پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,225 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,685 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,000,725 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,677,811 |
پیامد کاربرد کرم خاکی، کود گاوی و زغال زیستی حاصل از آن بر برخی از ویژگیهای زیستی خاک | ||
| تحقیقات آب و خاک ایران | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 50، شماره 5، مهر 1398، صفحه 1095-1109 اصل مقاله (822.16 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/ijswr.2019.262898.667980 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| صفورا ناهیدان* 1؛ علی اکبر صفری سنجانی2 | ||
| 1استادیار دانشگاه بوعلی سینای همدان، همدان، ایران | ||
| 2دانشگاه بوعلی سینای همدان، همدان، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| یافتههای اندکی در ارتباط با پیامد زغال زیستی بر کرم خاکی و برهمکنش آنها بر ویژگیهای زیستی خاک در دست است. هدف از پژوهش کنونی، بررسی پیامد کرم خاکی، کود گاوی و زغال زیستی آن بر برخی از ویژگیهای زیستی خاک میباشد. بدین منظور، خاک با مقادیر 0، 1، 2 و 5 درصد کود گاوی و زغال زیستی آن با حضور و بدون کرم خاکی و برای 30 و 90 روز انکوباسیون شدند. نتایج نشان داد که در 30 روز انکوباسیون، زغال زیستی، فراوانی کرم خاکی را کاهش میدهد. در 90 روز انکوباسیون، مقدار 1، 2 و 5 درصد کود گاوی موجب افزایش فراوانی کرم خاکی به میزان 26، 91 و 104 درصد نسبت به شاهد شد. مقدار 1 درصد زغال زیستی پیامد معنیداری بر فراوانی کرم نداشت ولی مقادیر 2 و 5 درصد زغال زیستی، فراوانی کرم خاکی را به میزان 43 و 48 درصد نسبت به شاهد کاهش داد. نتایج نشان داد که کرم خاکی، افزایش بیشتری در تنفس میکروبی پایه و برانگیخته و زیستتوده میکروبی در خاکهای تیمار شده با کود گاوی در برابر زغال زیستی ایجاد میکند. همچنین ویژگیهای زیستی خاک با کاربرد کود گاوی و زغال زیستی آن در برابر شاهد افزایش یافتند. از طرفی کرم خاکی موجب افزایش و کاهش کسر متابولیکی به ترتیب در 30 و 90 روز انکوباسیون شد. افزودن کود گاوی و زغال زیستی آن در 90 روز انکوباسیون موجب کاهش کسر متابولیکی در برابر شاهد شد. تیمار 5 درصد کود گاوی دارای کرم خاکی (در 90 روز) کمترین مقدار کسر متابولیکی را دارا بود. در مجموع، کود گاوی کیفیت زیستی خاک را بیشتر از زغال زیستی حاصل از آن بهبود بخشید. با وجود این، مقدار 1 درصد زغال زیستی کود گاوی با نداشتن پیامد منفی بر کرم خاکی، میتواند در بهبود کیفیت زیستی خاک نیز مفید باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| زغال زیستی؛ کرم خاکی؛ ویژگی های زیستی خاک | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Effect of Earthworm, Cow Manure and Its Biochar on Some Soil Biological Properties | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Safoora Nahidan1؛ Ali Akbar Safari Sinejani2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Soil Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran | ||
| 2Professor of Soil Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Little is known about the effects of biochar on earthworms and their interactions on soil biological properties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of earthworm and cow manure biochar (compared to cow manure) on some biological properties of soil. For this purpose, the soil was treated with cow manure or its biochar in 4 levels (0, 1, 2 and 5%) in the absence and presence of earthworm and incubated for 30 and 90 days. The results showed that the number of earthworm decreased in soil treated with cow manure biochar in 30 days of incubation. After 90 days of incubation, application of 1, 2 and 5% cow manure increased the number of earthworm by 26, 91 and 104%, respectively. Application of 1% biochar resulted no significant effect on the number of earthworm, but the 2 and 5% biochar decreased the number of earthworms by 43 and 48%, respectively. The results showed that the earthworm led to considerable increase on the basal respiration, substrate induced respiration and microbial biomass carbon in soils treated with cow manure compared to cow manure biochar. Also, application of both amendment improved the soil biological properties compared to the control. On the other hand, earthworm increased and decreased the metabolic quotient in 30 and 90 days incubation, respectively. The addition of cow manure and its biochar reduced the metabolic quotient in 90 days of incubation. In addition, the soil treated with 5% cow manure and earthworm (in 90 days) had the lowest metabolic quotient. Overall, cow manure improved soil biological quality better than cow manure biochar. However, application of 1% cow manure biochar in the soil which has no negative effect on earthworm, can be also beneficial to improve soil biological quality. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Biochar, earthworm, soil biological parameter | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alef, K. (1995a). Microbial biomass. In K. Alef and P. Nannipieri (Eds.), Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. (pp. 375-417.). London, Harcourt Brace and Company Pub. Alef, K. (1995b). Soil respiration. In K. Alef and P. Nannipieri (Eds.), Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. (pp. 214-216). London, Harcourt Brace and Company Pub. Anderson, T.H. (2003). Microbial eco-physiological indicators to asses soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 98(1-3), 285-293. Beheshti, M., Etesami, H. and Alikhani, H. A. (2018). Effect of different biochars amendment on soil biological indicators in a calcareous soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,25(15), 14752-14761. Brown B.A. and Mitchell, M. J. (1981). Role of the earthworm, Eisenia foetida in affecting survival of Salmonella enteriditisser typhimurium. Pedobiologia, 21(6), 434-438. Caravaca, F. and Roldán, A. (2003). Effect of Eisenia foetida earthworms on mineralization kinetics, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, respiration and labile C fractions of three soils treated with a composted organic residue. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 38(1), 45-51. Chapman, H.D. (1965). Cation exchange capacity. In C.A. Black, D.D. Evans, L.J. White, L.E. Ensminger and F.E. Clark (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. (pp. 891-901) American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Cox, D., Bezdicek, D. and Fauci, M. (2001). Effects of compost, coal ash, and straw amendments on restoring the quality of eroded Palouse soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 33(5), 365-372. Dempster, D.N., Gleeson, D.B., Solaiman, Z.M., Jones, D. L. and Murphy, D.V. (2012). Decreased soil microbial biomass and nitrogen mineralisation with eucalyptus biochar addition to a coarse textured soil. Plant and Soil. 354, 311-324. Ernst, G., Müller, A., Göhler, H. and Emmerling, C. (2008). C and N turnover of fermented residues from biogas plants in soil in the presence of three different earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea longa, Aporrectodea caliginosa). Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40(6), 1413-1420. Gee, G.W., and Bauder, J.W. (1986). Particle- size analysis. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. (pp. 383-411). Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA, Groffman, P. M., Bohlen, P.J., Fisk, M. C. and Fahey, T. J. (2004). Exotic earthworm invasion and microbial biomass in temperate forest soils. Ecosystems, 74, 50-54. Gul, S., Whalen, J. K., Thomas, B. W., Sachdeva, V. and Deng, H. (2015). Physico-chemical properties and microbial responses in biochar-amended soils: mechanisms and future directions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 206, 46-59. He, Y., DeSutter, T., Prunty, L., Hopkins, D., Jia, X. and Wysocki, D.A. (2012). Evaluation of 1: 5 soil to water extract electrical conductivity methods. Geoderma, 185, 12-17. Jiang, L.L., Han, G.M., Yu, L.A.N., Liu, S.N., Gao, J.P., Xu, Y.A.N.G., Jun, M.E.N.G. and Chen, W.F. (2017). Corn cob biochar increases soil culturable bacterial abundance without enhancing their capacities in utilizing carbon sources in Biolog Eco-plates. Journal of integrative agriculture, 16(3), 713-724. Khadem, A. and Raiesi, F. (2017). Responses of microbial performance and community to corn biochar in calcareous sandy and clayey soils. Applied Soil Ecology, 114, 16-27. Lehmann J. and Joseph, S. (2009). Biochar for environmental management- an introduction. In J. Lehmann and S. Joseph (Eds.), Biochar for environmental management: Science and Technology. (pp. 1-11). London. Earth scan. Lemtiri, A., Colinet, G., Alabi, T., Cluzeau, D., Zirbes, L., Haubruge, É.and Francis, F. (2014). Impacts of earthworms on soil components and dynamics. A review. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, 18(1), 1-13. Li, X., Fisk, M.C., Fahey, T.J., and Bohlen, P.J. (2002). Influence of earthworm invasion on soil microbial biomass and activity in a northern hardwood forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34, 1929-1937. Li, H., Yutong, W., Tianpei, W. and Hongrui, M. (2015). Effect of biochar on organic matter conservation and metabolic quotient of soil. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 34(5), 1467-1472. Liesch, A.M., Weyers, S.L., Gaskin, J.W., and Das, K. C. (2010). Impact of two different biochars on earthworm growth and survival. Annals Environmental Science, 4, 1-9. Nelson, R.E. (1982). Carbonate and gypsum. In A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. (pp. 181–197). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA. Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.P. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical methods (pp. 961-1010). Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA. Novak, J.M., Lima, I., Xing, B., Gaskin, J.W., Steiner, C., Das, K., Ahmedna, M., Rehrah, D., Watts, D. W. andBusscher, W.J. (2009). Characterization of designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Annals of Environmental Science, 31, 95-206. Rayment, G.E and Higginson, F.R. (1992), Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical methods. Melbourne: Kata Press. Rezai, H. (2013). A reviow of research on application of livestock manure in agricultural land of Iran. Journal of Land Management. 1, 55-68. (in Farsi) Schouten, S., Van Groenigen, J. W., Oenema, O. and Cayuela, M.L. (2012). Bioenergy from cattle manure Implications of anaerobic digestion and subsequent pyrolysis for carbon and nitrogen dynamics in soil. GCB Bioenergy. 4, 751-760. Song, W. and Guo, M., (2012). Quality variations of poultry litter biochar generated at different pyrolysis temperatures. Journal of analytical and applied pyrolysis, 94: 138-145. Tammeorg, P., Parviainen, T., Nuutinen, V., Simojoki, A., Vaara, E.and Helenius, J. (2014). Effects of biochar on earthworms in arable soil: avoidance test and field trial in boreal loamy sand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 191, 150-157. Topoliantz, S. and Ponge, J.F. (2003). Burrowing activity of the geophagous earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus (Oligochaeta: Glossoscolecidae) in the presence of charcoal. Applied Soil Ecology. 23, 267–271. Vafa, H. J., Raiesi, F. and Hosseinpur, A. (2016). Sewage sludge application strongly modifies earthworm impact on microbial and biochemical attributes in a semi-arid calcareous soil from Iran. Applied Soil Ecology, 100, 45-56. Weyers, S. L. and Spokas, K. A. (2011). Impact of biochar on earthworm populations: a review. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2011, 1-13. Zhang, B.G., Li, G.T., Shen, T.S., Wang, J.K., and Sun, Z. (2000). Changes in microbial biomass C, N, and P and enzyme activities in soil incubated with the earthworms Metaphire guillelmi or Eisenia fetida. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32, 2055-2062. Zhang, X., Wang, H., He, L., Lu, K., Sarmah, A., Li, J., Bolan, N.S., Pei, J., Huang, H. (2013). Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 20, 8472-8483. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 393 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 323 |
||