Enzymatic Activity and Certain Chemical Properties of Grey-Brown Podzolic Soil (Haplic Luvisol) Amended with Compost of Tobacco Wastes

Open access


The paper addresses the effect of a compost prepared from tobacco wastes with an admixture of bark and straw on the enzymatic activity and certain chemical properties of a grey-brown podzolic soil amended with that compost.

The study was conducted under the conditions of a pot experiment in which the soil material was collected from the surface horizon of the grey-brown podzolic soil. The effect of the application of the compost was compared with soil without such amendment. The test plant was maize cv. Kosmo 230. Fertilisation of the light soil with the compost studied caused changes in the enzymatic activity of the soil that were related both to the dose of the compost and to the kind of enzyme studied. With increase in the dose of the compost there was an increase in dehydrogenase activity (highest dose) and a significant decrease in the activity of acid phosphatase. Moreover, it was observed that tobacco compost was a significant source that enriched the light soil in organic matter, total nitrogen, and available forms of phosphorus, magnesium and potassium, which was evident in increased yields of maize grown as the test plant.

Significant correlations were also demonstrated between a majority of the biochemical and chemical parameters, which indicates that those parameters characterise well the biological properties of a grey-brown podzolic soil amended with tobacco compost.

[1] Albiach, R., Canet, R., Pomares, F. & Ingelmo, F. (2000). Microbial biomass content and enzymatic activities after the application of organic amendments to horticultural soil, Bioresource Technology, 75, 43–48.

[2] Aon, M.A. & Colaneri, A.C. (2001). Temporal and spatial evolution of enzymatic activities and physico-chemical properties in an agricultural soil, Applied Soil Ecology, 18, 255–270.

[3] Boulter, J.I., Boland, G.J. & Trevors, J.T. (2000). Compost: A study of the development process and end-product potential for suppression of turfgrass disease, World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 16, 115–134.

[4] Chazijew, F.Ch. (1982). Systemno ekołogiczeskij analiz fermentatiwnoj aktiwnosti poczw, Nauka, Moskwa 1982.

[5] Council of Ministers Resolution No. 233 of 29th December, 2006, on the “National plan for wastes management 2010”.

[6] Dick, W.A., Cheng, L. & Wang, P. (2000). Soil acid and alkaline phosphatase activity as pH adjustment indicators, Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 32, 1915–1919.

[7] Dick, W.A. & Tabatabai, M.A. (1984). Kinetic parameters of phosphatases in soil and organic waste materials, Soil Science, 173, 7–15.

[8] Garcia-Gil, J.C., Plaza, C., Soler-Rovira, P. & Polo, A. (2000). Long-term effects of municipal solid waste compost application on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass, Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 32, 1907–1913.

[9] Egner, H., Riehm, H. & Domingo, W.R. (1960). Untersuchungen über die chemische Bodenanalyse als Grundlage für die Beurteilung des Nährstoffzustandes der Bőden: II. Chemische Extraktionsmethoden zur Phosphor-und Kalium bestimmung. Kungl, Lantbrukshögskolans annaler, 26, 46–61.

[10] European Parliament Resolution of 6th July 2010: Concerning the Green Bok of the Commission on biowastes management in the European Union (2009/2153 (INI)).

[11] Furczak, J., Szember, A. & Bielińska, J. (1991). Enzymatic activity of littoral zone Piaseczno and Głębokie lakes (Łęczna-Włodawa Lake District) with variant tropic level. Studia Ośr. Dok. Fizjogr. PAN, 19, 307–325.

[12] Hoitink, H.A.J., Inbar, Y. & Boehm, M.J. (1991). Status of compost-amended potting mixes naturally suppressive to soilborne diseases of fl oricultural crops, American Phytopathological Society, Plant Disease, 75, 869–873.

[13] Joniec, J., Furczak, J. & Baran, S. (2012). The importance of sludge microorganisms in nitrogen transformations in podzolic soil amended with sewage sludge, Archives of Environmental Protection, 38, 1, 35–47.

[14] Korniłłowicz-Kowalska, T., Szwed, A. & Gostkowska, K. (1999). Soil fungi of tobacco waste and compost of the waste. Acta Mycol., 34, 105–114.

[15] Koper, J. & Lemanowicz, J. (2006). Changes in selected biochemical and chemical properties of a brown podzolic soil as affected by long-term fertilization with manure and nitrogen, Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych, 512, 363–368.

[16] Marzadori, C., Miletti, S., Gessa, C. & Ciurli, S. (1998). Immobilization of Jack Bean urease on hydroxyapatite: urease immobilization in alkaline soils, Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 30, 1485–1490.

[17] Matocha Ch.J., Haszler, G.R. & Grove, J.H. (2004). Nitrogen fertilization suppresses soil phenol oxidase enzyme activity in no-tillage systems, Soil Science, 169/10, 708–714.

[18] Miller, F.C. (1993). Composting as a process based on the control of ecologically, [in:] Soil microbial ecology: applications in agricultural and environmental management, F.B. Metting Jr. (Ed.), 515–545, Dekker, New York 1993.

[19] Mocek, A., Owczarzak, W. & Czekała, J. (2000). Effect of the addition of tobacco waste on changes in physical soil properties in model conditions of moisture and compaction, Folia Universitatis Agriculturae Stetinensis, Agricultura, 211, 84, 323–328.

[20] Moreno, J.L., Hernandez, T. & Garcia, C. (1999). Effects of a cadmium-contaminated sewage sludge compost on dynamics of organic master and microbial activity in an arid soil, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 28, 230–237.

[21] Olander, L.P. & Vitousek, P.M. (2000). Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability, Biochemistry, 49, 175–190.

[22] Parham, J.A., Deng, S.P., Raum, W.R. & Johnson, G.V. (2002). Long-term cattle manure application in soil, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35, 5, 328–337.

[23] Perucci P. (1992). Enzyme activity and microbial biomass in a field soil amended with municipal refuse, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 14, 54–60.

[24] Sarapatka, B. & Krskova, M. (1997). Interactions between phosphatase activity and soil characteristics from some locations in the Czech Republic, Rostlinna Vyroba, 43, 415–419.

[25] Serra-Wittling, C., Houot, S. & Barriuso, E (1995). Soil enzymatic response to addition of municipal solid-waste compost, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 20, 226–236.

[26] Schneider, K., Turrion, M.B., Grierson, P.F. & Gallardo, J.F. (2001). Phosphatase activity, microbial phosphorus, and fine root growth in forest soils in the Sierra de Gata, western central Spain, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 34, 151–155.

[27] Starzyk, J., Jakubas, M., Swędrzyńska, D. (2013). Assessment of the impact of enriching additives in composted pine bark on the number of bacteria and fungi and their enzymatic activity, Annual Set the Environment Protection (Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska), 15, 3, 2683–2696.

[28] Tabatabai, M.A. & Bremner, J.M. (1969). Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity, Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 1, 301–307.

[29] Tejada, M., Gonzales, J.L., Garcia-Martinez, A.M. & Parrado, J. (2008). Effects of different green manures on soil biological properties and maize yield, Bioresource Technology, 99, 6, 1758–1767.

[30] Thalmann A. (2008). Zur Methodik der Bestimmung der Dehydrogenaseactivität im Boden Mittels Triphenyltetrazoliumchlorid (TTC), Landwirtschaftliche Forschung, 21, 249–258.

[31] Verdonck, O., De Boodt, M., Stradiot, P. & Penninck, R. (1985). The use of tree bark and tobacco waste in agriculture and horticulture. [in:] Composting of agricultural and other wastes. J.K.R. Gasser (ed.) Elsevier Appl. Sci. Publ., 203–213, London 1985.

[32] Zantua, M.J., Bremner, J.M. (1975). Comparison of methods of assaying urease activity in soils, Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 7, 291–295.

[33] Zahir, Z.A., Ateeq ur Rehman Malik, M. & Arshad, M. (2001). Soil Enzymes Research: A Review, Journal of Biological Sciences, 1,5, 299–307.

Archives of Environmental Protection

The Journal of Institute of Environmental Engineering and Committee of Environmental Engineering of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.708
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.835

CiteScore 2017: 1.01

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.371
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.737

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 194 160 16
PDF Downloads 56 50 5