تاثیر آهک و خاکستر چوب بر اصلاح pH و ویژگی‌های زیستی دو خاک اسیدی

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی‌ارشد، گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

3 دانشیار ، گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: باتوجه به افزایش سطح خاک‌های اسیدی در استان گیلان و نیاز به یافتن منابعی که اصلاح اسیدیته را در درازمدت ایجاد کنند، در این پژوهش تاثیر خاکستر چوب و آهک بر اصلاح دو خاک اسیدی بررسی شد. از آن‌جا که در اصلاح درازمدت اسیدیته خاک ویژگی‌های زیستی نیز اهمیت دارند، شاخص‌های زیستی خاک نیز پس از افزودن آهک و خاکستر چوب مطالعه شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: دو نمونه خاک اسیدی با pH اولیه 2/5 (خاک 1) و 3/4 (خاک 2) از منطقه فومن در استان گیلان نمونه‌برداری شد. بر اساس نیاز آهکی محاسبه شده‌ی خاک‌ها و pH کربنات کلسیم و خاکستر چوب، به ترتیب مقدار 32/4 و 94/7، گرم کربنات کلسیم و 23/7 و 24/13 گرم خاکستر چوب به خاک 1 و خاک 2 افزوده شد و مخلوط گردید تا وزن نهایی 650 گرم شود. خاک‌های بدون اصلاح‌کننده نیز به عنوان شاهد در نظر گرفته شدند. انکوباسیون مخلوط‌ها به مدت 6 ماه در رطوبت بهینه حدود 70 درصد ظرفیت مزرعه و دمای آزمایشگاه انجام شد. pH، قابلیت هدایت الکتریکی (EC)، کربن آلی (OC)، تنفس پایه میکروبی (MBR)، کربن زیست‌توده میکروبی خاک (MBC) و سهم کربن میکروبی (Cmic) در زمان‌های صفر، 2، 7، 14، 28، 42، 56، 86، 116، 146 و 176 روز اندازه‌گیری شد. آزمایش به صورت فاکتوریل-اسپلیت در زمان در قالب طرح کاملا تصادفی و در سه تکرار انجام شد. به این‌صورت که ترکیبی از فاکتورهای خاک در دو سطح (خاک 1 و 2) و اصلاح کننده در سه سطح (بدون اصلاح‌کننده، آهک و خاکستر چوب) به عنوان کرت اصلی و زمان نمونه‌برداری در 12 سطح به عنوان کرت فرعی در نظر گرفته شد. داده‌ها با نرم افزار SAS آنالیز شدند و مقایسه میانگین‌ها با آزمون توکی (05/0 p <) انجام شد.
یافته‌ها: آنالیز واریانس داده‌ها نشان داد که اثر همه فاکتورها و برهم‌کنش آن‌ها بر pH و EC و اثر همه فاکتورها بر OC معنی‌دار بود (05/0 p <). زمان مهم‌ترین فاکتور موثر بر شاخص‌های زیستی بود. پس از شش ماه انکوباسیون، pH هر دو خاک 1 و 2 در تیمار آهک به طور معنی‌داری بیش از تیمار خاکستر چوب بود و به ترتیب به 7 و 2/7 رسید (05/0p < ). اما خاکستر چوب نیز pH را به ترتیب در دو خاک 1 و 2 به 7/5 و 3/6 افزایش داد (05/0p < ). روند تغییرات pH نشان داد که در دوره انکوباسیون، pH در تیمار خاکستر چوب همچنان افزایشی بود در حالی‌که در تیمار آهک از ماه سوم تقریبا ثابت شد. تاثیر آهک بر EC اندکی بیشتر از خاکستر چوب بود. میانگین OC خاک در تیمار خاکستر چوب بیشتر از آهک بود. در تیمار شاهد و آهک روند تغییرات OC به طور کلی کاهشی بود در حالی‌که در تیمار خاکستر چوب افزایشی بود. در تیمار خاکستر چوب OC خاک‌ها از 4/1 و g 100g-1 7/1 به g 100g-1 06/2 افزایش یافت. روند تغییرات MBR در هر سه تیمار تقریبا یکسان بود. در طول 6 ماه انکوباسیون نوسان Cmic در تیمار شاهد از همه بیشتر و در تیمار خاکستر چوب از همه کمتر بود. تاثیر اصلاح‌کننده‌ها بر ویژگی‌های شیمیایی خاک‌ها نیز وابستهبود. اما در هر دو خاک روند تغییرات pH تقریبا مانند هم بود و در پایان دوره انکوباسیون به 9/6 رسید.
نتیجه‌گیری: آهک در مقایسه با خاکستر چوب در زمان کوتاه‌تری pH را افزایش داد اما ویژگی‌های شیمیایی مانند کربن آلی و قابلیت هدایت الکتریکی خاک و همچنین ویژگی‌های زیستی در تیمار خاکستر چوب وضعیت بهتری داشتند. بنابراین می‌توان گفت در اصلاح pH خاک‌های اسیدی تاثیر خاکستر چوب به تدریج پدیدار می‌شود و هم‌زمان می‌تواند ویژگی‌های زیستی را نیز بهبود ببخشد بنابراین با رشد گیاهان چندساله در خاک‌های اسیدی می‌تواند سازگارتر باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of lime and wood ash on pH amendment and soil biological characteristics of two acid soils

نویسندگان [English]

  • Anahita Ramezani 1
  • Mohammad bagher Farhangi 2
  • Nasrin Ghorbanzadeh 3
  • Maryam Khalili Rad 2
1 Soil Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of Agricultural Science, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2 Soil Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of Agricultural Science, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
3 Soil Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of agriculture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
چکیده [English]

Considering the increasing area of acidic soils in Guilan province and the need of finding resources that can amendment soil acidity in the long term, the effect of wood ash and calcium carbonate on the amendment of two acid soils was investigated in this study. As the soil biological characteristics are also important in the long-term amendment of soil, the biological indicators of soil were also evaluated after adding lime and wood ash.
Two acidic soil samples with initial pH of 5.2 (soil 1) and 4.3 (soil 2) were taken from Fuman region in the Guilan province. Based on the lime requirement calculated according to the pH of soils, cacium carbonate, and wood ash, 4.32, 7.94 g calcium carbonate, and 7.23 and 13.24 g wood ash were added to soil 1, and soil 2 respectively, and mixed completely to attain 650 g soil-conditioner mixture. Soils without conditioners were also considered as controls. Incubation of the mixtures was done for 6 months at optimal water condition of about 70% field capacity, and laboratory temperature. pH, EC, organic carbon (OC), microbial basal respiration (MBR), and soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) were measured, and microbial carbon ratio (Cmic) was calculated at 0, 2, 4, 7, 14, 28, 42, 56, 86, 116, 146, and 176 days of incubation. A factorial-split experiment in a completely randomized design format with three replications were done. Combination of soil type in two levels, and conditioners in three levels (lime, wood ash and control) was regarded as main plot and sampling time in 12 levels was regarded as sub-plot. Data analysis was done by SAS software package and mean comparisons by Tukey's test (p < 0.05).
After 6 month of incubation, pH was significantly higher in lime treatment compared to the wood ash treatment (p < 0.05) in both soil 1, and 2 and reached 7 and 7.2, respectively. However, pH in wood ash treatment was also increased to 5.7, and 6.3 in soil 1, and soil 2, respectively. pH variation showed that during incubation period pH trend was increasing in wood ash treatment, while it was almost constant after 3 month of incubation. The effect of lime on EC was slightly more than that of wood ash. The average soil OC content in wood ash treatment was higher than that in lime treatment. In the control and lime treatments, the trend of OC changes was generally decreasing, while it was increasing in the wood ash treatment. In wood ash treatment soil OC was increased from 1.4 and 1.7 to 2.06 g 100g-1. The trend of MBR changes was almost the same in all treatments. During 6 months of incubation, the fluctuation of Cmic was the highest in the control treatment while it was the lowest in the wood ash treatment. The effect of conditioners on the soil chemical characteristics was also dependent on the soils. However, the pH changes were almost the same in both soils and reached 6.9 at the end of incubation period.
Compared to wood ash, lime increased pH in a shorter time period, but chemical properties such as organic carbon and electrical conductivity of the soil as well as biological properties were enhanced in wood ash treatment. Therefore, it can be said that in improving the pH of acidic soils, the effect of wood ash appears gradually and at the same time it can improve the biological characteristics, so it can be more compatible with the growth of perennial plants in acid soils.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Microbial biomass carbon
  • Microbial carbon ratio
  • Organic carbon
  • Soil conditioner

مراجع

 1.Guo, J. H., Liu, X. J., Zhang, Y., Shen, J. L., Han, W. X., Zhang, W. F., Christie, P., Goulding, K. W., Vitousek, P. M., & Zhang, F. S. (2010). Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science. 327, 1008-1010. DOI: 10.1126/ science.1182570.
2.Von Uexkull, H. R., & Mutert, E. (1995). Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant & Soil, 171, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00009558.
3.Shahbazi, K., & Besharati, H. (2013). Overview of Agricultural Soil Fertility Status of Iran. Land Management Journal, 1 (1), 1-15. doi: 10.22092/ lmj.2013.100072. [In Persian]
4.Huang, Y. M., Kang, R. H., Mulder, J., Zhang, T., & Duan, L. (2015). Nitrogen saturation, soil acidification, and ecological effects in a subtropical pine forest on acid soil in southwest China. Journal of Geophysical Research,
120, 2457-2472. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/2015JG003048.
5.Weil, R. R., & Brady, N. C. (2017) The Nature and Properties of Soils. 15th Edition, Pearson, New York. 1086p. ISBN: 978-0-13-325448-8.
6.Ch’ng, H. Y., Sanusi, S., & Othman, S. B. (2020). Effect of Christmas Island rock phosphate and rice straw compost application on soil phosphorus availability and maize (Zea mays L.) growth in a tropical acid soil of Kelantan, Malaysia. Open Agriculture, 5, 150-158. https://doi.org/10.1515/ opag-2020-0015.
7.Bang-Andreasen, T., Nielsen, J. T., Voriskova, J., Heise, J., Rønn, R., Kjøller, R., & Jacobsen, C. S. (2017). Wood ash induced pH changes strongly affect soil bacterial numbers and community composition. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 271559. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01400.
8.Uzoma, K. C., Inoue, M., Andry, H., Fujimaki, H., Zahoor, A., & Nishihara, E. (2011). Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil Use & Management,
27, 205–212. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1475-2743.2011.00340.x.
9.Heviankova, S., Bestova, I., & Kyncl, M. (2014). The application of wood ash as a reagent in acid mine drainage treatment. Minerals Engineering, 56, 109-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013. 10.032.
11.Demeyer, A., Voundi Nkana, J., & Verloo, M. (2001). Characteristics of wood ash influence on soil properties and nutrient uptake: An overview. Bioresource Technology, 77, 287-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524 (00) 00043-2.
12.Nweke, I. A., Mbah, C. N., Oweremadu, E. O., Dambaba, N., Orji, E. C., Ekesiobi, A. I., & Nnabuife, E. L. C. (2017). Soil pH, available P of an Ultisol and castor performance as influenced
by contrasting tillage methods and
wood ash. African Journal of Agriculture Research, 12, 606-616. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR.
13.DeLuca, T. H., & Aplet, G. H. (2008). Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Mountain. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 6 (1), 18-24. https://doi.org/ 10.1890/ 070070.
14.Scheepers, G. P., & du Toit, B. (2016). Potential use of wood ash in South African forestry: a review. Southern Forests: A Journal of Forest Science, 78 (4), 255-266. https://doi.org/ 10.2989/20702620.2016.1230716.
15.Fernandez-Delgado Juarez, M., Fabiani, G., Mazzier, T., Schonegger, D., Pietramellara, G., Gomez-Brandon, M., & Insam, H. (2020). Reclamation of acid soils with biomass ashes from pyrolytic wood liquefaction. Waste & Biomass Valorization, 11 (9), 5067-5078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00 789-5.
16.Ludwig, B., Rumpf, S., Mindrup, M., Meiwes, K. J., & Khanna, P. K. (2002). Effects of lime and wood ash on soil-solution chemistry, soil chemistry and nutritional status of a pine stand in Northern Germany. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 17, 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/028275802753742891.
17.Lupwayi, N. Z., Arshad, M. A., Azooz, R. H., & Soon, Y. K. (2009). Soil microbial response to wood ash or lime applied to annual crops and perennial grass in an acid soil of northwestern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 89, 169-177. https://doi.org/ 10.4141/CJSS08007.
18.Gering, C., Heil, B., & Lamersdorf,
N. P. (2000). Wood ash application in a Norway spruce forest at Solling, Central Germany. Proceedings of International Conference on Forest Ecosystem Restoration, Vienna. pp: 322-324.
19.Paradelo, R., Virto, I., & Chenu, C. (2015). Net effect of liming on soil organic carbon stocks: A review. Agricalture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202, 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agee.2015.01.005.
20.Soon, Y. K., & Arshad, M. A. (2005). Tillage and liming effects on crop and labile soil nitrogen in an acid soil.
Soil & Tillage Research, 80, 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.02. 017.
21.Masto, R. E., Ansari, M. A., George, J., Selvi, V. A., & Ram, L. C. (2013). Coapplication of biochar and lignite fly ash on soil nutrients and biological parameters at different crop growth stages of Zea mays. Ecological Engineering,
58, 314-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoleng.2013.07.011.
22.Joseph, R., Diochon, A., Morris, D., Venier, L., Emilson, C. E., Basiliko, N., ... & Hazlett, P. (2022). Limited effect
of wood ash application on soil quality as indicated by a multisite assessment
of soil organic matter attributes.
GCB Bioenergy, 14 (5), 500-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12928.
23.Hansen, M., Saarsalmi, A., & Peltre, C. (2016). Changes in SOM composition and stability to microbial degradation over time in response to wood chip
ash fertilisation. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 99, 179-186. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.05.012.
24.Sarkar, D. (2005). Physical and Chemical Methods in Soil Analysis. New Age International. 193p.
25.Walkley, A., & Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science,
37, 29-38.
26.Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle‐size analysis. p. 383-409. In: A. L. Page (Ed.). Methods of soil Analysis, Agron. No. 9, Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, American Society. Agronomy. Madison WI, USA.
27.Anderson, T. H., & Domsch, A. K. (1993). The metabolic quotient for CO2 (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biology
& Biochemistry, 25, 393-395. DOI: 10.1016/0038-0717(93)90140-7.
28.Jenkinson, D. S., & Ladd, J. N. (1981). Microbial biomass in soil: measurement and turnover. P. 415-471. In: E. A.
Paul, (Ed.). Soil biochemistry. Vol. 9. CRC Press.
29.Anderson, T. H., & Domsch, K. H. (1990). Application of eco-physiological quotients (qCO2 and qD) on microbial biomasses from soils of different cropping histories. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 22, 251-255. https:// doi. org/10.1016/0038-0717(90)90094-G.
30.Ananthacumaraswamy, S., & Baker,
R. M. (1991). Effect of increasing level of lime (CaCO3) on soil chemical properties of acid soils. Sri Lanka Journal of Tea Science, 60 (1), 4-15.
31.Levula, T., Saarsalmi, A., & Rantavaara, A. (2000). Effects of ash fertilization and prescribed burning on macronutrient, heavy metal, sulphur and 137Cs concentrations in lingonberries (Vaccinium vitis idaea). Forest Ecology & Management, 126, 269-279. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00110-3.
32.Saunders, O. (2018). Guide to Using Wood Ash as an Agricultural Soil Amendment. University of New Hampshire Cooperative. 5p.
33.Hytonen, J. (2003). Effects of wood, peat and coal ash fertilization on Scots pine foliar nutrient concentrations and growth on afforested former agricultural peat soils. Silva Fennica, 37 (2), 219-234.
34.Ameyu, T. (2019). A review on the potential effect of lime on soil properties and crop productivity improvements. Journal of Environment & Earth Science, 9 (2), 17-23. DOI: 10.7176/ JEES.
35.Sanches, G. M., Magalhães, P. S., Remacre, A. Z., & Franco, H. C. (2018). Potential of apparent soil electrical conductivity to describe the soil pH and improve lime application in a clayey soil. Soil and Tillage Research,
175, 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.still.2017.09.010.
36.Rao, S. M., & Shivananda, P. (2005). Role of curing temperature in progress of lime-soil reactions. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 23, 79-85. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/ s10706-003-3157-5.
 
37.Farhangi, M. B., Safari Sinegani, A. A., Mosaddeghi, M. R., Unc, A., & Khodakaramian, G. (2013). Impact of calcium carbonate and temperature on survival of Escherichia coli in soil. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2013.01.022.
38.Karer, J., Wimmer, B., Zehetner, F., Kloss, S. & Soja, G. (2013). Biochar application to temperate soils: effects on nutrient uptake and crop yield under field conditions. Agricultural & food science, 22, 390-403. https://doi.org/ 10.23986/afsci.8155.
39.Stoof, C. R., Wesseling, J. G., & Ritsema, C. J. (2010). Effects of fire and ash on soil water retention. Geoderma, 159, 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoderma.2010.08.002.
40.Mbah, C. N., Nwite, J. N., Njoku, C., & Nweke, I. A. (2010). Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to different rates of
wood-ash application in acid ultisol in Southeast Niger. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5, 580-583. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR.
41.Fritze, H., Perkiomaki, J., Saarela, U., Katainen, R., Tikka, P., Yrjala, K., Karp, M., Haimi, J., & Romantschuk, M. (2000). Effect of Cd-containing wood ash on the microflora of coniferous forest humus. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 32, 43-51. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00697.x.
42.Ventura, M., Panzacchi, P., Muzzi, E., Magnani, F., & Tonon, G. (2019). Carbon balance and soil carbon input in a poplar short rotation coppice plantation as affected by nitrogen and wood ash application. New Forests, 50(6), 969-990. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11056-019-09709-w.
43.Gömöryová, E., Tóthová, S., Pichler, V., Homolák, M., Kriššák, V., & Gömöry, D. (2016). Wood ash effect on chemical and microbio-logical properties of topsoil in a Norway spruce stand
one year after the treatment. Folia Oecologica, 43, 156-163.
44.Hannam, K. D., Fleming, R. L., Venier, L., & Hazlett, P. W. (2019). Can bioenergy ash applications emulate the effects ofwildfire on upland forest soil chemical properties? Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83, 201-217. https:// doi.org/ 10.2136/ sssaj2018.10. 0380.
45.Moore, J. D., Ouimet, R., & Duchesne, L. (2012). Soil and sugar maple response 15 years after dolomitic lime application. Forest Ecology Management, 281, 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foreco.2012.06.026.
46.Munoz, C., Torres, P., Alvear, M., & Zagal, E. (2012). Physical protection of C and greenhouse gas emissions provided by soil macroaggregates from a Chilean cultivated volcanic soil. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B–Soil & Plant Science, 62 (8), 739-748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2012.700317.
47.Briedis, C., de Moraes Sa, J. C., Caires, E. F., de Fatima Navarro, J., Inagaki, T. M., Boer, A., de Oliveira Ferreira, A., Neto, C. Q., Canalli, L. B., & dos Santos, J. B. (2012). Changes in organic matter pools and increases in carbon sequestration in response to surface liming in an Oxisol under long‐term no‐till. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76, 151-160. https://doi.org/ 10.2136/sssaj2011.0128.
48.Ekenler, M., & Tabatabai, M. A. (2003). Efects of liming and tillage systems on microbial biomass and glycosidases in soils. Biology & Fertility of Soils,
39, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00374-003-0664-8.
49.Hati, K. M., Swarup, A., Mishra, B., Manna, M., Wanjari, R., Mandal, K., & Misra, A. (2008). Impact of long-term application of fertilizer, manure and lime under intensive cropping on physical properties and organic
carbon content of an Alfisol. Geoderma, 148, 173-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoderma.2008.09.015.
50.Wachendorf, C. (2015). Effects of liming and mineral N on initial decomposition of soil organic matter and post harvest root residues of poplar. Geoderma, 260, 243-250. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.06.013.
51.Spohna, M., & Chodak, M. (2015). Microbial respiration per unit biomass increases with carbon-to-nutrient ratios in forest soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 81, 128-133. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.008.
52.Neale, S. P., Shah, Z., & Adams, W. A. (1997). Changes in microbial biomass and nitrogen turnover in acidic organic soils following liming. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 29, 1463-1474. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00040-0.
53.Fuentes, J. P., Bezdicek, D. F., Flury, M., Albrecht, S., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Microbial activity affected by lime in a long-term no-till soil. Soil & Tillage Research, 88 (1-2), 123-131. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.05.001.
54.Moscatelli, M., Di Tizio, A., Marinari, S., & Grego, S. (2007). Microbial indicators related to soil carbon in Mediterranean land use systems. Soil & Tillage Research, 97 (1), 51-59. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.08.007.
55.Anderson, T. H. (2003). Microbial ecophysiological indicators to asses soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98 (1-3), 285-293. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00088-4.
56.Anderson, T. H., & Domsch, K. (1989). Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 21, 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717 (89) 90117-X.
57.Six, J., Frey, S., Thiet, R., & Batten,
K. (2006). Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70 (2), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0347.
 
58.Xue, D., Huang, X., Yao, H., & Huang, C. (2010). Effect of lime application on microbial community in acidic tea orchard soils in comparison with
those in wasteland and forest soils. Journal of Environmental Sciences,
22 (8), 1253-1260. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1001-0742(09)60246-1.
59.Grisso, R. D., Alley, M. M., Holshouser, D. L., & Thomason, W. E. (2005). Precision farming tools. soil electrical conductivity. Virginia Cooperative Extension, 6p. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10919/51377.
60.Leifeld, J., Bassin, S., Conen, F., Hajdas, I., Egli, M., & Fuher, J. (2013). Control of soil pH on turnover of belowground organic matter in subalpine grassland. Biogeochemistry, 112, 59-69. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9689-5.
61.Tonon, G., Sohi, S., Francioso, O., Ferrari, E., Montecchio, D., Gioacchini, P., Ciavatta, C., Panzacchi, P., & Powlson, D. (2010). Effect of soil pH on the chemical composition of organic matter in physically separated soil fractions in two broadleaf woodland sites at Rothamsted, UK. European Journal of Soil Science, 61 (6), 970-979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010. 01310.x
62.Pascual, J. A., Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., & Ayuso, M. (1997). Changes in the microbial activity of an arid soil amended with urban organic wastes. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 24, 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050268.
مجله مدیریت خاک و تولید پایدار
دوره 14، شماره 2
تیر 1403
صفحه 1-24

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار