Early effects of temperate agroforestry practices on soil organic matter and microbial enzyme activity

  • Hugues ClivotEmail author
  • Caroline Petitjean
  • Nicolas Marron
  • Erwin Dallé
  • Julie Genestier
  • Nicolas Blaszczyk
  • Philippe Santenoise
  • Alexandre Laflotte
  • Séverine Piutti
Regular ARticle



A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of alley cropping systems on microbial activity and soil organic matter (SOM) pools. We hypothesized that enzyme activity and labile pools of SOM are early and sensitive indicators of changes induced by tree introduction in the cropping systems.


Poplar-alfalfa and alder-gramineous (cereal or ryegrass) associations and their respective control systems (alfalfa and gramineous) were compared in terms of soil carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and water contents, SOM labile pools, NIRS-MIRS spectra and microbial enzyme activity in the topsoil (0–15 cm) for 4 years after tree planting.


After 1 year, tree introduction induced a decrease in soil water content, microbial biomass N and some enzyme activities under alfalfa system. After 4 years, tree introduction resulted in higher soil water contents in both systems (alfalfa and gramineous); higher microbial biomass N and lower C:N in alfalfa-poplar plots compared to control plots. MIRS-NIRS analyses showed a greatest differentiation in SOM quality between alfalfa-based systems.


The effects of temperate agroforestry systems on SOC in the topsoil are relatively weak in the first years after tree introduction. Observed effects were more pronounced in the alfalfa-poplar system, probably due to higher tree growth. Further studies will provide insights into the longer-term effects of these systems on soil functioning.


Alley cropping N2-fixing species Microbial enzyme activities Soil organic matter pools 



The UMR Silva, UR BEF and the experimental site are supported by the French National Research Agency through the Cluster of Excellence ARBRE (ANR-11-LABX-0002-01). This Research was also funded by La Fondation de France and the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) through postdoctoral grants to H. Clivot and C. Petitjean. The experiment was supported by the mobile lab (M-POETE) of ANAEE-France. ANAEE-France is an infrastructure of the French Investment for the Future (‘Investissements d’Avenir’) program, overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-INBS-0001). We thank M.C. Géhin (INRA) for assistance in NIRS-MIRS analyses. We are also grateful to all the people who helped for maintain the experimental site and for field and lab work. This work is dedicated to the memory of our colleague Bernard Amiaud, Professor at the Université de Lorraine (1969-2018).

Supplementary material

11104_2019_4320_MOESM1_ESM.docx (213 kb)
Figure S1 (DOCX 212 kb)
11104_2019_4320_MOESM2_ESM.docx (41 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 40 kb)


  1. Acosta-Martínez V, Cruz L, Sotomayor-Ramírez D, Pérez-Alegría L (2007) Enzyme activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed. Appl Soil Ecol 35:35–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acosta-Martínez V, Acosta-Mercado D, Sotomayor-Ramírez D, Cruz-Rodríguez L (2008) Microbial communities and enzymatic activities under different management in semiarid soils. Appl Soil Ecol 38:249–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akroume E, Zeller B, Buée M et al (2016) Improving the design of long-term monitoring experiments in forests: a new method for the assessment of local soil variability by combining infrared spectroscopy and dendrometric data. Ann For Sci 73:1005–1013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angst Š, Cajthaml T, Angst G et al (2017) Retention of dead standing plant biomass (marcescence) increases subsequent litter decomposition in the soil organic layer. Plant Soil 418:571–579. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldrian P (2014) Distribution of extracellular enzymes in soils: spatial heterogeneity and determining factors at various scales. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:11–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandick AK, Dick RP (1999) Field management effects on soil enzyme activities. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1471–1479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beuschel R, Piepho H-P, Joergensen RG, Wachendorf C (2019) Similar spatial patterns of soil quality indicators in three poplar-based silvo-arable alley cropping systems in Germany. Biol Fertil Soils 55:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blankinship JC, Schimel JP (2018) Biotic versus abiotic controls on bioavailable soil organic carbon. Soil Syst 2:10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookes PC, Landman A, Pruden G, Jenkinson DS (1985) Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 17:837–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns RG, DeForest JL, Marxsen J et al (2013) Soil enzymes in a changing environment: current knowledge and future directions. Soil Biol Biochem 58:216–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardinael R, Chevallier T, Cambou A et al (2017) Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: a survey of six different sites in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 236:243–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cardinael R, Guenet B, Chevallier T et al (2018) High organic inputs explain shallow and deep SOC storage in a long-term agroforestry system – combining experimental and modeling approaches. Biogeosciences 15:297–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cécillon L, Barthès BG, Gomez C et al (2009) Assessment and monitoring of soil quality using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS). Eur J Soil Sci 60:770–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chander K, Goyal S, Nandal DP, Kapoor KK (1998) Soil organic matter, microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a tropical agroforestry system. Biol Fertil Soils 27:168–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatterjee N, PKR N, Chakraborty S, Nair VD (2018) Changes in soil carbon stocks across the Forest-agroforest-agriculture/pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: a meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 266:55–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Culman SW, Snapp SS, Freeman MA et al (2012) Permanganate oxidizable carbon reflects a processed soil fraction that is sensitive to management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 76:494–504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Stefano A, Jacobson MG (2018) Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agrofor Syst 92:285–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deckmyn G, Muys B, Quijano JG, Ceulemans R (2004) Carbon sequestration following afforestation of agricultural soils: comparing oak/beech forest to short-rotation poplar coppice combining a process and a carbon accounting model. Glob Chang Biol 10:1482–1491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DesRochers A, Tremblay F (2009) The effect of root and shoot pruning on early growth of hybrid poplars. For Ecol Manag 258:2062–2067. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dick RP, Breakwell DP, Turco RF (1996) Soil enzyme activities and biodiversity measurements as integrative microbiological indicators. Methods for Assessing Soil Quality, SSSA Special Publication 49:247–271. Google Scholar
  21. Du C, Zhou J (2009) Evaluation of soil fertility using infrared spectroscopy: a review. Environ Chem Lett 7:97–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fang S, Liu D, Tian Y et al (2013) Tree species composition influences enzyme activities and microbial biomass in the rhizosphere: a rhizobox approach. PLoS One 8:e61461. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Feliciano D, Ledo A, Hillier J, Nayak DR (2018) Which agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon benefits in different world regions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:117–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gavinelli E, Feller C, Larré-Larrouy MC et al (1995) A routine method to study soil organic matter by particle-size fractionation: examples for tropical soils. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 26:1749–1760. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geisseler D, Horwath WR, Joergensen RG, Ludwig B (2010) Pathways of nitrogen utilization by soil microorganisms – a review. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2058–2067. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghani A, Dexter M, Perrott KW (2003) Hot-water extractable carbon in soils: a sensitive measurement for determining impacts of fertilisation, grazing and cultivation. Soil Biol Biochem 35:1231–1243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grinand C, Barthès BG, Brunet D et al (2012) Prediction of soil organic and inorganic carbon contents at a national scale (France) using mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (MIRS). Eur J Soil Sci 63:141–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haney RL, Franzluebbers AJ, Jin VL et al (2012) Soil organic C:N vs. water-extractable organic C:N. Open J Soil Sci 02:269–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haynes RJ (2000) Labile organic matter as an indicator of organic matter quality in arable and pastoral soils in New Zealand. Soil Biol Biochem 32:211–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hinsinger P, Gobran GR, Gregory PJ, Wenzel WW (2005) Rhizosphere geometry and heterogeneity arising from root-mediated physical and chemical processes. New Phytol 168:293–303. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunt HW, Coleman DC, Ingham ER et al (1987) The detrital food web in a shortgrass prairie. Biol Fertil Soils 3:57–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Islam KR, Weil RR (2000) Soil quality indicator properties in mid-Atlantic soils as influenced by conservation management. J Soil Water Conserv 55:69–78Google Scholar
  34. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. 2nd edition. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103Google Scholar
  35. Jian S, Li J, Chen J et al (2016) Soil extracellular enzyme activities, soil carbon and nitrogen storage under nitrogen fertilization: a meta-analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 101:32–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Joergensen RG (1996) The fumigation-extraction method to estimate soil microbial biomass: calibration of the kEC value. Soil Biol Biochem 28:25–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Joly D, Brossard T, Cardot H et al (2010) Les types de climats en France, une construction spatiale. Cybergeo Eur J Geogr.
  38. Jones DL (1998) Organic acids in the rhizosphere – a critical review. Plant Soil 205:25–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klose S, Moore JM, Tabatabai MA (1999) Arylsulfatase activity of microbial biomass in soils as affected by cropping systems. Biol Fertil Soils 29:46–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ladd JN, Butler JHA (1972) Short-term assays of soil proteolytic enzyme activities using proteins and dipeptide derivatives as substrates. Soil Biol Biochem 4:19–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee K-H, Jose S (2003) Soil respiration and microbial biomass in a pecan — cotton alley cropping system in southern USA. Agrofor Syst 58:45–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528:60–68. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Manzoni S, Jackson RB, Trofymow JA, Porporato A (2008) The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science 321:684–686. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Mao R, Zeng D-H (2013) Effect of land-use change from cropland to poplar-based agroforestry on soil properties in a semiarid region of Northeast China. Fresenius Environ Bull 22:1077–1084Google Scholar
  45. Mao R, Zeng D-H, Li L-J, Hu Y-L (2012) Changes in labile soil organic matter fractions following land use change from monocropping to poplar-based agroforestry systems in a semiarid region of Northeast China. Environ Monit Assess 184:6845–6853. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Marquez CO, Cambardella CA, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (1998) Assessing soil quality in a riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:133–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marx M-C, Wood M, Jarvis SC (2001) A microplate fluorimetric assay for the study of enzyme diversity in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1633–1640. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mooshammer M, Wanek W, Hämmerle I et al (2014) Adjustment of microbial nitrogen use efficiency to carbon:nitrogen imbalances regulates soil nitrogen cycling. Nat Commun 5:3694. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Mungai NW, Motavalli PP, Kremer RJ, Nelson KA (2005) Spatial variation of soil enzyme activities and microbial functional diversity in temperate alley cropping systems. Biol Fertil Soils 42:129–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:695–700PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nanni MR, Demattê JAM (2006) Spectral reflectance methodology in comparison to traditional soil analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:393–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ndiaye EL, Sandeno JM, McGrath D, Dick RP (2000) Integrative biological indicators for detecting change in soil quality. Am J Altern Agric 15:26–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oelbermann M, Voroney RP, Thevathasan NV et al (2006) Soil carbon dynamics and residue stabilization in a Costa Rican and southern Canadian alley cropping system. Agrofor Syst 68:27–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Penman HL (1948) Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc R Soc Lond A 193:120–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Persson G (1997) Comparison of simulated water balance for willow, spruce, grass ley and barley. Hydrol Res 28:85–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. WwwR-ProjGoogle Scholar
  58. Rao MR, Nair PKR, Ong CK (1997) Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 38:3–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Romillac N (2015) Effets de l’introduction du pois dans une succession de cultures sur certaines communautés végétales et bactériennes et leurs fonctions écosystémiques associées. Thesis, Université de LorraineGoogle Scholar
  60. Savitzky A, Golay M (1964) Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Anal Chem 36:1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schimel J, Balser TC, Wallenstein M (2007) Microbial stress-response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function. Ecology 88:1386–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Huhndorf S et al (2012) Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region as a universal DNA barcode marker for Fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:6241–6246. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Serna-Chavez HM, Fierer N, van Bodegom PM (2013) Global drivers and patterns of microbial abundance in soil. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:1162–1172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shen Y, Cheng R, Xiao W et al (2018) Labile organic carbon pools and enzyme activities of Pinus massoniana plantation soil as affected by understory vegetation removal and thinning. Sci Rep 8:573. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Sinsabaugh RL, Lauber CL, Weintraub MN et al (2008) Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecol Lett 11:1252–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, Denef K (2004) A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res 79:7–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Soper FM, Sullivan BW, Nasto MK et al (2018) Remotely sensed canopy nitrogen correlates with nitrous oxide emissions in a lowland tropical rainforest. Ecology 99:2080–2089. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sparling G, Vojvodić-Vuković M, Schipper LA (1998) Hot-water-soluble C as a simple measure of labile soil organic matter: the relationship with microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 30:1469–1472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sun H, Koal P, Gerl G et al (2018) Microbial communities and residues in robinia- and poplar-based alley-cropping systems under organic and integrated management. Agrofor Syst 92:35–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tian Y, Cao F, Wang G (2013) Soil microbiological properties and enzyme activity in Ginkgo–tea agroforestry compared with monoculture. Agrofor Syst 87:1201–1210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Burgess PJ et al (2016) Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 230:150–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tsonkova P, Böhm C, Quinkenstein A, Freese D (2012) Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: a review. Agrofor Syst 85:133–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Uchida Y, Nishimura S, Akiyama H (2012) The relationship of water-soluble carbon and hot-water-soluble carbon with soil respiration in agricultural fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 156:116–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Udawatta RP, Kremer RJ, Adamson BW, Anderson SH (2008) Variations in soil aggregate stability and enzyme activities in a temperate agroforestry practice. Appl Soil Ecol 39:153–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol Biochem 19:703–707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vong P-C, Piutti S, Benizri E et al (2007) Water-soluble carbon in roots of rape and barley: impacts on labile soil organic carbon, arylsulphatase activity and Sulphur mineralization. Plant Soil 294:19–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang H, Huang Y, Huang H et al (2005) Soil properties under young Chinese fir-based agroforestry system in mid-subtropical China. Agrofor Syst 64:131–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang Y, Ji H, Wang R et al (2017) Impact of root diversity upon coupling between soil C and N accumulation and bacterial community dynamics and activity: result of a 30year rotation experiment. Geoderma 292:87–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weil RR, Islam KR, Stine MA et al (2003) Estimating active carbon for soil quality assessment: a simplified method for laboratory and field use. Am J Altern Agric 18:3–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR Protocols: a Guide to Methods and Applications 18(1):315–322Google Scholar
  81. Wolz KJ, DeLucia EH (2018) Alley cropping: global patterns of species composition and function. Agric Ecosyst Environ 252:61–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Xue R, Shen Y, Marschner P (2017) Soil water content during and after plant growth influence nutrient availability and microbial biomass. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 17:702–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhou G, Zhang J, Qiu X et al (2018) Decomposing litter and associated microbial activity responses to nitrogen deposition in two subtropical forests containing nitrogen-fixing or non-nitrogen-fixing tree species. Sci Rep 8:12934. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugues Clivot
    • 1
    Email author
  • Caroline Petitjean
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicolas Marron
    • 2
  • Erwin Dallé
    • 2
  • Julie Genestier
    • 1
  • Nicolas Blaszczyk
    • 1
  • Philippe Santenoise
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alexandre Laflotte
    • 4
  • Séverine Piutti
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de Lorraine, INRAUMR Laboratoire Agronomie et EnvironnementColmarFrance
  2. 2.Université de Lorraine, AgroParisTech, INRAUMR SilvaNancyFrance
  3. 3.INRAUR Biogéochimie des Ecosystèmes ForestiersChampenouxFrance
  4. 4.Université de LorraineFerme expérimentale de La BouzuleChampenouxFrance

Personalised recommendations