4.7 Article

Stability of Aggregates Made by Earthworms in Soils with Organic Additives

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11030421

关键词

soil texture; microbial activity; compost; straw; peat

资金

  1. NATIONAL SCIENCE CENTRE, Poland [2017/01/X/ST10/00777]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Earthworm activity, organic additives, and soil texture are important factors affecting soil aggregate formation, with compost containing active bacteria being the most efficient additive. Earthworm activity promotes aggregate formation, while wet-sieve and laser diffraction methods are comparable for measuring aggregate stability in silty, clayey, and loamy soils.
Earthworm activity is a key factor in creating soil aggregates, but introduced organic matter and abiotic factors are also equally important. The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of aggregates made by earthworms in soils with organic additives. Additionally, the two aggregate stability measurement methods were compared: (i) the wet-sieve method and (ii) the laser diffraction method. A six-month container experiment containing sixteen treatments and controls were made. Each treatment included one of four types of soil texture: sand, loam, silty loam and clay, and one of four additives: straw, peat, compost and compost with added microorganisms. To each treatment, six earthworms were added, two each of species commonly occurring in Polish soils: Dendrodrilus rubidus, Aporrectodea caliginosa and A. rosea. This study confirmed that earthworm activity was the factor favoring aggregate formation. In terms of the investigated organic additives, the efficiency of aggregate creation was as follows: compost with active bacteria, compost, peat and straw. Nevertheless, earthworms alone, without the addition of an organic additive, did not form permanent aggregates. The wet sieving and laser diffractometry methods of measuring aggregate stability were comparable for silty, clayey and loamy soils.

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

4.7
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