4.6 Article

Degradation and restoration of sandy soils under different agricultural land uses in northeast thailand: A review

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 567-577

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.798

关键词

agricultural land use; forest conversion; humic substance; microbial biomass; nitrogen mineralisation; particulate organic matter; organic residue quality; soil organic matter pools; Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conversion of natural forest to agricultural land use has significantly lowered the soil organic matter (SOM) content in sandy soils of northeast Thailand. This paper reviews the findings of comparative studies on contents of SOM pools (labile, i.e. microbial biomass and particulate organic matter-POM and stable, i.e. humic substance) and related soil aggregate formation, in natural forest plots and cultivated fields (monocrops of cassava, sugarcane and rice) in sites representative of northeast Thailand from the viewpoints of terrain (i.e. undulating), soils (sandy) and land use and discusses the restoration of SOM and fertility (nitrogen) in these degraded soils. Monocultural agriculture brings about the degradation of all SOM pools and associated soil aggregation as compared to the forest system because of decreased organic inputs and more frequent soil disturbance. The build-up of SOM was achieved through the continuous recycling of organic residues produced within the system. Low-quality residues contributed the largest SOM build-up in whole and fractionated SOM pools, including POM and humic substance. However, to restore N fertility, high quality residues, (i.e. with low C/N ratios, lignin and polyphenols) were also needed. Timing of N release to meet crop demand was achieved by employing a mixture of high and low quality residues. Selection of appropriate residues for N sources was affected by environmental factors, notably soil moisture regimes, which differed in upland field and lowland paddy subsystems. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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