Abstract (en):
The soil microbiota is a biological indicator. The impact of four different land use patterns: Secondary forest (T1), rice monoculture (T2), pineapple monoculture (T3) and agroforestry system of Theobroma cacao associated with Acacia mangium (T4) at different distances: 0-10 cm (D1), 10-20 cm (D2), 20-30 cm (D3), 30 40 cm (D4) and 40-50 cm (D5) on counts of Colony Forming Units (CFUs) of fungi, bacteria, actinobacteria were tested in an Oxisol of Villavicencio, Orinoquia, East Colombia. An unrestricted random design was applied. More number of CFUs of soil bacteria, fungi and actinobacteria were recorded in secondary forest (T1) at all the distances from the root surface when compared to the other treatments. However, a similar trend was observed for counts of CFUs of soil fungi and bacteria in secondary forest (T1) at (D4) and (D5) distances from the root surface compared with agroforestry system (T4) at all distances from the root surface (P≤0.05). Meanwhile that there was similarity in number of CFUs of soil actinobacteria between secondary forest (T1) and agroforestry system (T4) at all the distances (P≥0.05). The least count of CFUs of soil microbiota was recorded in pineapple monoculture (T3) at all the distances from the root surface (P≤0.05).
Abstract (es):
La microbiota del suelo es un indicador biológico. Se investigó el impacto de diferentes patrones de usos del suelo: bosque secundario (T1), monocultivo de arroz (T2), monocultivo de piña (T3) y sistema agroforestal de Theobroma cacao asociado con Acacia mangium (T4) a diferentes distancias desde la superficie de la raíz: 0-10 cm (D1), 10-20 cm (D2), 20-30 cm (D3), 30-40 cm (D4) y 40-50 cm (D5) en el conteo de Unidades Formadoras de Colonias UFCs de hongos, bacterias y actinobacterias en un Oxisol de Villavicencio, Orinoquia, Oriente de Colombia. Se aplicó un diseño irrestrictamente al azar. Un mayor número de UFCs de bacterias, hongos, y actinobacterias del suelo fueron encontrados en el bosque secundario (T1) en todas las distancias desde la superficie de la raíz comparado con los otros tratamientos; sin embargo, una similar tendencia fue observada para los conteos de UFCs de bacterias y hongos en el bosque secundario (T1) en las distancias (D4) y (D5) desde la superficie de la raíz comparado con el sistema agroforestal (T4) en todas las distancias desde la superficie de la raíz (P≤0.05). Mientras tanto hubo similaridad en el número de UFCs de actinobacterias entre bosque secundario (T1) y sistema agroforestal (T4) en todas las distancias (P≥0.05). Los más bajos conteos de UFCs de la microbiota del suelo fueron reportados en el monocultivo de piña (T3) en todas las distancias desde la superficie de la raíz (P≤0.05).
Keywords:
Diversidad, Microorganismos, Monocultivo, Sistema agroforestal (es)
Agroforestry system, Diversity, Microorganism, Monoculture (en)
Agroforestry system, Diversity, Microorganism, Monoculture (en)
References
Alexander, M. 1982. Most Probable Number method for microbial populations. Pp. 815–820. En: Page, A. L., R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney (Eds). Methods in Soil Analysis. Agronomy 9, part 2, 2nd edition. ASA, SSSA, Madson, WI.
Alvear, M. A., J. L. Rosas and F. B. Rouanet. 2005. Effects of three soil tillage systems on some biological activities in an Ultisol from southern Chile. Soil and Tillage Research 82: 195–202.
Balota, E. L., A. Colozzi-Filho, D. S. Andrade and R. P. Dick. 2003. Microbial biomass in soils under different tillage and crop rotation systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils 38 (1): 15–20.
Barreto, T. R., A. C. M. Da Silva, A. C. F. Soares and J. T. De Souza. 2008. Population densities and genetic diversity of actinomycetes associated to the rhizosphere of Theobroma cacao. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 39 (3): 464-470.
Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological economics 64: 269-285
Bausenwein, U., A. Gattinger, U. Langer, A. Embcher, H. P. Hartmann, M. Sommer, J. C. Munch and M. Schloter. 2008. Exploring soil microbial communities and soil organic matter: Variability and interactions in arable soils under minimum tillage practice. Applied soil ecology 40: 67–77.
Beare, M. H. 1997. Fungal and bacterial pathways of organic matter decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in arable soil. Pp 37–70. En: Brussaard, L. and R. Ferrera- Cerrato (Eds). Soil Ecology in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, LA.
Brussaard, L., P. C. de Ruiter, G. G. Brown. 2007. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121: 233-244.
Ceja-Navarro, J. A., F. N. Rivera-Orduña, L. Patiño- Zúñiga, A. Vila-Sanjurjo, J. Crossa, B. Govaerts and L. Dendooven. 2010. Phylogenetic and multivariate analyses to determine the effects of different tillage and residue management practices on soil bacterial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76 (11): 3685–3691.
Da C Jesus, E., T. Marsh, J. Tiedje and F. Moreira. 2009. Changes in land use alter the structure of bacterial communities in Western Amazon soils. The International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal 3: 1004–1011
Delgado, H., G. H. Navas, C. R. Salamanca and A. Chacon. 2009. Legume improved fallows: a promissory agroecological alternative for allelopathic weed control in rice and maize crops in the Colombia Eastern Plains Agronomia Colombiana 27 (2): 227-235.
Di Rienzo, J. A., F. Casanoves, M. G. Balzarini, L. González, C. W. Robledo. 2010. InfoStat versión 2010. Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. 18 p.
Gopalakrishnan, S., T. Watanabe, S. J. Pearse, O. Ito, Z. A. K. M. Hossain and G. V. Subbarao. 2009. Biological nitrification inhibition by Brachiaria humidicola roots varies with soil type and inhibits nitrifying bacteria, but not other major soil microorganisms. Soil Science Plant Nutrition 55 (5): 725-733.
Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi – Igac. 2004. Estudio general de suelos y zonificación de tierras. Departamento del Meta. IGAC. 1 CD.
Jangid, K., M. A. Williams, A. J. Franzluebbers, J. S. Sanderlin, J. H. Reeves, M. B. Jenkins, D. M. Endale, D. C. Coleman and W. B. Whitman. 2008. Relative impacts of land-use, management intensity and fertilization upon soil microbial community structure in agricultural systems. Soil Biology Biochemestry 40: 2843-2853.
Kent, A. D. and E. W. Triplett. 2002. Microbial communities and their interactions in soil and rhizosphere ecosystems. Annual Review of Microbiology 56: 211-236.
Lauber, C. L., K. S. Ramirez, Z. Aanderud, J. Lennon and N. Fierer. 2013. Temporal variability in soil microbial communities across land-use types. International Society for Microbial Ecology 7: 1641–1650.
Mathew, R. P., Y. Feng, L. Githinji, R. Ankumah and K. S. Balkcom. 2012. Impact of No-tillage and conventional tillage on soil microbial communities. Applied Environmental Soil Science: 10 p.
Muhammed, U. P. F. B., P. V. Sindhu and K. S. Gopal. 2015. Influence of mulches on rhizosphere microflora, yield and weed competition in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench). Journal of Tropical Agriculture 53 (1): 70-74.
Notaro, K., E. V. de Medeiros, G. P. Duda, A. O. Silva. and P. M. De Moura. 2008. Agroforestry systems, nutrients in litter and microbial activity in soils cultivated with coffee at high altitude. Scientia Agricola 71 (2): 87-95.
Paudel, B. R., R. P. Udawatta, R. J. Kremer and S. H. Anderson. 2012. Soil quality indicator responses to row crop, grazed pasture, and agroforestry buffer management. Agroforestry Systems 84: 311-323.
Paul, E. A. and F. E. Clark. 1996. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry, Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. 340 p.
Perez, A., C. Perez y G. Cardona. 2015. Hongos solubilizadores de fosfatos en suelos arroceros de la Mojana Sucre, Colombia. Arroz 53 (458): 22-31.
Pii, Y., L. Borruso, L. Brusetti, C. Crecchio, S. Cesco and T. Mimmo. 2016. The interaction between iron nutrition, plant species and soil type shapes the rhizosphere microbiome. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 99: 39-48.
Prevost-Boure, N. C., P. A. Maron, L. Ranjard, V. Nowak, E. Dufrenea, C. Damesina, K. Soudani and J-Ch. Lata. 2011. Seasonal dynamics of the bacterial community in forest soils under different quantities of leaf litter. Applied Soil Ecology 47 (1): 14–23.
Radhakrishnan, S. and M. J. Varadharajan. 2016. Status of microbial diversity in agroforestry systems in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Basic Microbiology 56 (6): 662- 669.
Reis, M. A., K. Luciene, A. M. Rodrigues and E. Nahas. 2007. Recovery of soil microbiological properties in a degraded area planted with Corymbia citriodora and Leucaena leucocephala. Scientia Agricola 64 (1): 8-72.
Roger-Estrade, J., C. Anger, M. Bertrand and G. Richard. 2010. Tillage and soil ecology: Partners for sustainable agriculture. Soil and Tillage Research 111: 33-40.
Sylvia, D., J. Fuhrmann, P. Hartel and D. Zuberer. 2005. Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology. Pearson Education Inc. New Jersey. 517 p.
Smith, P. 2008. Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutrient Cycle Agroecosystem 81: 169–178. Voříšková, J. and P. Baldrian. 2013. Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal 7: 477–486.
Wagg, C., S. F. Bender, F. Widmer and M. G. A. Van der Heijden. 2014. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: 5266–5270.
Whipps, J. M. 2001. Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere. The Journal of Experimental Botany 52 (90001): 487-511.
How to Cite
Silva-Parra, A., Mogollón-Ortiz, Ángela M., & Delgado-Huertas, H. (2018). Soil microbiota: Influence of different land use patterns and soilmanagement factors at Villavicencio Oxisol, East Colombia. Biota Colombiana, 18(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21068/c2017.v18n02a1
The works published in the journals of the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute are subject to the following terms, in relation to copyright:
1. The patrimonial rights of the published works are assigned to Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt. The authors or institutions that elaborate the document agree to transfer the patrimonial rights to the Humboldt Institute with the sending of their articles, which allows, among other things, the reproduction, public communication, dissemination and dissemination of works.
2. The works of digital editions are published under a Creative Commons Colombia license:
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.
> Attribution - Non-commercial - No Derivative: This license is the most restrictive of the six main licenses, it only allows others to download the works and share them with others, as long as their authorship is acknowledged, but they cannot be changed in any way, nor can they be used commercially.
3. The authors, when submitting articles to the editorial process of the magazines published by the Humboldt Institute, accept the institutional dispositions on copyright and open access.
4. All items received will be subjected to anti-plagiarism software. The submission of an article to the magazines of the Humboldt Institute is understood as the acceptance of the review to detect possible plagiarism.
5. The works submitted to the editing process of the magazines of the Humboldt Institute must be unpublished.
