Soil amendments alter plant biomass and soil microbial activity in a semi-desert grassland
- 636 Downloads
We tested the effects of soil biotic disturbance and biochar or woodchip amendments on plant growth, soil microbial biomass and activity, and soil physiochemical parameters in response to disturbance in a semi-desert grassland.
In a 78-day growth chamber experiment using six grass species native to the Southwest U.S., we compared the effects of autoclave heatshock, which mimics soil stockpiling in hot drylands, and amendments on plant and microbial biomass, potential extracellular enzyme activity, and soil moisture and nutrient availability.
Plant biomass was lowest in woodchip-amended soils, and highest in autoclaved and biochar-amended soils (p < 0.05). Root:shoot ratios were higher in the autoclaved and woodchip-amended soils (p < 0.05). Biochar addition improved soil water-holding capacity resulting in higher dissolved organic carbon (p < 0.001) and nitrogen (p < 0.001). Soil microbial activity and plant biomass were not correlated. Amendment-induced changes in activity could be partially explained by nutrient availability. Neither microbial biomass nor activity recovered to pre-disturbance values.
In this study, biochar and woodchip amendment and autoclave-induced changes to moisture and nutrient availability influenced plant biomass allocation and soil microbial activity. Amendments increased carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus mineralizing enzyme activities with no significant change in microbial biomass, indicating that soil recovery in drylands is a long-term process. Understanding plant-soil feedbacks in drylands is critically important to mitigating climate and anthropogenic-driven changes and retaining or reestablishing native plant communities.
KeywordsAutoclave heat-shock Biochar Drylands Extracellular enzyme activity Plant-soil feedbacks Woodchips
This study was carried out with financial support from Rosemont Copper Company. JSF, REG, and CR received partial support from the University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station. REG acknowledges support from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA ARZT-1360540-H12-199). We thank Jean McLain and Yusheng Qian for technical support and use of the PikoReal™ Real-Time PCR System, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
- Bowles TM, Acosta-Martínez V, Calderón F, Jackson LE (2014) Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscape. Soil Biol Biochem 68:252–262. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brady NC, Weil RR (2008) The Nature and Properties of Soils, 14th edn. Pearson Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
- Chalker-Scott L (2007) Impact of mulches on landscape plants and the environment-a review. J Environ Hortic 25:239–249Google Scholar
- Davis JG, Whiting CR (2000) Choosing a Soil AmendmentGoogle Scholar
- Davis JM (1994) Comparison of Mulches for Fresh-market Basil Production. Hortscience 29:267–268Google Scholar
- Downer J, Faber B, Menge J (2002) Factors affecting root rot control in mulched avocado orchards. HortTechnology 12:601–605Google Scholar
- Kookana RS, Sarmah AK, Van Zwieten L, et al (2011) Biochar application to soil: Agronomic and environmental benefits and unintended consequences. In: Advances in Agronomy, 1st edn. Elsevier Inc., pp 103–143Google Scholar
- Kraus HT (1998) Effects of Mulch on Soil Moisture and Growth of Desert Willow. HortTechnology 8:588–590Google Scholar
- Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1965) Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, pp 539–579Google Scholar
- Pachauri RK, Meyer L, Van Ypersele J-P et al (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I. II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
- Robertson G, Wedin D, Groffman P, et al (1999) Soil carbon and nitrogen availability. Nitrogen mineralization, nitrification and soil respiration potentials. Stand Soil Methods Long-term Ecol Res 258–271Google Scholar
- Scharenbroch BC (2009) A Meta-analysis of Studies Published in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry Relating to Organic Materials and Impacts on Soil, Tree, and Environmental Properties. Arboricult Urban For 35:221–231Google Scholar
- Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) (2001) Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Sinkevičienė A, Jodaugienė D, Pupalienė R, Urbonienė M (2009) The influence of organic mulches on soil properties and crop yield. Agron Res 7:485–491Google Scholar
- Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R (2010) A Review of Biochar and Its Use and Function in Soil. In: Advances in Agronomy, 1st edn. Elsevier Inc., pp 47–82Google Scholar
- Stratton ML, Rechcigl JE (1998) Organic mulches, wood products, and composts as soil amendments and conditioners. In: Wallace A, Terry RE (eds) Handbook of Soil Conditioners: Substances That Enhance the Physical Properties of Soil, 62nd edn. Marcel Dekker, Inc., pp 43–96Google Scholar
- Tuller M, Or D (2004) Water retention and characteristic curve. Encycl. Soils Environ. 278–289Google Scholar
- Van Rensburg L, Morgenthal T (2004) The effect of woodchip waste on vegetation establishment during platinum tailings rehabilitation. S Afr J Sci 100:294–301Google Scholar
- Visser S, Fujikawa J, Griffiths CL, Parkinson D (1984) Effect of topsoil storage on microbial activity, primary production and decomposition potential. Plant and Soil 82(1):41–50. doi: 10.1007/BF02220768
- Zamani J, Hajabbasi MA, Alaie E (2015) The Effect of Steam Sterilization of a Petroleum-Contaminated Soil on PAH Concentration and Maize (Zea mays L.) Growth. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 4:93–104Google Scholar