You are on page 1of 114

Agricultural Management Effects on Soil Microbial Dynamic Under Peanut Cropping Systems in Semi-Arid Soil

By Brandon Melester, B.S. A Thesis In MICROBIOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Dr. John C. Zak Chair of Committee Dr. Veronica Acosta-Martinez

Dr. Michael San Francisco

Dr. Fred Hartmeister Dean of the Graduate School

August, 2010

Copyright 2010, Brandon Melester

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ vii

I.

INTRODUCTION TO MICROBIAL DYNAMICS, MICROBIAL EVALUATION AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES .......................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Arbuscular Mycorrhiza ................................................................................................. 1 Microbial Communities ................................................................................................ 4 Microbial Biomass ........................................................................................................ 5 FAME ........................................................................................................................... 5 Soil Enzymes ................................................................................................................ 6 Tillage ........................................................................................................................... 7 Objectives and Hypothesis ............................................................................................ 8 References ......................................................................................................................... 11 EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN A SEMI-ARID AGROECOSYSTEM ON SOIL MICROBIAL BIOMASS AND MICROBIAL COMPOSITION ...................................................................................................... 16 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 16 Methods............................................................................................................................. 18 Plot Design ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Crop Management Treatments .................................................................................... 20 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 20 Microbial Biomass Carbon ......................................................................................... 20 Microbial Community Structure ................................................................................. 21 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 22

II.

ii

..................................................... 67 Effects of Irrigation .......... 67 Response to nitrogen application ............................................................................................... 54 Crop Management Treatments ................ 28 Tillage .................................................. 30 References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Influences between MBC.................... nutrients.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Effects of Nitrogen on MBC ................................................................................ EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN A SEMI-ARID AGROECOSYSTEM ON SOIL MICROBIAL ENZYMATIC ACTIVITY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Discussion ........ 57 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Influence of nutrient and other enzymes .................................................................................................................................. 70 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 58 Effects of Nitrogen .......................................................................... 70 References ............................ 65 Changes in key nutrient levels ................ 50 Methods.. 24 Changes in field conditions ............................................................................................................................ 68 Response to tillage type ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 57 Results .. 65 Correlations between enzyme activity levels ....... and enzymatic activities .................................................................................................................................... August 2010 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Enzyme Assays ........................................................................ 62 Combined enzymatic and nutrient effect .......................................... 25 Temporal changes in MBC ....................................... Brandon Melester................... 29 Irrigation ................................ 58 Effect of Irrigation ...................................................................... 56 Sampling ............................................Texas Tech University........................................................... 50 Introduction .................................................................................... 30 Soil characteristics and seasonal variation ......................... 64 Effect of nutrients ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Effects of Irrigation on MBC ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Tillage Effects ............................... 73 iii ................................ 28 Nitrogen ............... 32 III................................................................ 23 Effects of Tillage on MBC................................................ 25 FAME ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Plot Design ................................................

Microbial Biomass Carbon and Fatty Acid methyl Ester analysis were used to examine how these managements practices affected the soil microbe structure and composition. Currently.Texas Tech University. over 320. Understanding the interactions between management practices and the soil microbiota will be a key component in developing the best system to maximize crop productivity while decreasing soil inputs. August 2010 ABSTRACT Recent agricultural practices have been shifting towards low-input sustainable systems as it’s becoming more evident that the cost and negative side effects associated with current agricultural practices are becoming increasingly too great. The soil microbial biota has tremendous influence on the overall soil quality.000 tons are produced annually in the south plains. Brandon Melester. Soil quality and the sustainability of agroecosystems are greatly reliant on the activity and diversity of the soil microbial community and the processes they facilitate. West Texas produces more peanuts than any other area of the Unite States outside of Georgia. and irrigation management within a peanut cropping system in West Texas were examined over a two year study to determine the effects they had on structural and functional microbial dynamics. nitrogen. In order to improve those numbers without increasing input. The effects of tillage. Enzyme iv . it will be imperative to understand how agricultural management affects soil quality and microbial dynamics. As much of our current agriculture occurs in semi-arid regions of the United States increasing attention is being focused on management practices that decrease water consumption along with decreasing overall energy inputs.

These results indicate that crop management decisions will have consequences that either maintain the activity and diversity of the soil microbial community or alter composition and activity such that great inputs of energy are needed to compensate for the loss of microbial dynamics. August 2010 assays of phosphodiesterase. The results indicated that while there was no significant effect on microbial biomass carbon. β-glucosidase. Irrigation reductions were shown to produce “hangover effects” in which microbial activity. and α-galactosidase were made over the two year period to determine the effect of agricultural management on soil microbe functioning. Reduction in bacterial abundance was shown to be associated with nitrogen addition. Full Irrigation significantly increases β-glucosidase activity. and MBC. bacterial abundance. Brandon Melester. biomass and abundance not only decreased during the irrigation reduction but were also lower in subsequent seasons. Nitrogen had differential effects on microbial dynamics. v . alkaline phosphatase.Texas Tech University. It was concluded that strip-tillage would be ideal for these systems due to lower cost and less disturbance while producing the same benefit. β-glucosaminidase. Tillage was not shown to have any effect on the structural or functional microbial dynamics. nitrogen addition did have differential effects on enzymatic activity.

.... Correlation matrix comparing soil extractable nutrients to Microbial Biomass Carbon ................3........................................................................... P-values for comparisons of the three different irrigation treatments effects on soil extracellular enzyme activity ...................................................2. Correlation matrix between interactions of soil enzymes and soil nutrients .......................................... August 2010 LIST OF TABLES 2......................... Correlation matrix between all extracellular soil enzymes effects on each other . Brandon Melester.............. 78 vi ....... 35 2....2. 35 3.......Texas Tech University.................................. Correlation matrix comparing soil extracellular enzymes to Microbial Biomass Carbon ...............1.... 77 3.................. 76 3..........1..........................

...........2..7................................................................. 42 2.............................. 41 2........... Monthly changes in nutrient dynamics and microbial functionality (a) Discriminate function analysis ..............................6.........36 2..................................... 45 2................................................. The effect of late season drought compared to full irrigation on Microbial Biomass Carbon (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasons .................................6........ 37 2............13......Texas Tech University...8................................................. Relative bacterial and fungal abundances (a) Seasonal totals for bacteria and fungi abundance (b) Seasonal Fungi:Bacteria ratio .....................12...... The effect of all irrigation levels on Microbial Biomass Carbon (a) 2008 (b) Seasons....................................................................................... Effects of nitrogen on relative bacteria abundances (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal .........3............................................................................ The effect of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage on Microbial Biomass Carbon (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasons ......................................................................... Effects of irrigation on relative Gram-positive bacteria abundance (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal .....9................................ 44 2.... August 2010 LIST OF FIGURES 2....................10................................................................. 38 2........ Brandon Melester........ The effect of nitrogen on Microbial Biomass Carbon (a) 2007 (b) Seasons. 47 2............................................5........................... Changes in Microbial Biomass Carbon across growing seasons 2007-2008 (a) Seasonal (b) Monthly (c) Extended Months .......11................................................................................... 48 2.......................................... 43 2..... Monthly changes in nutrient dynamics and microbial functionality (b) Vector correlations .....................4........ 40 2................................................... Effects of nitrogen on relative fungi abundance (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal ............ 46 2................................................................................................ Effects of irrigation on relative Gram-negative bacteria abundance (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ..................... 39 2.... Relative bacteria and fungi groups abundances (a) Fungal groups (b) Bacterial groups ...........................................1.. 49 vii ............................... Plot design of study site (2007) ..........

.......................................... 90 3.........................................................86 3................................................................85 3......................................................................................................................................... Effects of irrigation of phosphodiesterase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ....................... Brandon Melester............. Effect of irrigation on β-glucosaminidase activity 3...........................2............................................9.......... Effect of nitrogen on alkaline phosphatase activity (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal ...........................................92 3.....................14.....................87 3.........5.......... Effect of nitrogen on phosphodiesterase activity (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal ................................................... Comparison of 3 irrigation levels on collective enzyme activity (a) Discriminate function analysis (b) Vector correlations .................................................. Effects of irrigation on α-galactosidase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal .........................................................................................12......................... 89 3........................ Seasonal nitrogen effect on collective enzyme activity (b) Vector correlations ..... Effect of nitrogen on β-glucosidase activity (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal ..........................14.......................... Seasonal nitrogen effect on collective enzyme activity (a) Discriminate function analysis ................................................................6.............. Effect of nitrogen on α-galactosidase activity (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal ....................................83 3.................................. Effects of irrigation on alkaline phosphatase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal .............7.......79 3.3.................................................................. August 2010 3................................................ 81 (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal .. Discriminate function analysis on effect of nitrogen on collective enzyme activity...................... 84 3.............. 88 3.................................................................................... Effects of irrigation on β-glucosidase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ...Texas Tech University....................................... Effect of nitrogen on β-glucosaminidase activity (a) 2007 (b) Seasonal ............93 viii ..........10................11.......................................8......4...................................1.................. 91 3......13............80 3........................ 82 3....................... Study site (2007) ....................

............................97 3.. 98 3.................... 96 3............................. 95 (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ................................ 104 ix ............................. Brandon Melester.. Effect of tillage on α-galactosidase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal .....................................................................22.................... 100 3......................................................................... Yearly tillage effect on collective enzyme activity and nutrient dynamics (a) Discriminate function analysis .........................19............... Seasonal variation in soil extractable ammonium .. Effect of tillage on β-glucosaminidase activity 3............. Season variation in soil extractable nitrate .......16......................17.........................................................94 3...... Seasonal variation in soil organic matter .............. 101 3...................................23........................................ Effect of tillage on alkaline phosphatase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ................................................99 3........................................................................................................ August 2010 3...................................................................................18..............24................................20.............................Texas Tech University....................... Yearly tillage effect on collective enzyme activity and nutrient dynamics (b) Vector correlations .............................................. 102 3.. Effect of tillage on β-glucosidase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ................................................... Season variation in soil phosphorus ......................20.......15... 103 3......................... Effect of tillage on phosphodiesterase activity (a) 2007-2008 (b) Seasonal ....21...

Soil microbes are sensitive to disturbances from management decisions and will alter activity rates. mineralization and nutrient transfer to plants (Prescott 1 . MICROBIAL EVALUATION METHODS AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES Introduction The interactions between management practices and the soil biota and subsequent effects on the performance of crops are of great agricultural importance. Brandon Melester. Bossio et al. 1996). 1998.g. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Microorganisms are vital to all terrestrial ecosystems by performing essential functions such as decomposition.Verhoef and Brussaard 1990) very little is known of their activities.. diversities. and community structure accordingly to the severity and duration of the disturbance (e. and abundance under semi-arid conditions in a peanut-based cropping systems (e.g. 2003).. Schloter et al. 2006). Soil quality and the sustainability of agroecosystems are reliant on the activity and diversity of the soil microbial community and the processes they facilitate (Pankhurst et al.Texas Tech University.. However. Acosta-Martinez et al. biomass. 2003).g. composition. August 2010 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO SOIL MICROBIAL DYNAMICS. despite the important roles of the soil microbiota in agroecosystem functioning (e. Understanding how to manipulate environmental conditions to fully utilize the microbial potential will be invaluable in moving forward in developing more sustainable agroecosystems. Moreover there is a large potential for increased productivity in understanding these interactions and managing them effectively (Watt et al.

Wright 2005). soils. There are some 150 known AMF species (Vandenkoornhuyse 2002) that form symbiotic relationships with approximately 80-85% of all terrestrial plant species (Vandenkoornhuyse 2002) including various cropping systems (Zak and McMichael 2001). August 2010 et al. 2000). and drought (Smith and Read 1997. and interactions between the soil microflora and plants to increase nutrient availability become crucial (Richardson 2001. AM fungi are key mediators between above-ground plant biomass and available soil nutrients (Read et al. Brandon Melester. which are intricately branched haustoria (hyphal tips) in the cortex cells of a plant root (Smith and Read. and nickel (Ni) and may increase resistance to soil-borne pathogens. Biro et al.Texas Tech University. Arbuscular mycorrhiza benefit the host plant by increasing uptake of phosphorus (P). 2005). zinc (Zn). and the atmosphere (Treseder and Cross 2006). Plant productivity in natural and managed ecosystems is often limited by nitrogen and phosphorous (Chapin et al. 2006). 1992).Arbuscules are the site of nutrient exchange between the plant and the fungus. AM fungi (AMF) influence soil carbon fluxes as well as nutrient dynamics of plants. Arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) are the largest group of mycorrhizae (Wright 2005) and are one of the most important symbioses in terrestrial ecosystems (Smith and Read. 1986). Arbuscular mycorrhizae are intracellular symbiontes that form arbusculars. insect herbivores. The primary benefit of forming arbuscular mycorrhiza for most plants occurs through the increased P uptake as phosphorus is one of the most limiting nutrients of 2 . Nitrogen and phosphorous are two essential macro-nutrients that microorganisms use to complete key steps in cycling and uptake (Cardon and Gage 2006). copper (Cu). 1997).

Many plant roots exhibit slow growth rates that make it extremely difficult to react to nutrient changes in the environment. AM fungi also increase the aggregate stability of soil reducing wind and soil erosion (Liang et al. The AMF mycelium receives 3-20% net photosynthate produced by host and 37-47% of carbon (C) delivered below ground (Treseder and Cross 2006). Most agricultural plants form arbuscular mycorrhizae and as a result there has been a greater effort made to understand how AM 3 . and root hairs to fulfill their P demands (Wright 2005). Plants that form the symbiotic relationship with AM fungi depend on the AM hyphae as an extension of the roots to access a greater nutrient pool (Leyval et al. Furthermore. This substantial allocation of C demonstrates how valuable this symbiosis is to plant nutrient uptake. AM fungi can be increasingly important in agroecosystems to compensate for lower overall microbial activity and nutrient cycling resulting from high input of nutrients and disturbance from plowing (Dick 1994). August 2010 plants (Tressier and Raynal 2003). insoluble. Brandon Melester. The necessity to form this symbiotic relationship with the AM fungi arises from the morphological and physiological characteristics of root systems combined with low levels of soil P and the immobility of P in the soil matrix (Wright 2005). The production of the hydrophobic. Wright 2005). recalcitrant C glomalin protein by the AMF is the means by which they are able to aggregate soil particles. lateral roots. 2002. otherwise the plant would not invest such a large percentage of net photosynthate to sustain the arbuscular mycorrhizal relationship.Texas Tech University. Wright 2005). research has shown that mycorrhizal plants are more effective at using organic P than nonmycorrhizal plants (Wright 2005). and a large number of the roots also have insufficient branching. 2008.

methane and other nutrients decomposition. 1994. August 2010 fungi can improve crop productivity and reduce fertilizer inputs (Smith and Read 1997. Soil fungi comprise the largest portion of the soil microbial biomass and in many terrestrial systems are responsible for the majority of the ecosystem processes. and biochemical processes (Bills et al. Saprophytic fungi are extremely important in soil dynamics because of their roles in decomposition. C. 2004. Zak and McMichael 2001). However.Texas Tech University. Microbial Communities Bacteria are estimated to be the most numerous group of microorganisms found in soil even though they account for less than half of the microbial biomass due to their small size (Kennedy 1999). These influences include key roles in the cycling of N. Bacterial community composition and diversity in agricultural systems has a key role in the cycling of nutrients within these systems. Kennedy 1999). there is been very little research into the establishment and maintenance of AMF within annual agricultural ecosystems under arid and semi-arid conditions (Smith and Read 1997. 1998). A vast array of bacteria is present and affects agroecosytems and has the potential to be altered due to environmental stresses and management practices (Kennedy 1999). C and N storage and sources. Zak et. al. Fungi have been shown to be biological control agents in some agricultural systems (Hall and Papierok 1982) and 4 . Went and Stark 1968). and compound transformation (Zak et al. S. Soil bacteria also play a large role in the formation of soil structure (Tisdall 1991). Brandon Melester. soil stabilization.

Microbial Biomass The microbial biomass is an important regulator of nutrient transformation and storage of many vital nutrients including N. al. Previous research has demonstrated that microbial biomass is a sensitive indicator of differences in sustainable cropping systems. and soil type on nutrient turnover and organic C (Anderson and Domsch 1989. Horwath and Paul 1994) and also considered to be the most reliable indicator of soil quality (Gil-Sotres et al. August 2010 important decomposers and nutrient supplier to agroecosystems (Lodge 1997. 1996). FAME Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) analysis is a technique that relies on the different fatty acids among organisms to indentify species or groups present using gas chromatography (GC) of the volatile fatty acid methyl esters extracted from microorganisms (Kunitsky et. Brandon Melester. Sasser 1990).Texas Tech University. crop rotations. The MIDI Sherlock Microbial Identification System developed procedure is a cheap. P. Fungal abundance and diversity have been shown to be susceptible to changes in agricultural management practices such as tillage and in turn these changes can influence the nutrient cycles of that system (Miller and Lodge 1997). 2006. al. including examining effects of tillage. and S and is also a key component of organic C mineralization (Nunan et. Miller and Lodge 2007. quick. and reliable system that has 5 . Hietschmidt et al. 2004). 1998. Horwarth and Paul 1994).

1999). and 22:1ω9c have the potential to be additional AMF fatty acid markers (Madan et al. The FAME analysis has been shown to be an effective tool in estimating of AM fungi biomass. 2004). Acosta-Martinez et al. The products from the reactions 6 .g. To date 16:1ω5c has been identified as an indicative fatty acid marker for AM fungi (Madan et al. Brandon Melester.. However. FAME analysis has many advantages in describing microbial community methods in that FAME avoids selectivity toward fast structure over culture-based growing organisms on media. 2004). nutrient cycling. 1996. Reynolds et al. These microbial enzymes play vital roles in critical soil processes such as decomposition. 2006). Pankhurst et al. Olsson et al. 2001).500 bacterial species and over 200 species of yeast for pure systems (Kunitsky et al. decomposition of xenobiotics. 20:2ω6c. Soil Enzymes Microorganisms are the main source of enzymes in the soils and thus the composition and abundance of the soil microbial community controls soil processes (e. the technique can extract fatty acids from clayorganic matter complexes and may include fatty acid profiles that are no longer present in the soils in the community structure assessment (Acosta-Martinez et al. 1997 showed that FAME profiles can be used as an effective indicator to detecting changes microbial compositions in response to agricultural management practices. August 2010 helped create libraries with over 1. 2001. and soil aggregation (Barea et al. 1999) while 18:1ω9c. 2003). 20:1ω9c.Texas Tech University. as well as monitoring the degree to which microbes are affected by management practices in agricultural soils (Olsson et al.

August 2010 from the microbial enzymes are extremely important in driving soil nutrient dynamics (Acosta-Martinez et al. The process disturbs the row but leaves the furrow undisturbed with a complete residue cover. The undisturbed soil will retain moisture more effectively than the disturbed soils with this moisture available to the crop plants (Musick et al. Understanding the specific interaction between management practices and microbial dynamics in the rhizosphere of annual cropping systems will be important in developing techniques to maximize efficiency of agroecosystems while reducing inputs. In a semi-arid system conventional tillage provides advantages over no-till agriculture 7 .Texas Tech University. 1977). Tillage Strip-tillage (or minimal tillage) combines the benefits of conventional tillage and no-till agriculture. Brandon Melester. (Mina et al 2001). Previous research has shown that soils from the rhizosphere region have greater enzymatic activity than that of non-rhizosphere soils (Dick 1994) and this can be explained by the greater species diversity associated with the rhizosphere. 2004). Roots can excretes carbon that can stimulate microbial activity increasing nutrient cycling within the root –region and benefitting the plant directly (Dick 1994). A decrease in microbial enzyme production will result in a decrease in mineralization and cycling of nitrogen and phosphorous necessary to sustain productivity. Different agricultural management practices can increase or decrease the soil enzyme production (Bandick and Dick 1999) and thereby can have significant effects on nutrient availability and soil organic matter levels.

and nitrogen under a peanut cropping system in semi-arid soils. and nitrogen fertilizer will each have significant negative effects on the size of the microbial biomass. Dick 1984. The effects of tillage will have strong impacts on microbial diversity (Kennedy 1999). It was expected 8 . Spedding et al. Doran 1980). 2004. Follett and Schimel 1989). The minimal tillage approach used in agricultural systems has been shown to increase the soil microbial biomass and soil enzymatic activity (Dalal 1989.Texas Tech University. Objectives and Hypotheses Objective1: Evaluate the response of the microbial biomass to tillage. irrigation. Strip-tillage should have a measureable positive effect on soil microbial biomass due to the residue cover in the furrows and a decrease in disturbance. As agriculture shifts towards minimal tillage it will be important to know exactly what affect it will have on the microbial dynamics of the soil. irrigation. August 2010 through reduction in wind erosion but also can lead to soil compaction. Hypotheses 1) Tillage. loss of organic matter and disruption of soil aggregates (Deng and Tabatabai 1996. Brandon Melester. As water is limiting in semi-arid environments differences in irrigation schedules should have the largest negative impact on the size of the microbial biomass. An increase in the microbial biomass is expected to be correlated with increases in irrigation. Strip-tillage is a management technique that combines the benefits associated with conventional tillage while reducing the negative effects. 2) Traditional tillage during the growing season will negatively impact the amount of microbial biomass that develops.

3) Nitrogen fertilization will alter the structure of the soil microbial community and reduce complexity. Hypotheses 1) Irrigation will increase the bacterial contributions to microbial community structure. Brandon Melester. August 2010 that the decrease in disturbance of soil aggregates in strip-tillage practices as compared to conventional tillage would contribute to increased microbial biomass carbon C as the result of keeping the fungal mycelia network intact. As fungi have the ability to translocate water through their mycelium and survive at lower water potentials.Texas Tech University. Objective 2: Evaluate the response of the microbial community structure to tillage. Soils under strip-tillage are expected to have greater relative fungi abundance associated with them. irrigation should favor a shift towards a bacterial dominated system. 3) Nitrogen application should decrease the microbial biomass by changing soil microbial community structure. Increased soil nitrogen will allow fast growing microbes to become dominant during period of optimum soil moisture. Conventional tillage should result in more disruption on mycelial networks and negatively affect the fungal abundances. and nitrogen of a peanut cropping system in semi-arid soils. 9 . irrigation. 2) Tillage will change the microbial community structure to a bacterial dominated system.

10 . 2) As irrigation will increase microbial activity. Hypotheses 1) Reduction in irrigation should result in reduced microbial enzyme production for measured enzymes. August 2010 Objective 3: Evaluate the response of microbial enzyme production to tillage. The other enzymes are involved in C cycling and would be expected to increase as a limiting nutrient such as nitrogen is added. 3) Conventional-tillage should have a negative effect on the enzyme activity levels as this practice is most disruptive to the soil microbial community particularly fungi populations through disruption of hyphae.Texas Tech University. 4) Nitrogen was expected to have negatives effect on phosphodiesterase and alkaline phosphatase activity levels and to positively affect β-glucosamindase. and nitrogen of a peanut cropping system in semi-arid soils. βglucosidase. and α-galactosidase. those enzymes associated with the bacterial assemblages should increase accordingly. irrigation. Brandon Melester. Phosphodiesterase and alkaline phosphatase activity levels are expected to decline with nitrogen inputs because these enzymes are associated with P cycling and are expected to have an inverse relationship with N.

J. Microbial community structure and funtionality under peanut-based cropping systems in a sandy soil. In: Biodiversity of fungi: Inventory and monitoring methods (G. Vitousek. Foster.. Zobeck. J. Eds. et al. and nitrogen application of properties of a vertisol.” SSSAJ. 2003. “Long-term effects of no-tillage. Multitrophic Interactions in Terrestrial Systems: 36th Symposium of the British Ecological Society.. C. (1989). et al.M. Upchurch. Acosta-Martinez. Azcon-Aguilar. 16: 729-770 Biro. Inoculants of plant growth-promoting bacteria for use in agriculture. et al. K. R. Brown. S. 53: 1511-1515 Deng.. G. D.M. et al.S. Brandon Melester. 2004. Bashan. Gange and V. K. Biol Fertil Soils 44: 681-692. Y. Interrelations between Azospirillum and Rhizobium nitrogen-fixers and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the rhizosphere of alfalfa in sterile. and M. season. Rowland. physical. B. N. Early impacts of cotton and peanut cropping systems on selected soil chemical. Thorn. K. Pgs. Micobial Ecology. M. August 2010 References Acosta-Martinez.. and G. Mueller. Bossio. V. C. Tabatabai 1997. P. T. 2008. Elsevier. AMF-free or normal soil conditions. P. Christensen. Bills. Enzyme activities and microbial community structure in semiarid agricultural soils. microbiological and biochemical properties. Effect of tillage and residue management on enzyme activities in soils: III. M. v. Barea. Gunapala. Acosta-Martinez. Determinants of soil microbial communities: effects of agricultural management. and soil type on phospholipid fatty acid profies. G. 36: 1-12 Chapin. Dalal. Phosphates and arylsufatase... Biol Fertil Soils 24(141-146). 1999.. 2000. Applied Soil Ecology 15(2): 159-168.A. 2004.. 1998. S. Cambridge University Press: 65-78. M. 1986. A. 1998. The nature of nutrient limitation in plant communities.. Powell.C. V. M. M. Biol Fertil Soils 40: 44-54. Bills. and M. K. Graham. D. et al.). R. Saprobic soil fungi. Biotechnology advances. 271-302. crop residue. The American Naturalist 127: 48-58. F.. Biol Fertil Soils 38: 216-227. 11 . Koves-Pechy. et al. Scow.Texas Tech University. Interactions between Mycorrhizal Fungi and Rhizosphere Microorganisms within the Context of Sustainable Soil-Plant Systems. D.

. G. C. Short. A. Lodge. “Factors related to decomposer fungi in tropical forest. H. J. D. Clinical Biochemistry 35(1): 41-47. 12 . Birkhauser: 175-186. Semi-automated enzymatic measurement of serum zinc concentration. Grings. A. Madison. 2004. Barea and K. August 2010 Dick. PDA/DHI. (1997). et al. 1989. R. R. Doran. A DGGE-cloning method to characterize arbuscular mycorrhizal community structure in soil. E. Agriculture. Bacterial diversity in agroecosystems. S. 84: 205-240. F. Madison. Soil Society of America: 753-772. 74: 65-76. A. Osterhout. O. Fungi as biological control agents of arthropods of agricultural and medical importance. Horwath. W. G. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 877-887. 6: 681-688. M. R. Microbolgical and Biochemical Properties.. SSSAJ. Leyval. P.. Microbial Biomass.F. Kunitsky. D. Journal of Animal Science. Z. Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods. Identification of Microorganisms using Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) Analysis and the MIDI Sherlock Microbial Identification System. D. W. R. C.. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40(4): 956-966. Gardes. Coleman. Boston. M. D. Stewart. Basel. R. 2006. Brandon Melester. and T. R. 74: 1395-1405. 53: 1091-1096. Gil-Sotres. 3. J. M. Erel. Effects of tillage practices on microbial biomass dynamics. B. J. Mycorrhizal Technology in Agriculture: From Genes to Bioproducts. WI. Trasar-Cepeda.. WI. and animal agriculture. Avci 2002. Volume 3. 1999. and E.A. 1996. Potential of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for bioremediation. J. Haselwandter. et al. Gianiazzi. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Schuepp.Texas Tech University. J. Hietshmidt. Miller.E. Schimel.. Ecosystems. sustainability. Methods of Soil Analysis. F. Liang. Bigham.K..C. 2008. A. 2002.J. 1982. D. Bezdicek and B. and S. Molecular Ecology 2: 113-118. et al. E. Bruns 1993.application to the identification of mycorrhize and rust. Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Enzyme Activities as Indicators of Soil Quality. Ecosystems and Environment. 1994. Parasitology. Drijber. Follett. Kennedy. Papierok. C. Hall. et al. AGRIS: 107-124. Paul 1994. Part 2.. R. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes .E.” Biodiversity and Conservation.S. Joner. M.

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010

Ma, W. K., S. D. Siciliano, et al. 2005. A PCR-DGGE method for detectinf arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in cultivated soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 1589-1597. Mader, P., et al., 2000. Arbuscular mycorrhizae in a long-term field trial coparing lowinput (organic, biological) and high-input (conventional) farming systems in a crop rotation. Biol Fertil Soils 31: 150-156. McMichael, B. L. and J. C. Zak 2006. The Role of Rhizotrons and Minirhizotrons in Evaluating the Dynamics of Rhizoplane-Rhizosphere. Soil Biology. K. G. Mukerji, C. Manoharachary and J. Singh, Springer-Verlag Berling Heidelberg. 7: 71-87. Miller, R.M., Lodge, D.J. 2007. Fungal Responses to Disturbance: Agriculture and Forestry. Environmental and Microbial Relationships. Christian P. Kubicek and Irina S. Druzhinina. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 47-68. Moore, J. M., S. Klose, et al. 2000. Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen as affected by cropping systems. Biol Fertil Soils 31: 200-210. Musick, J.T., Wiese, A.F., Allen, R.R. 1977. Management of bed-furrow irrigated soil with limited- and no-tillage systems. ASAE. 20: 666-672. Nunan, N., M. A. Morgan, et al. 1998. Ultraviolet absorbance (280 nm) of compounds released from soil during chloroform fumigation as an estimate of the microbial biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: 1599-1603. Pankhurst, C.E., Oohel-Keller, K., Doube, B.M., Gupta, V.V.S.R. 1996. Biodiversity of soil microbial communities in agricultural systems. Biodiversity and Conservation. 5: 197-209. Prescott, L. M., J. P. Harley, et al. 2005. Microbiology. New York, McGraw-Hill. Reynolds, H. L., A. Packer, et al. 2003. Grassroots Ecology: Plant-Micorbe-Soil Interactions As Drivers Of Plant Community Structure And Dynamics. Ecology 84(9): 2281-2291. Richardson, A. E. 2001. Prospects for using soil microorganisms to improve the acquisition of phosphorus by plants. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28: 897-906. Sanders, I. R., J. P. Clapp, et al. 1996. The genetic diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in natural ecosystems-a key to understanding the ecology and functioning of the mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytologist 133: 123-134.

13

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010 Schloter, M., Dilly, O., Munch, J.C. 2003. Indictors for evaluating soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 98: 255-262. Sen, R. 2003. The root-microbe interface: new tools for sustainable plant production. New Phytologist. 157: 391-394. Smith, S. E. and D. J. Red 1997. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, Academic Press. Smith, S. E., Smith, F. A, et al. 2003. Mycorrhizal fungi can dominate phosphate supply to plants irrespective of growth response. Plant Physiology 133(16-20). Souza, F. d., G. A. Kowalchuk, et al. 2004. PCR-Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Profiling of Inter- and Intraspecies 18S rRNA Gene Sequence Heterogeneity Is an Accurate and Sensitive Method To Assess Species Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi of the Genus Gigaspora. Applied and Environmental Microbiolgy 70(3): 1413-1424. Spedding, T.A., Hamel, C. Mehuys, Madramootoo, C.A. 2004. Soil microbial dynamics in maize-growing soil under different tillage and residue management system. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 36: 499-512. Tabatabai, M. 1994. Soil Enzymes. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and biochemical properties. R. Weaver, J. Angle and P. Bottomley. Madison, Wisconson, SSSA: 775-833. Tisdall, J.M. 1991. Fungal hyphae and structural stability of soil. Aust. J. Soi Res. 29: 729-743. Treseder, K. K. and A. Cross 2006. Global Distrubtions of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Ecosystems 9: 305-316. Watt, M., J. A. Kirkegard, et al. 2006. Rhizosphere biology and crop productivity-a review. Australian Journal of Research 44: 299-317. Went, F.W., Stark, N. 1968. The biological and mechanical role of soil fungi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 60: 497-504. Wright, S. F. 2005. Management of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Roots and Soil Management: Interactions Between Roots and the Soil. R. W. Zobel and S. F. Wright. Madison, WI, American Society of Agronomy: 183-197. Wynne, J. C., G. H. Elkan, et al. 1980. Greenhouse evaluationsof strains of Rhizobium for peanuts. Agronomy Journal 72: 645-649. 14

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010

Vainio, E. J. and J. Hantula 2000. Direct analysis of wood-inhabiting fungi using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of amplified ribosomal DNA. Mycological Research 104(8): 927-936. Vandenkoornhuyse, P., R. Husband, et al. 2002. Arbuscular mycorrhizal community composition associated with two plant species in a grassland ecosystem. Molecular Ecology 11: 1555-1564. Verhoef, H. A. and Brussaard, L. 1990. Decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in natural and agroecosystems: the contribution of soil animals. Biochemistry 11: 175-211. Zak, J. C. 1992. Responses of soil fungal communities to disturbances. The Fungal Community (2nd Edition). G. Carroll and D. T. Wicklow. New York, Marcel Dekker: 403-425. Zak, J. C., Willig, M.R., Moorhead, D.L., Lildman, H.G., 1994. Functional diversity of bacterial communities: a quantitative approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26: 1101-1108. Zak, J. C. and B. McMichael 2001. Agroecology of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Activity. Structure and Function in Agrecosystem Design and Management. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press: 145-156. Zak, J. C., B. McMichael, et al. 1998. Arbuscular-mycorrhizal colonization dynamics of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growing under several production systems on the Southern High Plains, Texas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 68(3): 245-254. Zhang, Q. and J. C. Zak 1998. Effects of water and nitrogen mendment on soil microbial biomass and fine root production in a semi-arid environment in West Texas. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30(1): 39-45.

15

1998. 1998). Saprophytic and symbiotic soil bacteria and fungi have large impacts on the functioning of agroecosystems through their contributions to decomposition by regulating 16 . it is important to understand the affects of the different management practices used and to determine which of these practices supports a sustainable agro ecosystem. Bossio et al. 2004). herbicide and pesticide applications. (2006) emphasized that there is a large potential for increasing productivity by managing properly the interactions between management practices and the soil microflora Moreover understanding the interactions between microbial activity and management practices may be key to developing sustainable agricultural systems that maximize crop productivity while reducing inputs. and fertilizer applications can have substantial negative impacts on agricultural systems (Welbaum et al. Greater understandings of the negative impacts of traditional agricultural practices are needed if there is to be a shift towards developing more sustainable agricultural systems (Pankhurst et al. Yeates et al. Watt et al. the activity and diversity of the soil microflora and the soil macro and micro fauna and their activity (Watt et al. Lupwayi et al. 1996). Brandon Melester. August 2010 CHAPTER 2 EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN A SEMI-ARID AGROECOSYSTEM ON SOIL MICROBIAL BIOMASS & MICROBIAL COMPOSITION Introduction Agro-management practices such as tillage. irrigation. 2006. In order for this to occur. 1997.Texas Tech University. These production decisions directly affect soil quality by influencing the chemical and physical make-up of the soil.

Anderson and Domsch 1989. and soil type on nutrient turnover and organic C (e. To maximize sustainability of cropping system in semi-arid environments and to reduce costs associated with irrigation.. Brandon Melester. 1994. Nunan et. 1998. Zak et al. and S and is also a key component of organic C mineralization (e. 2004. For a semi. The microbial biomass is an important regulator of nutrient transformation and storage of many vital nutrients including N. Horwarth and Paul. Horwath and Paul 1994).. al. crop rotations. A key indicator to how the agricultural soil management practices are affecting microbial dynamics is through the evaluation of microbial biomass. the most common response to management decisions is a reduced responses in microbial activity resulting from high input of nutrients and disturbance from plowing (Dick 1994). In highly managed agroecosystems. 1994). tillage practices and fertilizer application this 17 . August 2010 nutrient cycles (Miller and Lodge 2007).Texas Tech University. Moreover the amount and dynamics of soil microbial biomass also considered to be the most reliable indicator of soil quality (Gil-Sotres et al. 2004).g. Kennedy 1999). P. Previous research has demonstrated that microbial biomass is a sensitive indicator of differences in sustainable cropping systems. the dynamics of the soil microbial biomass is regulated in part by the seasonal distribution of precipitation.g.arid agroecosystem. including the effects of tillage. The inputs of carbon and nutrients from plants influences the abundance of fungi and bacteria in the rhizosphere by driving nutrient cycles (Acosta-Martinez et al. which can impose a major stress on the soil microbial community in addition that as a result of management practices. however.

33⁰ 45’ north latitude. Two 18 . Approximately 1. In the conventional tillage rows there was rye planted in the furrow only and in the strip tillage portions rye was planted across the bed and the furrow. Within each of the plots. Within the plots zones of strip and conventional tillage rows alternated respectively starting from the outside of the plots. the field was under conventional cotton production for 6 growing seasons. Brandon Melester. August 2010 study was conducted within a peanut cropping system to evaluate key production impacts on soil microbial biomass. 2004). In November 2006. The field soil is an Olton clay loam (mixed. different tillage techniques were applied alternating between conventional tillage and strip tillage zones. Previous to the initiation of this study. 993m elevation.Texas Tech University.3 hectares (3. superactive. The sample site was divided into six equally sized triangular plots that are labeled plots 1-6. thermic and aridic soil) and are classified as Paleustolls (Bronson et al. the whole circular field was portioned into 36 concentric rows. one half of a circular field was prepared for peanut production to assess the impacts of irrigation. Every two plots receive the same imposed conditions so that there were two replicates for each treatment. and tillage on soil microbial dynamics and microbial functionality. Methods Plot Design Field plots for this two year study (2007 and 2008) were established at the USDAARS Cropping System Research Laboratory in Lubbock. There were two strip and two conventional tillage sections within each zone.3 acres). Texas USA (101⁰ 47’ west longitude. nitrogen.

75 inch of irrigation (half) during the last 90 days while maintain full irrigation prior to. August 27th. 4. Plots 3 and 4 were kept under late deficit treatment (100-100-50%ET). 19 .2 Kg/Ha) on July 8th. Plots 1 and 2 received full irrigation (100-100-100%ET). applying only 0. Plots 3 and 4 were kept under late deficit treatment (100-100-50%ET). Thus.Texas Tech University. In 2008. 5. where 100% ET irrigation refers to the amount of water supplemented to the crop that equals the total loss of water through evaporation from the soil and the total transpiration form the aerial parts of the plant. They were irrigated with half of the regular irrigation 90. The late growing seasons last from beginning of August till the end of October.5 inches of water. August 2010 alternating conventional and strip tillage sections of six rows each were sampled in each plot. and 6 received 30lb/acre (33. 2. There were 3 levels of irrigation in year 2008. September 24th and September 24th in 2007. Plots 1. The remaining Plots 3. Plots 1 through 6 received URAN 35 lb/acre (39.6 kg/Hectare) of URAN (Urea Ammonium Nitrate) on July 25th. Plots 5 and 6 were under early deficit irrigation. For 2007 full irrigation was determined to be 1. August 9th. There were 2 levels of irrigation applied in 2007. all Plots received nitrogen in 2008. Plots 1 and 2 served as the control and did not receive nitrogen fertilizer in year 2007. August 1st and September 2nd. Brandon Melester. 5 and 6 received full irrigation (100-100-100% EvapoTranspiration (ET)).75 inch quantity in initial 45 days (beginning of May to mid-June).

Soil samples were collected from a depth of 15cm. they were kept in a cooler and stored at 4⁰ C until they were processed for enzymatic analysis. August 2010 Crop Management Treatments In 2007. For each sample collection a 10 g dry weight equivalent was 20 . with approximately 330g of samples taken for each replicate sample. 2) Late Season Drought and added Nitrogen (Plots 3 & 4). the treatments applied to the field were: 1) Full Irrigation and no Nitrogen (plots 1 & 2). As with 2007 there were alternating conventional and strip tillage rows that were sampled (Figure 2. 1987) was used to assess microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in response to management practices. and 3) an Early Season Drought and added Nitrogen (Plots 5 & 6). Once samples were taken.Texas Tech University.1). Brandon Melester. two from conventional tillage rows and two strip tillage rows. and 3) Full Irrigation and added Nitrogen (Plots 5 & 6). the applied treatments were: 1) Full Irrigation and added Nitrogen (Plots 1 & 2). Sampling Four soil samples were taken within each plot. Vance et al. 1998. For each sample. soil was collected from three different locations across the plot to account for any variations that may be present within each section of the zone and combined per row. In 2008. Microbial Biomass Carbon The chloroform fumigation and extraction method (Nunan et al. 2) Nitrogen and a Late Season Drought (Plots 3 &4).

All samples were fumigated for 48 hrs. shaken for 1 hours and then filter through Whatman #32 150mm filter paper. To determine the microbial biomass present in each sample. Samples were then methylated using a 325ml 6. 150ml methanol.Texas Tech University. A second sub-set of samples were placed within a dessicator without chloroform to serve as a control. Microbial Community Structure To evaluate the impacts of management decisions on the structure of the soil microbial community fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) analyses were conducted (referenced needed) To conduct the FAME analyses a 3 gram dry weight equivalents were collected from each treatment plot.0 g soil for 48 hrs at 60°C and measuring the % soil moisture. Twenty five ml of ethanol-free chloroform with anti-bumping granules will be added along with the moist paper towel in a dessicator for the fumigation. al. A 10 g dry-weight equivalent is determined by drying 5. the control absorbance values are subtracted from the fumigated absorbance values and multiplied by the KEC. and 150ml distilled water) and boiled in a 100ºC water bath for 30 minutes.5 M K2SO4 solution. (1998). Two 10 g dry-weight equivalent sub-samples of each field sample were placed in a dessicator with a moist paper towel at the bottom to impede the desiccation of soil samples during the fumigation.0N 21 . The soil samples were first subjected to a saponification step (45g sodium hydroxide. Brandon Melester. August 2010 measured out for each soil sample. a subsample of the filtered K2SO4 was read at 280nm according to the procedure described by Nunan et. To obtain the amount of microbial biomass carbon. Soil samples were then extracted using 50ml of a 0.

bivariate correlations were performed using SPSS 14.05) was indicated on the one-way ANOVA and mANOVA. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) was employed to visualize microbial responses to managanement practices in multivariate space. A GC detector measured the peaks from the volatile methyl esters and the Sherlock MIS Software (MIDI. DE) was used to obtain the types and proportional abundances of each peak. For 22 . Wilmington. Newark. Influences of soil nutrients levels on microbial biomass and the influence of the enzyme levels on each other were evaluated using bivariate correlations. Each data set underwent the Least Significant Difference (LSD) post hoc test when significance (p ≤ 0. August 2010 hydrochloric acid. and 275ml methyl alcohol reagent. using MATLAB (Natick. 200ml methyl tert-butyl ether reagent were used to extract the methyl esters into the organic phase. samples were run through a gas chromatography (6890 GC Series II Hewlett Packard. DE. Massachusetts). DFA analyzed microbial responses to 2007 and 2008 separately. USA) with a temperature program that increased the temperature 5ºC per minute starting at 170ºC and ending at 270ºC. 200ml hexane. Statistical analyses including one-way ANOVA.Texas Tech University. Brandon Melester. mANOVA. Lastly. Inc. Subsequently. Data Analysis Changes in microbial biomass levels in response to different management practices across seasons and across years were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. The overall impacts of management affects on microbial were evaluated using mANOVA.0 for windows.

late season drought 2007-2008 There was a significant difference in irrigation’s affect on MBC.3a). Results Effects of Tillage on MBC There was no significant difference (p= 0. Overall MBC was highest across both years and across seasons under full irrigation (p = 0. August 2010 each DFA. Brandon Melester. The overall MBC was greater in 2008 than in 2007 for both tillage types (Figure 2.2b). 1000 randomized (bootstrap) iterations were performed in order to build null distributions from which to compare actual sampling distribution.05) greater fall 2007 and summer 2008 and partially separated in fall 2008 (Figure 2.01) than that of reducing irrigation resulting in a late season drought (LSD) across both 2007 and 2008(Figure 2. MBC was greater in the full irrigation treatments in every season compared to LSD.05) difference seen in MBC levels between the two treatments within any of the seasons.732) between the overall MBC levels between the conventional and strip tillage treatments across seasons and the two years of the study (Figure 2. 23 .Texas Tech University. There was also no significant (p ≤ 0. MBC was statistically (p ≤ 0.2a).3b). Effects of Irrigation on MBC Full irrigation vs.

5b). 3 and 2. Full irrigation produced a consistent pattern of greater MBC than LSD and ESD within seasons but was significantly greater than LSD in summer 2008 only. full irrigation produced greater MBC than LSD and early season drought (ESD) but difference were only significantly different (p ≤ 0. the values were not significance (p = 0. 5. Changes in field conditions There was a clear separation in microbial structure among all sample dates and October 2008 among (Figure 2. There were statistical differences between fertilized and no fertilizer plots within seasons.05) from MBC associated with the “late season drought.” While MBC from the ESD plots appeared greater than MBC from LSD treatment plots. The DFA also showed that 24 . Brandon Melester. late season drought vs.5a).858) (Figure 2.6a).4b). The mANOVA confirmed that there was a significant (p ≤ 0.Texas Tech University. early season drought During 2008. Effects of Nitrogen on MBC Nitrogen fertilization of a peanut cropping system did not have an overall effect on MBC across years and seasons (Figure 2. August 2010 Full irrigation vs.05) for the no-nitrogen treatments (Figure 2. although the difference was not considered significant (Figure 2.05) difference in what between this month from the rest of what –expand your comparisons. Note that 1 is also different from 6. The greatest difference in MBC between LSD and ESD was seen in summer 2008. thought this pattern was only significant (p ≤ 0.4a). There was a trend of the MBC being higher in both treatments for the summer season compared to the fall.

Microbial community structure for July and October 2007 was shown to be different from all other months by mANOVA (p ≤ 0.7b & 2. MBC did not change significantly as there was only a significant difference in MBC between fall 2007 and fall 2008 with MBC in 2008 being significantly greater at that time period (p ≤ 0. August 2010 microbial community structure in July 2007 separated out from all of the other months other than October 2007 and that October 2007 separated out from all other months except July 2007 (Figure 2.7c). 25 .6b). Vector analysis demonstrated that nutrient dynamics and soil organic matter were the driving force for this temporal separation (Figure 2.05).7a). Boron (-31%) and manganese (-37%). potassium (-36%). Brandon Melester. nutrients.2). magnesium (-35%). There were no differences in MBC levels within either year (Figure 2.Texas Tech University. There were no overall significant relationships between MBC and levels of extractable NO3 and NH4. No strong correlations were detected between MBC and any of the measured microbial enzymes with the highest being 17% with αgalactosidase (Table 2.05). Influences between MBC. Temporal changes in MBC Seasonally. and enzymatic activity All significant correlations between MBC and soil nutrients across both growing seasons were negative (Table 2. levels of MBC were the highest in October of 2008 and it’s the lowest in October 2007 (Figure 2.1). Some of these negative correlations with MBC included phosphorus (-28%).6a).

Both years showed a significant increase in the fungi:bacteria raito from the summer to fall (Figure 2.Texas Tech University.8a & 2.05) on the relative bacteria abundances across 2007 when compared to those plots that received no 26 . The fungi:bacteria ratio of relative abundance was the highest in the fall season of 2007 and the lowest in the summer of 2008 (Figure 2. The relative abundance of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal FAME profiles and saprophytic fungi FAME profiles remained consistent and almost identical in all seasons except during summer 2008.8b).361).9a).8b). The relative abundance of saprophytic fungi FAMEs decreased significantly during this season (Figure 2. August 2010 FAME The relative abundances of fungal FAMES were greater than the relative bacteria abundances % within every season (Figure 2. Brandon Melester. In both sampling periods the changes in the fungi:bacterial ratios were the result of fluctuations in the relative fungal abundances and not those of the soil bacteriaFungal abundance was significantly greater in fall 2007 and decreased significantly in summer 2008.9b). Nitrogen Effects Nitrogen addition had a significant negative effect (p ≤ 0. There was a significant and positive correlation between MBC levels and relative abundance of saprophytic fungal FAME levels (R=. The relative abundances of Gram-Positive bacteria FAME profiles remained consistent throughout all the growing seasons and were significantly higher than the relative abundances for Gram-Negative bacteria and actinomycetes (Figure 2.8a).

However.12a). the relative Gram-Negative abundance was greater under full irrigation and no response was able to be measured for fall 2007 as a result of insufficient amounts of relative Gram-Negative abundance in that season (Figure 2. August 2010 additional nitrogen (Figure 2.05). The relative abundances Gram-Positive FAME levels were greater under full irrigation in every season but the differences were only significant for fall 2007 (2.13b) 27 . There were no differences in the relative fungi abundance % between the nitrogen and no nitrogen plots in summer 2007 (Figure 2. Effects of Irrigation Overall Gram -Positive FAME levels were lower under late season drought compared to full irrigation (p ≤ 0. this response to LSD by the Gram-Negative bacteria was not seen in every season. The relative abundance was greater under LSD in summer 2007 and fall 2008 but only significantly greater in fall 2008.13a). when looking within the seasons fungal abundances increased positively to nitrogen addition in the fall season 2007. In summer 2008. Nitrogen did not have a significant effect on the relative fungi abundances for the 2007 data combined (Figure 2.11a).Texas Tech University. the level of bacterial FAMES within nitrogen application was significantly less in the fall season that year. There were seasonal effects with no significant difference between the relative bacterial abundances in the summer. However.10a). However. Gram-Negative relative abundances exhibited a positive response to the LSD treatment when compared to Full irrigation (Figure 2.12b). The overall Gram -Positive relative abundance levels decreased across both years under late Season Drought when compared to Full Irrigation (Figure 2.11b). Brandon Melester.

The results from this study indicated that nitrogen did not have any significant effect on the soil MBC. 2000). It is hard to speculate to the true relationship between added N and relative bacteria abundance due to short-term data collected. The N application effect was not considered significant for the duration of the study but was considered significant in the fall season when the relative fungi abundance was at its greatest.Texas Tech University. Previous research examining nitrogen inputs effect on MBC have produced contradictory results of both positive and negative responses of soil MBC to nitrogen (Moore et al. the increased N could be reducing the need for N-fixing bacteria in the soil. August 2010 Discussion Nitrogen One of the goals of this study was to understand the impact that nitrogen application had on the soil microbiological dynamics in a semi-arid agroecosystem. The relative fungal abundance showed an opposite but lesser response to soil nitrogen addition. 1999). The relatively small amount of data collected in the 28 . 2001). Previous research yielding similar results concluded increased N inputs could promote the growth of certain nematodes which in turn decrease a certain population of the sustained bacteria (Sarathchandra et al. This response could be the result of N inhibition on soil microbial communities through repression of soil enzyme activity (Bardgett et al. Alternatively. Brandon Melester. Nitrogen did elicit a significant response from the soil bacteria associated with the peanut cropping system. The relative bacteria abundances of FAME profiles responded negatively to short-term nitrogen application.

The data obtained is only valuable when evaluating short-term management strategies. 2001) and the result was near significant we feel comfortable to at least suggest that there is a small effect. Tillage The two tillage methods compared in this study did not differ in result from one another. The effects seen as result of N application reflect short term results. Horwath and Paul 1994. The level of MBC remained almost exactly the same. MBC has often been shown as a sensitive indicator to changes in tillage practices (Anderson and Domsch. Brandon Melester.Texas Tech University. August 2010 short-term portion of this study makes it is difficult to speculate whether N did have an effect on fungal abundance or not. as did all the relative microbial abundance within the conventional and strip tillage samples. Because N fertilization has been shown to cause chances in the abundance of fungal species (Sarathchandra et al. 2003) and such long-term evaluation of N application and its effect on relative microbial abundance are needed to fully understand the consequences of this management practice. effects other than microbial responses such as soil aggregation or erosion should be considered 29 . Jackson and Calderon 2003) but it has also been shown to be non-responsive to tillage management changes (Calderon and Jackson 2002. These results indicate that when strategizing between tillage treatments. 1989. 1999). Aslam et al. The effects of long-term N application can have dramatically different effects than that of short-term application (Marchner et al. The lack of difference between the two tillage treatments is probably a result of the similarity between them as strip tillage is a reduction of conventional tillage.

Irrigation Full irrigation had a significantly positive effect on the soil MBC and GramPositive bacteria abundance.Texas Tech University. with the fungi:bacteria ratios being significantly greater in the fall seasons compared to the summers. August 2010 when trying to determine which method will be more beneficial for that particular agroecosystem. One short-term method evaluated in this study was timing of irrigation. These results further demonstrate the necessity of water for crop productivity. Further research will be needed to determine ways to minimize irrigation without reducing microbial dynamics. These results are not surprising as water is necessary for any successful agroecosystem. Although this should be evaluated over more than one growing season. The relative fungi abundance were almost exactly the same between 30 . The effects of late season irrigation and early season irrigation were inclusive in this study but the results suggest that further investigation may lead to promising results. it would appear if water is limited irrigating in the later months will help to maximize the soil microflora potential. Soil characteristics and seasonal variation FAME analysis indicated that the soil in this study was fungal dominated. variables measured all followed a pattern of higher levels associated with ESD indicating that irrigation is more influential in the later part of the growing season. Although there were no significant differences between the LSD and ESD irrigation treatments. Brandon Melester.

The October 2008 month separate out most significantly followed by the October 2007 month. There results also indicated that there may be some key shifts going on between the September and October months as each year the MBC between these two months were the greatest. August 2010 saprophytic fungi and mycorrhizal fungi in all seasons with the exception of the summer 2008 season in which saprophytic fungi displayed a significant decrease in abundance. it would certainly appear that there may be some interaction between the combined levels of soil nutrients and the MBC. Brandon Melester. these two months also represented the extreme high and low in MBC months with October 2008 displaying the highest MBC and October 2007 resulting in the lowest MBC. Although. Gram-Positive bacteria made up the highest concentration of bacteria in the soil. DFAs showed strong monthly variation in the plots mainly as the result of nutrient fluxes. a result consistent with other research (Ibekwe and Kennedy 1999). 31 . there were no significant correlations between individual nutrients and soil MBC levels. This information can be used in future research to help focus on the microbial groups that could have the most influence on agroecosystems due to their abundance.Texas Tech University. Actinomycetes and GramNegative bacteria abundance were both relatively low and did not display much variation. Interestingly enough. More detailed examination of trends in these months may provide insight into soil nutrient shifts and their effects.

K. D. C. Determinants of soil microbial communities: effects of agricultural management. Methods of Soil Analysis. 1999. Jackson. 1994.J. R.... Dick.M.L. et al. W.Texas Tech University. Scow. earthworms and agronomy after two years of cropping following permanent pasture in New Zealand. A. physical. 1999. M. Part 2. 32 . A. K. Ibekwe. 1994.. Trasar-Cepeda. Soil Enzyme Activities as Indicators of Soil Quality. R. and carbon dioxide efflux. Edwards. J. Bourdier. A. Early impacts of cotton and peanut cropping systems on selected soil chemical. Functional Ecology 13: 650-660. and Paul E. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. R. microbial biomass. et al. Kennedy. Environ Qual. Amblard. 31: 752-758. WI.S.H. F. 1989. Doran. Gil-Sotres. A. Saggar. F. T.J. K. P. R. Microbial Ecology 36: 1-12. Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties.. 1999. 2002. Plant species and nitrogen effects on soil biological properties of temperate upland grasslands. Upchurch.. J. and P. F. Madison... D. v.. Graham.J. D.. 1998. Madison.. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) profiles as a tool to investigate structure of two agricultural soils.J. Hobbs. Plant and Soil. 51: 103-111. AGRIS: 107-124. Biol Fertil Soils 40: 44-54.D. N. M. Bezdicek and B.H. L. 2004. Mawdsley. Gunapala. Soil Society of America: 753-772. C. Coleman. 1998. WI. J. Short-term effect of nitrogen enrichment on the microbial communities of a peatland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37: 877-887. 2004. Anderson.A. 21: 471-479. Bardgett.A. disking and subsequent irrigation:effects on soil nitrogen dynamics. Microbial Biomass. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils.. 206: 151-161. and soil type on phospholipid fatty acid profies.. P. Brandon Melester..J.C. season. Microbolgical and Biochemical Properties. A. Calderόn.E. August 2010 References Acosta-Martinez. Stewart. D. Rototilage. T. Aslam. G.. N. D.. S. Davies. J. Bigham.M. Bossio. microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. W. Soil and Tillage Research.. Tillage impacts on soil mictobial biomass C. Gilbert. S. Choudhary. and Domsch. W. Horwath. Francez. RodwellJ. C. 373/374: 111119. Hydrobiologia.

M. Dick. W. Soil Biology and Biochemistry.. Kubicek and Irina S. E..E. Biodiversity of soil microbial communities in agricultural systems.. Brandon Melester. 114: 305-315. G.M.. Morgan.. Ghani. Burch. Doube. Brookes.C. Biodiversity and Conservation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 47-68. 8: 129-134. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30: 1599-1603. Oohel-Keller. R.W. 2007. Soil Science Society of American Journal.E. K. et al.. 2003.A. Clayton. Bacterial diversity in agroecosystems. 2001. Lodge. Druzhinina. Structure and function of the soil microbial community in a long-term fertilizer experiment. Kennedy. Rolston. Calderon. M... 35: 453-461. P. A.W. B. J. Responses of soil microbial processes and community structure to tillage events and implications for soil quality Geoderma. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. D. C.. Yeates. P... D. 63: 873-881. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Agriculture. 1998.C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. V. Soil microbial diversity and community structure under wheat as influenced by tillage and crop rotation. and Bottemley. Nunan. N. Microbial Biomass and Activities in Soil Aggregates Affected by Winter Cover Crops. L. Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen as affected by cropping systems. Steenwerth.. 33: 953-964. Moore.. Jenkinson. J.. Cox.C.M.S. S. Ultraviolet absorbance (280 nm) of compounds released from soil during chloroform fumigation as an estimate of the microbial biomass.S. Biol Fertl Soils. Scow and D. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. 1986. 19: 703-707.Z. R. Marschner.J. A. Rodriquez-Kabana. 5: 197-209. Sarathchandra. 1999. Miller. Gupta.. N.R. Lupwayi. S. K.. J Nemato. 2003. E. Pankhurst. A. R. I. M. A. L... 2000.K. G.P. P. Fungal Responses to Disturbance: Agriculture and Forestry. Organic and inorganic nitrogen amendments to soil as nematode suppressants. Effect of nitrogen and phosphate ferilisers on microbial and nematode diversity in pasture soil. Rice...A. 1996. 1999. Klose.J.R.. Kandeler. 30: 1733-1741. Ecosystems and Environment. August 2010 Jackson. Tabatabai. 74: 65-76. Vance. N. 33 . E.U. Environmental and Microbial Relationships. G. 30: 200-210. K.D. 1998. Bandick.. 1987. Christian P. F. B. M.Texas Tech University. Marchner.V. Mendes.

Brandon Melester. Bardgett. R. Yeates. Z. A. Decomposition and nitrogen mineralization in natural and agroecosystems: the contribution of soil animals.R. 23: 175-193. Zak. Managing Soil Microorganisms to Improve Productivity of Agro-Ecosystems. Welbaum. 1997.. Kirkegard. P.G.. et al. August 2010 Verhoef. Rhizosphere biology and crop productivity-a review.J.W.. Bowling.. Moorhead. Brussaard 1990. Cook. 1994. P. J.. J..F.J. Biochemistry 11: 175-211. Nowak. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. G. 2004. 34: 453-470. Sturz.. D. A. H. Potter. 34 .. 26: 1101-1108. Faunal and microbial diversity in three Welsch grassland soils under conventional and organic management regimes. A. J. C. Journal of Applied Ecology.Texas Tech University. Watt. and L. Lildman. J. Willig. R.D.. Hobbs.E. G. Australian Journal of Research 44: 299-317. H.L. Soil Biology and Biochemistry.. Functional diversity of bacterial communities: a quantitative approach. M..V.. 2006. M. Dong...

Significant r values are indicated in bold. NO3 MBC 0.03 Table 2. Alpha= α-galactasidase].31 Zn 0.13 Alpha 0. NH4= soil extractable ammonium. MBC Phospho Gucomini Glucosi -0.35 Ca 0.09 S 0. NO3 = soil extractable nitrate. Correlation matrix comparing soil nutrients and edaphic characteristics to Microbial Biomass Carbon from soil samples collected across the growing seasons of 2007-2008.Texas Tech University. All numbers represent r calculated using pearson correlation. The r values range from 1 to -1 with being a 100% positive correlation and -1 a 100% negative correlation.12 NH4 0. Mn= soil extractable manganese. K= soil extractable potassium. The r values range from 1 to -1 with being a 100% positive correlation and -1 a 100% negative correlation.1. Note [MBC= microbial biomass C. Note [MBC= microbial biomass. Glucomini= β-glucosaminidase.36 Mg 0. Ca= soil extractable calcium. All numbers represent r calculated using Pearson Correlation.03 P 0. Mg= soil extractable magnesium.03 0.04 Alk 0. August 2010 Table 2. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase. B= soil extractable boron.04 pHw 0. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase.03 B 0.28 K 0.27 Cu 0. Zn= soil extractable zinc. Significant r values are indicated in bold. P= soil extractable phosphorus. Cu= soil extractable copper. Fe= soil extractable iron. S= soil extractable sulfur. Correlation matrix comparing soil extractable nutrients to Microbial Biomass Carbon from soil samples collect across the growing seasons of 2007-2008.25 CEC 0. CEC= cation exchange].37 Fe 0. Phosph= phosphodiesterase.2. Brandon Melester.09 Mn 0.07 0.17 35 .

Tillage treatment and Plot alignment remained the same in 2008.1.5. nitrogen fertilization. Brandon Melester. and 6 in 2008. 36 .2. August 2010 Figure 2. and tillage on soil microbial dynamics and community structure associated with a peanut cropping system in semi-arid west-Texas in year 2007. The numbers indicated refer to the different Plots. Irrigation and nitrogen treatments differed in Plots 1.Texas Tech University. Plot design established to study the effects of irrigation.

n=24. 37 . Values are means± S. The effect of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage treatments on Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC) associated with a peanut cropping system in semi-arid West Texas.. (a)Total MBC from 2007-2008.. August 2010 Figure 2.E. n= 96. (b) MBC in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. Brandon Melester. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. 600 Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) Conventional Strip a a 500 400 300 200 100 a.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. 700 Conventional Strip ab ab b b ab Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) 600 500 400 300 200 100 b a ab Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. Values are means± S.Texas Tech University.E.2.

(a)Total MBC from 2007-2008.3. August 2010 Figure 2.. 38 . Values are means± S.E.Texas Tech University. The effect of late season drought (LSD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC). n= 64. 600 Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) Full LSD a b 500 400 300 200 100 a. Groups statistically different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. (b) MBC in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. Values are means± S.E.. n=16. Brandon Melester. 700 Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) Full LSD 600 500 400 300 200 100 bc bc c ab a a ab bc Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.

4. (a)Total MBC from 2007. Groups statistically different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.E. Brandon Melester. 700 Full LSD ESD a ab Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) a ab ab 600 500 400 300 200 100 b Summer 08 Fall 08 b. Values are means± S. n= 32. (b) MBC in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. n=16. 700 Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) 600 500 400 300 200 100 Full LSD ESD a b ab a. Values are means± S..E.. 39 .Texas Tech University. The effect of late season drought (LSD) and early season drought (ESD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC). August 2010 Figure 2.

The effect of nitrogen application compared to nitrogen application treatments on Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC). n= 32.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. (b) MBC in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. 700 No nitrogen nitrogen a ab Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) 600 500 bc c 400 300 200 100 Summer 07 Fall 07 b.5. n=16. 40 ..E. (a)Total MBC from 2007-2008. August 2010 Figure 2.Texas Tech University.E. Values are means± S. Values are means± S. Brandon Melester. 600 Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) No nitrogen nitrogen a a 500 400 300 200 100 a. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0..

08.Texas Tech University. MBC= microbial biomass C]. August 2010 Figure 2. and MBC as the parameters. (a) Discriminate function analysis (DFA) examining microbial and nutrient dynamics associated with different management programs associated with a peanut production system in semi-arid West Texas conditions in the various months in 2007 and 2008 using different enzyme activity levels.6. Mn= soil extractable manganese. Algal= α-galactasidase. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase. 2= July 07. S= soil extractable sulfur. a. CEC= cation exchange. Glucosidase= βglucosidase. Brandon Melester. Ca= soil extractable calcium. Zn= soil extractable zinc. 07. nutrient levels. P= soil extractable phosphorus. 5= June 08. K= soil extractable potassium. Cu= soil extractable copper. NO3 = soil extractable nitrate. B= soil extractable boron. Glucomini= β-glucosaminidase. 4= Oct. 08. 6=July 08. NH4= soil extractable ammonium. 41 . Phosph= phosphodiesterase. Mg= soil extractable magnesium. 8= Oct. 3= Sept. 7=Sept. 07. Note [1= June 07. Fe= soil extractable iron.

Zn= soil extractable zinc. Fe= soil extractable iron. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase. Algal= α-galactasidase. Mg= soil extractable magnesium. 08. Cu= soil extractable copper. CEC= cation exchange. 8= Oct. Glucomini= β-glucosaminidase. 4= Oct. Ca= soil extractable calcium. Brandon Melester. August 2010 Figure 2. 2= July 07. 07. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase. Phosph= phosphodiesterase. B= soil extractable boron. 7=Sept. 08. and 180°= 100% negative correlation. 3= Sept. 6=July 08. Correlations are indicated by the smallest angle between two vectors. NO3 = soil extractable nitrate. P= soil extractable phosphorus. (b) Vector correlations indicating correlations between the different nitrogen treatments in summer and fall and enzyme activities. b.Texas Tech University. Mn= soil extractable manganese. K= soil extractable potassium. 90°= no correlation. NH4= soil extractable ammonium. MBC= microbial biomass C]. Ex 0°= 100% positive correlation. S= soil extractable sulfur. 5= June 08. Note [1= June 07. 42 .6. 07.

7.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.E. Values are means± S. (c) MBC in all measured months.. 600 Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) ab ab 500 b a 400 300 200 100 a. n=24. August 2010 Figure 2. n= 48. (a)MBC during the summer and fall seasons of 2007-2208. 07 Se pt 07 O ct 07 M ay 08 Ju ne 08 Ju ly 08 Au g 08 Se pt 08 O ct 08 07 M ay 07 Ju ne Au g 43 . Brandon Melester.E.. Values are means± S. Values are means± S.. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.Texas Tech University.E. 700 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 a Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) 600 500 400 300 200 100 bc ab ab ab b bc c b. Changes in Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC) during the growing seasons from 2007-2008. (b) MBC in months corresponding to enzyme measurements. June 07 July 07 Sept 07 Oct 07 June 08 July 08 Sept 08 Oct 08 700 ab a Microbial Biomass C (g/ g soil) 600 500 c 400 300 200 100 bc ab ab ab ab ab bc bc c 07 Ju ly c. n=24.

Relative Microbial Abundance (%) 30 Bacteria Fungi 25 20 15 10 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 a.5 c 1. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.8.5 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.Texas Tech University. August 2010 Figure 2. Brandon Melester. (B) Change in the Fungal:Bacterial ratio during the growing seasons 2007-2008. Relative bacteria and fungi abundances measured by fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis across two growing seasons in a peanut production system in West Texas.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. (A) Relative FAME abundance (%) of bacteria and fungi. Means were calculated by relative fungi abundance (%) over relative bacteria abundance (%). 44 .0 b 0.0 b 1. a Relative Microbial Abundance (%) Fungal:Bacterial Ratio 2.5 2.

Texas Tech University. 45 . Relative bacteria and fungi abundances measured by fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis across two growing seasons in a peanut production system in West Texas. 14 Relative Bacteria Abundance (%) 12 10 8 6 4 2 Gram + Gram Actinomycetes Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. and Actinomycete bacteria. Gram Neagitive.9. (A) Relative abundance (%) of FAMEs associated with AMF and Saprophytic fungi. 16 AMF Saprophytes Relative Fungi Abundance (%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 a. Brandon Melester.. (B) Changes in the relative abundance (%) of FAMEs associated with Gram Positive. August 2010 Figure 2.

(a) Relative bacteria abundance % in year 2007.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Values are means± S.. Effects of nitrogen on relative bacteria abundances associated with a peanut production system in West Texas.Texas Tech University. Values are means± S. 16 No nitrogen nitrogen a ab b a Relative Bacteria Abundance (%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Summer 07 Fall 07 b.E. 16 No nitrogen nitrogen a b Relative Bacteria Abundance % 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 a. (b) Relative bacteria abundance % in growing seasons in year 2007. n=24. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. n=48. August 2010 Figure 2. Brandon Melester. 46 .E.10.

August 2010 Figure 2.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.E. Values are means± S. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. 47 . No nitrogen nitrogen a b Relative Fungi Abundance (%) 30 c 20 c 10 Summer 07 Fall 07 b.Texas Tech University. 30 No nitrogen nitrogen a a Relative Fungi Abundance (%) 25 20 15 10 5 a. (a) Relative fungi abundance % in year 2007. n=48.11. (b) Relative fungi abundance % in growing seasons in year 2007. n=24. Effects of nitrogen on relative fungi abundance associated with a peanut production system in West Texas. Values are means± S.. Brandon Melester.E.

Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.E.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.Texas Tech University. August 2010 Figure 2. Brandon Melester. Effects of irrigation on relative Gram-Positive bacteria abundance associated with a peanut production system in West Texas.E. Relative Gram-Positive Bacteria Abundance (%) 12 Full Irrigation LSD a b 10 8 6 4 2 a. 48 . Values are means± S.12. (b) Relative GramPositive abundance % in growing seasons in years 2007 & 2008. Values are means± S. Relative Gram-Positive Bacteria Abundance (%) 14 Full Irrigation LSD a abc bc c ab abc ab abc 12 10 8 6 4 2 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. (a) Relative gram-positive bacteria abundance % in year 2007 & 2008.

4 0.6 0. (b) Differences in relative Gram-Negative abundance % in growing seasons in years 2007 & 2008. Values are means± S.5 Full Irrigation LSD a 2.8 0. Relative Gram-Negative Bacteria Abundance (%) 2.2 a. Relative Gram-Negative Bacteria Abundace (%) 1.0 1.0 c 0. Effects of irrigation on relative Gram-Negative bacteria abundance %. August 2010 Figure 2.0 b 0. (a) Differences In relative gram-negative bacteria abundance % in year 2007 & 2008.5 b bc b 1. Brandon Melester.2 Full Irrigation LSD a 1. Values are means± S.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.Texas Tech University.5 * Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 c b.E. 49 . Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.E. * indicates values too low to be displayed on graph.13.

soil temperature. In all terrestrial ecosystems. the largest portion originates from the microbial biomass (Tabatabai 1994). decomposition of xenobiotics. August 2010 CHAPTER 3 EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN A SEMI-ARID AGROECOSYSTEM ON SOIL MICROBIAL ENZYMATIC ACTIVITY Introduction Enzymes are biological catalysts that facilitate reactions without undergoing permanent chemical changes and are necessary for any biochemical reaction to take place under most natural conditions. 50 . and the presence and absence of clay and organic matter that can bind soil enzymes (Dick and Tabatabai 1993). Reynolds et al. and soil aggregation are critical soil processes that are controlled by the microbial enzyme activities (Barea et al. from their synthesis to their reactivity. 2004). nutrient cycling.Texas Tech University. While the production of enzymes have multiple levels of regulation. activity is influenced by soil pH. Decomposition rates. As bacteria and fungi are the main source of enzymes in the soils the composition and abundance of microbes that produce these degradative enzymes controls soil processes (Acosta-Martinez et al. enzymes can be found both in the form of intracellular enzymes and extracellular enzymes. While soil enzymes originate mainly from plants and microorganisms. ionic strength. microbial enzymes are essential to perform necessary ecosystem processes by breaking down organic and inorganic compounds into useable forms for subsequent biomass production by plants and soil microbes. 1996. For the soil ecosystem. 2003). Brandon Melester. for microbial enzymes excreted into the soil.

Brandon Melester.g. The enzymes in these enzyme-clay complexes still have activity but their activity is significantly reduced. agricultural practices. Soil enzymes can lead to higher levels of crop yields when the byproducts of their reactions including increased mineralization are utilized by the roots in the rhizosphere (Dick and Tabatabai 1993). a significant portion becomes stabilized by binding to clay particles and forming complexes (Boyd and Mortland 1990). While extracellular enzymes can be degraded over time. Dick 1994). The roots themselves excrete carbon to stimulate microbial activity that can increase the production of microbial enzymes (Dick 1994).Texas Tech University. 51 . thus directly impacting rates of critical ecosystem processes. It is not unreasonable to expect the management practices used in agriculture soils can have affects on the activity of the enzymes in the soils (Bandick and Dick 1999). For most terrestrial ecosystems it is known that the activity and production of extracellular enzymes are influenced by vegetation composition. Substantial changes in the dynamics of extracellular enzymes will often be seen in the rhizosphere region where previous research has shown greater enzymatic activity than that of non-rhizosphere soils (e. and levels of organic matter (Tabatabai 1994). such as tillage and chemical applications. August 2010 Once extracellular enzymes are produced the activity of these molecules can become uncoupled from biological activity. thus completely decreasing activity (Dick and Tabatabai 1987). Formation of these complexes with clay can also causes the enzymes to be immobilized. Changes in concentration and activity of certain extracellular enzymes in the soil can have strong impacts on the nutrient cycles of those soils. This can be explained by the greater amount of plant material and microorganisms and species diversity associated with the rhizosphere compared to the bulk soil.

and other macromolecule substances. Acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase are two important phosphomonoesterases that have been shown to be pivotal in soil organic P mineralization and have been seen to be specifically involved in hydrolysis in soils of βglycerophosphate. Alkaline phosphatases have optimum activity in the alkaline pH ranges and have been shown to be most active with a pH of around 8 (Dick and Tabatabai 1993). August 2010 The activity of many soil enzymes has been found to correlate with the fertility status of soils (Dick and Tabatabai 1993) and enzyme assays give an estimate of the microbial activity of the soil in relationship to the management practices that are employed. phosphodiesterase. Phosphatses play important roles in P and N cycles in soils making them valuable enzymes to examine when trying to understand microbial dynamics (Dick and Tabatabai 1993).g. and p-nitrophenyl (Tabatabai 1994). phenylphosphate.Texas Tech University. β-glucosidase. Included in the hydrolases are the phosphatase enzymes which catalyze the hydrolysis of esters and anhydrides of phosphoric acids. phosphatases. phosphodiesterase and β-glucosidase (e. phosphoric acids. The two enzymes differ in pH ranges of their optimum activity. Acosta Martinez et al. β-napthyl phosphate. nucleic acids. Brandon Melester. Acid phosphatase or alkaline phosphatase. For agricultural systems. enumerating the seasonal levels of hydrolases. fats. αgalactosidase.. The activity of acid and alkaline phosphatase has been shown to 52 . Hydrolases are a class of enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of proteins. and β-glucosaminidase all contribute to P and N dynamics in soils. starches. Acid phosphatases have optimum activity in the acidic pH ranges and are usually most active in soils with a pH of around 6. 2009) provide key insight to the soil quality of the system.

Phosphodiesterase has been suggested to be an extracellular enzyme utilized by Arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi in their symbiosis with plants (Lindahl et al. Extracellular soil enzymes have been shown to be significantly affected by tillage (Deng and Tabatabai 1996) and in general have lower activity in no-tillage management compared to conventional tillage (Doran 1980. Brandon Melester. 1993). cm) under reduced tillage involving crop residue placement (Havlin et al. 53 .Texas Tech University. Ekenler and Tabatabai 2002). Phosphodiesterase has been the least studied phosphatase in soils and is believed to potentially be an important component of the P cycle and contributes to the degradation of nucleic acids in the soil (Tabatabai 1994). August 2010 become more active in certain cropping systems as organic P becomes more limited (Baligar et al. These impacts are the result of the effects the tillage practices on altering the distribution. 2004). β-glucosaminidase is a key extracellular enzyme involved in N mineralization that hydrolyzes C-N bonds of organic sugars free NH3 that can be uptaken by plants (Dick 1997. 2005). Moreover. 1988). Tillage and crop-residue management can have significant impacts on microbial mediated biochemical reactions in the soil (Dalal 1989. Spedding et al. and activities of soil microbial communities and in turn an effect on the soil microbial enzymes (Dick 1984). 1990). α-galactosidase is another enzyme involved in C dynamics by hydrolyzing melibiose and lactose (Dick 1997). Angers et al. β-glucosidase is an important extracellular soil enzyme that provides a major energy source for soil microbes and has been positively correlated to crop yields (Dick 1997). Organic C and N have been shown to accumulate at the soil surface (0-2.

The sample site was divided into six equally sized triangular plots that are labeled plots 1-6. Brandon Melester. Within each of the plots. The circular field was portioned into 36 concentric rows prior to the initiation of this study in November 2006. the field was used for continuous cotton production under conventional tillage for a duration of 6 growing seasons. Methods Plot Design Field plots for this two year study (2007 and 2008) were established at the USDAARS Cropping System Research Laboratory in Lubbock. one half of a circular field was prepared for peanut production to assess the impacts of irrigation. Texas USA (101⁰ 47’ west longitude.3 acres). The plots alternate between zones 54 . In the conventional tillage rows there is rye planted in the furrow only and in the strip tillage portions rye is planted across the bed and the furrow. 993m elevation. different tillage techniques were applied alternating between conventional tillage and strip tillage zones. Previous to the initiation of this study. Every two plots receive the same imposed conditions so that there were two replicates for each treatment. August 2010 The objective of this component of the overall project was to evaluate the response of the microbial activity (enzyme production) to tillage. Approximately 1. and tillage on soil microbial dynamics and microbial functionality. thermic and aridic soil (Olton clay loam) and are classified as Paleustolls (Bronson et al.Texas Tech University. 33⁰ 45’ north latitude.3 hectares (3. nitrogen. irrigation. and nitrogen of a peanut cropping system in semi-arid soils. The field soil was a mixed superactive. 2004).

There are two strips and two conventional tillage sections within each zone. 2. Brandon Melester. Zone 1. Two alternating conventional and strip tillage sections of six rows each were sampled in each plot. Zone 1 and 2 served as the control and did not receive nitrogen fertilizer in year 2007.Texas Tech University. August 9th.2 Kg/Ha) on July 8th. applying only 0. September 24th and September 24th in 2007. Zones 5 and 6 were under early All 6 zones received nitrogen 55 . two levels of irrigation were implemented. 100% ET irrigation is defined as the amount of water supplemented to the crop equaling the total loss of water through evaporation (water lost from the soil to the atmosphere) and the total transpiration (subsequent water lost from aerial parts of the plant). 5. 5 and 6 served as controls and received full irrigation (100-100-100% EvapoTranspiration (ET)). Zones 3 and 4 were kept under late deficit treatment (100-100-50%ET).75 inch of irrigation (half) during the last 90 days while maintain full irrigation prior to. For 2007 full irrigation was determined to be 1. In 2008. and 6 received 30lb/acre (33.6 kg/Hectare) of URAN (Urea Ammonium Nitrate) on July 25th.5 inches of water. Zones 1 and 2 received full irrigation (100-100-100%ET). The late growing seasons last from beginning of August till the end of October. August 1st and September 2nd. 4. August 2010 of strip and conventional tillage rows respectively starting from the outside of the plots. zones 1 through 6 received URAN 35 lb/acre (39. Zones 3 and 4 were kept under late deficit treatment (100-100-50%ET). The remaining zones 3. August 27th. In 2007. fertilization in 2008. There were 3 levels of irrigation in year 2008.

Texas Tech University. Soil samples were collected from depth of 15cm. Sampling Four soil samples were taken within each plot. Crop Management Treatments In 2007. Once samples were taken. 2) Nitrogen and a Late Season Drought (plots 3 &4). 56 . two from conventional tillage rows and two strip tillage rows. Brandon Melester. 2) Late Season Drought and added Nitrogen (plots 3 & 4). and 3) an Early Season Drought and added Nitrogen (plots 5 & 6). August 2010 deficit irrigation. soil was collected from three different locations across the plot to account for any variations that may be present within each section of the zone and combined per row. with approximately 330g of samples taken for each replicate sample. In 2008. They were irrigated with half of the regular irrigation 90. As with 2007 there were alternating conventional and strip tillage rows that were sampled (Figure 3.75 inch quantity in initial 45 days (beginning of May to mid-June).1). the treatments applied to the field were: 1) Full Irrigation and no Nitrogen (plots 1 & 2). For each sample. they were kept in a cooler and stored at 4⁰ C until they were processed for enzymatic analysis. and 3) Full Irrigation and added Nitrogen (plots 5 & 6). the applied treatments were: 1) Full Irrigation and added Nitrogen (plots 1 & 2).

and α-galactosidase were measured for activity in all samples following the procedures described by Tabatabai (1994) at their optimal pH value. August 2010 Enzyme Assays Alkaline phosphatase. Brandon Melester. For each DFA. Influences of soil nutrients levels on enzymatic activities and the influence of the enzyme levels on each other were evaluated using bivariate correlations. Massachusetts). All analyses were performed using SPSS 14.0 for windows. DFA analyzed microbial responses to 2007 and 2008 separately. Each data set underwent the Least Significant Difference (LSD) post hoc test when significance (p ≤ 0.Texas Tech University. The overall impacts of management affects on the total microbial enzymatic activities of the soil and total nutrient influence of the soil were evaluated using mANOVA. β-glucosidase. β-glucosaminidase.05) was indicated on the one-way ANOVA and mANOVA. Absorbance was measured at 400 nm. using MATLAB (Natick. 1000 randomized (bootstrap) iterations were performed in order to build null distributions from which to compare actual sampling distribution. 2003). the optimal wavelength of p –nitrophenol (Eril and Avci 2002). 57 . Results were expressed in milligrams of p –nitrophenol released per kilogram soil per hour (Acosta-Martinez et. Data Analysis Differences in individual enzymatic activities in response to different management practices were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) was employed to visualize microbial responses to managanement practices in multivariate space. al. phosphodiesterase.

3a).137) (Figure 3. Brandon Melester. β-Glucosaminidase Activity β-glucosaminidase activity did not differ in response to irrigation (p= 0. there did appear to be the trend of higher levels of phosphodiesterase activity in the full irrigation treatment when compared to the levels seen in the LSD treatment. However. Phosphodiesterase activities were consistently greater (p ≤ 0.065) effect of the LSD treatment on phosophodiesterase activity when compared to the full irrigation control (Figure 3.3b). There was a noticeable pattern of higher β-glucosaminidase under full irrigation than LSD β-glucosaminidase levels.2b).05) under full irrigation treatment than when exposed to late season drought in the fall months of 2007 (Figure 3. Late Season Drought (LSD) for the 2007-2008 growing seasons Phosphodiesterase Activity There was not a significant (p = 0.2a) over the two year period.Texas Tech University. This pattern was further revealed when the phosphodiesterase levels between the two treatments were compared throughout the individual seasons. August 2010 Results Effect of Irrigation Full Irrigation vs. This was seen in the summer months of 2008 when the β-glucosaminidase levels of the Full Irrigation treatment were significantly (p ≤ 0. 58 .05) higher than that of the β-glucosaminidase levels of the LSD treatment (Figure 3.

Full Irrigation vs.05) higher β-glucosidase levels than the LSD treatment for this same period (Figure 3. no difference could be seen in the summer and fall months in both 2007 and 2008 (Figure 3. Early Season Drought (ESD) during growing season of 2008 The mANOVA showed that there was not a significant difference between the three irrigation treatments when all enzymes are used.5a). Furthermore. Furthermore. Late Season Drought (LSD) vs. This trend of no difference between the two treatments was observed in each of the summer and fall seasons in 2007 and 2008 respectively (Figure 3. The effect of irrigation treatment resulted from the fall months of 2007.5b). Brandon Melester.44) difference seen between the full irrigation treatment and the LSD treatment on the overall levels of alkaline phosphatase activity across both sampling seasons (Figure 3.05) greater than that of the LSD treatment on the levels of β-glucosidase activity across both sampling seasons (Figure 3. α-Galactosidase Activity The activity levels of α-galactosidase did not exhibit any overall difference (p= 0.Texas Tech University. in which the full irrigation treatment produced significantly (p ≤ 0.4a).754) between the full and LSD irrigation treatments (Figure 3. DFAs showed that 59 . August 2010 β-Glucosidase Activity The effect of the full irrigation treatment was overall significantly (p ≤ 0.4b).6b).6a). Alkaline Phosphatase Activity There was no significant (p= 0.

Texas Tech University.9a).05) differences between the LSD and ESD treatments for βglucosaminidase and alkaline phosphatase activity levels with full higher levels in response to ESD treatments. Phosphodiesterase Activity There were no significant (p = 0.7a). LSD for βglucosidase activity levels was seen with full irrigation producing higher enzymatic activity levels (Tale 3.1). Phosphodiesterase and α-galactosidase activity levels were shown to be affected the least by the three irrigation treatments (Figure 3. There were also no seasonal 60 .05). Brandon Melester.7b). Effects of Nitrogen No nitrogen vs.263) effect on phosphodiesterase levels between the nitrogen and no nitrogen treatment (Figure 3. A significant difference between full vs.8). There were patterns seen on the levels of enzyme activities for the individual enzymes and the effect of the two treatments varied depending on the Individual enzyme examined across the growing season (Figure 3. if either phosphodiesterase or α-galactosidase data are removed as parameters the mANOVA detected significant differences across irrigation treatments (p ≤ 0. Nitrogen Application: 2007 Effect on combined enzyme activity The mANOVA indicated that the addition of nitrogen did not have a significant effect on the combined enzyme activity compared to the no nitrogen treatment. However. August 2010 the irrigation treatment groups do not separate out for both years combined (Figure 3. One-way ANOVA showed that there were significant (p ≤ 0.

05) greater β-glucosidase activity levels in the fall than that of the no nitrogen treatment (Figure 3.685) differences in the overall β-glucosidase activity levels (Figure 3. Brandon Melester.Texas Tech University.11b).10b). 61 .086) effects of nitrogen on the overall levels of βglucosaminidase activities. August 2010 differences seen between the phosphodiesterase activity levels in the two treatments (Figure 3. β-Glucosidase Activity The nitrogen and no nitrogen treatments showed no significant (p= 0. The no nitrogen treatment was statistically no greater than the nitrogen treatment in both the summer and fall season even though it appeared to have a pattern of greater alkaline phosphates activity (Figure 3.12b).12a) but there wasn’t a significant (p= 0.10a). β-Glucosaminidase Activity There were no significant (p= 0. However there did appear to be a trend of lower levels associated with the nitrogen treatments across the growing seasons (Figure 3.11a).111) difference. The nitrogen treatment did display significantly (p ≤ 0. Alkaline Phosphatase Activity The overall levels of alkaline phosphatase activity appeared to be greater with the no nitrogen treatment compared to treatment with nitrogen (Figure 3. there are no statistical significant differences between the two treatments (Figure 3.9b). When looking at the summer and fall seasons.

This separation was driven most by the levels of β-glucosidase activity (Figure 3.13a).77). There was a significant seasonal difference (p ≤ 0. August 2010 α-Galactosidase Activity There were no significant differences (p= 0. Strip (2007-2008) Phosphodiesterase Activity Levels of phosphodiesterase activity were overall higher under conventional tillage than activity levels across years under strip-tillage (Figure 3.13b).15a) but the levels were not significantly different (p= 0. enzyme activities under nitrogen addition during summer sampling approached significant differences in comparison to no-nitrogen summer (p= 0. The activity of this enzyme did not differ across season irrespective of the addition of nitrogen (Figure 3.Texas Tech University.14a).092) and no nitrogen fall (p= 0.14b). Brandon Melester. However. the enzyme activity levels between the two treatments were not significantly different during any of the summer or fall 62 . This was further seen in DFA which displayed a separation between the nitrogen summer treatments from the rest of the treatments (Figure 3.082).652) between the nitrogen and no nitrogen treatment on the overall α-galactosidase activity levels (Figure 3.001) difference seen between the summer and fall nitrogen treatments.05) differences between the no nitrogen and nitrogen treatments for all enzymes combined for either the summer or fall seasons. Moreover. Tillage Effects: Conventional vs. Combined enzymatic effect across growing seasons in 2007 The mANOVA found that the there were no significant (p≤ 0.

There were no significant (p ≤ 0.16b). Within seasons.15b). August 2010 seasons in 2007 and 2008. However. Alkaline Phosphatase Activity There was no significant difference (p= 0.05) difference observed 63 .424) difference in β-glucosaminidase between the conventional and tillage treatments on the overall levels of β-glucosaminidase activity across all seasons (Figure 3. β-Glucosaminidase Activity There was no significant (p= 0.17a). β-Glucosidase Activity There was no significant difference (p= 0.18a).17b). the fall season of 2008 had significantly lower levels of phosphodiesterase activity than all the other seasons for both tillage treatments (Figure 3. Brandon Melester.05) differences in βglucosidase activity levels between the two tillage treatments within any of the seasons. However.736) between the overall levels of alkaline phosphatase activity between the conventional and strip tillage treatments across both years (Figure 3. there was an observed seasonal difference as the summer seasons had significantly lower levels of activity than the fall seasons for both the conventional and strip tillage treatments (Figure 3. β-glucosaminidase levels differed only during the 2008 season when the summer levels were significantly higher for the conventional summer and the strip fall of 2008 (Figure 3. While there were no significant (p ≤ 0.16a).412) between the overall levels of βglucosidase activity between the conventional and strip tillage treatments across both growing seasons (Figure 3.Texas Tech University.

001).18b). α-galactosidase activity was not significantly different between the conventional and strip tillage treatments (p= 0. However. α-Galactosidase Activity Across both growing seasons. August 2010 in alkaline phosphatase levels between the two treatments within any of the seasons.001). There were no significant (p ≤ 0. Brandon Melester. alkaline phosphatase levels for the strip tillage treatments in 2007 were lower than those observed under conventional tillage (Figure 3.Texas Tech University.575). Discriminate function analysis (Figure 3. when examining the annual tillage effect there was a separation of the different groups (p ≤ 0.20) displayed the groups separating out by different years. 19b). The DFA did not show a complete separation between nutrient and enzyme dynamics between the strip 2007 treatment and strip 2008 treatment but the subsequent ANOVA indicated that overall nutrient and enzymatic levels were significantly different between the two growing years (p ≤ 0. the levels of alkaline phosphatase activities were higher during the fall under the strip tillage treatment.19a). 64 .05) differences between the two tillage treatments within any of the seasons. however the α-galactosidase levels were significantly less in 2007 than 2008 for both treatments (Figure 3. Combined enzymatic and nutrient effect The mANOVA indicated that tillage did not impact the total soil nutrient and extracellular enzyme dynamics (p= 0. However. There was a complete separation among the nutrient and enzymatic effects of the conventional treatment between 2007 and 2008.373) (Figure 3. for the 2008 growing season.

The levels in the summer of 2007 were statistically 65 . The levels of β-glucosaminidase was the least related to any of the soil nutrient parameters measured (Table 3. There was no statistical difference between NO3 levels in the summer and fall of 2008.21). βglucosaminidase (0.2).43). Correlations between enzyme activity levels Alkaline phosphatase and α-galactosidase showed the strongest significant correlation (36%) of activity levels followed by β-glucosaminidase and α-galactosidase (33%).21). Brandon Melester. Activity of β-glucosaminidase had the most significant correlations with other (Table 3. OM was shown to have the strongest and largest number of significant correlations with the most enzymes with including phosphodiesterase (-0.43) with NH4 levels.29).33). alkaline phosphatase (0. There was much more variability in the NO3 levels in the different seasons during 2007. along with α-galactosidase (0. Phosphodiesterase activities showed correlated (-0. August 2010 Effect of nutrients Correlation between nutrient levels and enzyme levels Ammonium (NH4) and organic matter (OM) levels had the highest correlations with individual enzyme. Changes in key nutrient levels (growing seasons of 2007-2008) Soil Extractable Nitrate NO3 levels were highly variable across all treatments in 2007 compared to the levels in 2008 (Figure 3.Texas Tech University.3).

% Soil Organic Matter (OM) dynamics OM levels remained almost completely consistent throughout the 2007 and 2008 growing season with one exception. 66 . Soil Phosphorus (P) dynamics P levels showed no statistical (p ≤ 0. In the fall 2008 the levels showed a significant increase.23).21).05) greater in the summer of 2008 than either season of 2007 or the fall of 2008 (Figure 3. August 2010 greater than levels seen in any other season in any of the two years. NH4 levels in the fall of 2008 exhibited 15 fold increase when compared to the NH4 levels from the summer 2008 growing season (Figure 3. The levels of soil organic matter (OM) were significantly (p ≤ 0.22). the levels in the fall of 2007 were statistically lower than any other season in either of the two years (Figure 3.Texas Tech University. Soil Extractable Ammonium (NH4) Dynamics NH4 levels across all treatments remained very consistent from the summer of 2007 through the summer of 2008 (Figure 3.05) differences between the seasons within an individual year but exhibited significant differences between the two years irrespective of season (Figure 3. Brandon Melester.24). Conversely.22).

2005). The semi-arid conditions in West Texas impose unique challenges to developing sustainable production systems under increasing costs of fertilizers and greater demands for limited water supplies. Brandon Melester. and fertilizer application are the best for a particular agroecosystem will be the key to developing the most efficient system. Zak and McMichael 2001). August 2010 Discussion The worlds’ population is continually proliferating and as a result so must the worlds’ food supply. 1990). Understanding how agricultural practices affect the microbial dynamics of the soil will be essential to developing the most effective and sustainable agroecosystems.Texas Tech University. global climate changes may present even more difficulties in maintaining and improving on current productivity (Adam et al. Finding low input solutions to maximizing agricultural production will not only cut down on cost and potentially increase productivity but will also help create more sustainable agroecosystems even in a more unpredictable climate (Stainforth et al. Effects of Irrigation As full irrigation maintained higher plant growth and provided consistently optimum conditions for microbial activity. Current agricultural practices such as chemical inputs and irrigation are becoming more expensive and are not as sustainable as low-input systems (Clark et al. irrigation strategies. Increasing the efficiency of modern agriculture will be monumental in helping to meet the ever rising food demands of a growing human population. Furthermore. Determining which tillage technique. one would expect the highest levels of enzyme 67 . 1998.

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010 activities under these conditions thin in either early of late season drought. The latter two treatments were established to determine if a reduction in irrigation at specific periods in crop growth would not have detrimental effects. Full irrigation only produced

significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater activity levels for β-glucosidase suggesting that having consistent moisture alone will not provide for maximum microbial activity. β-glucosaminidase and alkaline phosphatase did not show any differences to the overall response to the different irrigation treatments but the ANOVA confirmed that they did show significant differences between the late season drought treatment and the early season drought treatment within particular seasons. This seasonal pattern may suggest that β-glucosaminidase and alkaline phosphatase production is highly dependent on when adequate soil moisture available. Both enzymes displayed significantly greater activity levels in the early season drought treatment than they did in the late season drought treatment in 2008 suggesting that seasonal differences in either production or the densities of microbes producing these enzymes may be contributing to the observed pattern.

Response to nitrogen application Levels of β-glucosaminidase showed the strongest response to nitrogen significantly increasing with its input. This result was to be expected due to its role in N cycling by breaking C-N bonds of amides and releasing NH3 in the process used in N mineralization which provides a useable form of N for plants (Dick, 1997). Moreover βglucosaminidase can contribute 5-10% of the organic N in the soil surface by hydrolyzing 68

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010 amino sugars (Ekenler and Tabatabai, 2002). This result suggest that β-glucosaminidase is aiding in N cycling. β-glucosidase is involved in the hydrolysis of glycosidic molecules releasing glucose to be used for and energy source for the micro flora (Dick 1997) and would not be expected to be strongly affected by N inputs. It indeed did not display an overall response to the nitrogen application but did show significantly greater levels of activity with nitrogen application in the fall season. One explanation for this observation is a lag response to altered C:N ratios in the soil from plant growth during the summer. Soil enzymes have been shown to respond to changing C:N ratios in soil (Sinsabaugh et al. 2005) and β-glucosidase is directly involved in soil C dynamics. Alkaline phosphatase showed consistently lower levels of activity in the nitrogen treated plots compared to the no nitrogen treatment. This trend may be a result of nitrogen addition creating a competitive disadvantage to organisms that secrete alkaline phosphatase.

Response to tillage type Soil enzymes can be accurate and sensitive indicators to agricultural management treatments (Deng & Tabatabai, 1996, Dick 1997, Burns and Dick 2002) including the short-term effects of tillage practices (Kandeler et al. 1999). However, this hasn’t always been shown to be the case. Conversely, studies have shown that soil enzymes do not always respond to changes in tillage (Mina et al. 2008). In this study, tillage had no impact on the activity of any of the extracellular soil enzymes measured within seasons or 69

Texas Tech University, Brandon Melester, August 2010 overall in this study. The lack of a functional response to tillage treatments could have been affected by the soil composition of the agricultural plots in this study or the cropping system studied. Tietjen showed that clay-enzyme complexes can reduce the activity of alkaline phosphatase but increased the activity of β-glucosidase. Clay

particles can also indirectly affect the activity of various soil enzymes forming bonds to other cationic particles which can alter the pH affecting the optimal activity or interact with the enzymes themselves (Boyd and Mortaland 1990). The affects of tillage

treatment on the functional responses in the soil measured by enzymatic activity may indeed be there but outweighed by the effect of the formation of clay-enzyme complexes. Influence of nutrients and other enzymes on enzymatic activity levels Soil organic matter (OM) had the broadest correlation with enzyme activity levels, significantly correlating with phosphodiesterase, β-glucosaminidase, alkaline phosphatase, and α-galactosidase, the most notable being β-glucosaminidase (33%) and α-galactosidase (43%). This result is consistent with other research which has shown OM to be a driving force in N mineralization and C cycling (Fontaine et al. 2003), processes directly affected by β-glucosaminidase and α-galactosidase (Dick 1997). This indicates that OM levels may be an appropriate measure of microbial functionality irrespective of cropping management.

Conclusion Irrigation had an affect on enzymatic activity. phosphodiesterase and β-

glucosaminidase activity was greater under constant irrigation while others did not 70

71 . The differential response suggests that composition of the soil microbial community changed in response to irrigation. Furthermore. This contradicts most of the previous research. August 2010 exhibit any response to irrigation schedule. This is mostly likely due to a secondary effect due to the fact that β-glucosidase is involved in proving C for soil microbes and not N cycling. As seen in other studies. soil organic matter appears to be the best measure of the level of soil functionality and microbial dynamics. Nitrogen fertilization directly impacted the activity of β-glucosaminidase. Brandon Melester. an enzyme directly involved in N mineralization and cycling dynamics. Full irrigation is needed to maximize the activity and abundance of the soil microbial community. This result may be due to other variables having stronger affects on enzymatic activity levels than tillage or that the impacts of tillage in this system were short-lived. attempts to conserve water and reduce water quantities will not only hinder the soil microbial activity and abundance in that particular growing season but will also negatively affect them in subsequent growing seasons even if full irrigation is reimplemented. Nitrogen inputs significantly increased short-term β-glucosidase activity in the fall seasons. The outcome of this study was the determination of the importance of irrigation to peanut cropping systems in a semi-arid environment. Strip-tillage was not shown to have any negative impacts on microbial dynamics in comparison and therefore should be considered a better tillage option because of the reduced soil erosion and energy required associated with this practice. Tillage was not found to significantly impact the activity levels of the measured soil enzymes.Texas Tech University.

72 .Texas Tech University. Brandon Melester. August 2010 Nitrogen addition had minimal effects on the system and appears to be an unnecessary expenditure when growing peanut crops in this particular system.

. R. Bandick.. D. Bollag and G..P. Shennan. Angers. Long-term effects of no-tillage. Early impacts of cotton and peanut cropping systems on selected soil chemical. R. T. and M. microbiological and biochemical properties. SSSAJ.J. Smedley M.M.. J. N.T. and Mortaland M. Upchurch... Acosta-Martinez. Can J Soil Sci. Effect of tillage and residue management on enzyme activities in soils: III. Acid phosphatase activity in soils of the appalachian region. Scow. 1993. Cambridge University Press: 65-78.H. R.. D.. Clark.. crop residue. Soil Science Society of America 52: 1612-1616. J. Stotzky..M. S. Brown. Soil Biochemisty. 345:219-224. Barea. R.. Field management effects on soil enzyme activities. Azcon-Aguilar. Agron.A. et al. 2004. 270 Madison Avenue. C. Interactions between Mycorrhizal Fungi and Rhizosphere Microorganisms within the Context of Sustainable Soil-Plant Systems. J-M. Dalal. Samson. 31: 1471-1479. A. Bissonnette. Boyd S.. Marcel Dekker Inc.. 73: 39-50. Gange and V. Glyer.K. R.. M. K. C. R. McCarl.W.C. 90: 662671. J. Brandon Melester. S. Biol Fertil Soils 40: 44-54. Dick. J. Biol Fertil Soils 38: 216-227. Adams. et al. N.D. v. et al.C. New York 10016: 1-28. A. R.D. 1996. Global climate change and US agricultura. and nitrogen application of properties of a vertisol. Horwath. V. 73 . Nature. K. Multitrophic Interactions in Terrestrial Systems: 36th Symposium of the British Ecological Society. L. B. 53: 1511-1515 Deng. Boote. 1999. Phosphates and arylsufatase. Baligar. 2003.A.. K.. C. R. Biol Fertil Soils 24(141-146).. M.. 1988.M. 1989. Microbial and biochemical changes induced b rotation and tillage in a soil under barley production. physical.. Enzyme activities and microbial community structure in semiarid agricultural soils. Curry. Legere.B. C. Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Zobeck. Ritchie. Allen. A. P. New York. Volume 6. 1990. Enzyme Interactions with Clays and Clay-Organic Matter Complexes. M.J. 1998. Tabatabai 1997.Texas Tech University.M. Jone. 1990. J.. W.” Soil Biology and Biochemistry. V. Rosenzweig. Peart. Wright.. August 2010 References Acosta-Martínez.

107-124. Soil Sci. 2003. 2002. P.D.. Biol Fertil Soils.H. S. 1993. D.L. M. Kandeler. Abbadie. Fontaine.. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. Marcel Dekker. Biological Indictors of Soil Health... A. White. 35: 837-843. pp. B.F. 36: 367-376. Soil Microbiolgy Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management. Claasseen. Dick. WI: Special Publication. 2002.E.R. Oudemans. England 121-157 Dick. Tscherko D.A. CAB International. Potential uses of soil enzymes. 1993. New York.R. Am.M. Cairney. Clinical Biochemistry.R. Brandon Melester. 448–452. August 2010 Dick. Maddux. Ezymatic Activities of Mycelia in Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities. 1990.. Madison. New York.. J.. Soil Sci. P.Texas Tech University. 35: 41-47. Mariotti. Vol. Tabatabai. 28: 343-351. N minerlisation and enzyme activities of a Chernozem under different tillage management. J. P. Blaine Metting. Crop rotation and tillage effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. J. FL 33487-2742: 331-348. H. M. Soc. M.. Soil Enzymes as Intergative Indictors of Soil Health. Inc.W. Soil enzyme activities as indicators of soil quality. Soc. 74 . New York 10016: 95127. Res. Soil Microbial Ecology. The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystem Third Edition. Dick. M. 1994. Edited by F. Erel. Tabatabai. Havlin J. and Tabatabai. Marcel Dekker Inc.D. O. LLC. & Avci. E. β-Glucosaminidase activity of soils: effect of cropping systems and its relationship to nitrogen mineralization. M. 12: 107-118. 1997. Finlay. 95-127. The priming effect of organic matter: a question of microbial competition. Edited by Doran et al. 54. L. Significane and Potential Uses of Soil Enzymes.. P. Boca Raton. Jr. Edited by Pankhurst et al.P. Polyphosphates as sources of phosphorus for plants. Semi-automated enzymatic measurement of serum zinc concentration.A. S. 2005. 1987. Am.. 1999. R...R.Metting. L. and Tabatabai. Kissel. P. Dick. Fert. Dighton. Wallingford. pp. and M. Biol Fertil Soils. and Long. Lindahl. Taylor & Francis Group.. Long-term monitoring of microbial biomass. R.A. J.A. Spiegel. Ekenler. J. New York. B. In Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment.

Bottomley. Spicer. D. Gupta. C.. M. 2005. Biogeochemisty. Schmitz. and protection from photodegradation. A. Sinsabaugh. Structure and Function in Agroecosystem Design and Management. Spedding..A. D.. Lauber. 2003. Waldrop. M.S. Packer.. 75 .. Wisconson. J. S. 78: 713-726. Piani. Aquatic ecology. Faull. R. 75: 201-215. Aina. A. 2008. T. A. Maltby. C. Nutr Cycl Argoecosyst. Extracellular enzyme activities and soil organic dynamics for northern hardwood forest receiving stimulated nitrogen deposition.K. Frame.. H. Stainforth.A. 2005.. Shiyomi.P. Collins. Sexton..G.C. 1990. M. B. Grassroots Ecology: Plant-Micorbe-Soil Interactions As Drivers Of Plant Community Structure And Dynamics. Srivastva. Madramootoo. R. Changes in soil nutrient content and enzymatic activity under conventional and zero-tillage practices in an Indian sandy clay loam soil. CRS Press: 145-166. N. Thorpe.A. S. Weaver.A. L. Kettleborough. Mehuys. 2003. alteration of enzyme activity. 2001.. N.J... J. C. Soil microbial dynamics in maize-growing soil under different tillage and residue management system.. M.. Verhoeven. J.. Kumar. Knight. 82: 273-281.J. J.. Methods of soil analysis. and Wetzel. August 2010 Mina.. H. 36: 499-512.. Extracellular enzyme-clay mineral complexes: Enzyme absorption. et al.. Angle and P. L.. H.A. 2004.R. Murphy.B. T. A. Smith. C.T.. Gallo. Part 2. B. M.L. R. McMichael.. Soil Enzymes. D. Brandon Melester..R. D. Christensen.L. Allern.. Argoecology of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Activity. Journal of Ecology. Koizumi.A. SSSA: 775-833 Tietjen. M. Nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization in fens and bogs. M. Microbiological and biochemical properties. J.. T. Nature. 37: 331-339. (1994). Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Soil Biology and Biochemistry... Ecology 84(9): 2281-2291.A. E. R. Zak.M. Zak.E. Martin. Saha...Texas Tech University. Hamel. 433: 403-406 Tabatabai. Reynolds. Madison. C.

88 0. Full vs. LSD= late season drought.90 76 . ESD LSD vs. LSD Full vs.05. Alpha= α-galactosidase. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase.05 Glucosidase Alkaline 0.91 0.44 0.07 0.89 0.ESD Phospho 0.03 Alpha 0.05 0. Values were considered significant at p ≤ 0.55 0. P-values for comparisons of the three different irrigation treatments imposed in 2008 for a peanut cropping system. ESD= early season drought].Texas Tech University. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase. Significant values are indicated in bold.45 Glucosamini 0. August 2010 Table 3. Full= full irrigation.16 0.08 0. Glucosamini= β-glucosaminidase. Note [Phospho= phosphodiesterase. Brandon Melester.1.82 0.81 0.

Correlation matrix comparing soil extractable nutrients to extracellular soil enzyme activity from soil samples collect under peanut cultivation for two growing seasons of 2007-2008.06 0.05 0.25 0.11 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.04 0. Fe= soil extractable iron.01 0.09 0.18 0.26 0.03 0. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase.36 0.01 0. Ca= soil extractable calcium.17 0.25 0.2.02 0.05 0. All numbers represent r calculated using Pearson Correlations.08 0. Brandon Melester. K= soil extractable potassium.24 0.11 0. Cu= soil extractable copper.22 0.13 0.15 0. NH4= soil extractable ammonium.15 0.43 0. NO3 = soil extractable nitrate.09 0.03 0.01 0.10 0. August 2010 Table 3.33 Glucosi d Alkalin e Alpha 0. P= soil extractable phosphorus.01 0.27 0. Glucomini= β-glucosaminidase. Zn= soil extractable zinc. OM= soil organic matter].08 0.16 0.29 0. B= soil extractable boron.06 0.02 0.21 Gucomi 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.19 0. Mg= soil extractable magnesium.04 0.29 0.Texas Tech University.11 0.07 0. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase.18 0.22 0.22 0. Mn= soil extractable manganese.04 0.11 0.18 0.13 0.08 0. The r values range from 1 to -1 with being a 100% positive correlation and -1 a 100% negative correlation.24 0.13 0.02 0. Note [Phosph= phosphodiesterase.43 77 .10 0.10 0.18 0.24 0. Alpha= α-galactasidase.04 0. Significant r values are indicated in bold. CEC= cation exchange.13 0.16 0.27 0. NO Phosph o 3 NH 4 P K Mg Ca S B Zn Mn Fe Cu CE C OM 0. S= soil extractable sulfur.16 0.08 0.

34 0. Glucomini= β-glucominidase.00 Glucosidase 1.00 Gucomini 0. Phospho Gucomini Glucosidase Phospho 1. Brandon Melester.17 Alpha -0. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase. Correlation matrix between all extracellular soil enzymes collected under peanut cultivation throughout the growing seasons of 2007-2008.24 0.06 0. Alpha= α-galactasidase].03 1.3. August 2010 Table 3.23 Alk -0. Note [Phosph= phosphodiesterase.00 0. All numbers represent r calculated using Pearson Correlations.16 0.Texas Tech University.00 0. Significant r values are indicated in bold. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase.18 0. The r values range from 1 to -1 with being a 100% positive correlation and -1 a 100% negative correlation.00 78 .36 1.16 Alk Alpha 1.

2. 79 . The numbers indicated refer to the different zones. nitrogen fertilization. Brandon Melester. August 2010 Figure 3.Texas Tech University. Tillage treatment and zone alignment remained the same in 2008.1. Plot design for established to study the effects of irrigation. and tillage on soil microbial dynamics and community structure associated with a peanut cropping system in semi-arid west-Texas in year 2007. Irrigation and nitrogen treatments differed in plots 1. and 6 in 2008. 5.

n=64.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.E.Texas Tech University. n= 16. Brandon Melester. 80 . August 2010 Figure 3. Values are means± S. 2007-2008. 120 Full LSD a ab c d d Phosphodiesterase Activity (mg kg-1 soil h-1) 100 abc bc 80 ab 60 40 20 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.2. Full LSD a a Phosphodiesterase Activity -1 -1 (mg Pn kg soil h ) 80 60 40 20 a. (a)Total phosphodiesterase activity levels across two years. (b) Phosphodiesterase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. The effect of late season drought (LSD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on phosphodiesterase activity levels associated with a peanut cropping system. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.. Values are means ± S.E.

(b) β-glucosaminidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008.E. n=16. (a)Total βglucosaminidase activity across two growing seasons.. Brandon Melester. Groups statistically different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. August 2010 Figure 3. Values are means± S. The effect of late season drought (LSD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on β-glucosaminidase activity levels within a peanut cropping system. 25 Full LSD a -Glucoscaminidase -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil ) 20 ab ab bc bc bc c c 15 10 5 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. 81 . 2007-2008.Texas Tech University.. 18 16 Full LSD a a -Glucosaminidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 a. n= 64.3.E. Values are means± S.

August 2010 Figure 3.. Brandon Melester.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Values are means± S. The effect of late season drought (LSD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on β-glucosidase activity levels within a peanut cropping system. (a)Total β-glucosidase activity levels across two growing seasons.Texas Tech University. Values are means± S.E. 82 . n= 64. 120 Full LSD a -Glucosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 100 ab 80 c 60 c bc bc c bc 40 20 Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 b.E. 2007-2008. (b) β-glucosidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. n=16.. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. 80 Full LSD a b -Glucosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 60 40 20 a.4.

(b) Alkaline phosphatase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. n=16.. Values are means± S.E.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. The effect of late season drought (LSD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on alkaline phosphatase activity levels from a peanut cropping system. Values are means± S..E. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. n= 64. August 2010 Figure 3. 210 Full LSD Alkaline Phosphatase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 180 a 150 a a a a a a a 120 90 60 30 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. 140 Full LSD a a Alkaline Phosphatase Activity -1 -1 (mg Pn kg soil h ) 120 100 80 60 40 20 a. 83 . Brandon Melester. (a)Total alkaline phosphatase activity levels from 2007-2008.5.Texas Tech University.

(b) α-galactosidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. 84 .E.. Values are means± S. The effect of late season drought (LSD) compared to full irrigation (Full) on α-galactosidase activity levels from a peanut cropping system. 20 Full LSD a a a -Galactosidase -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 15 abc bc c bc ab 10 5 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.Texas Tech University.E. n= 64. n=16. (a) Total α-galactosidase activity levels from 2007-2008. 16 14 Full LSD a a -Galactosidase Activity -1 -1) (mg PN kg soil h 12 10 8 6 4 2 a. August 2010 Figure 3..6. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Brandon Melester. Values are means± S.

(a) Discriminate function analysis (DFA) comparing the differences of the three different irrigation treatment imposed in 2008 on a peanut cropping system using different enzyme activity (phosphodiesterase. b. a. Correlations are indicated by the smallest angle between two vectors. Agal= αgalactosidase]. 85 . AlkPho= alkaline phosphatase. Gmini= βglucosaminidase. β-glucosaminidase. (b) Vector correlations indicating correlations between irrigation treatments and enzyme activities. Gdase= β-glucosidase. 3= full season drought. Ex 0°= 100% positive correlation.7. 2= late season drought. Brandon Melester. alkaline phosphatase.Texas Tech University. August 2010 Figure 3. Phos= phosphodiesterase. α-galactosidase) levels as the parameters. and 180°= 100% negative correlation. β-glucosidase. 90°= no correlation. Note [1= full irrigation.

β-glucosidase. August 2010 Figure 3. βglucosaminidase. alkaline phosphatase. and α-galactosidase activity levels as the parameters.Texas Tech University. Brandon Melester.8. Discriminate function analysis (DFA) comparing no nitrogen application and nitrogen application to a peanut cropping system using phosphodiesterase. 86 .

9. August 2010 Figure 3. Values are means± S.. 2007-2008. The effects of nitrogen application on phosphodiesterase activity levels from a peanut cropping system. n= 32. (a)Total phosphodiesterase activity levels across two growing years. n=16. No nitrogen nitrogen 100 a a 80 Phosphodiesterase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 60 40 20 a.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Brandon Melester. (b) Phosphodiesterase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.Texas Tech University.E. 120 No nitrogen nitrogen a a a a b Phosphodiesterase Activity -1 -1 (mg Pn kg soil h ) 100 80 60 40 20 Summer 07 Fall 07 b.E. Values are means± S.. 87 .

(b) β-glucosaminidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons in both 2007 and 2008. 25 No nitrogen nitrogen a -Glucosaminidase Activity -1 -1 (mg Pn kg soil h ) 20 a 15 a a 10 5 Summer 07 Fall 07 b. 2007-2008.E.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. 20 No nitrogen nitrogen a -Glucosaminidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 15 a 10 5 a. n=16. Brandon Melester. n= 32. August 2010 Figure 3.Texas Tech University.10. (a)Total β-glucosaminidase activity levels across two growing years. The effect of no nitrogen application compared to nitrogen application treatments on β-glucosaminidase activity levels from a peanut cropping system.. Values are means± S.E. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. Values are means± S. 88 ..

2007-2008. Values are means± S. Brandon Melester. August 2010 Figure 3. (a)Total β-glucosidase activity levels from 2007-2008. n=16. 100 No nitrogen nitrogen b a -Glucosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 80 bc c 60 40 20 Summer 07 Fall 07 b. Values are means± S. (b) β-glucosidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing seasons.Texas Tech University.E.. 89 .E.. No nitrogen nitrogen 80 a a -Glucosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 60 40 20 a.11. The effect of nitrogen on β-glucosidase activity levels from a peanut cropping system.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. n= 32.

Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.. n=16. 2007. 160 No nitrogen nitrogen a a Alkaline Phosphatase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 a.. August 2010 Figure 3. (a)Total alkaline phosphatase activity levels from 2007-2008. Brandon Melester. n= 32. 90 .E.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. (b) Alkaline phosphatase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years.Texas Tech University. The effect of no nitrogen application compared to nitrogen application treatments on alkaline phosphatase activity levels from a peanut cropping system. Values are means± S.2008. 210 No nitrogen nitrogen a a a Alkaline Phosphatase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 180 150 120 90 60 30 a Summer 07 Fall 07 b.E. Values are means± S.12.

14 No nitrogen nitrogen a a 12 -Galactosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 10 8 6 4 2 a.13. August 2010 Figure 3.E.Texas Tech University. The effect of nitrogen application compared to nitrogen application treatments on α-galactosidase activity levels in a peanut cropping system. Values are means± S. (b) αGalactosidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years. n=16. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. 2007 -2008. Values are means± S. (a)Total αgalactosidase activity levels from 2007-2008. 18 16 No nitrogen nitrogen a -Galactosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 14 12 a a a 10 8 6 4 2 Summer 07 Fall 07 b. n= 32.E. Brandon Melester. 91 ...05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.

a. August 2010 Figure 3. Gmini= βglucosaminidase. 92 . Gdase= β-glucosidase. (a) Discriminate function analysis (DFA) comparing the differences of nitrogen and no nitrogen application in different seasons in 2007 using different enzyme activity (phosphodiesterase. 4= no nitrogen fall. alkaline phosphatase. 3= no nitrogen fall. αgalactosidase) levels as the parameters. 2= nitrogen summer. AlkPho= alkaline phosphatase. Phos= phosphodiesterase. β-glucosaminidase. β-glucosidase. Brandon Melester.14.Texas Tech University. Note [1= no nitrogen summer. Agal= αgalactosidase].

Note [1= no nitrogen summer. Correlations are indicated by the smallest angle between two vectors. AlkPho= alkaline phosphatase. and 180°= 100% negative correlation. b. Phos= phosphodiesterase. 2= nitrogen summer. Gdase= β-glucosidase. Agal= α-galactosidase]. (b) Vector correlations indicating correlations between the different nitrogen treatments in summer and fall and enzyme activities.14. 3= no nitrogen fall. Ex 0°= 100% positive correlation. 93 . 90°= no correlation.Texas Tech University. 4= no nitrogen fall. August 2010 Figure 3. Gmini= β-glucosaminidase. Brandon Melester.

Conventional Strip 80 a a Phosphodiesterase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 60 40 20 a. 94 .15. Values are means± S.E.2008. (b) Phosphodiesterase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years.E. 2007. n=24. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. August 2010 Figure 3.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.. Brandon Melester. The effects of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage on phosphodiesterase activity levels in a peanut cropping system.Texas Tech University.. 100 Phosphodiesterase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) Conventional Strip a a a a a a 80 b b 60 40 20 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. n= 96. Values are means± S. (a) Total phosphodiesterase activity levels from 2007-2008.

Texas Tech University.E.. n=24. 22 20 Conventional Strip ab ab ab a -Glucosaminidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Summer 07 ab ab ab b Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b. (b) β-glucosaminidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.16.. The effect of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage treatments on βglucosaminidase activity levels in a peanut cropping system. 18 16 Conventional Srip a a -Glucosaminidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 a. Values are means± S.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.E. 2007. (a) Total β-glucosaminidase activity levels from 2007-2008. n= 96. 95 . Values are means± S. Brandon Melester. August 2010 Figure 3.2008.

96 .05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. 80 Conventional Strip a a -Glucosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 60 40 20 a. Conventional Strip 80 a a a ab b -Glucosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) b 60 b b 40 20 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.. August 2010 Figure 3.2008. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. The effect of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage on β-glucosidase activity levels in a peanut cropping system.17.Texas Tech University. 2007. Values are means± S.. (a) Total β-glucosidase activity levels from 2007-2008. Brandon Melester. (b) β-glucosidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years. n= 96.E. n=24.E. Values are means± S.

97 . Values are means± S. 2007. Brandon Melester.Texas Tech University. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.E.E.. n=24. Values are means± S. (b) Alkaline phosphatase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years. August 2010 Figure 3.. Alkaline Phosphatase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 200 180 Conventional Strip ab abc bc abc bc c bc a Alkaline Phosphatae Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.18. (a) Total alkaline phosphatase activity levels from 2007-2008. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Conventional Strip a a a. n= 96.2008.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. The effect of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage on alkaline phosphatase activity levels in a peanut cropping system.

E.Texas Tech University. Values are means± S... Values are means± S. 98 . Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.2008. (a) Total α-galactosidase activity levels from 2007-2008. The effect of strip tillage compared to conventional tillage on αgalactosidase activity levels in a peanut cropping system. August 2010 Figure 3.E. 18 16 Conventional Strip a ab a ab -Galactosidase Activity -1 -1 (mg PN kg soil h ) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 bc bc c c Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 b.19. 16 14 Conventional Strip a a -Galactosidase Activity -1 -1 (g PN kg soil h ) 12 10 8 6 4 2 a. (b) α-Galactosidase levels in each of the summer and fall seasons across two growing years. n= 96. Brandon Melester. 2007.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. n=24.

Brandon Melester. Alpha= α-galactasidase. Fe= soil extractable iron. Glucomini= βglucosaminidase. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase. Note [1= conventional 07. NH4= soil extractable ammonium. (a) Discriminate function analysis (DFA) comparing the differences of conventional and strip tillage in 2007 and 2008 using different enzyme activity levels and nutrient levels as the parameters. 2= strip 07. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase. Cu= soil extractable copper. Zn= soil extractable zinc. Mg= soil extractable magnesium. 3= conventional 08.Texas Tech University. Ca= soil extractable calcium.20. CEC= cation exchange]. Mn= soil extractable manganese. S= soil extractable sulfur. P= soil extractable phosphorus. Phosph= phosphodiesterase. K= soil extractable potassium. 4= strip 08. a. August 2010 Figure 3. NO3 = soil extractable nitrate. 99 . B= soil extractable boron.

3= conventional 08. Mg= soil extractable magnesium. P= soil extractable phosphorus. Correlations are indicated by the smallest angle between two vectors. 90°= no correlation. Brandon Melester.20. Glucomini= βglucosaminidase. Zn= soil extractable zinc. b. Note [1= conventional 07. CEC= cation exchange]. Fe= soil extractable iron. 2= strip 07. (b) Vector correlations indicating correlations between the different nitrogen treatments in summer and fall and enzyme activities. Cu= soil extractable copper. Ex 0°= 100% positive correlation. Phosph= phosphodiesterase. NO3 = soil extractable nitrate. Alkaline= alkaline phosphatase. Alpha= α-galactasidase. and 180°= 100% negative correlation. Mn= soil extractable manganese. 4= strip 08. Ca= soil extractable calcium. S= soil extractable sulfur.Texas Tech University. August 2010 Figure 3. B= soil extractable boron. K= soil extractable potassium. Glucosidase= β-glucosidase. 100 . NH4= soil extractable ammonium.

n= 48.21. 30 a Soil extractable N03 (ppm) 25 20 b 15 b 10 c 5 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 101 . Brandon Melester.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Season variation in soil extractable nitrate (NO3) levels across all treatments associated with a peanut cropping system.Texas Tech University.. Values are means± S.E. August 2010 Figure 3. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.

E..5 b 1. n= 48. Brandon Melester.0 1.0 10.0 16. Seasonal variation in soil extractable ammonium (NH4) levels across all treatments associated with a peanut cropping system. Values are means± S. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.Texas Tech University.22. 18. August 2010 Figure 3.0 b b Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 102 .05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars.0 a Soil extractable NH4 (ppm) 14.0 2.0 12.

Brandon Melester. 70 a 60 a b Soil P (ppm) 50 b 40 30 20 10 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 103 ..05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Values are means± S.23. August 2010 Figure 3.Texas Tech University. Seasonal variation in soil phosphorus (P) levels associated with a peanut cropping system.E. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0. n= 48.

August 2010 Figure 3.6 0.2 1. 1..4 b % Soil Organic Matter b b 1.2 Summer 07 Fall 07 Summer 08 Fall 08 104 .4 0.23.Texas Tech University. Brandon Melester. n= 48.6 a 1.E.05) different are indicated with different letters above mean bars. Seasonal variation in soil organic matter (OM) levels associated with a peanut cropping system.0 0. Groups statistically (p ≤ 0.8 0. Values are means± S.