Abstract
The livestock waste composts with minimum inorganic fertilizer as a soil amendment in low-input intensive farming are a feasible agricultural practice to improve soil fertility and productivity and to mitigate soil degradation. The key benefits of the practice rely on the activities of soil microorganisms. However, the role of different livestock composts (composted cattle manure vs. composted swine manure) on soil microbes, their activities and the overall impact on soil fertility and productivity in a flooded paddy remains elusive. This study compared the effectiveness of composted cattle manure (CCM) and composted swine manure (CSM) amendment on bacterial communities, activities, nutrient availability and crop yield in a flooded rice cropping system. We used deep 16S amplicon sequencing and soil enzyme activities to decipher bacterial communities and activities, respectively. Both CCM and CSM amendment significantly increased soil pH, nutrient availability (C, N, and P), microbial biomass, soil enzyme activities indicative for C and N cycles, aboveground plant biomass and grain yield. And the increase in above-mentioned parameters was more prominent in the CCM treatment compared to the CSM treatment. The CCM amendment increased species richness and stimulated copiotrophic microbial groups (Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria and Firmicutes) which are often involved in degradation of complex organic compounds. Moreover, some dominant species (e.g., Azospirillum zeae, Azospirillum halopraeferens, Azospirillum rugosum, Clostridium alkalicellulosi, Clostridium caenicola, Clostridium termitidis, Clostridium cellulolyticum, Magnetospirillum magnetotacticum, Pleomorphomonas oryzae, Variovorax boronicumulans, Pseudomonas xanthomarina, Pseudomonas stutzeri, and Bacillus niacini) which have a key role in plant growth promotion and/or lignocellulose degradation were enhanced under CCM treatment compared to CSM treatment. Multivariate analysis revealed that soil pH and available C and N were the major, while TOC, TN, and available P were the minor drivers of variation in bacterial communities. Together, it could be suggested that CCM amendment is better than CSM amendment to improve soil fertility and crop yield in a submerged rice cropping system.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Both composts increased soil pH, nutrient availability, microbial biomass and enzyme activity.
- Taxon
- Rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- CCM and CSM amendmente0
- Outcome
- soil pH, nutrient availability (C, N, and P), microbial biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both CCM and CSM amendment significantly increased soil pH, nutrient availability (C, N, and P), microbial biomass, soil enzyme activities indicative for C and N cycles, aboveground plant biomass and grain yield.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Both composts increased aboveground biomass and grain yield.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- CCM and CSM amendmente0
- Outcome
- aboveground plant biomass and grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both CCM and CSM amendment significantly increased soil pH, nutrient availability (C, N, and P), microbial biomass, soil enzyme activities indicative for C and N cycles, aboveground plant biomass and grain yield.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Cattle compost gave a more prominent increase than swine compost.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- CCM treatmente0
- Outcome
- aboveground plant biomass and grain yielde1
- Direction
- more prominente0
- Comparator
- CSM treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the increase in above-mentioned parameters was more prominent in the CCM treatment compared to the CSM treatment.”
e1“Both CCM and CSM amendment significantly increased soil pH, nutrient availability (C, N, and P), microbial biomass, soil enzyme activities indicative for C and N cycles, aboveground plant biomass and grain yield.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Cattle compost increased microbial species richness and copiotrophic groups.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- CCM amendmente0
- Outcome
- species richness and stimulated copiotrophic microbial groupse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CCM amendment increased species richness and stimulated copiotrophic microbial groups (Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria and Firmicutes)”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Dominant bacterial species were enhanced with cattle versus swine compost.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- CCM treatmente0
- Outcome
- some dominant speciese0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- CSM treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“some dominant species (e.g., Azospirillum zeae, Azospirillum halopraeferens, Azospirillum rugosum, Clostridium alkalicellulosi, Clostridium caenicola, Clostridium termitidis, Clostridium cellulolyticum, Magnetospirillum magnetotacticum, Pleomorphomonas oryzae, Variovorax boronicumulans, Pseudomonas xanthomarina, Pseudomonas stutzeri, and Bacillus niacini) which have a key role in plant growth promotion and/or lignocellulose degradation were enhanced under CCM treatment compared to CSM treatment.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH and available C and N were major drivers of bacterial community variation.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Compound
- available C and Ne0
- Outcome
- variation in bacterial communitiese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil pH and available C and N were the major, while TOC, TN, and available P were the minor drivers of variation in bacterial communities.”
t0“Rice”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · ecology: diversity · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →fertilization · soil: biology · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
95 papers more in this group
See all 99 papers →other · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
160 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
162 papers more in this group
See all 166 papers →fertilization · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
3,182 papers in the same direction as this paper · 207 in the opposite direction · 65 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3,451 papers more in this group
See all 3,455 papers →other · soil: biology · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.