Yield, quality and soil greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional fava bean crops

  1. Sánchez-Navarro, V. 1
  2. Zornoza, R. 1
  3. Faz, A. 1
  4. Fernández, J.A. 1
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena

    Cartagena, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02k5kx966

Actes:
III International Symposium on Horticulture in Europe

Any de publicació: 2016

Tipus: Aportació congrés

DOI: 10.17660/ACTAHORTIC.2019.1242.6 GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Resum

In this study we assessed crop yield and quality and soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (N2O and CH4), and their interaction with soil properties, of two cultivars of fava bean (‘Muchamiel’ and ‘Palenca’) with different management practices (conventional and organic). Fava bean crops spanned from October 24, 2014 to March 13, 2015. Gas samples were taken once a week using the static gas chamber technique. Soil samples (0-30 cm) were collected from each plot at the end of the crop cycle to measure enzyme activities (β-glucosidase, β-glucosaminidase, dehydrogenase, cellulase and arylesterase). Yield and quality of the crop were determined at the end of the cycle. Results showed that the highest yield was obtained in ‘Muchamiel’ under conventional practice. A positive correlation between ‘Muchamiel’ yield and arylesterase and cellulase activities was found. In addition, ‘Muchamiel’ had the highest values in the number of seeds plant‑1 and pod length. N2O emissions were higher in both cultivars under organic practice, with an average increase of 29.8 mg m‑2 in ‘Muchamiel’ and 62.7 mg m‑2 in ‘Palenca’, with regard to those grown under conventional practice. CH4 emissions were higher in ‘Palenca’ under both management practices. We observed significant negative correlations between N2O emissions and β-glucosaminidase activity. CH4 emissions showed a positive correlation with the enzyme activities arylesterase and cellulase. Pod length showed a positive correlation with N2O emission. In summary, conventional practice increased fava bean yield and reduced N2O emissions.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Benoit, (2015), Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 213, pp. 131, 10.1016/j.agee.2015.07.030
  • Cobertera, (1993), Edafología Aplicada
  • Dewis, (1970), Physical and chemical methods of soil and water analyses. In Soils Bulletin, pp. 10
  • Díaz-Ambrona, (2001), Field Crops Res., 70, pp. 139, 10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00132-0
  • Díez, (1982), Anal. Edaf. Agrobiol., 41, pp. 1345
  • Dunfield, (1993), Soil Biol. Biochem., 25, pp. 321, 10.1016/0038-0717(93)90130-4
  • Ekenler, (2002), Soil Biol. Biochem., 34, pp. 1829, 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00167-0
  • FAO, (2014), International Union of Soil Sciences, World Reference Base for Soil Resources, International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps
  • Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., Pascual, J.A., Moreno, J.L., and Ros, M., eds. (2000). Microbial activity in soils of SE Spain exposed to degradation and desertification processes. Strategies for their rehabilitation. In Research and Perspectives of Soil Enzymology in Spain (Spain), p.93–143.
  • García-Álvarez, (1994), Arid Soil Res. Rehabil., 8, pp. 161, 10.1080/15324989409381390
  • Hoeger, (1998), Büchi Training Papers: Nitrogen Determination According to Kjeldahl
  • Kandeler, (1988), Biol. Fertil. Soils, 6, pp. 68, 10.1007/BF00257924
  • Keeney, D.R., and Nelson, D.W. (1982). Nitrogen inorganic forms. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Agronomy Nulmber 9 (Part 2), 2nd edn (Madison, Wisconsin, USA: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science society of America), p.643–698.
  • Kool, (2011), Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, pp. 174, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.09.030
  • Köpke, (2010), Field Crops Res., 115, pp. 217, 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.10.012
  • Nannipieri, (1978), Soil Biol. Biochem., 10, pp. 223, 10.1016/0038-0717(78)90100-1
  • Nelson, (1994), J. Biol. Chem., 153, pp. 375, 10.1016/0003-2697(89)90578-2
  • O’Hara, (1985), Soil Biol. Biochem., 17, pp. 1, 10.1016/0038-0717(85)90082-3
  • Parham, (2000), Soil Biol. Biochem., 32, pp. 1183, 10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00034-1
  • Smith, (2007), Agron. J., 99, pp. 1629, 10.2134/agronj2007.0096
  • Snyder, (2009), Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 133, pp. 247, 10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021
  • St. Luce, (2015), Field Crops Res., 179, pp. 12, 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.04.003
  • Tabatabai, (1982), Methods of Soil Analyses, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Agronomy Number 9 (Part 2), 2nd edn, pp. 903
  • Tate, (2015), Soil Biol. Biochem., 80, pp. 260, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.010
  • von Mersi, (1991), Biol. Fertil. Soils, 11, pp. 216, 10.1007/BF00335770
  • Walkley, (1934), Soil Sci., 37, pp. 29, 10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  • Wichern, (2008), Soil Biol. Biochem., 40, pp. 30, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.010
  • Yusuf, (2009), Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 129, pp. 325, 10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.007
  • Zhao, (2016), Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 216, pp. 82, 10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.028
  • Zornoza, (2009), Arid Land Res. Manage., 23, pp. 213, 10.1080/15324980903038727