Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41 (2009) 446–447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Biology & Biochemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soilbio

Letter to the editor

‘‘Indicating soil quality and the GISQ’’: Reply to the comments by Rossi et al.
Patrick Lavelle a, b, *, Elena Velasquez c, Mercedes Andrade d
a
UPMC Univ. Paris VI, IRD- BIOSOL, 32 rue Henri Varagnat, F 93143 Bondy Cedex, France
b
CIAT, Cali, Colombia
c
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Palmira, Colombia
d
Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 October 2008
Received in revised form
10 October 2008
Accepted 16 October 2008
Available online 11 November 2008

This paper comments on the value of GISQ, a synthetic indicator
of soil quality proposed by Velasquez et al. in 2007. Although we
think this method requires discussion and improvements as the
authors suggest, we do not think comments by Rossi et al. invali-
date and less so, improve the method, for the following three
reasons:
1. The major argument against the present version of GISQ is the
issue of signs provided by PCA analyses of initial values. It is
true that softwares (ADE-4 is one of these) usually indicate the
þ or  side of factorial axes on an arbitrary way, as a result of
the computation done for PCA analyses. Variables that stay on
the þ side in one analysis may be found on the opposite side in
another analysis. This is the reason why Velasquez et al. indi-
cate that the expert must look at the sense of the factorial axis
before he/she decides to use one of the two transformation
formulae for raw values of the initial variables indicated in pp
3073 and 3074.
In any case, not taking into account the fact that variables are
opposed along the axis, and giving them both similar effects on
the indicator according to their respective weights on the factor
design, does not seem logical. This is what people in agreement
with Rossi et al. comments would do and it would result in
confounding the effects of variables that have proven opposite
effects.
* Corresponding author. Present address: CIAT, Cali, Colombia. Tel.: þ33
148025988; fax: þ33 148473088.
E-mail address: patrick.lavelle@bondy.ird.fr (P. Lavelle).
2. The second argument is the arbitrary choice of a limit (50% of
the value of the highest contributing variable) to select among
the large number of variables measured, the ones that will be
used in the design of the sub indicator. Velasquez et al. explain
that this is done to reduce at a maximum the number of vari-
ables to be measured, in order to facilitate the use of the
indicator in posterior assessments. The logics of the indicators
are clear: trying to capture as much of the explained variance as
possible, to provide users with a tool that was as cheap and
easy to use as possible. This is actually an expert decision and
users may like to use either higher or lower limits according to
conditions, or even use all the variables when datasets are
relatively poor. This is a useful clarification that needs to be
made.
3. We think that methods and tools need to be assessed
according to the results they provide, and improved accord-
ingly. GISQ is a novel tool. Since its publication, it has been
used successfully used by Cecillion et al. (in press) and applied
in a large number of projects and sites: ecosystems derived
from rain forests in the 7 countries of the GEF Conservation
and Sustainable Management of Soil Biodiversity project, over
100 sites of the French Réseau de Mesure de la Qualité des
Sols (ADEME), tea garden plantations submitted to the FBO
restoration technique in China and 50 sites of the RENECOFOR
French network of forest sites (Forest Focus EU project).
Progress in its formulation or decisive arguments for its
rejection will be discussed in the papers to be written from
these applications. Modelling exercises are necessary to put it
to the test of different types of variables and datasets. Results
produced in the original paper showed satisfactory results.
They were logical and sufficiently detailed as to discriminate
in ‘‘low quality’’ soils, the precise element of soil quality

0038-0717/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.018
 P. Lavelle et al. / Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41 (2009) 446–447 447

(physical, chemical.) that contributes to give this low Note: a guide for users written in Spanish and English by Elena
evaluation. Velasquez may be sent on request.

Rossi et al. have not proposed alternative ways of using the

indicator nor attempted to illustrate the effect that recommen-
dations issued from their analyses would have on the final
results. The relevance of their analysis has thus not been put to
the test.
Reference
Cecillon, L., Cassagne, N. , Czarnes, S., Gros, R., Vennetier, M., Brun, J.J. Predicting soil
quality indices with near infrared analysis in a wildfire chronosequence.
Science of the total Environment, in press.