Effect of agricultural management on some chemical and biological indicators of soil health

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Master of Science Student/Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

2 Associate Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor/Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

Abstract

Introduction: Soil health is one of the factors contributing to food security and public health and hence achievement of sustainable agricultural goals. One of the factors affecting soil health is agronomic management. Different agronomic managements (e.g. crop residue management, monoculture system and crop rotation) have different effects on soil health indicators. Therefore this study was designed and conducted to evaluate the effects of different agronomic management on some soil chemical and biological indicators.
Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in Research Farm#2 in Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz. Three farms with different agronomic management systems were selected. The effect of three agronomic management systems including monoculture cropping system (i.e. wheat), wheat (Triticum)-Mung bean)Vigna radiate) rotation system and residues management on some soil chemical and biological health indicators were studied. The indicators were pH, salinity, microbial respiration, organic matter, active carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn) and Manganese (Mn). The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Mean comparison test was performed using Duncan's multiple range test.
Results and Discussion :The results of analysis of variance showed that the crop management type had a significant effect (p < 0.01) on soil salinity, pH, organic matter, microbial respiration and activate carbon. Monoculture cropping system caused a significant increased in pH (7.2) and soil salinity (3.5 dS m-1) compared to the other agronomic management systems. Crop residues management increased soil organic matter, microbial respiration and active soil carbon more than crop rotation and monoculture management systems. The soil health indicators were more in crop rotation system than monoculture which shows significant effect of crop rotation compare with monoculture cropping system on improving soil health. The highest and lowest amounts of soil available Fe, Zn, and Mn concentrations were measured in the residue management and the monoculture, respectively.
Conclusion:This study showed that soil salinity, pH, organic matter, microbial respiration and activate carbon can be used as soil health indicators to evaluate the effects of different agronomic managements on soil health. Crop residue management had more significantly effects on improving soil health indicators than crop rotation and monoculture cropping systems. The soil health indicators were more in crop rotation system compare with monoculture which shows the positive effect of rotation compare with monoculture. In general, the results showed that the crop residue management can improve soil health indicators more than crop rotation and monoculture cropping systems.

Keywords

References

1.Ajami, M., Khormali, F., Ayoubi, S., and Omrani, R.A. 2006. Changes in soil quality attributes by conversion of land use on a loess hillslope in Golestan province, Iran. 18th International Soil Meeting (ISM) on Soil Sustaining Life on Earth, Maintaining Soil and Technology Proceedings, Soil Science Society of Turkey, 5: 2. 501-504.
2.Anderson, J.M., and Ineson, P. 1982. A soil microcosm system and its application to measurements of respiration and nutrient leaching. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,
14: 4. 415-416.
3.Ayoubi, S., Khormali, F., Sahrawat, K.L., and Rodriguesde Lima, A.C. 2011. Assessing impact of land use change on soil quality indicators in a loessial soil in Golestan province, Iran. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 13: 2. 727-742.
4.Beheshti, A., Raiesi, F., and Golchin, A. 2012. Soil properties, C fractions and their dynamics in land use conversion from native forests to crop lands in northern Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 148: 1. 121-133.
5.Blake, G.R., and Hartge, K.H. 1986a. Bulk DensityIn: Klute, A. (Ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA, Madison, WI. Pp: 363-375.
6.Blake, G.R., and Hartge, K.H. 1986b. Particle Density, P 377-381. In: Klute, A. (Ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA, Madison, WI.
7.Celik, I. 2005. Land-use effects on organic matter and physical properties of soil in a southern Mediterranean highland of Turkey. Soil and Tillage Research. 83: 2. 270-277.
8.Danielson, R.H., and Suterland, P.L. 1986. Porosity, In: Klute, A. (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monograph, 9. 2nd edition, ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. Pp: 443-460.
9.Emadi, M., Baghernjad, M., and Memarian, H. 2009. Effect of land use change on soil fertility characteristics within water-stable aggregates of two cultivated soils in northern Iran. Land Use Policy. 26: 2. 452-457. 
10.Evrendliek, I., Celik, I., and Klic, S. 2004. Changes in soil organic carbon and other physical soil properties along adjacent Mediterranean forest, grass land and crop land ecosystems in Turkey. J. Arid Environ. 59: 4. 743-752.
11.Gol, C. 2009. The effects of land use change on soil properties and organic carbon at Dagdamir river catchment in Turkey. J. Environ. Biol. 30: 5. 825-830.
12.Hillel, D. 2004. Introduction to Environmental Soil Physics. Elsevier Academic Press. 494p.
13.Islam, K.R., and Weil, R.R. 2002. Land use effects on soil quality in a tropical forest ecosystem of Bangladesh. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 79: 1. 9-16.
14.Jacob, H., and Clarke, G. 2002. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4, physical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 1692p.
15.Jones, B.J. 2001. Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis. Boca Raton, London, New York & Washington, D.C. CRC Press. 421p.
16.Kalva, Y.P., Reak, R., Vaughan, B., and Wolf, A.M. 1998. Handbook of reference methods for plant and analysis. Soil and Plant Analysis Council. Inc, Athens, GA. CRC Press.
Boca Raton. Florida. 129p.
17.Khazayi, M., Sadeghi, S.H.R., and Mirnia, S.Kh. 2011. Hydrological effects of forest surface disturbance, a case study. Iran. J. For. 3: 2. 145-155. (In Persian)
18.Khormali, F., and Shamsi, S. 2009. Study of soil quality and micromorphology at
different sloped loess land use in the eastern of Golestan province. J. Agric. Sci. Natur. Resour. 16: 3. 14-29. (In Persian)
19.Khormali, F., Ajami, M., Ayoubi, S., Srinivasarao, C., and Wani, S.P. 2009. Role of deforestation and hill slope position on soil quality attributes of loess-derived soils in Golestan province, Iran. Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment. 134: 2. 178-189. 
20.Klute, A. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods.
2nd edition. Agron. Monog. 9. ASA ana SSSA, Madison, WI.
21.Klute, A., and Dirksen, C. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity of saturated soils (constant head), In: Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1, 2nd ed. Agronomy. Monograph 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. Pp: 694-696.
22.Martinez, M., Lopez, J., Almagro, M., and Albaladejo, J. 2008. Effect of water erosion and cultivation on the soil carbon stock in a semiarid area of south-east Spain. Soil and Tillage Research. 99: 2. 119-129.
23.Motaghian, H.R., and Mohammadi, J. 2011. Comparison of some soil physical quality indices in different land uses in Marghmalek catchment, Shahrekord (Chaharmahal-va- BakhtiariProvince). J. Water Soil. 25: 1. 115-124. (In Persian)
24.Mokhtari Karchegani, P., Ayoubi, Sh., Mosaddeghi, M.R., and Malekian, M. 2011. Effects of land use and slope gradient on soil organic carbon pools in particle-size fractions and some soil physico-chemical properties in hilly regions, western Iran. J. Soil Manage. Sust. Prod. 1: 1. 23-42. (In Persian)
 25.Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter, 
In: Page, A.L., R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeny, (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Pp: 539-579.
26.Niknahad Gharmakher, H., and Maramaei, M. 2011. Effects of land use change on
soil properties (Case study: the Kechik catchment). J. Soil Manage. Sust. Prod. 1: 2. 81-96. (In Persian)
27.Raiesi, F. 2007. The conversion of overgrazed pastures to almond orchards and alfalfa cropping systems may favor microbial indicators of soil quality in central Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 121: 1. 309-318.
28.Salehi, A., Mohammadi, A., and Safari, A. 2011. Investigation and comparison of physical and chemical soil properties and quantitative characteristics of trees in less-damaged and damaged area of Zagross forests (Case study: Poldokhtar, Lorestan province). Iran. J. For.
3: 1. 81-89. (In Persian)
29.Shahbazi, F., Aliasgharzad, N., Ebrahimzad, S.A., and Najafi, N. 2013. Geostatistical analysis for predicting soil biological maps under different scenarios of land use. Europ. J. Soil Biol. 55: 20-27.
30.Soleimani, K., and Azmoodeh, A. 2010. Investigation the role of land use change on some soil physical, chemical and erodibility properties. Physical Geography Research. 42: 74. 111-123. (In Persian)
31.Yoder, R.E. 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils and a study of the physical nature of erosion losses. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 28: 1. 337-351.
32.Zolfaghari, A.A., and Hajabassi, M.A. 2008. The effects of land use change on physical properties and water repellency of soils in Lordegan forest and Freidunshar pasture. J. Water Soil. 22: 2. 251-262. (In Persian) 
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 25, Issue 3
July and August 2018
Pages 269-280

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics