Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 47

BIOINDIKATOR KUALITAS TANAH

Nilai Potensial dan Perpektif

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 1
What is Soil Quality
(Soil Science Society of America 1999)

• SOIL QUALITY IS CAPACITY OF THE SOIL TO FUNCTION


WITHIN ECOSYSTEM BOUNDARIES,

– TO SUSTAIN PLANT AND BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY,

– TO MAINTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND

– TO PROMOTE PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH AND


SUPPORT HUMAN HEALTH AND HABITATION

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 2
Soil Quality
• The ability of a soil to Biological
function within ecosystem
boundaries to support
healthy plants and
animals, maintain or
enhance air and water
quality, and support
human health and Physical Chemical
habitation
• Soil quality integrates
Soil Properties
the physical, chemical
and biological condition
of the soil 3
T. Simarmata -2015-rev
What The function of soils?
SOIL PROVIDES SEVERAL ESSENTIAL SERVICES OR FUNCTIONS:
• Soil supports the growth and diversity of plants and animals by
providing a physical, chemical, and biological environment for the
exchange of water, nutrients, energy and air.
• Soil regulates the distribution of rain or irrigation water between
infiltration and runoff, and regulates the flow and storage of water
and solutes, including nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, and other
nutrients and compounds dissolved in the water.
• Soil stores, moderates the release of, and cycles plant nutrients
and other elements.
• Soil acts as a filter to protect the quality of water, air, and other
resources.
• Soil supports structures and protects archeological treasures.

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 4
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 5
Soil Quality and Soil Health

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 6
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 7
WHY SOIL QUALITY IS IMPORTANT?

Soil quality evaluation is a tool to assess


management-induced changes in the soil
and to link existing resource concerns to
environmentally sound land management
practices.

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 8
EVALUASI KESEHATAN/KUALITAS TANAH

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 9
INDIKATOR

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 10
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 11
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 12
HOW IS SOIL QUALITY EVALUATED?

• Indikator Qualitas Tanah


– Indikator Fisik
– Indikator Kimia
– Indikator Biologi
• Indeks Kesehatan Tanah (?)
– Minimum Data Set (MDS)
– Skoring dan Penilaian
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 13
MINIMUM DATA SET: CONCEPT AND APPLICATION

• A minimum data set (MDS) was proposed to measure soil quality and its changes
due to management practices through selection of key indicators such as soil texture,
organic matter, pH, nutrient status, bulk density, electrical conductivity and rooting
depth (Larson and Pierce, 1994).
• Collecting a minimum data set helps to identify locally relevant soil indicators and
to evaluate the link between selected indicators and significant soil and plant
properties (Arshad and Martin, 2002).
• It is a minimum set of indicators required to obtain a comprehensive understanding
of the soil attributes evaluated (Figure 1). More importantly they serve as a useful
tool for screening the condition, quality, and health of soil (Doran et al., 1996; Larson
and Pierce, 1994; and Doran and Parkin, 1994).
– For smallholder farmers these tools need to be simple measures of soil health
and soil quality such as consistency, color and workability (Murage et al.
2000; Mairura et al., 2007).
– For extension and policy personnel, they provide basic information needed to
arrive at management decisions (Barrios et al., 2006).
– For researchers, there is need to conduct sufficiently detailed tests while
controlling for variation in order to develop meaningful assessments of soil
status, often expressed as an index of soil quality (Kang et al., 2005).

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 14
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 15
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 16
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 17
BIOINDIKATOR KESEHATAN TANAH /KUALITAS TANAH?
(1) INDIVIDUAL, (2) KELOMPOK DAN (3) INDEKS

•1. Mikroflora
•a. Bakteri (eubakteri
dan arcahebakteri)
•b. Fungi dan algae
•2. Meso fauna
•3. Makrofauna
•4. Patogen Akar

T. Simarmata -2015rev 18
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 19
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 20
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 21
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 22
WHY SOIL BIOLOGY AS INDICATORS?

• Soil harbours most of the world’s biodiversity


• Responsible for many key ecosystem functions
• Turnover 50,000 kg fresh material ha-1 yr-1
• Predicted 20 MT CO2-C yr-1 sequestered (NL)
• Soil fauna represent 10% of biomass but are
responsible for 30% of N mineralisation
• Cycling of energy and nutrients intimately
associated with the soil food web

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 23
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 24
Table 2.2 Effects of different functional groups on soil function, biodiversity and plant production
(expanded from Lavelle, 1996 adopted from Bunning and Jiménez, 2003).

Functional Group Effects on soil function Effects on biodiversity Effects on plant production
(selection pressures)

Roots Aggregation, porosity, water On rhizo-sphere Absorption of nutrients and


and nutrient cycles, plant microorganisms, water, production of signals
production, soil organic associated food webs and and hormones regulating
matter availability, soil root feeders plant growth
biological activity
Ecosystem engineers (e.g. Bioturbation producing On litter transformers and Positive or negative direct
termites, ants and earthworms) biogenic structures microbiota, mutualisms and indirect effects on root
(regulating soil physical with microflora, and shoot biomass and
properties and processes), dissemination of organisms seed banks
affecting soil organic matter
dynamics, nutrient cycling,
soil biological activity

Litter transformers (macro- and Nutrient mineralization, On microflora Mostly indirect effects
micro-arthropods, organic matter protection
enchytraeids, other detritus and decomposition (some
feeders) bioturbation)
Phytophages and Some bioturbation On plant species Negative (feed upon or
Plant parasites destroy plant parts)
Micropredator foodweb (e.g. Nutrient mineralization On microbial communities Mostly indirect effects
nematodes and protozoa)

Microflora: Aggregation, decomposition On plants and other soil Positive or negative direct
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 25
Symbionts,plant growth rates, biodegradation of toxic biota (exerted mostly by and indirect effects on plant
promoters, pathogens, nutrient materials, nutrient cycles pathogens and mutualists) biomass
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 26
Table 3. Practical indicators and tools to measure soil health and their basic
characteristics

Specific characteristic of soil health indicators for:


Farmers Extension workers Policy makers Researchers
For use in the field: Self- Visual indicators and Minimum data set of soil In-depth information on soil
assessed, easy, simple low-cost field- health indicators, plus those health, soil biodiversity, etc.,
practical. Based on and lab-based test kits associated with crop including a range of lab-
visual indicators with that are easy to productivity and quality, based indicators.
interpretative guidelines interpret. environmental quality, off-
relevant to region, site impacts, etc.
farming system, soil
type, climate, etc.
Practical examples of monitoring tools and indicators*
 Roots (density, form,  Soil respiration  Farm scale: percent of  Enzyme activity (rapid
depth, colour, disease)  Pathogens (keys to potential yield reached techniques e.g. BIOLOG)
 Litter decomposition symptoms) (based on water use  Molecular detection of
 Macrofauna and  Soil pH, conductivity efficiency), farmer income, mycorrhiza, biocontrol
biogenic structures  Total C/N ratio profitability agents, etc. Molecular
 N-fixing organisms  Microbial biomass  Catchment scale: Soil biodiversity assessments
(nodules)  Nutrient levels erosion, depth of water (e.g. DGGE of microbial
 Plant population (cation exchange table, nutrient flow populations).
profiles (+ weeds). capacity)  Nematode identification
 Local indicators, e.g.  Porosity, bulk  DNA/RNA methods for
smell and taste density, aggregate detection of functional
 Soil physical indicators stability, infiltration gene diversity (N-fixation,
such as water-logging, rate etc.)
compaction (surface  NIRS (Near Infrared
and at depth) Reflectance Spectroscopy)
 Micro-morphology
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 27
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 28
Table 2.7. Assessment of scoring for soils health indicator (Gugino, et al., 2009)

Indicator Poor Medium Good


Earthworm 0-1 worms is 2-10 in shovelful, >10 in top foot of
shovelful of top foot Few casts, holes, or soil. Lots of casts
of soil. No casts or worms and holes in tilled
holes clods. Birda behind
tillage
Organic matter Topsoil color similar Surface color closer Topsoil clearly
color to subsoil color to subsoil color defined, darker than
subsoil
Organic matter No visible residue or Some residue, few Noticeable roots and
roots/residue roots roots residue
Subsurface Wire breaks or Have to push hard, Flag goes in easily
compaction bends when need fist to push with fingers to twice
inserting flag flag in the depth of plow
flayer
Soil tilth Looks dead. Like Somewhat cloddy, Soil crumbles well,
mellowness brick or concrete, balls up, rough can slice through like
friability cloddy. Either blows pulling seedbed cutting butter.
apart or hard to pull Spongy when you
drill through walk on it
Erosion Large gullies over 2 Few rills or gullies, No gullies or rills,
inches deep joined gullies up to two clear or no runoff
to others, thin or no inches deep. Some
topsoil, rapid run-off swift runoff, colored
the color of the soil water
Water holding Plant stress two Water runs out after Holds water for a
capacity days after a good a week or so long period of time
rain without puddling
Drainage infiltration Water lays for a long Water lays for short No ponding, no
time, evaporates period of time, runoff, water moves
more than drains, eventually drains through soil steadily.
always very wet Soil not too wet, not
ground too dry
Crop condition Problem growing Fair growth, spot in Normal healthy dark
(how well it grows) throughout season, field different, green color,
poor growth, yellow medium green color excellent growth all
or purple T.
color
Simarmata -2013-rev season, across field 29
pH Hard to correct for Easily correctable Proper pH for crop
desired crop
SKORING INDIKATOR ???

T. Simarmata -2013-rev 30
Table 2.8. Assessment sheet of soil health indicator (Gugino, et al, 2009)
Date ________ Crop ________________________
Farm /Field ID _____________________________
Soil quality
Indicators poor medium good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Earthworm
Organic matter color
Organic matter
roots/residue
Subsurface compaction
Tilth/friability
mellowness
Erosion
Water holding capacity
Drainage infiltration
Crop condition
pH
Nutrient holding
capacity
Other (write in)
Other (write in)
Table 2.9. assessment guidance of soil health indicators (Gugino, et al., 2009).

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 31
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 32
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 33
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 34
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 35
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 36
CORNELL SOIL HEALTH TEST REPOT (COMPREHENSIVE)
Name of farmer : Chazy Plots Sampel ID : E147
Location Agent: Bob Schindelbeck,
Cornell University
Field/Treatment: CH 14 Agen’s Email : O
Tillage : 7 – 9 Inches Given soil texture SILTY
Crops Grown : COG/COG/COG Date Sampled :4/25/2007
Indicator Value Rating Constrain
l Aggregate Stability 22 25 Aeration, infiltration, rooting
PHYSICAL

Available Water Capacity (m/m) 0.18 63


Surface Hardness (psi) 107 78
Subsurface Hardness (psi) 400 13 Subsurface Pan/Deep
Compaction
Organic Matter (%) 2.1 14 Energy storage, C sequestration,
BIOLOGICAL

water retention
Active Carbon (ppm) 462 21 Soil Biology activity
(Permanganate Oxidizable)
Potentially Mineralize Nitrogen (ug 2.0 8 N supply Capacity
N/gdwsoil/week)
Root Health Rating (1-9) 2.3 88
*pH 8.3 0 Toxicity, Nutrient availability (for crop
CHEMICAL

specific guide, see CNAL, report)


*Extractable Phosphorus (ppm) 9.5 100
(Value<3.5 or >21.5 are down scored)
Ectractable Potassium (ppm) 20 11 Plant K Availability
Minor elements 56
OVERALL QUALITY SCORE (OUT OF 100): 39.1 VERY LOW
Measured Soil Texture Class :  silt loam : Sand (%) = 17.0, SILT (%) = 77.0, Clay (%) = 6.0
Location (GPS): Lattitude -0 Longitude -- 0
 See Cornell Nutrient Analysus Laboratory report for recommendation
Figure 2.2. Figure 10. Example of the color coded ratings for continuous corn grain on a silt
loam soil, managed using conventional plow tillage in a long-term soil management
research trial in Chazy, NY. The reports are described further on page 40.
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 37
This score is further rated as follows:
• less than 40% is regarded as very low,
• 40-55% is low,
• 55-70% is medium,
• 70-85% is high
• greater than 85% is regarded as very high.
• The highest possible quality score is 100
• and the least score is 0,

T. Simarmata -2013-rev 38
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 42
T. Simarmata -2013-rev 44
TUGAS INDIVIDU
1. Apa yang dimaksud dengan kualitas tanah dan mengapa dalam penilaian
kualitas tanah menggunakan indikator biologis
2. Sebutkan dan jelaskan persyaratan paramater agar dapat digunakan
sebagai indikator biologis?
3. Dalam penilaian kualitas tanah dapat dilakukan secara kualitatif maupun
kuantitatif ? Jelaskan dengan singkat tentang hal tersebut? Dan sebutkan
conroh atau parameter biologis yang termasuk sebagai indikator kualitatif
dan sebagai indikator kuantitatif.
4. Jelaskan mengapa sifat biologis digunakan sebagai indikator dalam
penilaian kualitas tanah
5. Sebutkan dan jelaskan kelompok organisme (functional group) dan jenis
organisme yang dapat digunakan sebagai indkator dalam penilaian kualitas
tanah
6. Jelaskan dengan singkat tahapan atau langkah-langkah evaluasi kualitas
tanah

T. Simarmata -2013-rev 45
• SOIL QUALITY THUNDERBOOK

T. Simarmata -2015-rev 46
T. Simarmata -2015-rev 47

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi