Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 502-510

doi:10.4236/jep.2011.25058 Published Online July 2011 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep)

A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the

Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil
Properites
Romina Romaniuk*, Lidia Giuffré, Rosario Romero
Edafología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Email: romaniuk@agro.uba.ar

Received April 12th, 2011; revised May 16th, 2011; accepted June 18th, 2011.

ABSTRACT
The aims of this work were 1) to evaluate the changes in soil properties with the application of different amounts of
vermicompost (10 and 20 Mg·ha–1), and 2) to construct a soil quality index that allows the evaluation of changes in the
most sensitive soil parameters. The study was carried out in a cattle field of General Alvear, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Vermicompost application showed a positive effect on most of the chemical and biological soil properties evaluated,
especially with the higher dose (20 Mg·ha–1). There were slight but significant increases in electrical conductivity and
soil pH with the higher dose of vermicompost. Physical soil properties were not affected by the vermicompost amend-
ment. The SQI showed a significant increase of soil quality with the vermicompost dose of 20 Mg·ha–1, especially by
enhancing the biochemical and biological properties.

Keywords: Organic Amendments, Soil Physical Properties, Soil Biochemical Properties, Soil Biological Properties,
Soil Quality Indicators

1. Introduction and Methods the application of vermicompost on physical, chemical

and biological soil properties. Mahesewarappa et al. [7]
Soil is one of the most valuable natural resources and
found increases in N content, total organic carbon, and
maintains its health is a moral responsibility. However,
the urgency to produce more food and fuels is causing an pH values in soil amended with vermicompost. According
irreparable damage on soil. Excessive mineral fertiliza- to Pascual et al. [8] the contents of humus and microbial
tion and irrational cultural practices contribute to reduce biomass carbon in soils fertilized with vermicompost
fertility and the organic matter contents. These circum- were increased compared with those receiving inorganic
stances have led many researchers to search new and fertilizers only. Albiach et al. [2] reported increases in
better management strategies. Soil application of organic soil microbial activity with the addition of organic ferti-
waste, represents a management strategy that can reduce lizers. A study by Marinari et al. [9] showed that the in-
the losses of soil organic matter [1]. The use of organic corporation of vermicompost to soil under maize signi-
amendments improves soil structure and fertility, increas- ficantly improved physical and biological soil properties.
ing microbial populations, activity and diversity [2-4]. Arancon et al. [10] reported increases of humic acids
The vermicompost is an “organic fertilizer” produced contents after vermicompost application in soils, related
by interactions between earthworms and soil microorga- with the largest amount of microorganisms associated
nisms, resulting in a material with a high degree of ma- with the earthworms activity. Tejada et al. [11] found
turity, high porosity, aeration, drainage, water storage that vermicompost application had a positive effect on
capacity and microbial activity [5]. The use of this amen- the soil physical, chemical and biological properties, in-
dment promotes biological activity enhancing the produ- creasing plant cover and decreasing the soil losses.
ctive capacity of soils directly related to increases of Although there are numerous research about the changes
nutrients availability and indirectly through improve- in soil properties after organic amendments, there are not
ments in physical properties [6]. informations about which are the main parameters (in-
There are several studies about changes produced by dicators) to be monitored over time to assess the effects

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites 503

of vermicompost applications on soil quality. These in- less than 20. The actual pH value must be between 5.5
dicators should be easily and accurately determined by and 8, and the electrical conductivity less than 4 dS·m–1.
routine laboratories protocols. Then, it is important to The experimental design was completely randomized
integrate this information into a soil quality index that and consisted of the following treatments: soil with
allows monitoring the changes in soil properties. Several vermicompost amendment of 10 Mg·ha–1 (VC 10), soil
indexing methods have been used to calculate an inte- with vermicompost amendment of 20 Mg·ha–1 (VC 20), a
grated index of soil quality. The approach proposed by control without addition of vermicompost (C), and an
Andrews and collaborators [12] is the most used and it is undisturbed situation (UN) located next to the cattle plots.
based on the selection of a minimum data set of indica- The predominant species are Paspalum Dilatatum, Pas-
tors (MDS) by principal component analysis (PCA), palum quadrifarium, Bromus unioloides, Cynodon dac-
normalization, and integration by a weighted additive tylon, Stipa neesiana, Stipa papposa, Bothriochloa, Bac-
index (WAI). This approach was successful to evaluate charis sps. and Piptochaetium montevidense. Application
the effects of soil management in different production of the amendment was made superficially. The VC pre-
systems [13-18]. sented 11.24% of oxidable carbon, 0.84% of total nitro-
The objectives of this work were 1) to evaluate the ef- gen, 237 mg·kg–1 of exchangeable phosphorous, 7.3 of
fect of vermicompost application on physical, chemical, pH and 2.96 dS·m–1 of electrical conductivity.
biochemical and biological soil properties and 2) to con- Soil sampling was performed after 6 months from the
struct a soil quality index integrated by the most sensitive VC application. Three soil samples from 0 to10 and 10 to
soil parameters that allow an accurate evaluation and 20 cm soil depth were collected from each treatment.
monitoring of changes in soil quality. Soil was air-dried, sieved (<2 mm) and stored at room
temperature prior chemical, biochemical and physical an-
2. Materials and Methods alysis, or stored at 4˚C prior being analyzed for biological
2.1. Field Site, Treatments and Soil Sampling properties.

The experiment was carried out in a cattle field located in 2.2. Soil Physical Analysis
General Alvear, Buenos Aires, Argentina. This site is Bulk density (BD) was determined by the core method
part of the “Salado Depression” and is characterized by a [19], and particle size analysis by the sedimentation pro-
vast plain with very low surface runoff and groundwater cedure [20]; the later property was expressed in percent-
layers near the surface. The average temperature for the age of clay (%CL), silt (%SL) and sand (%SA). Struc-
month of January is 22.5˚C and for July of 8.1˚C, with an tural stability was determined by gently breaking moist
average rainfall of 843 mm per year. The soil of the soil and sieving through an 8-mm sieve; then soil was air
study is located in the highest part of the field, classified dried and sieved so as to obtain the 4.76, 3.36, and 2.00
as a Thapto argic Hapludoll, and it is under natural vege- mm aggregate fractions [21]. This sieving was done with
tation. Vermicompost (VC) application is done to impro- a mechanical shaker at 1440 vibrations min–1 for 5 min.
ve the quantity and quality of the natural vegetation to These fractions were wetted until holding capacity, in-
cattle use. The compost used for the VC is produced cubated for 24 h, and wet-sieved through a set of sieves
from animal manures and plant residues, which are sta- with 4.76, 3.36, 2.00, 1.00, 0.50 and 0.30 mm openings,
cked in piles of 1.5 m above the ground. Every 30 cm of respectively. Sieved materials were dried at 50˚C for 24 h.
plant litter, animal manure in a thickness of 3 cm is in- The sum of products between the weights of each aggre-
serted into the piles to facilitate the colonization by mi- gate fraction and the mean diameter of the fraction gave
croorganisms. The pile is periodical removed to give the mean weight diameter (MWD). The change in MWD
aeration that allows the pasteurization, which occurs from dry sieving to wet sieving was a number inversely
when high temperatures are reached (60˚C - 65˚C) and related to soil aggregate stability.
pH values reaches acid values (pH 3.5), ensuring
2.3. Soil Chemical and Biochemical Analysis
complete destruction of pathogens. After two weeks of
the pasteurization, the substrate is placed in raised soil Soil pH was measured in a 1:2 soil/distilled water sus-
beds of 1.0 × 10.0 × 0.5 m and inoculated with high pension using a pre-calibrated glass electrode; and elec-
densities of earthworms Eisenia foetida (20.000 trical conductivity (EC) was determined in saturated soil
worms·m–2) by adding a pre-treated biowaste. After one paste. Extractable phosphorus (P) was determined as
to three months depending on the season, the quality of reported by Bray and Kurtz [22]. The total organic car-
the VC is analyzed with the following requirements: bon (TOC) content of soil was evaluated using the wet
organic matter higher than 20% and nitrogen higher than oxidation method of Walkley and Black [23]. The Stock
0.8%, both on dry basis, being the carbon/nitrogen ratio C (SC) was calculated affecting TOC by the BD for both

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

504 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites

depths considered. Particulate organic C (POC) was mea- better” indicators, the lowest observed value was divided
sured as described by Cambardella and Elliot [24]. The by each observation such that the lowest observed value
ratio between POC and TOC (POC/TOC) was also calcu- received a score of 1. Once transformed, the indicators
lated. The C extracted with K2SO4 was used as a measure were weighted by the PCA. Each PC gave the percentage
of the soluble C pool (SOC) [25]. of the variation with respect to the total data set. This
percentage, divided by the total percentage of variation
2.4. Soil Biological Analysis
of all PCs with eigenvectors >1, provided the weighted
Soil basal respiration (Resp) was measured according to factor for the chosen indicator. Then, the scored indica-
Jenkinson and Powlson [26]. Soil microbial biomass C tors for each observation were summed by the following
(MBC) was measured by the chloroform fumigation - equation:
extraction method [27]. Both the respiration and micro- n
bial biomass were used to calculate the metabolic quo- SQI   Wi Si
i 1
tient (qCO2) which expresses the quantity of CO2 emitted
per microbial biomass unit and time, and also the micro- where S was the score of the indicator, and W the
bial coefficient MBC/TOC was calculated. weighted factor derived from the PCA. Higher index
scores were assumed to give the best soil quality. The
2.5. Soil Quality Index
calculated SQI values were tested for their significance at
Data were processed using the Infostat statistics program. p = 0.05 by ANOVA and the means were compared by
Seventeen soil parameters were measured for each soil the DGC procedure.
layer and the relative data were firstly checked for nor-
mality and then subjected to univariate analysis of vari- 3. Results
ance (ANOVA). Variables with F statistically significant 3.1. Selection of Indicators
at p < 0.05 were further analyzed by Principal Compo-
nent Analysis (PCA). The separation of treatments means 3.1.1. Univariate Analysis of Soil Parameters
was carried out by the Rienzo, Guzmán and Casanoves The results from ANOVA are summarized in Table 1.
(DGC) test. The PCA is a mathematical procedure giving Among the seventeen soil properties evaluated for both
a small number of uncorrelated variables (PC) from seve- soil depths, twelve were selected for soil depth 1, and
ral correlated and thus it can reduce the size of the pa- eight were selected for soil depth 2.
rameter dataset. The first PC account for most of the re- The MWD 1 was the only physical parameter selected
maining variability. We have assumed that PC 1 receiv- for both depths. This parameter presented the highest
ing high eigenvalues best represented variation of the value for the UN plot, but there were not significant dif-
system. Therefore, only the PCs with eigen values >1 and ferences for the cattle plots (C, VC 10 and VC 20).
those that explained at least 10% of the variation in the All the chemical and biochemical analyzed properties
data were included. Under a particular PC, each soil pro- were selected for soil depth 1. In the10 to 20 cm soil
perties was given a weight or factor loading that repre- layer (soil depth 2) only the EC, pH, P and SOC were
sent the contribution of the variable to the composition of selected. The UN plot presented the highest values of P,
the PC. Within each PC, only highly weighted factors TOC and SC, without significance differences among the
were retained for MDS. We have defined highly weight- others plots. The pH presented the highest value for VC
ed factor loadings those having absolute values within 20, and the EC for both VC 10 and VC 20 treatments.
10% of the highest factor loading. Multivariate correla- The labile organic carbon pools (SOC and POC) were
tion coefficients were carried out when more than one significant higher for UN, followed by VC 20, with the
factor was retained under a single PC. The variable with lowest values for VC 10 and C. The ratio POC/TOC was
the highest correlation sum was considered for the MDS. significant higher for UN and VC 20 in comparison with
When highly weighted variables were not correlated C and VC 10.
(correlation coefficient <0.7), each of them were retained Among the soil biological properties, only the qCO2 of
in the MDS. soil depth 1 was excluded (p > 0.05). All the others bio-
After the selection of the MDS indicators, each indi- logical soil properties (Resp, MBC, MBC/TOC, qCO2)
cator was transformed by the linear scoring method. Indi- were selected for both depths. The Resp and the MBC
cators were arranged depending on whether a higher value and the microbial coefficient (MBC/TOC) were signifi-
was considered “good” or “bad” in terms of soil func- cantly increased by dose of 20 Mg·ha–1 of VC applied to
tions. For “more is better” indicators, each observation the soil. The microbial quotient (qCO2) for soil depth 2
was divided by the highest observed value such that the was higher for both VC treatments in comparison with
highest observed value received a score of 1. For “less is UN and C.

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites 505

Table 1. Mean vales of soil physical, chemical and biochemical properties of 0 - 10 cm (1) and 10 - 20 cm (2) soil depth.

UN C VC 10 VC 20
Mean values for depth 1 (0 – 10 cm)
% CL 14.17 ns 15 ns 14.17 ns 15 ns
% SA 59.17 ns 60 ns 59.17 ns 60 ns
% SL 26.67 ns 25 ns 26.67 ns 25 ns
MWD (mm) 39.5 a 113.5 b 113.4 b 99.4 b
–3
BD (g·cm ) 1.28 ns 1.26 ns 1.26 ns 1.24 ns
pH 6.16 a 6.06 a 6.13 a 6.45 b
–1
EC (ds·m ) 0.35 a 0.49 b 0.60 c 0.63 c
–1
P (mg·kg ) 43.15 b 10.18 a 13.66 a 17.94 a
TOC (%) 3.93 b 2.94 a 3.08 a 3.16 a
–1
SC (tn·ha ) 50.30 b 37.05 a 38.50 a 39.18 a
–1
SOC(gC g·soil ) 189 c 117 a 120 a 156 b
POC (%) 1.03 c 0.78 a 0.61 a 0.59 b
POC/TOC (%) 24 b 8 a 12 a 21 b
–1 –1
Resp (g C-CO2 g·soil ·h ) 1.18 a 0.96 a 1.42 a 1.96 b
–1
MBC (g C g·soil ) 585 a 500 a 547 a 764 b
qCO2 0.20 ns 0.19 ns 0.26 ns 0.26 ns
MBC/TOC 172 a 150 a 177 a 241 b
Mean values for depth 2 (10 – 20 cm)
% CL 14.17 ns 15.83 ns 15 ns 15.83 ns
% SA 60 ns 60 ns 58.33 ns 60 ns
% SL 25.83 ns 23.33 ns 26.67 ns 23.33 ns
MWD (mm) 87.8 ns 115.4 ns 110.7 ns 103.1 ns
3
BD (g·cm ) 1.3 ns 1.25 ns 1.25 ns 1.24 ns
pH 5.84 a 5.84 a 6.12 b 6.33 b
–1
EC (ds·m ) 0.37 a 0.49 b 0.55 b 0.57 b
–1
P (mg·kg ) 38.22 b 5.74 a 5.74 a 8.68 a
TOC (%) 2.41 ns 2.34 ns 2.37 ns 2.56 ns
–1
SC (tn·ha ) 31.33 ns 29.25 ns 29.62 ns 31.75 ns
–1
SOC(g C g·soil ) 114 b 60.4 a 61.7 a 75.7 a
POC (%) 0.17 ns 0.11 ns 0.14 ns 0.18 ns
POC/TOC (%) 6.95 ns 4.92 ns 5.88 ns 7.06 ns
–1 –1
Resp (g C-CO2 g·soil ·h ) 0.30 a 0.23 a 0.4 a 0.66 b
MBC (g C g·soil–1) 318 a 305 a 327 a 528 b
qCO2 0.10 a 0.08 a 0.14 b 0.13 b
MBC/TOC 132 a 131 a 138 a 208 b

%CL is clay, %SL is silt, %SA is sand, MWD is mean weight diameter, BD is bulk density, EC is electrical conductivity, P is extractable phosphorus, TOC is
total organic carbon, SC is stock C, SOC is soluble organic carbon, POC is particulate organic C, POC/TOC is the ratio of POC to TOC and Resp is basal soil
respiration, MBC is microbial biomass carbon, qCO2 is metabolic quotient, MBC/TOC is microbial coefficient. UN is undisturbed plot, C is the control plot,
VC 10 is the plot amendment with 10 Mg·ha–1 of vermicompost and VC 20 is the plot amendment with 20 Mg·ha–1 of vermicompost.

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

506 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites

3.1.2. Multivariate Analysis of the Selected Soil Table 2. Results of principal components analysis.
Parameters Principal Component Analysis
Tables 2 and 3 show results of PCA analysis and corre-
PC 1 2
lation between soil properties, respectively.
Eigenvalues 10.14 7.09
Both PC 1 and PC 2 were selected. According to PC 1,
Proportion 0.48 0.34
MWD 1, EC 1, P 1, SC 1 and P 2 were considered for the
correlation analysis. The highest sum of correlation coef- Weighted factor 0.585 0.415
ficient (cc) was shown by P1 with final selection of P 1, Factor loadings
MWD1 and EC 1 (cc < 0.7). According to PC 2, MBC 1, MWD 1 –0.28 –0.11
pH 1 and POC/TOC 1 were selected with MBC 1 getting BD 1 0.25 0.03
the highest sum of correlations coefficients. The correla- pH 1 –0.11 0.33
tion between MBC 1 and POC/TOC 1 was < 0.7 (p < EC 1 –0.29 0.06
0.1), and both were selected to represent CP2. P1 0.28 0.15
TOC 1 0.25 0.13
3.2. Transformation and Integration of Indicators
POC 1 0.22 0.27
To carry out linear scores of selected properties, values POC/TOC 1 0.17 0.31
of each observation of P1, POC/TOC and MBC were SOC 1 0.22 0.24
divided by the highest observed value; and values of SC 1 0.27 0.12
MWD and EC 1 were divided by the lowest observed Resp 1 –0.14 0.26
value. The transformation allows scoring observation as MBC 1 –0.07 0.34
“higher is better” up to a threshold value whereas the latter MBC/COT 1 –0.2 0.23
transformation allows scoring “lower is better” above the
pH 2 –0.2 0.24
threshold.
EC 2 –0.26 0.03
Selected properties for a given PC have the same weight
P2 0.29 0.11
into the index. This gave a weighted factor of 0.545 for
SOC 2 0.24 0.16
selected properties of PC 1 (MWD 1, P 1 and EC 1) and
Resp 2 –0.18 0.28
0.415 for selected properties of PC 2 (MBC 1 and POC/
COT 1). MBC 2 –0.16 0.29
Soil quality index was: qCO2 2 –0.14 0.15

SQI  0.545   P1  MWD1  EC1 MBC/COT 2 –0.16 0.27

 0.415   MBC1  COP COT 1 MWD is mean weight diameter, BD is bulk density, EC is electrical conduc-
tivity, P is extractable phosphorus, TOC is total organic carbon, SC is stock
C, SOC is soluble organic carbon, POC is particulate organic C, POC/TOC
3.3. Application of the Soil Quality Index is the ratio of POC to TOC and Resp is basal soil respiration, MBC is mi-
crobial biomass carbon, qCO2 is metabolic quotient, MBC/TOC is microbial
Figure 1 shows the values of soil quality index. coefficient for 0 - 10 cm (1) and 10 - 20 cm (2) soil depth.
The SQI differentiated the undisturbed situation (UN)
from those under grazing (T, VC 10 and VC 20). The UN MWD between the undisturbed plot and the plots under
presented the highest value of the SQI. The applications grazing. The soil physical parameters evaluated (% CL,
of 20 Mg·ha–1 of vermicompost (VC 20 treatment) sig- % SL, % SA, BD, MWD) were not affected by the both
nifically increase the final value of the SQI, in compari- doses of VC applied, probably because the time elapsed
son with the control (C) and the treatment with vermi- since the beginning of the experiment until the sampling
compost amendment of 10 Mg·ha–1 (VC 10). The SQI was not enough to affect significantly these soil proper-
values were similar for C and VC 10. Differences be- ties. However, the MWD and the BD, decrease in soils
tween the undisturbed situation (UN) and the cattle plots amendment with the highest dose of VC (20 Mg·ha–1).
(C, VC 10 and VC 20) were mainly represented by Organic soil amendments could help to con- serve and/or
MWD 1 and P1 values. The higher SQI value of the VC enhance the structure, because organic matter is
20 treatment in comparison with T was mainly repre- considered an active agent that promotes aggre- gation
sented by the phosphorus contents (P 1) and by the bio- through physical and chemical mechanisms [28]. Whalen
logical indicators (MBC 1 and COP/COT 1). et al. [29] noted a larger amount of aggregates stable in
water five months after the in- corporation of VC,
4. Discussion concluding that the MWD increased linearly with
The cattle practice reduces the structural stability of soil, increasing doses vermicompost applied.
and thus could be the reason of the different values of the The higher values of most of the chemical and bioche-

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites 507

Table 3. Correlation between soil properties.

MWD TOC POC POC/C SOC SC Resp MBC MBC/ pH EC SOC Resp MBC qCO2 MBC
BD1 pH 1 EC 1 P 1 P2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C1 2 2 2 2 2 2 /C 2
MWD 1 1

BD 1 –0.72 1

pH 1 0.09 –0.23 1

EC 1 0.82 –0.71 0.46 1

P1 –0.63 0.67 0.05 –0.68 1

TOC 1 –0.74 0.49 0.01 –0.61 0.83 1

POC 1 –0.79 0.57 0.38 –0.5 0.89 0.85 1

POC/
–0.7 0.51 0.54 –0.36 0.81 0.72 0.97 1
C1
SOC 1 –0.87 0.66 0.25 –0.56 0.85 0.76 0.94 0.9 1

SC 1 –0.8 0.64 –0.03 –0.69 0.87 0.98 0.87 0.75 0.81 1

Resp 1 0.07 –0.44 0.71 0.49 –0.05 –0.13 0.16 0.31 0.12 –0.2 1

MBC 1 –0.04 0.03 0.88 0.33 0.12 0.1 0.5 0.66 0.47 0.1 0.61 1
MBC/
0.36 –0.26 0.77 0.63 –0.35 –0.46 -0.03 0.18 0.01 –0.46 0.61 0.83 1
C1
pH 2 0.44 –0.32 0.79 0.7 –0.3 –0.34 0.03 0.23 –0.04 –0.36 0.63 0.79 0.88 1

EC 2 0.73 –0.86 0.33 0.72 –0.63 –0.48 –0.45 –0.33 –0.55 –0.61 0.56 0.23 0.47 0.54 1

P2 –0.64 0.72 –0.06 –0.83 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.74 0.82 0.78 –0.18 0.01 –0.46 –0.43 –0.74 1

SOC 2 –0.81 0.6 0.12 –0.59 0.87 0.74 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.78 –0.06 0.15 –0.28 –0.32 –0.59 0.88 1

Resp 2 0.32 –0.41 0.87 0.72 –0.2 –0.16 0.12 0.28 0.0048 –0.22 0.68 0.72 0.73 0.86 0.45 –0.31 –0.08 1

MBC 2 0.16 –0.45 0.92 0.54 –0.12 –0.13 0.18 0.33 0.12 –0.21 0.82 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.46 –0.23 –0.08 0.84 1

qCO2 2 0.37 –0.25 0.45 0.66 –0.2 –0.11 0.02 0.11 –0.14 –0.15 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.67 0.38 –0.29 –0.06 0.77 0.34 1
MBC/
0.18 –0.48 0.89 0.52 –0.14 –0.17 0.12 0.28 0.07 –0.25 0.78 0.71 0.74 0.71 0.45 –0.24 –0.13 0.84 0.98 0.33 1
C2
MWD is mean weight diameter, BD is bulk density, EC is electrical conductivity, P is extractable phosphorus, TOC is total organic carbon, SC is stock C, SOC
is soluble organic carbon, POC is particulate organic C, POC/TOC is the ratio of POC to TOC and Resp is basal soil respiration, MBC is microbial biomass
carbon, qCO2 is metabolic quotient, MBC/TOC is microbial coefficient for 0 - 10 cm (1) and 10-20 cm (2) soil depth.

mical parameters (P, TOC, SC, SOC, POC and POC/ interpreted as a warning signal, since there is a clear
TOC) in the UN plot show that the cattle reduced the trend to increases of the electrical conductivity with the
nutrient and carbon contents of soils, probably because applied doses of the VC. Similar results were found by
removals by grazing were greater than inputs from litter Gonzalez et al. [3].
and cows depositions. There was a significant increase in the soil extractable
The increase in pH could be due to the higher Ph value phosphorus with the increase of the VC doses applied.
of the amendment (pH of 7.3) in relation to soil (pH of Vermicompost amendments could help to recovering the
6.06). However, this increase is not considered danger- nutrient contents. The data obtained in our experiment
ous to soil quality because the values remained close to agree with those of numerous studies in which the VC
neutrality. applied increases the concentration of soil P [30]. Devlie-
Soil electrical conductivity was significantly affected gher and Verstraete [31] found a significant increase in
(P < 0.05) by both amendments of VC. This result can be the P contents after the VC amendment, reaching the

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

508 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites

organisms, resulting in higher respirations rates.

The application of 20 Mg·ha–1 of VC produced signi-
ficant increases in the microbial biomass carbon, in rela-
tion with the increase in available carbon which allows a
rapidly multiplication of microbial population. Arancon
et al. [10] reported that two of the major contributions of
vermicomposts to the field soils were the increases in
microbial populations and activities. However, in other
study [2] there was no effect of the addition of VC to soil
Figure 1. Values of the soil quality index. Different letters microbial biomass, attributing these results to the large
denote significant differences between situations at  = 0.05. spatial and temporal variability of soil.
UN is undisturbed plot, C is the control plot, VC 10 is the The microbial quotient (qCO2) is considered an indi-
plot amendment with 10 Mg·ha–1 of vermicompost, and VC cator of nutritional stress of microbial communities.
20 is the plot amendment with 20 Mg·ha–1 of vermicom-
However, the higher values of the qCO2 for soil depth 2
post. . MWD is mean weight diameter, P is the extractable
phosphorus, EC is the electrical conductivity, MBC is mi- in the VC treatments could be interpreted as a higher re-
crobial biomass carbon and POC/TOC is the ratio between spiration rate because of the greater amount of labile car-
the particulate organic carbon and the total organic carbon. bon available for the microbial community, in compari-
son with the control and the undisturbed situation, which
double of the initial value for some treatments, and even did not receive any carbon supply. The increase of qCO2
the triple in others, attributing the results to increases in due to organic amendments was reported also by others
the enzymatic activity of phosphatases from earthworms. [37,38].
The addition of both doses of VC did not affect (P < SQI was capable to summarize the whole information
0.05) the soil total organic carbon (TOC). However, the given by the soil measurements parameters. The final
labile organic carbon pools (SOC and POC) were signi- values show that the cattle grazing reduce the SQ by
ficant higher for the VC 20 treatment, showing that these reduction in the physical, chemical and biological para-
labile fractions may be more sensitive than TOC as an meters. However, the higher values of the SQI obtained
indicator of soil quality. for the VC 20 treatment in comparison with the control
Leifeld et al. [32] noted that the accumulation of orga- (C) and the VC 10 plots; show that this practice could
nic carbon in the fine soil fraction occurs immediately increase the SQ, specially by an enhancing soil labile
after application of vermicompost, presumably by the rapid carbon and also microbial population, which is a key fac-
absorption on unoccupied sites in the soil mineral matrix. tors in nutrient cycling and availability for plant growth.
In our study the ratio between COP and TOC for depth 1 Macci et al. [39] reported that the organic fertilizations
were selected to act as an indicator of soil quality be- increase the soil quality in an almond tree plantation by
cause it shows the preferential increment of the higher the improvement of chemico-nutritional, biochemical
size fraction of organic matter instead of the total organic and physical soil properties.
carbon in the VC treatments, showing a tendency to the The inclusion of the EC in the SQI decreases the final
recover of the original values (UN). A similar pattern values of the SQI for both VC treatments. The EC is an
was shown by the microbial coefficient (MBC/TOC). important indicator to be carefully monitored due to the
The use of organic amendments increases the soil orga- high values of the VC used in this experiment.
nic carbon and improves soil structure [33]. Fortuna et al.
[34] argued that the VC amendment could increase the
5. Conclusions
carbon contents up to 45% of the original levels, and thus The VC amendment did not produced significant changes
contribute to increase the soil structural stability, particu- in physical parameters.
larly that of the macroaggregates. There were a general increases in the P content, soil
Many authors reported that organic fertilization in- labile organic carbon fractions, microbial activity and
creases the soil biological activity [35,36]. Organic amend- population with the VC amendment, especially with the
ments stimulate respiration due to a synergistic effect of higher dose of 20 Mg·ha–1. However, the applied VC
soil microorganisms and the amendment or by a stimula- significantly increase the soil EC for both doses used.
tion of microbial growth by the addition of organic sub- The SQI shows an increase in soil quality with the
strates [9]. Most of the carbon present on the organic highest doses of VC amendment, allowing a complete
amendments includes partially decomposed material that view of changes in the more sensitive soil properties af-
could be easily used as an energy source by soil micro- fected by VC application.

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites 509

REFERENCES [12] S. S. Andrews, D. L. Karlen and J. P. Mitchell, “A Com-

parision of Soil Quality Indexing Methods for Vege- table
[1] S. Gaind and L. Nain, “Chemical and Biological Proper- Production Systems in Northern California,” Agri- culture,
ties of Wheat Soil in Response to Paddy Straw Incorpora- Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 90, No. 1, 2002, pp.
tion and Its Biodegradation by Fungal Inocu- lants,” Bio- 25-45. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00174-8
degradation, Vol. 18, 4, 2006, pp. 495-503.
doi:10.1007/s10532-006-9082-6 [13] F. Bastidia, A. Zsolnay, T. Hernandez and C. García,
“Past, Present and Future of Soil Quality Indices: A Bio-
[2] R. Albiach, R. Canet, F. Pomares and F. Ingelmo, “Mi- logical Perspective,” Geoderma, Vol. 147, No. 40271,
crobial Biomass Content and Enzymatic Activities after 2008, pp. 159-171. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.08.007
the Application of Organic Amendments to a Horti- cul-
tural Soil,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 75, No. 1, 2000, [14] C. A. Cambardella, T. B. Moorman, S. S. Andrews and D.
pp. 43-48. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00030-4 L. Karlen, “Watershed–Scale Assessment of Soil Quality
in the Loess Hills of SOUTHWEST IOwa,” Soil & Till-
[3] M. Gonzalez, E. Gomez, R. Comese, M. Quesada and M. age Research, Vol. 78, No. 2, 2004, pp. 237-247.
Conti, “Influence of Organic Amendments on Soil Qual- doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.02.015
ity Potential Indicators in an Urban Horticultural Sys-
tem,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 101, No. 22, 2010, [15] J. J. C. Dawson, E. J. Godsiffe, L. P. Thompson, T. K.
pp. 8897-8901. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.095 Ralebitso-Senior, K. S. Killham and G. I. Paton, “Appli-
cation of Biological Indicators to Assess Recovery of
[4] J. J. Lee, R. D. Park, Y. W. Kim, J. H. Shim, D. H. Chae, Hydrocarbon Impacted Soils,” Soil Biology & Biochem-
Y. S. Rim, B. K. Sohn, T. H. Kim and K. Y. Kim, “Effect istry, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2007, pp. 164-177.
of Food Waste Compost on Microbial Population, Soil doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.06.020
Enzyme Activity and Lettuce Growth,” Bioresource
Technology, Vol. 93, No. 1, 2004, pp. 21-28. [16] D. G. Karlen, M. D.Tomer, J. Neppel and C. A. Cam-
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2003.10.009 bardella, “A preliminary Watershed Scale Soil Quality
Assessment in North Central Iowa, USA,” Soil and Till-
[5] C. C. Edwards and I. Burrows, “The Potential of Earth- age Research, Vol. 99, 2009, pp. 291-299.
worm Composts as Plant Growth Media,” In: C. A. Ed- doi:10.1016/j.still.2008.03.002
wards, E. F. Neuhauser, Eds., Earthworms in Environ-
mental and Waste Management, SPB Academic Publi- [17] Y. Qi, J. L. Darilek, B. Huang, Y. Zhao, W. Sun and Z.
cation, The Netherlands, 1988, pp. 211-220. Gu, “Evaluating Soil Quality Indexes in Agricultural Re-
gion of Jiangsu Province, China,” Geoderma, Vol. 149,
[6] L. Carpenter-Boggs, A. C. Kennedy and J. P. Reganold, No. 3-4, 2009, pp. 325-334.
“Organic and Biodynamic Management: Effects on Soil doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.12.015
Biology,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.
64, 2000, pp. 1651-1659. [18] K. L. Sharma, G. Kussuma, M. Uttam Kumar, N. G.
doi:10.2136/sssaj2000.6451651x Pavin, K. Sinvras, G. R. Korwar, V. Hima Bindu, V.
Ramesh, R. Kausalya and S. K. Yadav, “Evaluation of
[7] H. P. Mahesewarappa, H. V. Nanjappa and M. R. Hegde, Long-Term Soil Management Practices Using Key Indi-
“Influence of Organic Manures on Yield of Arrowroot, cators and Soil Quality Indexes in a Semi-Arid Tro- pical
Soil Physico-Chemical and Biological Properties When Alfisol,” Australian Journal of Soil Research, Vol. 46,
Grown as Intercrop in Coconut Garden,” Annals of Agri- 2008, pp. 368-377. doi:10.1071/SR07184
cultural Research, Vol. 20, 1999, pp. 318-323.
[19] G. R. Blake, “Bulk density,” In: C. A. Black, Ed., Meth-
[8] J. A. Pascual, T. Hernandez and C. Garcia, “Lasting ods of Soil Analysis, Part I, Physical and Minera- logical
Microbiological and Biochemical Effect of the Addition Properties, including Statistics of Measurement and
of Municipal Solid Waste to an Arid Soil,” Biology and Sampling, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI,
Fertility of Soils, Vol. 30, 1999, pp. 1-6. USA, 1965, pp. 374-395.
doi:10.1007/s003740050579
[20] G. J. Bouyoucos, “The Hydrometer as a New Method for
[9] S. Marinari, G. Masciandaro, B. Ceccanti and S. Grego, the Mechanical Analysis of Soils,” Soil Science, Vol. 23,
“Influence of Organic and Mineral Fertilisers on Soil 1972, pp. 343-352.
Biological and Physical Properties,” Bioresource Tech- doi:10.1097/00010694-192705000-00002
nology, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2000, pp. 9-17.
doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00094-2 [21] L. De Leenheer and M. De Boodt, “Determination of
Aggregate Stability by the Change in Mean Weight Di-
[10] N. Q. Arancon, C. A. Edwards and P. Bierman, “Influ- ameter,” International Symposium on Soil Structure, Gent.
ences of Vermicomposts on Field Strawberries: Part 2. Proceeding, Vol. 24, 1958, pp. 290-300.
Effects on Soil Microbiological and Chemical Pro- per-
ties,” Bioresurce Technology, Vol. 97, No. 6, 2006, pp. [22] R. H. Bray and L. T. Kurtz, “Determination of Total,
831-840. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.04.016 Organic and Available Forms of Phosphorus in Soils,”
Soil Science, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1945, pp. 39-45.
[11] M. Tejada, A. M. García-Martínez and J. Parrado, “Ef- doi:10.1097/00010694-194501000-00006
fects of a Vermicompost Composted with Beet Vina- sse
on Soil Properties, Soil Losses and Soil Restoration,” [23] D. W. Nelson and L. E. Sommers, “Total Carbon, Or-
Catena, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2009, pp. 238-247. ganic Carbon and Organic Matter,” In: D. L. Sparks, Ed.,
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2009.01.004 Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods, Soil

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

510 A Soil Quality Index to Evaluate the Vermicompost Amendments Effects on Soil Properites

Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, 1996, [32] J. Leifeld, S. Siebert and R. I. Kögel-Knabner, “Stabiliza-
pp. 961-1010. tion of Composted Organic Matter after Application to a
[24] C. A. Cambardella and E. T. Elliott, “Particulate Soil Humus-Free Sandy Mining Soil,” Journal of Environ-
Organic-Matter across a Grassland Cultivation Sequen- mental Quality, Vol. 30, 2001, pp. 602-607.
ce,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 56, doi:10.2134/jeq2001.302602x
1992, pp. 777-783. [33] D. A. Laird, D. A., Martens and W. L. Kingery, “Nature
doi:10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600030017x of Clay-Humic Complexes in an Agricultural Soil. I.
[25] R. J. Haynes, “Labile Organic Matter Fractions as a Cen- Chemical, Biochemical, and Spectroscopic Analyses,”
tral Component of the Quality of Agricultural Soils: An Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 65, No. 5,
Overview,” Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 85, 2005, pp. 2001, pp. 1413-1418. doi:10.2136/sssaj2001.6551413x
221-268. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(04)85005-3 [34] A. Fortuna, R. R. Harwood and E. A. Paul, “The Effects
[26] D. S. Jenkinson and D. S. Powlson, “The Effects of Bio- of Compost and Crop Rotation on Carbon Turnover and
cidal Treatments on Metabolism in Soil. V. A Method for the Particulate Organic Matter Fraction,” Soil Science,
Vol. 168, No. 6, 2003, pp. 434-444.
Measuring Soil Biomass,” Soil Biology and Bio- chemis-
try, Vol. 8, 1976, pp. 209-213. [35] D. G. Fraser, J. W. Doran, W. W. Sahs and G. W.
doi:10.1016/0038-0717(76)90005-5 Leosing, “Soil Microbial Population and Activity Under
Conventional and Organic Management,” Journal of
[27] E. D. Vance, P. C. Brookes and D. S. Jenkinson, “An
Environmental Quality, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1988, pp. 585-
Extraction Method for Measuring Soil Microbial Biomass
590.
C,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1987, pp.
703-707. [36] M. J. Kirckner, A. G. Wollum and L. D. King, “Soil Mi-
crobial Populations and Activities in Reduced Che- mical
[28] F. Caravaca, G. Masciandaro and B. Ceccanti, “Land Use
Input Agroecosystem,” Soil Science Society of America
in Relation to Soil Chemical and Biochemical Properties
Journal, Vol. 57, 5, 1993, pp. 1289-1295.
in a Semiarid. Mediterranean Environment,” Soil and
doi:10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700050021x
Tillage Research, Vol. 68, 2002, pp. 23-30.
doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00080-6 [37] L. Leita, M. De Nobili, C. Mondini, G. Muhlbachova, L.
Marchiol, G. Bragato and M. Cotin, “Influence of Inor-
[29] J.K. Whalen, Q. Hu and A. Liu, “Compost Applications
ganic and Organic Fertilization on Soil Microbial Bio-
Increase Water-Stable Aggregates in Conventional and
mass, Metabolic Quotient and Heavy Metal Bio- avail-
No-Tillage Systems,” Soil Science Society of America
ability,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, Vol. 28, 1999, pp.
Journal, Vol. 67, 2003, pp. 1842-1847.
371-376. doi:10.1007/s003740050506
doi:10.2136/sssaj2003.1842
[38] T. Marika, J. Truua and M. Ivask, “Soil micRobiological
[30] P. K. Padmavathiamma, L. Y. Li and U. R. Kumari, “An and Biochemical Properties for Assessing the Effect of
Experimental Study of Vermi-Biowaste Composting for Agricultural Management Practices in Estonian Culti-
Agricultural Soil Improvement,” Bioresurce technology, vated Soils,” European Journal of Soil Biology, Vol. 44,
Vol. 99, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1672-1681. No. 2, 2008, pp. 231-237.
[31] W. Devliegher and W. Verstraete, “The Effect of Lum- doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.12.003
bricus Terrestris on Soil in Relation to Plant Growth: Ef- [39] C. Macci, S. Doni, E. Peruzzi, G. Masciandaro, C.
fects of Nutrient Enrichment Processes and Gut Associ- Mennone and B. Ceccanti, “Almond Tree and Organic
ated Processes,” Soil Biology & Biochemistry, Vol. 29, Fertilization for Soil Quality Improvement in Southern It-
1997, pp. 341-346. aly,” Journal of Environmental Management, 2010, pp.
doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(96)00096-X 1-8, Article in Press.

Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP