Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Organic amendments affect biochemical properties of a subtemperate soil of the Indian Himalayas

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evaluation of suitable organic amendments is prerequisite for sustainable agricultural growth in the northwestern Himalayan ecosystem. The effect of organic amendment applications on the activity of exocellular enzymes were examined on a silty clay loam soil of a subtemperate hill-agro ecosystem. The treatments involved addition of equivalent amounts of N through mineral fertilizer (MF) and two organic inputs, composted cattle manure (CM) and vermicomposts (VC), at four different doses. Soil enzymatic activities and fertility at crop harvest were measured after continuous 3 years of application, and its residual effects were also studied. In comparison with the control, CM and VC addition increased soil organic carbon (OC) by 54% and 52% at application rate equivalent to recommended dose, respectively, whereas there was a 12% increase following MF treatment. Bulk density of CM- and VC-treated soil were 1.16 and 1.14 Mg m−3, respectively, compared with 1.32 Mg m−3 in control after 3 years. Dehydrogenase activity was higher in the CM treatments by 44–204%, and by 22–108% in VC treatments than in control. The addition of CM and VC caused different responses in hydrolase enzymes. Protease and cellulase activity increased in both organic treatments significantly across treatments. However, urease and alkaline phosphatase activity was more influenced by application of CM compared with VC. β-glucosidase activity was higher in MF treatment and was at par with the highest rate of organic amendment application. Increase in phosphatase activity is attributed to soil pH and microbial stimulation by organic C and is correlated with the increase in dehydrogenase activity (R 2 = 0.923). Differences in activities of all evaluated enzymes were narrowed down in residual treatments compared with control without much change in the trend. Composted CM was found more suitable for sustaining quality of subtemperate soils.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Buckley DH, Schmidt TM (2001) The structure of microbial communities in soil and the lasting impact of cultivation. Microb Ecol 42:11–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burns RG (1982) Enzyme activity in soil: location and a possible role in microbial ecology. Soil Biol Biochem 14:423–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Casida LE, Klein D, Santoro T (1964) Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci 98:371–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cavero J, Plant RE, Shennan C et al (1997) The effect of nitrogen source and crop rotation on the growth and yield of processing tomatoes. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 47:271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark MS, Horwath WR, Sherman C et al (1998) Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Agron J 90:662–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng SP, Tabatabi MA (1994) Cellulase activity of soils. Soil Biol Biochem 26:1347–1354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dick RP (1994) Soil enzymatic activities as an indicator of soil quality. In: Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA (eds) Defining soil quality for a sustainable development. Soil society of America, Madisson, pp 107–124

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Wallingford, pp 121–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Drinkwater LE, Letourneau DK, Workneh F et al (1995) Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecol Appl 5:1098–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan DM (1955) Multiple range and multiple F-test. Biometrics 11:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eivazi F, Tabatabai MA (1977) Phosphatase in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 9:167–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fralish JS (1994) The effect of site environment on forest productivity in the Illinois Shawnee Hills. Ecol Appl 4:134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke-Snyder M, Douds DD, Galvez L, Phillips JG, Wagoner P, Drinkwater L, Morton JB (2001) Diversity of communities of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi present in conventional versus low-input agricultural sites in eastern Pennsylvania, USA. Appl Soil Ecol 16:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberger WT, Dick WA (1983) Relationships between enzyme activities and microbial growth and activity indices in soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:945–951

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Gil JC, Plaza C, Soler-Rovira P, Polo A (2000) Long-term effects of municipal solid waste compost application on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1907–1913

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giusquiani PL, Pagliai M, Gigliotti G, Businelli D, Benetti A (1995) Urban waste compost: effects on physical, chemical, and biochemical soil properties. J Environ Qual 24:175–182

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Graham MH, Haynes RJ, Meyer JH (2002) Changes in soil chemistry and aggregate stability induced by fertilizer applications, burning and trash retention on a long-term sugarcane experiment in South Africa. Eur J Soil Sci 53:589–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes RJ, Naidu R (1998) Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 51:123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson ML (1962) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss S, Dragan-Bularda M, Radulescu D (1975) Biological significance of enzymes accumulated in soil. Adv Agron 27:25–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd JN, Butler JHA (1972) Short-term assays of soil proteolytic enzyme activities using proteins and dipeptide derivatives as substrates. Soil Biol Biochem 4:19–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd JN (1978) Origin and range of enzymes in soil. In: Burns RG (ed) Soil enzymes. Academic Press, London, pp 51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawlor K, Knight BP, Barbosa-Jefferson VL et al (2000) Comparison of methods to investigate microbial populations in soils under different agricultural management. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 33:129–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mader P, Fliebbach A, Dubois D et al (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:1694–1697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer MD, North MP, Gray AN, Zald HSJ (2007) Influence of soil thickness on stand characteristics in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Plant Soil 294:113–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder C, de Zwart D, van Wijnen HJ et al (2003) Observational and simulated evidence of ecological shifts within the soil nematode community of agroecosystems under conventional and organic farming. Funct Ecol 17:516–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nannipieri P (1994) The potencial use of soil enzymes as indicators of productivity, sustainability and pollution. In: Pankhurst CE, Doube BM, Gupta VVSR, Grace PR (eds) Soil biota. Management in sustainable farming systems. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 238–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller GL (1969) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31:426–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS et al (1954) Estimation of available phosphorous in soils by extraction with sodium bi carbonate. US Dept of Agric Circular 939

  • Poudel DD, Horwarth WR, Lanini WT, Temple SR, van Bruggen AHC (2002) Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in northern California. Agric Ecol Environ 90:125–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy BG, Reddy MS (1998) Soil health and crop productivity in alfisols with integrated plant nutrient supply system. Proceedings of the 9th Australian agronomy conference, Australian Society of Agronomy

  • Rigby D, Caceres D (2001) Organic farming and sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric Sys 68:21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell DL (1988) Soil acidity and alkalinity. In: Wild A (ed) Russell’s soil conditions and plant growth. Longman, Harlow, pp 844–898

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha S, Mina BL, Gopinath KA, Kundu S, Gupta HS (2007) Relative changes in phosphatase activities as influenced by source and application rate of organic composts in field crops. Bioresour Technol doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.049

  • Schinner F, Von Mersi W (1996) Xylanase, CM-cellulase and invertase activity in soil, an improved method. Soil Biol Biochem 22:511–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabatabai A (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Weaver RW, Angle JS, Bottomley PS (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Microbiological and biochemical properties. SSSA, Madison, pp 775–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1969) Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 1:301–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1972) Assay of urease activity in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 4:479–487

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Diepeningen AD, De Vos OJ, Korthals GW, van Bruggen AHC (2006) Effects of organic versus conventional management on chemical and biological parameters in agricultural soils. Appl Soil Ecol 31:120–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walkley A, Black JA (1934) Estimation of soil organic carbon by chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 17:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen G, Schoenau JJ, Charles JL, Inanaga S (2003) Efficiency parameters of nitrogen in hog and cattle manure in the second year following application. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166:490–498

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vivekananda Institute of Hill Agriculture, Almora, Uttarakhand, India

    Supradip Saha, B. L. Mina, K. A. Gopinath, S. Kundu & H. S. Gupta

Authors
  1. Supradip Saha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. L. Mina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. A. Gopinath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Kundu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. S. Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Supradip Saha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saha, S., Mina, B.L., Gopinath, K.A. et al. Organic amendments affect biochemical properties of a subtemperate soil of the Indian Himalayas. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 80, 233–242 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-007-9139-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-007-9139-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation