Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:00:29.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil biochemical response after 23 years of direct drilling under a dryland agriculture system in southwest Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

S. MELERO ,
K. VANDERLINDEN ,
J. CARLOS RUIZ  and
E. MADEJÓN
S. MELERO*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (IFAPA), Centro ‘Las Torres-Tomejil’, Sevilla, Spain
K. VANDERLINDEN
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (IFAPA), Centro ‘Las Torres-Tomejil’, Sevilla, Spain
J. CARLOS RUIZ
Affiliation:
Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (IFAPA), Centro ‘Las Torres-Tomejil’, Sevilla, Spain
E. MADEJÓN
Affiliation:
Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Sevilla (IRNAS-CSIC), Avenida Reina Mercedes 10, PO Box 1052, 41080 Sevilla, Spain
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Soil enzyme activities are widely utilized as rapid and sensitive indicators in discriminating among soil management effects. The objective of the present study was to compare the influence of conservation tillage, i.e. direct drilling (DD) (residue cover is left on the soil surface) v. conventional tillage (CT), on soil chemical and biochemical properties in a crop rotation (cereals–sunflower–legumes) under dryland production in a semi-arid Mediterranean Vertisol after 23 years. A randomized experimental design was established. Soil biological status was evaluated by measuring of enzymatic activities (dehydrogenase, β-glucosidase, alkaline phosphatase and protease). Total organic carbon (TOC) contents were greater in soils managed by DD than those found by CT. Except for protease activity, enzymatic activity values were approximately 2-fold higher in soils under DD than in soils under CT. The β-glucosidase, alkaline phosphatase and dehydrogenase values showed a high correlation (from r=0·481 to r=0·886, P⩽0·01) with TOC contents and they were correlated with each other (from r=0·664 to r=0·923, P⩽0·01). The coefficient of variation of biochemical properties was higher than those of chemical properties in both treatments. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed that two principal components explained 58% and 20% of the total variability. The first principal component was influenced mostly by β-glucosidase, dehydrogenase and TOC, whereas the second was influenced by pH. The first component effectively differentiated managed soil under both agriculture practices. In general, long-term soil conservation management by DD in a dryland farming system improved the quality of this Vertisol by enhancing its organic matter content and biochemical activity.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 9 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Acosta-Martínez, V., Klose, S. & Zobeck, T. M. (2003 a). Enzyme activities in semiarid soils under conservation reserve program, native rangeland, and cropland. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 166, 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acosta-Martínez, V., Zobeck, T. M., Gill, T. E. & Kennedy, A. C. (2003 b). Enzyme activities and microbial community structure in semiarid agricultural soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils 38, 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, R. G. (1982). Enzyme activity in soil: location and possible role in microbial activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 14, 423–427.Google Scholar
Cox, M. S., Gerard, P. D., Wardlaw, M. C. & Abshire, M. J. (2003). Variability of selected soil properties and their relationships with soybean yield. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67, 1296–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, J. W. & Parkin, T. B. (1994). Defining and assessing soil quality. In Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment (Ed. Doran, J. W.), pp. 3–23. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Special Publication No. 35. Madison, WI: SSSA and ASA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eivazi, F. & Tabatabai, M. A. (1988). Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 20, 601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giráldez, J. V., Gonzalez, P., Ordóñez, R., Laguna, A. & De Haro, J. M. (1995). Conservation tillage under meteorological conditions in southern Spain. In Proceedings of the EC-Workshop-III, Evora, 1–2 April 1996, pp. 119–125. Concerted Action No. AIR 3-CT 93-1464. Giessen, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Fachverlag.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, D. S. (1988). Determination of microbial biomass C and N in soils. In Advances in Nitrogen Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems (Ed. Wilson, J. R.), pp. 368–386. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Jiménez, M. P., De La Horra, A. M., Pruzzo, L. & Palma, R. M. (2002). Soil quality: a new index based on microbiological and biochemical parameters. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35, 302–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, J. N. & Butler, J. H. A. (1972). Short-term assays of soil proteolytic enzyme activities using proteins and dipeptide derivatives as substrates. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 4, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madejón, E., Moreno, F., Murillo, J. M. & Pelegrín, F. (2007). Soil biochemical response to long-term conservation tillage under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions. Soil and Tillage Research 94, 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, L. D., Lana, A. M. Q., Lana, R. M. Q., Guimaraes, E. C. & Ferreira, C. V. (2007). Spatial variability of soil chemical attributes in areas managed under conventional tillage. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Do Solo 31, 591–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masciandaro, G., Ceccanti, B. & Garcia, C. (1997). Change in soil biochemical and cracking properties induced by ‘living mulch systems’. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 77, 579–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melero, S., Madejón, E., Ruiz, J. C. & Herencia, J. F. (2007). Chemical and biochemical properties of a clay soil under dryland agriculture system as affected by organic fertilization. European Journal of Agronomy 26, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrabet, R. (2002). Stratification of soil aggregation and organic matter under conservation tillage systems in Africa. Soil and Tillage Research 66, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murillo, J. M., Moreno, F., Girón, I. F. & Oblitas, M. I. (2004). Conservation tillage: long-term effect on soil and crop under rainfed conditions in south-west Spain (Western Andalusia). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannipieri, P., Grego, S. & Ceccanti, B. (1990). Ecological significance of the biological activity in soil. In Soil Biochemistry, Vol. 6 (Eds Stotzky, G. & Bollag, J. M.), pp. 293–355. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Ordóñez-Fernández, R., González-Fernández, P., Giráldez-Cervera, J. V. & Perea-Torres, F. (2007). Soil properties and crop yields after 21 years of direct drilling trials in southern Spain. Soil and Tillage Research 94, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, J. F. & Papendick, R. I. (1997). Soil quality: relationship and strategies for sustainable dryland farming systems. Annals of Arid Zone 36, 181–191.Google Scholar
Rahman, M. H., Tanaka, A. & Hoque, S. (2003). Long-term effects of tillage on physicochemical properties of modified andisol of northeast Honshu Island. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 34, 1743–1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, D. W. (1997). The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research 43, 131–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roldán, A., Salinas-García, J. R., Alguacil, M. M., Diaz, E. & Caravaca, F. (2005). Soil enzyme activities suggest advantages of conservation tillage practices in sorghum cultivation under subtropical conditions. Geoderma 129, 178–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salinas-García, J. R., Velásquez-García, J. J., Gallardo-Valdez, M., Díaz-Mederos, P., Caballero-Hernández, F., Tapia-Vargas, L. M. & Rosales-Robles, E. (2002). Tillage effect on microbial biomass and nutrient distribution in soil under rain-fed corn production in central-western Mexico. Soil and Tillage Research 66, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Agriculture Handbook No. 436. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Tabatabai, M. A. (1994). Soil enzymes. In Methods of Soils Analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties (Eds Weaver, R. W., Angle, G. S., Bottomley, P. S., Bezdicek, D., Smith, S., Tabatabai, A. & Wollum, A.), pp. 778–833. Madison, WI: SSSA.Google Scholar
Tabatabai, M. A. & Bremner, J. M. (1969). Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thalmann, A. (1968). Zur Methodik der Bestimmung der Dehydrogenasealtivitát im Boden mittels Triphenyltetrazoliumchlorid (TTC). Landwirtsch Forsch 21, 249–259.Google Scholar
Walkley, A. & Black, J. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar