Advertisement

Changing of soil properties and urease–catalase enzyme activity depending on plant type and shading

  • Inci Sevinc Kravkaz KuscuEmail author
Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Changes in urease and catalase enzyme activities were investigated in the soils of plants grown under different shade conditions to reveal how the shade conditions and sapling species affect the urease and catalase enzyme activities in the soil. In this study, four different plant species were grown under five different shade conditions during one vegetation period, and soil analyses were performed to investigate the change in urease and catalase enzyme activities. As a result, it was determined that, of the soil characteristics considered, urease, EC, lime, OM, P, and K differed significantly according to the plant species, while catalase, urease, EC, and OM differed significantly according to the amount of light. In addition, it was found that soil characteristics showed different levels of variation depending on the light in the areas where different plant species were grown. The amount of light was linearly correlated with EC and with OM, while catalase and urease were in a linear relationship with each other. EC was statistically significantly correlated with all the characteristics except urease; this relationship was negative with light, P, and K. The strongest relationship was between lime (CaOH) and OM.

Keywords

Soil properties Urease Catalase Shade conditions 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arcak, S., Haktanır, K., & Karaca, A. (1994). Relations between some ecological and chemical properties and enzyme activities in the soil water national park soils. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 21(1997), 35–40 Tubitak, Ankara.Google Scholar
  2. Caldwell, B. A. (2005). Enzime activities as a component of soil biodiversity. A review. Pedobiologia, 49, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cetin, M. (2013a). Chapter 27: landscape engineering, protecting soil, and runoff storm water, InTech-Open Science-Open Minds, online July 1st, 2013. In Book title: Advances in landscape architecture-environmental sciences, chapter page (pp. 697–722).Google Scholar
  4. Cetin M. (2013b). Pavement design with porous asphalt. PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
  5. Cetin, M. (2015a). Chapter 55: using recycling materials for sustainable landscape planning. In Book title: Environment and ecology at the beginning of 21st century (pp. 783–788). Sofia: ST. Kliment Ohridski University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cetin, M. (2015b). Consideration of permeable pavement in landscape architecture. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 16(1), 385–392.Google Scholar
  7. Cetin, M., Sevik, H., & Yigit, N. (2018a). Climate type-related changes in the leaf micromorphological characters of certain landscape plants. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment., 190, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cetin, M., Sevik, H., Yigit, N., Ozel, H. B., Aricak, B., & Varol, T. (2018b). The variable of leaf micromorphogical characters on grown in distinct climate conditions in some landscape plants. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27(5), 3206–3211.Google Scholar
  9. Cetin, M., Onac, A. K., Sevik, H., Canturk, U., & Akpinar, H. (2018c). Chronicles and geoheritage of the ancient Roman city of Pompeiopolis: a landscape plan. Arabian Journal of Geosciences., 11, 798.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-4170-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cetin, M., Onac, A. K., Sevik, H., & Sen, B. (2018d). Temporal and regional change of some air pollution parameters in Bursa. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health Air Qual Atmos Health, (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-00657-6.
  11. Ersoy, B., & Demirsoy, H. (2012). A research on the effects of different shading practices on seasonal variation of some elements in camarosa strawberry. Journal of Agricultural Sciences of Anatolia, 21(1), 82–88.Google Scholar
  12. Flerchinger, G. N., & Pierson, F. B. (1997). Modelling plant canopy effects on variability of soil temperature and water: model calibration and validation. Journal of Arid Environments, 35, 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghee, C., Neilson, R., Hallet, P. D., Robinson, D., & Paterson, E. (2013). Priming of soil organic matter mineralisation is intrinsically insensitive to temperature. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 66, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guntinas, M. E., Leiros, M. C., Trasar-Cepeda, C., & Gil-Sotres, F. (2012). Effects of moisture and temperature on net soil nitrogen mineralization: a laboratory study. European Journal of Soil Biology, 48, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo, J., Yang, Y., Chen, G., Xie, J., & Yang, Z. (2014). Carbon mineralization of Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) soils under different temperature and humidity conditions. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34, 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hackl, E., Bachmann, G., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2004). Microbial nitrogen turnover in soils under different types of natural forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 188, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hein, S., Mäkınen, H., Yue, C., & Kohnle, U. (2007). Modelling branch characteristics of Norway spruce from wide spacings in Germany. Forest Ecology and Management, 242(2), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, M. L. (1958). Soil chemical analysis (pp. 1–498). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice- Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, M. C. (1962). Soil chemical analysis. USA: Prentice Hall. Ine. Eng. Cliff.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, M. L. (1967). Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.Google Scholar
  21. Kacar, B. (1995). Bitki ve toprağın kimyasal analizleri. III. Toprak analizleri. A.Ü.Z.F. vakfı yayınları. No:3, Ankara.Google Scholar
  22. Kızılkaya, R., & Hepşen, Ş. (2004). Effect of biosolid amendment on enzyme activities in earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris) casts. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 167(2), 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kravkaz Kuscu, I. S., Cetin, M., Yigit, N., Savaci, G., & Sevik, H. (2018a). Relationship between enzyme activity (urease-catalase) and nutrient element in soil use. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 5(27), 2107–2112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kravkaz Kuscu, I. S., Sariyildiz, T., Cetin, M., Yigit, N., Sevik, H., & Savaci, G. (2018b). Evaluation of the soil properties and primary forest tree species in Taskopru (Kastamonu) district. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27(3), 1613–1617.Google Scholar
  25. Kravkaz-Kuşcu, İ. S. (2014). Comparison of enzyme (catalase-urease) activities in agricultural-pasture-forest soils in Kastamonu region. Istanbul University, Institute of Science. Ph.D. Thesis. Istanbul.Google Scholar
  26. Krzysztof, M., Bronisław, W., Szymanski, W., & Muskala, P. (2014). Soil moisture and temperature variation under different types of tundra vegetation during the growing season: a case study from the Fuglebekken catchment, SW Spitsbergen. Catena, 116, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu, K. L., Lai, C. M., & Helen, W. (2002). Soil enzyme activities as indicators agricultural soil quality. Symposium no. 32, p.1386, Thailand.Google Scholar
  28. Mäkınen, H., Ojansuu, R., Saoranen, P., & Ylı-Kojola, H. (2003). Predicting branch characteristics of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) from simple stand and tree measurements. Forestry, 76(5), 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S., & Dean, N. C. (1954). Estimation of available phosphous in soil by extraction with sodium bicorbonate. Washington. D.C: U. S. Dept of Agr. Cir. 939.Google Scholar
  30. Pratt, P. F. (1965). Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Ed. C. A. Black. Amer. Soc. of Agron. Inc. Puc. Agron. Series no. 9.Google Scholar
  31. Roldan, A., Caravaca, F., Hernández, M. T., García, C., Sánchez-Brito, C., Velásquez, M., & Tiscareño, M. (2003). No-tillage, crop residue additions, and legume cover cropping effects on soil quality characteristics under maize in Patzcuaro watershed (Mexico). Soil and Tillage Research, 72(1), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schütt, M., Borken, W., Spot, O., Stange, C. F., & Matzner, E. (2014). Temperature sensitivity of C and N mineralization in temperate forest soils at low temperatures. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 69, 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sevik, H., Cetin, M., & Kapucu, O. (2016). Effect of light on young structures of Turkish fir (Abies nordmanniana subsp. bornmulleriana). Oxidation Communications, 39(1), 485–492.Google Scholar
  34. Sevik, H., Ozel, H. B., Cetin, M., Ozel, H. U., & Erdem, T. (2018). Determination of changes in heavy metal accumulation depending on plant species, plant organism, and traffic density in some landscape plants. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health (Air Qual Atmos Health), 2018, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0641-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skujins, J. (1978). History of Abiontic soil enzyme research in soil enzymes (pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tabatabai, M. A., & Dick, W. (2002). Enzymes in soil: research and developments in measuring activities. In R. G. Burns & R. P. Dick (Eds.), Enzymes in the environment (pp. 567–570) USA.Google Scholar
  37. Talgre, L., Lauringson, E., Roostalu, H., Astover, A., & Makke, A. (2012). Green manure as a nutrient source for succeeding crops. Plant Soil and Environment, 58, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanaka, K., & Hashimoto, S. (2006). Plant canopy effects on soil thermal and hydrological properties and soil respiration. Ecological Modelling, 196, 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trasar-Cepeda, C., Leiros, M. C., & Gil-Sotres, F. (2008). Hydrolytic enzyme activities in agricultural and forest soils. Some implications for their use as indicators of soil quality. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 40, 2146–2155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turkyilmaz, A., Sevik, H., Cetin, M., & Saleh, E. A. A. (2018). Changing of heavy metal accumulation dependent on traffic density in some landscape plants. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies., 27(5), 2277–2284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ünal, H. (1967). Enzyme activity of Rize tea soils and interest between important properties of these activities. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture, Publications 306 studies: 191.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, C., Wan, S., Xing, X., Zhang, L., & Han, X. (2006). Temperature and soil moisture interactively affected soil net N mineralization in temperate grassland in northern China. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 38, 1101–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiseman, A. (1987). Chapter 3. The application of enzymes in industry. In Handbook of enzymes biotechnology (2nd ed., pp. 274–373).Google Scholar
  44. Zivcak, M., Brestic, M., & Kalaji, H. M. (2014). Photosynthetic responses of sun-and shade-grown barley leaves to high light: is the lower Psıı connectivity in shade leaves associated with protection against excess of light? Photosynthesis Research, 119(3), 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest EngineeringKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey

Personalised recommendations