Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-lgdn2 Total loading time: 0.466 Render date: 2021-10-26T05:00:43.963Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Soil property indices for assessing short-term changes in soil quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

M.C. Bell*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620 Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
C.W. Raczkowski
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: melissa_bell@ncsu.edu

Abstract

Soil quality has been proposed as a prime indicator for characterizing and defining management factors contributing to soil degradation. In this study, biological (soil respiration, fluorescent Pseudomonas bacteria and entomopathogenic nematode populations), chemical (pH, inorganic N, and total C & N), and physical (bulk density and infiltration) indicators were used to determine soil quality. The specific research objective was to determine the capacity of this specific set of indicators to assess soil quality and determine its ability to detect short-term changes in soil conditions and processes. The assessment was comparative because of the lack of specific criteria or guidelines available in the literature for interpretation of most soil property indices measured. The following treatments were chosen from an ongoing farming systems study to achieve a preplanned set of comparisons that would make this type of assessment possible: (1) best management practices/conventional tillage (BMP/CT), (2) BMP/no-tillage (BMP/NT), (3) an organic system, and (4) a successional fallow system. Assessments were made multiple times between 1999 and 2000. Statistical differences between systems were found for all soil quality indicators except for entomopathogenic nematodes. Differences between systems varied across dates, a result that supports other research stating the need to consider the temporal variability of these indices for an unbiased overall soil quality assessment. Differences in total carbon and total nitrogen between systems were most evident in the 2000 sampling dates with BMP/NT showing greater contents on the last sampling date. The soil pH and inorganic N results did not suggest a possible difference in soil function status between any of the three agricultural systems studied. All three agricultural systems, BMP/NT, BMP/CT and organic, had similar pH values and overall low soil inorganic N levels. The non-agricultural successional system had a slightly more acidic soil condition than the three agricultural systems. Soil bulk density increased with time in the untilled BMP/NT and successional systems but the resulting values were not considered detrimental to either productivity or environmental quality. Infiltration was lower in the BMP/NT and successional systems than in the BMP/CT and organic systems. In conclusion, all soil quality indicators except for entomopathogenic nematodes proved to be sensitive to the detection of rapid changes in soil conditions that occur by the influence of soil management. The importance of using soil bulk density to express soil results on a volume basis, as the soil exists in the field before sampling, prevented an average interpretation error of 7–14% as compared to treatment comparisons on a soil weight basis only. This also demonstrates the need to carefully consider field sampling locations (row, between row, or wheel traffic areas) which dramatically influence soil density, physical characteristics, organic matter concentrations, and biological activity. Failure to consider these factors can invalidate even the most careful approaches to establishing baseline soil quality levels in the field as affected by various tillage and residue management practices and associated comparisons in time.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Mueller, J.P., Barbercheck, M.E, Bell, M., Brownie, C., Creamer, N.G., Hitt, A., Hu, S., King, L., Linker, H.M., Louws, F.J., Marlow, S., Marra, M., Raczkowski, C.W., Susko, D.J., and Wagger, M.G. 2002. Development and implementation of a long-term agricultural systems study: challenges and opportunities. HortTechnology 12:362368.Google Scholar
Gliesmann, S.R. 1990. Agoecology: researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. In Gliessman, S.R. (ed.). Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer-Verlag, New York. p. 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, J.W. and Parkin, T.B. 1996. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds) Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Special Publ. 49. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 2539.Google Scholar
Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., Follet, R.F., and Cole, C.V. 1998. The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Sleeping Bear Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 128 p.Google Scholar
Doran, J.W. and Parkin, T.B. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In Doran, J.W. (eds) Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of America Special Publ. 35. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 321.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, A. and Zumwinkle, M. 1999. Assessing the soil system: a soil quality literature review. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Programs, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
Karlen, D.L., Wollenhaupt, N.C., Erbach, D.C., Berry, E.C., Swan, J.B., Eash, N.S., and Jordahl, J.L. 1994. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil and Tillage Research 31:149167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A.C. and Smith, K.L. 1995. Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability of agricultural soils. Plant and Soil 170:7586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, F. and O'Gara, D.N. 1994. Metabolites of Pseudomonas involved in the biocontrol of plant disease. Trends in Biotechnology 12(4):133141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Kaya, H.K. and Gaugler, R. 1993. Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annual Review of Entomology 38:181206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Parkin, T.B., Doran, J.W., and Franco-Vizcaino, E. 1996. Field and laboratory tests of soil respiration. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publ. 49. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 231245.Google Scholar
12 Sarrantonio, M., Doran, J.W., Liebig, M.A., and Halvorson, J.J. 1996. On-farm assessment of soil quality and health. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds) Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publ. 49. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 83107.Google Scholar
13 Blake, G.R. and Hartge, K.H. 1986. Bulk density. In Klute, A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. 2nd ed. Agronomy 9:363–375. SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
14 Stuart, R.J. and Gaugler, R. 1994. Patchiness in populations of entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 64:3945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Woomer, P.L. 1994. Most probable number counts. In Weaver, R.W., Angle, J.S. and Bottomley, P.S. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Microbial and Biochemical Properties. SSSA Book Series No. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 5978.Google Scholar
16 Gardener, B.B.M., Mavrodi, D.V., Thomasow, L.S., and Weller, D.M. 2001. A rapid polymerase chain reaction-based assay characterizing rhizosphere populations of 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producing bacteria. Phytopathology 91:4454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Schaad, N.W. 2001. Initial identification of common genera. In Schaad, N.W., Jones, J.B., and Chun, W. (eds). Laboratory Guide for Identification of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. 3rd ed.APS Press, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
18 Briones, A.M. Jr. and Reichardt, W. 1999. Estimating microbial population counts by ‘most probable number’ using Microsoft Excel®. Journal of Microbiological Methods 35:157161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed.John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
20 SAS Institute, Inc. 1991. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 6. 4th ed.SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
21 Ott, R.L. and Longnecker, M. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. 5th ed.Duxbury-Thompson Learning, Pacific Grove, California.Google Scholar
22 Weil, R.R., Lowell, K.A., and Shade, H.M. 1993. Effects of intensity of agronomic practices on a soil ecosystem. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 8:514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 House, G.J. and Brust, G.E. 1987. Ecology of low-input, no-tillage agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27:331345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Carter, M.R. 1986. Microbial biomass as an index for tillage-induced changes in soil biological properties. Soil and Tillage Research 7:2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 House, G.J. and Alzugaray, M.D. 1989. Influence of cover cropping and no-tillage practices on community composition of soil arthropods in a North Carolina agroecosystem. Environmental Entomology 18:302307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Gaugler, R. 2007. Nematodes (Rhabtidia: Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae). In Weeden, C.R., Shelton, A.M., and Hoffman, M.P. (eds.) Biological Control: A Guide to Natural Enemies in North America. Available online: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/pathogens/nematodes.html (accessed 2 May 2007).Google Scholar
27 Kaya, H.K. 1990. Soil ecology. In Gaugler, R. and Kaya, H.K. (eds.) Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 93115.Google Scholar
28 Kung, S.P., Gaugler, R., and Kaya, H.K. 1990. Soil type and entomopathogenic nematode persistence. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 55:401406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Smart, G.C. 1995. Entomopathogenic nematodes for the biological control of insects. Journal of Nematology 27(4s):529534.Google ScholarPubMed
30 Kaya, H.K. and Gaugler, R. 1993. Entomopathogenic nematodes. Annual Review of Entomology 38:181206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Millar, L.C. and Barbercheck, M.E. 2002. Effects of tillage practices on entomopathogenic nematodes in a corn agroecosystem. Biological Control 25:111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Gunapala, N. and Scow, K.M. 1998. Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and activity in conventional and organic farming systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30(6):805816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Wander, M.M., Traina, S.J., Stinner, B.R., and Peters, S.E. 1994. Organic and conventional management effects on biologically active soil organic matter pools. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:11301139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Rice, C.W., Smith, M.S., and Blevins, R.L. 1986. Soil nitrogen availability after long-term continuous no-tillage and conservation tillage corn production. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50:12061210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Needleman, B.A., Wander, M.M., Bollero, G.A., Boast, C.W., Sims, G.K., and Bullock, D.G. 1999. Interaction of tillage and soil texture: biologically active soil organic matter in Illinois. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:13261334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Franzluebbers, A.J., Arshad, M.A., and Ripmeester, J.A. 1996. Alterations in canola residue composition during decomposition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28:12891295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Six, J., Pausitan, K., Elliot, E.T., and Combrink, C. 2000. Soil structure and organic matter. I. Distribution of aggregate-size classes and aggregate-associated carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:681689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Jones, C.A. 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47:12081211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Reynolds, W.D., Elrick, D.E., and Youngs, E.G. 2002. Ring or cylinder infiltrometers (Vadose zone). In Dane, J.H. and Topp, G.C. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis—Part 4: Physical Methods. SSSA Book Series No. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 818842.Google Scholar
40 Cassel, D.K. 1982. Tillage effects on soil bulk density and mechanical impedance. In Unger, P.W. and Van Doren, D.W. (eds). Predicting Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Processes. Special Publ. 44. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p.4567.Google Scholar
41 Papendick, R.I. and Parr, J.F. 1992. Soil quality—the key to a sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Vepraskas, M.J. 1988. Bulk density values diagnostic of restricted root growth in coarse-textured soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52:11171121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Kamprath, E.J. and Welch, C.D. 1962. Retention and cation-exchange properties of organic matter in coastal plain soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 26:263264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Cassel, D.K. 1980. Effects of plowing depth and deep incorporation of lime and phosphorus upon physical and chemical properties of two coastal plain soils after 15 years. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44:8995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Larson, W.E. and Pierce, F.J. 1991. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In International Workshop for Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World. International Board for Soil Research and Management, Bangkok, Thailand. Vol. 2. IBSRAM Proceedings 12(2):175203.Google Scholar
12
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Soil property indices for assessing short-term changes in soil quality
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Soil property indices for assessing short-term changes in soil quality
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Soil property indices for assessing short-term changes in soil quality
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *