Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-8lphq Total loading time: 0.456 Render date: 2022-07-01T17:40:15.428Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Soil quality improvement under an ecologically based farming system in northwest Missouri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2012

Robert J. Kremer*
USDA-ARS-Cropping Systems and Water Quality Unit, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Linda F. Hezel
Prairie Birthday Farm, Kearney, MO 64060, USA.
*Corresponding author:


Ecologically based farming conserves and improves the soil resource and protects environmental quality by using organic or natural resources without the application of synthetic chemicals. Soil quality assessment indicates the ability of management systems to optimize soil productivity and to maintain its structural and biological integrity. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of ecologically based management on biochemical characteristics of soil [soil quality indicators (SQI)] as an assessment of soil quality. The study was conducted on an ecologically based farming enterprise established on gently sloping soils of Sharpsburg silt loam (fine montmorillonitic, mesic Typic Argiudolls) in Clay County, Missouri, which was previously under conventional corn and soybean production. The transition to organic farming began in 1995, which included a primary management strategy to restore soil organic matter consisting of the establishment of native prairie plants and the application of composted vegetative residues and litter from horse and laying hen operations. Soils were collected at 0–10cm depths from sites under organic production (orchard and vegetable), managed prairie/pasture and from adjacent unmanaged fields during 2003–2008 for soil quality assessment. Soil organic carbon (SOC) and water-stable soil aggregates were considerably increased by up to 60 and 72%, respectively, in organic production sites compared with tilled cropland by the fifth year of assessment. Organically managed systems and restored prairie sites significantly increased (P<0.05) soil enzyme activities compared with unmanaged grass and tilled cropland. For example, dehydrogenase and glucosaminidase activities increased by 60 and 73%, respectively, under organic vegetables compared with tilled cropland. Soil enzyme activities were significantly correlated with SOC content (r values up to 0.90, P<0.001). The results of the soil quality assessment suggest that ecologically based management successfully restored biological activity of silt loam soils previously under intensive conventional agriculture. The system practiced at the study sites illustrates how resources internal to the farm (i.e., composts) can be used to manage soil productivity.

Research Papers
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1Deming, S.R., Johnson, L., Lehnert, D., Mutch, D.R., Probyn, L., Renner, K., Smeenk, J., Thalmann, S., and Worthington, L. 2007. Building a Sustainable Future: Ecologically Based Farming Systems. Extension Bulletin E-2983. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
2Vandermeer, J.H. 2011. The Ecology of Agroecosystems. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA. p. 387.Google Scholar
3Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., and Vitousek, P.M. 1997. Ecosystem services supplied by soil. In Daily, G.C. (ed.). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. p. 113132.Google Scholar
4Stockdale, E.A., Lampkin, N.H., Hovi, M., Keating, R., Lennartsson, E.K.M., Macdonald, D.W., Padel, S., Tattersall, F.H., Wolfe, M.S., and Watson, C.A. 2001. Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems. Advances in Agronomy 70:261327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Liebig, M.A. and Doran, J.W. 1999. Impact of organic production practices on soil quality indicators. Journal of Environmental Quality 28:16011609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93:124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L., and Cambardella, C.A. 2004. The soil management assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68:19451962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Doran, J.W. and Zeiss, M.R. 2000. Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology 15:311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9van Bruggen, A.H.C. and Semenov, A.M. 2000. In search of biological indicators for soil health and disease suppression. Applied Soil Ecology 15:1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Karlen, D.L., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J.W., Cline, R.G., Harris, R.F., and Schuman, G.E. 1997. Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61:410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Stott, D.E., Andrews, S.S., Liebig, M.A., Wienhold, B.J., and Karlen, D.L. 2010. Evaluation of β-glucosidase activity as a soil quality indicator for the soil management assessment framework. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:107119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Dick, R.P., Breakwell, D.P., and Turco, R.F. 1996. Soil enzyme activities and biodiversity measurements as integrative microbiological indicators. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods of Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 49, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 247271.Google Scholar
13Delate, K. 2002. Using an agroecological approach to farming systems research. HortTechnology 12:345354.Google Scholar
14Drinkwater, L.E., Letourneau, D.K., Worken, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., and Shennan, C. 1995. Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecological Applications 5:10981112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Scow, K.M., Somasco, O., Gunapala, N., Lau, S., Venette, R., Ferris, H., Miller, R., and Shennan, C. 1994. Transition from conventional to low-input agriculture changes soil fertility and biology. California Agriculture 48(5):2026.Google Scholar
16Melero, S., Madejon, E., Herencia, J.F., and Ruiz, J.C. 2008. Effect of implementing organic farming on chemical and biochemical properties of an irrigated loam soil. Agronomy Journal 100:136144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Wander, M.M., Hedrick, D.S., Kaufman, D., Traina, S.J., Stinner, B.R., Kehrmeyer, S.R., and White, D.C. 1995. The functional significance of the microbial biomass in organic and conventionally managed soils. Plant and Soil 170:8797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Mäder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., and Niggli, U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:16941697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Arshad, M.A. and Martin, S. 2002. Identifying critical limits for soil quality indicators in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88:153160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Acosta-Martinez, V., Zobeck, T.M., Gill, T.E., and Kennedy, A.C. 2003. Enzyme activities and microbial community structure in semiarid agricultural soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils 38:216227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Pritchett, K., Kennedy, A.C., and Cogger, C.G. 2011. Management effects on soil quality in organic vegetable systems in western Washington. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75:605615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Hezel, L.F. and Kremer, R.J. 2008. Healing and building soil on Prairie Birthday Farm. Missouri Prairie Journal 29(3):1420.Google Scholar
23Nelson, P.W. 2005. The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. p. 550.Google Scholar
24Preston, G.D. 1986. Soil Survey of Clay and Ray Counties, Missouri. USDA Soil Conservation Service, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
25Hoeft, R.G., Nafzinger, E.D., Johnson, R.R., and Aldrich, S.R. 2000. Modern Corn and Soybean Production. MCSP Publications, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
26Nelson, D.W. and Sommers, L.E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Sparks, D.L. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 3: Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 9611010.Google Scholar
27Kemper, W.D. and Rosenau, R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In Klute, A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 1: Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 425442.Google Scholar
28Angers, D.A. and Mehuys, G.R. 1993. Aggregate stability to water. In Carter, M.R. (ed.). Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. p. 651657.Google Scholar
29Tabatabai, M.A. 1994. Soil enzymes. In Weaver, R.W. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis – Part 2: Biological and Biochemical Properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 777823.Google Scholar
30Parham, J.A. and Deng, S.P. 2000. Detection, quantification and characterization of glucosaminidase activity in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 32:11831190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Schnürer, J. and Roswall, T. 1982. Fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis as a measure of total microbial activity in soil and litter. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 43:12561261.Google ScholarPubMed
32Green, V.S., Stott, D.E., and Diack, M. 2006. Assay for fluorescent diacetate hydrolytic activity: optimization for soil samples. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38:693701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Dick, R.P. 1997. Soil enzyme activities as integrative indicators of soil health. In Pankhurst, C.E., Doube, B.M., and Gupta, V.V.S.R. (eds). Biological Indicators of Soil Health. CAB International, Oxford, UK. p. 121156.Google Scholar
34Acosta-Martinez, V., Zobeck, T.M., and Allen, V.G. 2010. Soil microbial communities and function in alternative systems to continuous cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:11811192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Wolf, B. and Snyder, G.H. 2003. Sustainable Soils: The Place of Organic Matter in Sustaining Soils and Their Productivity. Food Products Press, Binghamton, NY. p. 352.Google Scholar
36Heckman, J.R., Weil, R. and Magdoff, F. 2009. Practical steps to soil fertility for organic agriculture. In Francis, C. (ed.). Ecology in Organic Farming Systems. Agronomy Monograph 54, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 139172.Google Scholar
37Dick, W.A. and Tabatabai, M.A. 1992. Significant and potential uses of soil enzymes. In Metting, F.B. Jr (ed.). Soil Microbial Ecology: Applications in Agricultural and Environmental Management. Marcel-Dekker, New York, p. 95127.Google Scholar
38Acea, M.J. and Carballa, T. 1996. Microbial response to organic amendments in a forest soil. Bioresource Technology 57:193199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Teasdale, J.R., Coffman, C.B., and Mangum, R.W. 2007. Potential long-term benefits of no-tillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement. Agronomy Journal 99:12971305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Kremer, R.J. and Li, J. 2003. Developing weed-suppressive soils through improved soil quality management. Soil & Tillage Research 72:193202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Jastrow, J.D. and Miller, R.M. 1998. Soil aggregate stability and carbon sequestration: feedbacks through organomineral associations. In Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., Follett, R.F., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 207223.Google Scholar
42Dick, R.P. 1992. A review: long-term effects of agricultural systems on soil biochemical and microbial parameters. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 40:2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Singer, J.W., Franzluebbers, A.F., and Karlen, D.L. 2009. Grass-based farming systems: soil conservation and environmental quality. In Wedin, W.F. and Fales, S.L. (eds). Grassland: Quietness and Strength for a New American Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 121136.Google Scholar
44Bandick, A.K. and Dick, R.P. 1999. Field management effects on soil enzyme activities. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 31:14711479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Reeve, J.R., Schadt, C.W., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Sanghoon, K., Zhou, J., and Reganold, J.P. 2010. Effects of soil type and farm management on soil ecological functional genes and microbial activities. ISME Journal 4:10991107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Acosta-Martinez, V., Cruz, L., Sotomayor-Ramirez, D., and Perez-Alegria, L. 2007. Enzyme activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed. Applied Soil Eology 35:3545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Ekenler, M. and Tabatabai, M.A. 2003. Tillage and residue management effects on β-glucosaminidase activity in soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35:871874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Udawatta, R.P., Kremer, R.J., Garrett, H.E., and Anderson, S.H. 2009. Soil enzyme activities and physical properties in a watershed managed under agroforestry and row-crop systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:98104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Fernandesa, M.F., Barretoa, A.C., Mendesb, I.C., and Dick, R.P. 2011. Short-term response of physical and chemical aspects of soil quality of a kaolinitic Kandiudalfs to agricultural practices and its association with microbiological variables. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 142:419427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Jordan, D., Kremer, R.J., Bergfield, W.A., Kim, K.Y., and Cacnio, V.N. 1995. Evaluation of microbial methods as potential indicators of soil quality in historical agricultural fields. Biology and Fertility of Soils 19:297302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Reganold, J.P., Andrews, P.K., Reeve, J.R., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Schadt, C.W., Alldredge, J.R., Ross, C.F., Davies, N.M., and Zhou, J. 2011. Fruit and soil quality of organic and conventional strawberry agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 5(9):e12346. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Soil quality improvement under an ecologically based farming system in northwest Missouri
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Soil quality improvement under an ecologically based farming system in northwest Missouri
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Soil quality improvement under an ecologically based farming system in northwest Missouri
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *