4.7 Article

Biochemical properties in managed grassland soils in a temperate humid zone: modifications of soil quality as a consequence of intensive grassland use

期刊

BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS
卷 45, 期 7, 页码 711-722

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00374-009-0382-y

关键词

Soil biochemical properties; Soil quality; Grassland management; Soil enzymes; Soil organic matter

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [BTE2001-0987]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although soil biochemical properties are considered to be good indicators of changes in soil quality, few studies have been made of the changes in biochemical properties brought about by anthropogenic disturbance of grassland ecosystems. In the present study, several biochemical properties were analysed in 31 grassland soils subjected to a high level of management, and the values obtained were compared with known values corresponding to native grasslands from the same region (Galicia, NW Spain). The 31 managed grasslands were divided into two groups (re-sown grasslands and improved grasslands) according to their management and past land use. The biochemical properties studied were: labile carbon, microbial biomass carbon, microbial respiration, metabolic quotient, net nitrogen mineralisation and the activities of dehydrogenase, catalase, phosphodiesterase, phosphomonoesterase, casein hydrolysing proteases, benzoyl arginamide (BAA)-hydrolysing proteases, urease, cellulase, -glucosidase, invertase and arylsulphatase. Managed grasslands exhibited lower values of soil biochemical properties than native grasslands. Three biochemical equilibrium equations were used to compare soil quality in managed and native grasslands. One of the equations did not show any significant difference between the groups of grassland soils considered. In contrast, two of the equations showed similar soil quality for improved and native grasslands, while re-sown grasslands exhibited a loss of soil quality when compared to native grassland 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