Soil monitoring in Germany

Background Aim and ScopeSoil monitoring in Germany should register the current soil condition, monitor its changes and provide a forecast for future development. In order to achieve these goals, the long-term soil monitoring sites in Germany (BDF -Bodendauerbeobachtungsflächen) have been established by the federal states. This has been done according to criteria worked out by soil monitoring experts. In this article a method for the examination of the suitability of Germany’s soil monitoring sites for soil conservation and protection purposes, as well as for environmental monitoring and reporting, is introduced. This method includes the landscape representativity of soil monitoring sites as well as the comparability and spatial validity of collected data.MethodsBDF-criteria are operationalized in a three-step procedure: At first, a metadatabase is established containing information that allows the comparison of monitoring sites by means of measuring parameters, methods and quality assurance as well as quality control of measurements. Secondly, the representativity of the BDF-sites for soil types, land use, vegetation, and climate (air temperature, duration of sunlight, precipitation) by means of frequency statistics and neighborhood analysis is quantified. At last, the spatial validity of soil monitoring data is examined through the application of geostatistical methods. Both data and statistical methods are integrated in a Geoinformationsystem (GIS).ResultsThe analysis of metadata reveals that the soil monitoring is of great importance for environmental analysis because of its ecosystematic concept and its considerable degree of methodical harmonization. Assuming that the number of BDF should be directly proportional to the areal portion of an ecoregion in the entire area of Germany, it can be shown that the geographical distribution of BDF-sites fit quite well according to the areal portions of the ecoregions. The maximum deviation is about ñ 6%. If the number of BDF is not proportional to the area covered by a certain combination of site characteristics, these areas can either be complemented or thinned through MNR-indices derived by neighborhood analysis. Soil monitoring sites can be added where the MNR are highest and removed where MNR are lowest. Throughout the neighborhood analysis, three GISmaps were processed: ecoregionaiization, soil types and land use. Decisions to reduce the spatial density of monitoring sites should not only be based on the landscape representativness of monitoring networks, but on the support of geostatistical analysis of measured data as well. For example, the results of the geostatistical analysis of Pb-concentrations in top soils are compared for a complete and a reduced BDF monitoring network.ConclusionThe investigations show that not only the proportional distribution of monitoring sites in landscape units (landscape representativity) is important for the assessment of environmental monitoring networks; The number of monitoring sites, rather, should be sufficient to guarantee a spatial representation of the respective measurement variable. Their geographical distribution should be based on the spatial model of landscape units. Additionally, particular criteria that are important for the object of investigation, for example the distance to emitters, should also be considered.PerspectiveIt is strongly recommended that activities for the integration of ecological data collected in diverse monitoring networks be intensified. A central German environmental information system should be established in order to realize integrated analysis of environmental data by aspects of harmonization and representativity. Furthermore, Internet and GIS technologies should be used to assist the environmental data acquisition in Germany. A prototype of such an instrument, the socalled Internet and GIS-based Environmental Monitoring System (IGUS) was already established and tested in the moss monitoring program 2000.