The response of soil quality indicators to conservation

management
M. A. Bolinder1, D. A. Angers1, E. G. Gregorich2, and M. R. Carter3
1Agriculture

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

and Agri-Food Canada, Soils and Crops Research and Development Centre, 2560 Hochelaga Blvd.,
Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada G1V 2J3; 2Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Eastern Cereal and Oilseed
Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6; and 3Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Crops and
Livestock Research Centre, PO Box 1210, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada C1A 7M8. Received 9
December 1997, accepted 11 September 1998.
Bolinder, M. A., Angers, D. A., Gregorich, E. G. and Carter, M. R. 1999. The response of soil quality indicators to conservation management. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79: 3745. The response of soil quality attributes to management practices across a diverse
range of farming systems is key to identifying a robust minimum data set (MDS). The objectives of this study were to compare
the response and consistency of different soil organic matter (SOM) attributes to changes in soil management practices in eastern
Canadian agroecosystems. Soil samples (010 cm) were obtained at sites of several replicated experiments throughout eastern
Canada, and 16 paired comparisons were selected to determine the effect of conservation (no-tillage, rotations, organic amendments) versus conventional (fall moldboard plowing, continuous cropping, no organic amendments) management practices. A sensitivity index was calculated for each of the attributes by dividing the values for conservation treatments with their conventionally
managed counterparts (i.e., Conservation/Conventional). The index showed that light fraction (LF) N (1.58) and macro-organic
matter-N (MOM-N) (1.54) were the most sensitive SOM attributes to conservation management practices. Light fraction-C
(LF-C), macro-organic matter-C (MOM-C) and microbial biomass-C (MB-C) also showed high sensitivity to conservation
management (1.48, 1.34 and 1.44, respectively). The sensitivity index for carbohydrates, whole soil C and total N were 1.23, 1.16
and 1.17, respectively. However, the Friedman two-way analysis of variance test indicated that the sensitivity of the different
attributes to conservation management was site specific. For example, although LF-N was highly ranked, it did not respond as frequently as most of the other attributes. A non-parametric sign test showed that whole soil C and N provided the most consistent
response to conservation management. The average sensitivity index was highest for the amendment (1.82) followed by the tillage
(1.26) and rotational (1.14) conservation management practices, suggesting that organic amendments had the greatest impact on
most of the attributes. These results suggest that for eastern Canadian soils, use of MOM-C and MOM-N, MB-C and whole soil
C would provide a useful, easy to measure and robust MDS.
Key words: Soil quality indicators, response, conservation management
Bolinder, M. A., Angers, D. A., Gregorich, E. G. et Carter, M. R. 1999. Raction des indicateurs de qualit du sol aux pratiques agronomiques de conservation du sol. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79: 3745. Lobservation de la rponse des indicateurs de la qualit du sol aux pratiques de conservation reprsentatives de divers systmes agronomiques est essentielle pour la dtermination dun
jeu minimal de donnes (JMD) fiable. Lobjet de nos recherches tait de comparer la nature et la rgularit du comportement de
divers paramtres de la matire organique du sol (MOS) face aux changements qui ont affect les pratiques agronomiques dans les
agrocosystmes de lest du Canada. Des chantillons de sol (010 cm) taient prlevs aux emplacements de plusieurs expriences avec rptition conduites dans lest canadien et 16 comparaison en paire taient retenues pour mesurer leffet des pratiques
agronomiques de conservation (semis direct, rotation des cultures, amendements organiques) et celui des mthodes classiques
(labour dautomne la charrue socs, culture continue, pas dapports organiques). Pour chacun des critres, un index de sensibilit tait calcul en divisant les valeurs obtenues en rgime de conservation avec les valeurs correspondantes obtenues en rgime
agronomique classique (conservation/classique). Lindex rvlait que le N de la fraction lgre (FL) 1,58, et le N de la matire
macroorganique (MMO) 1,54 taient les critres de la MOS les plus sensibles aux pratiques agronomiques de conservation, bien
que le C-FL, le C-MMO et le C-MB (biomasse microbienne) atteignaient galement des valeurs leves soit, dans lordre, 1,48,
1,34 et 1,44. Pour les glucides, le C total du sol et le N total du sol, lindex tait respectivement de 1,23, 1,16 et 1,17. Lanalyse
bidirectionnelle de Friedman du test de variance a, cependant, permis de demontrer que la sensibilit des divers critres aux pratiques agronomiques de conservation tait lie lemplacement. Malgr un index assez lev, le N de la FL ne ragissait pas aussi
frquemment aux divers regimes agronomiques que les autres critres. Un test de signe non paramtrique indiquait que ctait le
C et le N du sol entier qui fournissaient la raction la plus constante aux pratiques de conservation. Lindex de sensibilit moyen
le plus haut tait obtenu pour les amendements organiques (1,82) puis pour le travail du sol (1,26) et enfin pour les pratiques de
conservation avec rotation des cultures (1,14), ce qui suggre que cest lutilisation damendements organiques qui avait le plus
dimpact sur la plupart des indicateurs de qualit du sol. Il dcoule de ces observations que, pour les sols de lest du Canada, le C
et le N de la MMO, le C de la BM et le C du sol entier constituent un jeu minimal de donnes utile, fiable et facile mesurer.
Mots cls: Indicateurs de la qualit du sol, raction, pratiques agronomiques de conservation

Understanding how soils respond to agricultural management practices over time helps to evaluate whether soil conservation efforts and management improve soil quality. Soil

quality can be defined as the degree of fitness of a soil for a

specific use (Carter et al. 1997a) but it also implies other
concepts such as the sustained capability of a soil to accept,
37

38

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Table 1. Soil information and description of the related paired comparisons for conservation and conventional management practices in eastern
Canada

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

Climatez

Management practicex

Management practice and

study site (year of initiation)

Lat/Long

MAAT
(C)

MATP
(mm)

Great Group (texture)y

Conservation
treatment

Conventional
treatment

Rotations
Harrington-2 (1983)
La Pocatire (1988)
Normandin-1 (1990)
Harrow-1 (1959)
Benton (1991)
Ottawa-2 (1989)

46.2/63.1
47.2/70.0
48.5/72.4
42.1/82.4
45.6/67.4
45.3/75.4

5.9
4.2
0.9
8.7
4.4
5.9

1077
967
866
819
1143
846

Humo-Ferric Podzol (FSL)

Humic Gleysol (C)
Humic Gleysol (CL)
Humic Gleysol (CL)
Dystric Brunisol (L)
Melanic Brunisol (SL)

Barley/clover/potato
Barley/clover
Barley/clover/clover
Corn/oats/alf/alf
Potato/barley/grass
Corn/soybean/wheat

Potato/potato/potato
Cont. barley
Cont. barley
Cont. corn
Potato/wheat
Cont. corn

Amendments
Nappan (1927)
Normandin-1 (1990)
Ottawa-1 (1992)

45.5/64.1
48.5/72.4
45.3/75.4

5.6
0.9
5.9

1107
866
846

Gleyed Regosol (SiL)

Humic Gleysol (CL)
Humic Gleysol (CL)

Manure 45 t ha1
Liquid dairy manure 50 t ha1
Solid dairy manure 50 t ha1

Control
Control
Control

Tillage
Harrington-1 (1985)
La Pocatire (1988)
Normandin-2 (1991)
Delhi (1989)
Ottawa-2 (1989)
Ottawa-2 (1989)
Harrow-2 (1983)

46.2/63.1
47.2/70.0
48.5/72.4
42.5/80.3
45.3/75.4
45.3/75.4
42.1/82.4

5.9
4.2
0.9
7.8
5.9
5.9
8.7

1077
967
866
935
846
846
819

Humo-Ferric Podzol (FSL)

Humic Gleysol (C)
Humic Gleysol (SiC)
Gray Brown Luvisol (SL)
Melanic Brunisol (SL)
Melanic Brunisol (SL)
Humic Gleysol (CL)

NT for a WB/BSY rot.

NT for cont. barley
NT for cont. barley
NT for cont. corn
NT for cont. wheat
NT for cont. corn
NT for cont. corn

MP for a WB/BSY rot.

MP for cont. barley
MP for cont. barley
MP for cont. corn
MP for cont. wheat
MP for cont. corn
MP for cont. corn

zMAAT = mean annual temperature; MATP = mean annual total precipitation.

yGreat Group according to Canadian Soil Survey Committee (1977). Textural classes: F = fine, S = sand, L = loam, C = clay, Si = silt,
xNT = no tillage, MP = moldboard plowing, rot = rotation, cont = continuous, WB/BSY = wheat-barley/barley-soybean, Alf = alfalfa.

store, and recycle water, nutrients and energy. There are

many soil attributes or properties encompassing a broad
range of soil physical, chemical and biological properties
that can be used to assess the quality of soil. There is a need
to identify attributes that rapidly respond to changes in soil
quality in order to recommend favorable practices.
Assessment of management effects on soil quality can be
made at the small research plot or at the landscape level.
Usually, most measures of change in soil quality are comparative and made with reference to a baseline level, which
may be a different treatment or management system
(Gregorich et al. 1997).
Soil organic matter influences a wide range of physical,
chemical and biological properties of soil and is considered
the most important indicator of soil quality (Larson and
Pierce 1991). Most SOM properties are not independent
(i.e., a change in one will usually result in a change in others).
When erosion does not exceed the rate of soil formation,
biological properties are considered the major factors that
regulate soil quality (Elliott et al. 1996).
Gregorich et al. (1994) considered SOM to encompass a
set of attributes rather than being a single entity. These
attributes included total soil organic C and N, light fraction
and microorganic (particulate) matter, mineralizable C and
N, microbial biomass, soil carbohydrates and enzymes.
These attributes are involved in different soil processes and
can be used to establish different MDS for the evaluation of
soil quality. For eastern Canadian conditions, some of these
fractions have been evaluated as an indicator of soil quality
and changes in SOM for tillage and rotation practices
(Carter 1991; Angers et al. 1993b), and for forested and
adjacent cultivated or forage sites (Carter et al. 1998). There

H = heavy.

is, however, a need to establish the sensitivity of these attributes across a broad range of farming systems to identify a
robust MDS.
The study reported here is part of a larger project
designed to investigate agriculture management effects on
carbon sequestration in eastern Canada (description of the
project objectives and preliminary results have been given
by Angers et al. [1995], of soil organic C contents and storage
profiles in Carter et al. [1997b], of stored macroaggregate C
and N in Bolinder et al. [1997], and of tillage effects in
Angers et al. [1997]. The effect of both conventional and
conservation management practices on the quantity and
composition of SOM in the surface soil layer (010 cm) was
investigated for different agroecosystems in eastern Canada.
We hypothesized that management effects would be detected
more easily in the surface layer where biological activity is
greatest, and would include the effect of tillage redistribution. Our objectives were to compare the response and consistency of different SOM attributes to changes in soil
management practices in eastern Canadian agroecosystems,
and identify the best indicators of SOM quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Site Description and Soil Analysis
Soil samples were obtained at sites of 16 replicated field
experiments throughout eastern Canada, 11 in the fall of
1993 and 5 in the fall of 1994. According to data availability,
16 paired comparisons were selected from 12 of the sites to
study the effect of conservation (no-tillage, rotations, organic
amendments) versus conventional (fall moldboard plowing,
continuous cropping, without organic amendments) man-

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

BOLINDER ET AL. SOIL QUALITY INDICATORS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT

agement practices (Table 1). The sites were existing agronomic experiments of varying duration (3 to 67 y) designed
to assess different agricultural management systems. For the
tillage comparisons, the tillage treatments were fall moldboard plowing (i.e., end of October to November to the
1525 cm depth) followed by spring secondary tillage, and
no-tillage.
Soil samples were obtained using soil cores (three to five
soil cores per field replicate combined to give one composite
soil sample) from the 010 cm soil layer. The soil samples
were sieved (6-mm) at a field moist condition, air-dried,
passed through a 2-mm sieve and ground to pass a 0.5-mm
sieve. Total soil C and N contents were determined by dry
combustion on air-dry soil as discussed later. Since the soils
were free of carbonates to the depth of sampling, total C was
equivalent to soil organic C (except for the Ottawa site 2
where inorganic C was determined and subtracted from total
C for estimating organic C).
Microbial biomass C was measured within 48 h of sampling, using a modification of the fumigation-extraction procedure described by Vance et al. (1987). Briefly, 20 g of the
field-moist soil was fumigated with ethanol-free chloroform
for 24 h. Soluble organic C was extracted from the fumigated
and unfumigated soils using 0.25 M K2SO4 and determined
by UV-persulfate oxidation with a DC-180 carbon analyzer
(Dohrmann Co.) following the preparation procedure proposed by Wu et al. (1990), which includes a dilution of the
K2SO4 extract with sodium hexametaphosphate. A KEC factor
of 0.45 was used (Wu et al. 1990) to estimate MB-C from
the difference of extractable C in the fumigated and unfumigated extracts.
Macro-organic matter was determined using a modification of the method described by Feller (1979) and Andreux
et al. (1980). Twenty-five grams of air-dry soil (2 mm) was
mixed with distilled water (100 mL) and 10 glass beads
(5-mm diam.). The samples were shaken for 12 h on a reciprocal shaker. The samples were wet-sieved with distilled
water through a 50-m sieve into a 600-mL beaker. The
fractions were dried at about 50C to constant weight. The
macro-organic matter C and MOM-N contents were determined by difference between whole soil C and N concentration, and C and N concentration of the < 50 m fraction. The
LF was isolated with a sodium iodide solution at a density
of 1.7 g cm3, according to the method described by
Gregorich and Ellert (1993). The organic C and total N contents of whole soil, MOM and LF were determined by dry
combustion using either a Carlo Erba NA 1500 elemental
analyzer (Carlo Erba Inc., Milan, Italy) or a LECO-CNS
1000 (Leco, Corp, St. Joseph, MI).
Carbohydrates were measured on 23 g of sieved (< 0.5 mm)
air-dried soil, mixed with 10 mL of 1.5 M sulfuric acid and
heated at 85C for 24 h and neutralized with NaOH (Angers
et al. 1993b). After filtration and centrifugation, extracts
were analyzed using the automated alkaline-ferricyanide
method (Cheshire 1979). The extracted carbohydrates are
referred to as acid-hydrolyzable carbohydrates (AHC).
Sensitivity Index and Statistical Analysis
A sensitivity index was calculated using the concept of a relative comparison for each of the attributes (Gregorich et al.

39

1994; Biederbeck et al. 1998). The sensitivity index for a

given attribute (a) was calculated as:
(ai)t/(ai)c
where the subscript i refers to soil attribute i, c refers to control
(conventional management) and t to treatment (conservation
management). If the conservation management had a beneficial reduction on the value of ai (i.e., soil bulk density)
then the sensitivity index was calculated as:
(ai)c/(ai)t
The cumulative effect of conservation management on soil
quality for each of the management practices (tillage, rotations and amendments) was derived by calculating an average
sensitivity index for all attributes (equal weighting was
given to all attributes).
A parametric paired t-test (Steel and Torrie 1980;
Montgomery 1984) was used to determine the overall significance of the sensitivity index for a given SOM attribute
(H0: Conservation/Conventional = 1.0). With the sensitivity
index, the different SOM attributes at each of the study sites
are separately compared to their conventional counterparts
and can be considered as paired observations. Thus, the 16
different site and treatment combinations served as replicates.
In order to examine if the responses to conservation management of the different attributes as measured by the sensitivity
index were site specific we used the Friedman two-way
analysis of variance by ranks non-parametric test. With this
test the data (i.e., in this case sensitivity index) are cast in a
two-way table having N rows and k columns (Siegel 1956).
The rows represent the vairous paired comparisons at each
site (i.e., conservation/conventional) and the columns represent the different attributes. The scores (i.e., conservation/
conventional ratios) in each row (i.e., sites) are ranked separately. The ranks in any row range from 1 to k. The data of
the test are ranks. Within a row (i.e., site) rank 1 is assigned
to the attribute with the highest value and the highest rank to
the attribute with the lowest value. The Friedman test determines whether it is likely that the different columns of rank
totals came from the same population (H0: the ranks totals
for each attribute would be about equal). The statistic (2)
used is defined as:
2 = 12 / (N k (k + 1)) (Rj)2 3N (k + 1)
Where N is the number of rows (i.e., sites), k is the number
of columns (i.e., attributes), and Rj is the sum of ranks in jth
column.
When the number of rows and/or columns is not too small,
2 is distributed approximately as chi square with df = k 1.
The lowest of ranks (Rj) is a measure of the attribute that
most frequently had a higher sensitivity index.
Since the observations in this study were measured after
different time periods and for treatment comparisons which
differed in their intensity, it is possible that different
time/treatment combinations could have induced different
effects on a specific attribute. Therefore, we also used a test

40

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Table 2. Average values for C and N in the whole soil and in different soil organic matter fractions in the 010 cm depth at each of the sites
Whole
soil C

MB-C

AHC-C
(g C m2)

LF-C

MOM-C

Whole
soil N

2426
2901
2371
2677
3760
2763
3357
3270
2671
3818
921
2728

19
44
46
21
46
35
43
75
30
52
19
80

256
454
241
367
436
279
505
323
284
425
181
433

171
173
159
108
245
237
276
252
134
244
195
304

335
361
627
360
1412
647
1247
1163
355
923
192
NA

177
218
160
251
286
196
299
271
195
266
46
278

Site
Harrington-2
La Pocatire
Normandin-1
Harrow-1
Benton
Ottawa-2
Nappan
Ottawa-1
Harrington-1
Normandin-2
Delhi
Harrow-2

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

zNA

LF-N
(g N m2)

MOM-N

Bulk
density
(g cm3)

MB-C/
Whole soil C
(%)

NAz
25
31
56
113
NA
73
81
NA
33
NA
NA

1.34
1.26
1.07
1.32
1.20
1.32
1.24
1.22
1.26
1.40
1.41
1.28

0.78
1.52
1.94
0.78
1.22
1.27
1.28
2.29
1.12
1.36
2.06
2.93

9
8
8
6
10
11
15
14
7
11
8
15

= data not available.

Table 3. The average effect of different conservation and conventional management practices on C and N in the 010 cm depth of whole soil and in
different soil organic matter fractions
Whole
soil C

MB-C

AHC-C
(g C m2)

LF-C

MOM-C

Whole
soil N

Rotations (N = 6)
Conservation
Conventional

2968
2723

39
33

361
323

191
171

623
623

226
207

9
5

Amendments (N = 3)
Conservation
Conventional

3355
2643

74
35

419
293

294
163

1265
759

281
206

Tillage (N = 7)
Conservation
Conventional

2818
2435

44
39

360
301

254
183

561
481

48 26
36 15
42 22

372 112
308 95
340 107

238 101
175 47
206 84

727 439
593 377
660 408

Management
practice

Mean Std. Dev. (N = 16)

Conservation
2975 742
Conventional
2582 632
Overall
2779 707

that would take into account only the direction of the

response (expected trend) without taking into account the
numerical difference between the treatments. The expected
trend was that the conservation treatments would have a
higher value than the conventional management treatments
(reference treatment) for each of the attributes (i.e., the ratio
of conservation/conventional would be positive (>1)).
The randomization model for paired comparisons was
used for this purpose. It was considered that for a broad
range of farming systems at different sites, this test would
give information on the overall consistency with which an
attribute would respond to conservation management practices. The approach is described in detail by Siegel (1956)
and Lehmann (1975). Briefly, the test is based on the signs
of the differences between paired values (in our case
Conservation/Conventional). The statistic of the test is equal
to the number of positive or negative differences. The null
hypothesis tested by the sign test is that
P (XA > XB) = P (XA < XB) = 1/2

(4)

Where XA and XB are the treatment responses within a related

pair (or H0: the median difference is zero, and H1: the medi-

Bulk
density
(g cm3)

MB-C/
Whole soil C
(%)

58
55

1.26
1.25

1.30
1.20

16
7

83
40

1.14
1.20

2.20
1.37

208
187

11
8

34
23

1.33
1.31

1.61
1.65

229 74
198 58
213 67

11 6
82
10 4

61 37
43 32
52 35

1.27 0.11
1.27 0.09
1.27 0.10

1.61 0.72
1.42 0.59
1.52 0.66

LF-N
MOM-N
(g N m2)

an of the differences is positive). The associated probability

of occurrence of values as small as x is given by the binomial distribution for P = Q = 1/2. Since H1 predicts the
direction of the differences (expected trend), the region of
rejection is one-tailed. It consists of all values of x (where x
= the number of minuses) whose one-tailed associated probability of occurrence under H0 is equal to or less than =
0.05. If a matched pair shows no difference (i.e., the difference, being zero, has no sign) it is excluded from the analysis
and N is thereby reduced.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sensitivity of Different Attributes to Conservation
Management
The mean values for whole soil organic C and total N and
the SOM attributes and soil bulk density across both conventional and conservation treatments at each of the sites are
presented in Table 2. All the SOM attributes were expressed
as grams of C and N m2, and thus take into account variation in whole soil bulk density. The mean bulk density was
similar between the conventional and conservation treatments (Table 3). The mean value for each SOM attribute

BOLINDER ET AL. SOIL QUALITY INDICATORS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT

41

Table 4. Effect of conservation management practices on the sensitivity index for different SOM attributes

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

Site and
Management
practice

Whole
soil C

MB-C

AHC-C

LF-C

Rotations
Harrington-2
La Pocatire
Normandin-1
Harrow-1
Benton
Ottawa-2

1.15
1.05
1.19
1.12
1.02
1.09

1.85
1.25
0.98
1.28
1.07
1.27

1.19
1.15
1.14
1.22
0.99
1.06

1.30
1.38
1.13
0.86
1.01
1.07

1.43
1.21
1.36
1.47
0.73
0.88

Amendments
Nappan
Normandin-1
Ottawa-1

1.49
1.09
1.21

1.53
1.00
4.96

1.34
1.05
2.05

1.48
0.84
4.30

0.99
1.10
1.19
1.18
1.47
1.18
1.04

0.97
1.15
1.12
1.06
1.46
0.97
1.13

1.05
1.14
0.99
1.37
1.29
1.18
1.50

1.16
0.14
0.0002

1.44
0.97
0.0386

1.23
0.26
0.0014

Tillage
Harrington-1
La Pocatire
Normandin-2
Delhi
Ottawa-2
Harrow-2
yOverall

mean
Standard Deviation
Significance levelx

Whole
MOM-C
soil N
Sensitivity indexz

LF-N

MOM-N

Bulk
density

MB-C/
Whole soil C

1.19
1.05
1.21
1.12
1.03
1.05

1.25
1.57
1.14
0.83
0.90
1.10

NA
1.32
1.25
1.41
0.81
NA

1.00
1.00
1.03
1.02
0.91
1.02

1.60
1.20
0.82
1.14
1.05
1.17

1.48
0.91
2.78

1.73
1.06
1.24

1.90
0.88
5.75

2.04
0.82
3.26

1.10
1.05
1.01

1.02
0.92
4.12

0.91
0.99
0.83
1.34
1.66
1.19
3.40

1.13
1.40
1.16
1.74
0.65
1.71
NA

0.96
1.13
1.15
1.28
1.26
1.15
1.03

0.86
1.14
0.83
1.29
1.40
1.11
3.29

NA
1.58
1.41
NA
NA
NA
NA

1.00
1.04
0.95
0.95
1.03
0.92
1.00

0.97
1.04
0.94
0.90
0.99
0.82
1.09

1.48
0.97
0.0330

1.34
0.52
0.0097

1.17
0.18
0.001

1.58
1.27
0.044

1.54
0.74
0.030

1.00
0.05
0.44

1.24
0.79
0.11

zThe

sensitivity index for a given attribute (a) was calculated as: (ai)t/(ai)c, where the subscript i refers to soil property i, c refers to control (conventional
management) and t to treatment (conservation management). If the conservation management brought out a beneficial reduction in the value of ai then
(ai)c/(ai)t .
yMean for the tillage, rotations and amendment treatments. NA = not available.
xP value (H : Conservation/Conventional = 1.0) using a paired t-test with the sites as replicates.
0

was higher for the conservation than for the conventional

treatment for all of the management practices investigated
(i.e., rotations, amendments and tillage).
Except for the bulk density and the MB-C/whole soil C
ratio, the overall mean of the sensitivity index was statistically different than one at P < 0.05 for each attribute (Table 4).
According to this index the different SOM attributes could
be grouped as follows in their sensitivity to conservation
management practices: LF-N and MOM-N (1.58 and 1.54,
respectively) > LF-C and MB-C (1.48 and 1.44, respectively)
> MOM-C (1.34) > MB-C/Total-C and AHC-C (1.24 and
1.23, respectively) > whole soil C and whole soil N (1.16
and 1.17, respectively).
Small changes in total SOM may be difficult to monitor
and detect in the short-term because of the large amount of
soil C and the natural variability of soils. The most labile
fractions of the SOM are usually the first to be influenced by
cultivation or other system perturbations (Doran and Smith
1987). The LF and MOM are important pools to SOM
turnover in agricultural soils since they act as a readily
decomposable substrate for soil mircoorganisms and as a
short-term reservoir of plant nutrients (Janzen et al. 1992;
Gregorich et al. 1994). The LF and MOM are dominated by
plant residues, although residues derived from animals and
microorganisms may also be present. These residues are in
different stages of decomposition. These fractions are more
responsive than total SOM to changes in agricultural management (Janzen et al. 1992; Angers et al. 1993a) and have

been suggested as indicators of soil quality (Gregorich et al.

1994; Gregorich and Janzen 1995). This study also showed
that compared to the whole soil total C and N, these two
fractions were more sensitive as indicators for soil quality
(Table 4). The MOM-N and LF-N were more sensitive indicators than the MOM-C and LF-C. LF-C seemed to be
slightly more sensitive than the MOM-C.
The MB-C (rather than total amounts of organic C), has
also been suggested as a useful and more sensitive measure
of a change in SOM content (Powlson and Jenkinson 1981;
Carter 1986; Powlson et al. 1987; Angers et al. 1993a,b).
Sparling (1992) found that MB-C and the MB-C/Total-C
ratio were useful to measure SOM dynamics and provided a
more sensitive index than whole soil total C measured alone.
Our study also showed that MB-C is a sensitive indicator of
soil quality, with an index of 1.44. However, the MB-C/
Total-C ratio, with a sensitivity index of 1.24, was less sensitive than MB-C. The index calculated for the MB-C/Total-C
ratio was only slightly higher than that for the whole soil
total C alone (1.16). Anderson and Domsch (1989) compared the ratio of MB-C/Total-C between permanent monoculture plots and continuous crop rotation plots and
suggested that a higher concentration of MB-C is characteristic of the crop rotation. On average, the porportion of
whole soil total C as MB-C was 2.3% for permanent monocultures and 2.9% for the continuous crop rotations. In our
study, the proportions of total C as MB-C were similar for
the rotational comparisons with 1.3% for conservation and

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

42

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

1.2% for conventional treatments. On medium-textured surface soils (05 cm) in eastern Canada, Carter (1991)
observed a higher proportion of total C as MB-C for reduced
tillage (1.2%) than for plowed soils (0.8%). In this study,
this proportion was also similar between the conservation
(i.e., no-tillage) and the conventional treatments (i.e.,
plowed soils), with 1.6% for the no-tilled soils and 1.7% for
the plowed soils. The sampling depth used in this study was
deeper (0-10 cm) than that used by Carter (1991), which
may help to explain these small differences. Usually, microbial biomass changes are more easily detectable in the top
surface layer; for example, Angers et al. (1993b) found
greater difference in the ratio between no-tillage and
ploughed soils in the 07.5 cm than in the 7.510 cm layer.
Changes in the MB-C/Total-C ratio reflect both organic
matter inputs into and outputs from the soil and conservation of organic matter to MB-C. This ratio may be influenced by soil texture and mineralogy (Sparling 1992), but is
useful to make comparisons between different soil types
under different managements. In our study, eight of the
paired comparisons were made on light-textured soils
(< 30% clay) (Harrington-1 and -2, Delhi Ottawa-2, Benton
and Nappan sites) and the other eight on more heavy-textured
soils. The average proportion of total C as MB-C was lower
(1.3%) for the light-textured soils than for the heavy-textured
soils (1.8%). However, in terms of their responsiveness to
management practices, both the MB-C and MB-C/total-C
ratio did not vary with texture. For the 16 sites (N = 16),
there was no significant correlation between the whole soil
clay content and the MB-C (r = 0.40; P = 0.15) or the
MB-C/Total-C ratio (r = 0.20; P = 0.48).
The overall average sensitivity index was only slightly
higher for AHC-C (1.23) than for whole soil total C or N
(1.17) and was therefore not as sensitive as the other attributes. The AHC-C fraction represents from 10 to 15% of the
whole soil C and was found in some studies in this region to
have a slightly higher response to management than total C
(Angers and Mehuys 1989; Angers et al. 1993b). However,
because it represents such a high proportion of the total
SOM, its responsiveness to management is expected to be
quite similar to total C.
An important proportion of the microbial populations,
enzyme activities and other labile soil constituents such as
carbohydrates may be associated with the LF (Kanazawa
and Filip 1986; Skjemstad et al. 1986). Janzen et al. (1992)
found that the LF content was strongly correlated to soil respiration rates and with microbial biomass N, but the correlation with microbial biomass C was found to be less
consistent or even negative. For our soils, there was a significant correlation between the MB-C and the LF-C (r =
0.64; P = 0.0001) and the LF-N (r = 0.65; P = 0.0001).
There was also a significant correlation between the MB-C
and the MOM-C (r = 0.64; P = 0.0001) and the MOM-N (r
= 0.56; P = 0.0001). The LF-C and LF-N were weakly correlated with the AHC-C (r < 0.30). A better correlation was
found between the MOM-C and the AHC-C (r = 0.44; P =
0.0001), and between MOM-N and the AHC-C (r = 0.49; P
= 0.0001).
The average sensitivity index was calculated for each of
the rotational, amendment and tillage conservation manage-

Table 5. Sensitivity index for different SOM attributes and

conservation management practices in eastern Canada
Conservation management
Rotations
SOM attributes

Amendments
Sensitivity indexz

Tillage

Whole soil C
MB-C
AHC-C
LF-C
MOM-C
Whole soil N
LF-N
MOM-N
Bulk density

1.10
1.28
1.13
1.13
1.18
1.11
1.13
1.20
1.00

1.26
2.50
1.48
2.21
1.72
1.34
2.84
2.04
1.05

1.16
1.12
1.22
1.47
1.30
1.14
1.42
1.50
0.98

Average sensitivity indexy

1.14

1.82

1.26

zThe

sensitivity index for a given attribute (a) is defined as: (ai)t /(ai)c,
where the subscript i refers to soil property i, c refers to control (conventional management) and t to treatment (conservation management). If the
conservation management brought out a beneficial reduction in the value of
ai then: (ai)c /(ai)t .
yThe cumulative effect of conservation management on soil quality for
each of the management practices (tillage, rotations and amendments) was
derived by calculating an average sensitivity index for all attributes (equal
weighting was given to all attributes).

ment practices (Table 5). The average index was highest for
the amendment conservation management (1.82) followed
by the tillage (1.26) and rotational (1.14) conservation management practices. This suggested that the organic amendments has a greater impact on most of the attributes
compared to the tillage and rotational conservation management practices.
Site Specificity and Consistency to Which
Different Attributes Respond to Management
The sum of ranks with the Friedman two-way analysis of
variance non-parametric test on the sensitivity index for
each of the attributes are shown in Table 6. The chi square
statistic (2 = 17.7 with df = 8) was significant at P < 0.05
indicating that the different columns of ranks totals did not
come from the same population. The lowest sum of ranks
(Rj) indicates the attribute that most frequently had a higher
sensitivity index. According to the sum of ranks, the attributes could be grouped as follows: MB-C and MOM-C <
whole soil C, AHC-C, LF-C, whole soil N, LF-N <
MB-C/total C. This suggests that the sensitivity of the different attributes to conservation management may be site
specific. For example, although LF-N had one of the overall
highest sensitivity index, this attribute did not respond to
conservation management as frequently as many of the
other attributes. The MB-C/total C ratio responded the least
frequently to conservation management and MB-C and
MOM-C the most.
The overall consistency with which a given attribute
responded to conservation management practices was examined using the non-parametric sign test (Table 7). According
to the probability levels obtained with this test, the different
SOM attributes could be grouped as follows in their consistency of response to conservation management: whole soil C and
N > AHC-C, MB-C, MOM-C > LF-C, LF-N > MB-C/total
C. According to the sensitivity index, LF-N was found to be

BOLINDER ET AL. SOIL QUALITY INDICATORS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT

43

Table 6. Sum of ranks for the sensitivity index with the Friedman two-way analysis of variance non-parametric test for each of the attributesz

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

Site and
Management
practice

Whole
soil C

MB-C

AHC-C

LF-C

MOM-C
Ranky

Whole
soil N

LF-N

Bulk
density

MB-C/
Whole soil C

Rotations
Harrington-2
La Pocatire
Normandin-1
Harrow-1
Benton
Ottawa-2
Rotation ranks

8
7.5
3
5.5
4
4
32

1
3
8
2
1
1
16

6.5
6
4.5
3
6
6
32

4
2
6
8
5
5
30

3
4
1
1
9
9
27

6.5
7.5
2
5.5
3
7
31.5

5
1
4.5
9
8
3
30.5

9
9
7
7
7
8
47

2
5
9
4
2
2
24

Amendments
Nappan
Normandin-1
Ottawa-1
Amendment ranks

4
1
8
13

3
5
2
10

7
3.5
6
16.5

5.5
9
3
17.5

5.5
7
5
17.5

2
2
7
11

1
8
1
10

8
3.5
9
20.5

9
6
4
19

Tillage ranks

4
6
1
6
2
3.5
22.5

5.5
2
4
7
3
7
28.5

2
3.5
5
2
5
3.5
21

8
9
8.5
3
1
2
31.5

1
1
2
1
9
1
15

7
5
3
5
6
5
31

9
3.5
8.5
4
4
6
35

3
7.5
6
8
7
8
39.5

5.5
7.5
7
9
8
9
46

Rank totals

67.5

54.5

69.5

79

59.5

73.5

75.5

Tillage
Harrington-1
La Pocatire
Normandin-2
Delhi
Ottawa-2

zThe MOM-N attribute was

yAssigned rank according to

107

89

excluded in this analysis because of too many non available data.

the Friedman two-way analysis of variance test by ranks; When two attributes had the same rank they were assigned the average of

the tied ranks.

Table 7. Statistical analysis on the expected trend for conservation management practices for different SOM attributes using the sign testz
Treatment comparison and
direction of response

Whole
soil C

MB-C

AHC-C

LF-C

MOM-C

Whole
soil N

LF-N

Bulk
density

MB-C/
Whole soil C

(+) signs for rotations (N = 6)

(+) signs for amendments (N = 3)
(+) signs for tillage (N = 7)
Total (+) signs
Total Ny
P Binomial testx

6
3
6
15
16
0.000

5
2
5
12
15
0.018

5
3
6
14
16
0.002

5
2
4
11
16
0.105

4
2
5
11
15
0.059

6
3
6
15
16
0.000

4
2
5
11
16
0.105

3
3
2
8
12
0.194

5
2
2
9
16
0.402

zThe expected trend was that the conservation treatments would have a higher value than the conventional treatments (reference treatment) for each of the
attributes (i.e., the ratio of conservation/conventional would be positive (> 1.0)).
yWhen a matched pair showed no difference (i.e., the difference, being zero, has no sign) and/or when a measurement for a given parameter and treatment
comparison were not available the N was reduced (the MOM-N attribute was excluded in this analysis because of too many non available data).
xH : the median difference is zero, and H : the median of the difference is positive (expected trend).
0
1

one of the most sensitive SOM attribute to conservation

management. However, the sign test suggests that this
attribute did not respond to conservation management with
as much consistency as the whole soil C and N. That is,
whole soil C and N nearly always had the expected trend (15
times out of 16), while the LF-N matched the expected trend
only 11 times out of 16. The AHC-C attribute was nearly as
consistent as the whole soil C and N.
CONCLUSIONS
The sensitivity index showed that LF-N and MOM-N was
the most sensitive SOM attributes to conservation management practices. The MOM-C, LF-C and MB-C attributes
also showed great sensitivity to conservation management.
The sum of ranks with the Friedman two-way analysis of

variance test on the sensitivity index suggested that the sensitivity of the different attributes to conservation management may be site specific. Although LF-N had one of the
highest overall sensitivity index values, this attribute did not
respond as frequently as many of the other attributes. The
non-parametric sign test showed that the most consistent
responses to conservation management occurred with whole
soil C and N. In this study, the MB-C/total C ratio was less
sensitive and responded less frequently to management than
MB-C alone. The average sensitivity index was highest for
the amendment (1.82) followed by the tillage (1.26) and
rotational (1.14) conservation management practices, suggesting that the organic amendments had a greater impact on
most of the attributes compared to the tillage and rotational
conservation management practices. The overall results

44

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

suggest that for eastern Canadian soils, use of MOM-C and

MOM-N, MB-C and whole soil C would provide a useful,
easy to measure and robust MDS.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study could not have been realized without the contribution of the following cooperators and many others who
provided access to their agronomic studies, assisted with
data collection, or provided data: D. Avon, R. P. Beayert, D.
Cot, R. G. Donald, C. G. Drury, L. M. Edwards, J. Lafond,
A. Lgre, B. C. Liang, A. F. MacKenzie, J. Martel, D.
Pageau, Y. Papdopoulus, J. E. Richards, J. B. Sanderson,
R. R. Simard and R. P. Voroney. Thanks are extended to K.
Paustian, E. T. Elliott and C. Lemieux for discussion on the
use of non-parametric statistical tests, and to H. H. Janzen
for improvements to an earlier draft of this paper.
Anderson, T-H. and K. H. Domsch. 1989. Ratios of microbial
biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 21: 471479.
Andreux, F., Bruckert, S., Correa, A. and Souchier, B. 1980.
Sur une mthode de fractionnement physique et chimique des agrgats
des sols: origines possibles de la matire organique des fractions
obtenues. C.R. Acd. Sci. Paris, 291: 381384.
Angers, D. A. and G. R. Mehuys. 1989. Effects of cropping on
carbohydrate content and water-stable aggregation of a clay soil.
Can. J. Soil Sci. 69: 373380.
Angers, D. A., Ndayegamiye, A. and Ct, D. 1993a. Tillage
induced differences in organic matter of particle-size fractions and
microbial biomass. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57: 512516.
Angers, D. A., Bissonnette, N., Lgre, A. and Samson, N.
1993b. Microbial and biochemical changes induced by rotation
and tillage in a soil under barley production. Can. J. Soil Sci. 73:
3950.
Angers, D. A., Bolinder, M. A., Carter, M. R., Gregorich, E. G.,
Drury, C. R., Liang, B. C., Voroney, R. P., Simard, R., Donald,
R. G., Beyaert, R. P. and Martel, J. 1997. Impact of tillage practices on organic carbon and nitrogen storage, in cool, humid soils
of eastern Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 41: 191201.
Angers, D. A., Carter, M. R., Gregorich, E. G., Bolinder, M. A.,
Donald, R. G., Voroney, R. P., Drury, C. F., Liang, B. C.,
Simard, R. R. and Beyaert, R. P. 1995. Agricultural management
effects on soil carbon sequestration in eastern Canada. Pages
253263 In M. Beran, ed. Prospects for carbon sequestration in the
biosphere. NATO ASI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Biederbeck, V. O., Rasiah, V., Campbell, C. A., Zentner, R. P.
and Guang Wen. 1998. Soil quality attributes as influenced by
annual legumes used as green manure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 332:
11771185.
Bolinder, M. A., Carter, M. R., Angers, D. A. and Gregorich,
E. G. 1997. Stored C and N in stable macroaggregates in agricultural soils of eastern Canada. Proc. 3rd Eastern Canada Soil
Structure Workshop. Ottawa, ON 2122 August 1996. pp. 99113.
Canada Soil Survey Committee. 1977. Soils of Canada. Vol. 1,
Soil Report. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Supply and
Services Canada, Ottawa, ON. 243 pp.
Carter, M. R. 1986. Microbial biomass as an index for tillageinduced changes in soil biological properties. Soil Tillage Res. 7:
2940.
Carter, M. R. 1991. The influence of tillage on the proportion of
organic carbon and nitrogen in the microbial biomass of mediumtextured soils in a humid climate. Biol. Fertil Soils 11: 135139.

Carter, M. R., Gregorich, E. G., Anderson, D. W., Doran,

J. W., Janzen, H. H. and Pierce, F. J. 1997a. Concepts of soil
quality and their significance. In E. G. Gregorich and M. R. Carter,
eds. Soil quality for crop production and ecosystem health.
Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carter, M. R., Angers, D. A., Gregorich, E. G. and Bolinder,
M. A. 1997b. Organic carbon and nitrogen stocks and storage profiles in cool, humid soils of eastern Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 77:
205210.
Carter, M. R., Gregorich, E. G., Angers, D. A., Donald, R. G.
and Bolinder, M. A. 1998. Organic C and N storage, and organic
C fractions, in adjacent cultivated and forested soils of eastern
Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 47: 261269.
Cheshire, M. V. 1979. Nature and origin of carbohydrates in soils.
Academic Press, Inc., London, UK.
Doran, J. W. and Smith, M. S. 1987. Organic matter management
and utilization of soil and fertilizer nutrients. Pages 5372 in R.F.
Folett et al., eds. Soil fertility and organic matter as critical components of production systems. ASA Spec. Publ. 19. ASA and
SSSA, Madison, WI.
Elliott, L. F., Lynch, J. M. and Papendick, R. I. 1996. The
microbial component of soil quality. Pages 121 In Soil Biochemistry. Vol. 9. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. 551 pp.
Feller, C. 1979. Une mthode de fractionnement granulomtrique
de la matire organique des sols. Application aux sols tropicaux
textures grossires, trs pauvres en humus. Cah. ORSTOM, Sr.
Pdologie 17: 339346.
Gregorich, E. G. and Ellert, B. H. 1993. Light fraction and
macroorganic matter in mineral soils. In M. R. Carter, ed. Soil
sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil
Science, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 823 pp.
Gregorich, E. G. and Janzen, H. H. 1995. Storage of soil carbon
in the light fraction and macroorganic matter. In M. R. Carter and
B. A. Stewart, eds. Structure and organic matter storage in agricultural soils. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gregorich, E. G., Carter, M. R., Angers, D. A., Monreal, C. M.
and Ellert, B. H. 1994. Towards a minimum data set to assess soil
organic matter quality in agricultural soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 74:
367385.
Gregorich, E. G., Carter, M. R., Doran, J. W., Pankhurst, C. E.
and Dwyer, L. M. 1997. Biological attributes of soil quality.
Pages 81113 in E. G. Gregorich and M. R. Carter, eds. Soil quality
for crop production and ecosystem health. Elsevier Science
Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Janzen, H. H., Campbell, C. A., Brandt, S. A., Lafond, G. P.
and Townley-Smith, L. 1992. Light-fraction organic matter in
soils from long-term crop rotations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:
17991806.
Kanazawa, S. and Filip, Z. 1986. Distribution of microorganisms,
total biomass, and enzyme activities in different particles of brown
soil. Microbiol. Ecol. 12: 205215.
Larson, W. E. and Pierce, F. J. 1991. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. Pages 175203 in Evaluation for sustainable
land management in the developing world. Vol. 2: Technical
Papers. Bangkok, Thailand. International Board for Soil Research
and Management (IBSRAM) proceedings No. 12.
Lehmann, E. L. 1975. Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based
on ranks. Holden-Day series in probability and statistics. HoldenDay Inc, Oakland, CA. 457 pp.
Montgomery, D. C. 1984. Design and analysis of experiments.
2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 535 pp.
Powlson, D. S. and Jenkinson, D. S. 1981. A comparison of the
organic matter, biomass, adenosine triphosphate and mineralizable
nitrogen contents of ploughed and direct-drilled soils. J. Agric. Sci.
(Camb.). 97: 713721.

BOLINDER ET AL. SOIL QUALITY INDICATORS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

Powlson, D. S., Brookes, P. C. and Christensen, B. T. 1987.

Measurement of soil microbial biomass provides an early indication of changes in total soil organic matter due to straw incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19: 159164.
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill book company, New York, NY. 311 pp.
Skjemstad, J. O., Dalal, R. C. and Barron, P. F. 1986.
Spectroscopic investigations of cultivation effects on organic matter
of Vertisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50: 354359.
Sparling, G. P. 1992. Ratio of microbial biomass carbon to soil
organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic
matter. Aust. J. Soil Res. 30: 195207.

45

Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures

of statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY. 633 pp.
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C. and Jenkinson, D. S. 1987. An
extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass carbon.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 19: 703707.
Wu, J., Joergensen, R. G., Pommerening, B., Chaussod, R. and
Brookes, P. M. 1990. Measurement of soil microbial biomass C
by fumigation-extraction an automated procedure. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 22: 11671169.

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

This article has been cited by:

1. Adele Muscolo, Maria Rosaria Panuccio, Carmelo Mallamaci, Maria Sidari. 2014. Biological indicators to assess short-term soil
quality changes in forest ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 45, 416-423. [CrossRef]
2. Van Eerd Laura L., Congreves Katelyn A., Hayes Adam, Verhallen Anne, Hooker David C.. 2014. Long-term tillage and crop
rotation effects on soil quality, organic carbon, and total nitrogen. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 94:3, 303-315. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
3. Congreves Katelyn A., Smith Jillian M., Nmeth Deanna D., Hooker David C., Van Eerd Laura L.. 2014. Soil organic carbon
and land use: Processes and potential in Ontarios long-term agro-ecosystem research sites. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 94:3,
317-336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
4. M. Ibrahim, C.-G. Cao, M. Zhan, C.-F. Li, J. Iqbal. 2013. Changes of CO2 emission and labile organic carbon as influenced by
rice straw and different water regimes. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology . [CrossRef]
5. Sha XUE, Peng LI, Guo-bin LIU, Zhan-bin LI, Chao ZHANG. 2013. Changes in Soil Hot-Water Extractable C, N and P
Fractions During Vegetative Restoration in Zhifanggou Watershed on the Loess Plateau. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 12,
2250-2259. [CrossRef]
6. E.A. Rienzi, J.F. Fox, J.H. Grove, C.J. Matocha. 2013. Interrill erosion in soils with different land uses: The kinetic energy wetting
effect on temporal particle size distribution. CATENA 107, 130-138. [CrossRef]
7. B.S. Brar, Kamalbir Singh, G.S. Dheri, Balwinder-Kumar. 2013. Carbon sequestration and soil carbon pools in a ricewheat
cropping system: Effect of long-term use of inorganic fertilizers and organic manure. Soil and Tillage Research 128, 30-36.
[CrossRef]
8. Carmen M. Ugarte, Edmond R. Zaborski, Michelle M. Wander. 2013. Nematode indicators as integrative measures of soil condition
in organic cropping systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry . [CrossRef]
9. Mrcio R. Martins, Denis A. Angers, Jos E. Cor. 2012. Co-accumulation of microbial residues and particulate organic matter
in the surface layer of a no-till Oxisol under different crops. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 50, 208-213. [CrossRef]
10. Martha Regina Lucizano Garcia, Ely Nahas. 2012. Microbial populations and the activity of the soil under agricultural and
agriculturalpastoral systems. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58, 511-525. [CrossRef]
11. Xueyun Yang, Weidong Ren, Benhua Sun, Shulan Zhang. 2012. Effects of contrasting soil management regimes on total and
labile soil organic carbon fractions in a loess soil in China. Geoderma 177-178, 49-56. [CrossRef]
12. Li X. H., Han X. Z., Li H. B., Song C., Yan J., Liang Y.. 2012. Soil chemical and biological properties affected by 21-year
application of composted manure with chemical fertilizers in a Chinese Mollisol. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 92:3, 419-428.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
13. Chao Zhang, Guobin Liu, Sha Xue, Zilin Song. 2011. Rhizosphere soil microbial activity under different vegetation types on the
Loess Plateau, China. Geoderma 161, 115-125. [CrossRef]
14. K. Banger, G. S. Toor, A. Biswas, S. S. Sidhu, K. Sudhir. 2010. Soil organic carbon fractions after 16-years of applications of
fertilizers and organic manure in a Typic Rhodalfs in semi-arid tropics. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 86, 391-399. [CrossRef]
15. Riccardo Riffaldi, Alessandro Saviozzi, Roberto Cardelli, Federica Bulleri, Luciana Angelini. 2010. Comparison of Soil Organic
Matter Characteristics under the Energy Crop Giant Reed, Cropping Sequence and Natural Grass. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis 41, 173-180. [CrossRef]
16. S. S. Malhi, R. Lemke, J. J. Schoenau. 2010. Influence of time and method of alfalfa stand termination on yield, seed quality,
N uptake, soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions under different N fertility regimes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 86,
17-38. [CrossRef]
17. K.L. Nelson, D.H. Lynch, G. Boiteau. 2009. Assessment of changes in soil health throughout organic potato rotation sequences.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 131, 220-228. [CrossRef]
18. S. S. Malhi, S. A. Brandt, R. Lemke, A. P. Moulin, R. P. Zentner. 2009. Effects of input level and crop diversity on soil nitrateN, extractable P, aggregation, organic C and N, and nutrient balance in the Canadian Prairie. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
84, 1-22. [CrossRef]
19. K. Banger, S. S. Kukal, G. Toor, K. Sudhir, T. H. Hanumanthraju. 2009. Impact of long-term additions of chemical fertilizers
and farm yard manure on carbon and nitrogen sequestration under rice-cowpea cropping system in semi-arid tropics. Plant and
Soil 318, 27-35. [CrossRef]
20. Nazila Khorsandi, Farshid Nourbakhsh. 2008. Prediction of potentially mineralizable N from amidohydrolase activities in a manureapplied, corn residue-amended soil. European Journal of Soil Biology 44, 341-346. [CrossRef]

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

21. Q.K. Wang, S.L. Wang. 2007. Soil organic matter under different forest types in Southern China. Geoderma 142, 349-356.
[CrossRef]
22. Adolfo Campos C., Klaudia Oleschko L., Jorge Etchevers B., Claudia Hidalgo M.. 2007. Exploring the effect of changes in land
use on soil quality on the eastern slope of the Cofre de Perote Volcano (Mexico). Forest Ecology and Management 248, 174-182.
[CrossRef]
23. F.S. Mairura, D.N. Mugendi, J.I. Mwanje, J.J. Ramisch, P.K. Mbugua, J.N. Chianu. 2007. Integrating scientific and farmers'
evaluation of soil quality indicators in Central Kenya. Geoderma 139, 134-143. [CrossRef]
24. M.R. Carter, J.B. Sanderson, D.A. Holmstrom, J.A. Ivany, K.R. DeHaan. 2007. Influence of conservation tillage and glyphosate
on soil structure and organic carbon fractions through the cycle of a 3-year potato rotation in Atlantic Canada. Soil and Tillage
Research 93, 206-221. [CrossRef]
25. J. Kohler, F. Caravaca, L. Carrasco, A. Roldn. 2006. Contribution of Pseudomonas mendocina and Glomus intraradices to
aggregate stabilization and promotion of biological fertility in rhizosphere soil of lettuce plants under field conditions. Soil Use
and Management 22:10.1111/sum.2006.22.issue-3, 298-304. [CrossRef]
26. V. Geissen, G. Morales Guzman. 2006. Fertility of tropical soils under different land use systemsa case study of soils in Tabasco,
Mexico. Applied Soil Ecology 31, 169-178. [CrossRef]
27. A. Roldn, J.R. Salinas-Garca, M.M. Alguacil, F. Caravaca. 2005. Changes in soil enzyme activity, fertility, aggregation and C
sequestration mediated by conservation tillage practices and water regime in a maize field. Applied Soil Ecology 30, 11-20. [CrossRef]
28. M. Alvear, A. Rosas, J.L. Rouanet, F. Borie. 2005. Effects of three soil tillage systems on some biological activities in an Ultisol
from southern Chile. Soil and Tillage Research 82, 195-202. [CrossRef]
29. M.R. Carter. 2005. Long-term tillage effects on cool-season soybean in rotation with barley, soil properties and carbon and
nitrogen storage for fine sandy loams in the humid climate of Atlantic Canada. Soil and Tillage Research 81, 109-120. [CrossRef]
30. Wang Qing-kui, Wang Si-long, Deng Shi-jian. 2005. Comparative study on active soil organic matter in Chinese fir plantation
and native broad-leaved forest in subtropical China. Journal of Forestry Research 16, 23-26. [CrossRef]
31. F. Caravaca, M.M. Alguacil, P. Torres, A. Roldn. 2005. Plant type mediates rhizospheric microbial activities and soil aggregation
in a semiarid Mediterranean salt marsh. Geoderma 124, 375-382. [CrossRef]
32. R.J. HaynesLabile Organic Matter Fractions as Central Components of the Quality of Agricultural Soils: An Overview 221-268.
[CrossRef]
33. C. Garcia, A. Roldan, T. Hernandez. 2005. Ability of different plant species to promote microbiological processes in semiarid
soil. Geoderma 124, 193-202. [CrossRef]
34. Timothy A. Doane, William R. Horwth. 2004. Annual dynamics of soil organic matter in the context of long-term trends.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18, n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
35. Coskun Glser .. 2004. A Comparison of Some Physical and Chemical Soil Quality Indicators Influenced by Different Crop
Species. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 7, 905-911. [CrossRef]
36. Traute-Heidi Anderson. 2003. Microbial eco-physiological indicators to asses soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
98, 285-293. [CrossRef]
37. A Ghani, M Dexter, K.W Perrott. 2003. Hot-water extractable carbon in soils: a sensitive measurement for determining impacts
of fertilisation, grazing and cultivation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35, 1231-1243. [CrossRef]
38. Jeffrey L. SmithSoil Quality: The Role of Microorganisms . [CrossRef]
39. Walker O. Smith, Jill PeloquinPrimary Productivity in the Marine Environment . [CrossRef]
40. Ann Kennedy, John DoranSustainable Agriculture: Role of Microorganisms . [CrossRef]
41. Z.L He, X.E Yang, V.C Baligar, D.V CalvertMicrobiological and Biochemical Indexing Systems for Assessing Quality of Acid
Soils 89-138. [CrossRef]
42. F Caravaca, G Masciandaro, B Ceccanti. 2002. Land use in relation to soil chemical and biochemical properties in a semiarid
Mediterranean environment. Soil and Tillage Research 68, 23-30. [CrossRef]
43. F Caravaca, T Hernndez, C Garca, A Roldn. 2002. Improvement of rhizosphere aggregate stability of afforested semiarid plant
species subjected to mycorrhizal inoculation and compost addition. Geoderma 108, 133-144. [CrossRef]
44. F. Caravaca, J.M. Barea, D. Figueroa, A. Roldn. 2002. Assessing the effectiveness of mycorrhizal inoculation and soil compost
addition for enhancing reafforestation with Olea europaea subsp. sylvestris through changes in soil biological and physical
parameters. Applied Soil Ecology 20, 107-118. [CrossRef]
45. Stephen Nortcliff. 2002. Standardisation of soil quality attributes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88, 161-168. [CrossRef]

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 112.215.66.68 on 12/06/14

For personal use only.

46. K. M. Goh, D. R. Pearson, M. J. Daly. 2001. Effects of Apple Orchard Production Systems on Some Important Soil Physical,
Chemical and Biological Quality Parameters. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 18, 269-292. [CrossRef]