Abstract
Objective. To measure the enzymatic activity of typical chornozems in different farming systems for a better understanding of the features of soil formation processes in agrogenic soils. Methods. Comparative-profile-genetic, soil spring method, field, microbiological (measuring catalase, invertase, urease, dehydrogenase, protease, cellulase enzymatic activity), statistical. Results. During the study of typical chornozems during 2018–2020, the lowest activity of enzymes was recorded in the 0–10-centimeter soil layer of the humus horizon under an intensive farming system. Under the conditions of organic farming, an increase in the activity parameters of catalase, invertase, dehydrogenase, protease and urease was noted compared to the intensive system of farming. The use of green manure (spring vetch) contributed to a more significant increase in the activity of soil enzymes compared to the results obtained with the application of compost. On average, chornozem of the layland area is characterized by the highest activity of soil enzymes: catalase activity ranged from 4.4 to 5.6 cm3 O2 per 1 g of soil in 1 min, invertase activity — from 9.4 to 35.8 mg of glucose per 1 g of soil per day, ureases — from 10.5 to 14.6 mg of NH3 per 10 g of soil per day, dehydrogenases — from 4.7 to 12.4 mg of TPP per 10 g of soil per day, proteases — from 2.0 to 22.0 mg of glycine per 1 g of soil per day, cellulase — from 1.9 to 6.4 μg of glucose per 1 g of soil. Conclusion. Analysis of variance shows a significant influence of the farming system and the depth of sampling on the activity of soil enzymes. Agrogenic soils are characterized by lower activity of such enzymes as protease, invertase, cellulase and dehydrogenase compared to layland chornozem, however, the activity of urease and catalase increases significantly under the conditions of organic farming. Organic farming has a positive effect on the enzymatic activity of typical chornozems compared to the traditional (intensive) system.
Publisher
Institute of Agrocultural Microbiology and Agro-industrial Manufacture of NAAS of Ukraine
Reference30 articles.
1. Patyka, V. P., & Simochko, L. Yu. (2013). Mikrobiolohichnyy monitorynh gruntu pryrodnykh ta transformovanykh ekosystem Zakarpattya Ukrayiny [Microbiological soil monitoring of natural and transformed ecosystems of Transcarpathia of Ukraine]. Mikrobiolohichnyy zhurnal — Microbiological Journal, 2, 21–31 [in Ukrainian].
2. Andreyuk, K. I., Iutynska, G. O., Antipchuk, A. F., Valahurova, O. V., & Kozyrytska, V. Ye. (2001). Funktsionuvannya mikrobnykh tsenoziv v umovakh antropohennoho navantazhennya [Functioning of microbial coenoses under conditions of anthropogenic load]. Kyiv: Oberegy [in Ukrainian].
3. Sherstoboyeva, O. V., Demyanyuk, O. S., & Chabanyuk, Y. V. (2017). Biodiahnostyka i biobezpeka gruntiv ahroekosystem [Biodiagnostics and biosafety of soils of agroecosystems]. Ahroekolohichnyy zhurnal — Agroecological journal, 2, 142– 148. https://doi.org/10.33730/2077-4893.2.2017.220 170 [in Ukrainian].
4. Wołejko, E., Jabłońska-Trypuć, A., Wydro, U., Butarewicz, A., & Łozowicka, B. (2020). Soil biological activity as an indicator of soil pollution with pesticides — A review. Applied Soil Ecology, 147. 103356 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019. 09.006.
5. Marcos, M. S., & Olivera, N. L. (2016). Microbiological and Biochemical Indicators for Assessing Soil Quality in Drylands from Patagonia. Biology and Biotechnology of Patagonian Microorganisms: collective monograph. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42801-7_6