Research Article Impact of Organic and Conventional ...downloads.hindawi.com/journals/scientifica/2016/3604026.pdf · Tukey multiple comparison tests were done to determinethedi

Research ArticleImpact of Organic and Conventional Systems of Coffee Farmingon Soil Properties and Culturable Microbial Diversity

Kulandaivelu Velmourougane

Post Harvest Technology Lab Coffee Research Sub Station Coffee Board Chettalli Coorg Karnataka 571 248 India

Correspondence should be addressed to Kulandaivelu Velmourougane velicargmailcom

Received 9 December 2015 Accepted 15 February 2016

Academic Editor Giuseppe Comi

Copyright copy 2016 Kulandaivelu Velmourougane This is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

A study was undertaken with an objective of evaluating the long-term impacts of organic (ORG) and conventional (CON)methodsof coffee farming on soil physical chemical biological andmicrobial diversity Electrical conductivity and bulk density were foundto increase by 34 and 21 respectively in CON compared to ORG system while water holding capacity was found decreased inboth the systems Significant increase in organic carbon was observed in ORG system Major nutrients nitrogen and potassiumlevels showed inclination in both ORG and CON system but the trend was much more pronounced in CON system Phosphoruswas found to increase in both ORG and CON system but its availability was found to be more with CON system In biologicalattributes higher soil respiration and fluorescein diacetate activity were recorded in ORG system compared to CON system Highersoil urease activity was observed in CON system while dehydrogenase activity does not show significant differences between ORGand CON systems ORG systemwas found to have highermacrofauna (314) microbial population (34) andmicrobial diversityindices compared toCON system From the present study it is accomplished that coffee soil under long-termORG systemhas bettersoil properties compared to CON system

1 Introduction

Organic farming has been defined as an agricultural pro-duction system that avoids or excludes the use of syntheticfertilizers and pesticides Organic farming relies completelyon crop rotations use of animal and green manure and bio-logical pest control in order to maintain the soil productivitysupply of plant nutrients and controlmanagement of insectsweeds and other pests [1] Research work pertaining to long-term environmental impacts of organic and conventionalproduction systems has focused primarily on indicatorsrelated to soil quality [2 3]

Coffee is one of the most important plantation cropsgrown in India and is a major foreign exchange earning com-modity Coffee is predominantly grown at high altitudeshillyregions of southern states of India where a tropical climateprevails accompanied by well drained soils rich in humusCoffee plantation industry not only plays an important rolein preservation of ecosystem in the tropical forest hills ofWestern and Eastern Ghats but also provides employmentopportunities to nearly 500000 local residents

Of late production and consumption of organic coffeehave gained paramount importance among the coffee import-ing countries and organic coffee consumption all over theworld is around 4 [4] To our knowledge no comprehensivestudies related to impacts of farming systems on soil proper-ties in coffee have been reported from India Based on theabove background the present study was undertaken with anobjective of evaluating the long-term impact of organic andconventional methods of coffee production system on soilphysical chemical biological and microbial diversity

2 Materials and Methods

21 Description of Field and Experimental Setup The experi-mental sites (arabica coffee Coffea arabica L) for the studywere selected in Coffee Research Farm Chettalli KodaguDistrict Karnataka India which is situated 989m above themean sea level and gets an annual rainfall of approximately1700mm and is characterized as having red lateritic soilsunder tropical evergreen climate The experimental plots

Hindawi Publishing CorporationScientificaVolume 2016 Article ID 3604026 9 pageshttpdxdoiorg10115520163604026

2 Scientifica

(6 acres each in randomized block design) have been main-tained under organic and conventional system for the last12 years The initial soil parameters were obtained from thepreviously conducted study at this station The soil pH (1 2water) was 587 electrical conductivity (EC) 0152 dSmminus1bulk density (BD) 102 gcm3 water holding capacity (WHC)578 organic carbon (OC) 173 available nitrogen (N)365 kgha available phosphorus (P) 275 kgha and availablepotassium (K) 360 kgha The experimental plots (organicand conventional) were wholly covered by a single dominantarabica variety (Selection 795) in India with spacing of 03 times03m CON coffee plots received a blanket nutrient scheduleof 40 30 40 (N P

2

O5

K2

O kg haminus1 per year) and nitrogenwas applied in three splits Leaf rust was managed with 05Bordeaux mixture and appropriate chemical application wasadopted for white stem borer control in CON system whileORG coffee plots were amended with 5 tonnes of organicmanure (farmyard manure and compost) per acre once inthe cropping cycle Weed control in conventional system wasmanaged by one herbicide spraying and twomanual weedingrounds while ORG plots were managed with three rounds ofmanual weeding Pest and disease problem in organic systemwere managed using neem based formulation for suckingpests lime swabbing pheromone traps and Broca traps forwhite stem borer and 05 Bordeaux spray for rust controlOther cropmanagement operations like pruning harvestingand processing were similar for both the systems

22 Soil Physicochemical Analysis The experimental soilsamples (5 nosblock) for analysis were collected randomly ata depth of 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm at flowering air-dried crushedand sieved through a 2mmmesh screen and used for furtheranalysis Water holding capacity (WHC) was estimated byKeen-Raczkowski method as outlined by Piper [5] while thedetermination of pH (1 2) was done by a digital pH meter(ELICO-L11 62)The soil organic carbon (SOC) and availablenitrogen (N) were estimated by Walkley and Black rapidtitration method [6] and Kjeldahl method respectively [7]Available phosphorus (P) and available potassium (K) wereestimated following standard methods [8ndash10]

23 Soil Biological Analysis The selected soil biologicalparameters namely soil respiration soil dehydrogenaseactivity (DHA) soil urease activity and fluorescein diacetatehydrolysis (FDA) were performed on the freshly collectedsamples following standard methods The abovementionedvariables were selected as they are used as soil qualityhealthindicators Soil respiration was measured as the CO

2

evolvedfrom moist soil adjusted to 55 water holding capacityand preincubated for three days at 22ndash25∘C with 10mL of1M NaOH The CO

2

production was then measured byback titrating unreacted alkali with 1N HCl to determineCO2

-C [11] Dehydrogenase activity (DHA) was determinedfollowing the method of Casida [12] by the reductionof 235-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) Soil (10 g)was incubated for 24 h with TTC at 27∘C in duplicateThe triphenyl formazan (TPF) formed was extracted withacetone and measured spectrophotometrically at 546 nm

Dehydrogenase activity was expressed as 120583g TPF gminus1 drysoil hminus1 Urease activity was assayed in duplicate by themethod described by Tabatabai and Bremner [13] whichinvolves the determination of the ammonium released byurease activity when 5 g of soil is incubated with 9mL of005M tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (THAM) buffer(pH 90) 1mL of 02M of urea solution and toluene at 37∘Cfor 2 h The ammonium released was determined by a pro-cedure involving treatment of the incubated soil sample with25M KC1 containing a urease inhibitor (Ag

2

SO4

) and steamdistillation of an aliquot of the resulting soil suspension withMgO for 4min Urease activity was expressed as 120583g NH

4

-N gminus1 dry soil FDA was measured following the method ofSchnurer and Rosswall [14] using 36-diacetyl fluorescein assubstrate and measuring the fluorescence at 490 nmThe soilmicro- and macrofauna population was analyzed (0ndash30 cmdepth) using Berlese funnel method [15]

24 Soil Microbiological and Diversity Analysis Soil samplescollected at 0ndash15 cm and 15ndash30 cm depth from ORG andCON plots were serially diluted in 90mL Ringerrsquos solutionup to 10minus4 dilution and 1mL of aliquot was pour platedinto selective media (Nutrient Agar for bacteria MartinrsquosRose Bengal Agar for fungi Ken Knights and MunaierrsquosAgar for actinomycetes and Buffered Yeast Agar for yeast)The plates were incubated at optimum temperature (25∘Cplusmn 1∘C) in triplicate The functionalphysiological groups ofmicrobes were enumerated by following standard micro-biological methods [16] The functional groups from thesoil samples were enumerated using Pikovskaya Agar forphosphorus solubilizingmicrobes (PSM)WaksmanNumber77 media for Azotobacter and Kingrsquos B media for fluorescentpseudomonads The microbial colonies appearing after thestipulated time period of incubation (3 days for bacteriaand yeast 5 days for fungi 7 days for actinomycetes) werecounted and expressed as colony forming units (CFUs)gof the sample The culturable microbial diversity indices forORG and CON systems were determined following standardmethods [17]

25 Statistical Analysis Significant (119901 lt 001 and 119901 lt005) differences between ORG and CON method of coffeefarming on soil attributes were analyzed using SPSS (version75) software Tukey multiple comparison tests were done todetermine the differences betweenORG andCONmethod ofcoffee farming

3 Results and Discussion

31 Effect of Organic and Conventional Method of CoffeeFarming on Soil Physicochemical Properties In soil physicalproperties significant difference was observed in electricalconductivity (EC) between organic (ORG) and conventional(CON) systems at both the soil depths while bulk density(BD) showed significance only at 0ndash15 cm for both thesystems (Table 1)Water holding capacity (WHC) of the soil at0ndash15 cm of ORG system was found to be significantly higherby 5336 compared to CON system (45) while WHC of

Scientifica 3

Table1Organicandconventio

nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

soilph

ysicalandchem

icalprop

ertie

s

Managem

entsystems

EC(dSmminus1

)pH

(12)

BD(gcm3

)WHC(

)Soilorganicc

arbo

n(

)Av

ailableN

(kgha)Av

ailableP

(kgha)

AvailableK

(kgha)

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

0162b

0163b

437

b454

b110b

120a

548

a483

a250

a200

a351a

341a

36b

25b

376a

351a

Con

ventional

0211a

0203a

605

a612

a12

4a12

6a470

b457

a15

0b13

8b279b

336a

44a

34a

354b

335b

SEm

0025

0020

084

079

007

003

39

13050

031

363

24

403

442

110

79CD

(005)

0003

0014

0116

0041

004

0045

287

NS

0146

0146

1234

NS

468

254

857

778

CD(001)

0005

0022

0182

0065

0062

NS

451

NS

0229

0245

1935

NS

734

398

1345

1221

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

ECelectric

alcond

uctiv

ityB

Dbulkdensity

WHC

water

holdingcapacity

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean

CDcriticaldifferenceNSno

nsignificant

Superscriptlettersindicatestatisticalsig

nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

4 Scientifica

EC pH BD

WH

C

SOC

Avai

labl

e N

Avai

labl

e P

Avai

labl

e K

of m

anag

emen

t (

)D

iffer

ence

after

12

year

s

OrganicConventional

minus30

minus20

minus10

0102030405060

Figure 1 Impact of 12 years of organic and conventional manage-ment in coffee on selected soil physical and chemical propertiesEC electrical conductivity BD bulk density WHC water holdingcapacity SOC soil organic carbon AvN available nitrogen AvPavailable phosphorus AvK available potassium

ORG and CON system at 15ndash30 cm depth was found to benonsignificant In chemical properties soil organic carbon(SOC) available phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) showedstatistical significance at both the depths available nitrogen(N) showed significance only at 0ndash15 cm From the meananalysis of soil physical and chemical properties after 12years of management it was found that EC in CON systemincreases by 36 while it rises to 69 in ORG system(Figure 1) pH was found to decrease by 24 in ORG systemwhile its value rose by 36 in CON system BD was foundto increase in both ORG (127) and CON (225) systemwhile WHC was found to decrease in both ORG (108) andCON (198) Significant increase in SOC of ORG system(156) was found compared to CON system where theSOC was found to decrease by 167 In major nutrients Nand K were found to show inclination in both ORG (52and 097) and CON (157 and 43) respectively for 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm soil depth but the trend was much morepronounced in CON system P was found to increase in bothORG (109) andCON(418) system but its availabilitywasfound to be more with CON system

From the study it is understandable that organic farminghas better advantage over the conventional farming thoughmany of the soil properties do not show statistical significantresults In physical properties the lesser BD in ORG systemindicates better status of soil structure Bulk density is anindicator of soil compaction and it reflects the soilrsquos ability tofunction for structural support water and solute movementand soil aeration Though the BD value has slight increase(11 gcm3) from the initial values (102 gcm3) applicationof organic manure in ORG system was found to recordlesser BD values compared to CON system (124 gcm3) Soilsamended with high organic manures are reported to havelesser BD [18] The increased WHC of ORG system is alsoattributed to the higher availability of organic matter in thesoil compared to CON management The increase in soil ECin CON system compared toORG system is a clear indication

of salts accumulation from the fertilizer usage However thedrop in the pH in ORG system compared to CON systemindicates the organic manure effect on soil reaction Contin-uous application of organic manures (cow dung Leucaenaleaves farm residues and Sesbania) in tropical soils has beenshown to increase the organic carbon content of soil [19]Continuous application of organic manure is also reported toincrease soil enzyme andmicrobial activities [20] Higher soilnutrient status in coffee under organic cultivation was alsoreported [21] Interestingly higher available P was recordedin CON farming compared to ORG the increase of P contentin CON systemmay be mainly due to application of higher Pfertilizers in CON system compared to ORG farms

32 Effect of Organic and Conventional Method of CoffeeFarming on Soil Biological Attributes Significant and highersoil urease andFDAactivitywas recorded inORGproductionsystem compared to CON system at both the depths whilesoil respiration found record significant difference only at0ndash15 cm (Table 2) DHA activity was not found to showsignificant difference between ORG and CON productionsystem at both the depths From the mean analysis ofsoil biological properties after 12 years of management itwas found that soil respiration increases by 154 and 86respectively for 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm in ORG system comparedto CON system In contrast urease activity was found tobe higher in CON system (34 and 36 for 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm resp) compared to ORG system Though DHA doesnot produce significant differences between ORG and CONsystems its activity was higher in ORG system (16 and 15for 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm resp) FDA activity was observed tobe higher by 25 and 31 for 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm respectivelyin ORG system compared to CON system

The higher soil respiratory activity in ORG systemindicates the soil health promoting functions of organicfarming on microbial activity The higher FDA activity inorganic coffee cultivation indicates higher microbial activitycompared to conventional method of coffee cultivation Thehigher soil urease and dehydrogenase activity in ORG man-agement shows the effectiveness of microbial activity in thatsystem compared to CON system Enzymes are importantsoil components involved in the dynamics of soil nutrienttransformations Enzyme activity in the soil environment isconsidered to be a major contributor of overall soil microbialactivity and soil quality [22] Urease is an important enzymein soil mediating the conversion of organic nitrogen toinorganic nitrogen by the hydrolysis of urea to ammoniaIncrease in soil urease activity with increasing organic mattercontent has been already reported [13]

33 Effect of Organic and Conventional Method of Cof-fee Farming on Soil Micro- and Macrofauna ORG systemrecorded significantly (119901 lt 001) higher population of Ori-batid mites (Pelops) Thrips and scarabaeid beetle comparedto CON coffee system (Table 3) whereas the population ofOribatid mites (Eulohmannia) Symphylans and springtailswas found to show significance at 5 in ORG systemNo significant differences were found in the population of

Scientifica 5

Table 2 Organic and conventional method of coffee farming on selected soil biological properties

Soil respiration Urease DHA FDAManagement systems (CO

2

mg50 g) (120583g NH4

-Ngminus1 hminus1) (120583g TPF gminus1 24 hminus1) (fluorescein 120583ggminus1)0ndash15 15ndash30 0ndash15 15ndash30 0ndash15 15ndash30 0ndash15 15ndash30

Organic 293a 185a 368b 278b 123a 92a 460a 320a

Conventional 248b 169a 493a 378a 103a 78a 343b 221b

SEm 22 08 62 50 10 07 59 50CD (005) 441 NS 447 342 NS NS 554 263CD (001) NS NS 701 537 NS NS 869 413All the values are mean of 5 replicationsSEm standard error of mean CD critical difference NS nonsignificantDHA dehydrogenase activity FDA fluorescein diacetate activitySuperscript letters indicate statistical significance following Tukey multiple comparison tests

proturans Japygids rove beetles Millipedes and Centipedesbetween ORG and CON coffee production system Fromthe mean analysis of micro- and macrofauna populationat 0ndash30 cm of soil depth after 12 years of managementthe population of Eulohmannia Pelops proturans ThripsSymphylans rove beetles springtails and scarabaeid beetleswas found to increase under ORG system compared to CONsystem by 50 448 355 536 627 12 38 and 72 respec-tively Interestingly the population of Japygids pauropodspseudoscorpions Millipedes and Centipedes was found toincrease under CON system compared to ORG system by45 43 250 61 and 59 respectively Overall the ORGsystem recorded higher (314) total micro- and macrofaunapopulation compared to CON system

Most of the earlier studies reported enhancement in fau-nal biodiversity in organic farms compared to conventionalfarms in most studies [23] Many studies continue to supporta positive association between organic management and on-farm biodiversity for predatory arthropods [24] Oehl et al[25] found a greater diversity of soil microorganisms onorganic farms than on conventional farms In the presentstudy the higher micro- and macrofauna and microflorapopulation in ORG farming clearly indicates the manage-ment impact of safer methods of control of insects pestsin coffee (pruning lime swabbing neem formulation borertracing and pheromone traps) compared to chemical controlmethods in CON farming whereinmost of the harmful plantprotection chemicals namely lindane (control of white stemborer in coffee) and endosulfan (coffee berry borer control)are usedThe high occurrence of micro- andmacrofauna andmicrobial population in organic coffee system is an indicationof positive effects of employing organic farming in coffeefarms These results are similar to the research findings byFraser et al [26]

34 Effect of Organic and Conventional Method of CoffeeFarming on Culturable Microbial Population and MicrobialDiversity Indices Higher culturable microbial populationwas recorded in surface soil (0ndash15 cm) compared to 15ndash30 cm soil depth (Table 4) The total culturable microbialpopulation was found to be significantly (119901 lt 001) higher inORG system compared to CON coffee system In microbial

groups bacterial population was found to be significantly(119901 lt 005) higher in ORG system compared to CON systemwhereas no significant differences in bacterial populationbetween ORG and CON system were found Nonsignificantdifferences in population of fungi and actinomycetes betweenORG and CON systems were found at both the soil depthswhereas the yeast population was found to be significantlyhigher in ORG system at 0ndash15 cm (119901 lt 001) and 15ndash30 cm (119901 lt 005) respectively In functional microflorathe population of PSM was found to be significantly (119901 lt005) higher in ORG system compared to CON systemwhile the population of Azotobacter spp was found to yieldnonsignificant differences between ORG and CON systemsSignificantly (119901 lt 005) higher P fluorescens was observed inORG system at 0ndash15 cm while 15ndash30 cm soil depth recordednonsignificant differences between ORG and CON systemsThe mean analysis of culturable population after 12 yearsof management revealed that the populations of bacteriafungi and yeasts were found to be higher in ORG systemcompared to CON system by 24 and 67 at 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm soil depth 12 and 48 and 59 and 32 respectivelyActinomycetes population was found to be higher (326)in ORG system at 0ndash15 cm while CON system recordedhigher actinomycetes population (193) at 15ndash30 cm soildepth In functional microflora PSM Azotobacter spp andP fluorescens were found to increase by 44 and 49 13 and 17and 29 and 17 in ORG system compared to CON systemat 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm respectively The overall higher valueof total culturable microbial population in ORG compared toCON system was found to be 34 and 15 for 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm respectively

In general the ORG system recorded higher microbialdiversity indices compared to CON system at both the soildepths (Table 5) In ORG system Shannon-Weiner Index(1198671015840) Simpsonrsquos Reciprocal Index (1D) and Shannon Even-ness (E) recorded significantly (119901 lt 005) higher valuecompared to CON system at 0ndash15 cm soil depth while at0ndash30 cm soil depth none of the diversity indices producedsignificant results

The increased microbial activity and diversity in thesurface soils are attributed to the greater availability of organiccarbon nutrients moisture and aeration status compared to

6 Scientifica


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

selected

soilmicro

andmacrofaun

apop

ulation

Managem

ent

syste

ms

Macrofaun

apop

ulation(nossqm

at0ndash

30cm

soildepth)

Orib

atid

mites

(Eulohmannia)

Orib

atid

mites

(Pelo

ps)

ProturansJapygids

Thrip

sSymph

ylansPaurop

ods

Rove

beetles

Sprin

gtails

Pseudo

scorpion

sMillipedes

Centip

edes

Scarabaeid

beetle

larvaegrub

Total

popu

latio

n

Organic

176a

203

a62a

22a

140

a75

a35b

25a

258

a30b

23a

17a

65a

113a

Con

ventional

88b

112

b40a

23a

65b

28b

50a

22a

160

b105

a37a

27a

18b

775

b

SEm

1616

07

03

1209

04

03

24

1204

03

08

177

CD(005)

613

233

NS

NS

271

373

11NS

918

263

NS

NS

216

132

CD(001)

NS

366

NS

NS

426

NS

NS

NS

NS

413

NS

NS

34

207

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0

ndash15and15ndash30c

msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica

Table 5 Organic and conventional method of coffee farming on microbial diversity indices

Systems Soil depth (cm)Microbial diversity indices

Shannon-WeinerIndex (1198671015840)

Simpsonrsquos Indexof Diversity (119863)

Simpsonrsquos ReciprocalIndex (1119863)

ShannonEvenness (119864)

SimpsonrsquosEvenness (119864)

Organic 0ndash15 268a 040 252a 090a 055Conventional 0ndash15 256b 044 228b 085b 051

CD (005) 0035 NS 002 0024 NSOrganic 0ndash30 254 042 232 084 051Conventional 0ndash30 255 043 227 085 051

CD (005) NS NS NS NS NSAll the values are mean of 5 replications CD critical difference NS nonsignificantSuperscript letters indicate statistical significance following Tukey multiple comparison tests

subsurface Depth of root penetration and nutrient exhaus-tive characteristics of crops alsomay be another reason for thedecline of culturable microbial population in deeper layersImpact of soil depth on proportions of microbial activity hasbeen already reported [27] Organic practices were foundto rapidly improve soil microbial characteristics and slowlyincrease soil organic C [2] Organic manuring with plantresidues was reported to have a stronger impact on soilmicrobial activity as compared to other fertilization methods[28] The impacts of chemical fertilization on growth andactivity of microorganisms are often reported to be speciesspecific [29 30] Velmourougane et al [31 32] reportedhigher soil biological activity in coffee grown under organicmanagement in coffee growing regions of India

4 Conclusions

From the present study it was evident that adopting organicmethod of cultivation can help to build and improve the soilfertility in terms of physical chemical biological and micro-biological diversity in coffee farms compared to conventionalmethod of coffee farming at both surface and subsurface soil

Disclosure

The authorrsquos current address is Central Institute for CottonResearch Indian Council of Agricultural Research NagpurMaharashtra 440010 India

Conflict of Interests

There is no conflict of interests regarding this paper

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Dr Manonmani Soil Chemist and DrKurian Raphael Entomologist Coffee Research Sub StationCoorg Karnataka for their vital technical support in analyz-ing soil samples The author also gratefully acknowledges theDirector of Research Coffee Board of India for his supportand helpful suggestions

References

[1] J P Reganold ldquoComparison of soil properties as influenced byorganic and conventional farming systemsrdquo American Journalof Alternative Agriculture vol 3 no 4 pp 144ndash155 1988

[2] A S F Araujo V B Santos andR T RMonteiro ldquoResponses ofsoil microbial biomass and activity for practices of organic andconventional farming systems in Piauı state Brazilrdquo EuropeanJournal of Soil Biology vol 44 no 2 pp 225ndash230 2008

[3] D K Letourneau and S G Bothwell ldquoComparison of organicand conventional farms challenging ecologists to make biodi-versity functionalrdquo Frontiers in Ecology and the Environmentvol 6 no 8 pp 430ndash438 2008

[4] H Bijoor ldquoOrganic coffee the politically correct coffeerdquo IndianCoffee vol 62 pp 6ndash8 1998

[5] C S Piper Soil and Plant Analysis Hans Bombay India 1966[6] A Walkley and I A Black ldquoAn examination of the Degtjareff

method for determining soil organic matter and a proposedmodification of the chromic acid titrationmethodrdquo Soil Sciencevol 37 no 1 pp 29ndash39 1934

[7] R Singh andK PradhanDetermination of Nitrogen and Proteinby Khjeldahl Method Forage Evaluation Science New DelhiIndia 1981

[8] R H Bray and L K Krutz ldquoDetermination of total organicand available forms of phosphorus in soilrdquo Soil Science vol 59no 1 pp 39ndash46 1945

[9] M L Jackson Soil Chemical Analysis Prentice-Hall of IndiaNew Delhi India 1973

[10] AOACOfficial Methods of Analysis of the Association of OfficialAgricultural Chemists AOAC Publishing Washington DCUSA 1990

[11] J P E Anderson ldquoSoil respirationrdquo inMethods of Soil AnalysismdashPart 2 A L Page R H Miller and D R Keeney Eds pp 837ndash871 ASA and SSSA Madison Wis USA 1982

[12] L E Casida D A Klein and T Santoro ldquoSoil dehydrogenaseactivityrdquo Soil Science vol 98 no 6 pp 371ndash376 1964

[13] M A Tabatabai and J M Bremner ldquoAssay of urease activity insoilsrdquo Soil Biology and Biochemistry vol 4 no 4 pp 479ndash4871972

[14] J Schnurer and T Rosswall ldquoFluorescein diacetate hydrolysis asa measure of total microbial activity in soil and litterrdquo Appliedand Environmental Microbiology vol 43 no 6 pp 1256ndash12611982

[15] L B Smith ldquoEfficiency of Berlese-tullgren funnels for removalof the rusty grain beetle Cryptolestes ferrugineus from wheat

Scientifica 9

samplesrdquoThe Canadian Entomologist vol 109 no 04 pp 503ndash509 1977

[16] A G Wollum ldquoCultural methods for soil microorganismsrdquo inMethods of Soil Analysis Part 2 Chemical and MicrobiologicalProperties A L Page R H Miller and D R Keeney EdsAgronomy Monograph no 9 pp 781ndash801 ASA Madison WisUSA 1982

[17] T C J Hill K A Walsh J A Harris and B F Moffett ldquoUsingecological diversity measures with bacterial communitiesrdquoFEMS Microbiology Ecology vol 43 no 1 pp 1ndash11 2003

[18] M A Arshad B Lowery and B Grossman ldquoPhysical tests formonitoring soil qualityrdquo inMethods for Assessing Soil Quality JW Doran and A J Jones Eds pp 123ndash141 MadisonWis USA1996

[19] S M Goyal M M Mishra I S Hooda and R Singh ldquoOrganicmatter-microbial biomass relationships in field experimentsunder tropical conditions effects of inorganic fertilization andorganic amendmentsrdquo Soil Biology and Biochemistry vol 24 no11 pp 1081ndash1084 1992

[20] K Chakrabarti B Sarkar A Chakraborty P Banik and DK Bagchi ldquoOrganic recycling for soil quality conservation ina sub-tropical plateau regionrdquo Journal of Agronomy and CropScience vol 184 no 2 pp 137ndash142 2000

[21] M d Ricci B J Alves S CMiranda and F F Oliveira ldquoGrowthrate and nutritional status of an organic coffee cropping systemrdquoScientia Agricola vol 62 no 2 pp 138ndash144 2005

[22] R P Dick ldquoSoil enzyme activities as indicators of soil qualityrdquo inDefining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment JWDoranD C Coleman D F Bezdicek and B A Stewart Eds SSSASpecial Publication No 35 pp 104ndash124 ASA Madison WisUSA 1994

[23] J Bengtsson J Ahnstrom and A-C Weibull ldquoThe effects oforganic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance a meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Ecology vol 42 no 2 pp 261ndash2692005

[24] T Purtauf I Roschewitz J Dauber C Thies T Tscharntkeand V Wolters ldquoLandscape context of organic and conven-tional farms influences on carabid beetle diversityrdquoAgricultureEcosystems amp Environment vol 108 no 2 pp 165ndash174 2005

[25] F Oehl E Sieverding P Mader et al ldquoImpact of long-termconventional and organic farming on the diversity of arbuscularmycorrhizal fungirdquoOecologia vol 138 no 4 pp 574ndash583 2004

[26] D G Fraser J W Doran W W Sahs and G W Lesoing ldquoSoilmicrobial populations and activities under conventional andorganic managementrdquo Journal of Environmental Quality vol 17no 4 pp 585ndash590 1988

[27] C M Hansel S Fendorf P M Jardine and C A FrancisldquoChanges in bacterial and archaeal community structure andfunctional diversity along a geochemically variable soil profilerdquoApplied and Environmental Microbiology vol 74 no 5 pp1620ndash1633 2008

[28] T Kautz S Wirth and F Ellmer ldquoMicrobial activity in a sandyarable soil is governed by the fertilization regimerdquo EuropeanJournal of Soil Biology vol 40 no 2 pp 87ndash94 2004

[29] L M Donnison G S Griffith J Hedger P J Hobbs and RD Bardgett ldquoManagement influences on soil microbial com-munities and their function in botanically diverse haymeadowsof northern England andWalesrdquo Soil Biology and Biochemistryvol 32 no 2 pp 253ndash263 2000

[30] S U Sarathchandra A Ghani G W Yeates G Burch andN R Cox ldquoEffect of nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers on

microbial and nematode diversity in pasture soilsrdquo Soil Biologyand Biochemistry vol 33 no 7-8 pp 953ndash964 2001

[31] K Velmourougane P Panneerselvam and R P A AlwarldquoQualitative and quantitative distribution of microflora asso-ciated with coffee plants and berriesrdquo in Recent Advances inPlantation Crops Research R Rethinam Ed pp 396ndash399Allied Publishers Coimbatore India 2000

[32] K Velmourougane P Panneerselvam D R ShanmukhappaT N Gopinandhan C S Srinivasan and R Naidu ldquoStudy onmicroflora associated with high and low grown coffee of arabicaand robustardquo Journal of Coffee Research vol 28 pp 9ndash19 2000

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Anatomy Research International

PeptidesInternational Journal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom

International Journal of

Volume 2014

Zoology


Molecular Biology International

GenomicsInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


BioinformaticsAdvances in

Marine BiologyJournal of



Signal TransductionJournal of


BioMed Research International

Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of



Biochemistry Research International

ArchaeaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Genetics Research International


Advances in

Virolog y

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Nucleic AcidsJournal of

Volume 2014

Stem CellsInternational



Enzyme Research



Microbiology

2 Scientifica

(6 acres each in randomized block design) have been main-tained under organic and conventional system for the last12 years The initial soil parameters were obtained from thepreviously conducted study at this station The soil pH (1 2water) was 587 electrical conductivity (EC) 0152 dSmminus1bulk density (BD) 102 gcm3 water holding capacity (WHC)578 organic carbon (OC) 173 available nitrogen (N)365 kgha available phosphorus (P) 275 kgha and availablepotassium (K) 360 kgha The experimental plots (organicand conventional) were wholly covered by a single dominantarabica variety (Selection 795) in India with spacing of 03 times03m CON coffee plots received a blanket nutrient scheduleof 40 30 40 (N P

2

O5

K2

O kg haminus1 per year) and nitrogenwas applied in three splits Leaf rust was managed with 05Bordeaux mixture and appropriate chemical application wasadopted for white stem borer control in CON system whileORG coffee plots were amended with 5 tonnes of organicmanure (farmyard manure and compost) per acre once inthe cropping cycle Weed control in conventional system wasmanaged by one herbicide spraying and twomanual weedingrounds while ORG plots were managed with three rounds ofmanual weeding Pest and disease problem in organic systemwere managed using neem based formulation for suckingpests lime swabbing pheromone traps and Broca traps forwhite stem borer and 05 Bordeaux spray for rust controlOther cropmanagement operations like pruning harvestingand processing were similar for both the systems

22 Soil Physicochemical Analysis The experimental soilsamples (5 nosblock) for analysis were collected randomly ata depth of 0ndash15 and 15ndash30 cm at flowering air-dried crushedand sieved through a 2mmmesh screen and used for furtheranalysis Water holding capacity (WHC) was estimated byKeen-Raczkowski method as outlined by Piper [5] while thedetermination of pH (1 2) was done by a digital pH meter(ELICO-L11 62)The soil organic carbon (SOC) and availablenitrogen (N) were estimated by Walkley and Black rapidtitration method [6] and Kjeldahl method respectively [7]Available phosphorus (P) and available potassium (K) wereestimated following standard methods [8ndash10]

23 Soil Biological Analysis The selected soil biologicalparameters namely soil respiration soil dehydrogenaseactivity (DHA) soil urease activity and fluorescein diacetatehydrolysis (FDA) were performed on the freshly collectedsamples following standard methods The abovementionedvariables were selected as they are used as soil qualityhealthindicators Soil respiration was measured as the CO

2

evolvedfrom moist soil adjusted to 55 water holding capacityand preincubated for three days at 22ndash25∘C with 10mL of1M NaOH The CO

2

production was then measured byback titrating unreacted alkali with 1N HCl to determineCO2

-C [11] Dehydrogenase activity (DHA) was determinedfollowing the method of Casida [12] by the reductionof 235-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) Soil (10 g)was incubated for 24 h with TTC at 27∘C in duplicateThe triphenyl formazan (TPF) formed was extracted withacetone and measured spectrophotometrically at 546 nm

Dehydrogenase activity was expressed as 120583g TPF gminus1 drysoil hminus1 Urease activity was assayed in duplicate by themethod described by Tabatabai and Bremner [13] whichinvolves the determination of the ammonium released byurease activity when 5 g of soil is incubated with 9mL of005M tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (THAM) buffer(pH 90) 1mL of 02M of urea solution and toluene at 37∘Cfor 2 h The ammonium released was determined by a pro-cedure involving treatment of the incubated soil sample with25M KC1 containing a urease inhibitor (Ag

2

SO4

) and steamdistillation of an aliquot of the resulting soil suspension withMgO for 4min Urease activity was expressed as 120583g NH

4

-N gminus1 dry soil FDA was measured following the method ofSchnurer and Rosswall [14] using 36-diacetyl fluorescein assubstrate and measuring the fluorescence at 490 nmThe soilmicro- and macrofauna population was analyzed (0ndash30 cmdepth) using Berlese funnel method [15]

24 Soil Microbiological and Diversity Analysis Soil samplescollected at 0ndash15 cm and 15ndash30 cm depth from ORG andCON plots were serially diluted in 90mL Ringerrsquos solutionup to 10minus4 dilution and 1mL of aliquot was pour platedinto selective media (Nutrient Agar for bacteria MartinrsquosRose Bengal Agar for fungi Ken Knights and MunaierrsquosAgar for actinomycetes and Buffered Yeast Agar for yeast)The plates were incubated at optimum temperature (25∘Cplusmn 1∘C) in triplicate The functionalphysiological groups ofmicrobes were enumerated by following standard micro-biological methods [16] The functional groups from thesoil samples were enumerated using Pikovskaya Agar forphosphorus solubilizingmicrobes (PSM)WaksmanNumber77 media for Azotobacter and Kingrsquos B media for fluorescentpseudomonads The microbial colonies appearing after thestipulated time period of incubation (3 days for bacteriaand yeast 5 days for fungi 7 days for actinomycetes) werecounted and expressed as colony forming units (CFUs)gof the sample The culturable microbial diversity indices forORG and CON systems were determined following standardmethods [17]

25 Statistical Analysis Significant (119901 lt 001 and 119901 lt005) differences between ORG and CON method of coffeefarming on soil attributes were analyzed using SPSS (version75) software Tukey multiple comparison tests were done todetermine the differences betweenORG andCONmethod ofcoffee farming

3 Results and Discussion

31 Effect of Organic and Conventional Method of CoffeeFarming on Soil Physicochemical Properties In soil physicalproperties significant difference was observed in electricalconductivity (EC) between organic (ORG) and conventional(CON) systems at both the soil depths while bulk density(BD) showed significance only at 0ndash15 cm for both thesystems (Table 1)Water holding capacity (WHC) of the soil at0ndash15 cm of ORG system was found to be significantly higherby 5336 compared to CON system (45) while WHC of

Scientifica 3


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

soilph

ysicalandchem

icalprop

ertie

s

Managem

entsystems

EC(dSmminus1

)pH

(12)

BD(gcm3

)WHC(

)Soilorganicc

arbo

n(

)Av

ailableN

(kgha)Av

ailableP

(kgha)

AvailableK

(kgha)

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

0162b

0163b

437

b454

b110b

120a

548

a483

a250

a200

a351a

341a

36b

25b

376a

351a

Con

ventional

0211a

0203a

605

a612

a12

4a12

6a470

b457

a15

0b13

8b279b

336a

44a

34a

354b

335b

SEm

0025

0020

084

079

007

003

39

13050

031

363

24

403

442

110

79CD

(005)

0003

0014

0116

0041

004

0045

287

NS

0146

0146

1234

NS

468

254

857

778

CD(001)

0005

0022

0182

0065

0062

NS

451

NS

0229

0245

1935

NS

734

398

1345

1221

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

ECelectric

alcond

uctiv

ityB

Dbulkdensity

WHC

water

holdingcapacity

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

4 Scientifica

EC pH BD

WH

C

SOC

Avai

labl

e N

Avai

labl

e P

Avai

labl

e K

of m

anag

emen

t (

)D

iffer

ence

after

12

year

s

OrganicConventional

minus30

minus20

minus10

0102030405060








Scientifica 5



2

mg50 g) (120583g NH4











6 Scientifica


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

selected

soilmicro

andmacrofaun

apop

ulation

Managem

ent

syste

ms

Macrofaun

apop

ulation(nossqm

at0ndash

30cm

soildepth)

Orib

atid

mites

(Eulohmannia)

Orib

atid

mites

(Pelo

ps)

ProturansJapygids

Thrip

sSymph

ylansPaurop

ods

Rove

beetles

Sprin

gtails

Pseudo

scorpion

sMillipedes

Centip

edes

Scarabaeid

beetle

larvaegrub

Total

popu

latio

n

Organic

176a

203

a62a

22a

140

a75

a35b

25a

258

a30b

23a

17a

65a

113a

Con

ventional

88b

112

b40a

23a

65b

28b

50a

22a

160

b105

a37a

27a

18b

775

b

SEm

1616

07

03

1209

04

03

24

1204

03

08

177

CD(005)

613

233

NS

NS

271

373

11NS

918

263

NS

NS

216

132

CD(001)

NS

366

NS

NS

426

NS

NS

NS

NS

413

NS

NS

34

207

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0


msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

Scientifica 3


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

soilph

ysicalandchem

icalprop

ertie

s

Managem

entsystems

EC(dSmminus1

)pH

(12)

BD(gcm3

)WHC(

)Soilorganicc

arbo

n(

)Av

ailableN

(kgha)Av

ailableP

(kgha)

AvailableK

(kgha)

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

0162b

0163b

437

b454

b110b

120a

548

a483

a250

a200

a351a

341a

36b

25b

376a

351a

Con

ventional

0211a

0203a

605

a612

a12

4a12

6a470

b457

a15

0b13

8b279b

336a

44a

34a

354b

335b

SEm

0025

0020

084

079

007

003

39

13050

031

363

24

403

442

110

79CD

(005)

0003

0014

0116

0041

004

0045

287

NS

0146

0146

1234

NS

468

254

857

778

CD(001)

0005

0022

0182

0065

0062

NS

451

NS

0229

0245

1935

NS

734

398

1345

1221

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

ECelectric

alcond

uctiv

ityB

Dbulkdensity

WHC

water

holdingcapacity

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

4 Scientifica

EC pH BD

WH

C

SOC

Avai

labl

e N

Avai

labl

e P

Avai

labl

e K

of m

anag

emen

t (

)D

iffer

ence

after

12

year

s

OrganicConventional

minus30

minus20

minus10

0102030405060








Scientifica 5



2

mg50 g) (120583g NH4











6 Scientifica


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

selected

soilmicro

andmacrofaun

apop

ulation

Managem

ent

syste

ms

Macrofaun

apop

ulation(nossqm

at0ndash

30cm

soildepth)

Orib

atid

mites

(Eulohmannia)

Orib

atid

mites

(Pelo

ps)

ProturansJapygids

Thrip

sSymph

ylansPaurop

ods

Rove

beetles

Sprin

gtails

Pseudo

scorpion

sMillipedes

Centip

edes

Scarabaeid

beetle

larvaegrub

Total

popu

latio

n

Organic

176a

203

a62a

22a

140

a75

a35b

25a

258

a30b

23a

17a

65a

113a

Con

ventional

88b

112

b40a

23a

65b

28b

50a

22a

160

b105

a37a

27a

18b

775

b

SEm

1616

07

03

1209

04

03

24

1204

03

08

177

CD(005)

613

233

NS

NS

271

373

11NS

918

263

NS

NS

216

132

CD(001)

NS

366

NS

NS

426

NS

NS

NS

NS

413

NS

NS

34

207

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0


msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

4 Scientifica

EC pH BD

WH

C

SOC

Avai

labl

e N

Avai

labl

e P

Avai

labl

e K

of m

anag

emen

t (

)D

iffer

ence

after

12

year

s

OrganicConventional

minus30

minus20

minus10

0102030405060








Scientifica 5



2

mg50 g) (120583g NH4











6 Scientifica


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

selected

soilmicro

andmacrofaun

apop

ulation

Managem

ent

syste

ms

Macrofaun

apop

ulation(nossqm

at0ndash

30cm

soildepth)

Orib

atid

mites

(Eulohmannia)

Orib

atid

mites

(Pelo

ps)

ProturansJapygids

Thrip

sSymph

ylansPaurop

ods

Rove

beetles

Sprin

gtails

Pseudo

scorpion

sMillipedes

Centip

edes

Scarabaeid

beetle

larvaegrub

Total

popu

latio

n

Organic

176a

203

a62a

22a

140

a75

a35b

25a

258

a30b

23a

17a

65a

113a

Con

ventional

88b

112

b40a

23a

65b

28b

50a

22a

160

b105

a37a

27a

18b

775

b

SEm

1616

07

03

1209

04

03

24

1204

03

08

177

CD(005)

613

233

NS

NS

271

373

11NS

918

263

NS

NS

216

132

CD(001)

NS

366

NS

NS

426

NS

NS

NS

NS

413

NS

NS

34

207

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0


msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

Scientifica 5



2

mg50 g) (120583g NH4











6 Scientifica


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

selected

soilmicro

andmacrofaun

apop

ulation

Managem

ent

syste

ms

Macrofaun

apop

ulation(nossqm

at0ndash

30cm

soildepth)

Orib

atid

mites

(Eulohmannia)

Orib

atid

mites

(Pelo

ps)

ProturansJapygids

Thrip

sSymph

ylansPaurop

ods

Rove

beetles

Sprin

gtails

Pseudo

scorpion

sMillipedes

Centip

edes

Scarabaeid

beetle

larvaegrub

Total

popu

latio

n

Organic

176a

203

a62a

22a

140

a75

a35b

25a

258

a30b

23a

17a

65a

113a

Con

ventional

88b

112

b40a

23a

65b

28b

50a

22a

160

b105

a37a

27a

18b

775

b

SEm

1616

07

03

1209

04

03

24

1204

03

08

177

CD(005)

613

233

NS

NS

271

373

11NS

918

263

NS

NS

216

132

CD(001)

NS

366

NS

NS

426

NS

NS

NS

NS

413

NS

NS

34

207

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0


msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

6 Scientifica


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

selected

soilmicro

andmacrofaun

apop

ulation

Managem

ent

syste

ms

Macrofaun

apop

ulation(nossqm

at0ndash

30cm

soildepth)

Orib

atid

mites

(Eulohmannia)

Orib

atid

mites

(Pelo

ps)

ProturansJapygids

Thrip

sSymph

ylansPaurop

ods

Rove

beetles

Sprin

gtails

Pseudo

scorpion

sMillipedes

Centip

edes

Scarabaeid

beetle

larvaegrub

Total

popu

latio

n

Organic

176a

203

a62a

22a

140

a75

a35b

25a

258

a30b

23a

17a

65a

113a

Con

ventional

88b

112

b40a

23a

65b

28b

50a

22a

160

b105

a37a

27a

18b

775

b

SEm

1616

07

03

1209

04

03

24

1204

03

08

177

CD(005)

613

233

NS

NS

271

373

11NS

918

263

NS

NS

216

132

CD(001)

NS

366

NS

NS

426

NS

NS

NS

NS

413

NS

NS

34

207

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificant


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0


msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

Scientifica 7


nalm

etho

dof

coffeefarmingon

cultu

rablem

icrobialpo

pulation

Microflo

rapo

pulatio

n(C

FUtimes104

g)at0


msoildepth

Managem

entsystems

Bacteria

Fung

iYeast

Actin

omycetes

PSM

Azotobacterspp

Pflu

orescens

Totalp

opulation

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

0ndash15

15ndash30

Organic

763

a435

7550

441a

191a

215

88

45a

35a

23

18265

a133

1826a

951a

Con

ventional

581b

406

66

26

180

b130

b145

105

25b

18b

20

15188

b111

1210

b810

b

SEm

9114

5045

12131

305

35

085

10085

015

016

385

110

308

71CD

(005)

1277

NS

NS

NS

535

492

NS

NS

199

158

NS

NS

525

NS

221

92CD

(001)

NS

NS

NS

NS

839

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

312

129

Allthev

aluesa

remeanof

5replications

SEmstand

arderroro

fmean


nsignificantCF

Ucolon

yform

ingun

itPflu

orescensPseud

omonas

fluorescens


nificance

follo

wingTu

keymultip

lecomparis

ontests

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

8 Scientifica












4 Conclusions


Disclosure




Acknowledgments


References
















Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

Scientifica 9



























Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology








Volume 2014

Zoology






















Advances in

Virolog y



Volume 2014




Enzyme Research



Microbiology

Documents

Research Article Impact of Organic and Conventional ...downloads.hindawi.com/journals/scientifica/2016/3604026.pdf · Tukey multiple comparison tests were done to determinethedi