impacts of conventional, sustainable and organic farming ... · glucosidase and urease activities...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 4, No 1, 2013

© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research article ISSN 0976 – 4402

Received on July 2013 Published on July 2013 28

Impacts of conventional, sustainable and organic farming system on soil

microbial population and soil biochemical properties, Puducherry, India Sudhakaran M, Ramamoorthy. D, Rajesh kumar. S

Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry

[email protected]

doi: 10.6088/ijes.2013040100004

ABSTRACT

This research under field experimental conditions in agro ecosystem investigated the effects

of different farm management practices (Conventional, Sustainable and Organic) on soil

biochemical and microbial populations including soil physical, chemical and biological

factors. Three composite soil samples were collected from each of the 10 farms from the fall

of January 2012 to May 2012. Composite samples were done by sampling approximately

15kg of soil from each of the three farming systems (Conventional, Sustainable and Organic)

using augur at 0-15cm cm depth. Soils from organic farms had improved soil chemical

parameters (total elements and plant available nutrients) and higher level of total N, total P,

total K, total Ca, total Mg ,total Fe, total Cu, organic C, NH4-N, NO3-N, extractable P, SO4-S

and soluble Na. In addition, β- glucosidase activities, soil respiration and microbial

population (bacteria, fungi, actinimycetes, beijerinckia, azotobacter, rhizobium, bacillus and

phosphobacteria) were higher in soils from organic farming than sustainable and

conventional farms. This study shows organic farming was improving the soil health and

plant available nutrients without any inorganic external inputs.

Key words: Conventional, Sustainable and Organic farming, soil properties, β- glucosidase

activities and soil microbial population.

1. Introduction

Physical, chemical, biological and biochemical properties are involved in soil functioning,

biological and biochemical properties tend to react quickly to changes in the external

environment, and are therefore generally used in assessing soil quality (Nannipieri et al.,

1990; Vanhala and Ahtiainen, 1994). The biogeochemical process through which microbial

conversion of complex organic compounds into simple inorganic compounds & their

constituent elements is known as mineralization. Soil microbes play vital role in the

biochemical cycling of elements in the biosphere where the essential elements (C, P, S, N &

Iron etc.) undergo chemical transformations. Through the process of mineralization organic

carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, Sulphur, Iron etc. are made available for reuse by plants.

Soil microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, control the functioning of ecosystem

through decomposition and nutrient cycling which in turn may serve as indicators of land-use

change and ecosystem health (Doran and Zeiss 2000; Waldrop et al., 2000; Yao et al., 2000).

The general biochemical parameters most commonly used to estimate the changes in soil

quality include carbon associated with microbial biomass, dehydrogenase activity and N

mineralization capacity, while the most commonly used specific parameters include ß-

glucosidase and urease activities (Gil-Sotres et al., 2005).

Impacts of conventional, sustainable and organic farming system on soil microbial population and soil

biochemical properties, Puducherry, India

Sudhakaran M, Ramamoorthy. D, Rajesh kumar. S

International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 4 No.1 2013 29

Agriculture intensification and anthropogenic activities affect the soil quality at all levels,

including the structure and function of soil microbial communities. Farming management

systems alter the soil microbial community structure through changes in carbon availability,

pH (Cookson et al., 2007), nutrient availability or other chemical parameters. During past few

years, conventionally managed agricultural system has used synthetic fertilizer and pesticides

to improve crop productivity. This intensive use of agrochemicals will definitely reduce the

biodiversity, increase irreversible erosion of soil and reduce soil organic matter (Dick, 1992:

Schiavon et al., 1995).Organic Farming System does not use synthetic chemical amendments

and may be more sustainable in the long-term than conventional farming systems (CFS).

Organic farming has improved food quality and safety, because the nutrient supply and pest

control methods are largely depend on biological processes in organic systems (Gewin, 2004).

Carine Floch et al., (2009) also reported that the soil enzyme activities and microbial

population are higher in organically managed farming when compared to the conventional

and integrated managed farming.The objective of the present study is to evaluate the impacts

of different farming systems (organic, sustainable and conventional) on soil microbial

population and soil biochemical properties.

2. Study area

Pondicherry is located along the Coramandel coast of peninsular India with the geographical

coordinates 11052’N, 79045’E and 11059’N and 79052’ E covering an area of 480 km. The

mean annual rainfall of the study area is about 1311-1172mm.The mean number of annual

rainy days is 55; the mean monthly temperature ranges between 210 C and 30

0 C in the study

area. This region gets more rainfall during north east monsoon. Humidity is also high as the

area is nearer to the coastal region. The study site, Sorriyankuppam is located 25 km away

from the town which is nearer to Cuddalore district and the other site is Kalapet, located very

near to Pondicherry University. In these two study sites the texture of soils is sandy loam.

Rice, Groundnut and Sugarcane are most predominant crops. During the study period

groundnut is the most predominant crop in the study fields.

Soils from 10 farms in organic, sustainable and conventional farming were sampled from

January 2012 to April 2012. Three farms were certified organic farming and any synthetic

fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides were not used. They are located in Sorriyankuppam

(organic-1, organic-2) and in Nallavadu (organic -3). The other three farms are classified as

sustainable, which means that synthetic fertilizers were used but synthetic pesticides were not

used. These farms were located in Sorriyankuppam (sustainable-1, 2 &3). Remaining three

conventional farms were sampled. In these farms monoculture, synthetic fertilizer and

pesticides were used. These farms are located in Kalapet (conventional 1 and 3) and

Sorriyankuppam (conventional 2) remaining is barren land (non cropping land) to be treated

as control (Bo liu et al., 2007).

Three composite soil samples were collected from each of the 10 farms from the fall of

January 2012 to May2012. Composite samples were done by sampling approximately 15kg

of soil from each of the three farming system using augur at 0-15cm depth. Bulked samples

were kept separately according to the location within each field for replication maintenance.

Composite soil samples were stored in deep freezer to control microbial and enzyme

activities for soil dilution, plating and biological analysis. The soils were transferred to

storage room and were stored at 40c until the time of analysis. Microbial and enzyme analysis

were done within 48 to 72 hrs.





3. Data analysis

All the experimental data were analyzed using SPSS 16. The variations among farming

management, soil biological and microbial population were analyzed by one way ANOVA

test.

Figure 1: study area (source: www.india –travelinfo.com)

3. Methodology

3.1 Physical properties

Soil moisture content was determined by gravimetric method (Hesse 1971). Soil Particle

density and volume of soil particle were determined by volumetric flask method (Bashour

and sayegh 2007). Soil texture was determined by feel method (Thien 1979).

3.2 Chemical properties

Organic carbon was determined by Chromic acid wet digestion (Walkley and Black 1934).

Total nitrogen (N) was determined by Macro-Kjeldahl digestion (Piper 1966). Ammonium

nitrogen (NH4+- N) was determined by Nitroprusside catalyst method (Bashour and Sayegh

2007). Nitrate nitrogen (NO3 -

N) was determined by Chromotrophic acid spectrophotometric

method (Sims and Jakson 1971). Extractable phosphorus was determined by modified Olsen

method (Olsen and Sommers 1982). Available potassium (K+), soluble calcium (Ca) and

soluble sodium (Na) were determined by Flame photometry (Stanford and English 1949).

Sulphate (SO4) amount was determined by Turbidimetric method (Tandon 1991). Total

phosphorus, total potassium, elements such as Silicon (Si), Sulphur(S), Calcium (Ca),

Magnesium(Mg), Sodium(Na), Iron(Ir) , Manganese (Mn) and Copper (Cu) were analyzed

by WD XRF (Becckhoff et al., 2006).

3.3 Soil biological properties





Soil respiration was determined by CO2 during the incubation of soil in closed system, CO2 is

trapped in NaOH (0.05 M) solution , then the trapped solution was titrated with HCl solution

(0.05 M)which was expressed as CO2(mg).100 g of soil-1

day-1

(Isermeyer 1952). β –

glucosidase activity was determined by para nitrophenol release after the incubation of soil

with para nitrophenyl glucoside solution for 1 hr. at 370C (Tabatabai 1982; Eivazi and

Tabatabai 1988). The enzyme activity was expressed as p-Nitrophenol µg g-1

dwt h-1

.

3.4 Soil microbes

The numbers of bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes were determined by serial dilution plate

count method (Germida 1993). In brief, soil dilution (10-1

) prepared by 10 g of soil sample

was transferred into 100 ml sterile water and mixing the solution for few seconds. Then 1 ml

of dilution was transferred into 9 ml of sterile water test tube (10-2

) and subsequent soil serial

dilution were prepared up to 10-10

. Spread 0.2 ml of diluted soil suspension from each serial

dilution (10-6

for Bacteria, 10-4

for fungi, 10-5

for actinomyces) on different selective media

(Nutrient agar medium for bacteria, Beijierinckia medium for Beijerinckia spp., Azotobacter

agar medium for Azotobacter spp. , Pikovskaya’s agar medium for Phosphate solubilizing

soil microbes, Bacillus medium for Bacillus spp , Rhizobium medium for Rhizobium spp,

Rosebengal agar medium for fungi and Ken kinght’s medium for actinomyces) and the

incubated plates were incubated at temperatures between 25o C and 30

o C at the duration of

5-7 days for fungi, 1-2 days for bacteria, 12-14 days for acinomycetes respectively. The

colony forming units are expressed as CFU 10n g of soil on a moisture basis.

4. Results

Table 1: Soil physical properties in different farming systems

Soil physical properties Conventional Sustainable Organic Control

Moisture content (%) 4.1 4.2 8.0 11.4

Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5

Volume of the soil particle

(cm3)

17.0 17.9 17.9 18.8

Particle density (g/cm3) 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.9

4.1 Soil physical properties

Based on the experiment, the highest moisture content was recorded as11.4% in control. Then

the organic farming system contains 8% and the sustainable farming contains 4.2% but the

conventional farming is approximately equal to the sustainable farming system. The bulk

density of the soil recorded was 1.5 g/cm3 in control and the organic farming system was 1.4

g/cm3. Then the sustainable farming system contains 1.4 g/cm

3 and the conventional farming

system possess 1.3 g/cm3.

Therefore, the conventional system has the lowest bulk density.

Volume of the soil particle has the highest value in control level and the organic and

sustainable farming systems are almost equal. But the lowest volume of the soil particle was

recorded in conventional farming. Control has the highest particle density, lowest value was

recorded in sustainable and organic farming systems 2.7% (Table 1).

4.2 Soil physiochemical properties





Based on the soil analysis the highest pH value in sustainable farming was 7.4. Then the

organic farming was 7.13. The lowest pH value was 6 in control. From the experiment, the

electrical conductivity in control was 0.4(mS. cm-1

). Organic farming system was 0.3(mS.

cm-1

), then the sustainable farming system was 0.2(mS. cm-1

) and the EC for the conventional

farming system was 0.15(mS. cm-1

). (Table2).

Table 2: Soil physio-chemical properties in different farming systems

Soil physio-chemical properties Conventional Sustainable Organic Control

pH 7.13 7.51 7.36 6

EC (mS. Cm-1

) 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.4

Table 3: Primary and secondary Macronutrients levels in different farming systems.

Primary

Macronutrients(g/kg) Conventional Sustainable Organic Control P-value

Total nitrogen 2.2 ±0.36 1.8 ±0.20 3.7 ±1.15 2.4 ±0.5 0.035*

Total phosphorous 1.2 ±0.41 1.7 ±0.21 2.0 ±0.55 1.2 ±0.32 0.141

Total potassium 22.1 ±9.66 36.0 ±7.00 52.5 ±9.09 34.4 ±6.2 0.015*

Secondary Macronutrient (g/kg)

Total sulphur(S) 6.1 ±2.78 6.4 ±2.62 4.2 ±3.07 3.7 ±2.2 0.872

Total calcium(Ca) 13.6 ±1.39 28.2 ±1.00 48.0 ±1.42 33.4

±1.01 0.045*

Total sodium(Na) 4.7 ±0.6 10.6 ±0.32 17.7 ±0.65 13.7

±0.12 0.094

Total silicon(Si) 84.2 ±3.98 78.9 ±4.80 68.9 ±4.62 78.0

±2.14 0.022*

Total magnesium(Mg) 20.7 ±2.12 36.1 ±3.47 49.2 ±3.76 47.1

±0.54 0.588

*significantly different at p=0.05, **significantly different at p=0.01

4.3 Primary macronutrients

From the experiment, the amount of total nitrogen was higher in organic farming and the

control level is 2.4(g/kg). Sustainable farming had 1.8(g/kg), conventional farming had

2.2(g/kg). The total amount of phosphorus was higher in organic farming compared to the

other farming systems. Similarly the amount of potassium level was higher in organic farm

but the control had 34.4(g/kg) sustainable farming had 36(g/kg) and conventional farming

had 22.1(g/kg) (Table 3).





4.4 Secondary macronutrients

The total amount of Sulphur was higher in sustainable farm than the other farming. Based on

the experiment, the amount of total calcium was higher in organic system. Compared to the

other systems, conventional had lower value. Sustainable farm had 28.2(g/kg) and the control

level 33.4(g/kg). From the experiment, highest amount of total sodium was recorded in

organic farm. Conventional farm had lower value and the sustainable farm had 10.6(g/kg),

the control had 13.7(g/kg). Total amount of silicon was higher in conventional farm and

organic farming system had the lowest value. Sustainable farm contained 78.9(g/kg) and the

control had 78(g/kg). From the experiment it was concluded that the total magnesium was

higher in organic farm system. Sustainable farm had 36.1(g/kg) and the lowest value was

found in conventional farming (Table3).

4.5 Micronutrients

Based on the experiment, the highest amount of iron (Fe) was found in organic farming and

the lowest was found in conventional farming system. Control had 33.4(g/kg) and the

sustainable farm had 36.2(g/kg). From the analysis, control had the highest manganese value

and the lowest value was in conventional farm. Organic farm contained 1.2(g/kg) and the

sustainable farm had 1.1(g/kg), Copper was found higher in organic farming (14 mg/kg) and

the lowest value had occurred in conventional (9.3 mg/kg), control had 12(mg/kg),

sustainable had 10.7(mg/kg). Conventional had the highest Zinc value (39.3 mg/kg), lowest

value was found in sustainable (33.7 mg/kg). Organic had 34.7(mg/kg) and control had

36(mg/kg) of zinc value. The organic had the highest Molybdenum value and control had the

lowest value, conventional and sustainable had 1.3(mg/kg). Cobalt was found higher in

organic 7.3(mg/kg), the lowest in control (4 mg/kg), sustainable had 6.3(mg/kg) and

conventional had 4.7(mg/kg).Vanadium was higher in organic (49.3 g/kg) and lower in

sustainable (34.7 mg/kg), conventional had 37(mg/kg), control has 36(mg/kg) (Table 4).

4.6 Available nutrients

Based on the analysis Organic carbon was higher in organic farm 8.63(g/kg) and lowest was

occurred in conventional (6.40 g/kg), sustainable had 7.15(g/kg), and control had 8.40(g/kg).

Ammonia nitrogen was higher in organic farm (0.86 g/kg), and lesser in control (0.65 g/kg),

conventional had 0.79(g/kg), sustainable had 0.65(g/kg). Nitrate- nitrogen was higher in

organic (2.26 g/kg), lower in sustainable had 0.93(g/kg), control had 1.0(g/kg) and

conventional had 1.17(g/kg). Extractable phosphorus was higher in organic (0.61g/kg) and

lower was occurred in control (0.27 g/kg). Sustainable had 0.39(g/kg) and conventional had

0.28(g/kg). Available potassium was higher in control and conventional had 0.27(g/kg),

lowest was occurred in organic 0.25(g/kg), sustainable had 0.26(g/kg). Available sulphate

was high in organic 0.91(g/kg), low in conventional 0.54(g/kg), sustainable had 0.63(g/kg)

and control had 0.66(g/kg). Soluble calcium highly occurred in sustainable 12.68(mg/kg),

lowest value in conventional (9.02 mg/kg), organic had 12.01(mg/kg) and control had

10.40(mg/kg). Soluble sodium was high in organic 0.57(g/kg), low in control 0.51(g/kg),

conventional had 0.53(g/kg) and sustainable had 0.51(g/kg) (Table 5)

Table 4: Micronutrients levels in different farming systems

Micronutrients

Conventional Sustainable Organic Control P-value

Iron(Fe) (g/kg) 29.6 ±2.72 36.2 ± 56.8 ±12.38 33.4 0.052





±1.04

Manganese(Mn)

(g/kg) 0.6 ±0.07 1.2 ±0.01 1.1 ±0.36 6.2 ±0.04 0.040*

Copper(Cu) (mg/kg) 9.3 ±2.31 10.7 ±3.51 14.0 ±3.46 12.0

±0.98 0.251

Zinc(Zn) (mg/kg) 39.3 ±1.25 33.7 ±1.29 34.7 ±1.63 36.0 ±1.4 0.801

Molybdenum(Mo)

(mg/kg) 1.3 ±0.05 1.3 ±0.05 1.7 ±0.02 1.0 ±0.01 0.729

Cobalt(Co) (mg/kg) 4.7 ±0.05 6.3 ±0.1 7.3 ±0.2 4.0 ±0.05 0.454

Vanadium(V)

(mg/kg) 37.0 ±2.65 34.7 ±1.26 49.3 ±4.9

36.0

±1.04 0.163


Table 5: Available nutrients in different farming systems

Available nutrients Conventional Sustainable Organic Control P-value

Organic carbon (g/kg) 6.40 ±0.52 7.15 ±0.31 8.63 ±0.91 8.40 ±0.19 0.013*

NH4+-N (g/kg) 0.79 ±0.01 0.65 ±0.06 0.86 ±0.03 0.65 ±0.09 0.555

NO3 -N (g/kg) 1.17 ±0.02 0.93 ±0.01 2.26 ±0.02 1.03 ±0.01 0.001**

Extractable

Phosphorus (g/kg) 0.28 ±0.01 0.39 ±0.02 0.61 ±0.01 0.27 ±0.01 0.028*

Available Potassium

(g/kg) 0.27 ±0.00 0.26 ±0.00 0.25 ±0.01 0.27 ±0.00 0.058

SO4 – S (g/kg) 0.54 ±0.03 0.63 ±0.07 0.91 ±0.02 0.66 ±0.01 0.041*

soluble

Calcium(mg/Kg) 9.02 ±0.66 12.68 ±0.4 12.01 ±0.7

10.40

±0.21 0.741

soluble Sodium (g/kg) 0.53 ±0.02 0.51 ±0.01 0.57 ±0.05 0.51 ±0.01 0.094


4.7 Soil biological parameters

Based on the experiment organic system consists of higher β-glucosidase activity and the

control had 37.2 (mg p-NP g-1

soil h-1

) and conventional farming system had 34.1(mg p-

Nitrophenol g-1

soil h-1

) and the lowest β-glucosidase value had appeared in sustainable

farming system (Figure 2a).

Figure 2: Effects of different farming systems on β- glucocidase activities and soil

respiration. Error bars represent the standard error of mean. (a) symbol indicates significantly

different at p=0.05 (b) symbol indicates significantly different at p=0.01





From the experiment the soil respiration was higher in organic farming system and

sustainable farm had 3.7(CO2 (mg).100g of soil-1

day-1

) and conventional farm had 3.5 (CO2

(mg).100g of soil-1

day-1

), the lowest value of soil respiration was identified in control

(Figure.ure.2b).

Figure 3: Effects of different farming system on soil bacterial, fungi and actinomycetes

population. Error bars represent the standard error of mean. (a) symbol indicates significantly

different at p=0.05 (b) symbol indicates significantly different at p=0.01

4.8 Microbial analysis

The experiment on soil microbial analysis had shown that the bacterial population was higher

in the organic farming and the sustainable contained 24.3(CFU g-1

× 107) and the control had

23(CFU g-1

× 107) but the lowest bacterial population was recorded in conventional farm

system (Figure.ure 3a). Microbial analysis of fungal population was recorded higher in

organic farming and sustainable farm had 29.7(CFU g-1

× 104), control had 24(CFU g

-1 × 10

4)

but the lowest fungal population had occurred in conventional farm (Figure.ure 3b).

Microbial analysis of actinomycetes was higher in organic farming system compared with

other framing system. Sustainable had 24 (CFU g-1

× 105) and the conventional farm has

26.3(CFU g-1

× 105)

. The lowest actinomycetes population had occurred in control (2 CFU g-

1 × 10

5) (Figure.ure 3c). From the experiment it was concluded that the population of

Beijerinckia was higher in organic farm and the control had 1(CFU g-1

× 107). Conventional

and sustainable farming had equal amount of Beijerinckia population (Figure.ure 4a). Based

on the microbial analysis the azotobacter population was higher in organic farm and the lower

population in control. The sustainable farm had 24.7 (CFU g-1

× 107) and conventional had

26.3(CFU g-1

× 107) (Figure.ure 4b). Rhizobium population was higher in organic farm and





the lowest one occurred in sustainable farm. The control system had 15(CFU g-1

× 107) and

the conventional farm had 13.3(CFU g-1

× 107) (Figure.ure 4c). Based on the microbial

analysis bacillus population 9.7 (CFU g-1

× 107) had occurred in organic farms, Conventional

farm had 5 (CFU g-1

×107). Bacillus population in sustainable was 4.7(CFU g

-1 ×10

7). The

lowest value of bacillus population had occurred in control (Figure.ure 4d). This microbial

analysis shows that the organic farm had higher phosphobacteria population. The

conventional farm had 4.7(CFU g-1

× 107) and the sustainable had 4(CFU g

-1 × 10

7). The

lowest population of phosphobacteria had occurred in control (Figure.ure4e).

Figure 4: Effects of different farming system on soil Beijerinckia, Azotobacter, Rhizobium,

Bacillus and Phosphobacteria populations. Error bars represent the standard error of mean. (a)

symbol indicates significantly different at p=0.05 (b) symbol indicates significantly different

at p=0.01.





4.9 Discussion

Based on the study, organic farms had improved soil chemical factors compared to

conventional and sustainable farming system (Drinkwater et al., 1995: Reganold et al., 2001).

The levels of total N, total P, total K, total Calcium, total Si and total Mg were higher in

organic farming and show significant variations. Other conventional and sustainable farming

systems were less in the above mentioned soil chemical factors. These findings agree with

several research studies (Bo Liu et al., 2007, Bending et al., 2000, Kennedy and smith 1995).

We found that soil pH was significantly different in organic farming, sustainable farming,

conventional farming and control. The pH value was higher in sustainable rather than organic

farming, conventional farming and control. However other studies had shown that pH was

not significantly different between organic carbon and conventional farm management (Clark

et al., 1998).

The most plant available soil nutrients were showed significant variation in our study.

Organic carbon, nitrate nitrogen, extractable P, extractable Na and sulphate S were higher in

organic farming compared to sustainable and conventional farming. These findings agree

with Hopkins DW and Gregorich EG (2005) studies. NH3-N and soluble Ca showed no

variation in these three farming systems.

β-glucosidase activity was significantly higher in organic farming than the conventional and

sustainable farming. This enzyme has been detected in micro-organisms, animals and plants.

But the presence of this enzyme in Toluene treated soil indicates that it could be free extra

cellular enzyme which is observed on the surface of the soil clay particles (Hayano &

Katami, 1977). These findings also agreed with some other research findings (Acosta

Martinez & Tabatabi, 2000; Madejon et al., 2001). These enzyme properties can be used as a

good biochemical indicator for measuring ecological changes resulting from soil

acidification.

Soil respiration was significantly higher in organic farming compared to the other two farms.

This indicates a higher soil microbial activity due to the addition of liable organic matter to

the soil (SafFigure.na, P.G et al., 1989; Ademir S. F et al., 2009) because of the stimulation

of heterotrophic micro-organisms.

Other comparisons of the conventional and organic farming systems have also reported an

increase in the soil microbial respiration under organic management (Glovwer, J.D. et al.

2000; Hel Weg .A, 1988). Additional higher soil respiration was found in the organic farming

system which show higher microbial activities in the soil. Soil microbial population shows

significant variation at P<0.05 interval. Similarly Actinomycedes is significant at P<0.001

interval. Organic farming shows higher bacterial, fungul, actinomycetes, Beijerinckia,

Azotobacter, rhizobium, bacillus and phosphobacteria population compared to sustainable

and conventional farming systems. The application of animal manures and compost increase

the activity and diversity of the microbial community (Bolton et al., 1985; Hassink 1995).

Such enhancement to the soil microbial community might have benefits for plant productivity

through increased nutrient cycling rate (Gajda et al., 2000).

5. Conclusion

From the above study it is concluded that the different farming practices have a great impact

on soil biochemical properties and microbial populations. The study indicates that plant

available nutrients are higher in soil from organic farming systems compared to conventional





and sustainable farming systems. There is a significant difference in microbial populations

among the three farming systems. It is found that organic farming has shown more microbial

populations than the other two farming systems. This study shows further evidence as to

organic farming is improving the soil health and plant available nutrients without affecting

the environment.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful towards the UGC for providing research fellowship in order to

promote better scientific research and thankful to the department of Ecology and

Environmental Science, Pondicherry University for providing laboratory facilities in order to

conduct the experiment. They extend their gratitude to CIF, Pondicherry University for soil

element analysis.

6. References

1. Ademir S.F., Araújo., Luiz F.C. Leite 2., Valdinar B., Santos and Romero F.V.

Carneiro., (2009), Soil Microbial Activity in Conventional and Organic Agricultural

Systems, Sustainability , 1, 268-276; doi:10.3390/su1020268

2. Acosta-Martínez V, Tabatabai MA., (2000), Enzyme activities in a limed agricultural

soil, Biology of Fertilizer of Soils, 31, pp 85-91.

3. Bashour I.I, and sayegh A.H., (2007), Methods of analysis for soils of arid and semi-

arid regions. Published by food and agricultural organization of United Nations,

Rome.

4. Beckhoff,B., Kanngieber B., Langhoff N., Wedell R., and Wolff H., (2006),

Handbook of practical X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis,(Eds) Springer, ISBN 3-540-

28603-9. p 842.

5. Bending G.D., Putland C., and Rayns F., (2000), Changes in microbial community

metabolism and labile organic matter fraction as early indicators of the impacts of

management on soil biological quality, Biology of Fertilizer of Soils, 31, pp 78-84.

6. Bo Liu., Cong Tu., Shuijin Hu., Marcia Gumpertz., and Jean Beagle Ristania., (2007),

Effects of organic, sustainable and conventional management strategies in grower

fields on soil physical, chemical and biological factors and the incidence of Southern

blight, Applied soil ecology, doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.06.007.

7. Bolten E.F., Driks V.A., and Mc Donnell M.M., (1982), The effects of drainage,

rotation and fertilizer on corn yield, plant height leaf nutrient composition and

physical properties of prookston clay soil in southern western Ontario. Can, Journal of

Soil Science, 62, pp 297-308.

8. Carine Floch., Yvan Capowiez., Stéven Criquet., (2009), Enzyme activities in apple

orchard agroecosystems: How are they affected by management strategy and soil

properties? Soil biology and biochemistry, 41, pp 61-68.

9. Clark M., Sean W.R., Horwath C. Shennan., and Scow K.M., (1998),Changes in soil

chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices, Journal

of Agronomy, 90, pp 662-671





10. Cookson W., Osman M., Marschner P., Abaye D., Clark I., and Murphy D., (2007),

Controls on soil nitrogen cycling and microbial community composition across land

use and incubation temperature, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39(3) pp 744–756

11. Dick R.P., (1992), A review: long-term effects of agricultural systems on soil

biochemical and microbial parameters. Agriculture, Ecosystems and environment, 40,

pp 25–36.

12. Doran J.W., and Zeiss, MR., (2000), Soil health and sustainability: managing the

biotic component of soil quality, Applied Soil Ecology, 15(1), pp 3–11

13. Drinkwater L.E., Letourneau D.K., Workneh F., Vanbruggen A.H.C., and Shennan C.,

(1995), Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato

agroecosystems in California, Ecological applications, 5(4), pp 1098-1112.

14. Eivazi F., and Tabatabai M. A., (1988), Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils, Soil

Biology and Biochemistry, 20(5), pp 601-606.

15. Gajda A., Martyniuk S., Stachyra A., Wroblewska B., and Zieba S., (2000), Relations

between microbiological and biochemical properties of soil under different agro-

technical conditions and its productivity, Polish journal of soil science, pp 33-54.

16. Germida J.J., (1993), Cultural methods for soil microorganisms. In M.R. Carter, Ed.

Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. A Special Publication of the Canadian

Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp 263–275

17. Gewin V., (2004), Organic: is the future of farming? Nature, 48, pp 792–798.

18. Gil-Sotres, F., Trasar-Cepeda C., Leiro´ s M.C., Seoane S., (2005), Different

approaches to evaluate soil quality using biochemical properties, Soil Biology and

Biochemistry, 37, pp 877–887.

19. Glover J.D., Reganold J.P., and Andrews P.K., (2000), Systematic method for rating

soil quality of conventional organic and integrated apple orchards in Washington

State, Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment,, 80, pp 29-44.

20. Hassink J., (1995), Density fractions of soil macroorganic matter and microbial

biomass as predictors of C and N mineralization, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 27,

1099–1108.

21. Hayano K., Tubaki K., (1985), Origin and properties of β-glucosidase activity of

tomato-field soil, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1, pp 553-557.

22. Helweg A., (1988), Microbial activities in soil from orchards regularly treated with

pesticides compared to the activity in soils without pesticides (organically cultivated),

Pedobiologia, 32, pp 273-281.

23. Hesse P.R., (1971), A text book of soil chemical analysis. John Murray, London.

24. Hopkins D.W, and Gregorich E.G., (2005), Carbon as a substrate for soil organisms.

In: Bardgett RD, Usher MB, Hopkins DW (eds) Biodiversty and functions in soil,





British ecological society ecological reviews, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

pp 57-79.

25. Isermeyer H., (1952), Eine enifache method zur Bestimmung der Bodenatmug und

der carbonate im boden, Z pflanzenernah bodenk, 56:26-38.

26. Kennedy A.C., and K.L. Smith., (1995), Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability

of agricultural soils, Plant soil, 170, pp 75-86.

27. Madejo´n E., Burgos P., Lo´pez R., and Cabrera F., (2001), Soil enzymatic response

to addition of heavy metals with organic residues, Biology and Fertilizers of Soils, 34,

pp 144150.

28. Nannipieri P., Ceccanti B., and Grego S., (1990), Ecological significance of biological

activity in soil. In: Bollag, G.M., Stotzky, G. (Eds.), Soil biochemistry, Marcel

Dekker, New York, 6, pp 293– 354.

29. Olson S.R, and Somers L.E., (1982), Phosphorus. P. 403-430. In A.L. Page (ed.),

Methods of soil analysis, Agron. No. 9, part 2: Chemical and microbiological

properties, 2nd

ed., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.

30. Piper C.S., (1966), Soil and Plant Analysis. Hans Publishers, Bombay.

31. Reganold J.P., (1995), Soil quality and portability of biodynamic and conventional

farming systems: A review, American journal of alternative agriculture, 10(1), pp 36-

46.

32. SafFigure.na P.G., Powlson D.S., Brookes P.C., and Thomas G.A., (1989), Influence

of sorghum residues and tillage on soil organic matter and soil microbial biomass in

an Australian Vertisol, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 21, pp 759–764.

33. Schiavon M., Perringanier C., and Portal, J.M., (1995). The pollution of water by

pesticides- state and origin. Agronomie, 15, pp 157–170.

34. Sims J.R., and Jackson G.D., (1971). Rapid analysis of soil nitrate with chromotropic

acid, Soil Sciences Society of America Proceedings,, 35, pp 603-606.

35. Stanford S., and English L., (1949), Use of Flame photometer in a rapid soil test for K

and Ca, Journal of Agronomy, 41, pp 446-447.

36. Tabatabai M. A., (1982), Soil enzymes. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Parr I (A. L.

Page. R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney. Eds), Agronomy, 9, pp 903-947.

37. Tendon H.L.S., (1991). Sulphur research and agricultural production in India. 3rd

ed.,

The Sulphur Institute, Washington, D.C. USA.

38. Thien S.J., (1979), A flow diagram for teaching texture by-feel analysis. Journal of

agronomic education, 8, pp 54-54.

39. Vanhala P., Ahtiainen J.H., (1994), Soil respiration, ATP content and Photobacterium

toxicity test as indicators of metal pollution in soil. Environ. Toxicol. Water Quality,

9, pp 115–121.





40. Waldrop M.P,, Balser T.C., and Firestone M.K., (2000) Linking microbial community

composition to function in a tropical soil, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32(13), pp

1837–1846

41. Walkley A., and Black I.A., (1934), An examination of Degtjareff method for

determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid

titration method, Soil Science, 37, pp 29-37.

42. Yao H., He Z., Wilson M.J., Campbell C.D., (2000), Microbial biomass and

community structure in a sequence of soils with increasing fertility and changing land

use, Microbial Ecology, 40(3), pp 223–237

impacts of conventional, sustainable and organic farming ... · glucosidase and urease activities...

Documents