The effect of alternative agricultural practices on soil biodiversity of bacteria, fungi, nematodes and earthworms: A review

IF 6 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Felipe Cozim-Melges , Raimon Ripoll-Bosch , Philipp Oggiano , Hannah H.E. van Zanten , Wim H. van der Putten , G.F. (Ciska) Veen
{"title":"The effect of alternative agricultural practices on soil biodiversity of bacteria, fungi, nematodes and earthworms: A review","authors":"Felipe Cozim-Melges ,&nbsp;Raimon Ripoll-Bosch ,&nbsp;Philipp Oggiano ,&nbsp;Hannah H.E. van Zanten ,&nbsp;Wim H. van der Putten ,&nbsp;G.F. (Ciska) Veen","doi":"10.1016/j.agee.2024.109329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Life in soil is a key driver of important ecosystem processes, such as the recycling of carbon and nutrients. In current intensive agricultural soils, however, richness and abundance of many groups of soil organisms are often reduced, which may threaten soil health and sustainable agriculture in the long run. Therefore, a switch to alternative agricultural practices (e.g., minimal tillage) that are less detrimental or even stimulate soil life has been suggested as a way to increase sustainable food production. Although we understand how some of these practices impact specific species or functional groups in soils, it is necessary to get a more complete overview to understand which practices can be used in agriculture to improve soil biodiversity. Here, we present a systematic literature review identifying which practices are studied as alternatives to current, intensive practices for four soil taxonomic groups encompassing a range of trophic groups and functions in the soil ecosystem: nematodes, earthworms, bacteria and fungi. Further, we review how these alternative practices impact the abundance and diversity of these four taxonomic groups, as well as for the 14 functional groups identified and retrieved from the review. We found that a total of 23 alternative agricultural practices, grouped into 10 groups of practices, were studied for the four target taxonomic groups. Three groups of practices, 'fertilization’, ‘soil cover’ and ‘tillage’ were studied for all taxa. In general, alternative agricultural practices had positive impacts on the species richness in the four taxonomic groups and on the abundance of organisms in the functional groups. However, there were some exceptions. For example, organic fertilizers reduced the abundance of epigeic earthworms, while enhancing the abundance of endogeic and anecic earthworms. There was only one alternative practice, i.e., the use of cover crops, that was neutral to positive for the abundance of all functional groups across all taxa. Our review revealed that there are gaps in the literature, as practices that are commonly studied for aboveground biodiversity, such as field margins or flower strips, are not studied well across taxonomic and functional groups and need to be further studied to improve our understanding of the impact of alternative practices on soil life. We conclude that alternative agricultural practices are promising to enhance soil biodiversity. However, as some practices have specific impacts on taxonomic groups in the soil, we may require careful application and combinations of alternative agricultural practices to stimulate multiple groups.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7512,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","volume":"379 ","pages":"Article 109329"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016788092400447X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Life in soil is a key driver of important ecosystem processes, such as the recycling of carbon and nutrients. In current intensive agricultural soils, however, richness and abundance of many groups of soil organisms are often reduced, which may threaten soil health and sustainable agriculture in the long run. Therefore, a switch to alternative agricultural practices (e.g., minimal tillage) that are less detrimental or even stimulate soil life has been suggested as a way to increase sustainable food production. Although we understand how some of these practices impact specific species or functional groups in soils, it is necessary to get a more complete overview to understand which practices can be used in agriculture to improve soil biodiversity. Here, we present a systematic literature review identifying which practices are studied as alternatives to current, intensive practices for four soil taxonomic groups encompassing a range of trophic groups and functions in the soil ecosystem: nematodes, earthworms, bacteria and fungi. Further, we review how these alternative practices impact the abundance and diversity of these four taxonomic groups, as well as for the 14 functional groups identified and retrieved from the review. We found that a total of 23 alternative agricultural practices, grouped into 10 groups of practices, were studied for the four target taxonomic groups. Three groups of practices, 'fertilization’, ‘soil cover’ and ‘tillage’ were studied for all taxa. In general, alternative agricultural practices had positive impacts on the species richness in the four taxonomic groups and on the abundance of organisms in the functional groups. However, there were some exceptions. For example, organic fertilizers reduced the abundance of epigeic earthworms, while enhancing the abundance of endogeic and anecic earthworms. There was only one alternative practice, i.e., the use of cover crops, that was neutral to positive for the abundance of all functional groups across all taxa. Our review revealed that there are gaps in the literature, as practices that are commonly studied for aboveground biodiversity, such as field margins or flower strips, are not studied well across taxonomic and functional groups and need to be further studied to improve our understanding of the impact of alternative practices on soil life. We conclude that alternative agricultural practices are promising to enhance soil biodiversity. However, as some practices have specific impacts on taxonomic groups in the soil, we may require careful application and combinations of alternative agricultural practices to stimulate multiple groups.
替代性耕作方法对土壤中细菌、真菌、线虫和蚯蚓生物多样性的影响:综述
土壤中的生命是碳和养分循环等重要生态系统过程的关键驱动力。然而,在目前的集约化农业土壤中,许多土壤生物群落的丰富度和丰度往往下降,从长远来看,这可能会威胁到土壤健康和农业的可持续发展。因此,有人建议改用危害较小甚至能刺激土壤生物的其他农业耕作方法(如少耕),以此来提高可持续粮食产量。尽管我们了解其中一些耕作方式对土壤中特定物种或功能群的影响,但仍有必要对其进行更全面的概述,以了解哪些耕作方式可用于农业以改善土壤生物多样性。在此,我们通过系统的文献综述,确定了哪些方法可作为当前密集型耕作法的替代方法,这些方法针对的是四个土壤分类群,涵盖了土壤生态系统中的一系列营养群和功能:线虫、蚯蚓、细菌和真菌。此外,我们还审查了这些替代方法如何影响这四个分类群组以及从审查中确定和检索的 14 个功能群组的丰度和多样性。我们发现,针对四个目标分类群,总共研究了 23 种替代性农业实践,分为 10 组实践。其中,"施肥"、"土壤覆盖 "和 "耕作 "这三组做法对所有分类群都进行了研究。总的来说,替代性农业措施对四个分类群的物种丰富度和功能群的生物丰度都有积极影响。不过,也有一些例外情况。例如,有机肥减少了表生蚯蚓的数量,而提高了内生蚯蚓和无表生蚯蚓的数量。只有一种替代方法,即使用覆盖作物,对所有分类群中所有功能群的丰度都是中性或积极的。我们的综述显示,文献中还存在空白,因为通常针对地上生物多样性进行研究的做法(如田边或花卉带)并没有很好地针对分类群和功能群进行研究,因此需要进一步研究,以提高我们对替代做法对土壤生物影响的认识。我们的结论是,替代性农业耕作方法有望提高土壤生物多样性。然而,由于某些做法会对土壤中的分类群产生特定影响,我们可能需要谨慎应用和组合替代农业做法,以刺激多个分类群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
392
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment publishes scientific articles dealing with the interface between agroecosystems and the natural environment, specifically how agriculture influences the environment and how changes in that environment impact agroecosystems. Preference is given to papers from experimental and observational research at the field, system or landscape level, from studies that enhance our understanding of processes using data-based biophysical modelling, and papers that bridge scientific disciplines and integrate knowledge. All papers should be placed in an international or wide comparative context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信