Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 90, Issue 5, pp 811–827 | Cite as

Effects of probiotics on soil microbial activity, biomass and enzymatic activity under cover crops in field and greenhouse studies

  • Ahsan M. Rajper
  • Ranjith P. Udawatta
  • Robert J. Kremer
  • Chung-ho Lin
  • Shibu Jose
Article

Abstract

Intensive use of agro-chemicals over the past few decades has increased land productivity, however, frequent application of agro-chemicals has also resulted in some negative impacts on the environment and soil microbial biodiversity. Use of alternative management such as probiotics is believed to promote soil microbial biodiversity and enzymatic activity. This research was conducted at the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Health Farm, Chariton County, Missouri to quantify probiotic effects on soil biological diversity and activity. Prior to 2012, the site was comprised of conventional corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.) rotation with tillage and chemical fertilizer use. Soil amendment with probiotics (Bio-Ag) included a non-treated control, and dosages at 60 L probiotic ha−1 year−1; 90 L probiotic ha−1 year−1; and 120 L probiotic ha−1 year−1 with three replications. Two equal split soil applications of probiotics were applied in September 2013 and May 2014. Soil samples were collected in August (pre-treatment), September 2013 and June 2014 from 0 to 6 cm depth. A greenhouse study was conducted using soil cores. Treatments were similar those in the field study except the low dose was excluded and higher dose of 150 L ha−1 year−1 was used. Soil microbial biomass and community structures were analyzed using phospholipid fatty acid analysis. Standard soil enzyme assays were used to assess microbial activity. Saprophytic fungi, protozoa and rhizobia biomass were significantly higher with 120 L probiotic ha−1 year−1 dose than control in the field study (p < 0.10). Total microbial biomass was significantly increased and saprophytic fungi biomass was more than two times higher with the 120 L ha−1 year−1 dose compared with the control in the greenhouse study at the December 2014 sampling. In the field study, principal component analysis revealed that PC1 and PC2 accounted for 62 % of total variance. Increasing trends in the values of soil fungal communities, rhizobia, dehydrogenase, β-glucosaminidase and fluorescein diacetate hydrolase with the 120 L probiotic ha−1 year−1 dose implies that probiotics can be used to improve soil quality indicators.

Keywords

Hairy vetch PLFA Probiotics Soil microbial communities Soil quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by The Fulbright Program (United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs), United States Educational Foundation in Pakistan (USEFP) and The Center for Agroforestry, University of Missouri-Columbia. We thank Chariton County Soil and Water Conservation District and Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. for the study site. We also thank SCD Probiotics, Kansas City, MO for providing their product during the study. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) only and do not reflect the views of anyone else. The purpose of this research publication is not to publicize the product.

References

  1. Acosta-Martinez V, Cruz L, Sotomayor-Ramirez D, Perez-Alegria L (2007) Enzyme activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed. Appl Soil Ecol 35:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adesemoye AO, Torbert HA, Kloepper JW (2009) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria allow reduced application rates of chemical fertilizers. Micro Ecol 58:921–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amann R, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH (1995) Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 59:143–216PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Atieno M, Herrmann L, Okalebo R, Lesueur D (2012) Efficiency of different formulations of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and effect of co-inoculation of Bacillus subtilis with two different strains of Bradyrhizobium japonicum. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28:2541–2550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barak R, Chet I (1986) Determination by fluorescein diacetate staining of fungal viability during mycoparasitism. Soil Biol Biochem 18:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardgett RD, McAlister E (1999) The measurement of soil fungal:bacterial biomass ratios as an indicator of ecosystem self-regulation in temperate meadow grasslands. Biol Fertil Soils 29:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg G (2009) Plant-microbe interactions promoting plant growth and health: perspectives for controlled use of microorganisms in agriculture. Appl Microbiol Biot 84(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyer L, Wachendorf C, Balzer FM, Balzer-Graf UR (1992) The effect of soil texture and soil management on microbial biomass and soil enzyme activities in arable soils of Northwest Germany. Agrobiol Res 45:276–283Google Scholar
  9. Beyer L, Wachendorf C, Dirk CE, Roland K (1993) Suitability of dehydrogenase activity assay as an index of soil biological activity. Biol Fert Soils 16:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhardwaj D, Ansari MW, Sahoo RK, Tuteja N (2014) Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb Cell Fact 13:66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bligh EG, Dyer WJ (1959) A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol 37:911–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Buyer JS, Sasser M (2012) High throughput phospholipid fatty acids analysis of soils. Appl Soil Ecol 61:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castillo LE, Martínez E, Ruepert C, Savage C, Gilek M, Pinnock M, Solis E (2006) Water quality and macroinvertebrate community response following pesticide applications in a banana plantation, Limon, Costa Rica. Sci Total Environ 367:418–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavigelli MA, Robertson GP, Klug MJ (1995) Fatty acid methyl ester profiles as measures of soil microbial community structure. Plant Soil 170:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chhonkar PK (2002) Organic farming myth and reality. In: Proceedings of the FAI seminar on fertilizer and agriculture meeting the challenges, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Condor AF, Gonzalez P, Lakre C (2007) Effective microorganisms: myth or reality? Peruvian J Biol 14:315–319Google Scholar
  17. Cong PT, Dung TD, Hien TM, Hien NT, Choudhury ATMA, Kecskés KL, Kennedy IR (2009) Inoculant plant growth-promoting microorganisms enhance utilisation of urea-N and grain yield of paddy rice in southern Vietnam. Eur J Soil Biol 45:52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Das GS, Varma A (2011) Soil enzymology, soil biology 22. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Deaker R, Roughley RJ, Kennedy IR (2004) Legume seed inoculation technology: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1275–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dick RP (1997) Soil enzyme activities as integrative indicators of soil health. In: Pankhurst CE, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR (eds) Biological indicators of soil health. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 121–156Google Scholar
  21. Dick RP, Breakwill D, Turco R (1996) Soil enzyme activities and biodiversity measurements as integrating biological indicators. In: Doran JW, Jones AJ (eds) Handbook of methods for assessment of soil quality. Soil Sci Soc Am Madison, WI, pp 247–272Google Scholar
  22. Dick WA, Thavamani B, Conley S, Blaisdell R, Sengupta A (2013) Prediction of β-glucosidase and β-glucosaminidase activities, soil organic C, and amino sugar N in a diverse population of soils using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Soil Biol Biochem 56:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dixon GR, Tilston EL (2010) Soil microbiology and sustainable crop production. Springer Sciences, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doran JW, Parkin TB (1994) Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA (eds) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA Special Publication, Madison, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  25. Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1988) Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 20:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ekenler M, Tabatabai MA (2003) Tillage and residue management effects on β-glucosaminidase activity in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 35:871–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Esen A (1993) β-glucosidases: overview. In: Esen A (ed) β-glucosidases and molecular biology. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garcia C, Hernandez T, Costa F (1994) Microbial activity in soils under mediterranean environmental conditions. Soil Biol Biochem 26:1185–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghaly AE, Ben-Hassan RM (1993) Dehydrogenase activity measurement in yeast fermentation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 43:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gliñski J, Stêpniewski W, Stêpniewska Z, Wodarczyk T, Brzeziñska M (2000) Characteristics of aeration properties of selected soil profiles from Central Europe. Int Agrophys 14:17–31Google Scholar
  31. Green VS, Stott DE, Diack M (2006) Assay for fluorescein diacetate hydrolytic activity: optimization for soil samples. Soil Biol Biochem 38:693–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta V, Garg R (2009) Probiotics. Indian J Med Microbiol 27:202–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Haack SK, Garchow H, Odelson DA, Forney LJ, Klug MJ (1994) Accuracy, reproducibility, and interpretation of fatty acid methyl ester profiles of model bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:2483–2493PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Hamel C, Hanson K, Selles F, Cruz AF, Lemke R, McConkey B, Zentner R (2006) Seasonal and long-term resource-related variations in soil microbial communities in wheat-based rotations of the Canadian prairie. Soil Biol Biochem 38:2104–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Higa T (2000) What is EM technology? EM World J 1:1–6Google Scholar
  36. Higa T, Wididana GN (1991) The concept and theories of effective microorganisms. In: Parr JF, Hornick SB, Whitman CE (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on kyusei nature farming. USDA, Washington, DC, pp 118–124Google Scholar
  37. Hoitink HA, Boehm MJ (1999) Biocontrol within the context of soil microbial communities: a subsrtate-dependent phenomenon. Ann Rev Phytopathol 37:427–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Homma Y, Sitton JW, Cook RJ, Old KM (1979) Perforation and destruction of pigmented hyphae of Gaeumannomyces graminis by Vampyrellid Amoebae from Pacific Northwest wheat field soils. Phytopathology 69:1118–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hughes JB, Hellmann JJ, Ricketts TH, Bohannan BJM (2001) Counting the uncountable: statistical approaches to estimating microbial diversity. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4399–4406CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Javaid A (2006) Foliar application of effective microorganisms on pea as an alternative fertilizer. Agron Sustain Dev 26:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karlen DL, Mausbach MJ, Doran JW, Cline RG, Harris RF, Schuman GE (1997) Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation (a guest editorial). Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kramer DN, Guilbault GG (1963) A substrate for the fluorimetric determination of lipase activity. Anal Chem 35:588–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kremer RJ, Li J (2003) Developing weed-suppressive soils through improved soil quality management. Soil Till Res 72:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mathu S, Herrmann L, Pypers P, Matiru V, Mwirichia R, Lesueur D (2012) Potential of indigenous bradyrhizobia versus commercial inoculants to improve cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. walp.) and green gram (Vigna radiata L. wilczek.) yields in Kenya. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 58:750–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller M, Palojärvi A, Rangger A, Reeslev M, Kjùller A (1998) The use of fluorogenic substrates to measure fungal presence and activity in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:613–617PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Ndiaye EL, Sandeno JM, McGrath D, Dick RP (2000) Integrative biological indicators for detecting change in soil quality. Am J Altern Agr 15:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pengthamkeerati P, Motavalli PP, Kremer RJ (2011) Soil microbial biomass nitrogen and β-glucosaminidase activity response to surface compaction and poultry-litter application in a claypan soil. Appl Soil Ecol 51:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quilchano C, Marañón T (2002) Dehydrogenase activity in mediterranean forest soils. Biol Fertil Soils 35:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schnürer J, Rosswall T (1982) Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis as a measure of total microbial activity in soil and litter. Appl Environ Microbiol 43:1256–1261PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaxson TF (2006) Re-thinking the conservation of C, water and soil: a different perspective. Agronomie 26:1–9Google Scholar
  51. Stott DE, Andrews SS, Liebig MA, Wienhold BJ, Karlen DL (2010) Evaluation of β-glucosidase activity as a soil quality indicator for the soil management Assessment Framework. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turner BL, Hopkins DW, Haygarth PM, Ostle N (2002) β-glucosidase activity in pasture soils. Appl Soil Ecol 20:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Udawatta RP, Kremer RJ, Adamson BW, Anderson SH (2008) Variations in soil aggregate stability and enzyme activities in a temperate agroforestry practice. Appl Soil Ecol 39:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Velmourougane K, Venugopalan MV, Bhattacharyya T, Sarkar D, Pal DK, Sahu A, Ray SK, Nair KM, Prasad J, Singh RS (2013) Soil dehydrogenase activity in agro-ecological sub regions of black soil regions in India. Geoderma 197–198:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. White DC (1988) Validation of quantitative analysis for microbial biomass, community structure, and metabolic activity. Archiv für Hydrobiol Beih 31:1–18Google Scholar
  56. White DC, Davis WM, Nickels JS, King JD, Bobbie RJ (1979) Determination of the sedimentary microbial biomass by extractable lipid phosphate. Oecologia 40:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu SC, Caob ZH, Lib ZG, Cheunga KC, Wonga MH (2005) Effects of biofertilizer containing N-fixer, P and K solubilizers and AM fungi on maize growth: a greenhouse trial. Geoderma 125:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu HL, Wang R, Mridha MAU (2000) Effects of organic fertilizers and a microbial inoculant on leaf photosynthesis and fruit yield and quality of tomato plants. J Crop Prod 3:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yamada K, Xu HL (2000) Properties and applications of an organic fertilizer inoculated with effective microorganisms. J Crop Prod 3:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zelles L (1997) Phospholipid fatty acid profiles in selected members of soil microbial communities. Chemosphere 35:275–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Zelles L (1999) Fatty acid patterns of phospholipids and lipopolysaccharides in the characterisation of microbial communities in soil: a review. Biol Fert Soils 29:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang Q, Chen Y, Jilani G, Shamsi IH, Yu Q (2010) Model AVSWAT apropos of simulating non-point source pollution in Taihu lake basin. J Hazard Mater 174:824–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhao Y, Li W, Zhou Z, Wang L, Pan Y, Zhao L (2005) Dynamics of microbial community structure and cellulolytic activity in agricultural soil amended with two biofertilizers. Eur J Soil Biol 41:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahsan M. Rajper
    • 1
  • Ranjith P. Udawatta
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert J. Kremer
    • 1
  • Chung-ho Lin
    • 2
  • Shibu Jose
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Soil, Environmental & Atmospheric ScienceUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.The Center of AgroforestryUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations