4.6 Article

Determining soil quality in urban agricultural regions by soil enzyme-based index

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOCHEMISTRY AND HEALTH
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 1531-1544

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10653-017-9998-2

关键词

Numerical index; Soil alteration; Soil health; Soil biochemical properties; Soil quality indictors

资金

  1. Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ010182042015]
  2. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ010182042015] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban agricultural soils are highly variable, and careful selection of sensitive indicators is needed for the assessment of soil quality. This study is proposed to develop an index based on soil enzyme activities for assessing the quality of urban agricultural soils. Top soils were collected from urban agricultural areas of Korea, and soil chemical properties, texture, microbial fatty acids, and enzyme activities were determined. The soils belonged to five textural classes with the highest frequency of sandy loam. There was no clear correlation between the soil chemical properties and soil microbial properties. Principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis were applied to microbial groups for identification of microbial community variation in soils. Two soil groups, namely group 1 (G1) and group 2 (G2), based on microbial community abundance were examined by PCA, and those were more prominent in factor analysis. The G1 soils showed higher microbial community abundance than G2 soils. The canonical discriminant analysis was applied to the enzyme activities of sandy loam soil to develop an index, and the index validation was confirmed using the unused soils and published data. The high-quality soils in published literature assigned the high valued index. Microbial fatty acids and soil enzyme activities can be suitable indicators for soil quality evaluation of urban agricultural 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

4.6
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