4.5 Article

Long-term effects of compost amendment of soil on functional and structural diversity and microbial activity

期刊

SOIL USE AND MANAGEMENT
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 209-218

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00027.x

关键词

compost; microbial activity; polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; community level physiological profiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the effects of applying different composts (urban organic waste, green waste, manure and sewage sludge), mineral fertilizer and compost plus mineral fertilizer on chemical, biological and soil microbiological parameters over a 12-year period. The organic C and total N levels in soils were increased by all compost and compost + N treatments. Microbial biomass C was significantly (P <= 0.05) increased for some compost treatments. In addition, basal respiration and the metabolic quotient (qCO(2)) were significantly higher in all soils that had received sewage sludge compost. The Shannon diversity index (H), based on community level physiological profiling, showed a higher consumption of carbon sources in soils treated with compost and compost + N compared with the control. The utilization of different guilds of carbon sources varied amongst the treatments (compost, compost + N or mineral fertilizer). Cluster analysis of polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis patterns showed two major clusters, the first containing the mineral fertilization and compost treatments, and the second, the composts + N treatments. No differences in bacterial community structure could be determined between the different types of compost. However, the results suggest that long-term compost treatments do have effects on the soil biota. The results indicate that the effects on the qCO(2) may be due to shifts in community composition. In this study, it was not possible to distinguish with certainty between the effects of different composts except for compost derived from sewage sludge.

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

4.5
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