Next Article in Journal
Slurry Acidification as a Solution to Minimize Ammonia Emissions from the Combined Application of Animal Manure and Synthetic Fertilizer in No-Tillage
Previous Article in Journal
Responses of N-Cycling Enzyme Activities and Functional Diversity of Soil Microorganisms to Soil Depth, Pedogenic Processes and Cultivated Plants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/agronomy12020263
agronomy-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

Decomposition Rate of Organic Residues and Soil Organisms’ Abundance in a Subtropical Pyrus pyrifolia Field

by
Lucas Jónatan Rodrigues da Silva
1,
Tancredo Augusto Feitosa de Souza
2,
Lídia Klestadt Laurindo
1,
Helena Freitas
3,* and
Milton César Costa Campos
2,*
1
Postgraduate Program in Agrarian and Natural Ecosystems, Department of Agriculture, Biodiversity and Forests, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Curitibanos 89520-000, SC, Brazil
2
Postgraduate Program in Soil Science, Department of Soil and Rural Engineering, Center of Agrarian Sciences, Federal University of Paraiba, Areia 58397-000, PB, Brazil
3
Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(2), 263; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020263
Submission received: 18 November 2021 / Revised: 15 January 2022 / Accepted: 17 January 2022 / Published: 20 January 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of mulching, compost, and their interaction on organic residue (OR) decomposition rate (k), time of residue decay, primming effect, and soil organisms’ community composition was tested in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field experiment conducted from January 2020 to June 2021. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used with compost and mulching as the two factors within four blocks. OR decomposition was characterized by using litter bags with different mesh, and soil organisms were identified at family level. The half-decay rate (hd), total-decay rate (td), and remaining residue mass (Rm) varied among the organic residue management and mesh-type. The highest values of k and primming effect were found in litter bags with 15 mm2 size containing compost in the plots that received compost. For soil organisms’ abundance and richness, the highest values were found on plot that received both mulching and compost. The observed results suggested that the OR management determined organic matter decomposition, soil organisms’ abundance and richness in an Acrisols of the Southern Brazil. Soil organisms were the main factors contributing to the data variance (e.g., Acaridae, Blattidae, Chrysopidae, Halictophagidae, and Forficulidae).

1. Introduction

In subtropical agroecosystems, organic residues are the major source of energy supply and habitat for nutrient cycling and soil organisms [1]. In Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm.f.) Nakai plantation, the transition process from conventional to organic farming system (OFS) accounts for 18% of its cultivated area in the southern Brazil and represents 22,000 t year−1 of P. pyrifolia fruits produced in an OFS [2,3]. In this condition, organic residues with C- and N-rich compounds may improve net primary production, soil food web, and organic residue decomposition [4,5,6]. OFS may reduce the use of mineral fertilizers and ICIDE-type products (e.g., herbicides, pesticides, fungicides) due to an increase in the soil organisms’ abundance and richness that promotes organic matter fragmentation [7,8]. However, field studies considering the effects of the continuous use of organic residues as compost and mulching on organic residue decomposition modulated by the soil organisms’ activity are rare [2,3,5]. In this context, the use of organic residues can be an important alternative to promote soil quality, nutrient cycling by increasing soil organisms’ activity, its community structure, and soil food web [9].
Decomposition of organic residues is controlled by many factors (e.g., fractional composition of organic matter, temperature, soil moisture, soil organisms’ activity), but their quantity (C-rich) and quality (N-rich) along with soil organisms’ community are considered key-factors in subtropical agricultural systems [10]. The consensus is that C- and N-rich residues are generally found to stimulate habitat provision and decomposition, respectively [11,12]. Other studies have provided evidence of C-rich residues negatively influencing decomposition rates [13,14]. Organic residues as mulching may act as habitat for soil organisms, while compost may act as energy supply for nutrient cycling [15,16]. Next, these two organic residues ensure the organic matter input into soil profile, which avoids soil quality loss, and increases plant nutrient release overtime [17]. Finally, the continuous use of compost and mulching can create positive plant-soil feedback, which overtime increases plant production, and decreases costs with low C input [18]. Previous studies showed that the use of organic residues increased the soil organic matter decomposition, and soil organisms’ community structure [18,19,20].
Soil organisms’ community is amongst the most important biotic factor in tropical and subtropical ecosystems [10,21,22]. These soil organisms perform a range of ecosystem services including soil structure, soil organic matter transformation, nutrient cycling, biological control etc., [23,24]. Pyrus pyrifolia is one of the four most important tree species in Brazilian fruticulture, and pearl fruits have shown to have an important social-economic impact on southern Brazil [2]. However, the role of soil organisms’ community in organic residues decomposition in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field remains unclear. Some studies have described that compost may influence soil organic matter dynamics by improving decay rate, and primming effect, which in turn influences nutrient cycling, and soil organisms’ abundance [25,26,27]. On the other hand, other works have shown that soil organic residues management may alter soil reaction by the H+ extrusion and the release of some C-rich compounds, thus promoting rootability improvement [17,28]. Finally, organic residues management that provide high input of C-rich compounds may positively affect soil organisms’ community structure by habitat provision [10,17].
This study aimed to assess if: (a) the organic residue management (considering the plots) may influence the residues decomposition in a litterbag assay using different mesh sizes; (b) there are different decomposition rates influenced by soil organisms; and (c) the use of organic residues may improve the soil organisms’ community structure. Soil sampling, litter bag assay using different mesh sizes, and soil organisms’ community assemblage were used to achieve these aims [17,29,30].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Pyrus Pyrifolia and Study Site

Pyrus pyrifolia has been cultivated in Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul covering an area of 1300 ha from which just 18% is cultivated following the organic farming system [31]. This field experiment was conducted in a 16-year P. pyrifolia var. Hosui field cultivated in a subtropical Acrisol [32] that follows an organic farming system at the Pirapora emprise (27°12′47.01″ S and 50°39′44.52″ W), Curitibanos, SC, Brazil, from January 2020 to June 2021. It comprises an area of 123.10 ha. The enterprise count with an area of 21.4 ha planted, included principally Pyrus pyrifolia var. Housui. The climate is type Cfb-type following Köppen-Geiger classification, with average annual precipitation and air temperature of 1676 mm and +15.0 °C, respectively [33]. Climate data, monthly rainfall, mean temperature, and thermal amplitude (monthly temperature fluctuation from maximum and minimum temperature) from the field experiment, Curitibanos, SC, Brazil (January 2020 to June 2021), were obtained online: https://ciram.epagri.sc.gov.br (accessed on 23 August 2021) (Figure 1).

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment was conducted in field conditions using a 2 × 2 factorial design with compost and mulching as the two treatment factors within four blocks. The presence and absence of mulching and compost were the studied treatments. Each treatment was tested in permanent plots (25 × 36 m), which contained 25 plants of P. pyrifolia (Figure 2).

2.3. Mulching and Compost Production

The plant material used as mulching was obtained by P. pyrifolia pruning. All mulching material were air dried for 7 days in mulching piles (1.5 × 2.0 × 5.0 m; height: width: lenght) covered by black plastic during all process. Temperature changes in mulching piles was not detected. In this study, the use of 3 kg m−2 of this material applied around the P. pyrifolia plants was tested. For compost, piles (1.5 × 1.5 × 3.0 m; height: width: length) using a mixture of chicken manure, green biomass, and cow manure (1: 2: 1 ratio) were made. Daily, compost piles were watered (e.g., 80% of field capacity), and once a week they were turned by providing oxygen inside the piles, and to reduce thermal variation preventing the piles to self-burn. The effect of using 10 kg m−2 of compost applied on the soil surface and then incorporating at 20 cm soil depth, 60 days before the flowering stage was studied. For the organic residue characterization, both compost and mulching materials were sampled from each pile. Mulching and compost piles were produced in their own experimental areas. For both studied organic residues, twenty samples were collected per organic residue, separately. Both compost and mulching samples were air-dried and passed through a 2-mm size sieve for C, N, P, and K analysis (Table 1) following Tedesco et al. [34].

2.4. Soil Chemical Characterization

Soil was collected before starting the field experiment on January 2020 using a soil auger and sampling at 0.2 m soil depth in each plot. Five soil samples were collected, nested per plot. All soil samples were air dried and passed through a 2-mm size sieve as described by Teixeira et al. [35]. The soil chemical characterization included soil pH, available phosphorous, soil exchangeable cations (K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+), soil organic carbon, and total nitrogen (Table 2). Soil pH was measured in a suspension of soil and distilled water (1:1, v:v, soil: water suspension). Available phosphorous was measured using colorimetry of the phospho-molybdic complex at 882 nm wavelength after extraction by Mehlich-1 method M-1 (0.05 mol L−1 HCl + 0.025 mol L−1 H2SO4). The potassium chloride extraction method was used to determine exchangeable Ca2+, K+, and Mg2+ [36]. Total organic carbon was estimated according to the methodology described by Teixeira et al. [35]. The total nitrogen was estimated using sulfuric acid and potassium sulfate digestion followed to a distiller by Kjeldahl’s method [35].

2.5. Organic Residues Decomposition Assay

Litterbags (10 × 10 cm) with different mesh (e.g., 4-mm2 and 15-mm2) were used to determine the organic residue decomposition rate (k, years−1). The use of litterbags with different mesh enabled us to assess: (i) macrofauna action on litter fragmentation (e.g., by the action of litter transformers on the coarse mesh); and microbiota action on litter decomposition (e.g., by the action of decomposer on the fine mesh). Each litterbag received 10 g of organic residues (e.g., mulching and compost). Hundred forty-four litterbags were placed per plot that were distributed in the central portion of each plot (e.g., sixteen litterbags around each plant). Following a 30 day-schedule, eight litterbags (e.g., two fine mesh and two coarse mesh) were collected. The last litterbags remained in field conditions for eighteen months. Litterbags were harvested and placed in individual paper bags. In the lab, the organic residues sampled in each litterbag were oven-dried at 60 °C until reaching a constant weight for 72 h, and then organic residues samples were weighed. The change in mass was used to determine the organic residues decomposition rate (k, years−1) as described by Olson [37]: X/X0 = e(−kt). Where, X is the remaining mass (g) after t years, X0 is the initial organic residues mass (g). Half-decay time (hd) and total-decay time (td) were estimated by using two nonlinear regression models that were tested for robustness. Finally, the remaining residue mass was estimated by using the following equation: Rm (%) = X/X0 × 100. Where, Rm is the remaining litter mass (%), X0 represents the initial dry mass of litter (g); X is the dry mass of the litter remaining after retrieval (g) at time t [38], and priming effect: pf = ln(X0/X). Where, pf is the priming effect, X0 is (g) is the initial organic residues mass, and X is the mass remaining.

2.6. Soil Organisms’ Collection

The Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility protocol [17,39] was used to sample soil organisms. Two Provid-type traps were placed per plot following a 2-days schedule without any interruption to collect soil organisms (e.g., Annelida, Arachnida, Insecta, Mollusca, and Myriapoda). Each trap received a solution of 100 mL of distilled water, 40 mL of neutral liquid detergent, and 15 mL of 70% alcohol. All Provid-type traps were placed six times during the whole study, but we present the mean of each studied treatment in our Section 3. The soil organisms within each trap were inserted in plastic pots containing 30 mL of 70% alcohol. All collected organisms were considered for our analysis, and they were sorted, counted, and classified at family level. The soil organism community structure was characterized by the mean abundance (individual trap−1), richness, Shannon diversity index [40], Simpson dominance index [41], and functional groups [23].

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Prior to the statistical analysis all dataset was tested for normality by Shapiro–Wilk test (“shapiro.test” function), and log transformation (“decostand” function) was applied when necessary. The entire dataset was analyzed to detect spatial autocorrelation (“Moran.I” function). All variables were analyzed with a two-way ANOVA with the main factor organic residue management, the secondary factor litter bag residue/mesh, and plot number as a random factor. Bonferroni’s test was used as the post-hoc test. To analyze differences among the organic residue management in terms of soil organism community structure we used a NMDS procedure with Jaccard dissimilarities (“metaMDS” function). The decomposition rates, half-decay time, total decay time, remaining litter mass, and ecological indices were summarized using PCA (“vegan” package) to identify possible organic residue management dissimilarities, and to reduce the n-dimensional nature of variables to two linear axes explaining all the data variance. All functions and statistical analyses were performed in R 3.4.0 [42].

3. Results

3.1. Influence of the Organic Residue Management and Soil Organisms’ Activity on Organic Residues Decomposition

The half-decay rate (hd), total-decay rate (td), and remaining residue mass (Rm) varied among the organic residue management and mesh-type in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field. The highest values of hd, td, and Rm were found in the mulching treatment with litter bags (15 mm2 size) containing mulching, and in the compost treatment with litter bags (4 mm2 size) containing mulching (Table 3).
Decomposition rate (k), and primming effect varied among the organic residue management and mesh-type in the 16-year P. pyrifolia field. The highest values of k and primming effect were found in the compost treatment with litter bags (15 mm2 size) containing compost (Figure 3).

3.2. Soil Organisms’ Collection in a 16-Year P. pyrifolia Field under Different Organic Residue Management

Nineteen taxonomical orders, and thirty-three families were identified of the soil organisms’ community (Table 4). The mean abundance of soil organisms varied significantly among organic residue management (p < 0.001). The most abundant taxonomic group was Hymenoptera—Formicidae. This taxonomic group had abundances varying from 65.65 ± 5.63 (Mulching + Compost) to 100.24 ± 7.65 (Control). The one-way ANOVA results showed significant differences among organic residue management on Acari—Acaridae, Araneae—Araneidae, Blattodea—Blattidae, Blattodea—Termitidae, Coleoptera—Cugygidae, Coleoptera—Staphylinidae, Dermaptera—Forficulidae, Diptera—Muscoidea, Gastropoda—Gymnomorpha, Gastropoda—Pulmonata, Hemiptera—Cicadidae, Neuroptera—Chrysopidae, and Strepsiptera—Halictophagidae. Control promoted the occurrence of Araneae—Araneidae, Blattodea—Termitidae, Coleoptera—Staphylinidae, and Hemiptera—Cicadidae. Then, mulching promoted the occurrence of Acari—Acaridae, Gastropoda—Pulmonata, and Strepsiptera—Halictophagidae. Next, compost promoted Coleoptera—Cugygidae, and Dermaptera—Forficulidae. Finally, compost and mulching promoted the occurrence of Blattodea—Blattidae, Diptera—Muscoidea, Gastropoda—Gymnomorpha, and Neuroptera—Chrysopidae. For ecological index, significative differences were found among organic residues management on richness, and soil organisms’ abundance. Non-significative differences were observed among organic residue management on Shannon’s diversity index, and Simpson’s dominance index (Table 4).

3.3. Multivariate Analysis

The NMDS revealed that the soil organisms’ composition varied significantly among the organic residue management. The ordination had a good fit (stress value = 0.17). Soil organisms’ composition were highly correlated with organic residue management. Acari—Acaridae, Blattodea—Blattidae, Diptera—Muscoidea, Mollusca—Pulmonata, Opiliones, and Strepsiptera—Halictophagidae explained 33, 52, 59, 37, 49, and 28 % of the variation in the soil organisms’ composition in each studied orginic residue management (Figure 4).
According to the PCA analysis, all organic residue management treatments were dissimilar. The first two axes of the overall PCA explained 80.16% of the variation in the litter decomposition data (Figure 5). The first axis explained 62.92% of variance and was positively correlated with Rm (R = 0.83, p < 0.001), and was negatively correlated with primming effect (R = −0.93, p < 0.01). The second axis explained 17.24% of the variation in litter decomposition data and was positively correlated with k (R = 0.87, p < 0.01) and was negatively correlated with td and hd (R = −0.80, p < 0.01) (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

The observed results in this study emphasize the influence of organic residue management (e.g., mulching and compost) on decomposition rate (k), half-decay rate (hd), total-decay rate (td), priming effect, remaining litter mass (Rm), and soil organisms’ community (e.g., abundance of Acari—Acaridae, Araneae—Araneidae, Blattodea—Blattidae, Blattodea—Termitidae, Coleoptera—Cugygidae, Coleoptera—Staphylinidae, Dermaptera—Forficulidae, Diptera—Muscoidea, Gastropoda—Gymnomorpha and Pulmonata, Hemiptera—Cicadidae, Neuroptera—Chrysopidae, Strepsiptera—Halictophagidae, and richness) in the 16-year field with P. pyrifolia plants cultivated in subtropical Acrisols, Southern Brazil. All organic residue management improved the decomposition rate, priming effect, and soil organisms’ activity (e.g., by the obtained results in the litterbag mesh assay) under subtropical conditions when we compared the results obtained in the organic residue management with the control treatment. These results also provide evidence about the organic decomposition mediated by soil organisms’ community.
Essentially, this study highlighted how the isolate and combined use of compost and mulching can change organic matter dynamics, soil organisms’ structure and activity, following an organic farming system schedule and preventing the use of synthetic compounds. Decomposition rate (k), half-decay time (hd), total-decay time (td), priming effect, and remaining litter mass (Rm) on plots where compost was applied were higher than their results on plots where mulching and control treatments were applied using litterbag with 4 mm2 mesh-type. On the other hand, the observed results show strong evidence about the soil organisms’ activity on mulching decomposition on plots where compost was applied using litterbag with 15 mm2 mesh-type. These results agree with the previous studies that reported positive effects of organic residues management on soil organic matter dynamics [17,43,44]. These studies have reported soil improvements, and soil organisms’ activity with the continuous use of compost and green manure practice in tropical and subtropical soils. Overtime the use of organic amendments promotes both habitat and food provision to a wide range of soil organisms that provide ecosystem services, such as organic matter decomposition, nutrient cycling, and soil food web [45,46,47].
In subtropical agroecosystems, the rate of organic residues decomposition is the main driver that regulates the nutrient cycling process and biomass production [48]. The decomposition rate (k) in this study was positively affected using compost on the studied plots. This variable was also influenced by soil organisms’ activity, since the highest values of k were found on plots that received litterbags with 15 mm2 size-mesh containing compost. The decomposition rate is directly correlated with (i) high abundance of litter transformers (e.g., Coleoptera, and Diplopoda); and (ii) organic residues quality (e.g., compost) by providing food availability to a wide range of soil organisms; and N availability [49,50,51]. Compost as a soil amendment is an interesting source of organic C, N, P, and other micronutrients [36,52], and these studies have shown an improved soil food web on plots where compost was applied, which in turns promoted organic matter dynamics.
The use of compost also provides positive influence on priming effect (e.g., which represent high nutrient availability). Compost treatment showed a higher priming effect when compared with the other studied organic residues management. The use of compost also provides positive influence on organic matter traits (e.g., hd, td, and remaining litter mass) that in turns promoted soil organisms’ activity. Several studies have reported an improved microbial activity, N cycling, nutrient release on soil solution, and soil organic C stocks [10,53,54]. These results support the hypothesis that compost can influence soil organic matter dynamics by improving decay rate, and primming effect, which in turn influence nutrient cycling, and plant nutrient supply [25,26,27]. The litterbag assay using 15 mm2 mesh-type provided evidence about the influence of soil organisms’ community on decomposition rate [19].
Inside the bags with 15 mm2 mesh-type, soil organisms classified as litter transformers (e.g., Coleoptera and Diplopoda) were found and identified. These soil organisms influence the physical fragmentation of organic residues as described by Liu et al. [55], and Liu et al. [56]. The high-quality of the organic residues used in the studied plots created positive conditions for decomposers, as we found remaining litter mass on litterbags with 4 mm2 mesh-type [17]. Here, in these bags a high abundance of red and gray fungi colonies combined with high abundance of microregulators (e.g., Acari) that feed on this fungi community was found. Unfortunately, strong evidence of the combined use of compost and mulching was not detected. This suggest that combined action of organic residues needed to be studied in a long-term schedule. In this case, just the eighteen studied months were not enough to go deeper in the ecological process behind the combined use of organic residues as direct sources of habitat and energy to the soil organisms [57,58].
Results of this study indicate that compost and mulching decomposed more easily by the hd and td results in the plots where compost, and the combination of compost and mulching were applied, respectively. The organic residues decomposition was significantly faster under the compost treatments than the control. Both half-, and total-decay rate were positively correlated to the soil organisms’ activity. Here, the action of litter transformers on organic residue fragmentation must be considered [23]. The soil organisms promote physical fragmentation of the organic residues, thus increasing their surface area on the ground, and incorporating all fragmented residues into the soil profile. This process improves the decomposer activity that promotes chemical fragmentation of the organic residues in the soil profile [59]. Decomposition rates on areas that received N-rich organic residues have been studied, however, previous studies have concerned only compost. Other studies have shown a strong influence of N-rich organic residues than organic residues with recalcitrant-rich compounds [60,61]. Similarly, Kan et al. [30] reported that hd, and td were most strongly affected by N-rich compounds, and less significantly by C-rich compounds, stage of succession, and the stage of soil formation.
In an earlier study of agroecosystem on a subtropical region, the fast N mineralization makes it available for plant uptake, and thus retuning to soil through plant senescence and litter deposition (e.g., positive feedback). In this study, the compost treatment promoted the decomposition rate of both mulching and compost in our litterbag assay. Here, the plots where the compost was previously applied have provided an energy-rich environment with labile sources for the soil organisms’ community [30]. It is commonly believed that C-rich compounds as the mulching residues are decomposed less quickly than compost, which contain more N-rich compounds and less lignin [55]. Mulching residues often contain anti-herbivory compounds such as silica, secondary compounds, and structural traits. In this condition, a trade-off among litter transformers and decomposers must be expected [11]. Thus, the hypothesis about the soil organic residues management altering the release of some C-rich compounds was supported in both cases where we have used compost and mulching. Here, strong evidence about the organic residues enhancing the soil organisms’ community was found, which in turn improved decomposition rate [17,28].
For soil organisms’ abundance and richness, plots that received mulching and the combination with mulching and compost showed the highest values of these variables. Thus, these results support the hypothesis that organic residues management that provide high input of C-rich compounds may positively affect soil organisms’ community structure by habitat provision [10,17]. The high abundance and richness presented by plots that received high amounts of C-rich compounds may be related with the mulching layer on the soil surface. Moreover, the hypothesis provided by Melo et al. [10] that in agricultural soil the soil organisms’ abundance is driven by the habitat quality, while soil organisms’ diversity is driven by organic residues with N-rich compounds cannot be excluded. These results agree with previous studies which reported that soil ecosystem with constant organic residues input increase soil organic carbon, soil nutrient contents (e.g., P, N, and micronutrients), soil food web (e.g., Arachnida, Insecta, and Myriapoda), and ecological processes (e.g., nutrient cycling, herbivory control, and litter transformation) [36,62,63]. Organic residues by providing habitat and energy supply can improve both the ecological process and energy flow in the agroecosystems, thus creating a complex soil food web in positive plant-soil feedback [63].
Compost and mulching are important organic residues to soil organisms, and these kinds of residues act as food resource and refuge site, respectively [10,64]. Soil organisms, especially Orders with significative abundance (Acari—Acaridae, Blattodea—Blattidae, Diptera—Muscoidea, Mollusca—Pulmonata, Opiliones, and Strepsiptera—Halictophagidae) were determinants in our study to separate the organic residues influence. These results agree with the previous works [65,66] that reported a diverse soil food web in the soil ecosystem that received organic residues. By altering soil organic matter compartment, organic residues may alter soil reaction and some nutrient contents and thus may be responsible for the abundance and richness of soil organisms in plots where mulching, and the combination with mulching and compost were applied [67,68]. The hypothesis that compost may promote soil organisms’ abundance was not supported. Overall, the soil organisms’ community was strongly influenced using mulching (e.g., habitat provision), whereas the decomposer was strongly influenced using compost (e.g., energy fluxes). In fact, both organic residues may enhance the trophic structure by building links among soil organisms, plant traits, and soil factors. These links are important ecological processes such as biological control, mutualism, plant-arthropod interaction, and nutrient cycling [69,70].

5. Conclusions

The organic residues management determined organic matter decomposition (half-decay rate, total-decay rate, remaining residue mass, k, primming effect), soil organisms’ abundance and richness in an Acrisol of the Southern Brazil. The use of compost showed high decomposition rate and primming effect in subtropical conditions, while the use of mulching and the combination with compost and mulching provided conditions to sustain high abundance and richness related to the soil organisms’ community. The highest values of half-decay rate, total-decay rate, remaining residue mass, k, primming effect obtained using the litter bags with 15-mm2 demonstrate the influence of soil organisms on residues decomposition. The main results observed in this manuscript suggest that organic residues have positive effects on decomposition rate of mulch and compost (e.g., improving the acceleration of organic residues decomposition), soil organisms’ activity, and soil organisms’ community composition. These results highlighted the importance of considering both residues with N- and C-rich compounds as energy source and habitat provision, respectively. Thus, long-term experiments considering the combined use of mulching and compost may exploit a deeper view inside the organic matter dynamics, and soil organisms’ role in organic residues decomposition.

Author Contributions

We declare that all the authors made substantial contributions to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. All the authors participate in drafting the article, revising it critically for important intellectual content; and finally, the authors gave final approval of the version to be submitted to Agronomy. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partly funded by the FAPESC.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank the GEBIOS (Soil Biology Research Group) for practical support. We thank the Postgraduate Program of Soil Science of the Federal University of Paraiba for facilitating the post-doc studies of the second author. Tancredo Souza is supported by a Research fellowship from FAPESQ-Brazil. Lucas Jónatan Rodrigues da Silva, and Lídia Klestadt Laurindo benefited from a scholarship provided by FAPESC and CNPq, respectively.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chavarria, D.N.; Pérez-Brandan, C.; Serri, D.L.; Meriles, J.M.; Restovich, S.B.; Andiulo, A.E.; Jacquelin, L.; Vargas-Gil, S. Response of soil microbial communities to agroecological versus conventional systems of extensive agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 264, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Da Silva, L.J.R.; Kormann, S.; Laurindo, L.K.; Barbosa, L.S.; Souza, T.A.F. O agronegócio da pera asiática no Sul do Brasil. In O Agronegócio da Pera Asiática no Sul do Brasil, 1st ed.; da Silva, L.J.R., Souza, T.A.F., Eds.; UFSC: Curitibanos, Brazil, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  3. Massaccesi, L.; Rondoni, G.; Tosti, G.; Conti, E.; Guiducci, M.; Agnelli, A. Soil functions are affected by transition from conventional to organic mulch-based cropping system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 153, 103639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wan, N.F.; Ji, X.Y.; Kiær, L.P.; Liu, S.; Deng, J.; Jiang, J.; Li, B. Ground cover increases spatial aggregation and association of insect herbivores and their predators in an agricultural landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 33, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cen, Y.; Li, L.; Guo, L.; Li, C.; Jiang, G. Organic management enhances both ecological and economic profitability of apple orchard: A case study in Shandong Peninsula. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 265, 109201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. De Leijster, V.; Verburg, R.W.; Santos, M.J.; Wassen, M.J.; Martínez-Mena, M.; de Vente, J.; Verweij, P.A. Almond farm profitability under agroecological management in south-eastern Spain: Accounting for externalities and opportunity costs. Agric. Syst. 2020, 183, 102878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zipori, I.; Dag, A.; Laor, Y.; Levy, G.L.; Einzenberg, H.; Yermiyahu, U.; Medina, S.; Saadi, I.; Krasnovski, A.; Raviv, M. Potential nutritional value of olive-mill wastewater applied to irrigated olive (Olea europaea L.) orchard in a semi-arid environment over 5 years. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 241, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barreto, C.F.; Antunes, L.E.C.; Ferreira, L.V.; Navroski, R.; Benati, J.A.; Nava, G. Nitrogen fertilization and genotypes of peaches in high-density. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2020, 42, e-629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Duan, S.; Iwanowicz, L.R.; Noguera-Oviedo, K.; Kaushal, S.S.; Rosenfeldt, E.J.; Aga, D.S.; Murthy, S. Evidence that watershed nutrient management practices effectively reduce estrogens in environmental waters. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 758, 143904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Melo, L.N.; Souza, T.A.F.; Santos, D. Cover crop farming system affect macroarthropods community diversity of Caatinga Brazil. Biologia 2019, 74, 1653–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sofo, A.; Mininni, A.N.; Ricciuti, P. Comparing the effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition and organic matter turnover in sustainably and conventionally managed olive orchards. Geoderma 2020, 372, 114393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coulis, M. Abundance, biomass, and community composition of soil saprophagous macrofauna in conventional and organic sugarcane fields. Soil Appl. Ecol. 2021, 164, 103923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, F.; He, X.; Liu, H.; Yu, K. Increased organic fertilizer application and reduced chemical fertilizer application affect the soil properties and bacterial communities of grape rhizosphere soil. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Orpet, R.J.; Jones, V.P.; Beers, E.H.; Reganold, J.P.; Goldberger, J.R.; Crowder, D.W. Perceptions and outcomes of conventional vs. organic apple orchard management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 289, 106723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rieff, G.G.; Natal-da-Luz, T.; Renaud, M.; Azevedo-Pereira, H.M.V.S.; Chichorro, F.; Schmelz, R.M.; de Sá, E.L.S.; Sousa, J.P. Impact of no-tillage versus conventional maize plantation on soil mesofauna with and without the use of a lambda-cyhalothrin based insecticide: A terrestrial model ecosystem experiment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Libutti, A.; Cammerino, A.R.B.; Monteleone, M. Management of Residues from Fruit Tree Pruning: A Trade-Off between Soil Quality and Energy Use. Agronomy 2021, 11, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Forstall-Sosa, K.S.; Souza, T.A.F.; Lucena, E.O.; da Silva, S.A.I.; Ferreira, J.T.A.; Silva, T.N.; Santos, D.; Niemeyer, J.C. Soil macroarthropod community and soil biological quality index in a green manure farming system of the Brazilian semi-arid. Biologia 2020, 76, 907–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jacobsen, S.K.; Moraes, G.J.; Sørensen, H.; Sigsgaard, L. Organic cropping practice decreases pest abundance and positively influences predator-prey interactions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 272, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, F.; Sørensen, P.; Li, X.; Olesen, J.E. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization differ between incorporated shoots and roots of legume versus non-legume-based cover crops. Plant Soil 2020, 446, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kai, T.; Adhikari, D. Effect of Organic and Chemical Fertilizer Application on Apple Nutrient Content and Orchard Soil Condition. Agriculture 2021, 11, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Popov, V.; Kostadinova, E.; Rancheva, E.; Yancheva, C. Causal relationship between biodiversity of insect population and agro-management in organic and conventional apple orchard. Org. Agr. 2018, 8, 355–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, B.; Banerjee, S.; Herzong, C.; Ramírez, C.; Dahlin, P.; van der Heijden, G.A. Impact of land use type and organic farming on the abundance, diversity, community composition and functional properties of soil nematode communities in vegetable farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 318, 107488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Souza, T.A.F.; Freitas, H. Long-term effects of fertilization on soil organism diversity. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Gaba, S., Smith, B., Lichtfouse, E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 211–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, K.; Maltais-Landy, G.; Liao, H. How soil biota regulate C cycling and soil C pools in diversified crop rotations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 156, 108219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Araújo, M.D.M.; Feitosa, M.M.; Primo, A.A.; Taniguchi, C.A.K.; Souza HA, D. Mineralization of nitrogen and carbon from organic compost from animal production waste. Rev. Caatinga 2020, 33, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, M.; Qiao, N.; Xu, X.; Fang, H.; Wang, H.; Kuzyakov, Y. C: N stoichiometry of stable and labile organic compounds determine priming patterns. Geoderma 2020, 362, 114122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Anjum; Khan, A. Decomposition of soil organic matter is modulated by soil amendments. Carbon Manag. 2021, 12, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tian, K.; Kong, X.; Yuan, L.; Lin, H.; He, Z.; Yao, B.; Ji, Y.; Yang, J.; Sun, S.; Tian, X. Priming effect of litter mineralization: The role of root exudate depends on its interactions with litter quality and soil condition. Plant Soil 2019, 440, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Baldi, E.; Gioacchini, P.; Montecchio, D.; Mocali, S.; Antonielli, L.; Masoero, G.; Toselli, M. Effect of biofertilizers application on soil biodiversity and litter degradation in a commercial apricot orchard. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kan, Z.; Virk, A.L.; Wu, G.; Qi, J.; Ma, S.; Wang, X.; Zhao, X.; Lal, R.; Zhang, H. Priming effect intensity of soil organic carbon mineralization under no-till and residue retention. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. FAOSTAT—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics. Production/Yield Quantities of Pears in Brazil. 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  32. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports, 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Laurindo, L.K.; Souza, T.A.F.; Silva, L.J.R.; Kormann, S.; Lucena, E.O. Propriedades químicas do solo. In Indicadores da Qualidade do Solo em Sistemas Agroflorestais e Ecossistemas Associados, 1st ed.; Laurindo, L.K., Souza, T.A.F., Eds.; PPGEAN: Curitibanos, Brazil, 2020; pp. 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tedesco, M.J.; Gianello, C.; Bissani, C.A.; Bohnen, H.; Volkweiss, S.J. Análise do Solo, Planta e Outros Materiais, 2nd ed.; UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1995; 174p. [Google Scholar]
  35. Teixeira, P.C.; Donagemma, G.K.; Fontana, A.; Teixeira, W.G. Manual de Métodos de Análise Do Solo; Embrapa Solos: Brasília, Brasil, 2017; 212p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nascimento, G.S.; Souza, T.A.F.; da Silva, L.J.R.; Santos, D. Soil physico-chemical properties, biomass production, and root density in a green manure farming system from tropical ecosystem, North-eastern Brazil. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 2203–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Olson, J.S. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 1963, 44, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Tan, B.; Yin, R.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Z.; Liu, Y.; He, S.; Zhang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, L.; Liu, S.; et al. Temperature and Moisture Modulate the Contribution of Soil Fauna to Litter Decomposition via Different Pathways. Ecosystems 2021, 24, 1142–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Anderson, J.N.; Ingram, J.S.I. Tropical Solo Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shannon, C.E.; Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Simpson, E.H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 23 August 2021).
  43. Asigbaase, M.; Dawoe, E.; Sjogersten, S.; Lomax, B.H. Decomposition and nutrient mineralisation of leaf litter in smallholder cocoa agroforests: A comparison of organic and conventional farms in Ghana. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 1010–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tassinari, A.; da Silva, L.O.S.; Drescher, G.L.; de Oliveira, R.A.; Baldi, E.; de Melo, G.W.B.; Zalamena, J.; Mayer, N.A.; Giacomini, S.J.; Carranca, C.L.A.F.; et al. Contribution of Cover Crop Residue Decomposition to Peach Tree Nitrogen Nutrition. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 2124–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gonçalves, F.; Nunes, C.; Carlos, C.; López, A.; Oliveira, I.; Crespi, A.; Teixeira, B.; Pinto, R.; Costa, C.A.; Torres, L. Do soil management practices affect the activity density, diversity, and stability of soil arthropods in vineyards? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 294, 106863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kitamura, A.E.; Tavares, R.L.M.; Alves, M.C.; de Souza, Z.M.; Siqueira, D.S. Soil macrofauna as bioindicator of the recovery of degraded Cerrado soil. Soil Sci. 2020, 50, e20190606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Geldenhuys, M.; Gaigher, R.; Pryke, J.S.; Samways, M.J. Diverse herbaceous cover crops promote vineyard arthropod diversity across different management regimes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 307, 107222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, Y.; Liu, B.; An, S. Ecological stoichiometry in leaves, roots, litters and soil among different plant communities in a desertified region of Northern China. Catena 2018, 166, 238–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maran, A.M.; Weintraub, M.N.; Pelini, S.L. Does stimulating ground arthropods enhance nutrient cycling in conventionally managed corn fields? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 297, 106934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Almagro, M.; Ruiz-Navaro, A.; Diaz-Pereira, E.; Albaladejo, J.; Martínez-Mena, M. Plant residue chemical quality modulates the soil microbial response related to decomposition and soil organic carbon and nitrogen stabilization in a rainfed Mediterranean agroecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 156, 108198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Long, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, J.; Liao, H.; Wang, X. Soil macro- and mesofauna-mediated litter decomposition in a subtropical karst forest. Biotropica 2021, 53, 1465–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shang, L.; Wan, L.; Zhou, X.; Li, S.; Li, X. Effects of organic fertilizer on soil nutrient status, enzyme activity, and bacterial community diversity in Leymus chinensis steppe in Inner Mongolia, China. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jones, J.; Savin, M.C.; Rom, C.R.; Gbur, E. Soil microbial and nutrient responses over seven years of organic apple orchard maturation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020, 118, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thakur, M.; Kumar, R. Mulching: Boosting crop productivity and improving soil environment in herbal plants. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2020, 20, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, Y.; Wang, L.; He, R.; Chen, Y.; Xu, Z.; Tan, B.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, J.; Zhu, P.; Chen, L.; et al. Higher soil fauna abundance accelerates litter carbon release across an alpine forest-tundra ecotone. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, S.; Behm, J.E.; Wan, S.; Yan, J.; Ye, Q.; Zhang, W.; Yang, X.; Fu, S. Effects of canopy nitrogen addition on soil fauna and litter decomposition rate in a temperate forest and a subtropical forest. Geoderma 2021, 389, 114703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Plaas, E.; Meyer-Wolfarth, F.; Banse, M.; Bengtsson, J.; Bergmann, H.; Faber, J.; Potthoff, M.; Runge, T.; Schrader, S.; Taylor, A. Towards valuation of biodiversity in agricultural soils: A case for earthworms. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mockeviciene, I.; Repsiene, R.; Amaleviciute-Volunge, K.; Karcauskiene, D.; Slepetiene, A.; Lepane, V. Effect of long-term application of organic fertilizers on improving organic matter quality in acid soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2021, 195, e104382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Frouz, J. Effects of soil macro- and mesofauna on litter decomposition and soil organic matter stabilization. Geoderma 2018, 332, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sharma, S.; Singh, P.; Choudhary, O.P.; Neemisha. Nitrogen and rice straw incorporation impact nitrogen use efficiency, soil nitrogen pools and enzyme activity in rice-wheat system in north-western India. Field Crops Res. 2021, 266, 108131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mariotte, P.; Mehrabi, Z.; Bezemer, T.M.; de Deyn, G.B.; Kulmastiski, A.; Drigo, B.; Veen, C.; Van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Kardol, P. Plant–Soil Feedback. Bridg. Nat. Agric. Sci. 2018, 33, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Vignozzi, N.; Angelli, A.E.; Brandi, G.; Gagnarli, E.; Goggiolo, D.; Lagomarsino, A.; Pellegrini, S.; Simoncini, S.; Valboa, G.; Caruso, G.; et al. Soil ecosystem functions in a high-density olive orchard managed by different soil conservation practices. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 134, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. De Pedro, L.; Perera-Fernández, L.G.; López-Gallego, E.; Pérez-Marcos, M.; Sanchez, J.Á. The effect of cover crops on the biodiversity and abundance of ground-dwelling arthropods in a mediterranean pear orchard. Agronomy 2020, 10, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Gómez, J.A.; Campos, M.; Guzmán, G.; Castillo-Llanque, F.; Vanwalleghem, T.; Lora, A.; Giráldez, J.V. Soil erosion control, plant diversity, and arthropod communities under heterogeneous cover crops in an olive orchard. Environ. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Bufebo, B.; Elias, E.; Getu, E. Abundance and diversity of soil invertebrate macro-fauna in different land uses at Shenkolla watershed, South Central Ethiopia. J. Basic Appl. Zool. 2021, 82, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Simoni, S.; Caruso, G.; Vignozzi, N.; Gucci, R.; Valboa, G.; Pellegrini, S.; Palai, G.; Goggioli, D.; Gagnarli, E. Effect of Long-Term Soil Management Practices on Tree Growth, Yield and Soil Biodiversity in a High-Density Olive Agro-Ecosystem. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, S.; Song, M.; Jing, S. Effects of different carbon inputs on soil nematode abundance and community composition. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 163, 103915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Galloway, A.D.; Seymour, C.L.; Gaigher, R.; Pryke, J.S. Organic farming promotes arthropod predators, but this depends on neighbouring patches of natural vegetation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 310, 107295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mabin, M.D.; Welty, C.; Gardiner, M.M. Predator richness predicts pest suppression within organic and conventional summer squash (Cucurbita pepo L. Cucurbitales: Cucurbitaceae). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 287, 106689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, M.; Yu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wu, P.; Axmacher, J.C. Taxon- and functional group-specific responses of ground beetles and spiders to landscape complexity and management intensity in apple orchards of the North China Plain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 323, 107700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 00263 g001 550
Figure 1. Monthly precipitation (mm), air temperature (°C), and thermal amplitude (°C) from the field experiment, Curitibanos, SC, Brazil (January 2020 to June 2021). Data were obtained online: https://ciram.epagri.sc.gov.br (accessed on 23 August 2021).
Figure 1. Monthly precipitation (mm), air temperature (°C), and thermal amplitude (°C) from the field experiment, Curitibanos, SC, Brazil (January 2020 to June 2021). Data were obtained online: https://ciram.epagri.sc.gov.br (accessed on 23 August 2021).
Agronomy 12 00263 g001
Agronomy 12 00263 g002 550
Figure 2. Experimental scheme of the field study inside a 16-year P. pyrifolia field using different organic residues management in a subtropical ecosystem, Curitibanos, SC, Southern Brazil.
Figure 2. Experimental scheme of the field study inside a 16-year P. pyrifolia field using different organic residues management in a subtropical ecosystem, Curitibanos, SC, Southern Brazil.
Agronomy 12 00263 g002
Agronomy 12 00263 g003 550
Figure 3. Decomposition rate (k, years−1, A), and primming effect (B) as affected by different organic residues management and litterbag mesh-type in a subtropical ecosystem, Curitibanos, SC, Southern Brazil. Different small letters in each organic residue management differ by Bonferroni’s test (p < 0.05), while different capital letters in each litterbag mesh-type differ by Bonferroni’s test (p < 0.05). The decomposition rate was adjusted by multiplication by 10.
Figure 3. Decomposition rate (k, years−1, A), and primming effect (B) as affected by different organic residues management and litterbag mesh-type in a subtropical ecosystem, Curitibanos, SC, Southern Brazil. Different small letters in each organic residue management differ by Bonferroni’s test (p < 0.05), while different capital letters in each litterbag mesh-type differ by Bonferroni’s test (p < 0.05). The decomposition rate was adjusted by multiplication by 10.
Agronomy 12 00263 g003
Agronomy 12 00263 g004 550
Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on soil organisms’ composition among the studied organic residue management in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field. Organic residue management are represented as follows: Control = circles; mulching = squares; compost = hexagon; and compost plus mulching = triangles.
Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on soil organisms’ composition among the studied organic residue management in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field. Organic residue management are represented as follows: Control = circles; mulching = squares; compost = hexagon; and compost plus mulching = triangles.
Agronomy 12 00263 g004
Agronomy 12 00263 g005 550
Figure 5. Principal component analysis (PCA) for the litter decomposition data (Primming effect, k, hd, td, and Rm) of different organic residue management. For analysis, primming effect, k, hd (half-decay rate), td (total decay rate), and remaining litter mass (Rm) were included. Organic residue managements are represented as follows: Control = circles; Mulching = squares; Compost = hexagon; and Compost plus mulching = triangles. Only significant vectors are shown (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Principal component analysis (PCA) for the litter decomposition data (Primming effect, k, hd, td, and Rm) of different organic residue management. For analysis, primming effect, k, hd (half-decay rate), td (total decay rate), and remaining litter mass (Rm) were included. Organic residue managements are represented as follows: Control = circles; Mulching = squares; Compost = hexagon; and Compost plus mulching = triangles. Only significant vectors are shown (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 12 00263 g005
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition (N, P, and K) of the organic residues used in the field experiment.
Table 1. Chemical composition (N, P, and K) of the organic residues used in the field experiment.
Organic ResiduesC/N RatioN (g kg−1)P (g kg−1)K (g kg−1)
Mulching45.85 ± 0.98 18.52 ± 1.1213.87 ± 1.3486.68 ± 4.23
Compost21.13 ± 1.0220.84 ± 1.1816.18 ± 1.3731.18 ± 4.39
1 Vales are given as mean and standard deviation (n = 20).
Table
Table 2. Soil chemical properties of before to start the field experiment (mean, n = 192) in a 16-year P. pyrifolia plantation, Curitibanos, SC, Brazil.
Table 2. Soil chemical properties of before to start the field experiment (mean, n = 192) in a 16-year P. pyrifolia plantation, Curitibanos, SC, Brazil.
TreatmentspH (H2O)P (mg dm−3)K+ (mg dm−3)Ca2+ (cmolc dm−3)Mg2+ (cmolc dm−3)SOC 1 (g kg−1)TN 2 (g kg−1)
Control6.28 ± 0.0330.22 ± 1.04408.23 ± 2.3210.28 ± 0.083.08 ± 0.0230.59 ± 2.341.62 ± 0.08
Mulching (M)6.35 ± 0.0348.98 ± 1.29461.30 ± 2.0911.88 ± 0.083.06 ± 0.0330.59 ± 1.991.81 ± 0.05
Compost (C)6.15 ± 0.0235.07 ± 1.27326.31 ± 1.9910.96 ± 0.053.26 ± 0.0227.98 ± 2.111.80 ± 0.06
M + C6.23 ± 0.0443.12 ± 1.39576.92 ± 2.0510.36 ± 0.092.92 ± 0.0330.16 ± 2.101.78 ± 0.02
1 SOC = Soil organic carbon. 2 TN = Total nitrogen.
Table
Table 3. Half-decay time (hd, days), total-decay time (td, days), and remaining litter mass (Rm, %) among the organic residues influence and litterbag mesh-type in a subtropical ecosystem, Curitibanos, SC, Southern Brazil.
Table 3. Half-decay time (hd, days), total-decay time (td, days), and remaining litter mass (Rm, %) among the organic residues influence and litterbag mesh-type in a subtropical ecosystem, Curitibanos, SC, Southern Brazil.
Organic Residues ManagementMesh—Type
hd (Days)
Compost, 4 mm2Compost, 15 mm2Mulching, 4 mm2Mulching, 15 mm2
Control50.86 (0.59) cA 161.61 (2.64) bA86.03 (0.67) aB86.88 (2.56) aB
Mulching (M)47.88 (1.21) cB 237.28 (0.76) dB81.00 (0.90) bB105.21 (1.53) aA
Compost (C)44.72 (0.39) bB27.54 (0.45) cC132.25 (9.64) aA45.77 (0.53) bC
M + C35.12 (0.36) bC30.97 (0.21) bC64.43 (0.58) aC53.84 (0.78) aC
td (days)
Control308.99 (9.44) bA374.33 (19.58) bA522.64 (15.25) aB527.83 (21.80) aB
Mulching (M)290.92 (10.76) cA226.48 (7.95) cB492.11 (14.93) bB637.79 (19.61) aA
Compost (C)274.05 (9.16) bB167.31 (5.48) cC806.88 (6.56) aA275.71 (7.23) bC
M + C213.19 (6.41) bC188.18 (5.44) cC391.42 (11.57) aC327.07 (10.40) aC
Rm (%)
Control19.75 (0.31) cA24.85 (1.47) bA38.35 (0.16) aB37.59 (0.10) aB
Mulching (M)17.75 (0.68) cA11.05 (0.46) cB36.05 (0.34) bB45.42 (0.45) aA
Compost (C)15.87 (0.26) bA5.15 (0.22) cB43.42 (2.86) aA16.47 (0.20) bC
M + C9.60 (0.18) bB7.00 (0.04) bB27.80 (0.23) aC21.55 (0.43) aC
1 Different small letters in each line differ by Bonferroni’s test (p < 0.05), whereas different capital letters in each row considering the organic residues management differ by the same post-hoc test. 2 Mean values (n = 144 per plot) followed by the standard deviation in parenthesis.
Table
Table 4. Mean abundance (ind. trap−1) of soil organisms’ taxonomic groups, and ecological indexes among the studied organic residue management in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field.
Table 4. Mean abundance (ind. trap−1) of soil organisms’ taxonomic groups, and ecological indexes among the studied organic residue management in a 16-year P. pyrifolia field.
Order—FamilyControlMulching (M)Compost (C)M + CF-Value
Acari—Acaridae0.62 (0.11) b 11.75 (0.21) a0.12 (0.03) c0.50 (0.07) b10.62 *** 2
Araneae—Araneidae2.25 (0.15) a1.50 (0.13) b0.87 (0.10) d1.12 (0.10) c8.25 ** 3
Araneae—Filistatidae4.62 (0.26) a5.25 (0.38) a4.37 (0.19) a5.75 (0.22) a3.07 ns 4
Blattodea—Blattidae-0.50 (0.05) b0.37 (0.05) c0.62 (0.07) a11.83 ***
Blattodea—Termitidae0.37 (0.05) a0.12 (0.03) b--13.50 ***
Coleoptera—Carabidae15.75 (1.49) a12.37 (0.98) a15.00 (0.99) a13.87 (1.76) a2.00 ns
Coleoptera—Cerambycidae0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a-0.12 (0.03) a2.17 ns
Coleoptera—Cuccilinidae-0.12 (0.03) a--6.09 ns
Coleoptera—Cugygidae-0.12 (0.03) b0.25 (0.04) a-7.96 **
Coleoptera—Gyrinidae-0.12 (0.03) a0.37 (0.07) a0.12 (0.03) a4.77 ns
Coleoptera—Nitidulidae34.37 (1.22) a32.50 (1.15) a33.75 (1.04) a44.87 (2.13) a4.41 ns
Coleoptera—Passalidae0.12 (0.03) a---6.09 ns
Coleoptera—Scarabaeidae7.37 (0.58) a8.62 (0.92) a9.37 (0.93) a3.75 (0.25) a4.42 ns
Coleoptera—Staphylinidae2.12 (0.33) a1.12 (0.16) c0.25 (0.04) d1.87 (0.22) b10.07 ***
Dermaptera—Forficulidae1.87 (0.15) d3.50 (0.22) b7.50 (0.70) a2.50 (0.12) c9.96 ***
Diptera—Muscoidea1.12 (0.27) d2.37 (0.23) c3.00 (0.23) b3.37 (0.27) a10.51 ***
Gastropoda—Gymnomorpha0.62 (0.07) c1.50 (0.13) b1.62 (0.16) a1.75 (0.11) a8.75 **
Gastropoda—Pulmonata1.37 (0.14) b2.37 (0.47) a0.12 (0.03) d1.87 (0.22) c10.87 ***
Haplotaxida—Lumbricidae0.62 (0.08) a1.12 (0.08) a1.00 (0.14) a0.37 (0.05) a7.11 ns
Hemiptera—Cicadidae0.37 (0.05) a--0.12 (0.03) b13.50 ***
Hemiptera—Pentatomidae0.12 (0.03) a---6.09 ns
Hymenoptera—Formicidae100.24 (7.65) a68.25 (3.35) a67.27 (4.57) a65.65 (5.63) a3.32 ns
Hymenoptera—Vespidae0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a-0.12 (0.03) a2.17 ns
Larvae of Lepidoptera5.87 (0.45) a3.12 (0.28) a8.00 (0.59) a8.25 (0.79) a6.94 ns
Lepidoptera0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a0.25 (0.04) a1.40 ns
Mollusca—Pulmonata0.50 (0.05) a0.62 (0.07) a0.25 (0.04) a0.62 (0.07) a3.50 ns
Neuroptera—Chrysopidae-0.25 (0.06) b-0.37 (0.07) a7.77 **
Orthoptera—Grylloidea0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a--4.20 ns
Opiliones0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a0.25 (0.04) a0.12 (0.03) a1.40 ns
Scutigeromorpha—Scutigeridae-0.12 (0.03) a0.12 (0.03) a-4.20 ns
Spirobolida—Scolopendromorpha0.12 (0.03) a---6.09 ns
Strepsiptera—Halictophagidae-1.87 (0.20) a1.62 (0.25) b1.25 (0.17) c12.51 ***
Thysanoptera—Thripidae3.00 (0.92) a3.75 (0.38) a6.62 (0.67) a(4.75 ± 0.46) a4.88 ns
Ecological indicesControlMulching (M)Compost (C)M + CF-value
Richness—S17.75 (0.26) b19.87 (0.15) a17.50 (0.19) c19.37 (0.23) a11.28 ***
Shannon’s diversity index—H2.00 (0.05) a2.14 (0.03) a2.15 (0.04) a2.08 (0.04) a5.06 ns
Simpson’s dominance index—C0.81 (0.05) a0.83 (0.03) a0.84 (0.04) a0.82 (0.05) a5.58 ns
1 Within organic residue management, same letters represent no significant differences by Bonferroni’s test (p < 0.05); 2 *** p < 0.001; 3 ** p < 0.01; 4 ns not significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodrigues da Silva, L.J.; Feitosa de Souza, T.A.; Klestadt Laurindo, L.; Freitas, H.; Costa Campos, M.C. Decomposition Rate of Organic Residues and Soil Organisms’ Abundance in a Subtropical Pyrus pyrifolia Field. Agronomy 2022, 12, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020263

AMA Style

Rodrigues da Silva LJ, Feitosa de Souza TA, Klestadt Laurindo L, Freitas H, Costa Campos MC. Decomposition Rate of Organic Residues and Soil Organisms’ Abundance in a Subtropical Pyrus pyrifolia Field. Agronomy. 2022; 12(2):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020263

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodrigues da Silva, Lucas Jónatan, Tancredo Augusto Feitosa de Souza, Lídia Klestadt Laurindo, Helena Freitas, and Milton César Costa Campos. 2022. "Decomposition Rate of Organic Residues and Soil Organisms’ Abundance in a Subtropical Pyrus pyrifolia Field" Agronomy 12, no. 2: 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020263

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