Next Article in Journal
Facile Recovery of Polycationic Metals from Acid Mine Drainage and Their Subsequent Valorisation for the Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Previous Article in Journal
An Integrated Approach to Schedule Passenger Train Plans and Train Timetables Economically Under Fluctuating Passenger Demands
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Agricultural Management Intensity on the Organic Carbon Fractions and Biological Properties of a Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soil

by
Camila Aravena
1,2,3,
Susana R. Valle
2,3,*,
Rodrigo Vergara
2,3,
Mauricio González Chang
3,4,
Oscar Martínez
3,5,
John Clunes
2,3,
Belén Caurapán
1,2,3 and
Joel Asenjo
5
1
Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Alimentarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
2
Instituto de Ingeniería Agraria y Suelos, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Alimentarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
3
Centro de Investigación en Suelos Volcánicos (CISVo), Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
4
Instituto de Producción y Sanidad Vegetal, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Alimentarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
5
Instituto de Bioquímica y Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia 5090000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2704; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062704
Submission received: 3 February 2025 / Revised: 3 March 2025 / Accepted: 7 March 2025 / Published: 18 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Soil Conservation and Sustainability)

Abstract

:
Intensive agricultural management affects the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil, potentially contributing to a decrease in soil carbon storage. In this study, the effects of soil management intensity on soil organic carbon (SOC) content and its labile fractions, i.e., water-soluble organic carbon (OC-sol) and permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC), were evaluated in a volcanic-ash-derived soil (Andisol) with a very high soil organic matter (SOM) content (>20%). These indicators were associated with water-stable aggregates (WSAs) and biological indicators, namely, earthworm density, cellulase activity, and autoclaved-citrate-extractable (ACE) proteins, related to the decomposition of SOM and its physical protection. The conditions evaluated were secondary native forest (SF), naturalized grassland (NG), no-till (NT), and conventional tillage (CT), considering the last item to be representative of a higher agriculture management intensity. Soil samples were collected by horizon. The SF and NG soil showed higher contents of SOC, OC-sol, and POXC. When comparing the evaluated annual cropping systems, NT showed higher values than CT (p < 0.05) in the first horizon (Hz1), while similar values were found at deeper horizons. The highest cellulase activity, ACE protein levels, and earthworm densities were found in NG and SF. NT also showed significantly higher levels of the aforementioned factors than CT (p < 0.05). A positive and significant relationship was found between the SOC content and WSA (R2 = 0.76; p < 0.05) in the whole profile and between POXC and WSA for Hz1 (R2 = 0.67; p < 0.05). Soil C storage was affected by the intensity of agricultural management, mainly because of the effect of tillage on structural stability, considering that biological activity synthesizes compounds such as enzymes and proteins that react and adhere to the mineral fraction affecting aggregate stability. The C content stored in the soil is consequently a key indicator with which to regulate SOM and protect SOC.

1. Introduction

Soils perform diverse ecosystem functions, including the storage of soil organic carbon (SOC), which is a key function for C sequestration [1,2]. However, soils are susceptible to degradation, which leads to SOC losses through carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, depending on the soil type, climate, management, and land use [3]. Inadequate management of production systems and unregulated changes in land use have resulted in a loss of stored C and thus a 20–25% increase in CO2 emissions [4]. The latter is mainly due to the destruction of soil structures (e.g., over-tilling), which accelerates soil organic matter (SOM) mineralization rates and thus SOC, leading to an estimated overall loss of 133 Pg of C in the soil profile [5,6]. For this reason, it is essential to understand the factors that influence SOC storage, its persistence, and suitable soil management schemes [7,8].
SOC is considered a master property [9], and it is the most widely used soil quality/health indicator [10] because it is involved in almost all soil functions and ecosystem services [1]. SOC, which is part of SOM, is also differentiated by stable fractions [11]. The most stable fraction of C is associated with the mineral fraction, which is bound to plant compounds that have been solubilized and transformed by microorganisms (mineral-associated organic matter, MAOM). The less stable fraction (particulate organic matter, POM) is formed as a result of the partial decomposition of plant compounds and the physical fragmentation of plant structural components by macro-organisms such as earthworms, which are key organisms in SOM decomposition and enhance its protection [12,13], and beetles [5,14,15]. The physical stabilization of these soil fractions is mainly provided by the stability of soil aggregates, which blocks the access of soil organisms to organic compounds through physical occlusion, hydrophobicity, and adhesion to mineral surfaces [16,17,18], promoting the stability and storage of SOC at different hierarchical levels within the soil structure [19,20].
Soil management intensity (e.g., forest, grassland, and cropping systems) directly influences SOC dynamics [17,21]. Therefore, different degrees of intensity affect SOM inputs and SOC storage. Forests are considered reference systems within a soil management intensity gradient since they are not mechanically managed and usually store large amounts of C (25 Mg C ha−1). Grassland systems are subject to a lower degree of intervention than cropping systems because they are not mechanically managed, plant and animal residues are constantly incorporated in them, and their vegetation cover is maintained, providing them with a high C sequestration potential [22]. In cropping systems, no tillage (NT) has been proposed as a conservation farming practice that decreases degradation and SOC losses [1,17,23,24]. It has been shown that reduced tillage or the addition of organic fertilizers can increase the POM fraction [25]. In this context, measuring soluble C indicators (associated with the POM fraction) has been used to evaluate the effect of land use management on SOC accumulation. This OC fraction can be measured using different methods, including soluble organic carbon (OC-sol) and permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC), which are associated with dissolved organic matter (DOM), microbial biomass, and complex and lignin polysaccharides [26].
In volcanic-ash-derived soils, these fractions have been very scarcely assessed, and considering their potential for SOC accumulation and sequestration, it is important to evaluate how the biological properties that determine their structural stability are affected by the intensity of agricultural management, which alters the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil as well as the processes occurring in it [9,27]. Soils subject to volcanic influence in Southern Chile (Andisols, Ultisols and Inceptisols) are characterized by high SOC contents throughout their profiles, reaching surface values greater than 20% SOC [28,29,30]. This is associated with the presence of amorphous clays (such as allophane) and aluminum and iron oxides that react with SOM [30], forming organo–mineral complexes that contribute to the physicochemical protection of SOC [12,31]. Due to their great capacity to store SOC and their presence in highly productive areas of the world [32], it is essential to evaluate the management practices that foster this accumulation of SOC and minimize losses due to land use change (LUC). Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of different management intensities on carbon labile fractions (OC-sol and POXC) and biological properties and their relationship with the structural stability of a soil derived from volcanic ash.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Description and Sampling

Sampling of all sites was carried out during the autumn of 2022 over two days. Soil samples were collected from farms (“Fundo Brasil”, “Chile Chico” and “Monte verde”) near the town of Máfil, Valdivia, Los Ríos Region, Chile. The soil corresponds to an Andisol, Los Ulmos Series (Udands), known as “red clayey,” with a volcanic influence and a loamy surface texture [33]. These soils tend to have high SOC content on the surface (4–12%), while drastic decreases have been observed at depth (0.4%, [34]). The average annual rainfall is approximately 1800 mm, and the average annual temperature ranges from 11 to 13 °C.
The sampled sites had different management intensities, considered from lower to higher intensities according to their degrees of anthropogenic intervention and management history (Table 1): native forest (NF), grasslands for more than 20 years (NG), and crops under zero tillage (NT) and conventional tillage (CT), both cultivated under rotations of wheat (Triticum aestivum), oats (Avena sativa), rape (Brassica napus), and peas (Pisum sativum). For chemical and biological parameters, disturbed soil samples were taken (n = 5) at each soil horizon and land use zone.

2.2. Soil Measurements

2.2.1. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC), Soluble Carbon (OC-sol), and Active Carbon (POXC)

The SOC content was measured through the Walkley and Black wet-digestion method [35]. OC-sol was determined via a titration method, using the potassium sulfate (K2SO4) method [36] titrated with FeSO4 [35]. POXC was evaluated via extraction with potassium permanganate [37]. A solution containing potassium permanganate (KMnO4) dissolved in calcium chloride (CaCl2) was prepared; this was used to create the standard curve (0.005, 0.01, 0.015, and 0.02 M) and the reaction solutions (2.5 g of soil, 2 mL of stock solution, and 18 mL of distilled H2O). From the reaction solutions, 0.5 mL was removed and added to the dilution solution along with 49.5 mL of distilled H2O. POXC is a method that oxidizes different aromatic compounds and lignin, so it is highly dependent on the input (amount and type) of organic matter and the effects of tillage [25]. POXC was calculated using the following equation:
P O X C mg kg 1   soil = 0.02   mol L 1 a + b A b s 9000   mgC mol 1 ( 0.02   L   ss 1 )
where a = standard curve intercept; b = standard curve slope; and Abs= sample absorbance.

2.2.2. Cellulase Activity and Autoclaved-Citrate-Extractable Protein

Cellulase activity (CM-cellulose) was determined according to the method employed by [38]. Enzymes are sensitive to changes in physical, chemical, and biological properties. Therefore, soils under management schemes that promote structural stability and SOM generally exhibit higher activity [39]. CM-cellulose was used as the substrate, and the reduction of sugars generated from the hydrolysis of the glycosidic bonds of the cellulose molecule was measured. The results were obtained as the glucose equivalent (GE) using the following equation:
C e l l u l a s e   a c t i v i t y   μ m   GE g 1   dm 24   h 1 = S C 30 40 10 100 %   dm
where S = mean value of the samples (μg GE); C = control (μg GE); 30 = volume of incubation mixture (mL); 40 = dilution factor of the filtrate; 10 = initial weight of the soil (g); and 100% dm = conversion factor for dry soil weight.
In this study, autoclaved-citrate-extractable protein (ACE) was used to measure protein-like substances found in SOM. The protocol modified by Wright and Upadhyaya [40] and Clune [41] was performed, in which 3 g of soil was placed in glass tubes along with 24 mL of a sodium citrate buffer (20 mM, pH 7.0). This was then shaken for 5 min at 180 rpm and autoclaved for 30 min at 121 °C. Two mL of the suspension was then removed, put into microcentrifuge tubes, and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm. A subsample of the extract was taken for the standard protein quantification assay (ACE), in which it was incubated at 60 °C for 30 min and then read using a spectrophotometer according to the color the sample developed [42]. The formula for calculating the extractable protein content is shown in the following equation:
A C E   p r o t e i n = P r o t e i n   e x t r a c t   c o n t e n t 24   mL d r y   s o i l   w e i g h t

2.3. Earthworm Biomass and Density

Five samples were taken per soil management, considering a 20 cm × 20 cm × 20 cm soil block. This block was broken up to weigh and count the earthworms [43]. In turn, these earthworms were divided into two ecological categories, epigean and endogean, as they present different behaviors, thereby affecting the incorporation and fragmentation of SOM [44]. Then, the proportion of epigean and endogean earthworms with respect to the total biomass (g m−2) and earthworm density (number of individuals m−2) was calculated. Three density ranges were considered: low (< 100 m−2), medium (100–500 m−2), and high (500 m−2) [43,45].

2.4. Water Stability of Aggregates (WSA)

WSA was evaluated according to the method used by Kemper and Rosenau [46], sieving the wet sample and then saturating it via capillarity. WSA was then calculated with the following equation:
W S A % = ( r e t a i n e d   m a s s s a n d   m a s s ) ( t o t a l   m a s s   o f   t h e   s a m p l e s a n d   m a s s )
A sieve < 0.25 mm and NaOH were used as dispersing agents for the sand content.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

An ANOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of management intensity on SOC, the evaluated labile fractions (OC-sol and POXC), and biological indicators in each horizon separately. Means were separated using Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). A principal component analysis (PCA) and linear and nonlinear regression analyses were performed to determine the relationship between OC fractions and biological indicators of structural stability. The analyses were performed with Rstudio software version 4.3.0.3.

3. Results

3.1. Changes in SOC, Soluble OC, and POXC Content According to Management Intensity

The SOC content varied between 3 and 5% due to the agricultural management intensity (Figure 1A), mainly in Hz1, where SF > NG and NT > CT (F3,12 = 14.53, p < 0.05). For OC-sol (Figure 1B), the same dynamics were observed (F3,12 = 12.42, p < 0.05). For POXC (Figure 1C), it was found that NG > NT and SF > CT (F3,12 = 28.56, p < 0.05). In the deeper horizons, a decrease in SOC, OC-sol, and POXC content was observed, where NT presented lower content compared to CT.

3.2. Changes in Biological Indicators According to Management Intensity

Cellulase activity (Figure 2A) and the ACE protein content (Figure 2B) showed differences between soil management types in each horizon but mainly in Hz1 (F3,16 = 1017, p < 0.05; F3,16 = 3.807, p < 0.05). In Hz1, NG had the highest values, with a cellulase activity two to three times higher than the other managements evaluated. CT had the lowest (p < 0.01) cellulase activity at Hz1. In contrast, in Hz2, this management scheme promoted twice as much activity compared to SF and NG (F3,16 = 2173, p < 0.05). The ACE protein content was higher for both NT and SF (>25 mg g−1), being similar (p > 0.05) between these management types, in contrast with CT, for which the value was significantly lower (<25 mg g−1).
The highest earthworm biomass (Figure 3A) occurred in NG and NT (>1000 earthworms m−2), followed by SF and then CT, with a significantly lower biomass (p < 0.05). Under CT, endogean earthworms weighed approximately 50% more than epigean earthworms (Figure 3C). However, when analyzing earthworm density (Figure 3B) no significant differences between categories (p > 0.05) were observed, while significant differences between management strategies were found, where NG > NT = SF > CT. The CT-managed soil had low to no earthworm density (< 50 earthworms m−2) and a lower biomass since only epigean earthworms were found.
The PCA showed that PC1 (65.1%) most explained the variability in SOC, POXC, WSA, and proteins. The WSA and protein indicators mostly reflected the SOC and POXC content. In addition, a high correlation between these variables was found (Figure 4B). On the other hand, in PC2 (29.9%), the cellulase activity and earthworm variables were most represented and presented a high correlation (Figure 4B).

3.3. Relation Between Structural Stability, Organic Carbon Content, and Biological Indicators

A significant relation was observed between WSA and SOC (p < 0.001), both for the complete profile (Figure 5A) and the first horizon (Figure 5B). In addition, ACE protein was associated with WSA (p < 0.001; Figure 5C). Likewise, there was a positive relation between WSA and labile C fractions (p < 0.001), mainly with respect to POXC in the first horizon (Figure 5D).

4. Discussion

4.1. Changes in SOC Content and Labile Fractions According to Soil Management Intensity

At lower management intensities (SF and NG), higher SOC content was observed (Figure 1A). This shows that agricultural management intensity affects labile C content and fractions [1,9,47,48]. The forest system in this study (SF) that was considered as a reference (i.e., it was not subjected to mechanical or chemical intervention) presented the highest SOC content. In this context, C content can change according to the vegetation type of the forest, which determines the amount and type of SOM [49]. In this study, the SF consisted of mainly evergreen species and some native broadleaf deciduous species (Table 1); therefore, the litter renewal rate was slower, but the type of litter decomposed faster (lower C:N and lignin ratio), allowing SOC accumulation and greater labile fractions (Figure 1B,C) [50].
The naturalized grassland (NG) also presented high SOC content and labile fractions. These systems tend to have high SOM levels (approximately 350 Mg ha−1) as a result of the decomposition of organic residues of both plant and animal origin [51], with a higher proportion of MAOM and a lower proportion of POM [52]. These productive systems store a third of the world’s terrestrial C reserves and have a high potential for C sequestration, especially if grazing is properly managed, for example, by increasing species diversity and incorporating legumes [22]. The NG in this study was under rotational grazing management with high stocking for short periods, involving leguminous and grass species (Table 1). This type of system has a high SOM input and allows for recovery from disturbance, in addition to maintaining vegetation cover throughout its cycle, which favors biological activity, soil structure and, therefore, SOC accumulation [1].
When comparing the two evaluated cropping systems, NT had higher SOC content and labile fractions (OC-sol and POXC) at Hz1 but not in the deeper horizons. This has been observed in several studies, where NT has proven to have a higher SOC content in the topsoil [17,47], while CT has been found to have a greater SOC content in the subsoil [18,53]. The latter may be due to tillage mixing the residues and redistributing SOC throughout the profile, thus permitting greater root growth at greater depth [47,53,54]. However, it has been proposed that adopting NT practices would increase the stock of SOC [55].

4.2. Influence of Biological Indicators on C Content Under Different Soil Management Intensities

Cellulase activity and labile C fractions proved to be sensitive to management intensity (Figure 2A) [56,57,58] and showed the highest content in the NG system at the first horizon (Hz1). Both of these indicators also showed higher activity in NT than in CT [59,60]. Cellulase activity measures the hydrolysis of cellulose, a complex structural component found in large proportions in plant residues that decompose mainly on the surface of soil [61,62,63]. Therefore, the action of this enzyme produces simpler and more soluble carbon compounds that could be associated with a higher content of labile C fractions (mainly with respect to POXC, as shown in Figure 4) that constantly enter and/or maintain plant and animal residues, given that the activity of this enzyme depends fundamentally on contact with SOM [64]. Enzymes are also sensitive to changes in physical, chemical, and biological properties introduced by management and/or changes in land use; therefore, systems with higher residue inputs generally have higher enzyme activity [39]. Thus, extensive grazing can stimulate both soil and plant biodiversity, increasing enzyme activity [65,66]. This results in greater ecological functionality of the soil [67] because these enzymes participate in the release of nutrients for plants and C for the metabolism of microorganisms, making them key indicators in terms of soil quality [68].
The ACE protein content was mainly affected by tillage (Figure 2B). This method is an indicator of substances like proteins (including glomalin and other proteins) that are synthesized by soil microorganisms (mainly in the hyphae of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi), which have been positively associated with aggregate stability because they act as cementing agents of soil mineral fractions [40,42,69,70]. Therefore, tillage by physically disturbing the soil and fragmenting the aggregates causes a decrease in these proteins. Borie et al. [71] evaluated the concentrations of these proteins in different tillage systems in the first 20 cm of soil; NT presented higher values compared to CT for a soil derived from volcanic ash in Southern Chile and was related to higher SOC content. This was also observed in the results of this study, since the SOC content was positively associated with ACE protein at the first horizon (Figure 4B).
Earthworms perform important ecological functions in the soil [42]. They play a crucial role in the C cycle because they can protect SOM in soil aggregation and increase C mineralization as they metabolize SOM and promote soil microbial activity [72], which could explain the positive correlation observed between enzyme activity and earthworm indicators (Figure 4B). Earthworms’ functional traits can vary. Epigeans inhabit the upper layers of the soil profiles and have the ability to digest OM and fragment it, facilitating its decomposition [13]. However, Barthod et al. [73] suggested that the presence of these earthworms can slow down the mineralization of SOC by forming products that are less easily decomposed and are associated with the mineral fraction, suggesting that earthworms influence the persistence of SOC and therefore its accumulation. In contrast, endogeans are usually heavier than epigeans [45] because they are found at greater depths, although they can also digest organic matter from the surface, as well as soil mineral particles, a trait that has also been associated with the protection of SOM [12,74]. In accordance with previous studies, our results suggest that CT negatively affects the density and biomass of earthworms in the soil, both epigean and endogean, because CT negatively affects the structure of soil [13,75,76].

4.3. Influence of Aggregate Stability on SOC Persistence and Labile C Fractions

The persistence of SOM depends on several factors, including C use efficiency and microbial access, which are mainly determined by their association with minerals and occlusion in fine aggregates [5]. A close relation between SOC and microaggregate stability (<53 um) was observed in this study (Figure 5A), as noted in other studies on volcanic-influenced soils [30]. Likewise, a positive relationship with POXC was found, although only at Hz1, most likely because it is the horizon that presents the highest biological activity and is associated with an increase in labile C fractions [77]. These relationships with soil structural stability may principally exist because the occlusion of SOC and labile C fractions in microaggregates prevents the access of microorganisms, thus accelerating SOC mineralization [16,78]. An acceptable relation was also observed with ACE proteins (R2 = 0.65, p < 0.05), which corroborates the notion that the presence of these proteins could have an impact on the overall structural stability in the soil due to their reactivity with the mineral surface [42].

4.4. Importance of SOC Storage and Protection in Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soils

Soils influenced by volcanoes are key in SOC storage. They are soils with unique and particular properties that make them highly reactive (due to the presence of Al/Fe oxides and allophane), allowing them to form organo–mineral complexes and store high amounts of SOM [28,29,79]. The results of this study show that forest (SF) and grassland (NG) systems are important C sinks, a fact that has been demonstrated by several authors [22,62,80]. These productive systems cover a third the world’s land surface [81], while in Chile, they cover approximately 95% of the useful area and are largely concentrated in the southern part of the country over volcanic-ash-derived soils [82]. In addition, it is important to consider that naturalized grasslands account for 47.8% of the grassland systems in the Los Ríos and Los Lagos Regions, being an important forage resource for farmers in the southern zone of Chile [83]. There are also important native forest and silvo-agricultural areas in this region [82]. Therefore, it is crucial for these systems to be properly managed because they can have a great impact on C sequestration and, therefore, climate change mitigation [84]. Furthermore, if the volcanic-ash-derived soils under these systems are not managed properly, they may exhibit weak structural stability and be susceptible to SOC losses [30]. It is essential to consider the impact of tillage on these soils and evaluate management practices that promote SOM and protect soil structures to maintain and/or increase SOC content [85].

5. Conclusions

In this work, tillage had a negative effect on the biological indicators measured. These indicators were associated more with structural stability than residue decomposition, which suggests that when there is greater biological activity in the soil, SOC is not necessarily mineralizing because the synthesis of compounds that react with the mineral fraction of the soil favors structural stability, thus protecting the SOC in the aggregates. The latter is a key element in stabilization and should be considered in future research related to SOC dynamics, ideally for different C fractions and aggregates. In addition, it is essential to advance the evaluation of labile C indicators, such as POXC, in different soil types, uses, and management schemes in Chile, since these indicators have been poorly studied throughout the country. It would also be interesting to establish the ranges in which these vary, mainly in volcanic-ash-derived soils that are characterized by their high SOM content, generally causing these indicators to be above the ranges established in other soil types.
Finally, we affirm that promoting the use of conservation tillage practices (reducing tillage to minimum or zero tillage) in cropping systems can benefit carbon sequestration. As observed in this study, no-tillage seems to be effective for storing SOC and producing the conditions necessary for structural stability and the maintenance of biological soil properties. Although no-tillage schemes favor soil properties, they still require agrochemicals, which can affect soil health in the long term, so it is essential to integrate crop diversity and/or rotations and reduce or change chemical fertilizers through the use of organic fertilizers to increase the resilience and sustainability of these systems by increasing carbon inputs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.R.V. and C.A.; methodology, S.R.V., C.A., M.G.C., O.M. and J.A.; software, C.A., J.C. and B.C.; validation, S.R.V., M.G.C. and O.M.; formal analysis, S.R.V., C.A., R.V., J.A. and B.C.; investigation, S.R.V., C.A., M.G.C., O.M. and R.V.; resources, S.R.V.; data curation, S.R.V. and R.V.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A., S.R.V. and J.C.; writing—review and editing, S.R.V., J.C., C.A., O.M. and M.G.C.; visualization, S.R.V. and J.C.; supervision, S.R.V., M.G.C. and O.M.; project administration, S.R.V.; funding acquisition, S.R.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by Fondecyt Regular 1220767 Project, Agencia Nacional de Investigación (ANID, Chile).

Data Availability Statement

Data can be requested directly from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the great kindness and willingness of Carlos Ivars and his son Carlos Ivars, the owners of the farms “Brasil” and “Chile Chico”, who have always supported research development in their fields.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lal, R.; Negassa, W.; Lorenz, K. Carbon sequestration in soil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 15, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wiesmeier, M.; Urbanski, L.; Hobley, E.; Lang, B.; von Lützow, M.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; van Wesemael, B.; Rabot, E.; Ließ, M.; Garcia-Franco, N.; et al. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils-A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma 2019, 333, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Smith, P.; Soussana, J.F.; Angers, D.; Schipper, L.; Chenu, C.; Rasse, D.P.; Batjes, N.H.; Van Egmond, F.; McNeill, S.; Kuhnert, M.; et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 219–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAO. Carbono Orgánico del Suelo: El Potencial Oculto; Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y Agricultura: Roma, Italy, 2017; 90p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cotrufo, M.F.; Lavallee, J.M. Soil organic matter formation, persistence, and functioning: A synthesis of current understanding to inform its conservation and regeneration. Adv. Agron. 2022, 172, 1–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sanderman, J.; Hengl, T.; Fiske, G.J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9575–9580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dignac, M.F.; Derrien, D.; Barré, P.; Barot, S.; Cécillon, L.; Chenu, C.; Chevallier, T.; Freschet, G.T.; Garnier, P.; Guenet, B.; et al. Increasing soil carbon storage: Mechanisms, effects of agricultural practices and proxies. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lavallee, J.M.; Soong, J.L.; Cotrufo, M.F. Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kuzyakov, Y.; Zamanian, K. Reviews and synthesis: Agropedogenesis-humankind as the sixth soil-forming factor and attractors of agricultural soil degradation. Biogeosciences 2019, 16, 4783–4803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lehman, J.; Bossio, D.; Kogel-Knabner, I.; Rillig, M. The concept and prospects of soil health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 10, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Matus, F.J.; Paz-Pellat, F.; Covaleda, S.; Etchevers, J.D.; Hidalgo, C.; Báez, A. Upper limit of mineral-associated organic carbon in temperate and sub-tropical soils: How far is it? Geoderma Reg. 2024, 37, e00811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Angst, G.; Mueller, K.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Freeman, K.; Mueller, C. Aggregation controls the stability of lignin and lipids in clay-sized particulate and mineral associated organic matter. Biogeochemistry 2017, 132, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chan, K.Y. An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity-implications for functioning in soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 57, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cotrufo, M.F.; Soong, J.L.; Horton, A.J.; Campbell, E.E.; Haddix, M.L.; Wall, D.H.; Parton, W.J. Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 776–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Haddix, M.L.; Gregorich, E.G.; Helgason, B.L.; Janzen, H.; Ellert, B.H.; Cotrufo, M.F. Climate, carbon content, and soil texture control the independent formation and persistence of particulate and mineral-associated organic matter in soil. Geoderma 2020, 363, 114160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Six, J.; Elliot, E.T.; Paustian, K. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: A mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 2099–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kan, Z.; Liu, W.X.; Liu, W.S.; Lal, R.; Dang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H. Mechanisms of soil organic carbon stability and its response to no-till: A global synthesis and perspective. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 8, 693–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Feng, X.; Yang, H.; Li, Y.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Liu, S.; Li, F. Effects of tillage on soil organic carbon and crop yield under straw return. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 354, 108543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brookes, P.; Chen, Y.; Chen, L.; Qiu, G.; Luo, Y.; Xu, J. Is the rate of mineralization of soil organic carbon under microbiological control? Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 112, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yudina, A.; Kuzyakov, Y. Dual nature of soil structure: The unity of aggregates and pores. Geoderma 2023, 434, 116478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Panettieri, M.; Berns, A.E.; Knicker, H.; Murillo, J.M.; Madejón, E. Evaluation of seasonal variability of soil biogeochemical properties in aggregate-size fractioned soil under different tillages. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 151, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bai, Y.; Cotrufo, M.F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science 2022, 377, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Acevedo, E.; Silva, P. Agronomía de la Cero Labranza; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2003; Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas. Serie Ciencias Agronómicas Nº 10; 118p, ISBN 956-19-0363-6. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bai, Z.; Caspari, T.; Ruiperez Gonzalez, M.; Batjes, N.H.; Mäder, P.; Bünemann, E.K.; de Goede, R.; Brussaard, L.; Xu, M.; Santos Ferreira, C.S.; et al. Effects of agricultural management practices on soil quality: A review of long-term experiments for Europe and China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 265, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bongiorno, G.; Bünemann, E.; Oguejiofor, C.; Meier, J.; Gort, G.; Comans, R.; Mäder, P.; Brussard, L.; De Goede, R. Sensivity of labile carbon fractions to tillage and organic matter management and their potencial as comprehensive soil quality indicators across pedoclimatic conditions in Europe. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 99, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ghani, A.; Dexter, M.; Perrott, K.W. Hot-water extractable carbon in soils: A sensitive measurement for determining impacts of fertilization, grazing and cultivation. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2003, 35, 1231–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jangid, K.; Williams, M.; Franzluebbers, A.; Sanderlin, J.; Reeves, J.; Jenkins, M.; Endale, D.; Coleman, D.; Whitman, W. Relative impacts of land-use, management intensity and fertilization upon soil microbial community structure in agriculture systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2843–2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Valle, S.R.; Carrasco, J. Soil quality indicator selection in Chilean volcanic soils formed under temperate and humid conditions. Catena 2018, 162, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zúñiga, F.; Dec, D.; Valle, S.; Thiers, O.; Paulino, L.; Martínez, O.; Seguel, O.; Casanova, M.; Pino, M.; Horn, R.; et al. The waterlogged volcanic ash soils of southern Chile. A review of the “Ñadi” soils. Catena 2019, 173, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bachman, J.; Goebel, M.O.; Krueger, J.; Fleige, H.; Woche, S.; Dörner, J.; Horn, R. Aggregate stability of south Chilean volcanic ash soils—A combined XPS, contact angle, and surface charge analysis. Geoderma 2020, 361, 114022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Matus, F.; Rumpel, C.; Neculman, R.; Panichini, M.; Mora, M.L. Soil carbon storage and stabilisation in andic soils: A review. Catena 2014, 120, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mera, M.; Lizana, X.C.; Calderini, D.F. Chapter 6—Cropping systems in environments with high yield potential of southern Chile. In Crop Physiology, 2nd ed.; Sadras, V.O., Calderini, D.F., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 111–140. ISBN 9780124171046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. CIREN. Descripciones de Suelos y Materiales y Símbolos. Estudio Agrológico de la X Región; Publicación 123; Centro de Información de Recursos Naturales (CIREN): Santiago, Chile, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  34. Luzio, W.; Casanova, M.; Seguel, O. Suelos de Chile; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sadzawka, A.; Carrasco, M.; Grez, R.; Mora, M.; Flores, H.; Neaman, A. Métodos de Análisis Recomendados para los Suelos de Chile; Serie actas N°34; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA): Santiago, Chile, 2006; 164p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Haney, R.L.; Haney, L.B.; Smith, D.R.; Harmel, R.D.; White, M.J. The soil health tool—Theory and initial broad-scale application. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 125, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weil, R.; Islam, K.; Stine, M.; Gruver, J.; Samson-Liebig, S. Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: A simplified method for laboratory and field use. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2003, 18, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shinner, F.; Von Mersi, W. Xylanase, CM-cellulase and invertase activity in soil: An improved method. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1990, 22, 511–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dick, R.; Burns, R. A Brief History of Soil Enzymology Research. In Methods of Soil Enzymology; Dick, R., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2011; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wright, S.; Upadhyaya, A. Extraction of an abundant and unusual protein from soil and comparison with hyphal protein of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Sci. 1996, 161, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Clune, D.J. Glomalin: Its Relationship with Aggregate Stability, Response to Soil Management, Source and Quantification. Master’s Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Moebius-Clune, B.N.; Moebius-Clune, D.J.; Gugino, B.; Idowu, O.; Schinedelbeck, R.; Ristow, A.; van Es, H.; Thies, J.; Shayler, H.; McBride, M.; et al. Comprehensive Assesment of Soil Health—The Cornell Framework, 3rd ed.; Cornell University: Geneva, Switzerland; New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bracamontes, L.; Fuentes, M.; Rodríguez, L.; Macedas, J. Manual de Indicadores Biológicos de la Salud del Suelo; Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM): Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2018; 93p. [Google Scholar]
  44. Edwards, C.; Bohlen, P. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, 3rd ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  45. Barrón, C.; Santelices, M.; Clunes, J.; Pinochet, D. Does earthworm density change the quality of degraded volcanic soil? Appl. Soil Ecol. 2024, 193, 105154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kemper, W.; Rosenau, R. Aggregate Stability and Size Distribution. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; Karaca, A., Ed.; Monography Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 415–442. [Google Scholar]
  47. Luo, Z.; Wang, E.; Sun, O.J. Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta analysis of paired experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Begum, R.; Jahangir, M.; Jahiruddin, M.; Islam, M.; Bokhtiar, S.; Islam, K. Reduce tillage with residue retentiton improves soil labile carbon pools and carbon lability and management indices in a seven-year trial with wheat-mung bean-rice rotation. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 916–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; You, Y.; Yang, Y.; Shi, Z.; Huang, X.; Zheng, L.; Li, Z.; Ming, A.; et al. Mixed-species plantation with Pinus massoniana and Castanopsis hystrix accelerates C loss in recalcitrant coniferous litter but slows C loss in labile broadleaf litter in southern China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 422, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yuan, Z.; Jin, X.; Xiao, W.; Wang, L.; Sun, Y.; Guan, Q.; Ofori, A. Comparing soil organic carbon stock and fractions under natural secondary forest and Pinus massoniana plantation in subtropical China. Catena 2022, 212, 106092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Conant, R.; Paustian, K. Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lugato, E.; Lavallee, J.M.; Haddix, M.L.; Panagos, P.; Cotrufo, M.F. Different climate sensitivity of particulate and mineral-associated soil organic matter. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rumpel, C.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Deep soil organic matter—A key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 2011, 338, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Montesdeoca, F.; Ávila, M.; Quisphe, J.; Borie, F.; Cornejo, P.; Aguilera, P.; Alvarado, S.; Espinosa, J. Early changes in the transition from conventional to no-tillage in a volcanic cultivated with beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Chil. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2020, 36, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 2004, 123, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jat, H.; Datta, A.; Choundhary, M.; Shrama, P.; Dixit, B.; Jat, M. Soil enzymes activity: Effect of climate smart agriculture on rhizosphere and bulk soil under cereal based systems of north-west India. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2021, 103, 103–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mirzavand, J.; Asadi-Rahmani, H.; Moradi-Talebbeigi, R. Biological indicators of soil quality under conventional, reduced, and no-tillage systems. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2022, 68, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zimmer, J.; Poggere, G.; Studart, R.; Hungria, M.; Carvalho, I. Soil enzymatic activity in Brazilian biomes under native vegetation and contrasting cropping and management. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2023, 190, 105014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Acosta-Martinez, V.; Zobeck, T.M.; Gill, T.E.; Kennedy, A.C. Enzyme activities and microbial community structure in semiarid agricultural soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2003, 38, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Alvear, M.; Pino, M.; Castillo, C.; Trasar Ce peda, C.; Gil Sotres, F. Efecto de la cero labranza sobre algunas actividades biológicas en un Alfisol del sur de Chile. Rev. Cienc. Suelo Nutr. Veg. 2006, 6, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wallenstein, M.D.; Burns, R.G. Ecology of extracellular enzyme activities and organic matter degradation in soil: A complex community-driven process. In Methods of Soil Enzymology; Dick, R.P., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2011; pp. 35–56. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wu, L. Sequestering organic carbon in soils through land use change and agricultural practices: A review. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10, 210–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, J.Y.; Chen, P.; Li, Z.G.; Li, L.Y.; Zhang, R.Q.; Hu, W.; Liu, Y. Soil aggregate-associated organic carbon mineralization and its driving factors in rhizosphere soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 186, 109182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nannipieri, P.; Giagnoni, L.; Renella, G.; Puglisi, E.; Ceccanti, B.; Masciandaro, G.; Fornasier, F.; Moscatelli, M.; Marianari, S. Soil enzymology: Classical and molecular approaches. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2012, 48, 743–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mencel, J.; Mocek-Płóciniak, A.; Kryszak, A. Soil Microbial Community and Enzymatic Activity of Grasslands under Different Use Practices: A Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xu, H.; You, C.; Tan, B.; Xu, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, M.; Xu, Z.; Sardans, J.; Peñuelas, J. Effects of livestock grazing on the relationships between soil microbial community and soil carbon in grassland ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 881, 163416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Blum, W.E.H. Functions of Soil for Society and the Environment. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2005, 4, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. DeLuca, T.H.; Pingree, M.R.A.; Gao, S. Assessing soil biological health in forest soils. In Developments in Soil Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 36, pp. 397–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Huang, B.; Yan, G.; Liu, G.; Sun, X.; Wang, X.; Xing, Y.; Wang, Q. Effects of long-term nitrogen addition and precipitation reduction on glomalin-related soil protein and soil aggregate stability in a temperate forest. Catena 2022, 214, 106284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Situ, G.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yang, X.; Chen, D.; Li, S.; Wu, Q.; Xu, Q.; Chen, J.; Qin, H. Linking the chemical nature of soil organic carbon and biological binding agent in aggregates to soil aggregate stability following biochar amendment in a rice paddy. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 847, 157460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Borie, F.; Rubio, R.; Rouanet, J.; Morales, A.; Borie, G.; Rojas, C. Effects of tillage systems on soil characteristics, glomalin and mycorrhizal propagules in a Chilean Ultisol. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 88, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kavdir, Y.; Ílay, R. Earthworms and Soil Structure. Chapter 3. In Biology of Earthworms; Karaca, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  73. Barthod, J.; Dignac, M.; Rumpel, C. Effect of descomposition products produced in the presence or absence of epigeic earthworms and minerals on soil carbon stabilization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 160, 108308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bossuyt, H.; Six, J.; Hendrix, P. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bartz, M.L.C.; Brown, G.G.; da Rosa, M.G.; Klauberg Filho, O.; James, S.W.; Decaëns, T.; Baretta, D. Earthworm richness in land-use systems in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014, 83, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stellin, F.; Gavinelli, F.; Stevanato, P.; Concheri, G.; Squartini, A.; Paoletti, M. Effects of different concentrations of glyphosate (Roundup 360) on earthworms (Octodrilus complanatus, Lumbricus terrestris and Aporrectodea caliginosa) in veneyards in the North-East of Italy. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 802–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Stevenson, B.A.; Sarmah, A.K.; Smernik, R.; Hunter, D.W.F.; Fraser, S. Soil carbon characterization and nutrient ratios across land uses on two contrasting soils: Their relationships to microbial biomass and function. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 97, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stamati, F.; Nikolaidis, N.; Banwart, S.; Blum, W. A coupled carbon, aggregation, and structure turnover (CAST) model for topsoils. Geoderma 2013, 211–212, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vera-Peters, V.; Zúñiga, F.; Valle, S.R.; Dec, D.; Clunes, J.; Dörner, J. Shrinkage behavior of Aquands along a longitudinal climatic gradient in Southern Chile. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 23, 638–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lal, R. Soil Health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 2016, 5, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gong, N.; Hong, H.; Huff, W.D.; Fang, Q.; Bae, C.J.; Wang, C.; Yin, K.; Chen, S. Influences of Sedimentary Environments and Volcanic Sources on Diagenetic Alteration of Volcanic Tuffs in South China. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. ODEPA. Panorama de la Agricultura Chilena; ODEPA: Bhubaneswar, India, 2019; 152p, ISBN 978-956-7244-31-7. [Google Scholar]
  83. Moscoso, C.; Urrutia, N. Overview of the Forage Land-Use in Southern Chile in a Thirty-Year Period. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2017, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ovalle, C. Un Nama Agrícola para Chile Mediante el Secuestro de Carbono Orgánico en el Suelo; Serie Actas INIA N°59; Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Centro Regional de Investigación La Cruz, Región de Valparaíso: Santiago, Chile, 2020; 94p. [Google Scholar]
  85. Valle, S.R.; Dörner, J.; Zúñiga, F.; Dec, D. Seasonal dynamics of the physical quality of volcanic ash soils under different land uses in southern Chile. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 182, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Variations in (A) soil organic carbon (SOC), (B) soluble C (EOC-K), and (C) active C (POXC) content according to management strategy (SF, NG, NT, and CT) and genetic horizon (H1, H2, H3, and H4). Mean values ± standard errors (SEs) are shown. Lower letters show significant differences between managements (p < 0.05) within each horizon. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = conventional tillage.
Figure 1. Variations in (A) soil organic carbon (SOC), (B) soluble C (EOC-K), and (C) active C (POXC) content according to management strategy (SF, NG, NT, and CT) and genetic horizon (H1, H2, H3, and H4). Mean values ± standard errors (SEs) are shown. Lower letters show significant differences between managements (p < 0.05) within each horizon. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = conventional tillage.
Sustainability 17 02704 g001
Figure 2. Variation in biological indicators: (A) cellulase activity and (B) ACE protein according to management type (SF, NG, NT, and CT) and horizon (H1, H2, H3, and H4) (n = 20, p < 0.05). Mean values ± standard errors (SE) are shown. Lower letters show significant differences between managements (p < 0.05) within each horizon. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = conventional tillage.
Figure 2. Variation in biological indicators: (A) cellulase activity and (B) ACE protein according to management type (SF, NG, NT, and CT) and horizon (H1, H2, H3, and H4) (n = 20, p < 0.05). Mean values ± standard errors (SE) are shown. Lower letters show significant differences between managements (p < 0.05) within each horizon. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = conventional tillage.
Sustainability 17 02704 g002
Figure 3. Earthworm indices according to management style (SF, NG, NT, and CT) and ecological category (epigean and endogean): (A) earthworm biomass, (B) earthworm density, (C) Relation A—epigean/endogean according to biomass of earthworms, and (D) Relation B—epigean/endogean according to density of earthworms. Mean values ± standard errors (SE) are shown. Lower letters show significant differences between management types (p < 0.05) within each horizon. Ns, non significant (p > 0.05).
Figure 3. Earthworm indices according to management style (SF, NG, NT, and CT) and ecological category (epigean and endogean): (A) earthworm biomass, (B) earthworm density, (C) Relation A—epigean/endogean according to biomass of earthworms, and (D) Relation B—epigean/endogean according to density of earthworms. Mean values ± standard errors (SE) are shown. Lower letters show significant differences between management types (p < 0.05) within each horizon. Ns, non significant (p > 0.05).
Sustainability 17 02704 g003
Figure 4. Principal component analysis corresponding to the different management intensities for horizon 1 (H1) (A) and correlation matrix (B) as a function of carbon variables, aggregate stability, and biological indicators. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = con-ventional tillage.
Figure 4. Principal component analysis corresponding to the different management intensities for horizon 1 (H1) (A) and correlation matrix (B) as a function of carbon variables, aggregate stability, and biological indicators. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = con-ventional tillage.
Sustainability 17 02704 g004
Figure 5. Relationship between water stable aggregates (WSAs) and (A) SOC (H1, H2, H3, and H4), (B) SOC (H1), (C) ACE protein, and (D) POXC. In Figures (A,C), the different symbols correspond to the different management schemes, and the colors correspond to the horizons. In Figures (B,C), the different symbols and colors correspond to the different management schemes. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = con-ventional tillage.
Figure 5. Relationship between water stable aggregates (WSAs) and (A) SOC (H1, H2, H3, and H4), (B) SOC (H1), (C) ACE protein, and (D) POXC. In Figures (A,C), the different symbols correspond to the different management schemes, and the colors correspond to the horizons. In Figures (B,C), the different symbols and colors correspond to the different management schemes. Abbreviations: SF = secondary native forest; NG = naturalized grassland; NT = no till; CT = con-ventional tillage.
Sustainability 17 02704 g005
Table 1. Management history for each land use zone.
Table 1. Management history for each land use zone.
Land UsePhysical InterventionVegetationResidues InputsTime
CTPlowing (0–20 cm)Wheat monocultureA portion of the residues is incorporated20 years
NTWithout plowing (last 2 years, surface movement: 2 cm)Wheat–vetch–rape rotations, sometimes incorporating peasResidues are kept on the ground>25 years
NGGrazing (high loads in short periods)Grasses (Agrostis capillaris L., Arrhenatherum elatius spp., Holcus lanatus L., Hypochaeris radicata).
Legumes (Trifolium pratense and Locus pedunculatus)
Maintenance of vegetation cover and grazing20 years
SFNo interventionMaqui (Aristotelia chilensis), Arrayán (Luma apiculata), Roble (Nothofagus obliqua), Quila (Chusquea quila), Ulmo (Eucryphia cordifolia)Maintenance of vegetation cover>20 years
CT: conventional tillage, NT: no tillage, NG: naturalized grassland, SF: secondary native forest. All soils with different land uses were subjected to fertilizer and/or pesticide application, with the exception of NF.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aravena, C.; Valle, S.R.; Vergara, R.; González Chang, M.; Martínez, O.; Clunes, J.; Caurapán, B.; Asenjo, J. Effect of Agricultural Management Intensity on the Organic Carbon Fractions and Biological Properties of a Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soil. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062704

AMA Style

Aravena C, Valle SR, Vergara R, González Chang M, Martínez O, Clunes J, Caurapán B, Asenjo J. Effect of Agricultural Management Intensity on the Organic Carbon Fractions and Biological Properties of a Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soil. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062704

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aravena, Camila, Susana R. Valle, Rodrigo Vergara, Mauricio González Chang, Oscar Martínez, John Clunes, Belén Caurapán, and Joel Asenjo. 2025. "Effect of Agricultural Management Intensity on the Organic Carbon Fractions and Biological Properties of a Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soil" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062704

APA Style

Aravena, C., Valle, S. R., Vergara, R., González Chang, M., Martínez, O., Clunes, J., Caurapán, B., & Asenjo, J. (2025). Effect of Agricultural Management Intensity on the Organic Carbon Fractions and Biological Properties of a Volcanic-Ash-Derived Soil. Sustainability, 17(6), 2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062704

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop