The use of antibiotics is not permitted in Switzerland; moreover, no other medication exists to combat European foul brood. Hives with symptoms must therefore be destroyed in order to limit the outbreak, and the contaminated material must be sanitised. Since prevention is the best cure, early detection is desirable. Numerous studies have been undertaken and documents have been created at the Swiss Bee Research Centre and elsewhere to draw the attention of beekeepers to these problems and inform them about the causes and the control measures to be implemented.
Mason E., Cornu S., Arrouays D., Fantappiè M., Jones A., Götzinger S., Spiegel H., Oorts K., Chartin C., Borůvka L., Pihlap E., Putku E., Heikkinen J., Boulonne L., Poeplau P., Marx M., Tagliaferri E., Vinci I., Leitāns L., Armolaitis K., van Egmond F., Kobza J., Wetterlind J., Drobnik T., Hirte J., Hefler J., Smreczak B., Carvalho Gomes L., Greve M. H., Bispo A.
Monitoring systems of agricultural soils across Europe regarding the upcoming European Soil Monitoring Law.
European Journal of Soil Science, 76, (4), 2025, Article e70163.
ABSTRACTIn Europe, 60%–70% of soils are considered degraded, underscoring the urgent need for consistent monitoring to prevent further degradation and support evidence‐based policies for sustainable soil management. Many countries in Europe have implemented one or more soil monitoring systems (SMSs), often established long before the EU‐wide “Land Use/Cover Area frame statistical Survey Soil”, LUCAS Soil program. As a result, their sampling strategies and analytical methodologies vary significantly. The proposed EU Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law, SML) aims to address these differences by establishing a unified framework for systematic soil health monitoring across the EU. This paper assesses the compatibility of the 25 identified SMSs from countries participating in the EJP SOIL Program with the anticipated requirements of the SML. The analysis focuses on critical aspects, including sampling strategies, analytical methods, and data accessibility. Results show significant variability in SMS approaches, including sampling depth, monitored land uses, and analytical methods, which limit cross‐system comparability. Despite challenges, opportunities for harmonization include aligning SMSs with the LUCAS Soil methodology, developing transfer functions, and adopting scoring systems for soil health evaluation. Enhanced collaboration and data accessibility are also emphasized as critical for achieving the SML's objectives. This research provides actionable recommendations to harmonise SMSs with the SML framework, promoting coordinated soil monitoring efforts across Europe to support the EU's goal of achieving healthy soils by 2050.
