Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 2995–3004 | Cite as

Ranking of wetting–drying, plant, and fauna factors involved in the structure dynamics of a young constructed Technosol

  • Nouhou Salifou Jangorzo
  • Françoise Watteau
  • Christophe Schwartz
Soils, Sec 5 • Soil and Landscape Ecology • Research Article
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Dynamical in situ observation of biological and climatic structuring factors involved in pedogenesis has not previously been possible in a way that would consider the early stages of pedogenesis. If studies have explored the effect of pedogenetic factors on soil structure, none have succeeded in ranking them in view of the intensity of their effects. We propose a novel approach for describing the aggregation process for a constructed Technosol obtained from a process of pedological engineering.

Materials and methods

We focus on agents including plants, macrofauna, and water, and we use (i) a dynamic in situ observation and (ii) the quantification of the evolution of selected descriptors of pores and aggregates. They are quantified from high-resolution images obtained with the Soilinsight® device. Associating those images with each other, movies of interactions between soil and organisms over a 14-month non-destructive soil evolution experiment are made.

Results and discussion

Agents influencing aggregation—plant roots, earthworms, and water—can be ranked according to their impact on soil structure. During the studied period of evolution, wetting–drying cycles are the first to operate. The intensity of their action on soil structure is dominant at the very first stages of pedogenesis. Despite this ranking of agents, over the long term, plants and earthworms have a more intense effect on soil structure than wetting–drying cycles.

Conclusions

The method applied to observe and quantify soil structure dynamics is thus proposed as a helpful approach to modeling other processes involved in soil functioning and evolution in relation to their ability to fulfill ecosystem services.

Keywords

Drilosphere Image analysis Pedological engineering Rhizosphere Soil function Soil structure modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MENESR). The authors gratefully acknowledge Laboratoire Sols et Environnement technical staff, Alain Rakoto and Stéphane Colin, for their assistance in the realization of the Soilinsight® device. The authors also acknowledge “Films d’ICI” society for the movie production.

Supplementary material

11368_2018_1968_MOESM1_ESM.mov (47.5 mb)
ESM 1 (MOV 48663 kb)

References

  1. Amezketa E (1999) Soil aggregate stability: a review. J Sustai Agr 14(2–3):83–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriuzzi WS, Bolger T, Schmidt O (2013) The drilosphere concept: fine-scale incorporation of surface residue-derived N and C around natural Lumbricus terrestris burrows. Soil Biol Biochem 64:136–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angers DA, Caron J (1998) Plant-induced changes in soil structure: processes and feedbacks. Biogeochem 42:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attou F, Bruand A (1998) Experimental study of “fragipans” formation in soils. Role of both clay dispersion and wetting-drying cycles. C R Acad Sci Ser IIA Earth Planet Sci 326:545–552Google Scholar
  5. Baize D (2000) Guide des analyses en pédologie: choix, expression, présentation, interprétation. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell CW, Asao S, Calderon F, Wolk B, Wallenstein MD (2015) Plant nitrogen uptake drives rhizosphere bacterial community assembly during plant growth. Soil Biol Biochem 85:170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bottinelli N, Henry-des-Tureaux T, Hallaire V, Mathieu J, Benard Y, Duc Tran T, Jouquet P (2010) Earthworms accelerate soil porosity turnover under watering conditions. Geoderma 156:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouché M (1975) Action de la faune sur les états de la matière organique dans les ecosystèmes. In: Kilbertus G, Reisinger O, Mourey A, Cancela da Fonseca JS (eds) Biodégradation et Humification. Pierron, Sarreguemines, France, pp 157–168Google Scholar
  9. Brown GG, Barois I, Lavelle P (2000) Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activity in the drilosphere and the role of interactions with other edaphic functional domains. Eur J Soil Biol 36:177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruand A, Cousin I, Nicoullaud B, Duval O, Bégon JC (1996) Backscattered electron scanning images of soil porosity for analyzing soil compaction around roots. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:895–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caro G, Abourachid A, Decaëns T, Buono L, Mathieu J (2012) Is earthworms’ dispersal facilitated by the ecosystem engineering activities of conspecifics? Biol Fertil Soils 48:961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deeb M, Desjardins T, Podwojewski P, Pando A, Blouin M, Lerch TZ (2017) Interactive effects of compost, plants and earthworms on the aggregations of constructed Technosols. Geoderma 305:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denef K, Six J, Bossuyt H, Frey SD, Elliott ET, Merckx R, Paustian K (2001) Influence of dry-wet cycles on the interrelationship between aggregate, particulate organic matter, and microbial community dynamics. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1599–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dexter AR (1987) Compression of soil around roots. Plant Soil 97:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ernst G, Müller A, Göhler H, Emmerling C (2008) C and N turnover of fermented residues from biogas plants in soil in the presence of three different earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea longa, Aporrectodea caliginosa). Soil Biol Biochem 40:1413–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fründ HC, Butt K, Capowiez Y, Eisenhauer N, Emmerling C, Ernst G, Potthoff M, Schädler M, Schrader S (2010) Using earthworms as model organisms in the laboratory: recommendations for experimental implementations. Pedobiologia 53:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkes CV, DeAngelis KM, Firestone MK (2007) 1 - Root interactions with soil microbial communities and processes. In: Whitbeck ZGCL.(ed) The Rhizosphere. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  18. Haynes RJ, Beare MH (1997) Influence of six crop species on aggregate stability and some labile organic matter fractions. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1647–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinsinger P, Bengough AG, Vetterlein D, Young IM (2009) Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Plant and Soil 321(1-2):117–152Google Scholar
  20. Huhta V, Wright DH, Coleman DC (1989) Characteristics of defaunated soil. I: a comparison of three techniques applied to two different forest soils Pedobiologica 33(6):417–426Google Scholar
  21. IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for soil Resources (2006) A framework for international classification, correlation and communication: 2nd edn. World Soil Resources Reports, 132, p 145Google Scholar
  22. Jangorzo NS, Watteau F, Schwartz C (2013) Evolution of the pore structure of constructed Technosols during early pedogenesis quantified by image analysis. Geoderma 207-208:180–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jangorzo NS, Schwartz C, Watteau F (2014) Image analysis of soil thin sections for a non-destructive quantification of aggregation in the early stages of pedogenesis. Eur J Soil Sci 65:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jangorzo NS, Watteau F, Hajos D, Schwartz C (2015) Nondestructive monitoring of the effect of biological activity on the pedogenesis of a Technosol. J Soils Sediments 15(8):1705–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavelle P (1988) Earthworm activities and the soil system. Biol Fertility of Soils 6:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leguédois S, Séré G, Auclerc A, Cortet J, Huot H, Ouvrard S, Watteau F, Schwartz C, Morel JL (2016) Modelling pedogenesis of Technosols. Geoderma 262:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowe CN, Butt KR (2005) Culture techniques for soil dwelling earthworms: a review. Pedobiologia 49:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathieu C, Pieltain F, Asseline J, Chossat, JC, Valentin CH (1998) Analyse physique des sols: méthodes choisies. TEC & DOC, Lassay-les-ChateauxGoogle Scholar
  29. Milleret R, Le Bayon RC, Gobat JM (2009) Root, mycorrhiza and earthworm interactions: their effects on soil structuring processes, plant and soil nutrient concentration and plant biomass. Plant Soil 316:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niewczas J, Witkowka-Walczak B (2005) The soil aggregates stability index (ASI) and its extreme values. Soil Till Res 80:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pey B (2010) Diversité et rôle fonctionnel de la faune du sol dans un sol construit en milieu industriel: contribution à la modélisation de l’évolution d’un Technosol. Thèse de Doctorat de l’INPL, Nancy, FranceGoogle Scholar
  32. Pey B, Cortet J, Capowiez Y, Nahmani J, Watteau F, Schwartz C (2014) Technosol composition affects Lumbricus terrestris surface cast composition and production. Ecol Eng 67:238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pey B, Cortet J, Watteau F, Cheynier K, Schwartz C (2013) Structure of earthworm burrows related to organic matter of a constructed Technosol. Geoderma 202–203:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Séré G, Schwartz C, Ouvrard S, Renat JC, Watteau F, Villemin G, Morel JL (2010) Early pedogenic evolution of constructed Technosols. J Soils Sediments 10:1246–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Séré G, Schwartz C, Ouvrard S, Sauvage C, Renat JC, Morel JL (2008) Soil construction: a step for ecological reclamation of derelict lands. J Soils Sediments 8:130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singer MJ (1992) Stability of synthetic sand-clay aggregates after wetting and drying cycles. In. Bronick and Lal (2005). Soil structure and management: a review. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:1843–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 Till Res 79:7–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smetak KM, Johnson-Maynard JL, Lloyd JE (2007) Earthworm population density and diversity in different-aged urban systems. Appl Soil Ecol 37:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taina IA, Heck RJ, Elliot TR (2008) Application of X-ray computed tomography to soil science: a literature review. Can J Soil Sci 88:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tisdall JM, Oades JM (1982) Organic matter and water stable-aggregates in soils. J Soil Sci 33(2):141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zangerlé A, Pando A, Lavelle P (2011) Do earthworms and roots cooperate to build soil macroaggregates? A microcosm experiment. Geoderma 167-168:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Dan Dicko DankoulodoMaradiNiger
  2. 2.Laboratoire Sols et EnvironnementUniversité de Lorraine, InraNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations