Management Influence on the Quality of an Agricultural Soil Destined for Forage Production and Evaluated by Physico-Chemical and Biological Indicators
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Area and Crops
2.2. Soil Analysis
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Weather Conditions
3.2. Forage Yields
3.3. Soil Physico-Chemical Properties
3.4. Soil Health Diagnosis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jongeneel, R.A. Research for AGRI Committee—The CAP Support beyond 2020: Assessing the Future Structure of Direct Payments and the Rural Developments Interventions in the Light of the EU Agricultural and Environmental Challenges; European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hauck, J.; Schleyer, C.; Winkler, K.J.; Maes, J. Shades of Greening: Reviewing the Impact of the new EU Agricultural Policy on Ecosystem Services. Change Adapt. Socio-Ecol. Syst. 2014, 1, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The Post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy: Environmental Benefits and Simplification; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Jiménez-Calderón, J.D.; Martínez-Fernández, A.; Prospero-Bernal, F.; Velarde-Guillén, J.; Arriaga-Jordán, C.M.; Vicente, F. Using manure as fertilizer for maize could improve sustainability of milk production. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 16, e0601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-Calderón, J.D.; Martínez-Fernández, A.; Soldado, A.; González, A.; Vicente, F. Faba bean-rapeseed silage as substitute for Italian ryegrass silage: Effects on performance and milk quality of grazing dairy cows. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 913–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Fernández, A.; Soldado, A.; De-La-Roza-Delgado, B.; Vicente, F.; González-Arrojo, M.A.; Argamentería, A. Modelling a quantitative ensilability index adapted to forages from wet temperate areas. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 11, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baizán, S.; Vicente, F.; González, M.A.; González, C.; de la Roza, B.; Soldado, A.; Martínez-Fernández, A. Alternativas forrajeras sostenibles como cultivo invernal en zonas templadas. Pastos 2015, 45, 23–32. [Google Scholar]
- Baizán, S.; Vicente, F.; Oliveira, J.A.; Afif-Khouri, E.; Martínez-Fernández, A. Effect of replacing conventional Italian ryegrass by organic nitrogen source systems on chemical soil properties. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 18, e1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, E.J.B.N.; Vasconcellos, R.L.F.; Bini, D.; Miyauchi, M.Y.H.; Dos Santos, C.A.; Alves, P.R.L.; De Paula, A.M.; Nakatani, A.S.; Pereira, J.D.M.; Nogueira, M.A. Soil health: Looking for suitable indicators. What should be considered to assess the effects of use and management on soil health? Sci. Agric. 2013, 70, 274–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Papadakis, J. Climates of the World and Their Agricultural Potentialities; DAPCO: Rome, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- SIGA. Sistema de Información Geográfica de Datos Agrarios. 2020. Available online: https://sig.mapama.gob.es/siga/ (accessed on 6 July 2019).
- Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- SITPA. Sistema de Información Territorial del Principado de Asturias y la Infraestructura de Datos Espaciales. 2020. Available online: http://sitpa.cartografia.asturias (accessed on 6 July 2019).
- Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hack, H.; Bleiholder, H.; Buhr, L.; Meier, U.; Schnock-Fricke, U.; Weber, E.; Witzenberger, A. Einheitliche codierung der phänologischen entwicklungsstadien mono-und dikotyler pflanzen-erweiterte BBCH-Skala, Allgemein. Nachrichtenblatt des deutschen. Pflanzenschutzdienstes 1992, 44, 265–270. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Fernández, A.; Baizán, S.; Jiménez-Calderón, J.D.; Vicente, F.; González, C.; Carballal, A. Protocolos de muestreo para la predicción del rendimiento de forrajes y cultivos forrajeros. Vaca Pinta 2018, 5, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
- Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 383–411. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, J.A.; Afif, E.; Mayor, M. Análisis de Suelos y Plantas y Recomendaciones de Abonado; University of Oviedo: Oviedo, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Klute, A. Nitrogen-total. In Methods of Soil Analyses: Part 1; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 595–624. [Google Scholar]
- Pansu, M.; Gautheyrou, J. Handbook of Soil Analysis; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Mehlich, A. Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1984, 15, 1409–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mijangos, I.; Muguerza, E.; Garbisu, C.; Anza, M.; Epelde, L. Health cards for the evaluation of agricultural sustainability. Span. J. Soil Sci. 2016, 6, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
- Bano, R.; Roy, S. Extraction of Soil Microarthropods: A low cost Berlese-Tullgren funnels extractor. Int. J. Fauna Biol. 2016, 2, 14–17. [Google Scholar]
- Mijangos, I.; Becerril, J.M.; Albizu, I.; Epelde, L.; Garbisu, C. Effects of glyphosate on rhizosphere soil microbial communities under two different plant compositions by cultivation-dependent and-independent methodologies. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 6 July 2019).
- Canals, R.M.; Peralta, J.; Zubiri, E. Flora Pratense y Forrajera Cultivada de la Península Ibérica. 2009. Available online: http://www.unavarra.es/herbario/pratenses/htm/inicio.htm (accessed on 6 July 2019).
- Martínez-Fernández, A.; de la Roza Delgado, B.; Modroño-Lozano, S.; Argamentería, A. Producción y Contenido en Principios Nutritivos de Prados, Praderas y de la Rotación Raigrás Italiano Maíz en la rasa Marítima Centro Oriental de Asturias. Pastos 2011, 38, 187–224. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Fernández, A.; Argamentería, A.; de la Roza-Delgado, B. Manejo de Forrajes para Ensilar; Servicio Regional de Inves-tigación y Desarrollo Agroalimentario: Villaviciosa, Spain, 2014; 280p. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández-Lorenzo, B.; Castro, P.; Flores, G.; Arráez, A.G.; Valladares, J. Estimación de la composición química del guisante (Pisum sativum L.) y triticale (x Triticosecale Wittm.) mediante NIRS. In Pastos y Ganadería Extensiva; García-Criado, B., Ed.; Sociedad Española para el Estudio de los Pastos: Salamanca, Spain, 2004; pp. 285–290. [Google Scholar]
- Lüscher, A.; Mueller-Harvey, I.; Soussana, J.-F.; Rees, R.M.; Peyraud, J.-L. Potential of legume-based grassland–livestock systems in Europe: A review. Grass Forage Sci. 2014, 69, 206–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helgadóttir, Á.; Suter, M.; Gylfadóttir, T.Ó.; Kristjánsdóttir, T.A.; Luscher, A. Grass–legume mixtures sustain strong yield advantage over monocultures under cool maritime growing conditions over a period of 5 years. Ann. Bot. 2018, 122, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, L.; Zhang, F.; Li, X.; Christie, P.; Sun, J.; Yang, S.; Tang, C. Interspecific facilitation of nutrient uptake by intercropped maize and faba bean. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2003, 65, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agegnehu, G.; Ghizaw, A.; Sinebo, W. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. Eur. J. Agron. 2006, 25, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Jørnsgaard, B.; Kinane, J.; Jensen, E.S. Grain legume–cereal intercropping: The practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2008, 23, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doltra, J.; Olesen, J.E. The role of catch crops in the ecological intensification of spring cereals in organic farming under Nordic climate. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 44, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sturludóttir, E.; Brophy, C.; Belanger, G.; Gustavsson, A.-M.; Jørgensen, M.; Lunnan, T.; Helgadottir, A. Benefits of mixing grasses and legumes for herbage yield and nutritive value in Northern Europe and Canada. Grass Forage Sci. 2013, 69, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cardinale, B.J.; Wright, J.P.; Cadotte, M.W.; Carroll, I.T.; Hector, A.; Srivastava, D.S.; Loreau, M.; Weis, J.J. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 18123–18128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ciais, P.; Sabine, C.; Bala, G.; Bopp, L.; Brovkin, V.; Canadell, J.; Chhabra, A.; De Fries, R.; Galloway, J.; Heimann, M.; et al. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 465–544. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, A.; Black, A.L. Quantification of the Effect of Soil Organic Matter Content on Soil Productivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1994, 58, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vázquez, D.; García, M.I.; Báez, D.; García, V. Interpretación del análisis de suelo para una fertilización racional del maíz forrajero. Afriga 2017, 128, 44–57. [Google Scholar]
- Gianfreda, L.; Ruggiero, P. Enzyme Activities in Soil. In Nucleic Acids and Proteins in Soil; Nannipieri, P., Smalla, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 257–311. [Google Scholar]
- Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Trasar-Cepeda, C.; Leirós, M.C.; Seoane, S.; Gil-Sotres, F. Biochemical properties of acid soils under native grassland in a temperate humid zone. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 50, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mijangos, I.; Pérez, R.; Albizu, I.; Garbisu, C. Effects of fertilization and tillage on soil biological parameters. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2006, 40, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shipitalo, M.J. Structure and earthworms. In Encyclopedia of Soil Science; Lal, R., Ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 1255–1258. [Google Scholar]
- Huggins, D.R.; Reganold, J.P. No-Till: How Farmers Are Saving the Soil by Parking Their Plows. Sci. Am. 2008, 299, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
- Socarrás, A. Mesofauna edáfica: Indicador biológico de la calidad del suelo. Pastos Forrajes 2013, 36, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
- Vidal, S. Plant biodiversity and vegetation structure in traditional cocoa forest gardens in southern Cameroon under different management. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 1821–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zak, J.; Willig, M.; Moorhead, D.; Wildman, H. Functional diversity of microbial communities: A quantitative approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powlson, D.; Prookes, P.; Christensen, B. Measurement of soil microbial biomass provides an early indication of changes in total soil organic matter due to straw incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, E.A. Dynamics of organic matter in soils. Plant Soil 1984, 76, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomic Year | IR | FB | FBIR | Maize | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dates | |||||
2014/15 | Sown | 20/10/2014 | 20/10/2014 | 20/10/2014 | 11/06/2015 |
Harvest | 1st cut: 20/04/2015 2nd cut: 25/05/2015 | 05/05/2015 | 05/05/2015 | 30/09/2015 | |
2015/16 | Sown | 30/10/2015 | 30/10/2015 | 30/10/2015 | 11/06/2016 |
Harvest | 1st cut: 13/04/2016 2nd cut: 31/05/2016 | 22/04/2016 | 13/04/2016 | 03/10/2016 |
Agronomic Years | 2014–2015 | 2015–2016 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Growing Season | Winter | Summer | Winter | Summer |
Period considered | 20/10/14–25/05/15 | 11/06/15–30/09/15 | 30/10/15–30/05/16 | 11/06/16–03/10/16 |
Days of crop | 218 | 112 | 214 | 115 |
Minimum temperature (°C) | 8.4 | 14.9 | 8.6 | 15.3 |
Maximum temperature (°C) | 15.1 | 21.8 | 16.1 | 21.7 |
Average temperature (°C) | 11.7 | 18.3 | 12.3 | 18.5 |
Rainy days | 129 | 36 | 104 | 33 |
Rainfall accumulated (mm) | 945 | 170 | 921 | 271 |
Chemical Properties | Management Strategies (M) | Significance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IR | FB | FBIR | rse | p (M) | p (Y) | p (MxY) | |
pH | 6.18 b | 7.16 a | 7.07 a | 0.562 | <0.001 | 0.574 | 0.267 |
Electrical conductivity (dS m−1) | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.034 | 0.130 | <0.001 | 0.050 |
Organic matter (g kg−1) | 5.17 | 5.25 | 5.38 | 0.567 | 0.599 | <0.001 | 0.158 |
C (g kg−1) | 3.00 | 3.04 | 3.12 | 0.328 | 0.597 | <0.001 | 0.155 |
N (g kg−1) | 0.21 a | 0.18 b | 0.18 b | 0.033 | 0.031 | 0.294 | 0.044 |
C/N ratio | 14.89 b | 17.48 ab | 18.29 a | 3.566 | 0.036 | <0.001 | 0.131 |
Ca (cmol(+) kg−1) | 11.42 b | 12.04 ab | 12.74 a | 1.111 | 0.011 | <0.001 | 0.024 |
Mg (cmol(+) kg−1) | 0.61 b | 0.69 ab | 0.76 a | 0.132 | 0.015 | <0.001 | 0.004 |
K (cmol(+) kg−1) | 0.24 c | 0.42 a | 0.30 b | 0.060 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Na (cmol(+) kg−1) | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.252 | 0.890 | 0.094 | 0.981 |
Al (cmol(+) kg−1) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.022 | 0.246 | <0.001 | 0.210 |
Cation exchange capacity (cmol(+) kg−1) | 13.19 b | 14.10 ab | 14.72 a | 1.213 | 0.006 | <0.001 | 0.010 |
Al exchangeable (%) | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.115 | 0.336 | <0.001 | 0.372 |
P (mg kg−1) | 17.86 b | 20.94 ab | 23.84 a | 4.084 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.147 |
Management Strategies (M) | Significance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IR | FB | FBIR | rse | p (M) | p (Y) | p (MxY) | ||||
Health Services: | Value | Score | Value | Score | Value | Score | ||||
Biodiversity conservation | ||||||||||
Macrofauna (n°) | 2.33 | 3.28 | 2.83 | 3.72 | 3.17 | 4.02 | 0.682 | 0.213 | <0.001 | 0.467 |
Soil conservation | ||||||||||
Earthworms (n° m−2) | 2.67 | 1.47 b | 50.67 | 5.03 a | 48.00 | 5.25 a | 1.068 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.099 |
Infiltration (min) | 13.90 | 6.52 b | 2.08 | 8.40 a | 0.90 | 8.73 a | 0.887 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
Global change mitigation | ||||||||||
Soil colour (score) | 6.17 | 6.17 | 6.67 | 6.67 | 6.58 | 6.58 | 0.425 | 0.134 | 0.422 | 0.797 |
Basic diagnosis score | 4.50 b | 5.72 a | 5.85 a | 0.420 | <0.001 | 0.387 | 0.942 | |||
Biodiversity conservation | ||||||||||
Mesofauna (BQ) | 38.48 | 3.87 c | 48.07 | 4.52 b | 58.57 | 5.22 a | 0.361 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.019 |
Bacteria (H’) | 2.95 | 3.93 b | 3.52 | 5.05 a | 3.78 | 5.78 a | 0.660 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.104 |
Soil conservation | ||||||||||
Basal respiration (mg C-CO2 kg−1h−1) | 1.17 | 6.82 b | 1.92 | 8.62 a | 2.00 | 8.78 a | 0.514 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.128 |
Induced respiration (mg C-CO2 kg−1h−1) | 5.25 | 2.58 b | 8.02 | 3.43 a | 3.37 a | 7.90 | 0.258 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.158 |
Respiratory quotient (qCO2) | 0.23 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.27 | 1.00 | <0.001 | 0.397 | 0.337 | 0.397 |
Compaction (MPa) | 2131.68 | 5.75 b | 1625.08 | 6.68 a | 1658.72 | 6.73 a | 0.698 | 0.053 | 0.058 | 0.004 |
Global change mitigation | ||||||||||
CO2 emissions (g CO2 m−2 h−1) | 0.52 | 7.98 a | 0.94 | 7.13 b | 1.28 | 6.52 b | 0.493 | <0.001 | 0.358 | 0.130 |
Advanced diagnosis score | 5.18 b | 5.53 ab | 5.70 a | 0.282 | 0.023 | <0.001 | 0.680 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Baizán, S.; Vicente, F.; Martínez-Fernández, A. Management Influence on the Quality of an Agricultural Soil Destined for Forage Production and Evaluated by Physico-Chemical and Biological Indicators. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095159
Baizán S, Vicente F, Martínez-Fernández A. Management Influence on the Quality of an Agricultural Soil Destined for Forage Production and Evaluated by Physico-Chemical and Biological Indicators. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):5159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095159
Chicago/Turabian StyleBaizán, Silvia, Fernando Vicente, and Adela Martínez-Fernández. 2021. "Management Influence on the Quality of an Agricultural Soil Destined for Forage Production and Evaluated by Physico-Chemical and Biological Indicators" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 5159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095159