Next Article in Journal
An Overview of N2O Emissions from Cropping Systems and Current Strategies to Improve Nitrogen Use Efficiency
Previous Article in Journal
NGS-Based Multi-Allelic InDel Genotyping and Fingerprinting Facilitate Genetic Discrimination in Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Transplanting Time and Nitrogen–Potassium Ratio on Yield, Growth, and Quality of Cauliflower Landrace Gigante di Napoli in Southern Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/horticulturae10070753
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Soil Management Practices on Soil Culturable Bacteriota and Species Diversity in Central European a Productive Vineyard under Warm and Dry Conditions

by
Vladimír Šimanský
1,*,
Miroslava Kačániová
2,
Martin Juriga
1,
Natália Čmiková
2,
Petra Borotová
3,
Elena Aydın
4 and
Elzbieta Wójcik-Gront
5
1
Institute of Agronomic Sciences, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
2
Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
3
AgroBioTech Research Centre, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
4
Institute of Landscape Engineering, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
5
Department of Biometry, Institute of Agriculture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(7), 753; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070753
Submission received: 14 June 2024 / Revised: 14 July 2024 / Accepted: 15 July 2024 / Published: 16 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Fertilization Management Consequences to Horticultural Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable management practices are crucial for the longevity of a monoculture vineyard, especially in the context of a changing climate. Therefore, soil management practices in a vineyard (T: tillage, T+FYM: tillage + farmyard manure, G: grass strips, G+NPK1: grass strips + rational rates of NPK, and G+NPK2: grass strips + higher rates of NPK) were tested in a temperate climate of Slovakia (Central Europe) under specific soil conditions (Rendzic Leptosol). We investigated the influence of continuous cropping on soil chemical properties and microbial communities during the dry and warm year of 2022. The results showed that the soil pH was higher by 19%, 21%, 24% and 13% in T, T+FYM, G and G+NPK1, respectively, compared to G+NPK2. The lowest soil organic matter (SOM) content was found in T, and it increased in the following order: T < T+FYM < G+NPK2 < G+NPK1 < G. Similarly, the lowest abundance of soil culturable bacteriota was found in T and it increased in the following order: T < T+FYM = G+NPK2 < G+NPK1< G. Culturable bacteriota was identified using mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper). The most numerous species group was Bacillus, followed by Lactobacillus > Staphylococcus > Pseudomonas. The most frequently isolated species were Bacillus megaterium (16.55%), Bacillus cereus (5.80%), Bacillus thuringiensis (4.87%), and Bacillus simplex (4.37%). Positive relationships between SOM and soil culturable bacteriota were found in the G and G+NPK1 treatments. Temperature also affected soil culturable bacteriota in all soil management practices, most significantly in G+NPK1. Overall, the best scenario for the sustainable management of a productive vineyard is the use of grass strips.

1. Introduction

The soil is a habitat for an immense variety of plant and animal life, encompassing organisms spanning a wide size range, from microscopic entities that require a powerful microscope to see, to larger forms like earthworms [1]. All of these organisms contribute to the composition of soil organic matter (SOM) [2]. SOM in its broadest sense, encompasses all of the organic materials found in soils irrespective of their origin or state of decomposition [2]. Every handful of soil contains billions of organisms, spanning nearly every living phylum [3]. Soil microorganisms, including their numbers and biodiversity, significantly influence soil quality, affecting its use and fertility [4]. Through a wide array of activities, these organisms enhance the soil’s productivity. For example, they actively participate in cycles and transformations of plant-nutrient elements, facilitating their conversion from one form to another [1,5,6]. Bacteria play a significant role in the microbial communities associated with plants by colonizing the roots and rhizosphere [7]. This association helps plants overcome dry periods [8], improves soil structure [9], etc. Soil microbes are also indicators of soil quality [10], given their involvement in essential biochemical processes crucial for soil’s environmental and ecological functions. This role could be pivotal in agriculture’s pursuit of sustainable food security [11].
Climate change, a pressing environmental concern, has significant impacts on regional ecosystems. For instance, in Central Europe, climate change triggers alternating periods of extreme drought and heavy precipitation [12]. These fluctuations cause damage to property and human health and contribute to overall environmental degradation, including soil erosion. Soil microorganisms have their own specific requirements for life and depending on the suitability of the environmental conditions, they are able to carry out certain soil processes. For instance, for optimal mineralization of organic matter, microorganisms require a neutral soil pH, a soil temperature in the range of 25–30 °C, and a soil environment humidity of around 60% of the full water capacity [13]. Soil microorganisms facilitate the humification of organic matter under optimal conditions, requiring a neutral pH, sufficient sources of P, Mg, and N, balanced soil moisture, ample organic materials, and elevated temperatures [13,14]. Furthermore, nitrogen transformations in soil are influenced by the activity and species composition of microorganisms, organic matter quality, and environmental soil conditions [6,15]. In addition, climate change, global warming, and intensive agriculture are altering soil enzyme activities, which play a pivotal role in the decomposition of organic matter and the global cycles of carbon (C), phosphorus (P), and nitrogen (N), also serving as indicators of soil health and fertility [16]. The impact of climatic change on microbial function in soil has been well-reviewed [17,18,19,20,21].
Soil management practices directly influence soil microorganisms [1,4,11] by creating optimal conditions that support their growth and survival. However, the sustainability and health of terrestrial ecosystems depend heavily on soil quality. Therefore, the degree of restoration success can be evaluated based on the fertility and health of the soil. Soil physicochemical and biological indicators of vegetation restoration have been measured in earlier research [22]. Fertility and soil function depend on microorganisms [23,24]. Lundquist et al. [25], argued that microbial populations in soil break down organic matter, storing and recycling nutrients. Thus, they have an impact on plant community growth, either directly or indirectly [26]. The functional recovery of terrestrial ecosystems is significantly influenced by microbially driven soil bioprocesses [27]. For example, soil tillage reduces the communities of microorganisms and disturbs the hyphae network of microscopic fungi [28]. Monoculture reduces the diversity of microorganism species [29]. The addition of external organic matter to the soil affects qualitative and quantitative changes in microbial populations, as well as increases or decreases their activity [30]. Farmyard manure (as well as composts) is a source of a large number of diverse soil microorganisms. Several studies [31,32,33] have confirmed an increase in the population and diversity of microorganisms after the application of manure and compost to the soil. However, soil management practices can also influence changes in the soil environment and thus affect the soil microorganisms indirectly. As a result of different soil management practices, the soil pH, supply of nutrients, and increases/decreases in the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock can change. Different temperature and soil moisture conditions influence the abundance and diversity of microbial species composition. In addition, the supply of external organic matter or organic amendments, such as biochar, changes the chemical and physical properties of soils, and this also results in changes in the soil’s biological properties, including the abundance and diversity of soil microorganisms, but also the support of specific microfauna/flora [34]. The relationships between soil management practices, soil microorganisms, and soil properties are very diverse. For example, the application of biochar or farmyard manure results in nutrients entering the soil [35], an increase in the soil’s organic substances, aggregation [36], and soil water retention [37]. On the other hand, the addition of organic fertilizers can support the negative priming effect [38]. Also, the application of NPK fertilizers to the soil can be a source of available nutrients that support the abundance of microorganisms; however, their application should be in accordance with the requirements of cultivated plants and balanced with organic fertilization [4]. This is because high doses of NPK fertilizer can cause soil salinization [28] and have a negative effect on soil microorganisms [32]. Generally, growing cover crops or grass [39] is beneficial for increasing the diversity of life in the soil, both in terms of number and species.
The above-mentioned soil management practices are commonly applied to arable soils and vineyards all over the world, including the Slovak Republic. However, their effects on soil properties vary. Modification of soil management practices is more difficult in vineyards than in arable soils. Prior to planting a vineyard, a vine grower must assess the soil and climate conditions to determine the correct soil management practices from the point of view of long-term and sustainable management. Not every soil is suitable for implementing all soil management practices sustainably or for increasing production capacity, particularly given ongoing climate change and the associated rise in average air temperature. As mentioned earlier, the activity and growth of microorganisms are also influenced by temperature and soil moisture [1,3,11]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [40], since the pre-industrial period, the land surface air temperature has risen nearly twice as much as the global average temperature. These changes manifest in alterations to soil processes, including those involving microorganisms. For this reason, it is necessary to optimize and implement such soil management practices that, in addition to environmental functions, will satisfy the needs of farmers and vine growers.
In the past, bacteria were identified using microbiological approaches, such as evaluating the morphological and biochemical properties of isolates, or more recently, employing molecular biology techniques. However, these methods are not suitable for rapid bacterial identification and monitoring, as they typically require skilled laboratory personnel and can take three to five days [41,42]. As an alternative to molecular identification methods and biochemical tests, MALDI-TOF MS (matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry) has gained popularity for microbiological identification due to its speed, affordability, and labor-saving qualities. While several studies have explored its suitability for environmental microbiology, there is limited information on its effectiveness in identifying aquatic bacteria directly isolated from the environment. Furthermore, comparisons between identification methods using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and MALDI-TOF MS (Bruker Biotyper) have been conducted across various environments, including environmental mining samples, high-altitude soil samples, regular soil, and fresh vegetables [43,44]. Studies have demonstrated the vast genetic diversity of soil bacteria [45], with many bacterial species existing in soil lineages that lack known cultivated isolates [46]. Techniques such as mass spectrometry greatly facilitate the study of soil bacteriota ecology. We assumed that a significant number of these microorganisms could be cultured using simple, low-tech tools. Therefore, we evaluated the culturability of soil bacteria using a basic growth medium. Our goal was to exceed the commonly observed 5% culturability threshold, which often serves as the upper limit in cultivation research.
Based on the context provided, this study aimed to (1) quantify how soil management practices in vineyards affect soil properties, abundance, and biodiversity of culturable bacteriota, especially during dry and warm conditions; (2) assess dynamic changes in soil properties and the abundance/diversity of culturable bacteriota; and (3) examine the relationships between these factors across different soil management practices in a productive vineyard during a dry and warm year. This study tested the following hypotheses: (H1) Soil parameters, including the abundance and species diversity of culturable bacteriota, will stabilize under each soil management practice. (H2) The climate will influence changes in soil properties. (H3) Changes in soil properties, including culturable bacteriota, under NPK treatments will align with the timing and dosage of fertilizer application; higher rates of NPK are expected to negatively impact these properties, while lower rates may have a positive effect.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and History of Experimental Vineyard

The study was conducted at an experimental vineyard located in Dražovce, a suburb of the Nitra city (Figure 1), within the Nitra wine-growing region of Slovakia in Central Europe (48°21′6.16″ N, 18°3′37.33″ E) in 2022. Dražovce is located between the western slopes of the Tribeč mountain range (built of granitoid rocks and a packet of Mesozoic (Triasic) dolomites) that belongs to the Carpathian Mountains and the Nitra River valley, constituting a part of the Great Danubian Lowland. The slopes of the Tribeč mountain range and higher parts of the Nitra River valley are covered with colluvial deposits built of weathered Carpathian rocks and also with a widespread mantle of Quaternary silty loamy aeolian loess sediments accumulated in periglacial conditions of the last glaciation [47]. The major soil types in the proximity of the study area comprise Eutric Dolomitic Leptosol, Luvic Chernic Phaeozem, Nudiargic Luvisol, Eutric Cambisol, Haplic Calcisol, Vermic Chernozem, and Ekranic Technosol [48]. The region experiences a warm temperate climate classified as fully humid with warm summers (Cfb) according to the Köppen–Geiger classification [49]. The average annual air temperature and average annual precipitation are 10.7 °C and 559 mm, respectively. July is the hottest month with the mean air temperature ranging between 16–18 °C, and January is the coldest month with an average air temperature ranging from −2 to −4 °C. Table 1 presents the monthly precipitation and average air temperature in 2022. These meteorological properties were also compared with climatic normal 1991–2020. Overall, the year 2022 can be classified as warm and very dry.
The soil at the experimental site is classified as Rendzic Leptosol [50], which originated from Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, predominantly Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic limestones. The soil is sandy loam in texture (with 57% of sand, 33% of silt, and 10% of clay), and its pH in H2O is slightly alkaline (7.28). The initial soil properties before the establishment of the experiment were as follows: low soil organic carbon (SOC: 17 g kg−1), fully saturated soil sorption complex (Bs: 99.3%), high cation exchange capacity (CEC: 47.6 cmol kg−1), very low total nitrogen (Nt: 0.11 g kg−1), and a good supply of available P (99 mg kg−1) and K (262 mg kg−1).
The history of the locality where the vineyard is situated (southwestern slopes of the Tribeč Mountains) dates back to the 11th century. After the deforestation of the southern and southwestern slopes, vine cultivation has taken place here with varying intensity and has been preserved more or less to this day. Parts of this locality were reforested in the 1950s. Other neglected areas were overgrown with bushes and trees, and parts began to be used for horticulture. Before the establishment of the current vineyard, vines were grown on this site until the 1990s. Later, this vineyard was neglected and abandoned. The vineyard was covered with overgrown bushes and trees. In 1999, the site was cultivated (vegetation was removed and the area was plowed to a depth of 30 cm). In the spring of 2000, a new vineyard (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay) was planted. The area between the rows of vines was plowed every autumn, and during the growing season, the vine was intensively tilled. An experiment with different soil management practices in this productive vineyard was established in 2006, with the first application of farmyard manure in autumn 2005.

2.2. Design of Experimental Vineyard

The study utilized a randomized block design, comprising five treatments, with each treatment having three replicated plots. Below are brief descriptions of the individual treatments that represent different soil management practices in a productive vineyard:
  • T: Tillage system—involved soil plowing up to a depth of 25 cm between the rows of vines every autumn. During the vine vegetation season, intensive tillage was performed using a cultivator to a maximum depth of 12 cm. The purpose of soil loosening was to regulate or remove weeds between the vine rows, which was done on average three times during the vegetation season. No manure or mineral fertilizers were applied.
  • T+FYM: A tillage system combined with the incorporation of farmyard manure by plowing in 4-year cycles. The soil tillage was the same as in the T treatment, both in autumn and during the vine vegetation season. In 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, and 2021, farmyard manure was applied to the soil surface at a dose of 40 t ha−1 and incorporated to a depth of 20–25 cm. The poultry manure used had 55% organic substances in the dry matter, 2.8% total nitrogen (Nt), 1.3% phosphorus (P2O5), 1.2% potassium (K2O), and a pH ranging from 6 to 8.
  • G: Grass between vine rows—a mixture of grasses, including Lolium perenne L., Poa pratensis L., Festuca rubra subsp. commutata Gaudin, and Trifolium repens L. were sown in spring 2006 at a ratio of 50:20:25:5. The aboveground grass biomass was cut down on average three times per vine vegetation season. The cut biomass was left in situ on the surface as a mulch layer. In this treatment, grass strips were not fertilized.
  • G+NPK1: Grass strips between vine rows and the application of NPK at the first fertilization level. Between the rows of vines, the same mix of grasses as well as the same management practice as in the case of G treatment was used. Application doses of N, P, and K were 100 kg ha−1, 30 kg ha−1, and 120 kg ha−1, respectively. Every year, the nutrients were applied to the soil in the following ratios, 1/2 in March (bud burst) and 1/2 in May (flowering).
  • G+NPK2: Grass strips between vine rows and the application of NPK at the second fertilization level. Between the vine rows, the same mix of grasses and the same management practices as in the G treatment were used. Application doses of N, P, and K were 125 kg ha−1, 50 kg ha−1, and 185 kg ha−1, respectively. Every year, the nutrients were applied to the soil in the following ratios, 2/3 in March (bud burst) and 1/3 in May (flowering).

2.3. Soil Sampling

Soil samples were collected monthly from all studied soil management treatments in the productive vineyard from February to November 2022 using a spade. Sampling was done at a depth of 0–20 cm to capture the most intensive effects of all soil management practices on soil chemical and biological properties. The samples from each treatment were then mixed into one composite sample.

2.4. Chemical Analysis

After removing the litter, roots, and stones, the soil samples were air-dried for the determination of soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), soil organic carbon (SOC), labile carbon (CL), and microbial parameters. Soil pH was determined potentiometrically in distilled water with a ratio of 1:2.5 (soil/water) using a pH meter (HI 2211, HANNA Instruments, Smithfield, RI, USA). EC was measured via a conductomer (DiST HANA HI 9831, HANNAInstruments, Smithfield, RI, USA), where a sample of soil was diluted with distilled water in a ratio of 1:2. SOC content was measured using the wet combustion method—oxidation of soil organic matter by a mixture of 0.07 mol L−1 H2SO4 and K2Cr2O7, with titration using Mohr’s salt [51]. The determination of CL content was prepared by shaking of 1 g of soil sample for 2 h in 50 mL solution of 0.005 mol L−1 KMnO4 and 0.0025 mol L−1 H2SO4. After centrifugation, CL was determined via oxidation of 0.07 mol L−1 H2SO4 and K2Cr2O7, with titration using 0.05 mol L−1 Mohr’s salt. [52].

2.5. Bacterial Analysis

Bacterial populations, colony forming units (CFU), and bacterial species were evaluated in dry soil. A sample of soil weighing 1 g was diluted in 99 mL of 0.1% sterile saline solution. To acquire bacterial isolates, two culture mediums were used, tryptone soya agar (TSA, Oxoid, Merck, Austria) and plate count agar (PCA, Oxoid, Merck, Austria). PCA and TSA were preferred for cultivating soil microorganisms due to their nutrient content, solidification properties provided by agar, versatility in formulation, and standardized use in microbiological research. The bacteria community was cultivated on TSA and PCA for 48–72 h at 30 °C. The cultivated colonies were counted and the samples were created, as previously reported by Kačániová et al. [53]. The samples were transferred from a petri dish to an Eppendorf flask along with 300 mL of mixed distilled water and 900 mL of ethanol. The mixture was then centrifuged at 10,000× g for 2 min using an ROTOFIX 32A (Ites, Vranov, Slovakia). The supernatant was discarded, and the precipitate was allowed to dry at 20 °C. Subsequently, 30 µL of 70% formic acid and 30 µL of acetonitrile were applied to the pellet. The mixture was then centrifuged for 2 min at 10,000× g. The stock solution, prepared to be used as an organic reagent, contained 500 µL of pure acetonitrile, 475 µL of pure distilled water, and 25 µL of pure trifluoroacetic acid, corresponding to 50%, 47.5%, and 2.5% of the solution, respectively. “HCCA matrix portioned” was then added to 250 µL of the prepared organic solvent in an Eppendorf flask. All components for the matrix solution were obtained from Brucker (Bremen, Germany). Finally, 1 µL of supernatant from the bacterial sample was added to a MALDI plate and was allowed to dry. A volume of 1 µL of prepared MALDI matrix covered all samples. Automatically generated mass spectra with a mass range of 2.000–20.000 Da were created using the microflex LT MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany). The apparatus was calibrated using the Bruker bacterial test standard. The outcomes of the mass spectra were processed using the MALDI Biotyper 3.0 tool from Bruker Daltonics in Bremen, Germany. A score between 2.300 and 3.000 indicated highly probable identification at the species level, a score between 2.000 and 2.299 secured genus identification with probable species identification, a score between 1.700 and 1.999 indicated probable identification at the genus level, and a score of less than 1.700 was regarded as unreliable identification.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the means (average values of soil parameters over the whole study period) were compared using a Tukey test at p < 0.05. The Mann–Kendall test was used to evaluate the trends of the soil parameters during the investigated period. Multivariate clustering and principal component analyses (PCA) were performed on the coefficients determined in the multiple linear regression analysis. Cluster analysis was conducted based on Ward’s method and squared Euclidean distance. The link between the microbial, physicochemical soil parameters, and climatic conditions was assessed using a correlation matrix. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to describe the relationship between each pair of variables for each treatment separately using a monotonic function. All data were analyzed using the Statgraphics Centurion XV.I program (Statpoint Technologies, Inc., Washington, DC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Soil Management Practices on Soil pH

The dynamics of soil pH did not exhibit a trend in any of the treatments (Table 2). In the T, T+FYM, and G treatments, the soil pH remained fairly balanced from February to November 2022. However, the soil pH responded sensitively to the application of NPK fertilizers at both levels. An increase in soil pH was observed in spring and autumn. A decrease was observed in summer and winter in the fertilized treatments. The treatment with higher NPK fertilization of the grass strips between the vine rows resulted in a more pronounced acidification effect compared to the treatment with lower fertilization. Overall, the average soil pH values from February to November 2022 were higher by 0.6 and 0.15 pH units in the T+FYM and G treatments, respectively, and lower by 0.84 and 1.68 pH units in the G+NPK1 and G+NPK2 treatments, respectively, compared to the T treatment (Table 3).

3.2. Effect of Soil Management Practices on Electrical Conductivity

Soil management practices in the productive vineyard significantly affected the average EC (Table 3) and its dynamics during the investigated period. Overall, based on the results of the Mann–Kendall analysis, the EC values remained stable across treatments (Table 2). The application of NPK fertilizers led to an increase in EC values, peaking in June, with a more pronounced effect in the G+NPK2 treatment. However, even in these treatments, no clear trend (either an increase or decrease) in EC values was observed during the warm and dry year of 2022.

3.3. Effect of Soil Management Practices on Labile Carbon Content

The dynamics of CL for the investigated period are evaluated in Table 2. A significant linear decrease in CL was observed in the T and T+FYM treatments by 61 and 89 mg kg−1 month−1, respectively. This corresponds to a decrease of 28% and 20% CL, respectively, over a period of 10 months. In contrast, the CL values in the other treatments (G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2) fluctuated considerably and were an order of magnitude higher than in the T and T+FYM treatments. In the G treatment, a steep increase in CL was observed during the spring period, peaking in April. Then, CL gradually decreased until the end of summer and again increased in the autumn period. A more significant sensitivity in CL content was observed during the period from February to November 2022 in the treatments with NPK fertilization applied to the grass strips between the vine rows. Overall, the mean CL values were higher by 4%, 127%, 120%, and 104% in the T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments, respectively, compared to the T treatment (Table 3).

3.4. Effect of Soil Management Practices on Soil Organic Carbon Content

A linear decrease in CL was observed in the T and T+FYM treatments from February to November 2022, but it did not affect the dynamics of changes in SOC content in these treatments. SOC remained relatively stable and did not show any significant trend in changes based on the Mann–Kendall analysis (Table 2). In the G treatment, two peaks of SOC increase were identified in July and November. The SOC dynamics at both levels of NPK application showed a similar trend in spring and summer but diverged during autumn. In the autumn period, a more pronounced sensitivity to changes in SOC was observed in the G+NPK1 treatment compared to the G+NPK2 treatment. However, even these changes did not have a significant effect on the SOC contents in these treatments during the investigated period (Table 2). Overall, the lowest SOC content was found in the T treatment. SOC in the other treatments increased in the following order: T < T+FYM < G+NPK2 < G+NPK1 < G treatment (Table 3).

3.5. Effect of Soil Management Practices on Abundance and Species Diversity of Soil Culturable Bacteriota

During the investigated period, the abundance of culturable bacteriota did not change significantly in the T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments. Differences were observed in the peaks of the number of culturable bacteriota depending on the soil management practices. However, the overall changes in the trends of bacterial counts over the entire period (from February to November 2022) were balanced and stable. According to the Mann–Kendal test, an increase in the number of soil culturable bacteriota could be observed only in the T treatment as a result of aeration. The results showed that an intensive tillage system in the productive vineyard increased the number of culturable bacteriota at an average rate of 0.09 log CFU/g per month, which means an increase of 34% during the period of February to November 2022.
Overall, in the T treatment, 39 species, 21 genera, and 18 families of culturable bacteriota were isolated (Figure 2). The most frequently isolated species were Bacillus megaterium (20.17%), followed by Bacillus thuringiensis (6.44%), and Bacillus cereus (5.58%) in this treatment. Treatment with a tillage system with plowing of farmyard manure every 4 years (T+FYM) provided 40 isolated and cultivated bacterial species (Figure 3) included in 22 genera and 19 families, with the most frequently isolated species being Bacillus megaterium (12.99%), followed by Bacillus thuringiensis (9.06%) and Bacillus simplex (5.12%). In the G treatment, 35 species were cultivated (Figure 4), classified into 21 genera and 19 families. The most frequently isolated species in the G treatment were Bacillus megaterium (16.89%), Bacillus spp. (10.50%), Bacillus cereus (8.68), Bacillus thuringiensis (4.57%), and Bacillus licheniformis (4.57%). In the G+NPK1 treatment, 45 species of culturable bacteriota, 26 genera, and 21 families were isolated (Figure 5). The most frequently isolated species were Bacillus megaterium (15.02%), followed by Bacillus simplex (8.06%), Bacillus cereus (6.96%), and Bacillus licheniformis (5.13%). In contrast to the G+NPK1 treatment, which provided the highest variability of analyzed species, the G+NPK2 treatment had the lowest number of culturable bacteriota with 33 species, 15 genera, and 14 families (Figure 6). The most frequent species in this treatment were Bacillus megaterium (18.48%), followed by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (6.64%), Bacillus endophyticus (6.16%), and Bacillus simplex (6.16%). In summary, our study isolated 140 of soil culturable bacteriota species, 59 genera, and 40 families (Figure 7). The most represented species were Bacillus megaterium (16.55%), Bacillus cereus (5.80%), Bacillus thuringiensis (4.87%), and Bacillus simplex (4.37%).

3.6. Relationships between Soil Parameters and Soil Culturable Bacteriota

The PCA analysis (Figure 8A) revealed a correlation between the averages of CL, SOC, and the number of culturable bacteriota throughout the entire study period (February to November 2022). The average values of these variables were highest in the G and G+NPK1 treatments. EC was negatively correlated with soil pH. The average value of EC was highest in the G+NPK2 treatment, whereas soil pH was highest in the T and T+FYM treatments. The soil management practices in the productive vineyard in the T and T+FYM treatments were significantly different from those under other management practices (Figure 8B).
Table 4 presents the correlation coefficients between the number of culturable bacteriota and other soil properties and climatic characteristics (variables) under different soil management practices in the productive vineyard from February to November 2022. During the investigated period, average air temperature was the most significant variable among all properties, positively influencing the number of culturable bacteriota, not only when all treatments were assessed together, but also separately, especially in the treatments with grass strips between vine rows (G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2). The strongest correlation was found in the G+NPK1 treatment compared to the G and G+NPK2 treatments. In the T treatment, the number of culturable bacteriota increased as a result of greater nutrient availability, reflected by higher EC values. No correlations between culturable bacteriota abundance and other variables were found in the T+FYM treatment. Notably, culturable bacteriota abundance had a significant influence on SOC, but only in the G+NPK2 treatment, where lower SOC values corresponded to higher culturable bacteriota abundance. Furthermore, the correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between air temperature and precipitation (r = 0.71) in our experiment.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Soil Management Practices on Soil Properties and Soil Culturable Bacteriota

In the experimental vineyard, the soil type is Rendzic Leptosol, which represents about 4.7% (115 thousand ha) of the total agricultural land in Slovakia [54]. Leptosols are the most extensive reference soil group on earth, extending over about 1655 million ha. They are found from the tropics to the polar regions and from sea level to the highest mountains [50]. Therefore, this experiment is informative for the Slovak territory and significant for understanding a substantial proportion of the world’s soils. The vine is generally not demanding in terms of available nutrient content, as it is able to efficiently utilize them very well from the overall soil supply [55]. However, this does not imply that the vine does not require optimal soil conditions for its growth and development. White [56] identified several crucial factors for successful vine growth: soil depth, soil structure, water content, soil cohesion, chemical properties, nutrient supply, and soil organisms. Most of these soil parameters can be effectively managed by vine growers through soil management practices in vineyards [57,58], or they can be minimized even before planting the vines [59]. Among the physico-chemical properties, soil pH is particularly crucial, as it directly affects the abundance and species diversity of soil organisms, soil reactions and processes, the availability and mobility of nutrients in the soil, and their transfer to plants, including vines [55,56]. Fertile soils can exhibit a relatively broad range of soil pH, while most cultivated plants thrive within a pH range of 5.5 to 6.5 [15]. This range is also suitable for most soil microorganisms, as plants grow well and produce more root exudates, providing a carbon source for the survival and multiplication of microbes [60]. However, most bacteria thrive around a neutral pH [61]. In this study, the soil pH ranged from 5.7 to 7.2 (slightly acid to neutral) and overall soil management practices in the productive vineyard significantly affected its values (Table 3). Different effects of soil management practices on pH changes were also observed throughout the warm and dry year of 2022 (Table 2). Soil pH was affected mainly by the addition of NPK fertilizers, where a higher rate of NPK markedly influenced the acidification effect. However, in terms of nutrient regime and plant nutrient uptake, altered soil pH values may appear to be beneficial [62] in the case of the G+NPK1 treatment in this study. From a geological perspective, the soil in the vineyard was formed from Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, predominantly Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic limestones [48], and had a medium content of organic C [20], which ensured a functioning buffering system [63], especially in the T, T+FYM, and G treatments. These soil management practices in the productive vineyard did not cause significant fluctuations in soil pH during the warm and dry year of 2022 (Table 2). Moreover, in the T+FYM treatment, poultry manure with 55% organic substances in the dry matter was applied, and its pH ranged from 6 to 8. In terms of soil pH, a stressful environment for the soil fauna was not created compared to the G+NPK2 treatment (Table 2 and Table 3).
The total nutrient supply (Table 3) and the dynamics of changes (Table 2) during the warm and dry year of 2022 were dependent on soil management in the vineyard. A high salt concentration above 1600 m S m−1 represents strong salinization [63], which is a stressful condition for cultivated plants and soil microorganisms [62]. In the G+NPK2 treatment, EC values were several times higher than in the T, T+FYM, and G treatments. In the G+NPK1 treatment, EC values were relatively high, but below the critical level. From an economic perspective, as well as from the perspective of minimizing stress for soil culturable bacteriota (ecological perspective), the EC values were the most optimal in the G treatment (Table 2 and Table 3).
Soil management plays a key role in changes in SOM [64]. In the productive vineyard, the implementation of various soil management practices had a statistically significant impact on the overall SOM (Table 3). Additionally, significant changes in the dynamics of the labile fraction (CL) were observed in the T and T+FYM treatments during the warm and dry year of 2022 (Table 2). The SOM in treatments increased in the following order: T < T+FYM < G+NPK2 < G+NPK1 < G. In the T treatment, the lowest SOM was linked to intensive SOM mineralization. Intensive tillage systems promote soil aeration and support aerobic microflora responsible for increased SOM mineralization, resulting in a decrease in C and an overall low C stock in the soil [65]. Although CL significantly decreased, the stable SOM fraction did not show any increase or decrease in trend during the period of 2022. This indicates that the SOM is in an equilibrium state in terms of its balance [66]. Trends in other treatments showed stability in SOC over the observed period (Table 2). The application of FYM results in an increase in SOM [67] and its supply is higher in such soils. Compared to the T treatment, SOC increased from 14.4 to 18.4 g kg−1 in the T+FYM treatment. Permanent grassing and grass strips in vineyards have a positive effect on increasing SOM [58] and this is also evidenced by the results of our study. In the G treatment, the trend in SOM was balanced during the warm and dry year of 2022 (Table 2). It is noteworthy that in the long term, SOM in this treatment (grass strips) is constantly growing, as reported by Šimanský et al. [68]. This is typically the regeneration scenario of previously intensively cultivated land [69]. In the G treatment, the observed SOC was higher by 55, 42, 22, and 21% when compared to T, T+FYM, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments, respectively. NPK fertilization can increase crop yields and plant and root residue input into the soil system and eventually result in an increase in the soil’s organic carbon content [70]. On the other hand, fertilizers can also decrease the C content compared to unfertilized soil [71], which can be reflected in a decline in SOM parameters. However, application dose is critical, as evidenced by the findings of this study. In both treatments with NPK application, SOC was lower than in the G treatment and SOM did not show any significant changes during the period of the warm dry year (Table 2).
Interestingly, the abundance of culturable bacteriota in all treatments was balanced (Table 3) and did not change significantly in T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments during the warm and dry year of 2022. A significant change occurred only in the case of the T treatment, where we observed a significant increase in counts of culturable bacteriota during the studied period. This may be related to the formation of optimal aerobic conditions for the variance of bacterial species and the subsequently more intensive mineralization of SOM [54], as shown in the results of this study (Table 2—decreasing trend in CL values in the T treatment, and Table 3—the lowest values of SOC and CL in the T treatment). Soil microorganisms are regarded as reliable indicators of soil quality [32]. Persistent monoculture and long-term fertilization impact the microbial community compositions in soil [72], as confirmed by the findings of our study (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).
The representation of individual species, genera, and families considerably differed depending on the soil management practices in the productive vineyard. In the T+FYM treatment, the second-greatest overall biodiversity of microorganisms was observed (Figure 3). As stated by Iqbal et al. [33], the incorporation of FYM provides the soil with a whole range of soil microorganisms living in the manure, in addition to nutrients. FYM is usually plowed/incorporated into the soil, which promotes the development of aerobic microflora, so the fact that the T treatment (Figure 2) reached the third-highest biodiversity is not a surprising result. According to Natywa et al. [73], agrotechnical treatments such as fertilization have a significant impact on the activity of soil microorganisms. This is also confirmed by the results of Wolny-Koładka et al. [4]. However, the abundance and species of culturable bacteriota were highly differentiated and changed depending on the type and amount of applied fertilization as well as the plant species cultivated. Overall, the greatest microbial diversity was found in the G+NPK1 treatment (Figure 5). On the other hand, a higher rate of NPK (Figure 6) resulted in a decrease in bacterial biodiversity. The main reason may be due to the higher concentration of salts in the soil solution, as reported by Zhao et al. [29], which is also supported by the results of our study (Table 3). High EC values come from higher rates of NPK fertilizers, which means a negative effect on the biodiversity of soil microorganisms [32]. In the case of this study, Bacillus was the most numerous genus analyzed in our soil samples (Figure 7). Bacillus is a bacterium normally present as part of the soil microbiome. The ability to form spores also helps this bacterium to survive even in less favorable conditions. Among the aerobic bacteria, there were also more represented bacteria such as the genera Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus, and Pseudomonas, which are commonly found as part of the soil microbiome [74].
The results of this study showed that hypothesis H1 was only partially confirmed, because not all soil parameters, including abundance and species variability of culturable bacteriota, were stabilized during the warm and dry year of 2022. Overall, the application of lower NPK fertilizers to grass strips between vine rows had the most favorable effect on the overall diversity of soil life. The management of grass strips also confirmed its validity in a productive vineyard. However, the high levels of NPK fertilization in the grass strips caused a decline or had no effect on the changes in soil properties when compared to the G treatment. Higher rates of NPK fertilizers had more negative effects than lower levels of NPK, therefore H3 was confirmed.

4.2. Relationships between Soil Properties under Different Soil Management Practices

Vineyard systems differ qualitatively and quantitatively in their soil microbiomes [75], as confirmed by the findings of this study (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Soil microbial communities are impacted by a variety of environmental variables, including climate, soil characteristics, cultivars, and agricultural management [76,77]. In this study, PCA analysis showed a correlation between SOM and soil culturable bacteriota. The average values of these variables were found to be high in the G and G+NPK1 treatments (Figure 8A). This observation suggests that these soil management practices, implemented in a productive vineyard, are not only associated with the relationship between SOM and soil culturable bacteriota but are also deemed most suitable in terms of the considered parameters. SOM is an important source of C and nutrients for microorganism activity [2] and is also transformed by their activity [13]. The fact that these positive relationships are registered in the G and G+NPK1 treatments was primarily related to their high contents of SOC, CL, and abundance of culturable bacteriota (Table 3). According to Zarraonaindia et al. [78], soil physicochemical factors such as soil pH, temperature, moisture, carbon, and nitrogen pools have a major impact on soil bacterial diversity and composition. Additionally, human activities, including different soil management practices, play a crucial role [4,33]. The PCA analysis also showed that EC negatively correlated with soil pH. The average EC value was high in the G+NPK2 treatment, while soil pH was high in the T and T+FYM treatments. In the G+NPK2 treatment, the high concentration of nutrients could be the result of their excessive application to the soil and insufficient uptake by vine plants and grass strips in the vineyard. High concentrations of nutrients can cause acidification. In addition to monoculture cultivation, which also has a negative impact on soil pH and EC [29], the type of fertilizer itself has a significant effect. Physiologically acidic fertilizers cause soil acidification after their application [15]. Sulfate or nitrate forms of N fertilizers reduce the soil pH at high concentrations of nutrients [55]. Our results indicated that the interaction between many factors had a great effect on the chemical and microbiological properties of the soil. The addition of mineral–organic mixtures produces changes in the chemical properties of the soil and hence affects its microbial characteristics [4]. Management in the T and T+FYM treatments was significantly different from other managements, as confirmed by cluster analysis (Figure 8B).
The diversity and composition of microbial communities are significantly influenced by soil characteristics [79,80] in individual soil management practices. The climate, particularly temperature and rainfall patterns, also have an impact on microbial communities through their effects on the soil [81], as our study’s findings partially suggest. Average air temperature was the most significant variable among all investigated variables. It positively affected the number of culturable bacteriota, not only when all treatments were considered together, but also separately, especially in the G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments. Rainfall increased the concentration of salts in the soil solution (high EC values) in the G+NPK2 treatment (Table 4). This could be related to the solubility of fertilizers after an intense rainfall event in June 2022 (Table 1). Additionally, the lowest soil pH was found during June, which was evaluated as a wet month compared to the 30-year climatic normal. Overall, however, the timing of fertilization (March and May) did not affect the dynamics of the soil properties (SOC, soil pH, EC—Table 2). In the other soil parameters, including the abundance of culturable bacteriota, there were no changes during the months, thus partially confirming H2.

5. Conclusions

Overall, soil parameters, including the biodiversity of soil culturable bacteriota, depended on the management of moderately coarse soil in the productive vineyard. However, the dynamics of the changes in soil properties were largely balanced during the warm and dry year of 2022. Grass strips in the vine rows without tillage, as well as applying NPK fertilizer to grass strips at the 1st level (low rate) had the highest SOM content and culturable bacteriota abundance overall. A positive relationship between SOM and culturable bacteriota abundance was also noted in both of these treatments. The greatest biodiversity was found in grass strips fertilized with a low dose of NPK. In contrast, acidification and a high concentration of salts in the soil solution were observed in the treatment with grass strips and application of NPK fertilizer at a high dose. During the warm and dry year, the average air temperature was the most significant variable in almost all the soil management practices in the productive vineyard, with its most pronounced effect found in the case of grass strips and grass strips combined with NPK fertilization at a lower dose.
Based on the results of this study and considering the evaluated parameters, grassing with NPK application at a low rate appears to be the best scenario for sustainable management of vineyards in a changing climate. However, from an economic and eco-friendly perspective (no costs for NPK fertilization), the best soil management practice in vineyards on sandy loam soils in Central Europe is grass striping between vine rows. Since other biological, chemical, and physical properties were not assessed, further research activities (focused on their determination and evaluation) are necessary to draw completely comprehensive recommendations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.Š.; methodology, V.Š., M.K., P.B. and E.W.-G.; software, M.K., V.Š. and E.W.-G.; validation, M.J., E.A. and N.Č.; formal analysis, V.Š., M.K. and E.W.-G.; investigation, V.Š., M.J., N.Č. and P.B.; resources, V.Š.; data curation, V.Š., M.K., P.B. and E.W.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, V.Š., M.K. and E.W.-G.; writing—review and editing, M.J., N.Č., E.A. and P.B.; visualization, V.Š., M.K. and E.W.-G.; project administration, V.Š.; funding acquisition, V.Š. and E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-21-0089 and Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Slovak Republic, project No. KEGA 006SPU-4/2024.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their constructive comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Millar, C.E.; Turk, L.M.; Foth, H.D. Fundamentals of Soil Science; John Wiley and Son, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1962; p. 526. [Google Scholar]
  2. Murphy, B.W. Soil Organic Matter and Soil Function—Review of the Literature and Underlying Data; Department of the Environment: Canberra, Australia, 2014; p. 155.
  3. Weil, R.R.; Brady, N.C. The Nature and Properties of Soils; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2017; p. 1104. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wolny-Koładka, K.; Jarosz, R.; Marcińska-Mazur, L.; Lošák, T.; Mierzwa-Hersztek, M. Effect of mineral and organic additions on soil microbial composition. Int. Agrophys. 2022, 36, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jia, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, L.; Liu, X.; Ma, K.; Feng, X. Soil organic carbon sourcing variance in the rhizosphere vs. non-rhizosphere of two mycorrhizal tree species. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 176, 108884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Y.; Shangguan, Z. Long-term N addition accelerated organic carbon mineralization in aggregates by shifting microbial community composition. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 342, 108249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hardoim, P.R.; van Overbeek, L.S.; van Elsas, J.D. Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth. Trends Microbiol. 2008, 16, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Krause, S.M.B.; Dohrmann, A.B.; Gillor, O.; Christensen, B.T.; Merbach, I.; Tebbe, C.C. Soil properties and habitats determine the response of bacterial communities to agricultural wastewater irrigation. Pedosphere 2020, 30, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bronick, C.J.; Lal, R. Soil structure and management: A review. Geoderma 2005, 124, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schloter, M.; Nannipieri, P.; Sørensen, S.J.; van Elsas, J.D. Microbial indicators for soil quality. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2018, 54, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Meetei, T.T.; Devi, Y.B.; Thounaojam, T.C. Role of Soil Organisms in Maintaining Soil Health. In Microbial Based Land Restoration Handbook, Volume 2 Soil and Plant Health Development; Pandey, V., Pankaj, U., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: Abingdon, UK; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Climate Change Adaptation. Available online: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/countries-regions/countries/slovakia (accessed on 23 April 2024).
  13. Váchalová, R.; Kolář, L.; Muchová, Z. Primární Organická Pudní Hmota a Humus, Dvě Složky Pudní Organické Hmoty [Primary Soil Organic Matter and Humus, Two Components of Soil Organic Matter]; SUA: Nitra, Slovakia, 2016; p. 122. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  14. Bereza-Boruta, B. Selected enzymatic activities of actinomycetes of Streptomyces genus isolated from potato plantation. Agricultura 2002, 1, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kováčik, P.; Ryant, P. Agrochémia, Princípy A Prax [Agrochemistry, Principles and Practice]; SPU: Nitra, Slovakia, 2019; p. 358. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  16. Daunoras, J.; Kačergius, A.; Gudiukaité, R. Role of soil microbiota enzymes in soil health and activity changes depending on climate change and the type of soil ecosystem. Biology 2024, 13, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Blankinship, J.C.; Niklaus, P.A.; Hungate, B.A. A meta-analysis of responses of soil biota to global change. Oecologia 2011, 165, 553–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Henry, H.A.L. Soil extracellular enzyme dynamics in a changing climate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 47, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Manzoni, S.; Schimel, J.P.; Porporato, A. Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: Results from a meta-analysis. Ecology 2012, 93, 930–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. A’Bear, A.D.; Jones, T.H.; Boddy, L. Potential impacts of climate change on interactions among saprotrophic cord-forming fungal mycelia and grazing soil invertebrates. Fungal Ecol. 2014, 10, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, S.; Zou, J.; Hu, Z.; Chen, H.; Lu, Y. Global annual soil respiration in relation to climate, soil properties and vegetation characteristics: Summary of available data. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2014, 198–199, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, N.N.; Sun, G.; Zhong, B.; Wang, E.T.; Zhao, C.Z.; Wang, Y.J.; Cheng, W.; Wu, N. Impacts of wise grazing on physicochemical and biological features of soil in a sandy grassland on the Tibetan Plateau. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 30, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pereira e Silva, M.C.; Semenov, A.V.; Schmitt, H.; van Elsas, J.D.; Salles, J.F. Microbe-mediated processes as indicators to establish the normal operating range of soil functioning. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tibbett, M.; Gil-Martínez, M.; Fraser, T.; Green, I.D.; Duddigan, S.; De Oliveira, V.H.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K.; Sizmur, T.; Diaz, A. Long-term acidification of pH neutral grasslands affects soil biodiversity, fertility and function in a heathland restoration. Catena 2019, 180, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lundquist, E.J.; Jackson, L.E.; Scow, K.M. Wet–dry cycles affect dissolved organic carbon in two California agricultural soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1999, 31, 1031–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kardol, P.; Wardle, D.A. How understanding aboveground–belowground linkages can assist restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Smith, R.S.; Shiel, R.S.; Bardgett, R.D.; Millward, D.; Corkhill, P.; Rolph, G.; Hobbs, P.J.; Peacock, S. Soil microbial community, fertility, vegetation and diversity as targets in the restoration management of a meadow grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Tu, C.; Hoyt, G.D.; DeForest, J.L.; Hu, S. Long-term no-tillage and organic input management enhanced the diversity and stability of soil microbial community. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 609, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhao, Q.; Xiong, W.; Xing, Y.; Sun, Y.; Lin, X.; Dong, Y. Long-term cofee monoculture alters soil chemical properties and microbial communities. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tian, J.; Wang, J.; Dippold, M.; Gao, Y.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Kuzyakov, Y. Biochar affects soil organic matter cycling and microbial functions but does not alter microbial community structure in a paddy soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 556, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Toyota, K.; Kuninaga, S. Comparison of soil microbial community between soils amended with or without farmyard manure. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006, 33, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhen, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, N.; Guo, L.; Meng, J.; Ding, N.; Wu, G.; Jiang, G. Effects of manure compost application on soil microbial community diversity and soil microenvironments in a temperate cropland in China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Iqbal, A.; Tang, X.; Ali, I.; Yuan, P.; Khan, R.; Khan, Z.; Adnan, M.; Wei, S.; Jiang, L. Integrating low levels of organic fertilizer improves soil fertility and rice yields in paddy fields by influencing microbial communities without increasing CH4 emissions. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2023, 189, 104951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lehmann, J.; Rillig, M.C.; Thies, J.; Masiell, C.A.; Hockaday, W.C.; Crowley, D. Biochar effects on soil biota, A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1812–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Šimanský, V.; Aydın, E.; Horák, J. Is it possible to control the nutrient regime of soils with different texture through biochar substrates? Agronomy 2022, 12, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Šimanský, V.; Wójcik-Gront, E.; Horváthová, J.; Pikuła, D.; Lošák, T.; Parzych, A.; Lukac, M.; Aydın, E. Changes in relationships between humic substances and soil structure following different mineral fertilization of Vitis vinifera L. in Slovakia. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Igaz, D.; Šimanský, V.; Horák, J.; Kondrlová, E.; Domanová, J.; Rodný, M.; Buchkina, N.P. Can a single dose of biochar affect selected soil physical and chemical characteristics? J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 2018, 66, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kuzyakov, Y.; Chang, W. Photosynthesis controls of rhizosphere respiration and organic matter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 1915–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Burns, K.N.; Bokulich, N.A.; Cantu, D.; Greenhut, R.F.; Kluepfel, D.A.; O’Geen, A.T.; Strauss, S.L.; Steenwerth, K.L. Vineyard soil bacterial diversity and composition revealed by 16S rRNA genes: Differentiation by vineyard management. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Barreiro, J.R.; Ferreira, C.R.; Sanvido, G.B.; Kostrzewa, M.; Maier, T.; Wegemann, B.; Böttcher, V.; Eberlin, M.N.; dos Santos, M.V. Short communication: Identification of subclinical cow mastitis pathogens in milk by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 5661–5667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Böhme, K.; Fernández-No, I.C.; Barros-Velázquez, J.; Gallardo, J.M.; Cañas, B.; Calo-Mata, P. Rapid species identification of seafood spoilage and pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria by MALDI-TOF mass fingerprinting. Electrophoresis 2011, 32, 2951–2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pandey, A.; Jain, R.; Sharma, A.; Dhakar, K.; Kaira, G.S.; Rahi, P.; Dhyani, A.; Pandey, N.; Adhikari, P.; Shouche, Y.S. 16S rRNA gene sequencing and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry based comparative assessment and bioprospection of psychrotolerant bacteria isolated from high altitudes under mountain ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. El-Nemr, I.M.; Mushtaha, M.; Sundararaju, S.; Fontejon, C.; Suleiman, M.; Tang, P.; Goktepe, I.; Hasan, M.R. Application of MALDI biotyper system for rapid identification of bacteria isolated from a fresh produce market. Curr. Microbiol. 2019, 76, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Surányi, B.B.; Zwirzitz, B.; Mohácsi-Farkas, C.; Engelhardt, T.; Domig, K.J. Comparing the efficacy of MALDI-TOF MS and sequencing-based identification techniques (Sanger and NGS) to monitor the microbial community of irrigation water. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Jesser, K.J.; Noble, R.T. Vibrio ecology in the neuse river estuary, North Carolina, characterized by next-generation amplicon sequencing of the gene encoding heat shock protein 60 (hsp60). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2018, 84, e00333-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hreško, J.; Pucherová, Z.; Baláž, I.; Ambróz, M.; Bezák, P. Krajina Nitry a jej Okolia [The Landscape of Nitra and its Surroundings]; UKF: Nitra, Slovakia, 2006; p. 254. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  48. Jankowski, M.; Šimanský, V.; Markiewicz, M.; Pilichowska, A.; Michalak, J. Differently Used Soils of the Tribeč Mountain Range and Nitra Valley Slope. In Soil Sequences Atlas IV; Switoniak, M., Charzyński, P., Eds.; Nicolaus Copernicus University: Toruń, Poland, 2018; pp. 139–158. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.H.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 2006, 15, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Update 2015; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2024).
  51. Dziadowiec, H.; Gonet, S. Przewodnik Metodyczny do Badań Materii Organicznej Gleb [Methodological Guidebook for The Organic Matter Researches]; PTG: Warszawa, Poland, 1999; pp. 31–34. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  52. Loginow, W.; Wisniewski, W.; Gonet, S.S.; Ciescinska, B. Fractionation of organic carbon based on susceptibility to oxidation. Pol. J. Soil Sci. 1987, 20, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kačániová, M.; Klūga, A.; Kántor, A.; Medo, J.; Žiarovská, J.; Puchalski, C.; Terentjeva, M. Comparison of MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper and 16S rDNA sequencing for the identification of Pseudomonas species isolated from fish. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 132, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Šimanský, V.; Polláková, N.; Chlpík, J.; Kolenčík, M. Pôdoznalectvo [Soil Science]; SPU: Nitra, Slovakia, 2018; p. 398. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  55. Vaněk, V.; Ložek, O.; Balík, J.; Pavlíková, D.; Tlustoš, P. Výživa Pol’ných a Záhradných Plodín [Nutrition of Field and Garden Crops]; Profi Press: Praha, Czech Republic, 2013; p. 175. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  56. White, R.E. Understanding Vineyard Soils; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 280. [Google Scholar]
  57. Torre, C.M.; Morano, P.; Tajani, F. Saving soil for sustainable land use. Sustainability 2017, 9, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lazcano, C.; Decock, C.; Wilson, S.G. Defining and managing for healthy vineyard soils, intersections with the concept of terroir. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Šimanský, V.; Bajčan, D. The response of different soil management practices in a vineyard to water availability. Acta Fytotechn. Zootechn. 2013, 16, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  60. Graham, P.H.; Draeger, K.J.; Ferrey, M.L.; Conroy, M.J.; Hammer, B.E.; Martinez, E.; Aarons, S.R.; Quinto, C. Acid pH tolerance in strains of Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium, and initial studies on the basis for acid tolerance of Rhizobium tropici UMR1899. Can. J. Microbiol. 1994, 40, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zifcakova, L. Factors Affecting Soil Microbial Processes. In Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling in Soil; Datta, R., Meena, R.S., Pathan, S.I., Ceccherini, M.T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 439–461. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ratzke, C.; Gore, J. Modifying and reacting to the environmental pH can drive bacterial interactions. PLoS Biol. 2019, 16, e2004248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Hanes, J. Analýza Sorpčných Vlastností Pôd [Analyzes of Soil Sorptive Characteristics]; SSCRI: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1999; p. 138. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  64. Das, S.; Deb, S.; Sahoo, S.S.; Sahoo, U.K. Soil microbial biomass carbon stock and its relation with climatic and other environmental factors in forest ecosystems: A review. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jakab, G.; Madarász, B.; Masoudi, M.; Karlik, M.; Király, C.; Zacháry, D.; Filep, T.; Dekemati, I.; Centeri, C.; Al-Graiti, T.; et al. Soil organic matter gain by reduced tillage intensity: Storage, pools, and chemical composition. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 226, 105584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004, 304, 1623–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Masood, S.; Naz, T.; Javed, M.T.; Ahmed, I.; Ullah, H.; Iqbal, M. Effect of short-term supply of farmyard manure on maize growth and soil parameters in pot culture. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2013, 60, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Šimanský, V.; Jonczak, J.; Pikuła, D.; Lukac, M. Grass sward cover improves soil organic carbon and nitrogen in a vineyard. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 69, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Conant, R.T.; Cerri, C.E.P.; Osborne, B.B.; Paustian, K. Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 662–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tian, K.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, X.; Hai, N.; Huang, B.; Deng, W. Effects of long-term fertilization and residue management on soil organic carbon changes in paddy soils of China: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 204, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shimizu, M.M.; Marutani, S.; Desyatkin, A.R.; Jin, T.; Hata, H.; Hatano, R. The effect of manure application on carbon dynamics and budgets in a managed grassland of Southern Hokkaido, Japan. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 130, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, J.; Wang, P.; Tian, H.; Xiao, Q.; Jiang, H. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil microbial community structure and analysis of soil properties with vegetable planted at different years under greenhouse conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 187, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Natywa, M.; Sawicka, A.; Wolna-Maruwka, A. Microbial and enzymatic activity in the soil under maize crop in relation to differentiated nitrogen fertilisation. Water-Environ. Rural Areas 2010, 10, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  74. Saxena, A.K.; Kumar, M.; Chakdar, H.; Anuroopa, N.; Bagyaraj, D.J. Bacillus species in soil as a natural resource for plant health and nutrition. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 128, 1583–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vega-Avila, A.D.; Gumiere, T.; Andrade, P.A.M.; Lima-Perim, J.E.; Durrer, A.; Baigori, M.; Vazquez, F.; Andreote, F.D. Bacterial communities in the rhizosphere of Vitis vinifera L. cultivated under distinct agricultural practices in Argentina. Anton. Leeuw. 2015, 107, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Reeve, J.R.; Schadt, C.W.; Carpenter-Boggs, L.; Kang, S.; Zhou, J.; Reganold, J.P. Effects of soil type and farm management on soil ecological functional genes and microbial activities. ISME J. 2010, 4, 1099–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lamb, E.G.; Kennedy, N.; Siciliano, S.D. Effects of plant species richness and evenness on soil microbial community diversity and function. Plant Soil. 2011, 338, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zarraonaindia, I.; Owens, S.M.; Weisenhorn, P.; West, K.; Hampton-Marcell, J.; Lax, S.; Bokulich, N.A.; Mills, D.A.; Martin, G.; Taghavi, S.; et al. The soil microbiome influences grapevine-associated microbiota. mBio 2015, 6, e02527-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Rousk, J.; Bååth, E.; Brookes, P.C.; Lauber, C.L.; Lozupone, C.; Caporaso, J.G.; Knight, R.; Fierer, N. Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J. 2010, 4, 1340–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Fierer, N.; Jackson, R.B. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Burns, K.N.; Kluepfel, D.A.; Strauss, S.L.; Bokulich, N.A.; Cantu, D.; Steenwerth, K.L. Vineyard soil bacterial diversity and composition revealed by 16S rRNA genes: Differentiation by geographic features. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 91, 232–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 10 00753 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area with the studied treatments.
Figure 1. Location of the study area with the studied treatments.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g001
Horticulturae 10 00753 g002
Figure 2. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the T treatment.
Figure 2. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the T treatment.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g002
Horticulturae 10 00753 g003
Figure 3. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the T+FYM treatment.
Figure 3. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the T+FYM treatment.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g003
Horticulturae 10 00753 g004
Figure 4. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the G treatment.
Figure 4. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the G treatment.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g004
Horticulturae 10 00753 g005
Figure 5. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the G+NPK1 treatment.
Figure 5. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the G+NPK1 treatment.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g005
Horticulturae 10 00753 g006
Figure 6. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the G+NPK2 treatment.
Figure 6. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from the G+NPK2 treatment.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g006
Horticulturae 10 00753 g007
Figure 7. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from all treatments.
Figure 7. Krona chart: Isolated species of culturable bacteriota from all treatments.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g007
Horticulturae 10 00753 g008
Figure 8. (A) Relationships between objects (T, T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2) and averages of the describing variables (culturable bacteriota, pH, EC, CL, and SOC) over the entire study period, and (B) Similarities between objects T, T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 based on the describing variables (culturable bacteriota, pH, EC, CL, and SOC) over the entire study period.
Figure 8. (A) Relationships between objects (T, T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2) and averages of the describing variables (culturable bacteriota, pH, EC, CL, and SOC) over the entire study period, and (B) Similarities between objects T, T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 based on the describing variables (culturable bacteriota, pH, EC, CL, and SOC) over the entire study period.
Horticulturae 10 00753 g008
Table 1. Monthly precipitation and average air temperature in 2022 (evaluation of standard monthly precipitation and average air temperature are based on long-term averages for the period 1991–2020).
Table 1. Monthly precipitation and average air temperature in 2022 (evaluation of standard monthly precipitation and average air temperature are based on long-term averages for the period 1991–2020).
MonthTotal Precipitation Average Air Temperature
Climatic Normal (mm)Year 2022
(mm)		Difference (%)ClassificationClimatic Normal (°C)Year 2022
(°C)		Difference (°C)Classification
January32.80.993extremely dry−0.55.95.4extremely warm
February28.934.5119normal1.33.62.3normal
March32.93.511extremely dry5.54.6−0.9normal
April36.312.936very dry11.48.5−2.9cold
May59.312.721very dry16.015.8−0.2normal
June59.188.4150wet19.620.71.1warm
July64.660.494normal21.721.5−0.2normal
August54.659.9110normal21.121.90.8normal
September58.16.611very dry15.914.4−1.5cold
October46.127.560normal10.411.51.1warm
November44.98.719very dry5.65.5−0.1normal
December41.667.2162wet0.71.350.7normal
Table 2. Dynamics of soil parameters according to the results of the Mann–Kendall test.
Table 2. Dynamics of soil parameters according to the results of the Mann–Kendall test.
TreatmentsAbundance of Culturable BacteriotaSoil pHECCLSOC
Mann-Kendall Trends
TIncreasingStable/No TrendStable/No TrendDecreasingStable/No Trend
T+FYMStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendDecreasingStable/No Trend
GStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No Trend
G+NPK1Stable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No Trend
G+NPK2Stable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No TrendStable/No Trend
Note: EC—electrical conductivity, CL—labile carbon, SOC—soil organic carbon, T—tillage and no fertilization, T+FYM—tillage and application of farmyard manure every 4 years at a rate of 40 t ha−1, G—grass strips and no fertilization, G+NPK1—application of NPK to grass strips at 1st fertilization level, G+NPK2—application of NPK to grass strips at 2nd fertilization level.
Table 3. Results of the ANOVA for the soil parameters depending on soil management practice.
Table 3. Results of the ANOVA for the soil parameters depending on soil management practice.
TreatmentsAbundance of Culturable BacteriotaSoil pHECCLSOC
m S/mg/kg
T4.0 ± 0.39 a6.89 ± 0.09 bc277 ± 68 a1.77 ± 0.24 a14.4 ± 0.88 a
T+FYM4.1 ± 0.30 a7.01 ± 0.07 bc342 ± 64 a1.84 ± 0.33 a18.4 ± 1.13 b
G4.3 ± 0.35 a7.20 ± 0.08 c395 ± 65 a4.02 ± 0.88 b31.8 ± 6.12 d
G+NPK14.2 ± 0.46 a6.51 ± 0.63 b1309 ± 888 b3.91 ± 0.97 b27.9 ± 5.65 c
G+NPK24.1 ± 0.39 a5.79 ± 0.74 a2825 ± 1167 c3.62 ± 0.63 b25.1 ± 2.82 c
Note: EC—electrical conductivity, CL—labile carbon, SOC—soil organic carbon, T—tillage and no fertilization, T+FYM—tillage and application of farmyard manure every 4 years at a rate of 40 t ha−1, G—grass strips and no fertilization, G+NPK1—application of NPK to grass strips at 1st fertilization level, G+NPK2—application of NPK to grass strips at 2nd fertilization level. The values represent means and standard deviations for the treatments from February up to November 2022. Different letters within columns indicate heterogeneous groups of the means based on Tukey’s test at a 0.05 significance level.
Table 4. Correlation coefficients between culturable bacteriota, soil pH, EC, CL, SOC, air temperature, and precipitation for the T, T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments. Each treatment is referred to with a different color: T (light blue)—tillage with no fertilization, T+FYM (light green)—tillage and the application of farmyard manure every 4 years at a rate of 40 t ha–1, G (light gray)—grass strips with no fertilization, G+NPK1 (light red)—application of NPK fertilizers to grass strips at the first fertilization level, G+NPK2 (yellow)—application of NPK fertilizers to grass strips at the second fertilization level. Numbers in red font present significant correlations at a significance level of 0.05.
Table 4. Correlation coefficients between culturable bacteriota, soil pH, EC, CL, SOC, air temperature, and precipitation for the T, T+FYM, G, G+NPK1, and G+NPK2 treatments. Each treatment is referred to with a different color: T (light blue)—tillage with no fertilization, T+FYM (light green)—tillage and the application of farmyard manure every 4 years at a rate of 40 t ha–1, G (light gray)—grass strips with no fertilization, G+NPK1 (light red)—application of NPK fertilizers to grass strips at the first fertilization level, G+NPK2 (yellow)—application of NPK fertilizers to grass strips at the second fertilization level. Numbers in red font present significant correlations at a significance level of 0.05.
Culturable BacteriotaSoil pHECCLSOCAir TemperaturePrecipitation
Culturable bacteriota −0.090.69−0.26−0.260.35−0.08
Soil pH−0.07 0.160.40−0.25−0.23−0.20
EC0.580.13 −0.25−0.130.620.22
CL−0.190.22−0.14 −0.14−0.07−0.02
SOC−0.310.25−0.270.20 0.310.11
Air temperature0.17−0.340.68−0.38−0.39 0.71
Precipitation−0.13−0.360.32−0.01−0.370.71
Culturable bacteriota −0.200.520.350.430.680.17
Soil pH −0.44−0.73−0.92−0.45−0.39
EC 0.230.530.690.43
CL 0.870.350.17
SOC 0.520.32
Air temperature 0.71
Culturable bacteriota 0.090.54−0.080.080.790.32
Soil pH0.17 −0.51−0.12−0.260.00−0.49
EC0.37−0.43 −0.01−0.130.780.90
CL−0.070.47−0.03 0.74−0.07−0.02
SOC−0.650.01−0.110.70 −0.18−0.26
Air temperature0.63−0.020.640.25−0.01 0.71
Precipitation0.05−0.440.810.190.320.71
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Šimanský, V.; Kačániová, M.; Juriga, M.; Čmiková, N.; Borotová, P.; Aydın, E.; Wójcik-Gront, E. Impact of Soil Management Practices on Soil Culturable Bacteriota and Species Diversity in Central European a Productive Vineyard under Warm and Dry Conditions. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070753

AMA Style

Šimanský V, Kačániová M, Juriga M, Čmiková N, Borotová P, Aydın E, Wójcik-Gront E. Impact of Soil Management Practices on Soil Culturable Bacteriota and Species Diversity in Central European a Productive Vineyard under Warm and Dry Conditions. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(7):753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070753

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šimanský, Vladimír, Miroslava Kačániová, Martin Juriga, Natália Čmiková, Petra Borotová, Elena Aydın, and Elzbieta Wójcik-Gront. 2024. "Impact of Soil Management Practices on Soil Culturable Bacteriota and Species Diversity in Central European a Productive Vineyard under Warm and Dry Conditions" Horticulturae 10, no. 7: 753. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070753

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop