Title: SOIL PROPERTIES OF PELLIC VERTISOLS UNDER CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FARMING FROM SOUTHERN BULGARIA
Peer-reviewed articles 17,970 +
ARTICLE METRICS


Altmetrics info

Title: SOIL PROPERTIES OF PELLIC VERTISOLS UNDER CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FARMING FROM SOUTHERN BULGARIA
SOIL PROPERTIES OF PELLIC VERTISOLS UNDER CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FARMING FROM SOUTHERN BULGARIA
Martin Nenov; Emil Dimitrov; Toma Shishkov
10.5593/sgem2022/3.1/s13.35
10.5593/sgem2022/3.1
1314-2704
978-619-7603-42-2
English
22
3.1
•    Prof. DSc. Oleksandr Trofymchuk, UKRAINE 
•    Prof. Dr. hab. oec. Baiba Rivza, LATVIA
Soils
The paper deals with statistical analyses of data on soil properties of Pellic Vertisols selected from the eastern as well western part of the Upper Thracian Lowland, in Southern Bulgaria. Based on the survey in 2019, 2020 and 2021 at conventional and organic farming the data was processed using the statistical package Statgraphics (Anova). Soil textural class was the same a light to heavy clay and the total porosity was low. Natural variability of soils was due to imposed local separateness of organic farming from conventional. None of the studied soil parameters have statistically significant difference by the depth of sampling. Mean pH(H2O) value varied per year of survey, which could be due to a different factors. Available forms of nutrients N, P and K have varied with statistically significant difference per year of survey also. Generally the mean pH(H2O) values were higher at conventional farming nearby Chirpan town. Positive trend was increasing of pH(H2O) in organic farming. The humus content was not affected by the farming system. Negative trend was decreasing of humus content over the years. The mean values on available phosphorus P2O5 and potassium K2O were higher at conventional farming; the available forms of mineral nitrogen were commensurate. The statistical processing of data showed that there was no statistically significant difference of main soil parameters in Pellic Vertisols under conventional and organic farming nearby Karnobat town.
Pellic Vertisols, soil properties, statistical analysis, organic and conventional farming.
[1] Badgley C., Moghtader J., Quintero E., Zakem E., Chappell M.J., Aviles-Vazquez K., Samulon A., Perfecto I., Organic agriculture and the global food supply, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 22/issue 2, pp 86-108, 2007.
[2] Boincean B., Dent D., Farming the Black Earth, Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, pp 226, 2019.
[3] Filcheva E., Tsadilas C., Influence of Cliniptilolite and compost on soil properties, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, USA, vol. 33/issue 3-4, pp 595- 607, 2002.
[4] Holland J.M., The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, ELSEVIER, vol. 103, pp 1-25, 2004.
[5] IUSS WORKING GROUP, World Reference Base for Soil Resources, International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps, update 2015, World Soil Resources Reports 106, FAO, Rome, Italy, pp 192, 2015.
[6] Jones D.L., Cross P., Withers P.J.A., DeLuca T.H., Robinson D.A., Quilliam R.S., Harris I.M., Chadwick D.R., Edwards-Jones G., Nutrient stripping: the global disparity between food security and soil nutrient stocks, Journal of Applied Ecology, British Ecological Society, vol. 50/issue 4, pp 851-862, 2013.
[7] Kachinsky N.A., Mechanical and micro-aggregate composition of soil, Methods for its study, Publ. house of Science Academy of USSS, Moscow, Russia, pp 192, 1958.
[8] Lal R., Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security, Science, USA, vol. 304/issue 5677, pp 1623-1627, 2004.
[9] Montgomery D.R., Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol. 104/issue 33, pp 13268-13272, 2004.
[10] Montgomery Douglas C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, Tenth edition, Arizona State University, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp 724, 2013.
[11] Robertson G.P., Swinton S.M., Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Ecological Society of America, vol. 3/issue 1, pp 38-46, 2005.
[12] Seufert V., Ramankutty N., Foley J.A., Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture, Nature, England, vol. 485, pp 229-232, 2012.
[13] Soil Survey Staff, Soil Survey Laboratory Information Manual, Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 45, Version 2.0. R. Burt (ed.), USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USA, pp 506, 2011.
[14] Swaminathan M.S., An evergreen revolution, Crop Sciences, Crop Science Society of America, vol. 46/issue 5,pp 2293, 2006.
[15] Yolevski, M., Ninov, N., Krastanov, S., et al., Brief diagnostic and criterion of the main taxonomic soil divisions in Bulgaria, Precise Classification Scheme, Institute of Soil Science Nikola Poushkarov, Sofia, 1983.
This work was supported by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science under the National Research Programme "Healthy Foods for a Strong Bio-Economy and Quality of Life" approved by DCM No 577 / 17.08.2018.
conference
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2022/3.1/s13.35
Download PDF
Proceedings of 22nd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2022
22nd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2022, 04 - 10 July, 2022
Proceedings Paper
STEF92 Technology
International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM
SWS Scholarly Society; Acad Sci Czech Republ; Latvian Acad Sci; Polish Acad Sci; Serbian Acad Sci and Arts; Natl Acad Sci Ukraine; Natl Acad Sci Armenia; Sci Council Japan; European Acad Sci, Arts and Letters; Acad Fine Arts Zagreb Croatia; Croatian Acad Sci and Arts; Acad Sci Moldova; Montenegrin Acad Sci and Arts; Georgian Acad Sci; Acad Fine Arts and Design Bratislava; Turkish Acad Sci.
283-290
04 - 10 July, 2022
website
8554