4.6 Article

Relationships between field management, soil health, and microbial community composition

期刊

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 12-21

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.06.012

关键词

Soil health; Cornell Soil Health Assessment; Phospholipid fatty acid analysis; Agricultural intensity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More meaningful and useful soil health tests are needed to enable better on-farm soil management. Our objective was to assess the relationship between field management, soil health, and soil microbial abundance and composition (phospholipid fatty acid analysis (PLFA)) in soil collected from two fields (farmer-designated 'good' versus 'poor') across 34 diverse (livestock, grain or vegetable cropping) farms in Maritime Canada. Soil health was measured using soil texture, surface hardness, available water capacity, water stable aggregates, organic matter, soil protein, soil respiration, active carbon, and standard nutrient analysis. All soils were medium to coarse textured (< 8% clay). Mixed models analysis showed that both CSHA and PLFA were able to resolve statistical differences between cropping systems, however conventional soil chemical analysis was the only testing method to resolve statistical differences between farmer designated 'good' and 'poor' fields. Principle component analyses determined management history (rotation over previous three years), but not 'good' or 'poor' field designation, to be an important determinant of soil health. Water-stable aggregates and soil respiration were positively correlated with all PLFA microbial groups, and negatively correlated with sand, P, Cu and Al. Lower-intensity management (perennial forage, mixed annual-perennial cropping), manure application and low tillage were linked to higher soil respiration, water-stable aggregates, fungi, mycorrhizae, Gram negative bacteria, and lower soil available P. Correlations between CSHA and PLFA shows promise for integrating these two tests for improved soil health assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据