Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/analysis-of-interrelations-structure-in-agro-systems-using-the-factor-EjCYSiUGX9
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Copyright
- © 1996-2023 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
- ISSN
- 2073-445X
- DOI
- 10.3390/land12020272
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Article Analysis of Interrelations Structure in Agro-Systems Using the Factor Analysis Technique (FA) 1 2 1, Zdena Krnáčová , Štefan Krnáč and Mária Barančoková * Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia METRA, Ltd., 841 05 Bratislava, Slovakia * Correspondence: maria.barancokova@savba.sk Abstract: A model is not an exact copy of its original, but only its idealised reproduction that is simpler, more understandable, more accessible and easier, safer and more effective to work with. In the presented study, we used the technique of factor analysis (FA). We used 44 parameters to de- scribe an agroecosystem, which proportionally describe the main components of the study agroe- cosystem. Based on Malinowsky error analysis, we extracted a 6-factor solution. We found out that Factor 1 [Climate factor] had primary factor loads in [average temperatures TIII-TIX (0.99) and [av- erage atmospheric precipitation ZIII-ZIV (0.99)] variables. Factor 2 [Chemical parameters of geolog- ical foundation] was mainly saturated by [SiO2-G (0.92), Al2O3-(0.82), (CaO-G (0.83)] variables and secondary loads were observed in soil [SiO2-P (0.61], [CaO-P (0.64], [Al2O3-P (0.32)], [soil skeleton SKEL (0,47)] and [granularity GRN (0,39)] variables. Factor 3 [Phytomass production potential fac- tor] had primary factor loads in [depth of soil profile DSP (0.76)], [quality of organic substances Q4/6 (0.63)], [slopeness SL (0.67)] and [potential phytomass production PROD (0.65)] variables. In factor 4 [Physical-chemical soil properties factor] variables [Al2O3, (0.81)], [granularity GRN (0.69)] and [SiO2 (0.61)] have significant loads. Factor 5 [Erosion by water potential factor] has the highest pri- mary loads in [large-scale arable land ALL (0.70)] and [soil loss as a result of erosion EROS (0.67)] variables, and secondary loads in the [continuous length of plot of land slope LS (0.53)] variable. Factor 6 [Biochemical properties factor] has the highest factor load values in the content of organic substances in soil [content of organic substances in soil H (0.69)]. Secondary loads can be seen in the 2 (0.32)], [Al2O3-P (0.38)] and [depth of groundwater surface GWS properties of soil [GRN (0.35)], [SiO (0.39)]. We determined the weight coefficients for the individual factors with the aim of quantifying ecological criteria with the obtained factor structure. The factor score F0 determines the projections Citation: Krnáčová, Z.; Krnáč, Š.; of the extracted factors for the individual elements of the selection (it is the value soil-ecological Barančoková, M. Analysis of units—VSEU). Row vectors in this matrix represent the distribution of the individual factors for the Interrelations Structure in specific realisation of the selection (spatial distribution). We re-scaled the obtained values of the Agro-Systems Using the Factor factor score into seven categories and projected them into VSEU units. We could propose a sustain- Analysis Technique (FA). Land 2023, 12, 272. able agroecosystem management based on quantifying the ecological criteria for each VSEU unit. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020272 Keywords: mathematical model; agroecosystem; factor analysis; environment indicators; Academic Editor: David J. Abson soil ecological units (VSEU); impact of man; soil; interrelations; ecosystem Received: 3 December 2022 Revised: 5 January 2023 Accepted: 16 January 2023 Published: 18 January 2023 1. Introduction From the point of view of an ecosystem, an agroecosystem can be seen as a multilevel, hierarchical system and an interactive area of biotic, abiotic and socioeconomic elements Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Li- censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. of a landscape that form a unified complex (system-agroecosystem). It is a complex sys- This article is an open access article tem of interactive relations between the individual landscape elements where it is suitable distributed under the terms and con- to use modelling simulation. Each modelling is connected with a certain projection, where ditions of the Creative Commons At- tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre- one entity, the so called original, is attributed to another entity, the so-called model, which ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Land 2023, 12, 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020272 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2023, 12, 272 2 of 26 represents in a generalised form only those aspects of the original which are essential to the pre-set aim. There is a wide spectrum of opinions on basic questions of modelling, however, there is a consensus among the model theory specialists, and it is predominantly the fact that each modelling is connected with a certain projection. This enables studying the original indirectly, through its model, while the results obtained on this level can be transposed back onto the level of the original. As a result of the aforementioned, these models are suitable for understanding the interactive relations in agroecosystems and quantifying ecological criteria for evaluating their sustainability. Agroecosystems are actually derived from natural ecosystems. Of all ecosystems, ag- ricultural land is the one most intensively utilised (water, forest and other ecosystems) and is spatially located in the most potentially productive segments of the landscape [1]. The combination of climate change, population growth and soil threats including carbon loss, biodiversity decline and erosion increasingly challenge the global community [2]. A major scientific challenge in understanding processes involved in soil threats, land- scape resilience, ecosystem stability, sustainable land management and economic conse- quences is that it is an interdisciplinary field [3], requiring more openness between scien- tific disciplines. Soil heterogeneity has been recognised for many years as due to factors operating and interacting at various spatial and temporal scales. The characterisation of the spatial variability of soil attributes is essential to achieving a better understanding of the complex relations between soil properties and environmental factors [4] and to determine the ap- propriate management practices for soil resource use [5]. It also has practical implications for sampling design for ecological, environmental and agricultural studies [6]. Agricultural land is a typical example where unprofessional interventions of man into landscape are very perceptibly manifested. Concentrating certain agricultural activi- ties increases manifold the risk of non-functionality of the natural system, and thresholds at which a non-reversible degradation process begins are lower than with non-specialised ecosystems. The result is higher landscape vulnerability. Agricultural production is therefore a potential source of control of dynamic pro- cesses ongoing in the landscape. The following resulting problems arise for agricultural land: a) Environmental problems caused by unfavourable impacts of other industries (expand- ing urbanisation) on agricultural land resources; b) Problems caused by unfavourable impact of intensive agriculture on agricultural land resources and other natural resources, and on landscape biodiversity; c) Endangering agricultural land resources (ALR)—as a means of its own production pro- cess; d) Endangering other natural resources; e) Endangering the environment (residential and recreational), endangering the health of the inhabitants. The impacts of agricultural intensification in Slovakia and other eastern European countries in the 1970s–1980s on the environment are alarming. They are characterised by the continuous ascending character of the productivity level, extensive agro-ameliorative and agro-technical impacts, to which a negative impact on landscape diversity is con- nected. A solution to this serious situation is creating a concord between the natural po- tential of the landscape and intensification of agricultural production on the condition of economic efficiency of producing agricultural products. Due to the aforementioned rea- sons, a systematic approach towards assessing the suitability of already existing ways of use in the agricultural landscape and proposal of optimal way of use in relation with nat- ural and cultural-historical potential is essential. The agricultural landscape does not only fulfil the function of biomass production, but it has landscape-forming functions and functions in residence development. Various negative phenomena are a manifestation of improper agroecosystem management such Land 2023, 12, 272 3 of 26 as erosion by water and wind that, as a consequence, damages not only the soil for agri- cultural production, but also other natural resources of the landscape [7–12]. The point of view of sustainable agriculture is which they [13–16] characterise as the management and use of agroecosystem in a way that preserves its biological diversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and functionality so that the agriculture fulfils significant ecological, economic and social functions on local, national and global levels in a way that does not damage other ecosystems not only in the present, but also in the future. Anthropogenous pressure on agroecosystems has been present as an extensive and uncoordinated construction in the past few decades, which can be seen in several coun- tries and to which population growth and demand for living outside of cities and munic- ipalities is connected. Constructing the agricultural landscape in Mediterranean mountain areas was a long and laborious process that created several types of field or land use patterns. In the Span- ish Pyrenees, for example, at the time of low demographic pressure, agricultural land oc- cupied the most fertile areas: plains and gentle slopes (valley floors, watershed and level areas mid-slope) and land close to population centres. Population growth and pressures different than that of farming, led to the use of the steeper and less productive slopes [17– 19]. Some hillsides were changed by building agricultural terraces on the slopes [20, 21]. In recent years, many models of system simulation were developed in order to ex- plore various aspects of agroecosystem sustainability [22–26]. From the point of view of applied methodical means, we see the agroecosystem as a system of diagnostic properties of geocomponents and their relations (traditionally goecomponentially explained as a sum total of geological, hydrogeological and soil-sub- strate layers in an area with a specific use). The relations in this system represent ener- getic-material flows in the scope of singled out homogenous elements that are indirectly evaluated through their impact on the change of state of the individual properties [12, 26, 27]. A manifestation of anthropogenous impact in the landscape is the current land use, configuration and spatial distribution, shape, size, location of plots of land, erosion etc. The impact of human activity on the environment is the quality of agroecosystem function that emphasises the need to take into consideration the interactions between human ac- tivities and soil cover [28]. When evaluating interactive relations in the system man-agroecosystem it is crucial to analyse this relation as a unified system unit (ecosystem). For this purpose, a technique of mathematical modelling is suitable, more specifically the variants of explorative tech- niques of models with latent variables [29, 30]. Factor analysis is used in evaluating various landscape-ecological conditions, for ex- ample, [31] used it in identifying landscape structure. They reduced 55 variables to 26 and 6 of them showed approximately 87% variance. Thirteen variables used by [32] showed significant correlations and they identified three factors that explain approximately 82.3% of the variance. Monitoring of certain aspects of landscape-ecological state on the state level using a long-distance land survey and indicators of landscape cover was dealt with by [33]. Factor analysis was used by [34] for connections of countryside sources with its sustainability. Twenty-one weighted variables were grouped into two categories: high and low sustainability areas. Five factors were taken into consideration in both cases. Factor analysis is used also in the research of landscape transformation in economi- cally dynamic regions based on space analysis of unchanged areas of soil use over a given time period [35]. Suitable indicators of soil quality using factor analysis were identified by [29]. This can be used in evaluating the sustainability of soil use and soil management in agroecosystems. Selecting meaningful metrics to describe landscapes is difficult due to our limited understanding of the links between landscape patterns and ecological process, the Land 2023, 12, 272 4 of 26 numerous indices available and the interaction between the spatial characteristics of the system and metric behaviour [36]. The main aim of our work was to analyse the structures of interrelation in systems (mathematical modelling) to find functional links between the individual properties of the system parts, that can be used in optimal management of an agroecosystem. In our study we concentrated on the anthropogenous impact on agroecosystem and accompanying negative impact(s); not only on the problems caused by unfavourable ag- ricultural influence on soil, but also on other natural resources and the biodiversity of the landscape. When modelling interactive relations, we used factor analysis that is aimed at creat- ing new latent variables and reducing the extent of input analytical data with the lowest possible information loss. During the evaluation, different possibilities of the factor anal- ysis techniques for the following outputs were used: • The abstract explorative model of an agroecosystem; • The possibility of quantifying the selected ecological criteria; • The application of quantified ecological criteria in the evaluation process; • The proposal for optimising agroecosystem use. The present approach to evaluating optimal agroecosystem use utilises the system analysis of relations between abiotic and biotic elements of the landscape, and the impact of man on this system. Using the models of factor analysis and their possibilities we can propose more effective proposals for sustainable management of agroecosystems. 2. Methodological Approaches and Devices While a theoretical explanation of models with latent variables and the technique of factor analysis is relatively complex, it is appropriate to introduce at least the most basic characteristics of factor analysis models in relation to the issue at hand on account of the small extent of use of these techniques [7–10, 37–39]. It is appropriate to apply the selected methodological approaches of the factor anal- ysis technique in modelling the interrelations of structures in the man-agroecosystem sys- tem, and in the scope of agroecosystem itself on wider model areas with typologically varied geomorphology, to which varied soil cover and varied land use are connected. It is exactly the variety of natural conditions and management that determines the emergence of various environmental problems of varying importance and scope. This enables pro- cessing extensive information material from the selected model area. 2.1. Model Area Our model areas are cadastral areas of towns and municipalities Skalica, Kátov, Mokrý Háj, Vradište, Prietržka and Koválec. The mentioned model area is located on the western border of the Slovak Republic and belongs to the Skalica municipality, which is the northernmost municipality of Trnava region. The model area mentioned extends over 87.88 km . It borders the Myjava munici- pality to the east and the Senica municipality to the south. The western and north-western borders are identical with the state border with the Czech Republic. From the geomorpho- logical point of view, in the west it extends into the Dolnomoravská floodplain, traverses the Chvojnícka upland and in the east it extends into the White Carpathians. The area of interest is intensively used agriculturally in the form of conventional ag- riculture with a high ratio of large-scale arable plots, mainly in the more productive seg- ments of agroecosystem in the western, north-western, central and partially the eastern part of the area. Alluvial forests are prevalent in the Dolnomoravská floodplain in the east. Large-scale fields significantly decrease the quality and stability of the area because they are characteristic of a low degree of biodiversity (agrocenose monocultures) and land- scape heterogeneity, and simultaneously they represent a real source of environmental problems in the non-vegetative period that endanger the soil resources themselves and their environmental functions, as well as other natural resources. The surface of large- Land 2023, 12, 272 5 of 26 scale arable plots in the area of interest is 65.47% of the total area of Skalica cadastral area (Figure 1). The representation of the mosaic of small-scale vineyards, orchards, gardens and small-scale plots is more extensive in the southern and south-eastern part of Skalica, in municipalities Mokrý Háj, Koválec and Prietržka. It is a well-known wine-making region. From the point of view of landscape-ecological quality, the vineyards, orchards and gar- dens mosaic, together with the landscape part of the Chvojnícka upland, with Skalický hájik, Kopečnica, Skalické vinohrady, represent a higher value of landscape-ecological significance (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1. Model area of the Skalica municipality. Figure 2. Map representation of value soil ecological units of the model area. Land 2023, 12, 272 6 of 26 Value soil ecological units (VSEU), basic spatial units, were the elements of the se- lected set (Figure 3). They can be considered relatively homogenous from the point of view of abiotic properties. It is also possible to derive other basic characteristics of soil and landscape from the VSEU, such as climatic region, soil type, soil-forming substrate, incli- nation and exposure of the slope, depth and skeleton of the soil and the sort of soil [40]. Figure 3. VSEU scheme. 2.2. Mathematical-Statistical Nature of Modelling The main aim of mathematical modelling when analysing structures of interrelation in the systems is to find functional links between anthropogenous action and its impact on agroecosystem in conditions of global bioclimatic changes and analyse them as a unified sys- tematic unit. This role can be formally recorded: (1) 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 = f 𝐴 𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝐴 where the dependent variable Impact stands for the environmental impact of the action, the independent variable Action stands for the basic characteristics of agrochemical and agrotechnical activities (in the paper it is presented in the form of land use, where there is an assumption of a specific set of agrotechnical and agrochemical specialised procedures with regard to a specific form of land use), the Agroecosystem parameter stands for basic properties of the physical state of the agroecosystem, and the mathematical function f stands for the model. In general, all variables are of statistical character, their randomness is caused by various factors that are related to the following problems: (a) The problem of measurability of the variables—quantification and potential re-quan- tification of the variables; (b) The problem of system structuralisation—setting the system limits and selection of suitable variables, and its implementation; (c) The problem of interrelated dependence of the variables—we cannot ensure the in- dependence of the variables on their manifest level; (d) The problem of approximate reduction—the approximate character of the mathemat- ical model. These problems give rise to a certain deviation of obtained results from true values. On that account, a detailed statistical multivariance analysis has to be performed in order to choose the most optimal regression function of f as possible and, therefore, to obtain the most efficient estimates of the results followed by an appropriate statistical verifica- tion. In this way, problems of the type (a), (b) and (d), may often be successfully mini- mized. Problems of the type (c) are handled in a different, specific way. Mostly, the proce- dures are based on a certain more or less subjective choice of assessing criteria which differ from each other in weighting and evaluating particular variables (indicators). The uncer- tainty factor of making this is frequently overlooked, despite the lack of detailed objective analysis of mutual interactions between the basic indicators. 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 Land 2023, 12, 272 7 of 26 The statistical nature of mathematical model use in analysing interrelations in agroe- cosystems requires the application of multivariate statistical procedures and formalism of mathematical statistics in creating suitable models, with the help of which we look for “the amplest” solutions with their subsequent statistical verification [30, 41–44]. 2.3. Latent Variables Models Type problems are solved by methodologies in various ways. Basically, these solu- tions are based on a certain subjective selection of significance and means of evaluating the individual variables without a detailed objective analysis of their interrelated depend- ence. In the scope of mathematical modelling, it is possible to solve this problem using latent variables modelling class. Formally, such a model can be obtained by rewriting the model (1) into: ∗∗ Latent== f, Impact Action, Environment f X () () or ∗∗ XL==ff atent Φ () ( ) , where the Latent variable stands for a new, theoretical variable or a set of variables Φ, which meet the condition of independence. The axiom of local independence is the basic attribute of the latent variables models. The set of variables X encompasses all manifest variables on one level regardless of them being indicators of physical properties of the environment or indicators of human activity impact intensity on an agroecosystem. By the term latent variables models (LVM) we mean a group of statistical variables that describe and, in a way, explain the observed data with the help of their dependence on unobserved characteristics that can be mathematically constructed [45]. In the terminol- ogy of the general model with latent variables, we can describe these ideas with the help of: 1. Manifest variables , j = 1,2, ...n, where n is the number of variables, therefore, rep- resenting measurable or observable empirical quantities; 2. Latent variables φ , that are in the background, are not measurable or directly ob- servable and explain the nature of the phenomenon. The observed values of xj and their interrelations can be explained with the help of the set of theoretical variables that are defined in McDonald’s form [39,46–48]. Therefore, the aim of the model is to describe and, in a way, explain manifest varia- bles and their interrelations. The latent variables model is basically a model of data and their interrelations. It is a statistical model. The data to which it is applied are simultaneous observations of random quantity vector character. The classic linear explorative factor analysis is the most used method; it is the base of the proposed technique of mathematical modelling [37]. A multi-criteria approach to spatial quantification of ecosystem services connected with a socio-economic indicator (the area units for statistical purposes (VSEU)) will enable us to explicitly assess the potential of agriculturally used soil ecosystem to provide agroe- cosystem services as well as to adapt the soil management for local conditions. 2.4. Values of Factor Score as a Possibility of Ecological Criteria Quantification for the Purposes of Optimal Agricultural Landscape Use Each factor is determined by a linear combination of input manifest variables, where weight coefficients (factor structure) are obtained in a way that two criteria are fulfilled: • The condition of local factor independence; • The condition of a simple structure. Land 2023, 12, 272 8 of 26 These two characteristics of latent variables predetermine their very advantageous use in quantifying ecological, or environmental criteria and limits, and their use for the proposals of ecologically optimal functional landscape systems. The obtained factor struc- ture thus determines weight coefficients for the individual factors with the aim to quantify ecological limits. The factors are mutually independent and there is no need to deal with their interrelations when used (applied) as complex criteria in ecological decision-making. If we thus use the extracted factors as ecological or environmental limits, we obtain the values of these limits for the individual elements of the landscape systems by deter- mining a so-called factor score [29, 49, 50]. Projections of the extracted factors for the individual elements of the selection (quasi- homogenous areas of the landscape system) are determined by the factor score F0. The row vectors in this matrix represent the distribution of the individual factors for a specific realisation of the selection (spatial distribution, time development, and so on, according to the mode of analysis used). The factor model of the existing agroecosystem can then be formulated mathematically: XA = F +E 000 0 where A0 stands for the matrix of factor loads, F0 is the factor score, Eo is the matrix of errors. If needed, it is possible to analogically construct models of higher order for the real agroecosystem (Figure 4). In the following step, the values of factor score were re-scaled into seven categories and their projection for the individual elements of VSEU is in the following Table 1. Table 1. Categories of factor score. Number of Categories Scope of the Interval 1st category x < −0.1 2nd category −0.1 ≤ x < −0.06 3rd category −0.06 ≤ x < −0.02 4th category −0.02 ≤ x < 0.02 5th category 0.02 ≤ x < 0.06 6th category 0.06 ≤ x < 0.1 7th category x ≥ 0.1 Figure 4. Schematic model of factor analysis. Land 2023, 12, 272 9 of 26 2.5. Quantification of Input Variables (Indicators) Using quantitative variables with the scale of interval type as input variables is es- sential in any factor analysis (FA) when using input variables. Not following this strict condition can severely damage the analysis results. In cases where it is necessary to use qualitative indicators, there is a possibility for their requalification into variables with a nominal type of scale (quasi-quantitative type) that can then be used for the analysis. Differentiation of scale type of the variable: • Nominal variables (quasi-quantitative variables); • Ordinal variables (qualitative variables); • Interval variables (quantitative variables). 2.6. The Structure of Input Data Matrix The data structure in the input matrix is closely related to quantification because it enables us to: • Quantify information that cannot be directly quantified; • Quantify ordinal data that cannot be directly used in ecosystem model analysis; • Modify measured data into standard forms (multi-sized matrices) suitable for syn- thesis of data sets of various character (data sets describing the physical environment and, therefore, the land use and data of other character). The most used data structure: xx , ........... x 11 12 1n Xn,N = xx , ........... x () set of n variables, which are indicators 21 22 2n xx , ........... x NN 12 Nn N—elements (selected set) 2.7. Selection of Input Indicators and the Means of Their Quantification For the purpose of mathematically modelling interactive relations between the agroe- cosystem elements or changes as a result of anthropogenous activities, we use all accessi- ble data that could be related to this issue, while the condition of quantitative or quasi- quantitative data use has to be met. In the majority of cases, we can divide the selection into four basic sets (arrays) of indicators: Indicators of physical state of the environment or natural potential of the land- scape: We describe the properties or functionality of the landscape elements in the form of quantitative or quasi-quantitative data type (soil-ecological units (VSEU) are consid- ered a homogenous landscape element with identical environmental behaviour and iden- tical attributes). We also used indicators of climatic relations (ambient temperature, at- mospheric precipitation [51] and morphometric properties of the terrain, which are given in VSEU numerical code in the GIS computer environment. Indicators of soil site productivity while keeping the basic condition of data quan- tification: In productivity potential of VSEU calculation [52], we proceeded according to the [14, 15, 53, 54] methodology. The nature of the methodological procedure in evaluating the productivity was the correction of exact calculations of potential phytomass produc- −2 tion with the help of point values of quality units in kg.m . To calculate the potential production (PP), we used the following calculation of mathematical relation: Land 2023, 12, 272 10 of 26 = , where EPAR = the coefficient of photosynthetically active radiation use; QPAR = the photosynthetically active radiation measured in biologically active period for −2 the growth and development of the plant/kWh.m /; −1 Qp = energetic value of produced biomass/kcal.g of the mass/. We proceeded from groundwork about spatial and time distribution of photosyn- thetically active radiation in the Skalica area, where detailed data about sun radiation in this area are expressed in monthly and annual values of photosynthetically active radia- tion/QPAR, EPAR/ [51]. Energetic values of produced biomass Qp for the following crops −1 −1 −1 are: grains 4.2 kcal.g , sugar beet and grain corn 4.0 kcal.g , oilseed rape 6.0 kcal.g [13, 14, 53]. In calculating the real productive potential (RPP) of VSEU, we proceeded from the relation: = 𝑷𝑷. 𝑽 , 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒙 where VSEUindex stands for the relative relationship between VSEU quality of the specific −1 model area and the most productive VSEU in the area of Slovakia (GJ.ha ). Indicators of anthropogenous activity: Describing other areas where there is a sig- nificant human impact on the landscape via suitable indicators—elements of land cover obtained from aerial images, interpretation of ortophotos (LAND COVER) according to the key of the CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide—Addendum 2000 [55]. Indicators of specific character: Describing other areas where there is an assumption of correlation with anthropogenous activity via suitable indicators—e.g., indicators of the degree of potential soil erosion by water. Complex physical models and automated ap- proaches were used in the papers of [56–59] and other authors and basically apply the procedures of erosion and accumulation modelling based on a modified universal soil loss equation (USLE) in various scales and complexities in the GIS computer environment [60]. In the paper, we used erosion by water on agricultural soils modelling with the use of an empirical model of a universal soil loss equation (USLE), which is a useful tool in manag- ing and planning soil protection. Indicators of results of monitored cycles and agrochemical examination: That also monitored the content of particulate organic carbon (POC) and quality of organic mass according to Q 4/6 indicator [52, 61]. Indicators of chemical composition of soil cover and soil-forming substrate (chem- ical composition): Derived according to % of the content of basic chemical composition of magmatic rocks SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO, MgO [62]. 2.8. Standardisation of Data Matrix Various units and scales of used input data cause harder conditions for factor solu- tion interpretation. When processing the experiment data, it is wise to modify the original data set into a specific standard form which would maintain data equivalency from the point of view of quantification. The basic matrix, to which we apply the FA technique, can be modified as follows: (a) Data centralisation (C), when we get values with zero average value in rows; (b) Data normalisation (N), when we get norm values to 1 in rows. These modifications can be combined. Data standardisation determines the form of the covariant matrix, which is a starting point of each factor analysis. Each evaluated element (VSEU) was described by 44 parameters whose detailed de- scription and quantification means are in Table 2. The indicators were selected in such a way so that they proportionally describe abiotic and socioeconomic elements of the agroe- cosystem (CLS), and the indicators related to the biomass production and negative an- thropogenous phenomena (erosion processes). 𝑺𝑬𝑼 𝑹𝑷𝑷 𝑷𝑷 Land 2023, 12, 272 11 of 26 Table 2. The list of used indicators in describing elements of the selected agroecosystem and means of their quantification. Morphometric parameters 1. [LS] continuous length of plot of land slope [m] 2. [SL] average slopeness [grad] 3. [GWS] depth of groundwater surface under the terrain [m] Physical parameters of soil cover 4. [SKEL] skeletal %—representation of hard skeleton [vol. %] 5. [DSP] Depth of soil profile [cm] 6. [GRN] granularity—% clay fraction< 0,01 mm [vol. %] Energetic potential of real production −1 7. [PROD] energetic potential of real phytomass production [GJ.ha ] Chemical parameters of soil cover 8. [SiO2-P] soil-forming component SiO2 [vol. %] 9. [Al2O3-P] soil-forming component Al2O3 [vol. %] 10. [Fe2O3-P] soil-forming component Fe2O3 [vol. %] 11. [CaO -P] mineral component CaO [vol. %] 12. [MgO -P] mineral component MgO [vol. %] Biochemical parameters of soil cover 13. [Q4/6] quality of organic substances [Q4/6] 14. [H] content of organic substances [vol. %] Calculated water erosion according to −1 15. [EROS] erosion by water [t.ha . year] Chemical parameters of geological foundation 16. [SiO2-G] soil-forming component SiO2 [vol. %] 17. [Al2O3-G] soil-forming component Al2O3 [vol. %] 18. [Fe2O3-G] soil-forming component Fe2O3 [vol. %] 19. [CaO -G] mineral component CaO [vol. %] 20. [MgO -G] mineral component MgO [vol. %] Climatic parameters 21–25. [ZIII-ZIX] average precipitation for each month in a vegetative period [mm] 26. [SP] sum of precipitation in a vegetative period [mm] average air temperature in a vegetative period for each individ- 27–33. [TIII-TIX] [grad] ual month 34. [ST] sum of air temperatures in a vegetative period [grad] Categories of land use 35. [ALS] small-scale arable land [bin] 36. [ALL] large-scale arable land [bin] 37. [MOSFO] mosaic of small-scale fields and orchards [bin] 38. [XGRS] xerophilous grassland [bin] 39. [VIN] vineyards [bin] 40. [MOSOV] mosaic of orchards, gardens and vineyards [bin] 41. [FOR] forests [bin] 42. [BUILT] built-up area [bin] 43. [MGRS] mesophilic grassland [bin] 44. [RECR] recreational possibilities of use [bin] The obtained factor solution was rotated into a simple structure using the VARIMAX criterion during the initial analyses. The rotated matrix of factor loads obtained via anal- ysis of real existing agroecosystem will be A0. Factor loads determined in a simple struc- ture increase the interpretability of the obtained factors. Using the VARIMAX method, we Land 2023, 12, 272 12 of 26 derived several orthogonal rotated solutions (from the original solution) for various num- ber(s) of common factors from the original solution. Each of these alternative solutions was first evaluated based on empirical knowledge. The most suitable was the solution with six common factors, as opposed to four common factors. The obtained results and the interpretability of the factor solution were compared with the results from similar studies applied on similar data matrices from the point of view of selection and parameter structure and with similar aims [63]. The factor solution structure results can be considered the structure model of the analysed agroecosystem because they describe and quantify the interactive relations between the input parameters (indicators) and the extracted factors. 3. Results 3.1. Agroecosystem Model Based on Factor Loads Structure Interpretation of Input Variables Using vector loads in columns of the factor loads matrix enables the identification and interpretation of the individual extracted factor significance. The interpretation ena- bles us to carry out two crucial steps: • Verification of obtained factor structure with regard to the known empirical experi- ence and gained theoretical rules; • Usage of extracted factors as evaluation criteria in subsequent evaluation of proper- ties and environmental problems in the scope of agroecosystems with regards to fa- vourable orthogonal properties of latent variables. Table 3 shows the structure of factor loads value (structure) of six factors, while pri- mary (significant) relations, (and) secondary (less significant) relations are considered as follows: • Primary correlation relations between the factors and input indicators are consid- ered the values of factor loads in the interval 0.6–1.0; • Secondary correlation relations are considered the values of factor loads in the in- terval 0.3–0.6; • The threshold of significance of correlation relations is considered the values of factor loads in the interval 0.2–0 [37]. Six basic elements of the system based on differentiation level were extracted by re- producing 44 variables in the input data matrix describing the agroecosystem via factor analysis, i.e., the physical components of the geographical sphere. The factor loads matrix (Table 3) describes interrelations between variables in the scope of the individual system elements and latent factors. Table 3. Factor loads matrix for six significant factors. F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 Measurable F1 Bedrock Phytomass Production Physical-Chemical Potential Bio-Chemical Soil Parameters Climate Chemistry Potential Soil Properties Erosion Properties 1 LP 0.38516 −0.0428 −0.2822 0.17746 0.53505 −0.0417 2 SL 0.19441 −0.0201 −0.6687 0.27199 −0.0286 0.01949 3 GWS 0.45593 0.38719 0.12578 0.09412 0.13601 0.38989 4 SKEL 0.43088 0.46778 −0.5235 −0.0699 −0.0268 0.0311 5 DSP −0.4833 −0.2698 0.75812 −0.0642 −0.0474 0.0018 6 GRN −0.1019 0.06279 −0.4998 −0.6891 −0.3358 −0.3547 7 PROD −0.3413 −0.222 0.64722 0.46869 0.01722 0.071 8 SiO2 P 0.11108 −0.6143 0.15431 0.607 0.01213 −0.3207 9 AL2O3 P −0.0451 0.32319 −0.0501 −0.8104 0.02075 0.37844 10 CaO P 0.3665 0.6445 −0.4298 −0.2425 0.08473 0.29551 11 MgO P −0.2695 0.27354 0.29003 −0.1178 −0.0191 0.02391 Land 2023, 12, 272 13 of 26 12 Q4/6 0.21044 0.25431 −0.6293 −0.3927 −0.0637 −0.0031 13 H% 0.09312 0.09141 0.03073 0.04204 0.045 −0.6875 14 EROS 0.33608 −0.0894 −0.2204 0.10534 0.66982 −0.1106 15 Si02 G −0.3203 −0.9207 0.05553 0.10352 0.0067 0.0572 16 AL2O3 G 0.23397 0.82191 −0.1212 −0.3566 −0.0302 −0.1008 17 CaO G 0.19456 0.74697 0.26151 0.39799 0.00741 0.07623 18 MgO G 0.46341 0.82702 −0.2574 0.00489 0.03452 −0.0454 19 ZIII 0.9856 0.126 −0.1043 0.01052 0.03301 0.01152 20 ZIV 0.9856 0.126 −0.1043 0.01052 0.03301 0.01152 21 ZV −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 22 ZVI −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 23 ZVII −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 24 ZVIII 0.9856 0.126 −0.1043 0.01052 0.03301 0.01152 25 ZIX 0.9856 0.126 −0.1043 0.01052 0.03301 0.01152 26 SP 0.9856 0.126 −0.1043 0.01052 0.03301 0.01152 27 TIII −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 28 TIV −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 29 TV −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 30 TVI −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 31 TVII −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 32 TVIII −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 33 TIX −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 34 ST −0.9856 −0.126 0.10425 −0.0105 −0.033 −0.0115 35 ALS 0.01151 0.12203 0.01623 0.1369 −0.1682 0.1044 36 ALL 0.00208 −0.0674 0.36786 −0.0287 0.7047 0.10101 37 MOSFO 0.13856 0.04155 −0.0356 −0.0281 0.1004 −0.6383 38 XGRS 0.15158 0.05808 −0.1031 0.10936 −0.2058 −0.1172 39 VIN 0.13907 −0.2108 −0.0426 0.02872 −0.1005 0.07131 40 MOSOV −0.0835 −0.0421 −0.4581 0.10999 0.00208 0.12459 41 FOR 0.02122 0.08088 −0.0476 −0.0804 −0.0983 0.00575 42 BUILT 0.02367 0.20273 0.14299 0.09731 −0.1839 0.04214 43 MGRS −0.2958 −0.1461 0.15403 −0.4412 −0.2063 −0.0793 44 RECR 0.05487 −0.0172 −0.136 −0.0088 −0.0827 0.05642 Legend: LS—continuous length of the plot of land slope, SL—slopeness of VSEU, GWS—depth of groundwater surface, SKEL—soil skeleton, DSP—depth of soil profile, GRN—granularity (% repre- −1 sentation of soil clay fraction), PROD—potential phytomass production (GJ.ha ), SiO2 P- % repre- sentation in soil, Al2O3-P—% representation in soil, CaO-P—% representation in soil, MgO- P—% representation in soil, Q4/6—quality of organic substances in soil, H%—content of organic substances −1 in soil, EROS—soil loss as a result of erosion by water in t.ha , SiO2-G—% representation in geo- logical bedrock, Al2O3-G—% representation in geological bedrock, CaO-G—% representation in ge- ological bedrock, MgO-G—% representation in geological bedrock, ZIII, ZIV, ZV, ZVI, ZVII, ZVIII, ZIX—average amount of atmospheric precipitation for months (vegetative period), SP—sum of at- mospheric precipitation for a vegetative period, TIII, TIV, TV, TVI, TVII, TVIII, TIX—average tem- peratures for given months (vegetative period), ST—average temperatures for a vegetative period, ALS—small-scale arable land, ALL—large-scale arable land, MOSFO—mosaic of small-scale arable land and orchards, XGRS—xerophilous grassland, VIN—vineyards, MOSOV—mosaic of small- scale soil, orchards and vineyards, FOR—forest covers, BUILT—built-up areas, MGRS—meso- philous grassland, RECR—recreational areas. 3.2. Agroecosystem Model Creation Conditions—Model Calibration The role of model calibration is to determine the calibration coefficients in the factor loads matrix or matrices A1, A2, ... in the case of using a factor model of a higher order. Land 2023, 12, 272 14 of 26 Knowledge of complete input data matrix is crucial for their determination. It is possible to use the factor structure obtained in FA application performed in the evaluation of other equivalent systems, in which sets of manifest indicators were used identically. 3.3. Agroecosystem Model Creation Conditions—Model Factorisation Model factorisation is based on disintegrating a reduced selection correlation matrix created from the data matrix of indicators into a system of Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors According to Malinowsky error analysis [64], the next step is to determine the num- ber of significant own values, i.e., the number of extracted factors (Figure 5). In the graph we can see that the breaking point in the graph is somewhere between a 4-factorial solution and a 6-factorial solution, which stand for the number of Eigenval- ues. From the point of view of explained cumulative variance, we decided to consider m = 6 as the suitable number of explaining factors. Figure 5. Malinowsky error analysis indicating 4 and 6 factor solution. 3.3.1. F1 Climate Factor The primary factor loads of this factor are [TIII–TIX—(0.98)] and [ZIII–ZIX—(0.99)] variables, which are in mutual negative correlation, which means that with the increase of average monthly temperatures the amount of atmospheric precipitation decreases; in the studied area, the spatial distribution of various precipitation and temperatures is dom- inantly dependent on the vertical heterogeneity of the area, which is the result of three geomorphologically different elements present—the mountain unit of the White Carpa- thian Mts., lowlands of the Dyjsko-moravská floodplain and the Chvojnícka upland. The agricultural area extends into only two geomorphological elements. Since the aforemen- tioned geomorphological elements are created by different rock composition, differing also in the content of alkaline elements, it showed on the value of factor loads in variables % representation [MgO-G—(0,46)], [CaO-G—(0,19)] in bedrock and % and [CaO-P— (0,37)]. There is a high variability of morphometric properties of the terrain in the mentioned geomorphological unit, which is manifested in the variability of different depths of the soil profile, erosion processes and groundwater surface, which is confirmed by variables with secondary factor loads [DSP—(0,48)], [GWS—(0,46)] and [EROS—(0,34)], [SKEL— (0,43)] (Figure 6). Land 2023, 12, 272 15 of 26 Figure 6. Graphic representation of factor loads values for input variables for factor F1. 3.3.2. F2 Chemical Properties of Bedrock Factor The F2 factor is primarily saturated by [SiO2-G], [Al2O3-G], [MgO-G], [CaO-G] varia- bles, (in order 0.92, 0.82, 0.83, 0.75), secondary loads can be seen in [SiO2-P], [CaO-P], [Al2O3-P] variables (0.61, 0.64, 0.32) and also [SKEL (0.47)], [GRN (0.39)]. It can be loosely interpreted as the mineralogical composition of geological bedrock and its chemical prop- erties are primarily dependent on mineralogical soil composition and its chemical prop- erties. The origin of the geological bedrock and its mineralogical composition is deter- mined by dispersion and soil chemical properties and the whole process of its develop- ment [65,66]. By increasing the dispersion of the mineral proportion, the SiO2 content de- creases and the content of aluminium oxide, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide and other oxides is relatively increased. This fact is also confirmed by a negative correlation between the % of SiO2 representation and other oxides in the input data matrix. Another fact that was confirmed was that the mineralogical composition of the bedrock, soil and their chemical properties significantly influence soil granularity and its skeleton, e.g., sandy soils are rich in primary minerals, mainly quartz, which erodes only with difficulty, and in clayey-loamy soils the number of secondary minerals increases, mainly from the clayey and loamy group (Figure 7). Figure 7. Graphic depiction of factor loads values for input variables for factor F2. Land 2023, 12, 272 16 of 26 3.3.3. F3 Phytomass Production Potential Factor The third factor is primarily saturated by [DSP (0.76)], [Q4/6 (0.63)], [SL (0.67)], [PROD (0.65)] variables. Secondary factor loads are in [SKEL (0.52)], [GRN (0.50)], [CaO P (0.43)] variables. In other words, factor load values of the individual variables determine the or- der of significance of indicators on the production of agricultural crops. On the level of primary factor loads values, variables that have a character of stable soil properties with relation to agricultural crops production (difficult for man to modify landscape proper- ties) are extracted, it is mainly soil depth and slopeness, on the level of secondary factor loads, variables that can be partially modified by man, i.e., skeleton, granularity and cal- cium content in the soil, are extracted. The parameter of organic substances quality that indicates the balance of climatic, physical, chemical and biochemical properties of the soil environment in relation to phytomass production also has a character of a stable soil prop- erty. The variable [H% (0,03)] was not significant in the given factor. The impact of climate is not distinctive either, since the analysed agricultural area is not large enough (Figure 8). Figure 8. Graphic depiction of factor loads values for input variables for factor F3. 3.3.4. F4 Physical-Chemical Soil Properties Factor In this factor, the [Al2O3 (0.81)], [GRN (0.69)] and [SiO2 (0.61)] variables have signifi- cant loads in the soil, secondary factor loads are in [PROD (0.47)], [Q4/6 (0.40)], [CaO-G (0.40)] and [Al2O3 (0,36)] variables. On one hand, this factor load structure indicates inter- active relations between the granularity and proportional representation of Al2 O3 and SiO2 in the soil, and on the other hand, it indicates interactive relations between the CaO bedrock content and quality of organic substances in the soil in relation to potential productivity of the area. The FA used detected correlations between the aforementioned variables and the latent variable—physical–chemical soil properties. Rocks and soil-form- ing substrates are not only a condition for developing a certain soil type and subtype, but they also influence soil reaction, organic substances content, texture and depth of soil pro- file with its stratigraphy and morphology [65–68]. Rocks, from which soils of a correspondent mineral strength originate, understanda- bly influence also the degree of saturation of sorption soil complex by alkaline cations 2+ 2 + + Ca , Mg , K , Na and therefore, also the amount of nutrients accessible in the soil. Parent material also influences chemical soil reaction. One of the traditional divisions of igneous rocks according to the silicon dioxide content (SiO2) divides rocks into acidic rocks with high content of SiO2 (granite, granodiorite, rhyolite, dacite) and alkaline or ultra-alkaline rocks with low content of SiO2, but usually with higher magnesium and iron content (bas- alt, gabbro, peridot, pyroxenite, green marble) [65, 69]. Land 2023, 12, 272 17 of 26 The erosion process is a very complex process, where the degree of chemical com- pound and mineral erosion is an indicator of erosion of a certain type in specific climatic- geographical conditions (Figure 9). The ratio of SiO2 or Al2O3 or both minerals in soil and soil-forming substrates are used for this purpose. Figure 9. Graphic depiction of factor loads values for input variables for factor F4. 3.3.5. F5 Erosion by Water Potential Factor The F5 factor has the highest primary loads in [ALL (0.70)], [EROS (0.67)] variables and secondary loads in the [LS (0.53)] variable. The aforementioned structure of the factor loads values of this factor’s variables indicates the fact that disproportionate plot of land length, unsuitable means of plot of land use in combination with unsuitable management with regard to the soil attributes (granularity) highly participated in erosion processes— surface erosion by water in the analysed area. The relations of soil complexes on individ- ual terrain elements also create other relations between the components of the natural environment and the terrain. The relative height of the geomorphological form over other forms can be significant. Gradient and convex forms of normal curvature in the direction of continuous gradient curvatures (the length of plot of land slope) accelerate gravitation- ally conditioned processes and surface outflow of water on inclined terrain elements. They increase its kinetic energy and transport capacity. Concave forms of normal curvature in the direction of gradient curvatures slow down the outflow. Concave horizontal forms and thalweg lines in them concentrate the outflow. Depression concave positions accu- mulate water from the whole gradient area and do not permit it to flow away. Convex horizontal forms diffuse the outflow. The ridge positions form the border of outflow areas. Naturally formed or man-modified terrain skeletons predetermine the system of gradient curvatures and, therefore, the preferred routes of water outflow and rock material move- ment [69] Figure 10. Land 2023, 12, 272 18 of 26 Figure 10. Graphic depiction of factor loads values for input variables for factor F5. 3.3.6. F6 Biochemical Properties Factor This factor has the highest factor loads values in the content variable [H% (0.69)]. Secondary loads can be seen in [GRN (0.35)], [SiO2 (0.32)], [Al2O3-P (0.38)] and [GWS (0.39)], variables, the [CaO-P (0.30)] variable is on the limit of significance. Biochemical soil properties that are conditioned by physical soil properties (granularity) have a deci- sive role in plant and animal remains decomposition and creation of specific soil organic substances. These immediately condition the water-air regime as well as the pH character of the soil environment. Based on the obtained factor loads value structure, the results of the analysis confirm that higher values of significance in factor 6 are assigned to variables that immediately condition the character of the water–air regime, i.e., soil granularity and the height of groundwater surface, therefore, the prevalence of oxidation or reduction processes in which the organic matter is made. Proportional representation of soil-form- ing components—% representation of minerals SiO2 and Al2O3 in the bedrock subse- quently conditions the character of physical soil properties because the aforementioned oxides are dominant in the creation of secondary alumoferosilicates minerals [65, 69] Fig- ure 11. Figure 11. Graphic depiction of factor loads values for input variables for factor F6. 3.4. Proposals of Functionality Optimisation and Agroecosystem Sustainability Land 2023, 12, 272 19 of 26 Based on the interpretation of the FA results and the calculations of their factor scores, we propose changes in the use of the agricultural land fund in the model area, which should, at least to some extent, eliminate the adverse effects of agricultural produc- tion on the soil and on the overall ecological stability of the country. 3.5. Proposal for Optimising Land Use in the Geomorphological Lowland of the Dyjsko-Moravská Floodplain The Holocene floodplain of the river Morava is an area in a semiarid climatic area with alluvial soils, which are characteristic for high groundwater level, which seasonally rises close to the surface and, locally in depression positions, even above its level. The soil type representation in the scope of the given geomorphological unit is predominantly Gleyic Fluvisols cultivated, clay-loam, locally clayey and Eutric Fluvisols cultivated. Loamy is less represented. Locally we can find Mollic Fluvisols cultivated. The means of use within the given part of the area is in the form of large-scale arable land with cultiva- tion of highly and medium demanding agricultural crops in crop rotation, i.e., winter wheat, corn. In the parts of the area with a lower groundwater level, in more humid loca- tions, maize for silage, or lucerne, is more dominant in crop rotation. A drainage system in the area is not functional as a result of clogging by various sedimentary material. A part of the area is in a sanitary protection zone, and thus due to high probability of seepage and possible contamination of groundwater it is crucial to propose a change in land use. In the evaluated part of the model area on a wide river floodplain with predominantly developed Fluvisols and Mollic Gleysols cultivated, on fluvial sediments with an average inclination in the interval 0–3° and with the use of large-scale plots of land, the values of factor score for the fifth factor are in the interval from −0.1 ≤ x < −0.06 to −0.06 ≤ x < −0.02, which corresponds to no or low erosion by water. From the point of view of agricultural crops production, and based on the factor score values of the third factor in the interval −0.1 ≤ x < −0.06, the given soil sites are classified into the category of soils with lower pro- duction potential. The mentioned soil sites are soils with unfavourable technological properties, i.e., with higher or high representation of clayey fraction (45–60%) (the number of coexistences for the loamy-clayey to clayey soils is in the interval from 40–48.8%). From the point of view of the mentioned ecological and environmental criteria, we propose introducing fodder crop rotation in the mentioned location, or at least to intro- duce crop rotation with higher 30–50% proportion of fodder plants (lucerne is suitable) in combination with mulching intercrop (e.g., oilseed rape, sunflower). These can be found in the north-western part of the area on older alluvial fans with developed Mollic Fluvisols and in the south-western part of the area. A drainage system was introduced in depressed parts of the area with higher groundwater level, in moister locations, which has been, however, not functional for over a decade, due to clogging by various sedimentary material, where original mesophilic meadows and alluvial forests developed naturally. A measure according to the Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC and classification into vulnerable areas of the Slovak Republic was introduced in ALR. It is a part of the directive of the European Union (EU) about water (directive 2000/60/EC) and is closely connected to other EU policies that deal with air qual- ity, environmental changes and agriculture. From the point of view of the aforementioned ecological and environmental criteria, we propose to keep the alluvial forests in the given location and to introduce fodder plant crop rotation, or at least to introduce crop rotation with a higher ratio of fodder plants 30- 50% (lucerne) in combination with mulching intercrop (e.g., oilseed rape, sunflower). The aforementioned intercrops are used in modern technologies in sanitary protection zones of water resources because they are able to drain accumulated inorganic nitrogen and eliminate the impact of agrochemical seepage into groundwater. 3.6. Proposal for Land Use Optimisation in the Scope of the Chvojnícka Upland Geomorphological Unit Land 2023, 12, 272 20 of 26 In the given geomorphological unit in early and late alluvial fans with Chernozems cultivated, Luvi-Haplic Chernozems cultivated in semiarid climatic area, the usage is in the category of large-scale arable land with dominant winter wheat and corn. These change into Haplic Luvisols and Albi-Haplic Luvisols with relation to mild slopes that are made up by loess sediments in a humid climatic area. Crop rotations in this area specialise in production of winter wheat as the natural conditions are very good and in common agro-technology, stable crops with adequate economic effect are achieved. Based on the calculated values of the factor score for the fifth factor in the interval 0.02 ≤ x < 0.06 to 0.06 ≤ x < 0.1, it is an area of mostly medium to higher erosion risk as a result of unsuitable shape, size and the location of the plot of land with regards to contour lines. From the point of view of producing a factor score value for the third factor in the interval 0.02 ≤ x < 0.06, soil sites with higher and high production potential, and with good technological soil properties (content of clay fraction of soils found in the northern part of the area is 30–45%) are indicated. It is important to mention mainly the technical modifications of the shape and size of the plots of land in the proposals because the intensity of water surface erosion is domi- nantly conditioned by disproportionate length of plots of land slopes, that means division of each parcel into two or three plots. On patches of land with disproportionate slope length in more sloped segments of the landscape is it suitable to divide groves with the help of the so-called infiltration belts, which slow down the outflow of water and, there- fore, enable settling of soil particles in depressions on the soil surface. Moreover, it is cru- cial to maintain natural obstacles (groves, shrubs in the vicinity of roads, etc.,). From the point of view of crop rotation structure, it is crucial to incorporate intercrops with me- dium-good anti-erosion effects (lucerne, oilseed rape, peas), i.e., • Trifolium incarnatum, if its summer sowing was successful and a continuous growth was created in autumn; • Autumn fodder blends and grains, if they root well and create a continuous growth before winter; • Spring grains with underseeding of lucerne; • Representation of grains 50%, 33.3% of perennial fodder plants, 16.7% of annual fod- der plants. Fluvisols cultivated and Gleyic are in the southern part of the area; in some places, on younger alluvial fans there are Mollic cultivated, of mainly more granular composition. These compounds are not threatened by erosion by water and technological properties of these soils are more favourable than in Fluvisols in the floodplain of the Morava river. From the point of view of crop rotation, we propose to concentrate on malt barley as the dominant crop. The south-eastern part of the area and the western part of the Chvojnícka upland in the proximity of Skalica town is on loess sediments, with predominant Haplic cultivated and Haplic Luvisols and cultivated. It is used mainly in accordance with natural potential in the form of mosaics of small-scale vineyards, orchards and gardens, where quite good production potential is appropriately used and thus there is no significant soil erosion risk. 3.7. Proposal for Land Use Optimisation in the Scope of the White Carpathians Geomorphological Unit On foothill locations of the White Carpathians, on transition areas of hilly terrain and deluvia, Haplic Luvisols are cultivated alternately with Calcaric Cambisols and Calcaric Cambisols are cultivated with a relatively significant representation of skeleton soils on plateau surfaces. Stagni Eutric Cambisols and Stagni Eutric Cambisols are developed on the bottoms and foothills of valleys or less steep slopes with impermeable bedrocks of calcareous shales. These soil sites are used in various ways. Large-scale arable land is dominant in transitional parts of two geomorphological units. Small-scale fields, partially Land 2023, 12, 272 21 of 26 represented pastures, forest covers and cottage-recreational area are the categories of land use in foothill locations of the White Carpathian Mts. Factor score values for the third factor in the interval −0.1 ≤ x < −0.06 describe soil sites with a relatively lower production potential. The factor score values for the fifth fac- tor in the interval from 0.02 ≤ x < 0.06 to 0.06 ≤ x < 0.1 indicate higher local erosion by water in places with unsuitable soil use. Locally, where the combination of variables the length of the plot of land slope and the way of use in the category large-scale arable land was unfavourable, the values of factor score were in the interval x ≥ 0.1, which corresponds to high soil transport from a hectare per year. It is a matter of very varied land use with varied substrate base and soils with links to a very broken terrain. From the aforementioned it is evident that it is crucial to incorporate low to less de- manding crops into the crop rotation. The limiting factor is the soil depth, skeleton and ties to steeper slopes where it is necessary to include crops with good anti-erosion effect in the crop rotation, i.e., natural grassy covers, perennial fodder plants, autumn fodder mixtures and grains with underseeding of lucerne. In the places of identified high erosion potential, it is necessary to single out the plots of land, or VSEU, from the categories of the agricultural soil and preferably use them for eco-stabilising precautions by planting tree species, shrubs or forest covers. The aforementioned changes in agricultural land use and its management are closely related to the improvement in many ecosystems services, the increase of retention capac- ity of the landscape, the increase of biodiversity in the landscape, the optimisation of pro- duction abilities, the maintaining of soil and water quality, the reduction of climate impact using suitable sowing crops, the mosaic structure of the cultivated plots of land, the sow- ing of non-forest woody vegetation elements, the completion of elements of the territorial system of ecological stability in the monitored area, etc. 4. Discussion Factor analysis grouped 44 measured attributes into six factors. All six factors related to more soil functions, e.g., high production in soil profile depth, skeleton, quality organic substances content (O 4/6), favourable water–air conditions given by favourable granular- ity and the presence of alkaline cations (% representation of CaO, MgO), etc. In factor 1 (climate factor) there is a high variability of the morphometric properties of the relief, which is manifested in the variability of different depths of the soil profile, erosion processes and groundwater surface. According to [29], the soil aeration and soil aggregation factors (with different depths of soil profile) influence soil structure and wa- ter transmission properties of soil. Factor 2 (chemical properties of bedrock factor) interprets the characteristic that the mineralogical composition of the geological bedrock and its chemical properties is pri- marily dependent on the mineralogical soil composition and its chemical properties. The fact that was confirmed was that mineralogical composition of the bedrock, soil and their chemical properties significantly influence soil granularity and its skeleton. According to [29], clay concentration and soil organic carbon influence aggregation and mean weight diameter of aggregates, which affect water storage and movement in soil, as well as productivity. An increase in soil organic carbon could also reduce environmental pollu- tion. Correlation analysis and main component analysis indicated that a minimal data set about soil parameters including content soil density, pH of soil environment, C, P and Na elements, would detect many differences in soil state between the studied means of soil use. The authors [9] propose to use these parameters as a minimal data set of indicators for evaluating soil state on this type of soils in this region. They came to the opinion that the set of soil properties did not show any significant difference between soil use and it then could be dismissed as an indicator. However, there were significant differences in soil use and the depth of soil for a whole range of other given soil parameters (content density, C, N, P and Na). Land 2023, 12, 272 22 of 26 According to factor 3 (phytomass production potential factor), parameter of soil depth, slopeness and organic substances quality have a character of stable soil properties with relation to agricultural crops production. The parameter of organic substances qual- ity that indicates the balance of climatic, physical, chemical and biochemical properties of the soil environment in relation to phytomass production also has a character of a stable soil property. According to [29], the most dominant measured attribute for soil depths was soil organic carbon, which can be monitored over time to determine if soil quality is degrading or stable. Other authors [70] also dealt with the effect of intensifying soil use on soil carbon and ecosystem services (productivity, retaining abilities, infiltration, etc.,). They state that soil organic mass is an effective indicator of the state of soil resources, which reflects functional properties such as aggregation and infiltration, and plays a decisive role in production sustainability and ecosystem service in agricultural landscapes. Agricultural activities usually decrease soil carbon via disrupting the soil and mineralisation. According to [71] the size of soil buffer capacity is significant in relation to chemical properties of the geo- logical bedrock which was confirmed using multilateral linear gradient analysis with the help of CANOCO software. The production functions of soils determine the soil subtype to some extent, which is confirmed by significant correlation between the variables of soil subtype and Cox variable. Rocks and soil-forming substrates influence soil reaction, organic substances content, texture and depth of soil profile with its stratigraphy and morphology [67]. In our assess- ment, factor 4 (physical–chemical soil properties factor) indicates interactive relations be- tween the granularity and proportional representation of Al2O3 and SiO2 in the soil and, on the other hand, it indicates interactive relations between the CaO bedrock content and quality of organic substances in the soil in relation to potential productivity of the area. Factor 5 (erosion by water potential factor) indicates the fact that disproportionate plot of land length, unsuitable means of plot of land use in combination with unsuitable management with regards to the soil attributes (granularity) highly participated in erosion processes. According to [65], proportional representation of soil-forming components to % rep- resentation of minerals SiO2 and Al2O3 in the bedrock subsequently conditions the char- acter of physical soil properties. The higher values of significance in factor 6 are assigned to variables that immediately condition the character of the water–air regime. Other useable similar methods of multi-criteria decision-making for the evaluation of agroecosystems sustainability include MCDM, TOPSIS [72], ANP [73], AHP [74] and ELECTRE [75]. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is a multi-criteria decision analysis method. It is based on the concept that the chosen alterna- tive should have the shortest geometric distance from the positive ideal solution (PIS) and the longest geometric distance from the negative ideal solution (NIS). Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evalu- ates multiple conflicting criteria in decision-making (e.g., solving complex real-world problems like the 2030 Agenda (United Nations)). The analytic network process (ANP) is a more general form of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) used in multi-criteria decision analysis. AHP structures a decision problem into a hierarchy with a goal, decision criteria and alternatives, while the ANP structures it as a network. Both then use a system of pairwise comparisons to measure the weights of the components of the structure, and finally to rank the alternatives in the decision. The judgments may be inconsistent, and there is a mathematical way to measure inconsistency so that the outlying judgments may be revised by the decision-maker in an acceptable way, or a decision may be delayed until more consistent information is obtained. ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité) is a family of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). As a preference model, an outranking relation on the set of Land 2023, 12, 272 23 of 26 actions is used—it is constructed as a result of concordance and nondiscordance tests in- volving a specific input preference in-formation. In multivariate statistics, factor analysis (FA) is a statistical method used to uncover the underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables. FA works efficiently and produces fewer factors to describe the relationship if the variables under study are highly correlated. It should be noted here that MCDM methods cannot be compared in a way that one of them would outperform the rest, as accuracy in prediction depends on the nature of the problem, as well as the data collection and processing in a way that best fits each individ- ual method and application. It is crucial for data to include substantial information about what is being researched in multivariate analysis. The amount of information in data depends on how well the problem of research is formulated and how well the observations or measurements are collected. These are the weak and strong sides of the statistical processing and use of var- ious statistical programs. The choice of a suitable statistical program with regard to the object of research and correct interpretation of acquired results is no less important. In our study, with regards to the results of the applied FA technique, we opted for a suitable set of indicators trying to proportionally describe all elements of the agroecosystem, to which the results of matrix factor loads and factor score corresponded, since they were well in- terpretable. Recent research is based on long-term quantitative soil monitoring in determining agricultural soil changes and ecosystem processes over time. During long-term applica- tion of organic fertilisers, a statistically significant impact of the year-long experiment on all monitored soil parameters was detected, which was confirmed by analysis variance [76]. An unsuitable selection of indicators is a weak side of the used technique of factor analysis. If we analyse any landscape system consisting of abiotic, biotic and socioeco- nomic elements, the selection of indicators should meet the condition of proportional de- scription and the selection of the number of suitably selected indicators of these elements. 5. Conclusions It is necessary to obtain the necessary data relevant to the issue at hand in order to apply the selected methodological procedures of factor analysis in modelling structures of interrelations in the system man-agroecosystem. The data are usually of varying phys- ical dimension, they cause difficult conditions for factor solution interpretation. It is suit- able to modify the original data set into a specific standard form which would maintain data equivalency from the point of view of quantifying experimental data processing. High values of factor loads can be detected in man-agroecosystem impact, where erosion by water occurs as a result of unsuitable management. For example, primarily in factor 5, the variable [LS (0.53)] was detected on arable soil with disproportionate size and unsuit- able orientation with regard to thalwegs and location of the plot of land on the slope. In factor 3, primary saturation of this factor is [PROD (0.65)], [DSP—(0.76)], [Q4/6—(0.63)], [SL—(0.67)]. Secondary loads were in [SKEL (0.52)], [GRN (0.50)], [CaO P (0.43)] variables, which can be loosely interpreted as physical and biochemical soil properties, such as gran- ularity, organic substances quality, depth of soil and skeleton, but also presence of calcium being dominant impacts on the amount of biomass production. Physical–chemical and bio-chemical soil properties were connected with rock composition and its chemical prop- erties. We further calculated the factor score values for the individual factors (mainly for factors 5 and 3) for proposing optimal agroecosystem use, and their projection for the in- dividual elements of quasi-homogenous areas of the landscape (VSEU). This way we ob- tained the information about the present agroecosystem use that indicated unsuitable management and use, and enabled us to formulate a proposal of a sustainable functional agroecosystem. Land 2023, 12, 272 24 of 26 Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, Z.K., Š. K. methodology, Z.K. and Š.K., software and val- idation, Š.K. and Z.K., investigation, Z.K., formal analysis, Z.K. and Š.K., resources, Z.K., data cura- tion, Z.K., M.B., writing—original draft preparation, Z.K., Š. K., writing—review and editing, Z.K., Š.K., M.B., visualisation, M.B., supervision, Z.K. and Š.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The case study was prepared within solving the project VEGA No. 2/0135/22 Research of specific landscape elements of bio-cultural landscape in Slovakia and VEGA No. 2/0077/21 Integra- tion of supply of selected ecosystem services for societal demand in terms of developing sustainable forms of tourism and VEGA No. 2/0048/22 Changes in landscape diversity and biodiversity in mountain and alpine areas in Western Carpathians, funded by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, and the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV). Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: All data included in the main text. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Blaas, G.; Bielek, P.; Božík, M. Land and Agriculture. Reflections on the Future; Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2010; 35p. (In Slovak) 2. Schwilch, G.; Bernet, L.; Fleskens, L.; Giannakis, E.; Leventon, J.; Marañón, T.; Mills, J.; Short, C.; Stolte, J.; van Delden, H.; Verzandvoort, S. Operationalizing ecosystem services for the mitigation of soil threats: A proposed framework. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 586–597. 3. Wall, D.H.; Behan-Pelletier, V.; Jones, T.H.; Ritz, J.; Six, K.; Donald, J.; Strong, R.; van der Putten, W.H. Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012, 397p. 4. Goovaerts, P. Geostatistical tools for characterizing the spatial variability of microbiological and physico-chemical soil proper- ties. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1998, 27, 315–334. 5. Bouma, J.; Stoorvogel, J.; Van Alphen, B.J.; Booltink, H.W.G. Pedology, Precision Agriculture, and the Changing Paradigm of agricultural Research. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999, 63, 1763–1768. 6. Stein, A.; Ettema, C. An overview of spatial sampling procedures and experimental design of spatial studies for ecosystem comparisons. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 94, 31–47. 7. Caswell, H. Theory and models in ecology: A different perspective. Ecol. Model. 1988, 43, 33–44. 8. Crawley, M.J. Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis Using S-Plus; John Michael Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2002, 772p. 9. Guimaraes Couto, E.; Stein, A.; Klamt, E. Large area spatial variability of soil chemical properties in central Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1997, 66, 139–152. 10. Hoosbeek, M.R.; Amundson, R.G.; Bryant, R.B. Pedological modelling. In Handbook of Soil Science; Sumner, M.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. E77–E116. 11. Sklar, F.H.; Costanza, R. The development of dynamic spatial models for landscape ecology: A review and progress. In Quan- titative Methods in Landscape Ecology; Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 2. 12. Tixier, P. Modelling in agroecology: From simple to complex models, and vice versa. Modelling in agroecology: From simple to complex models, and vice versa. CIRAD, INRAE, INRIA. Montpellier: CIRAD, 2 p. In Proceedings of the International Crop Modelling Symposium (iCROPM 2020), Montpellier, France, 3–5 February 2020. 13. Hronec, O.; Vilček, J.; Tomáš, J. Quality of Environmental Components in Problem Areas; Mendelelova Univerzita v Brne: Brno, Czech Republic, 2010; 225p. (In Slovak) 14. Vilček, J. The Energy Potential of Agricultural Land—A Criterion for Evaluating and Using the Land; VÚPOP: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2006; 82p. (In Slovak) 15. Vilček, J.; Bedrna, Z. Suitability of Agricultural Soils and Landscape of Slovakia for Growing Plants; VÚPOP: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2007; 248p. (In Slovak) 16. Larson, W.E.; Pierce, F.J. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World, Proceedings of the IBSRAM, Chiang Rai, Thailand, 15–21 September 1991; International Board for Soil Research and Management: Bangkok, Thailand, 1999; Volume 12. 17. Puigdefábregas, J.; Fillat, F. Ecological adaptation of traditional land uses in the Spanish Pyrenees. Mt. Res. Dev. 1986, 6, 63–72. 18. Lasanta, T. Evolución Reciente de la Agricultura de Montaña: El Pirineoaragonés; Geoforma Ediciones: Logroño, Spain, 1989; 220p. 19. García-Ruiz, J.M. La Agricultura Tradicional de Montaña y Sus Efectos Sobre la Dinámica Hidromorfológica de Laderas y Cuencas. In Acción Humana y Desertificación en Ambientes Mediterráneos; García-Ruiz, J.M., López García, P.M Eds.; Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología (CSIC): Zaragoza, Spain, 1997; pp. 119–144. Land 2023, 12, 272 25 of 26 20. Asins, S. Linking historical Mediterranean terraces with water catch-ment. Harvesting and distribution structures. In The Ar- chaelogy of Crop Fields Gardens; Morel, J.P., Ed.; Ediplugia: Bari, Italy, 2006; pp. 21–40. 21. Agnoletti, M.; Conti, L.; Frezza, L.; Santoro, A. Territorial analysis of the agricultural terraces landscapes of Tuscany (Italy). Preliminary results. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4564–4581. 22. Messing, I.; Jarvis, N.J. Temporal variation in the hydraulic conductivity of a tilled clay soil as measured by tension infiltrome- ters. J. Soil Sci. 1993, 44, 11–24. 23. Belcher, K.W.; Boehm, M.M.; Fulton, J.A. Agroecosystem sustainability: An approach to a system simulation model. Agric. Syst. 2004, 79, 131–258. 24. Wilson, B.R.; Growns, I.; Lemon, J. Land-use effects on soil properties on the north-western slopes of New South Wales: Impli- cations for soil condition assessment. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2008, 46, 359–367. 25. Yemefack, M. Modelling and Monitoring Soil and Land Use Dynamics within Shifting Agricultural Landscape Mosaic Systems in Southern Cameroon. Ph.D. Thesis, ITC Enschede and Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2005. Available online: https://www.itc.nl/library/Papers_2005/phd/yemefack.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2022). 26. Kanianska, R.; Jaďuďová, J.; Makovníková, J.; Kizeková, M. Assessment of Relationships between Earthworms and Soil Abiotic and Biotic Factors as a Tool in Sustainable Agricultural. Sustainability 2016, 8, 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090906. 27. Krnáčová, Z.; Hrnčiarová, T. Landscape ecological limits and potential—Tool for suitable use (on example of the town Brati- slava). In Landscape Planning in the Enlarged European Union: International Conference Proceedings; Lehotská, B., Ed.; Univerzita Komenského: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2006; pp. 74–83. 28. Kibblewhite, M.G.; Ritz, K.; Swift, M.J. Soil health in agricultural systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 685–701. 29. Shukla, M.K.; Lal, M.; Ebinger, R. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 87, 194–204. 30. Johnson, R.A.; Wichern, D.W. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, UK, 1992. 31. Riitters, K.H.; O’Neill, R.V.; Hunsaker, C.T.; Wickham, J.D.; Yankee, D.H.; Timmins, S.P.; Jones, K.B.; Jackson B.L. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 10, 23–39. 32. He, P.; Zhang, H. Study on Factor Analysis and Selection of Common Landscape Metrics; Forest Research: Beijing, China, 2009; Vol- ume 22, pp. 470–474. 33. Cain, D.H.; Riitters, K.; Orvis, K. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landsc. Ecol. 1997, 12, 199–212. 34. Aliloo, A.A.; Dashti, S. Rural sustainability assessment using a combination of multi-criteria decision making and factor analy- sis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 6323–6336. 35. Ferrara, A.; Salvati, L.; Sateriano, A.; Carlucci, M.; Gitas, I.; Biasi, R. Unraveling the ‘stable’ landscape: A multi-factor analysis of unchanged agricultural and forest land (1987–2007) in a rapidly-expanding urban region. Urban Ecosyst. 2016, 19, 835–848. 36. Bailey, D.; Herzog, F.; Augenstein, I.; Aviron, S.; Billeter, R.; Szerencsits, E.; Baudry, J. Thematic resolution matters: Indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2007, 7, 692–709. 37. Krnáč, Š.; Krnáčová, Z. Study of ecosystem by factor analysis method. Ecology 1994, 13, 349–360. 38. Meloun, M.; Militský, J. Computer Analysis of Multidimensional Data in Examples; Academia: Prague, Czech Republic, 2005. (In Czech) 39. Hendl, J. Overview of Statistical Methods of Data Processing; Portál: Prague, Czech Republic, 2004. (In Czech) 40. SPS (Societas Pedologica Slovaca). Morphogenetic Classification System of Soils of Slovakia. Basal Reference Taxonomy. Druhé Upravené Vydanie; NPPC—VUPOP: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2014; 96p. (In Slovak) 41. Bachmann, G.; Kinzel, H. Physiological and ecological aspects of the interactions between plant roots and rhizosphere soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1992, 24, 543–552. 42. Wander, M.M.; Bollero, G.A. Soil quality assessment of tillage impacts in Illinois. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999, 63, 961–971. 43. Brejda, J.I.; Karlen, D.L.; Smith, J.L.; Allan, D.L. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators. II. Northern Missis- sippi loess hills and palouse prairie. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 2125–2135. 44. Brejda, J.I.; Moorman, T.B.; Karlen, D.L.; Dao, T.H. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators. I. Central and southern high plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 2115–2124. 45. Blahuš, P. Factor Analysis and Its Generalization; SNTL: Prague, Czech Republic, 1985; 345p. (In Czech) 46. Mcdonald, R.P. A note on the derivation of the general latent class model. Psychometrika 1962, 27, 201–206. 47. Budíková, M.; Koutková, H.; Portešová, Š. Factor analysis of the S. Harter test. In Sborník 4. Matematického Workshopu; FAST VUT, BRNO: Vysoké Učení Technické, Brno, Czech Republic, 2005; pp. 12–24. (In Czech) 48. Hebák, P. Multidimensional Statistical Methods 3; Informatorium: Prague, Czech Republic, 2005. (In Czech) 49. Karlen, D.L.; Wollenhaupt, N.C.; Erabach, D.C.; Berry, E.C.; Swan, J.B.; Eash, N.S.; Jordahl, J.L. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Till. Res. 1994, 31, 149–167. 50. Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R.; Ebinger, M. Soil quality indicators for reclaimed minesoils in southeastern Ohio. Soil Sci. 2004, 169, 133– 51. SHMÚ (Slovak Hydrometeorological Unstitute). Meteorological Data—Average Monthly Precipitation and Average Monthly Tem- peratures; Weather Station Skalica: Skalica, Slovakia, 2021. (In Slovak) 52. NPPC (National Agriculture and Food Centre). Database of Soil-Ecological Units (QSEU) Slovakia. Scale 1:10,000. The Database Is Transformed into the Universal DXF Vector Format and the Program System Environment Format GIS: ARC/INFO; NPPC: Lužianky, Slovakia, 2021. (In Slovak) Land 2023, 12, 272 26 of 26 53. Vadovičová, E.; Džatko, M. Evaluation of Production Potential and Soil-Ecological Units of Model Enterprises; Výskumná Správa VÚPÚ: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1992; pp. 5–11. (In Slovak) 54. Genovese, G.; Bettio, M. (Eds.) Methodology of the Mars Crop Yield Forecasting System. Meteorological Data Collection. 2004, Pro- cessing and Analysis; The Office Publications of Communities: Luxemburg, 2004; 98p. 55. Bossard, M.; Feranec, J.; Oťaheľ, J. CORINE Land Cover Technical Quide—Addendum 2000; Technical Report; European Environ- ment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000; 105p. 56. Nearing, M.A.; Jetten, V.; Baffaut, C.; Cerdan, O.; Couturier, A.; Hernandez, M.; Le Bissonnais, Y.; Nichols, M.H.; Nunes, J.P.; Renschler, C.S.; Souchere, V.; et al. Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. Catena 2005, 61, 131–154. 57. Mitašova, H.; Mitaš, L. Multiscale soil erosion simulations for land use management. In Landscape Erosion and Evolution Modeling; Harmon, R.S., Doe, W.W., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0575-4_11. 58. Millward, A.A.; Mersey, J.E. Conservation strategies for effective land management of protected areas using an erosion predic- tion information system (EPIS). J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 61, 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0415. 59. Kovář, P.; Vaššová, D.; Janeček, M. Surface runoff simulation to mitigate the impact of soil erosion, case study of Třebsín (Czech Republic). Soil Water Res. 2012, 7, 85–96. 60. Burrough, P.A.; McDonnell, R.A.; Christopher, D.L. Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Spatial Information Systems and Geostatistics, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015. 61. UKSUP (Central Control and Testing Institute for Agriculture). Section Laboratory Activities and TSUP; UKSUP: Bratislava, Slo- vakia, 2021. (In Slovak) 62. Krist, E.; Krivý, M. Petrology. Vydavateľstvo Technickej a Ekonomickej Literatúry; ALFA: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1985; 464p. (In Slovak) 63. Zelenský, Z. Agroecological types of the Slovak Republic and their energy efficiency. Folia Geogr. Prešov 2004, 7, 127–138. (In Slovak) 64. Malinowski, E.R.; Howery, D.G. Factor Analysis in Chemistry; Wiley Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1980. 65. Bedrna, Z.; Jenčo, M. Pedogeography. Laws of Spatial Differentiation of the Pedosphere; Univerzita Komenského, Prirodovedecká fakulta: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2016; 115p. (In Slovak) 66. Pišút, P.; Procházka, J. A contribution to the knowledge of the genesis of soils and the structure of the soil cover on Rye Island (paleomeander of the Danube, Nekyje). In Diagnostika, Klasifikácia a Mapovanie Pôd; Sobocká. J., Ed. Výskumný ústav pôdoz- nalectva a ochrany pôdy: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011; pp. 239–246. (In Slovak) 67. Targuljan, V.O. Pamjať počv: Formirovanije, nositeli, prostranstvennoje raznoobrazije. In Pamjať Počv; Targuljan, V.O., Gor- jačkin, S.V., Eds.; Institut geografii RAN: Moscow, Russia, 2008; pp. 24–57. 68. Zaujec, A.; Chlpík, J.; Nádašský, J.; Szombathová, N.; Tobiášová, E. Pedology and the Basics of Geology; Slovenská Poľnohospo- dárska Univerzita v Nitre: Nitre, Slovakis, 2009; 399p. (In Slovak) 69. Jenčo, M.; Pišút, P. The use of a digital relief model in the optimization of the placement of soil probes. In Diagnostika, Klasifikácia a Mapovanie Pôd; Sobocká, J., Ed.; Výskumný ústav pôdoznalectva a ochrany pôdy: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011; pp. 225–231. (In Slovak) 70. Collard, S.; Zammit, C. Effects of land-use intensification on soil carbon and ecosystem services in Brigalow (Acacia har- pophylla) landscapes of southeast Queensland, Australia. Environ. Sci. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 117, 185–194. 71. Krnáčová, Z.; Hreško, J.; Kanka, R.; Boltižiar, M. The evaluation of ecological factors affecting environmental functions of the soils in area of traditional agrarian structures. Ekológia 2013, 32, 248–261. https://doi.org/10.2478/eko-2013-0021. 72. Papathanasiou, J.; Ploskas, N.; Bournaris, T.; Manos, B. A decision support system for multiple criteria alternative ranking using TOPSIS and VIKOR: A case study on social sustainability in agriculture. In International Conference on Decision Support System Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 3–15. 73. Saaty, T.L. The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach. Oper. Res. 2013, 61, 1101–1118. 74. Gupta, S.; Dangayach, G.; Singh, A.K.; Rao, P. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for evaluating sustainable manufactur- ing practices in Indian electrical panel industries. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 189, 208–216. 75. Figueira, J.R.; Greco, S.; Roy, B.; Słowiński, R. An overview of ELECTRE methods and their recent extensions. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2013, 20, 61–85. 76. Fazekašová, D.; Boltižiar, M.; Bobuľská, L.; Kotorová, D.; Hecl, J.; Krnáčová, Z. Development of soil parameters and changing landscape structure in conditions of cold mountain climate (case study Liptovská Teplička). Ekológia 2013, 32, 197–210. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au- thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Journal
Land – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Published: Jan 18, 2023
Keywords: mathematical model; agroecosystem; factor analysis; environment indicators; soil ecological units (VSEU); impact of man; soil; interrelations; ecosystem