Spatial and temporal assessment of soil degradation risk in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Soil degradation threatens agricultural productivity and ecosystem resilience across Europe, yet spatially consistent assessments of its intensity and drivers remain limited. In this study, we used Soil Degradation Proxy (SDP), that integrates four key indicators of soil degradation, including erosion rate, soil pH, electrical conductivity, and organic carbon content, to quantify soil degradation risk. Using over 38,000 LUCAS topsoil observations and a machine learning model trained on climate, land cover, topographic, soil parent material properties, and spectral variables, we map annual SDP values between years 2000 to 2022 across Europe. Results show soil degradation risk is highest in southern Europe, especially in intensively managed and sparsely vegetated landscapes. Over the past two decades, approximately 7.1% of land area across the EU and the UK has experienced increasing degradation risk (most notably across Eastern Europe), with rainfed croplands emerging as the most affected land cover type. Land cover is the most influential driver, modulating effects of climatic variables such as precipitation and temperature on SDP. This data-driven framework provides a consistent and scalable approach for monitoring soil degradation risk and offers actionable insights to support targeted conservation and EU-wide policy implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".