Advertisement

Sugar Tech

pp 1–6 | Cite as

Changes in the Microbial Metabolism of Agricultural Tropical Soils Amended with Sugarcane Vinasses

  • Paulo Roger Lopes AlvesEmail author
  • German Andres Estrada-Bonilla
  • Daniel Bini
  • Elke Jurandy Bran Nogueira Cardoso
Short Communication
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Sugarcane vinasse is a liquid waste derived from ethanol production. In Brazil, large amounts of this waste are applied to soil as fertigation. In general, this management seems to be beneficial for soil fertility and for some biological parameters, though the published information about the effects of sugarcane vinasse on the soil biota is controversial and the results may vary according to the vinasses’ composition. In this study, we assessed the effects of different sugarcane vinasses on microbial growth and activity indicators to verify their influence on soil microbial metabolism. For this purpose, we used two vinasses from different distillery plants (VA and VB) and a vinasse from a laboratory production (VC). Increasing concentrations of these vinasses were amended on two tropical Oxisols, with 33.6% (RL) and 17.6% (RYL) of clay, in a microcosm experiment with sugarcane plants. Ten, 30 and 60 days after application, we assessed the effects of the vinasses on soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC), basal soil respiration (C–CO2), the metabolic quotient (qCO2) and dehydrogenase activity of the soils. We found an increase in MBC, C–CO2, qCO2, as well as in dehydrogenase activity with increasing vinasse concentrations in both soils, when compared to the control. These changes were attributed mainly to the addition of carbon sources (C) of the vinasses to the soils, which improves the general biological activity.

Keywords

Microbial activity Fertigation Waste management Dehydrogenase 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) for a research grant.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12355_2019_701_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (846 kb)
Supplementary material 1. pH and moisture of the two Oxisols (Red Latosol, RL; Red-Yellow Latosol, RYL), after 10, 30 and 60 days of exposure to increasing concentrations of the vinasses VA, VB and VC in the microcosm experiment. Values are expressed in mean ± standard deviation; n = 4. Asterisks (*) indicate a significant increase in the treatment when compared to its respective control soil, within each sampling time (Dunnett’s test, p ≤ 0.05). (JPEG 845 kb)

References

  1. Aleixo, A.P., K. Kaschuk, and O. Alberton. 2014. Soil fungal and bacterial biomass determined by epifluorescence microscopy and mycorrhizal spore density in different sugarcane managements. Ciência Rural 44: 588–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez-Martín, A., S.L. Hilton, G.D. Bending, M.S. Rodríguez-Cruz, and M.J. Sánchez-Martín. 2016. Changes in activity and structure of the soil microbial community after application of azoxystrobin or pirimicarb and an organic amendment to an agricultural soil. Applied Soil Ecology 106: 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves, P.R.L., T. Natal-Da-Luz, J.P. Sousa, and E.J.B.N. Cardoso. 2015. Ecotoxicological characterization of sugarcane vinasses when applied to tropical soils. Science of the Total Environment 526: 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, T.H., and K.H. Domsch. 1993. The metabolic quotient form CO2 (qCO2) as a specific activity parameter to assess the effects of environmental conditions, such as pH, on the microbial biomass of forest soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 25: 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, T.H., and K.H. Domsch. 1985. Determination of ecophysiological maintenance carbon requirements of soil microorganisms in a dormant state. Biology and Fertility of Soils 1: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aparicio, J.D., C.S. Benimeli, C.A. Almeida, M.A. Polti, and V.L. Colin. 2017. Integral use of sugarcane vinasse for biomass production of actinobacteria: Potential application in soil remediation. Chemosphere 181: 478–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bini, D., C.A. Santos, L.P.T. Bernal, G. Andrade, and M.A. Nogueira. 2014. Identifying indicators of C and N cycling in a clayey Ultisol under different tillage and uses in winter. Applied Soil Ecology 76: 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardoso, E.J.B.N., R.L.F. Vasconcellos, D. Bini, M.Y.H. Miyauchi, C.A. Santos, P.R.L. Alves, A.M. Paula, A.S. Nakatani, J.M. Pereira, and M.A. Nogueira. 2013. Soil health: looking for suitable indicators. What should be considered to assess the effects of use and management on soil health? Scientia Agricola 70: 280–295.Google Scholar
  9. Casida, J.R.L.E., D.A. Klein, and T. Santoro. 1964. Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Science 98: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CETESB—Companhia De Tecnologia De Saneamento Ambiental. 2006. Norma técnica P4.231: Vinhaça: critérios e procedimentos para aplicação no solo agrícola. http://cetesb.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2014/12/DD-045-2015-C.pdf. Accessed 21 Jun 2018.
  11. Christofoletti, C.A., J.P. Escher, J.E. Correia, J.F.U. Marinho, and C.S. Fontanetti. 2013. Sugarcane vinasse: Environmental implications of its use. Waste Management 33: 2752–2761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Compart, D.M.P., A.M. Carlson, G.I. Crawford, R.C. Fink, F. Diez-Gonzalez, A. Dicostanzo, and G.C. Shurson. 2013. Presence and biological activity of antibiotics used in fuel ethanol and corn co-product production. Journal of Animal Science 91: 2395–2404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CONAMA—Conselho Nacional Do Meio Ambiente. 2009. Resolução n° 420 de 28 dez 2009. Diário Oficial da União 249: 81–84.Google Scholar
  14. Durrer, A., T. Gumiere, R.G. Taketani, D.P. Costa, M.C.P. Silva, and F.D. Andreote. 2017. The drivers underlying biogeographical patterns of bacterial communities in soils under sugarcane cultivation. Applied Soil Ecology 110: 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez, S.P.M., J.C.M. Flores, C.R.B. Correa, and R.M. Molina. 2009. Influence of the vinasse application on activity and microbial biomass in an Entic dystropept and a fluventic haplustoll soil of Cauca Valley, Colombia. Acta Agronómica 58: 41–45.Google Scholar
  16. Kapanen, A., and M. Itävaara. 2001. Ecotoxicity tests for compost applications. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 49: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiehl, E.J. 1985. Fertilizantes orgânicos. Piracicaba: Agronômica Ceres.Google Scholar
  18. Laime, E.M., P.D.O. Fernandes, and D.C.D. Souza. 2011. Possibilidades tecnológicas para a destinação da vinhaça: Uma revisão. Revista Trópica: Ciências Agrárias e Biológicas 5: 16–29.Google Scholar
  19. Niemeyer, J.C., G.B. Lolata, G.M. Carvalho, E.M. Da Silva, J.P. Sousa, and M.A. Nogueira. 2012. Microbial indicators of soil health as tools for ecological risk assessment of a metal contaminated site in Brazil. Applied Soil Ecology 59: 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliveira, B.G., J.L.N. Carvalho, C.E.P. Cerri, C.C. Cerri, and B.J. Feigl. 2013. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes from vinasse application in Brazilian sugarcane areas. Geoderma 200–201: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oliveira, B.G., J.L.N. Carvalho, M.F. Chagas, C.E.P. Cerri, C.C. Cerri, and B.J. Feigl. 2017. Methane emissions from sugarcane vinasse storage and transportation systems: Comparison between open channels and tanks. Atmospheric Environment 159: 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pazuch, F.A., C.E.C. Nogueira, S.N.M. Souza, V.C. Micuanski, L. Friedrich, and A.M. Lenz. 2017. Economic evaluation of the replacement of sugar cane bagasse by vinasse, as a source of energy in a power plant in the state of Paraná, Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76: 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pramanik, P., and Y.R. Chung. 2011. Changes in fungal population of fly ash and vinasse mixture during vermicomposting by Eudrilus eugeniae and Eisenia fetida: documentation of cellulase isozymes in vermicompost. Waste Management 31: 1169–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quadros, P.D., K. Zhalnina, A.G. Davis-Richardson, J.C. Drew, F.B. Menezes, F.A.O. Camargo, and E.W. Triplett. 2016. Coal mining practices reduce the microbial biomass, richness and diversity of soil. Applied Soil Ecology 98: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rietz, D.N., and R.J. Haynes. 2003. Effects of irrigation-induced salinity and sodicity on soil microbial activity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 35: 845–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th ed. Washington: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.Google Scholar
  27. Tótola, M.R., and G.M. Chaer. 2002. Microrganismos e processos microbiológicos como indicadores da qualidade dos solos. In Tópicos em ciência do solo, ed. V.H. Alvarez, C.E.G.R. Schaefer, N.F. Barros, J.W.V. Mello, and L.M. Costa. Viçosa: Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo.Google Scholar
  28. Wardle, J.C., and A. Ghani. 1995. A critique of the microbial metabolic quotient (qCO2) as a bioindicator of disturbance and ecosystem development. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 27: 1601–2161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang, S.-D., J.-X. Liu, J. Wu, H.-W. Tan, and Y.-R. Li. 2013. Effects of vinasse and press mud application on the biological properties of soils and productivity of sugarcane. Sugar Tech 15: 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of Fronteira Sul (UFFS)ChapecóBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ)University of São Paulo (USP)PiracicabaBrazil
  3. 3.Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research (AGROSAVIA)CundinamarcaColombia
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste (UNICENTRO)GuarapuavaBrazil

Personalised recommendations