Agroforestry for soil management.
This is the second edition of a book by an equivalent author previously published in association with ICRAF under a special title (Agroforestry for conservation, as No. 4 of the ICRAF series Science and Practice of Agroforestry) in 1989. it’s been nearly completely newly written, retaining only alittle amount of fabric from the sooner version. The circumstantial evidence on which the previous book was largely based has been replaced by a considerable body of data derived from agroforestry research, including field trials of varied sorts of system, and data on the processes which happen in them; nearly three quarters of the references are from the 1990s. The book, which is directed at research scientists, developers and students, aims to summarize this state of data on agroforestry for soil management, and to point the requirements for research if its potential is to be realized. [1]
The Soil Management Assessment Framework
Erosion rates and annual soil loss tolerance (T) values in evaluations of soil management practices have served as focal points for soil quality (SQ) research and assessment programs for many years. Our objective is to reinforce and extend current soil assessment efforts by presenting a framework for assessing the impact of soil management practices on soil function. The tool consists of three steps: indicator selection, indicator interpretation, and integration into an index. The tool’s framework design allows researchers to repeatedly update and refine the interpretations for several soils, climates, and land use practices. The tool was demonstrated using data from case studies in Georgia, Iowa, California, and therefore the Pacific Northwest (WA, ID, OR). Using an expert system of decision rules as an indicator selection step successfully identified indicators for the minimum data set (MDS) within the case study data sets. [2]
URBAN SOIL MANAGEMENT: A GROWING CONCERN
Although urban and suburban soils are used for several purposes, a number of them relevant to agricultural and forest sciences, that these intensively managed and disturbed soils haven’t been extensively investigated up to now’s suggested by the white areas representing most urban zones on soil survey maps. Because urban soils are often developed on composite materials derived from previous uses and exogenous sources, spatial heterogeneity may be a typical feature. Their evolution is controlled almost exclusively by humans, who impose very rapid transformation cycles compared with those occurring in less disturbed areas. However, there’s a continuum from the natural soils to the extensively disturbed soils, and their basic functions are essentially an equivalent. [3]
Conventional and organic soil management as divergent drivers of resident and active fractions of major soil food web constituents
Conventional agricultural production systems, typified by large inputs of mineral fertilizers and pesticides, reduce soil biodiversity and should negatively affect ecosystem services like carbon fixation, nutrient cycling and disease suppressiveness. Organic soil management is assumed to contribute to a more diverse and stable soil food cycle, but data detailing this effect are sparse and fragmented. We began to map both the resident (rDNA) and therefore the active (rRNA) fractions of bacterial, fungal, protozoan and metazoan communities under various soil management regimes in two distinct soil types with barley because the main crop. [4]
Moisture Behavior to the Spatial Variability of Physical Attributes in Different Soil Management
The technique of temporal stability is employed by several researchers to adequately represent the water content within the soil with reduced sampling effort from the identification of points on the sector that reflects the typical behavior of soil moisture. Therefore, the aim of this work was to research the moisture behavior to the spatial variation of density and particle size during a Hapludox under three different soil tillage systems (No-Till, Crop-Livestock Integration and traditional Planting) within the municipality of Jataí, Southwest of Goias, Brazil. it had been collected nine sampling points information for every handling system in three depth ranges (0 – 0.12 m, 0.12 to 0.24 m, 0.24 to 0.36 m). For this, it had been used a transportable type sensor TDR HydroSence model, rods with length 0.12 m. The determination and site of points for data collection were done by georeferencing, employing a GPS system (“Global Positioning System”), GARMIN, MAP785 model. [5]
Reference
[1] Young, A., 1997. Agroforestry for soil management (No. Ed. 2). CAB international. (Web Link)
[2] Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L. and Cambardella, C.A., 2004. The soil management assessment framework. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(6), (Web Link)
[3] De Kimpe, C.R. and Morel, J.L., 2000. Urban soil management: a growing concern. Soil Science, 165(1), (Web Link)
[4] Conventional and organic soil management as divergent drivers of resident and active fractions of major soil food web constituents
Paula Harkes, Afnan K. A. Suleiman, Sven J. J. van den Elsen, Johannes J. de Haan, Martijn Holterman, Eiko E. Kuramae & Johannes Helder
Scientific Reports volume 9, (Web Link)
[5] Martins Guimarães, C., Bernardes Silva, F., Domingos Xavier, W., Alexandre Gomes Costa, C., Rodrigues Gomes Filho, R. and Nascimento Santos, I. L. (2018) “Moisture Behavior to the Spatial Variability of Physical Attributes in Different Soil Management”, Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 25(1), (Web Link)
