensure that the web portal includes strong data privacy and security measures to protect users' information. Provide clear guidelines on data ownership, use, and sharing to build trust among users Customization and user exploitation Regional customization and localization Include features that allow the portal to be customized for different regions, incorporating local soil data, climate conditions, and agricultural practices. This localization will ensure that recommendations and tools are relevant to the specific challenges faced by users in different parts of Europe Educational resources and best practices Integrate a comprehensive library of educational materials, including tutorials, case studies, and best practice guides. This resource should support users in understanding how to effectively use DSTs and apply them to improve soil health Continuous feedback and improvement loop Establish a system for continuous feedback from users to regularly update and improve the portal. This loop should include periodic user surveys, beta testing of new features, and an open channel for users to suggest improvements Integration with policy and regulatory frameworks Embed functionalities that help users understand and comply with relevant agricultural policies and regulations. The portal should provide updates on regulatory changes and offer tools to assess the impact of different soil management practices on compliance Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 67 Acknowledgements We would like to express gratitude for all who participated in our surveys, workshops, meetings, and discussions, and thus contributed to the work presented this report. The national coordinators of EJP SOIL and experts who responded to the questionnaire are listed in Table 23. In addition to these, we want to thank farmers groups in Sweden, Latvia, Italy, Turkiÿe; National Hub The Netherlands; Alisson Clark (Soil Health Institute); Liesbeth Drees and Bert Smit (EU-project SoilValues); Valentina Materia (EU-project InBestSoils); André Jurrius and Linda Calciolari (EkoBoerderij De Lingehof); Ciska Nienhuis, Paulien van Asperen, Amanda Matson, Arwen van der Gugten, Lennart Fuchs and Jonna van Opstal, Lennart Fuchs, Jonna van Opstal (WUR); Oļģerts Nikodemus and Kristīne Afanasjeva (University of Latvia). ChatGPT 4o from OpenAI (https://openai.com/) was used to proofread the text written by the authors. Table 23. The national coordinators of EJP SOIL and experts who responded to the questionnaire on DSTs. Country National coordinators of EJP SOIL and experts Norway Atilla Haugen, André Skoog Bondevik, Ylva Freed, Jan Eivind Kvam Andersen, Arne Kepp, Jon Mjærum, Maud Grøtta Estonia Alar Astover UK Dr Suzanne Higgins Austria Rebecca Hood-Nowotny Belgium HUYGHEBAERT Denmark Lars J. Munkholm Belgium Greet Ruysschaert, Paul Pardon, Tom De Swaef, Karoline D'Haene, Adriaan Vanderhasselt France Pierre Benoit Hungary Zsófia Bakacsi Ireland David Wall Italy Maria Fantappiè, Giovanni L'Abate, Lorenzo d'Avino Lithuania Žydrė Kadžiulienė Slovakia Jaroslava Sobocká Portugal Maria da Conceição Gonçalves and Nádia Castanheira Sweden Sofia Delin Switzerland Klaus Jarosch Türkiye Sevinc Madenoglu Finland Elina Nurmi, Johanna Leppälä, Tapio Salo, Risto Uusitalo Netherlands Anna Besse-Lototskaya Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 68 List of references Achilea, O., Ronen, E., Elharrar, G. 2005. Haifa Nurti-Net — a comprehensive crop Nutritionsoftware, operated over the web. Paper presented at EFITA/WCCA, 2005, 25—28 July 2005,Vila Real, Portugal. ADAS, 2023. ADAS. https://adas.co.uk Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Agricon, 2023a. Skaitmeninis N-Tręšimas su sensoriais (Digital N-fertilization with sensors), and Skaitmeninis pagrindinis tręšimas su Agricon (Digital base fertilization with Agricon). https://www.agricon.de/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 AgroCares, 2024. AgroCares Digital Soil Analysis Device. https://agrocares.com/ Accessed 25 Sep 2024 Agropub, 2023 Organic farming website https://www.agropub.no/fagartikler/naeringsstoffregnskap Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Andreu, J., Pérez, M. A., Paredes, J., Solera, A. 2009. Participatory analysis of the Jucar-Vinalopo (Spain) water conflict using a decision support system. 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and Computational Sciences, Proceedings, (July), 3230–3236 Anne, B., Geoffroy, S., Cherel, J., Warot, G., Marie, S., Noël, C. J., Christophe, S. 2018. Towards an operational methodology to optimize ecosystem services provided by urban soils. Landscape and Urban Planning, 176(April), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2018.03.019 Atfarm, 2023. Precision farming made simple – Atfarm app by Yara https://www.at.farm/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Agdir, 2023. Friland sensor (Freeland sensor). https://agdir.farm Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Agromatic, 2023. Skifteplan. https://www.skifteplan.no Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Agro-Transfert RT, 2023. ABC'Terre. http://www.agro-transfert-rt.org/abcterre/methode-abcterre/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Agrosope, 2023. Humus balance calculator (Humusbilanz-Rechner). https://www.agroscope.admin.ch/agroscope/de/home/services/apps/humusbilanz-rechner.html Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Aqvify, 2023. Well for farming & irrigation. https://aqvify.com/farming Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Bathaei, A., Štreimikienė, D. 2023. A Systematic Review of Agricultural Sustainability Indicators. Agriculture. 13. 241. 10.3390/agriculture13020241. Belcam, 2003. Belcam - BELgian Collaborative Agriculture Monitoringhttps://belcam.info/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023. Biodrone, 2023. www.biodrone.no Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Blum, W. E. H., Büsing, J., Montanarella, L. 2004. Research needs in supportof the European thematic strategy for soil protection. Trends Analyt. Chem. 23,680–685. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2004.07.007 Blum, W.E.H. 2008. Characterisation of soil erosion risk, an overview. In Threats to Soil Quality in Europe; Tóth, G., Montanarella, L., Rusco, E., Eds.; JRC Scientific and Technical Reports; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, pp. 5–10 Bouma, J., Pinto-Correia, T., Veerman, C. 2021. "Assessing the Role of Soils When Developing Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems Focused on Achieving the UN-SDGs and the EU Green Deal" Soil Systems 5, no. 3: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems5030056 Bünemann, E. K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R. E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R. 2018. Soil quality—A critical review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 120, 105–125. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030BWSB, 2015. Austrian Carbon Calculator (ACC) project. Boden Wasser Schutz Beratung (BWSB). https://www.bwsb.at/austrian-carbon-calculator-acc-projekt+2400++2365468 Accessed 26.9.2023. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 69 Cabrera-Pérez, C., Recasens, J., Baraibar, B., Royo-Esnal, A. 2022. Emergence modelling of 18 species susceptible to be used as cover crops in Mediterranean semiarid vineyards. European Journal of Agronomy, 132, 126413. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2021.126413 Carbon action, 2023. Field Observatory. https://www.fieldobservatory.org Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Centro Operativo e de Tecnologia de Regadio - COTR, 2023. MOGRA. http://www.cotr.pt/servicos/mogra.php Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Chai, K. L., Costello, T. A., Wells, B. R., Norman, R. J. 1994. Expert system for fertilization management of rice. App-eng-agric, 10: 849—855. Chambers, B.J., Lord, E.A., Nicholson, F.A., Smith, K.A. 1999. Predicting nitrogen availability and losses following application of organic manures to arable land: MANNER. Soil Use and Management, 15, 137–143. Clivot et al. 2019. Modelling soil organic carbon evolution in long-term arable experiments with AMG model. Environmental Modelling & Software, vol 118, p 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.04.004 Cool Farm Tool, https://coolfarm.org/ Accessed 12 October 2024. COTR, 2023. Centro Operativo e de Tecnologia de Regadio. http://www.cotr.pt/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 CRA-W, 2023. DECiDE: a tool for the agroecological transition to carbon neutrality. https://www.cra.wallonie.be/en/decide-a-tool-for-the-agroecological-transition-to-carbon-neutrality Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Creamer, R. E., Brennan, F., Fenton, O., Healy, M. G., Lalor, S. T. J., Lanigan, G. J. 2010. Implications of the proposed Soil Framework Directive on agricultural systems in Atlantic Europe—A review. Soil Use Manag. 26, 198–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00288.x Creamer, R., Holden, N. 2010. Special issue: soil quality. Soil Use Manag. 26, 197–197. doi: 10.1111/j.14752743.2010.00299.x Cropsat, 2023. https://cropsat.com/se/sv-se Accessed 29 Sep 2023 CZAV, 2024. Veris Bodemscan. https://www.czav.nl/producten-en-diensten/precisielandbouw/veris- bodemscan Accessed 9 Sep 2024. Dataväxt, 2023. https://datavaxt.com/no/produkter/cropplan/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Dal Ferro, N., Cocco, E., Lazzaro, B., Berti, A., Morari, F. 2016. Assessing the role of agri-environmental measures to enhance the environment in the Veneto Region, Italy, with a model-based approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 232, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2016.08.010 De la Rosa, D., Anaya-Romero, M. 2010. MicroLEIS DST: For planning agro-ecological soil use and management systems. En Decision Support Systems in Agriculture, Food and the Environment: Trends, Applications and Advances. https://doi.org/10.4018/978- 1-61520-881-4.ch016 De Wit, Allard de, Hendrik Boogaard, Davide Fumagalli, Sander Janssen, Rob Knapen, Daniel van Kraalingen, Iwan Supit, Raymond van der Wijngaart, and Kees van Diepen. “25 Years of the WOFOST Cropping Systems Model.” Agricultural Systems 168 (January 1, 2019): 154–67. Debeljak, M., Ivanovska, A., Kuzmanovski, V., Schröder, J., Sandén, T., Spiegel, H., Wall, D., Van de Broek, M., Rutgers, M., Bampa, F., Creamer, R., Henriksen, C. 2019. A Field-Scale Decision Support System for Assessment and Management of Soil Functions. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 7. 115. 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00115. Delin et al., 2024. Results from exchanges with stakeholders on the needs for DSTs in soil management. PRAC2LIV-report D4.1. SLU, Zweden. DHOT, 2024. Filiz& Filizpro agricultural sensors. Dijital Harman Organik Tarım (DHOT). https://dhotarim.com/ Accessed 25 sep 2024 Di Guardo, A., Finizio, A. 2015. A client-server software for the identification of groundwater vulnerability to pesticides at regional level. Science of the Total Environment, 530–531, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.112 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 70 Drohan, P.J., Bechmann, M., Buda, A., Djodjic, F., Doody, D., Duncan, J.M., Iho, A., Jordan, P., Kleinman, P.J., McDowell, R., Mellander, P.E., Thomas, I.A., Withers, P.J.A. 2019. A Global Perspective on Phosphorus Management Decision Support in Agriculture: Lessons Learned and Future Directions. Journal of Environmental Quality. doi:10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107 Druzdzel M.J. & Flynn R.R. 1999. Encyclopedia of Library and Information science, A. Kent, Marcel Dekker, Inc. Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F., Mensink, W. 2010. Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy. 4. 60-85. Dzikiti, S., Volschenk, T., Midgley, S.J.E., Lötze, E., Taylor, N.J., Gush, M.B., Ntshidi, Z., Zirebwa, S.F., Doko, Q., Schmeisser, M. 2018. Estimating the water requirements of high yielding and young apple orchards in the winter rainfall areas of South Africa using a dual source evapotranspiration model. Agric. Water Manag. 20, 152–162 Elaisian, 2023. Elaisan - AI to treat, irrigate, and fertilise your fields at the right time. https://www.elaisian.com/ Accessed 26.9.2023. Enviroportal, 2023 http://app.sazp.sk/cms_poda_mapa/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 EMU, 2023. C ja NPK kalkulaatorid (C and NPK calculators) https://pk.emu.ee/struktuur/mullateadus/teadustoo/mullakalkulaatorid/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023. Esnard, A., MacDougall, E.B. 1997. Common Ground for Integrating Planning Theory and GIS Topics. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), 55-62. Estmodel, 2023. https://estmodel.app/en/#/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023. European Commission. 2019. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions: The European Green Deal, 24 pp. (europa.eu) European Commission. 2022. EU Mission: Soil Deal for Europe, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/706627 European Commission. 2023. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law). from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-directive-soil-monitoring-and-resilience_en EU JRC, 2023. Monitoring Agricultural ResourceS (MARS). https://joint-research- centre.ec.europa.eu/monitoring-agricultural-resources-mars_en Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Eurofins Agro, 2024. Carbon calculator. https://www.eurofins-agro.com/en/carbon-calculator. Accessed 25 Sep 2024. Eurofins Agro, 2023. Eurofins Agro. https://www.eurofins.fi/agro/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Eurofins Norway, 2023. Eurofins Norway. https://www.eurofins.no/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Farmplan, 2023 https://farmplan.co.uk/solutions-cropping/gatekeeper/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Farmmaps, 2024. Farmmaps. https://www.farmmaps.net/ Accessed 12 Aug 2024 FAO. 2017. Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture. A Report for the G20 Presidency of Germany; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, p. 33. FAO and ITPS. 2018. Global Soil Organic Carbon Map (GSOCmap). Technical Report. Rome. 162 pp. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2019). Tool for agroecology performance evaluation: process development and guidelines for application. Rome. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/tools-tape/en FAO 2022. Global Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Potential Map – GSOCseq v.1.1. Technical report. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9002en Fast. 2020. EU Space Data for Sustainable Farming. European Comission. https://fastplatform.eu/ Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 71 Fetting, C. 2020. The European Green Deal, ESDN Report, December 2020, ESDN Office, Vienna. Finlay P.N. 1994. Introducing Decision Support Systems, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA. FOAG, 2023. Digital soil suitability map of Switzerland - Water storage capacity. Federal Office for Agriculture. https://map.geo.admin.ch/?lang=de&topic=blw&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte- farbe&layers_opacity=0.75&E=2691981.58&N=1203706.04&zoom=1.2624182415574747&layers=ch.blw.bode neignung-wasserspeichervermoegen&catalogNodes=901 Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Flemish Land Agency (VLM), 2014. Documenting and environmentally adjusting the KNS and other fertilization advice systems in horticulture with a view to a broader application in horticulture as provided for in the Action Program 2011-2014 (In dutch). https://www.vlm.be/nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Mestbank/Studies/Bemestingsadviessystemen%20tuinbouw /20141114%20eindrapport%20Vlaams%20KNS.pdf Franko U. & H. Spiegel (2015): Modelling soil organic carbon dynamics in an Austrian long-term tillage field experiment. Soil and Tillage Research, vol 156 p. 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.10.003 French Livestock Institute (Institut de l'Elevage - Idele), 2023. CAP'2ER®, a tool. https://idele.fr/detail- article/cap2err Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Geoface, 2003. Iš hektaro uždirbkite daugiau. (Earn more per hectare) https://www.geoface.com/lt/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Gharsallah, O., Facchi, A., Gandolfi, C. 2013. Comparison of six evapotranspiration models for a surface irrigated maize agro-ecosystem in Northern Italy. Agric. Water Manag. 130, 119–130. Gibbons, M.M., Fawcett, C.P., Warings, R.J., Dearne, K., Dampney, P.M.R.D., Richardson, S.J. 2005. PLANET Nutrient Management Decision Support System–A standard approach to fertilizer recommendations. EFITA/WCCA. Glaesner, N., Helming, K., de Vries, W. 2014. Do Current European Policies Prevent Soil Threats and Support Soil Functions? Sustainability 6(12):9538-9563. DOI: 10.3390/su6129538 Goffart, D. 2023. FaST: a free digital app to help manage nutrients. Wallonie recherché CRA-W. https://www.cra.wallonie.be/en/fast-a-free-digital-app-to-help-manage-nutrients. Accessed 29 September 2023. Gold Standard, 2023. Cool Farm Tool. https://www.goldstandard.org/articles/cool-farm-tool Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Greiner, L., Nussbaum, M., Papritz, A., Zimmermann, S., Gubler, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Keller, A. 2018. Uncertainty indication in soil function maps -- transparent and easy-to-use information to support sustainable use of soil resources. SOIL, 4(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-4-123-2018 Greppa näringen, 2023. Greppa näringen. https://greppa.nu/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 GTS, 2023. Fertilizer tracking system. https://gts.tarimorman.gov.tr/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Guhathakurta, S. (1999). Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common ground? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(4), 281- 292. Hanegraaf, M.C.; Hoffland, E.; Kuikman, P.J.; Brussaard, L. 2009. Trends in soil organic matter contents in Dutch grasslands and maize fields on sandy soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci.,60, 213–222. Hidrosoph, 2023. Irristrat. http://www.hidrosoph.com/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 HORT@, 2023. HORT@. https://www.horta-srl.it/en/ Accessed 26.9.2023 Huy, M. Q. 2009. Building a Decision Support System for Agricultural Land Use Planning and Sustainable Management at the District Level in Vietnam. Inagro, ILVO, VITO and Vlakwa, 2021. WaterRadar, https://waterradar.be Accessed 22 Sep 2023 INRA, Agro-Transfert RT, Arvalis, LDAR, Terres Innovia, 2023. SIMEOS AMG. http://www.simeos-amg.org/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 72 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2023. Humus balance calculator (Huumusbilansi kalkulaator). https://pk.emu.ee/struktuur/mullateadus/teadustoo/mullakalkulaatorid/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Intersucho, 2023. Current state of drought. https://www.intersucho.cz/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 IT-Direkt Business Technologies, 2023. Raindancer. https://www.raindancer.com Accessed 22 Sep 2023 IVFL and ASAP, 2023. EO4Water. Institute of Surveying, Remote Sensing & Land Information (IVFL) of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), and Austrian Space Applications Programme (ASAP) – FFG. https://eo4water.com/ Accessed 26.9.2023 Ikimis, 2023. Integrated Plant Protection Information System for Information, Consultation and Training https://www.ikmis.lt/Bundles/signin Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Jordplan, 2023. Jordplan (Soil plan). https://jordplan.no Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Jorgensen M.S., Detlefsen N.K., palHutchings N.J. 2005. FarmN: A decision support tool for managing Nitrogen flow at the farm level. EFITA/WCCA. Juerges, N., Hansjürgens, B. 2018. Soil governance in the transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy – A review. J. Clean. Prod., 170 (2018), pp. 1628-1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.143 Karmakar, S., Lague, C., Agnew, J., Landry, H. 2007. Integrated decision support system (DSS) for manure management: A review and perspective source. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 57, ISSN: 168—169. Kasparinskis R et al., 2023. Scope and demarcation – Literature review. Internal PRAC2LIV report D2.1. University of Latvia, Latvia. Kibblewhite, M.G., Ritz, K., Swift, M.J. 2008. Soil health in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,363, 685–701 Klimatsmartlantbruk, 2023. Klimakalculatoren (Climate calculator) https://klimasmartlandbruk.no/klimakalkulatoren/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Kmoch, A., Kanal, A., Astover, A., Kull, A., Virro, H., Helm, A., Pärtel, M., Ostonen, I., and Uuemaa, E., 2021. EstSoil-EH: a high-resolution eco-hydrological modelling parameters dataset for Estonia, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 83–97, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-83-2021, 2021. Kroes, J.G., J.C. van Dam, R.P. Bartholomeus, P. Groenendijk, M. Heinen, R.F.A. Hendriks, H.M. Mulder, I. Supit, P.E.V. van Walsum, 2017. SWAP version 4; Theory description and user manual. Wageningen, Wageningen Environmental Research, Report 2780. Available at: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/416321 Kutter, T., Louwagie, G., Schuler, J., Zander, P., Helming, K., Hecker, J.-M. 2011. Policy measures for agricultural soil conservation in the European Union and its member states: Policy review and classification. Land Degrad. Dev., 22 (2011), pp. 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1015 Kyriakarakos G, Petropoulos T, Marinoudi V, Berruto R, Bochtis D. 2024. Carbon Farming: Bridging Technology Development with Policy Goals. Sustainability. 16(5):1903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051903 LAMMC, 2021, Naujausios Rekomendacijos zemes ir misku ukiui 2021 (The latest Recommendations for land and forests 2021) https://www.lammc.lt/data/public/uploads/2021/05/rekomendacijos_2021.pdf LAMMC, 2022a. Dirvožemio organinės anglies (humuso) tyrimai žemės ūkio naudmenose (Studies of soil organic carbon (humus) in agricultural land). Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC). 32 p. In lithuanian) https://www.lammc.lt/lt/dirvozemio-organines-anglies-humuso-tyrimai-zemes-ukio- naudmenose/3923 Accessed 22 Sep 2023 LAMMC, 2022b, Naujausios Rekomendacijos zemes ir misku ukiui 2022 (The latest Recommendations for land and forests 2022), https://www.lammc.lt/data/public/uploads/2022/06/rekomendacijos_mak_2022.pdf Accessed 29 Sep 2023 LAMMC, 2023, Naujausios Rekomendacijos zemes ir misku ukiui 2023 (The latest Recommendations for land and forests 2023) https://www.lammc.lt/data/public/uploads/2023/06/rekomendacijos_2023.pdf Accessed 29 Sep 2023, Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 73 Lapum J.L. et al 2015. Pictorial narrative mapping as a qualitative analytic technique. Int. J. Qual. Meth. 2015:1- 15. Lemberg, B., McSweeney, W. T., Lanyon, L. E. 1992. An information management technology program for ex ante nutrient loss reduction from farms. Journal of Environmental Quality,21: 574—578 Leminen, S., Westerlund, M. 2017. Categorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review. 7. 15-25. 10.22215/timreview/1046. Leppälä, J. Stangl R., Briefer, A., Rodríguez-Valín, E., Carrasco, V., and M. Kujala (2022) D3.7, Call text of the EJP Soil 3rd Internal call, EJP Soil Programme. Loi N.K., Tangtham N. 2004. Decision Support System for sustainable watershed management in Dong Nai Watershed Vietnam: Conceptual framework a proposed research techniques. Paper presented in Forest and Water in Warm Humid Asiz, IUFRO Workshop, 10-12. Louis Bolk instituut, 2024. NDICA stkstofplanner, How to manage nitrogen on my farm? NDICEA stikstofplanner Accessed 12 Aug 2024. LUKE, 2023. Phosphorus planning tool (Fosforikierolaskuri), Nitrogen balance calculator (Typpitaselaskuri), Nutrient calculator (ravinne laskuri). https://luonnonvaratieto.luke.fi/laskurit1?panel=suodattimet Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Machet, J-M., Dubrulle, P., Damay, N. Duval, R., Julien, J-L, Recous, S. 2017. Dynamic Decision-Making Tool for Calculating the Optimal Rates of N Application for 40 Annual Crops While Minimising the Residual Level of Mineral N at Harvest Agronomy 2017, 7(4), 73; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7040073 MAF, 2023. https://gts.tarimorman.gov.tr/ Accessed 12 Oct 2023 Mattila, T. J. and Rajala, J., 2023. Viljelykiertojen vertailutyökalu (Crop rotation comparison tool). Helsingin University Ruralia Institute. Report 226. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/356364 McVicar T.R., Jupp D.L.B., Yang X. & Tian G. 1992. Linking regional water balance models with remote sensing, 13th Asian Conf. on Remote Sensing, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, B.6.1-B.6.6. Metk, 2023. Väetamiskaardi serveripohise lahenduse arendamine (Development of a server-based fertilization map) https://metk.agri.ee/mullastik/mullastiku-uuring?view_instance=1¤t_page=1#vaetamiskaardi- serve--accordion Accessed 29 September 2023. Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania, 2019. Code of Good Agricultural Practice. https://www.ikmis.lt/Bundles/signin Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Mimiro, 2023 https://en.mimiro.no/#mimiro Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Mir, S., Sofi, T., Qasim, M., Arfat, Y., Mubarak, Dr., Bhat, Z., Bhat, J., Bangroo, S. 2015. Decision support systems in a global agricultural perspective-a comprehensive review. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 7. 403-415. Mirás-Avalos, J.M., Rubio-Asensio, J.S., Ramírez-Cuesta, J.M., Maestre-Valero, J.F., Intrigliolo, D.S., 2019. Irrigationadvisor-a decision support system for irrigation of vegetable crops. Water (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112245 Misslin, R., Clivot, H., Levavasseur, F., Villerd, J., Soulié, J.-C. Houot, S., Therond, O. 2022. Integrated assessment and modeling of regional recycling of organic waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 379, Part 2, 15 December 2022, 134725 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134725 Moreno-Rivera, J.M., Calera, A., Osann, A.2009. SPIDER–An Open GIS Application Use Case. In Proceedings of the Open GIS UK Conference, Nottingham, UK, 22 June 2009. Muddy boots, 2023. Muddy boots. https://muddyboots.com/solutions Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Murphy et al., 2013. The Carbon Navigator: a decision support tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production systems. Animal, 7:s2, pp 427–436. doi:10.1017/S1751731113000906 NIBIO, 2023a. Beregning av vannbalanse (Calculating water balance). https://lmt.nibio.no/irrigation/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 74 NIBIO, 2023b National Land Resource Map https://nibio.no/en/subjects/soil/national-land-resource- map?locationfilter=true Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Nicholson, F., Bhogal, A., Chadwick, D., Gill, E., Gooday, R., Lord, E., Misselbrook, T., Rollett, A., Sagoo, E., Smith, K.A., Thorman, R., Williams, J.R., Chambers, B. 2013. An enhanced software tool to support better use of manure nutrients: MANNER-NPK. Soil Use and Management. 29. 10.1111/sum.12078. NLR, 2024. Next Level Forage Production, https://nordvest.nlr.no/fagartikler/grovfor/agder/next-level- grovforproduksjon Accessed 12 Aug 2024 NMI and ZLTO, 2024. FarmSoilWaterPlan (‘bedrijfsbodemwaterplan’). Nutrient Management Institute (NMI) and he Southern Agriculture and Horticulture Organization (ZLTO). https://bedrijfsbodemwaterplan.nl/ Accessed 25 Sep 2024 Nouiri, I., Yitayew, M., Maßmann, J., Tarhouni, J. 2015. Multi-objective Optimization Tool for Integrated Groundwater Management. Water Resources Management, 29(14), 5353– 5375.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1122-8 NPPC, 2019. Podny Portal (Soil portal). http://www.podnemapy.sk/default.aspx Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Nutrient Management Institute, 2024. Fertilizer app under construction. https://fans- tool.ew.r.appspot.com/tool.html Accessed 12 Aug 2024 NutriCheck, https://nutri-checknet.eu/ Accessed 12 October 2024. Olesen, J. E., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K. C., Skjelvåg, A. O., Seguin, B., Peltonen-Sainio, P. 2011. Impacts and adaptation of European crop production systems to climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 34, 96–112. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2010.11.003 Onesoil, 2023. https://onesoil.ai/en Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Ooms, D., Barati, B., Winters, A., & Bruns, M. (2021). Life Centered Design: Unpacking a Post-humanistic Biodesign Process. In Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research (pp. 1677-1690). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Ooms, D., Barati, B., Bruns, M., & van Dongen, T. (2022). From concern to care: a transformative reflection on designing-with the living. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference (pp. 1-15). Organic Carbon Content over Cultivated Areas: An Overview. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 14, Issue 12). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14122917 Paleari, S. 2017. Is the European Union protecting soil? A critical analysis of Community environmental policy and law. Land Use Policy, 64 (2017), pp. 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.007 Paul, C., Helming, K. 2019. Handbook of Soil-Related Impact Assessment. BonaRes Centre for Soil Research. DOI: 10.20387/BonaRes-6DJM-E22M Paul-Tech, 2023. P-T Soil Station Service. Paul-Tech. https://paul-tech.com/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Payero, J. O., Irmak, S. 2013. Daily energy fluxes, evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of soybean. Agric. Water Manage. 2013, 129, 31–43. Piorr, H.-P. 2013. Experiences with the Evaluation of Agricultural Practices for EU AgriEnvironmental Indicators; OECD Report; OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, France,p. 17. Pix4d, 2023. www.pix4d.com Accessed 29 Sep 2023. Power, D.J. 2002. Decision Support Systems: Concepts and Resources for Managers. Quorum Books Westport. ISBN: 156720497X. Proagria, 2023. Pro Agria-WISU. https://www.minunmaatilani.fi/blogi/hiililaskennalla-uutta-nakymaa- viljelysuunnitteluun/ and https://www.proagria.fi/ajankohtaista/ensimmaisena-suomessa- viljelysuunnitteluohjelma-wisu-laskee-viljelyn-hiilivaikutukset-lohkokohtaisesti Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Proplanta, 2023. Proplanta, Plant Nutrition at top level. https://proplanta.hu/index_ENG.html Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 75 Quemada, M., Cabreva, M. L. 1995. CERES-N model predictions of nitrogen mineralizedfrom cover crop residues. Soil Science Society of America, 54: 1059—1065. Rallo, G., González-Altozano, P., Manzano-Juarez, J., Provenzano, G. 2017. Using field measurements and FAO- 56 model to assess the eco-physiological response of citrus orchards under regulated déficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 180, 136–147. Ramírez-Cuesta, J.M., Mirás-Avalos, J.M., Rubio-Asensio, J.S., Intrigliolo, D.S. 2019. A novel ArcGIS toolbox for estimating crop wate demands by integrating the dual crop coefficient approach with multi-satellite imagery. Water, 11, 38. Rana, G., Katerji, N., de Lorenz, F. 205. Measurement and modelling of evapotranspiration of irrigated citrus orchard under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. For. Meteorol. 128, 199–209. Republic of Tukey, ministry of Agriculture and forestry, 2023. The "Boron Map of the Territory of Türkiye"https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/toprakgubre/Haber/155/Enstitumuz-Tarafindan-Ilk-Olarak- Uretilmis-Olan-Turkiye-Topraklari-Bor-Haritasi-Guncellenmistir Requasud, 2024. Requaferti. https://www.requaferti.requasud.be/ Accessed 12 Aug 2024 Río, M., Franco-Uría, A., Abad, E., Roca, E. 2011. A risk-based decision tool for the management of organic waste in agriculture and farming activities (FARMERS). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 185(2–3), 792–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.090 RMT Bouclage, 2003a. Syst’N and AZOFert: prescription of nitrogen fertilization of crops, at plot and annual scales. http://www.rmt-fertilisationetenvironnement.org/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Parker, C., Lobley, M., Winter, M., Morris, C., et al. 2016. Decision support tools for agriculture: towards effective design and delivery. Agric. Syst. 149, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.009 Rosenqvists, 2023. Styrning och övervakning av pumpstationer (Control and monitoring of pumping stations). https://irrigation.rosenqvists.com/produkter-rosenqvists/overvakning-styrning/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Rothamsted research, 2023. Rothamsted carbon model (RothC). https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/rothamsted- carbon-model-rothc Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Rutgers, M., Van Leeuwen, J. P., Creamer, R. E., Cluzeau, D., Debeljak, M., Gatti, F. 2019. Modelling of soil functions for assessing soil quality: soil biodiversity and habitat provisioning. Front. Environ. Sci. 7:00113. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00113 Saarloos, A. et al., 2024. Mock-up designs for soil organic matter, nutrient use efficiency and soil moisture retention. PRAC2LIV-report D5.2, WUR, Wageningen. Salman, M., García-Vila, M., Fereres, E., Raes, D. and Steduto, P. 2021. The AquaCrop model – Enhancing crop water productivity. Ten years of development, dissemination and implementation 2009–2019. FAO Water Report No. 47. Rome, FAO. Sánchez, C., Juan, M., Rodríguez, M., Juan, P., Ramos, S., Olga, L. 2020. Decision Support Systems (DST) Applied to the Formulation of Agricultural Public Policies. Tecnura, 24(66), 95-108. Epub December 20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487638.15768 Sandén, T., Spiegel, H., Stüger, H. P., Schlatter, N., Haslmayr, H. P., Zavattaro, L. 2018. European long-term field experiments: knowledge gained about alternative management practices. Soil Use Manag. 34, 167–176. doi: 10.1111/sum.12421 Sandén, T., Trajanov, A., Spiegel, H., Kuzmanovski, V., Saby, N. P. A., Picaud, C. 2019. Development of an agricultural primary productivity decision support model: a case study in France. Front. Environ. Sci. 7:58. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00058 Schröder, P., Beckers, B., Daniels, S., Gnädinger, F., Maestri, E., Marmiroli, N., Mench, M., Millan, R., Obermeier, M. M., Oustriere, N., Persson, T., Poschenrieder, C., Rineau, F., Rutkowska, B., Schmid, T., Szulc, W., Witters, N., Sæbø, A. 2018. Intensify production, transform biomass to energy and novel goods and protect soils in Europe—A vision how to mobilize marginal lands. Science of The Total Environment, 616–617, 1101– 1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.10.209 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 76 Schröder, P., Beckers, B., Daniels, S., Gnädinger, F., Maestri, E., Marmiroli, N., Mench, M., Millan, R., Obermeier, M. M., Oustriere, N., Persson, T., Poschenrieder, C., Rineau, F., Rutkowska, B., Schmid, T., Szulc, W., Witters, N., Sæbø, A. 2018. Intensify production, transform biomass to energy and novel goods and protect soils in Europe—A vision how to mobilize marginal lands. Science of The Total Environment, 616–617, 1101– 1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.10.209 Schulte, R. P. O., Creamer, R. E., Donnellan, T., Farrelly, N., Fealy, R., O’Donoghue, C. 2014. Functional land management: a framework for managing soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 45-58. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.002 Schuurman, D., Tõnurist, P. 2017. Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review. 7. 7-14. 10.22215/timreview/1045. https://enoll.org/projects/ SEGES Innovation, 2023. SEGES Innovation. https://segesinnovation.dk/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 SenseFarm, 2023. Soil moisture sensor. https://www.sensefarm.com/products/soil-moisture-sensor/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Sfo, 2023. https://sfo.se/kontakt/kvavevagen; Höstrapssnurra Accessed 29 Sep 2023 SHMU, 2023. Hydrologické spravodajstvo (Hydrological services). Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute. https://www.shmu.sk/sk/?page=1&id=ran_sprav Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Shim, J.P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J.F., Power, D.J., Sharda, R., Carlsson, C., 2002. Past, present and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems 33, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01679236(01)00139-7 Simionesei, L., Ramos, T. B., Palma, J., Oliveira, A. R., Neves. R., 2020. IrrigaSys: A web-based irrigation decision support system based on open source data and technology. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Vol 178, 105822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105822 Skifteplan, 2023. https://www.skifteplan.no/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Softimbra, 2023. Fertile. https://softimbra.com/Software/Fertil/102 Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Softsalo Ltd, 2023. Softsalo, Peltotuki Pro http://www.softsalo.fi/?page_id=51. Accessed 29 September 2023. Soil Scout, 2023. Soil Moisture Sensor. https://soilscout.com Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Soil Survey of Belgium, 2023. C-slim. https://www.bdb.be/nl/hulpmiddelen/cslim Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Sojda, R.S., Dean, D. J., Howe, A.E. 1994. A decision support system for wetland management on national wildlife refuges. AI Applications. 8(2):44-50. Soulis, K.X., Elmaloglou, S. 2018. Optimum soil water content sensors placement for surface drip irrigation scheduling in layered soils. Comput. Electron. Agric. 152, 1–8. Statistics Finland, 2023. Greenhouse gas inventory. https://www.stat.fi/tup/khkinv/index_en.html Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Raes, D., Fereres, E. 2009. AquaCrop: The FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water. I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agron. J. 101, 426–437. Stolte, J. M., Tesfai, L., Øygarden, S., Kværnø, J., Keizer, F., Verheijen, P. 2016. Soil threats in Europe. EU Joint Research Centre. Sullivan, T. 2002. Evaluating Environmental Decision Support Tools; Environmental Sciences Department, Environmental Research & Technology Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, p.54. Available online: https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/30163.pdf Suonentieto, 2023. Viljelytieto hallintaan– AgriNeuvos (Crop data management – AgriNeuvos). https://www.suonentieto.fi/tuotteet/agrineuvos/ Accessed 29 September 2023. SWARM, 2023. Farm Crap App Pro. https://www.swarmhub.co.uk/the-farm-crap-app-pro/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 77 Swedish Agricultural Agency and SLU, 2024. Hur mår min jord? (How is my soil doing?). Swedish Agricultural Agency and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). https://www.slu.se/en/departments/soil- environment/research/research-projects/hur-mar-min-jord/ Accessed 25 Sep 2024 TAGEM 2023a, TAGEM suET. https://tagemsuet.tarimorman.gov.tr Accessed 22 Sep 2023 TAGEM, 2023b. Fertilizer and Water Resources Soil Information System. https://tgskcbs.tarim.gov.tr/#/login Accessed 22 Sep 2023 TAGEM-SFWRCRI, 2023. Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute National Soil Information System. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/toprakgubre/Haber/155/Enstitumuz-Tarafindan-Ilk- Olarak-Uretilmis-Olan-Turkiye-Topraklari-Bor-Haritasi-Guncellenmistir Accessed 12 Oct 2023. Teagasc. 2016. NMP Online User Manual. Available online at: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/environment/soil/NMP_User_Manual_2016__D5. Pdf Teagasc, 2023. Teagasc, Agriculture and Food Development Authority. https://www.teagasc.ie/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Berge, H. F. M., Schröder, J. J., Oleson, J. E., Giraldez-Cervera, J. V. 2017. Preserving Agricultural Soils in the EU. Report for European Parliament Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, DirectorateGeneral for Internal Policies. Bruxelles: Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies. Swedish Agricultural Agency and SLU, 2021. Hur mår min jord? (How is my soil doing?). https://www.slu.se/ew-nyheter/2021/2/hur-mar-min-jord--ny-app-for-markvard/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Titris, 2023. The Applied Innovation Research and Results Information System https://titris.lzukt.lt/lt/paraiskos/visos Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Tribouillois H., Constantin J., Casal L., Villerd J., Therond, O., 2022a. Introducing and expanding cover crops at the watershed scale: Impact on water flows. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol 337, 1, 108050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108050 Tribouillois H., Constantin J., Murgue, C., Villerd J., Therond, O., 2022b. Integrated modeling of crop and water management at the watershed scale: Optimizing irrigation and modifying crop succession. European Journal of Agronomy, vol 140, 126592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2022.126592 Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., Straus, S.E. 2015. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med.13:224. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6. Turban E. 1995. Decision support and expert systems: management support systems, Prentice Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ. Turral, H.; Burke, J.; Faurès, J.M. 2011. Climate Change, Water and Food Security; Water Reports Nº 36; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, p. 200. Uksup, 2023 https://www.uksup.sk/ophoze-kalkulacky, https://www.uksup.sk/kalkulacky/hnojenie/index.php, and https://www.uksup.sk/kalkulacky/skladovekapacity/index.php Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Van Delden, H., Kirkby, M. J., Hahn, B. M. 2009. Towards a modelling framework for integrated assessment in arid and semi-arid regions. 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and Computational Sciences, Proceedings, (July), 3563–3569. Vanneste et al., 2022. (unpublished). CARAT-tool. Vaudour, E., Gholizadeh, A., Castaldi, F., Saberioon, M., Borůvka, L., Urbina-Salazar, D., Fouad, Y., Arrouays, D., Richer-de-Forges, A. C., Biney, J., Wetterlind, J., Van Wesemael, B. 2022. Satellite Imagery to Map Topsoil Ventura, F., Faber, B.A., Bali, K.M., Snyder, R.L., Spano, D., Duce, P., Schulbach, K.F. 2001. Model for estimating evaporation and transpiration from row crops. J. Irrig. Drain. Engin. 127, 339–345. Verrelst, J.; Romjin, E.; Kooistra, L. 2012. Mapping vegetation density in heterogeneous river foodplain ecosystem using pointable CHRIS/PROBA data. Remote Sens. 4, 2866–2889. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 78 Virto, I., Imaz, M., Fernández-Ugalde, O., Gartzia-Bengoetxea, N., Enrique, A., Bescansa, P., Karlen, D. 2015. Soil Degradation and Soil Quality in Western Europe: Current Situation and Future Perspectives. Sustainability (Switzerland). Doi:313-365. 10.3390/su7010313. VirtuaCrop, 2023. VirtuaCrop. https://www.virtuacrop.com/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Viskari, T., Pusa, J., Fer, I., Repo, A., Vira, J., and Liski, J. 2022 Calibrating the soil organic carbon model Yasso20 with multiple datasets, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1735–1752. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1735-2022 VLM, 2023. Demeter tool. Flemish Land Agency https://eloket.vlm.be/Demeter/Account/LogOn?ReturnUrl=%2fDemeter%2fRotaties%2fIndex Accessed 22 Sep 2023 VMM, 2024. NEMO. https://www.vmm.be/water/kwaliteit-waterlopen/waterkwaliteitsmodellen/nemo_tw.pdf Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Volchko, Y., Norman, J., Rosén, L., Bergknut, M., Josefsson, S., Söderqvist, T., Norberg, T., Wiberg, K., Tysklind, M. 2014. Using soil function evaluation in multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives. Sci. Total Environ. 485–486, 785–791 Wall, D., O’Sullivan, L., Debeljak, M., Trajanov, A., Schröder, J. E., Bugge Henriksen, C. 2018. Key Indicators and Management Strategies for Water Purification and Regulation. Watkins, D. W., McKinney, D. C. 1995. Recent developments associated with DSS in waterresources. Rev. Geo. Phys. 33. American Geophysics Union. Wieselburg, 2023. Terrazo. https://terrazo.josephinum.at/de/ Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Wisecrop, 2023. https://www.wisecrop.com/pt/apps Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Withers, P.J.A., M.J. Bowes. 2018. Phosphorus the pollutant. In: C. Schaum, editor, Phosphorus: Polluter and resource of the future: Removal and recovery from wastewater. IWA Publishing, London. doi:10.2166/9781780408361_003 Yara, 2023. https://www.yara.se/vaxtnaring/verktygsladan/yara-n-sensor/ and https://webb.pkbalans.se Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Yongzheng, C. 2002. The Development of the DST Based on GIS for Regional Agricultural Management. AFITA Conference, Japan. Yordanova, A., Ilcheva, I. 2019. The role of the complex water systems and reservoir management in terms of climate change and floods. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM, 19: 583-590. Doi: 10.5593/sgem2019/3.1/S12.075 Yost, J., Dobbins, M., Traynor, R.2014. Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making. BMC Public Health 14, 728. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-728 Young, M. D., Ros, G. H., de Vries, W. 2021. A decision support framework assessing management impacts on crop yield, soil carbon changes and nitrogen losses to the environment. European Journal of Soil Science, 72(4), 1590–1606. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13024 ÖDüPlan Plus, 2023. https://www.bwsb.at/aufzeichnungsprogramme+2400++1783344+5491 Accessed 29 Sep 2023 Östorps Bevattning 2023. SmartNet. https://www.ostorpsbevattning.se/smartnet/ Accessed 22 Sep 2023 Zaman, A. M., Rahman, S. M. M., Khan, M. R. 2009. Development of a DST for Integrated Water Resources Management in Bangladesh. 18th World IMACS Congress and MODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Interfacing Modelling and Simulation with Mathematical and Computational Sciences, Proceedings, (July), 2756–2762 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 79 Annex 1. Stocktake and evaluation Table A1.1 Questions in the questionnaire for national coordinator of EJP SOIL. Topic Question Respondents and a definition of DST 1. Name 2. Country and institution 3. Would you agree with this definition for DSTs: “DSTs are digital tools that farmers, advisors and/or policymakers can use to monitor and/or make decisions addressing soil organic matter, water retention or nutrient efficiency. Tools can be software, apps, web portals or on other digital supports. The tool would typically require some data about the soil, crop, field history and weather and then use an evidence-based algorithm to calculate an output. The output could be an analysis of the effect of current or improved soil, water, and nutrient management practices at different scales (e.g., field, farm, regional, national)”? Use and Users of DSTs 4. What type of decisions can be facilitated by using DST: A. Farm B. Advisory C. Regional D. Policy E. Other level 5. What is/are the most used DSTs in your country on soil water availability and retention? 6. What is/are the most used DSTs in your country on soil organic carbon? 7. What is/are most used DST in your country on soil nutrient use efficiency? 8. Who are the major users of the main DSTs in your country (same DSTs as indicated in question 5, 6 and 7): A. Farmers B. Researchers C. Agronomist/consultants D. Private companies/non-governmental organizations E. Monitoring policy makers? Assessment of DSTs 9. How would YOU rate from 1 to 5 the DST you indicated in questions 5, 6 and 7 in terms of: A. Adoption by end-user B. Is the use of the tool optional C. Data input D. User friendly interface E. Perceived reliability of the DST F. Cost of the DST G. The tool has been developed with participatory research/co-innovation H. Suitable to reach national goals I. Suitable to reach regional goals J. Suitable to reach farmers goals Improvement of DSTs 10. How could the specific DSTs you indicated in question 5,6 and 7 as main DSTs be improved? 11. Which type of tools are now not available but are needed and/or planned to be developed for: A. Soil organic matter B. Nutrient use efficiency C. Water retention Factors related to the use of DSTs 12. What are the factors determining the use of DSTs in your country: A. farmer education is a critical factor in determining the use of DSTs by farmers B. members of farmers ‘associations and cooperatives tend to use DSTs more than individual farmers C. Crop farmers tend to use DSTs more than livestock farmers D. DSTs are used by living labs E. digital illiteracy is among the main factors hampering the use of DSTs F. E. organic and biodynamic farmers tend to use DSTs more than conventional farmers Additional aspects on the use and improvement of DSTs 13. In your opinion, what additional aspects – that we did not mention -should be considered concerning the use and the improvement of DST related to: A. Soil water retention B. Soil organic carbon C. Nutrient use efficiency? Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 80 Table A1.2. Questions in the questionnaire for stakeholders. Topic Questions Responder details 1.1. What is your age: A. 18-25 B. 26-35 C. 36-45 D. 46-55 E. 56-65 F. >65 A. 1.2. What gender do you identify as A. Male B. Female C. Other 1.3. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed A. Junior high school B. Senior high school C. University degree D. PhD or higher 1.4. Are you a A. Farmer B. Researcher C. Consultant/Agronomist D. Employee of a private company working in agriculture or food production E. Employee of a farmer’s cooperative F. Other 1.5. If you are a farmer how many hectares do you manage A. <10 B. 5-10 C. 10-20 D. 20-50 E. 50-100 F. 100-150 G. >200 1.6. If you are a farmer, how much time are you busy with farming A. Full-time B. Part-time C. Only weekends 1.7. If you are a farmer, do you own or rent your land A. I own all or the most of the land that I farm B. I rent all or most of the land that I farm 1.8. What type of crops do you usually grow A. Cereals B. Maize C. Legumes D. Vegetables E. Fruits F. Olives for olive oil G. Oilseed crops H. Grapes for wine I. Forage ley J. Pasture K. Root crops (e.g. potatoes, sugar beet) L. Other 1.9. Do you raise livestock? A. Yes B. No 1.10. Do you consider yourself a A. Livestock farmer B. Crop farmer 1.11. How do you manage your farm? A. Conventional agriculture B. Agro ecological approach – not certified C. Organic certified D. Biodynamic E. Other (please specify) Farming challenges 2. What do you think are the most important soil related challenges of the local agriculture? A. Soil erosion Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 81 B. Low soil organic matter or soil organic matter depletion C. Low nutrient use efficiency (fertilizers are applied but crops have low response) D. Soil water management E. Soil compaction F. Others (please specify) Farming and DSTs 3. Are you familiar with decision support tools (DST) or systems? A. Yes, I use them regularly B. Yes, I have used them in the past C. Yes, I know what they are but I have never used one D. No, never heard before 4. Do you agree with the following statements? A. I do not trust DSTs results B. I do not think DSTs are useful C. DSTs are usually too complex D. I do not have devices to use DSTs E. DSTs require too many data that I cannot provide F. Working with DSTs is time consuming and not so helpful 5. If you are familiar with DSTs, how would you define what a DST is? 6. Are there other features of a DST that we did not mention, and you believe are important? 7. If you use DSTs, how would you rank from 1 to 5 the most important features of a DST (where 1 is the most important, 2 the second most important etc.)? A. Do not require too many data from my hand B. User-friendly interface C. Clear visualization of results D. Trust/confidence in the results (based on scientific publications or on-farm calibration) E. Easy to access both in terms of costs and hardware requirement F. The design of the DST has been carried out in collaboration with end-users G. DST provide outcomes which are easy applicable and in real time (when I need info to manage the crop and not too late) 8. How do you make decisions concerning nutrient management? Please, list here what tools, data sources, platforms, sensors, remote sensing, etc. are used concerning nutrient management and nutrient use efficiency. (For example, soil nutrient status, fertilizer recommendation, predicting nutrient release from mineralization, predicting crop residues from harvesting, estimating crop production, exploring the effect of cover crop on soil nutrient status etc.) 9. How do you make decisions concerning water management? Please list here what tools, data sources, platforms, etc. are used concerning water management. (For example: How you get information about rootzone soil moisture, water depletion, maximum allowable depletion, field capacity, irrigation needs, infiltration capacity etc.) 10. How do you make decisions concerning management that affect soil organic matter? Please, list here what tools, data sources, platforms, sensors, remote sensing, etc. are used concerning soil organic matter management. (For example, initial soil organic matter level, exploring practices to improve soil organic matter, recommendation of organic fertilizers and soil amendments, exploring practices related to crop residue management, exploring the effect of cover cropping on soil organic matter, exploring the effect of different crop rotations on soil organic matter etc.) Use 11. Please provide some information about up to three tools that you use for: A. Nutrient management B. Water management C. Organic matter management Assessment 12. Please rate the DST you just mentioned in terms of A. Data input B. User friendly interface C. Reliability of the results D. Cost of the DST E. The tool has been developed in collaboration with end-users (e.g. farmers) F. Helpful to reach my goals Other aspects 13. Are there other aspects concerning DST that you want to share? Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 82 Table A1.3. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Question 2: Country and institution? Country Institution Austria The University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU) Belgium (Flanders and Walloon) Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), The Walloon Agricultural Research Center (CRA-W) Denmark Aarhus University (AU) Estonia Estonian University of Life Sciences (EMU) Finland Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE) France National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) Hungary Institute for Soil Sciences (ATK TAKI) Ireland Agriculture and Food Development Authority (TEAGASC) Italy Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA) Lithuania Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC) Netherlands Wageningen University and Research (WUR) Norway Biodrone, Agdir Drift, Eurofins, Yara, Jordplan, The Norwegian Agricultural Extension Office (NLR) Portugal The National Institute of Agricultural and Veterinary Research, IP (INIAV) Slovakia The National Agricultural and Food Centre (NPPC) Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Switzerland Agroscope (AGS) Türkiye General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (TAGEM) United Kingdom Agri Food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI) Table A1.4. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Question 4: What type of decisions can be facilitated by using DST? No. Country Farm level Advisory level Regional level Policy level Others 1 Austria X 2 Belgium, Flanders X X X X Field level 3 Belgium, Walloon X X X X 4 Denmark X X 5 Estonia - - - - - 6 Finland X X X 7 France X X X X 8 Hungary X X X X 9 Ireland X X X X 10 Italy - - - - - 11 Lithuania X x 12 Norway X X X X 13 Portugal X X X 14 Slovakia X X X X 15 Sweden X X 16 Switzerland X X 17 Türkiye X X X X National 18 United Kingdom X X X Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 83 Table A1.5. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Further details given to Question 4: What type of decisions can be facilitated by using DST? Farm level Advisory level Regional level Policy level DST are primarily useful for farmers to help them better manage their soils, with the aim of improving yields and the economic profitability of the farm. Secondly, DST help advisers. They enable them to validate, objectify and make more reliable and trustable their advice to farmers in technical, economic and environmental terms. DST can help to gather and synthesise information at regional level so that agricultural policies can be developed in line with society's expectations. Based on the results of the DST, policy makers can develop agricultural policies in line with society's expectations Nutrient use/balance, soil compaction risks, field mapping Nutrient use/balance, soil compaction risks, field mapping Nutrient inputs, Water Recharge, Soil Organic Matter Regulation and environmental support Nutrient inputs, Soil Organic Matter Nutrient inputs, Water Recharge, Soil Organic Matter Economic, Soil Organic Matter, Water Management Nutrient inputs, Water Recharge, Soil Organic Matter Nutrient inputs, Soil Organic Matter, Water Management, Farm management Nutrient management, Soil Organic Matter, Water Management Nutrient inputs, Water Recharge, Soil Organic Matter Economic, Soil Organic Matter, Water Management Nutrient inputs, Soil Organic Matter Nutrient inputs, Water Recharge, Soil Organic Matter water conveyance efficiency, water application efficiency Nutrient inputs, Water Recharge, Soil Organic Matter Irrigation scheduling. Estimation of soil properties (organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and pH H2O) Irrigation scheduling Harmonized Reg. & Int. System Soil Portal Calculator for nutrients, Fertilization schedule Soil Portal Harmonized Reg. & Int. System Compliance with nitrate vulnerable zones Nutrient inputs, fertiliser limits Nutrient inputs, Nutrient use efficiency Nutrient management, SOM preservation and build-up, reduction of soil erosion Nutrient management, SOM preservation and build-up, reduction of soil erosion Table A1.6 Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Who are the major users of the main DSTs in your county (same DSTs as indicated in question 5, 6 and 7)? Country DST Farmers Researchers Agronomist/ Consultants/ Advisors Private companies/ NGO's Monitoring policy makers Austria terrazo X X X Austrian Carbon calculator X ÖDüPlan Plus X X X X eo4water X X X X Belgium (Flanders) Demetertool X X X C-slim X X CARAT X X X X WatchitGrow X X X Waterradar X X X X SWAP-WOFOST X X NEMO X Belgium (Walloon) REQUAFERTI X FaST X X BELCAM X X X DECIDE X X X Cool Farm Tool X X Geofolia X X CAP'2ER X X X Denmark Vandingsregnskab Online X X ESGreenTool Climate X X Crop Manager X MarkOnlie X Estonia Humus balance calculator X X X X X Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 84 NPK balance calculator X X X X X Finland Soil scout sensors X X X Nutrient balance calculations X X X X Phosphorus planning tool X X X Nitrogen balance calculator X X X ProAgria WISU X X PeltotukiPro X X Agrineuvos X X Nutrient balance calculator X X X X Eurofins Soil NIR X X Biomassa-atlas X X X X Field observatory org X X Viljelykiertolaskuri X X France AMG / Simeos-AMG X X X X ABC Terre X X Syst'N X X X Azofert X X MAELIA X X X X Hungary PROPLANTA X X X X Ireland Carbon Navigator X X X X X NMP On-line X X X X X Pasturebase Irl & Grass10 X X X AgNAV X X X X Italy vite.net X granoduro.net X Elaisian X Lithuania Digital N-fertilization with sensors X X Nitrogen fertilization mapping. X X Norway Agdir Farm X X X X Pix4dFields X X Biodrone X X Jordplan X X X CropPlan X Agrilogg X Klimakalkulatoren X X X X Calculating water balance X X X X Portugal IrrigaSys X X X VirtuaCrop X X X Irristrat X X X OneSoil X X MOGRA X X X Calendario de Rega X X X Avisos Rega Projeto PARE X X X Fertil X X X WiseCrop X X X Calculator for nutrients X X X Harmonized Reg. & Inf. System X X X Partial Soil Monitoring X X X Fertilization schedule X X Animal Storage Capacity X X Sweden Raindancer X Soil Moisture Sensor X PT Soil Station service X Hur mår min jord? (How is my soil doing?) X X X CropSat X X X X Yara N-sensor X Winter oilseed rape nitrogen estimator X X Gödselkalkylen X X Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 85 Vera X Växtnäringsbalans på nätet (nutrient balance, web based) X Yara Växtnäringsberäkning (Yara palnt nutrient calculator) X X Enkel fosforbalans X Switzerland Humusbilanzrechner X X X Türkiye TAGEM suET X X X X X TAGEM Soil Fertilizer Information System (under construction) X X X X X UK PLANET X X MANNER X X Gatekeeper - Farmplan X Farm Crap App Pro X X Table A1.7. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL: The rating of individual DSTs. D ST A d o p tio n b y en d - u se r Is th e u se o f th e to o l o p tio n al? D ata in p u t U ser frien d ly in terface P erceive d reliab ility o f th e D ST C o st o f th e D ST Th e to o l h as b een d eve lo p ed w ith p articip ato ry rese arch /co - in n o va tio n Su itab le to reach n atio n al go als Su itab le to reach regio n al go als Su itab le to reach farm ers go als 1= little o r n o u se 5= w id ely ad o p ted 1= Yes 2= N o 1= few d ata n ee d ed 5=m an y d ata n ee d ed 1= to o co m p lex fo r u sers 5= very u ser frien d ly 1= lo w reliab ility; 5= very h igh reliab ility 1= Free o f ch arge 5=V ery exp en sive 1= n o u sers in vo lvem en t in th e d esign ; 5=u ser-ce n tred d esign 1= n o t su itab le 5= very su itab le 1= n o t su itab le 5= very su itab le 1= n o t su itab le 5= very su itab le Terazo 2 1 3 2 3 1 5 5 5 5 ÖDüPlan Plus 3 1 3 2 4 4 4 5 Austrian Carbon calculator 1 1 Demetertool 1 1 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 C-slim 1 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 CARAT 1 1 3 3 3 1 4 1 1 4 WatchitGrow 3 1 2 3 3 1 4 2 2 4 Watarradar 3 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 2 3 SwAP-WOFOST 2 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 NEMO 4 1 4 4 1 5 5 5 1 REQUAFERTI 5 1 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 FaST 1 3 5 1 4 5 5 5 BELCAM 3 1 1 4 4 1 4 5 Geofolia 1 1 3 4 5 DECIDE 4 1 4 3 3 1 5 3 5 Cool Farm Tool 4 1 4 3 5 CAP'2ER 4 1 4 3 3 5 5 Vandingsregnskab Online 3 1 2 4 5 2 5 5 5 ESGreenTool Climate 2 1 2 4 5 3 3 3 4 Crop Manager 3 1 2 3 5 2 5 5 5 MarkOnline 5 1 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 Humus balance calculator 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 NPK balance calculator 1 1 3 3 4 1 2 2 2 4 Fertilizer requirement map 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 Soil scout sensors 2 1 1 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 Nutrient balance calculations 2 1 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 Phosphorus planning tool 3 1 2 4 4 1 4 5 5 5 Nitrogen balance calculator 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 4 4 4 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 86 ProAgria WISU 4 1 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 PeltotukiPro 4 1 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 Agrineuvos 4 1 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 Nutrient balance calculator 3 1 1 3 4 1 4 5 5 2 Biomassa-atlas 3 1 1 3 4 1 4 4 4 2 Soil scout 1 1 4 4 5 3 1 1 3 Field observatory 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 2 3 Viljelykiertolaskuri 1 4 4 3 1 4 2 2 5 AMG (Simeos-AMG) 4 1 2 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 SYST'N 3 1 3 4 3 1 4 3 3 4 ABC Terre 1 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 Azofert 4 1 2 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 MAELIA 4 1 4 2 4 1 3 4 4 4 PROPLANTA 3 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 1 5 Carbon Navigator 4 1 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 NMP On-line 5 1 3 3 5 2 3 5 5 4 Pasturebase Irl & Grass10 3 1 2 5 4 1 4 3 3 5 AgNAV 2 1 2 3 4 2 2 5 5 4 Digital N-fertilization with sensors 3 3 4 4 Apply nitrogen fertilizer in various proportions 3 3 4 4 Nitrogen fertilization mapping 3 3 4 4 Klimakalkulator 2 1 5 3 4 3 4 5 2 3 Beregning av vannbalansen 3 1 2 5 4 1 2 2 2 5 Jordplan 3 1 3 4 5 2 5 3 3 3 CropPlan 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 Agrilogg* 3 1 1 3 4 3 5 1 1 2 Eurofins Soil Carbon Check 2 1 2 4 5 2 3 5 5 5 Agdir Farm 2 1 3 4 3 2 3 5 5 5 Biodrone 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 Pix4dFields 2 1 3 5 4 2 4 5 3 3 IrrigaSys 3 1 1 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 VirtuaCrop 5 1 3 5 3 2 5 1 2 5 Irristrat 5 1 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 Avisos Rega Projeto PARE 1 1 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 3 MOGRA 1 1 3 3 4 2 3 2 4 4 Calendario de Rega 4 1 2 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 Avisos Rega Projeto PARE 5 1 2 5 4 1 3 3 5 5 Calculator for nutrients 5 1 1 3 4 1 1 5 5 5 Partial Soil Monitoring 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 3 Fertilization schedule 5 1 1 5 3 1 2 5 5 5 Animal Storage Capacity 5 5 5 5 3 1 2 5 5 5 Raindancer 1 5 Soil Moisture Sensor 1 5 PT Soil Station service 1 5 Hur mår min jord? (How is my soil doing?) 3 1 2 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 CropSat 4 1 1 4 3 1 3 4 4 4 Atfarm 3 1 2 5 4 2 2 3 3 4 Yara N-sensor 3 1 2 3 4 5 2 4 4 5 Svensk raps Winter oilseed rape nitrogen estimator 4 1 1 5 4 1 3 5 5 5 GREPPA Winter oilseed rape nitrogen estimator 2 1 1 4 4 1 2 3 3 4 Gödselkalkylen 4 1 1 4 4 1 4 5 5 5 Vera (Nutrient balance) 5 1 4 4 3 1 3 5 5 4 GREPPA Växtnäringsbalans på nätet (nutrient balance, web based) 5 1 4 4 4 1 2 5 5 4 Yara Växtnäringsberäkning (Yara plant nutrient calculator) 4 1 3 5 4 1 2 3 3 5 Yara Checkit 4 1 1 4 5 1 2 3 3 5 Enkel fosforbalans (simple P balance, organic farms) 3 1 4 4 4 1 3 5 5 5 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 87 Humusbilanzrechner 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 TAGEM suET 5 1 2 4 5 1 5 5 5 5 TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute national Soil InformationSystem (under construction) 2 1 2 3 5 1 1 5 5 5 PLANET 5 1 4 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 MANNER 5 1 4 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 Gatekeeper - Farmplan 3 1 5 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 Farm Crap App Pro 3 2 4 5 4 1 5 1 5 4 Table A1.8. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Question 9: How would YOU rate from 1 to 5 the DST you indicated in questions 5, 6 and 7 in terms of…? Correlation matrix (Pearson) for the responses to sub- question A-J (Table 6). Statistically significant correlations (p<0.01, n=64) marked with orange asterisk (*). A B C D E F G H I J A 0.18 -0.02 0.41* 0.20 -0.12 0.13 0.43* 0.52* 0.40* B 0.27 0.2 -0.13 -0.11 -0.07 0.07 0.16 0.12 C -0.23 -0.12 0.17 0.01 -0.03 -0.10 -0.03 D 0.28 -0.18 0.31 0.25 0.40* 0.50* E 0.12 0.25 0.29 0.35* 0.42* F 0.15 -0.04 -0.14 -0.05 G 0.11 0.19 0.09 H 0.82* 0.38* I 0.52* Table A1.9. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Question 10: How could the specific DSTs you indicated in question 5,6 and 7 as main DSTs be improved? Soil organic carbon Country DST Need improvement Austria Austrian Carbon calculator Needs updating based on new scientific information and needs a web or app design Belgium Flanders CARAT Include other types of agroforestry (eg hedges), reduce the need for data-input (eg by automating, linking with other data sources, …), improve SOC simulation (at present potentially underestimation). There are also plans in the nearby future to make predictions for crop yield and in the longer future to make a module for nutrient and water availability. Belgium Walloon DECIDE Have modules for advising on P and K fertilisation. Have a module for calculating changes in organic carbon stocks in grassland. Cool Farm Tool Improvement of the module for calculating changes in organic carbon stocks in grassland CAP'2ER Improvement of the module for calculating changes in organic carbon stocks in crops and grassland Denmark ESGreenTool Climate Exact farm data inputs instead of general norms/improved C model Estonia Humus balance calculator Replace with some modified simulation model like Roth-C etc Finland Soil analysis traditional basic analysis, lots of improvements done already, e.g. automatic input to agricultural softwares NIR analysis interpretation of results Viljelykiertolaskuri More examples of use, visualization Greenhouse gas inventory Scaling to subnational level France AMG/Simeos-AMG adaptation to perennial crops (grape vine and miscanthus already done) and low input cropping systems ABC Terre adaptation to perennial crops and low input cropping systems Ireland Carbon Navigator incorporation of new measures/practices into the DST that will mitigate GHG's or sequester Carbon Ag NAV New farm scale information capture to underpin C farming and GHG benchmarking Norway Jordplan, Skifteplan It’s an open loop. Farmers do planning based on a theoretical framework that has huge gaps (e.g.. no adjustment for soil acidity), and virtually no one collects structured data at the end of the season. Portugal VirtuaCrop Requires more field data with digital photography to improve the tool performance Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 88 Slovakia Soil Portal DST is compeletely under reconstruction Switzerland Humusbilanzrechner Better integration of current scientific knowlege on SOC dynamics in soil. Türkiye TAGEM Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Central Research Institute national Soil Information System (under construction) The infrastructure works of the system should be fully completed and it should be made available to the users as soon as possible. The National SOC Map The map needs to be updated at certain intervals and its resolution to be increased in terms of the better determination and monitoring SOC. The National SOCseq Map The map needs to be updated at certain intervals and its resolution to be increased in terms of the better determination and monitoring SOC. Soil nutrient use efficiency Country DST Need improvement Austria terrazo On-going improvement ÖDüPlan Plus There is a new update coming out Belgium Flanders NEMO In the current model not all pathways of phosphorus losses are modelled. KNS An update of nitrogen uptake and efficiency for new varieties is regulatory needed. The data also has to be reviewed taking into account the more extreme weather conditions due to climate change. Belgium Walloon REQUAFERTI Have a nitrogen fertilisation advice module for grassland. Have P, K and Mg fertilisation advice modules FaST Have a nitrogen fertilisation advice module for grassland. Have P, K and Mg fertilisation advice modules Geofolia - Denmark MarkOnline Adaptation to new regulation Crop Manager Improvements on estimations/data input etc Estonia NPK balance calculator Online user-interface integrated with electronic field-book softwares (work in progress) Fertilizer requirement map Updating to real fertilizer products (currently gives only element based values) Lime requirement map Updating to real lime products (currently gives only CaCO3 values) Finland Nutrient balance calculations interpretation of results, time scales over the years Nitrogen balance calculator More testing for different field conditions. ProAgria WISU Support farmers for using nutrient and carbon balance options. PeltotukiPro Support farmers for using nutrient balance options. Agrineuvos Support farmers for using nutrient and carbon balance options. Nutrient balance calculator Input data updated regularly. Biomassa-atlas Input data updated regularly. France Syst'N adaptation to low input cropping systems ; other assessments Azofert adaptation to include new types of organic inputs and wastes, new crops MAELIA user friendly interface Hungary PROPLANTA user interface Ireland NMP On-line Improved soil information within the DST system i.e. plot scale soils information included as a default layer Pasturebase Irl & Grass10 Imporved temporal advice on N fertiliser applications on each plot/field Norway Biodrone Functions, integrations, design Jordplan, Skifteplan, CropPlan - Surfôrtolken Unsure wheether the limit values are suited to evaluate organic feed Klimakalkulatoren Large improvements are needed. There are still many aspects not taken into consideration. There is a need to enter more data on your own instead of retrieving it. Because data are to be gathered from different sources, not all farms will be able to use Klimakalkulatren. The result has little value for the farmer, but use of the calculator can give rise to valuable conversations between farmers and advisors that can lead to better farm practice. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 89 Næringsstoffbalanse Development of and better availability of the excel file. This could become a good tool, but it must be developed to better user friendliness and availability. It could perhaps be combined with fertilization planning programs to enable feedback about the effect of used fertilizer. Should however also be available as a standalone tool. Gårdskart/Kilden NIBIO Better coverage of the country when it comes to soil data. Portugal One Soil Owned by private company (the team lacked deep knowledge on the tool to evaluate) Fertil Owned by private company (the team lacked deep knowledge on the tool to evaluate) WiseCrop Owned by private company (the team lacked deep knowledge on the tool to evaluate) Slovakia Calculator for nutrients Good DST no idea about improvement Harmonized Reg.& Inf. System DST is under partial reconstruction Fertilization schedule Good DST Animal Storage Capacity Good DST Türkiye Fertilizer Tracking System (GTS) NA Türkiye National Boron Map There is no specific need on its improvement UK Gatekeeper - Farmplan High level of input detail is required, which can be off-putting for some users. Quite complex to understand. Does not provide recommendations for nutrients. Is a planning tool rather than a calculator. Soil water availability and retention Country DST Need improvement Austria eo4water This was based on a project, constant funding or base funding would be good to build the tool AT wide. Belgium Flanders SWAP-WOFOST parameterisation and validation for different crops is needed Denmark Vandingsregnskab Online no information Finland Soil scout sensors connection to weather stations Eurofins Soil NIR More testing for Finnish soil types. Soil Scout Automated interpretation of data Field observatory org Automated interpretation of data Norway Agdir - Portugal IrrigaSys Better use of remote sensing data for taylor-made recommendations of irrigation schedules Irristrat Requires more field data to calibrate the probes SAGRA-NET Better use of information agrometeorological data for taylor-made recommendations of irrigation schedules MOGRA Better use of hydric balance technical for recommendations of irrigation schedules Calendario de Rega Better use of irrigation records, irrigation needs, actual water consumption Avisos Rega Projeto PARE Better service in regional irrigation notices based on irrigation needs and standardized methodologies Slovakia Hydrological report More information on soil, not only temperature but retention capacity and othe properties Interdrought Good DST could be integrated Türkiye TAGEM suET The system needs to be moved to the mobile platform for easier access and use by the farmers. Integrated tools Country DST Need improvement Norway Skifteplan (Soil organic carbon and soil nutrient use efficiency) Does not work for organic farming or low yields. Should be more user friendly. Should have had functions for optimizing fertilization. Surfôrtolken could perhaps be integrated with Skifteplan? Mineral balances should be total, not just one by one. Development and rejuvenation of Skifteplan is long due. UK PLANET (Soil organic carbon and soil nutrient use efficiency) - MANNER (Soil organic carbon and soil nutrient use efficiency) Less information is required to be entered by the farmer, but as a result the report produced is not as comprehensive. The Fram Crap App Pro (Soil organic carbon and soil nutrient use efficiency) - Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 90 MuddyBoots (Soil organic carbon and soil nutrient use efficiency) This system is centred around food safety and quality throughout the chain, as opposed to on farm records and decision making. Italy vite.net (The three parameters) Useful information should be automatically calculated from different online databases/satellite sensors. Manually insertertion of analytical data should be allowed. granoduro.net (The three parameters) Useful information should be automatically calculated from different online databases/satellite sensors. Manually insertertion of analytical data should be allowed. Elaisian (The three parameters) Useful information should be automatically calculated from different online databases/satellite sensors. Manually insertertion of analytical data should be allowed. Türkiye Farmer Registration System (ÇKS) (The three parameters) NA Not clear Country DST Need improvement Finland Carbon check very new, not known yet, maybe interpretation of results Norway Pix4dFields Integrations with other sensor systems or import data from other systems Agrilogg - No answers Lithuania - - Netherlands - - Sweden - - Table A1.10. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL. Question 11: Which type of tools are now not available but are needed and/or planned to be developed? Tools for Soil organic matter Countries A tool which allows calculation of possible C credits would be good Austria App (algorithme) Belgium_Walloon Carbon check and NIR analysis are expected to be widen in use, regional tools for calculationg field carbon balances, C balance webportal Finland Indicators and thresholds for SOM/SOC and other soil health indicators Ireland Klimrek climate scan. This is an LCA-based whole farm climate decision support tool. Plan is to connect a soil carbon sequestration module to also account for SOC losses or SOC sequestration. https://klimrekproject.be/ Belgium_Flanders Koolstoftool - decision support tool as part of the soil passport (see below). First version ready and should be launched over the coming months (https://pureportal.ilvo.be/nl/publications/report- on-design-and-lessons-learned-for-the-geospatial-informati). Belgium_Flanders Sensors Norway Simple app Sweden SOC monitoring, reporting and evaluation system (online) Türkiye Software Norway Sofware/indicators France Virtuacrop is a cell phone application (still a prototype) app and machine learnng model Portugal Webportal Slovakia Webportal/software/app Hungary Within the AGRIDIGIT VITICOLTURA project (https://www.crea.gov.it/-/agridigit) my team is going to provide such a tool. Italy No answer Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK Tools for Nutrient use efficiency / nutrient management Models in Austria need to take into account losses from N2O, and show the problem of overfertilization from an environmental view point. Austria App (algorithme) Belgium_Walloon Biodrone Norway Currently a DST is developped so that all B3W farm advisors calculate the N fertilisation rate at planting and sowing based on the same, most recent research results. Belgium_Flanders Ecofert (Advise on fertilisation of leek) Belgium_Flanders Monitoring, reporting and evaluation system (online) Türkiye Nutrient accounting that shows nitrogen efficiency/phosphorus efficiency/potassium efficiency. Would be good to integrate this in fertilization planning software. Norway Biodrone (web based) Software and sensors Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 91 Nutrient surplus (kg/ha) calculator at field scale Ireland On-line nutrient status measurement-kits from the crops Finland Software Slovakia Software and sensors Norway VirtuaCrop is a cell phone application (still a prototype)App and machine learning model. App and machine learnng model Portugal Within the AGRIDIGIT VITICOLTURA project (https://www.crea.gov.it/-/agridigit) my team is going to provide such a tool. Italy No answer Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Lithuania, Switzerland Tools for Water availability and retention Assessment tool indicating when it is safe to traffick soils with machinery /grazing animals in spring Ireland Klimrek climate scan. Plan is to develop a water module to assess water consumption, water need and water saving measures at field parcel level. Belgium_Flanders WatchitGrow - crop management tool for irrigation scheduling Belgium_Flanders Prognose-models for moisture status in soils, pedotransfer function tool for calculating pF curve Finland Simple app Sweden Software Slovakia Software and sensors Norway Soil moisture monitoring system (online) Türkiye WatchitGrow - crop management tool for irrigation scheduling Belgium_Flanders webportal and application Portugal webportal/software/app Hungary Within the AGRIDIGIT VITICOLTURA project (https://www.crea.gov.it/-/agridigit) my team is going to provide such a tool. Italy No answer Austria, Belgium_Walloon, Denmark, Estonia, France, Netherlands, UK, Lithuania, Switzerland Integrated tools (which include all of those three aspects) App Hungary DST tool (field & farm scale) that integrates multiple sustainability goals (related to soil functions) - Primary Production, Water quality, Climate Change & Ammonia, Nutrient cycling & Biodiversity Goals Ireland For end-users single-gate wep-portal is needed instead of single tools/models. It must be wider than solely these 3 mentioned "topics". Estonia Not reported Slovakia Software, sensors, satelite, drones, robotics Norway Soil passport: webapp linked with LPIS - under development; should be launched in one of the coming months. While the soil passport gives the farmers the opportunity to have a good overview of available parcel, crop and soil data of their field parcels, the Koolstoftool (see above) is a decision support tool where they can get an idea of the evolution in SOC when they continue the crop rotation of the past years and where they can simulate the impact of alternative crop rotations. The data available in the soil passport (crop history, soil texture, initial C) are automatically connected to the Koolstoftool and the model behind this. The idea is to connect more decision support tools in the future. For the moment connections with the labs are made so that available soil analyses of field parcels become visible in the soil passport and so that %C can serve as input for carbon modelling in the Koolstoftool Belgium_Flanders Within the AGRIDIGIT VITICOLTURA project (https://www.crea.gov.it/-/agridigit) my team is going to provide such a tool. Italy No answer Belgium_Walloon, Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Türkiye, UK, Lithuania, Switzerland Table A1.11. Questionnaire to national coordinators of EJP SOIL: Questions 13-15: In your opinion, what additional aspects – that we did not mention -should be considered concerning the use and the improvement of DST related to soil water retention (13), soil organic carbon (14), and nutrient use efficiency (15)? Country Answer Soil water retention Finland Irrigation possibilities or device are not always possible to have. Irrigation is currently profitable for only part of plant production. Thus farmers who would benefit from irrigation scheduling are not that many. Due the climate change the profitability of irrigation might change and interest for water retention evaluation can increase. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 92 France We should integrate in DST the effects of (i) vegetal cover (eg. Cover crops) on soil infiltrability, (ii) tillage on water flow in soils (eg. Physical limits to roots growth and exploration) Ireland effect of management practice on resilience to climate change (adaptation to more frequent droughts and flooding) Norway Drainage. They need to document where the drainage pipes are so that they can perform maintenance over time instead of digging new trenches every 30 years. Portugal Concerning the use of DST could be addressed what factors the user consider relevant to choose a DST. Also, if their perceptions of the reliability of a DST are different when promoted by farmers' associations or private companies. To improve DST related to soil water retention should be included soil characterization, and the development of pedotransfer functions to estimate field capacity and wilting point. Slovakia Soil water retention is very significant characteristics to be use for many practical reasons. There is recognized several databases which could be processed by new software or available on website. Also soil-water sustainable management could be taken into consideration. A lack of this DST. Sweden Most tools are about irrigation, which is useful. But there are no tools to guide the farmer on how to optimise soil moisture with other measures. At the same farm both flooding and drought could be a problem at different times of the year and farmers need guidance on how to be resilient to both these problems. To be able to irrigate, there also need to be a water storage available that the farmer is allowed to use. Türkiye In our cases, more attention should be given for DSTs by all stakeholders including, farmers, researchers, policy makers etc. Italy Robust and detailed soil database play a crucial point allowing most probable analytical data to be customized by farmers or Agronomists Austria True stakeholder co creation and co-consultation when developing tools is essential Soil organic carbon Finland The time scale to increase soil carbon is long, at least 5 yrs takes to see the effects. With DST it is basically possible to calculate the changes in carbon balances, but we should also include laboratory determination of organic matter (or soil carbon) in our field test package. So far the soil analysis are using the visual evaluation and not laboratory determinations that would not be too expensive. Thus, we would get a precise field-based estimate of the soil organic matter status. France Relationships between SOM and soil quality/health (physical, chemical and biological) Ireland Indicating the benefits (incl. soil function provision) to the end user/farmer of improvement of SOM/SOC on their land Norway Monitoring over time, make use of historic data, relate farm practices to results on a crop (part of a field) level Portugal Soil Sampling Density, Model Validation, Temporal Dynamics, Data Integration. The same aspects mentioned in Question 13 could be addressed (relevant factors that influence the choice of a DST and the perception by end users). To improve DST related to soil organic carbon it is important to consider soil depth. Slovakia Soil organic carbon is a leading indicator supporting life on the planet. Its quality and quantity is linked with good soil conditions and microbiome amount expressed by favourable soil structure. C-bonds in soil are complex and to find a right way for DSF development requires a research innovations. A lack of this DST. Sweden To predict soil C can be tricky and there is a risk that new tools could overestimate the effect of some measures and disregard the effect of others. Türkiye In our cases, more attention should be given for DSTs by all stakeholders including, farmers, researchers, policy makers etc. Italy Robust and detailed soil database play a crucial point allowing most probable analytical data to be customized by farmers or Agronomists Austria The benefits need to be big for the farmers to lots of data Nutrient use efficiency Belgium_Walloon At algorithm level, take into account the potential for mineralisation (C and N) Finland The yearly changes in crop yields can be big and affect a lot to results. We have currently a few research-based tools that could be integrated with the more widely used farm management DSTs. When farmers need to use fertiliser planning programs, they could with little extra work and knowledge also use the NP planning programs. Ireland Synergies and trade-offs between improved nutrient status for primary production and the other objectives (Water quality, carbon sequestration, biodiversity etc) Norway Same as above. In addition: who owns the tool? Portugal Soil Sampling Density, Model Validation, Temporal Dynamics, Data Integration. The same aspects mentioned in Question 13 and 14 could be addressed (relevant factors that influence the choice of a DST and the perception by end users). Slovakia Nutrients in soil are a well researched topic and basically their contribution to crop production is settled. Therefore, even in our conditions, it is possible to create and apply DST while ensuring sufficient data monitoring. It is a good helper for farmers practicing sustainable management. Sweden Most existing DSTs for nutrient use efficiency for farmers only consider the efficiency in the field and not as a whole where also the origin of source and what that means for the planet is considered. For national or regional scale (or global) scale that could be something to add. Türkiye In our cases, more attention should be given for DSTs by all stakeholders including, farmers, researchers, policy makers etc. Italy Robust and detailed soil database play a crucial point allowing most probable analytical data to be customized by farmers or Agronomists Austria I think GHG should be in the nutrient efficiency to show impact of over fertilization Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 93 Table A1.12. Questionnaire to stakeholders. Questions 1: Responder details. Finland Netherlands Italy Latvia Sweden Türkiye Total number of responders, n 2 7 5 14 13 84 What is your age? 18-25 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7 % 26-35 0 % 14 % 40 % 21 % 0 % 26 % 36-45 0 % 29 % 0 % 14 % 8 % 24 % 46-55 0 % 29 % 0 % 43 % 54 % 17 % 56-65 100 % 14 % 60 % 7 % 38 % 17 % 65- 0 % 14 % 0 % 14 % 0 % 9 % n 2 7 5 14 13 82 What gender do you identify as? Male 50 % 43 % 40 % 57 % 50 % 82 % Female 50 % 57 % 60 % 43 % 50 % 18 % Other 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % n 2 7 5 14 12 84 What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? Junior high school 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 21 % Senior high school 0 % 29 % 0 % 21 % 8 % 23 % University degree 100 % 57 % 100 % 64 % 85 % 49 % PhD or higher 0 % 14 % 0 % 14 % 8 % 7 % n 2 7 5 14 0 84 Are you a.... Farmer 0 % 0 % 20 % 79 % 0 % 56 % Researcher 0 % 29 % 0 % 29 % 46 % 11 % Consultant/Agronomist 0 % 29 % 60 % 7 % 0 % 25 % Employee of a private company working in agriculture or food production 0 % 0 % 0 % 7 % 0 % 5 % Employee of a farmers cooperative 0 % 43 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % Others 100 % 29 % 60 % 7 % 8 % 15 % n 2 7 5 14 13 84 If you are a farmer how many hectare do you manage? <10 0 % 0 % 100 % 9 % 0 % 15 % 5-10 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 10-20 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11 % 20-50 0 % 0 % 0 % 18 % 0 % 21 % 50-100 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 0 % 19 % 100-150 0 % 0 % 0 % 36 % 13 % 9 % >200 0 % 0 % 0 % 27 % 88 % 15 % n 0 1 1 11 8 53 If you are a farmer, how much time are you busy with farming? Full-time 0 % 0 % 0 % 55 % 88 % 65 % Part-time 0 % 100 % 100 % 27 % 13 % 27 % Only weekends 0 % 0 % 0 % 18 % 0 % 12 % n 0 1 1 11 8 52 7. If you are a farmer, do you own or rent your land? I own all or the most of the land that I farm. 0 % 100 % 0 % 82 % 50 % 63 % I rent all or most of the land that I farm. 0 % 0 % 100 % 18 % 50 % 37 % n 0 1 1 11 8 54 What type of crops do you usually grow? (You can select more than one group of crops) Cereals 0 100 % 29% Maize 0 0 % 38% Legumes 0 75 % 3% Vegetables 0 13 % 28% Fruits 0 0 % 47% Olives for olive oil 0 100% 0 % 47% Oilseed crops 0 100 % 21% Grapes for wine 0 0 % 16% Forage ley 0 50 % 19% Pasture 0 50 % 0% Root crops (e.g. potatoes, sugar beet) 0 25 % 5% Other 0 13 % 17% Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 94 n 0 1 8 58 Do you raise livestock? yes 0 % 50 % 0 % 82 % 63 % 28 % no 0 % 50 % 100 % 18 % 38 % 72 % n 0 2 1 11 8 64 Do you consider yourself a Livestock farmer 0 % 0 % 0 % 36 % 43 % 14 % Crop farmer 0 % 100 % 100 % 64 % 57 % 86 % n 49 How do you manage your farm? Conventional agriculture 0 % 100 % 0 % 64 % 75 % 52 % Agro ecological approach – not certified 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 0 % 21 % Organic certified 100 % 100 % 100 % 27 % 25 % 23 % Biodynamic 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 % Other (please specify) 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 0 % 20 % n 1 1 1 11 8 56 Table A1.13. Questionnaire to stakeholders. Question 3: Are you familiar with decision support tools (DST) or systems? Are you familiar with decision support tools (DST) or systems? Finland Netherlands Italy Latvia Sweden Türkiye Yes, I use them regularly 0 % 57 % 25 % 8 % 36 % 7 % Yes, I have used them in the past 0 % 0 % 25 % 15 % 36 % 4 % Yes, I know what they are but I have never used one 0 % 0 % 50 % 54 % 9 % 28 % No, never heard before 100 % 43 % 0 % 23 % 18 % 60 % n 1 7 4 13 11 67 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 95 Table A1.14. Questionnaire to stakeholders. Question 4. Do you agree with the following statements? I do not trust DSTs results Finland Netherlands Italy Latvia Sweden Türkiye strongly agree 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14 % somewhat agree 0 % 0 % 50 % 8 % 50 % 11 % neither agree or disagree 0 % 29 % 25 % 8 % 33 % 5 % somewhat disagree 100 % 14 % 25 % 42 % 17 % 14 % strongly disagree 0 % 43 % 0 % 8 % 0 % 20 % don’tknow 0 % 14 % 0 % 33 % 0 % 36 % n 1 7 4 12 6 44 I do not think DSTs are useful strongly agree 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7 % somewhat agree 0 % 14 % 0 % 8 % 33 % 11 % neither agree or disagree 0 % 14 % 25 % 17 % 50 % 7 % somewhat disagree 100 % 0 % 50 % 25 % 17 % 11 % strongly disagree 0 % 57 % 25 % 17 % 0 % 32 % don’tknow 0 % 14 % 0 % 33 % 0 % 32 % n 1 7 4 12 6 44 DSTs are usually too complex strongly agree 0 % 0 % 25 % 8 % 0 % 0 % somewhat agree 0 % 29 % 25 % 42 % 33 % 24 % neither agree or disagree 0 % 57 % 0 % 8 % 17 % 17 % somewhat disagree 100 % 0 % 25 % 8 % 33 % 12 % strongly disagree 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 17 % 5 % don’tknow 0 % 14 % 0 % 33 % 0 % 43 % n 1 7 4 12 6 42 I do not have devices to use DSTs strongly agree 0 % 0 % 0 % 8 % 0 % 33 % somewhat agree 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11 % neither agree or disagree 0 % 43 % 0 % 8 % 33 % 7 % somewhat disagree 100 % 14 % 0 % 8 % 33 % 7 % strongly disagree 0 % 0 % 100 % 33 % 33 % 11 % don’tknow 0 % 43 % 0 % 42 % 0 % 31 % n 1 7 4 12 6 45 DSTs require too many data that I cannot provide strongly agree 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7 % somewhat agree 0 % 14 % 0 % 25 % 17 % 19 % neither agree or disagree 100 % 43 % 75 % 8 % 0 % 7 % somewhat disagree 0 % 29 % 0 % 8 % 67 % 12 % strongly disagree 0 % 0 % 25 % 17 % 17 % 9 % don’tknow 0 % 14 % 0 % 42 % 0 % 47 % n 1 7 4 12 6 43 Working with DSTs is time consuming and not so helpful strongly agree 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 5 % somewhat agree 0 % 29 % 25 % 27 % 33 % 13 % neither agree or disagree 100 % 29 % 25 % 0 % 17 % 8 % somewhat disagree 0 % 0 % 0 % 9 % 50 % 8 % strongly disagree 0 % 29 % 50 % 18 % 0 % 20 % don’tknow 0 % 14 % 0 % 45 % 0 % 48 % n 1 7 4 11 6 40 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 96 Table A1.15. Questionnaire to stakeholders. Question 7. If you use DSTs, how would you rank from 1 to 5 the most important features of a DST (where 1 is the most important, 2 the second most important etc.)? Finland Netherlands Italy Latvia Sweden Türkiye 1. Do not require too many data from my hand 1 0 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 17 % 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 67 % 25 % 25 % 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 33 % 0 % 8 % 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 25 % n 0 1 1 3 4 12 2. User-friendly interface 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 0 % 33 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 29 % 3 0 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 29 % 4 0 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 29 % 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 25 % 14 % n 0 3 0 2 4 7 3. Clear visualization of results 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 0 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 0 % 67 % 0 % 0 % 20 % 29 % 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 60 % 57 % 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 20 % 14 % n 0 3 0 2 5 7 4. Trust/confidence in the results (based on scientific publications or on-farm calibration) 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 33 % 50 % 38 % 2 0 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 17 % 25 % 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 33 % 0 % 25 % 4 0 % 33 % 0 % 33 % 17 % 13 % 5 0 % 33 % 0 % 0 % 17 % 0 % n 0 3 0 3 6 8 5. Easy to access both in terms of costs and hardware requirement 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 17 % 20 % 25 % 2 0 % 33 % 0 % 17 % 20 % 13 % 3 0 % 0 % 100 % 17 % 40 % 25 % 4 0 % 33 % 0 % 33 % 0 % 13 % 5 0 % 33 % 0 % 17 % 20 % 25 % n 0 3 1 6 5 8 6. The design of the DST has been carried out in collaboration with end-users 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 29 % 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 43 % 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 29 % 5 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % n 0 1 0 2 1 7 7. DST provide outcomes which are easy applicable and in real time (when I need info to manage the crop and not too late) 1 0 % 100 % 0 % 20 % 25 % 10 % 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 10 % 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 10 % 4 0 % 0 % 100 % 40 % 0 % 30 % 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 40 % 0 % 40 % n 0 3 1 5 4 10 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 97 Annex 2. Regional workshops Table A2.1. Script used at the regional workshops. Session Agenda Plenary session Each workshop started with a plenary session with an introduction of the EJP SOIL and PRAC2LIV project and a presentation some selected findings and examples from the European and national stocktake of available DSTs. In the first part of the workshop, participants were asked individually what they thought was main soil-related challenge, what was their objective with using a DST and if they had any other DSTs to add to the list. Group discussion In the second part of the workshop, the participants were divided in smaller groups to facilitate the discussions on specific topics. They discussed in smaller groups about barriers to DST adoption, and potential solutions to break them. They were also asked to discuss what features they miss in DSTs that they currently use and for what decisions the tools are still missing but needed and to make a ranking of the most important features of a tool. Some statements (listed below) were submitted to participants for opening a discussion about their agreement/disagreement and why. The elements discussed with stakeholders during small group session were as follows: 1. The most important features of a DST are: • It doesn't require much information from me • It has a user-friendly interface • The decision support delivers results that are easy to apply in real time • The results are reliable and based on science and calibration on farms in the area • Easily accessible both in terms of cost and hardware requirements • It has clear visualization of results • The design is developed in collaboration with users 2. Do participants agree or disagree with: • All tools should have an app for a smartphone • In addition to plant production and soil quality, tools should also provide information on environmental impact • Tools must be flexible and consider actual weather conditions 3. What are the missing features in the available DSTs? What missing information is needed to make the right decision? Summary After the group discussions, the main results were presented to all participants, in order to draw the main conclusions of the workshop. During the workshops, interviews were conducted with selected participants, including farmers, advisors, and others. These interviews have been recorded and presented in the form of short videos summarizing highlights of each workshop. Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 98 Table A2.2. Main soil related challenges as indicated by the workshop participants representing different professions in the different countries. Farmer s Advisor s DST providers Researche rs Policy makers and farmer union representatives Sum Sweden Soil compaction 3 1 1 5 Soil fertility 1 1 Climate adaption 1 1 Nitrogen efficiency 1 1 Soil organic matter 2 2 Water availability 2 2 Acidification 0 Soil erosion 0 Latvia Soil compaction 1 1 Soil fertility 1 1 1 3 Climate adaption 0 Nitrogen efficiency 0 Soil organic matter 1 1 4 3 9 Water availability 0 Acidification 2 1 1 4 Soil erosion 1 1 2 Italy Soil compaction 1 1 Soil fertility 1 2 1 2 6 Climate adaption 1 1 2 Nitrogen efficiency 0 Soil organic matter 1 3 2 6 Water availability 1 1 1 2 5 Acidification 0 Soil erosion 0 Türkiye Soil compaction 1 1 2 Soil fertility 2 1 2 5 Climate adaption 1 1 Nitrogen efficiency 0 Soil organic matter 3 2 3 8 Water availability 0 Acidification 0 Soil erosion 1 1 2 Soil water management 5 4 1 4 14 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 99 Annex 3. Contribution to policy workshop (ASD, 2024) Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 100 Deliverable 5.1 PRAC2LIV Final Report This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 862695 101