Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Soil Ecology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apsoil

Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil quality

C. Li a , J. Moore-Kucera a,∗ , J. Lee b , A. Corbin c , M. Brodhagen d , C. Miles e , D. Inglis e
a
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, United States
b
Department of Biosystems Engineering & Soil Science, University of Tennessee, United States
c
Washington State University Extension, Snohomish County Extension, United States
d
Biology Department, Western Washington University, United States
e
Department of Horticulture and Plant Pathology, respectively, Washington State University, Northwestern Washington Research & Extension Center,
United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biodegradable plastic films are desirable alternatives to traditional black polyethylene plastic for use as
Received 19 November 2013 mulches in agroecosystems. Efforts are ongoing to engineer biodegradable plastic mulches that could be
Received in revised form 16 February 2014 incorporated into the soil at the end of the crop season, and decomposed by microorganisms, ultimately
Accepted 17 February 2014
to CO2 , H2 O, and biomass. Whether changes in soil quality occur during or following biodegradation is
Available online 1 April 2014
unknown. An 18-month study evaluated the effects on soil quality following burial of four potentially
biodegradable mulches and a no mulch control in high tunnel and open field tomato production systems
Keywords:
across three geographically distinct locations (Knoxville, TN; Lubbock, TX; Mount Vernon, WA). The mulch
Biodegradable mulch
Soil quality
treatments included: two starch-based mulches (BioAgri® Ag-Film and BioTelo Agri); one experimental
Soil management assessment framework 100% polylactic acid mulch (Spunbond-PLA-10); one cellulose-based mulch (WeedGuardPlus; positive
control); and a negative control (no mulch). The soil management assessment framework (SMAF) was
used to calculate a soil quality index (SQI) according to five dynamic soil properties: microbial biomass
carbon, ␤-glucosidase, electrical conductivity, total organic carbon (TOC), and pH. Within the 18-month
evaluation period, the effects of the biodegradable mulches on the SQI were minor, and dependent upon
production system and time of incubation at all locations. In general, the SQI was higher in the high
tunnel systems for some of the mulch treatments at Knoxville and Lubbock but the opposite was true at
Mount Vernon. By the final sampling at 18 months, the SQI was lowest for WeedGuardPlus at Lubbock
and Mount Vernon but at Knoxville, the WeedGuardPlus SQI was not significantly different from the no
mulch control. Of the five SMAF indicators evaluated, soil microbial biomass and ␤-glucosidase activity
were the most responsive to mulch and production systems, supporting the use of these variables as soil
quality indicators for short-term changes due to this agricultural management practice.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction have major economic or environmental disadvantages (Kyrikou

From a crop production perspective, plastic mulches can
increase yields, extend the growing season, reduce weed pres-
sure, increase fertilizer use efficiency, conserve soil moisture, and
increase soil temperature (Lalitha et al., 2010; Lament, 1993;
Lamont, 2005; Riggle, 1998). For these reasons, polyethylene
mulches have been used in agriculture for over half a century
(Lamont, 2005). A major limitation of polyethylene mulch involves
disposal of mulch material following use. Current disposal options
as reviewed by Hayes et al. (2012) and Ren (2003) include burn-
ing, incineration, recycling, composting and using landfills; each
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 806 834 5485.
E-mail address: Jennifer.moore-kucera@ttu.edu (J. Moore-Kucera).
and Briassoulis, 2007; Lamont, 2005). Material that is not recycled
or properly disposed of can fragment, and cause environmental
degradation of land and water resources. For example, crop yields
were decreased when residual plastic film left in the soil was
58.5 kg ha−1 (Ma et al., 2008). Further, plastic fragments have been
found to adsorb toxins that persist in the environment and dis-
rupt terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Derraik, 2002; Shimao,
2001). Research advances continue to improve the degradabil-
ity of polyethylene materials (Esmaeili et al., 2013; Kasirajan and
Ngouajio, 2012), but without modification, the high molecular
weight, 3-dimensional structure and hydrophobic properties pre-
vent biodegradation from occurring (Klemchuk, 1990). Moreover,
polyethylene plastics are non-renewable petroleum-based prod-
ucts, and are produced at an annual increase of 9% (Hayes et al.,
2012), warranting the development of alternative mulch products

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.02.012
0929-1393/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
60 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69
that better align agronomic demand with long-term ecological sus-
tainability. In the U.S.A., approximately 162,000 ha are covered with
plastic mulch (Miles et al., 2012) with more than 130,000 metric
tons of agricultural plastics used for vegetable production alone
(Shogren and Hochmuth, 2004). Recently, biodegradable mulch
films have been viewed as a more sustainable ecological alterna-
tive to plastic polyethylene mulch (see review by Briassoulis and
Dejean, 2010). Biodegradable plastic mulch first was synthesized
in the mid-1970s (Albregts and Howard, 1972; Otey et al., 1974).
However, early biodegradable mulches broke down only partially
(Narayan, 2010). Although some commercially available mulches
are compostable, reliable in-soil degradation of plastic mulches has
not yet been achieved. Biodegradable mulch films theoretically can
save significant labor and disposal costs through incorporation via
soil tillage operations rather than disposal in landfills (Kasirajan
and Ngouajio, 2012). By definition by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM), biodegradable plastics are broken
down by naturally occurring microorganisms (ASTM, 2012a), and
ultimately converted to carbon dioxide and water under aerobic
conditions (Narayan, 2010). To be part of sustainable farming sys-
tems, in situ biodegradation of mulches should occur (i) within a
reasonable timeframe (within 2 years as proposed by the new ASTM
in-soil plastic biodegradation standard D5988-12 and WK29802)
(ASTM, 2012b), and (ii) the soil quality should not be impacted neg-
atively (Corbin et al., 2013a, 2013b; Goldberger et al., 2013; Miles
et al., 2009). Currently, use of biodegradable plastic mulch in U.S.
certified organic production remains prohibited, however, these
materials may be allowable in the near future and the ASTM in-
soil plastic degradation standards (D5988-12 and WK29802) may
be used to assess product suitability for use in certified organic
production. Sufficient data will be needed to verify that each dif-
ferent biodegradable mulch product is truly biodegradable in an
agricultural system (Corbin et al., 2013b).
The majority of studies on the effects of polyethylene and
biodegradable films on crop and soil properties have been con-
ducted during the growing season (Briassoulis et al., 2013;
Briassoulis and Dejean, 2010; Kasirajan and Ngouajio, 2012). In
contrast, few studies have evaluated the impacts on soil biological
and chemical properties during decomposition of biodegradable
mulches (Bailes et al., 2013; Cowan et al., 2013; Kapanen et al.,
2008; Moreno and Moreno, 2008). During in situ decomposition
of biodegradable films that are C-rich but nutrient poor, microbial
community composition and functionality may be altered. Since
the decomposition of C-rich residues is associated with N immo-
bilization, subsequent plant growth may be affected, especially if
partially degraded mulch fragments exist and are decomposed at
the next cropping cycle. Additionally, a ‘priming effect’ may occur
in which native soil organic matter is mineralized at accelerated
rates in response to the pulse of added C (Kuzyakov, 2010) or as
a result of increased soil temperatures associated with mulches at
the surface (Li et al., 2004). Soil microbial biomass, as measured
by ATP concentration, C mineralization rates, and the ratio of CO2
production to ATP concentration were lowest following incorpora-
tion of polyethylene films compared to biodegradable films or bare
soil in a tomato cropping study in Italy (Moreno and Moreno, 2008).
The authors attributed these reductions in soil microbial properties
to high soil temperatures under the mulches and as a reflection of
progressive depletion of soil organic matter and overall microbial
activity.
Soil quality can vary due to both inherent and dynamic
attributes of a soil. Inherent attributes (e.g., texture, climate, slope)
are factors that change little, if at all, with land use or management
practices, and reflect the basic five soil-forming factors (climate,
organisms, relief/topography, parent material, and time) proposed
by Jenny (1941). On the other hand, dynamic properties of soil qual-
ity (e.g., organic matter, microbial biomass C and bulk density) are
more responsive to changes in land use or management practices
but the magnitude and rate of change are constrained by inher-
ent soil properties (Larson and Pierce, 1991). The soil management
assessment framework (SMAF) provides a single soil quality index
(SQI) value, and takes into account multiple soil physical, chemi-
cal, and biological indicators that represent different soil functions
(Karlen and Stott, 1994). The SMAF also allows for site-specific
interpretation because indicators can be chosen and the model
can be modified based on specific sets of parameters and manage-
ment goals. The scores for each indicator are based on inherent
soil properties, climate and crops, which then translate into unit-
less values that then are combined into an overall value ranging
from 1 (lowest) to 100 (highest) (Andrews et al., 2004). Currently,
SMAF includes 13 indicators with scoring curves, of which five were
used in this study: pH, electrical conductivity, total organic carbon
(TOC), microbial biomass C, and ␤-glucosidase activity (Stott et al.,
2010). These indicators were chosen because of their functional
importance in agricultural production. For example, soil pH influ-
ences nutrient availability and microbial activity, and thus affects
nutrient cycling. Soil electrical conductivity is an indicator of salin-
ity, which can negatively impact plant growth and is responsive
to fertilizer applications. Soil organic matter, (measured as TOC
for the SMAF), acts as a reservoir of nutrients and water, reduces
bulk density, and provides habitat and nutrients to microorgan-
isms. Because TOC changes relatively slowly, measurements of soil
microbial biomass C provide early indications of future changes in
TOC, and thus, may facilitate early detection of changes resulting
from shifts in field management practices (Powlson et al., 1987).
Soil enzymes also are sensitive indicators of management changes
and are responsible for plant residue decomposition and nutrient
cycling (Dick et al., 1996). Soil ␤-glucosidase catalyzes the final
step of cellulose degradation, releasing glucose monomers, which
universally fuel cellular metabolism (Deng and Popova, 2011). Soil
␤-glucosidase activity is a measure of metabolic capacity, and has
been used as a soil quality indicator for over two decades (Acosta-
Martinez et al., 2007; Dick et al., 1996).
The objectives of this study were to determine: (1) whether
SQI, using the SMAF model, was affected by buried mulch treat-
ments over an 18-month in situ incubation, (2) the effect of two
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) production systems (high tunnel
and open field) on SQI, and (3) the relationship between SQI and
the extent of mulch degradation as measured previously (Li et al.,
2014). In order to maximize potential differences in environmen-
tal and soil conditions in this study, the experimental design was
established at three contrasting locations (Knoxville, TN, Lubbock,
TX, and Mount Vernon, WA).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental locations and agricultural production systems
The locations and agricultural systems used in this study are
described in detail in Li et al. (2014) and Miles et al. (2012).
Briefly, experimental field plots were established at three geo-
graphically distinct locations which differed primarily by climate
and soil type: (1) the University of Tennessee, East Tennessee
Research & Education Center at Knoxville, which receives an aver-
age of 1355 mm precipitation year−1 , and has Dewey silt loams
(fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Paleudults) (Soil Survey Staff, 2011);
(2) the Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center at Lub-
bock, which receives 475 mm precipitation year−1 , and has Acuff
loams (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Aridic Paleustolls)
and Olton clay loams (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Aridic
Paleustolls); and (3) the Washington State University Northwest-
ern Washington Research & Extension Center at Mount Vernon,
 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69
which receives 831 mm precipitation year−1 , and has Skagit silt
loams (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, mesic Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts). For all locations, beginning in 2010, a tomato crop
(cv. Celebrity) was grown in four replicates of two main plots (high
tunnels and open field production systems) with five mulch treat-
ment subplots (i.e., four mulch products described below plus a
no mulch control). All plots were irrigated with a drip irrigation
system, and fertilized annually with surface and drip applica-
tions of NPK. Knoxville plots received an average of 42 kg N ha−1 ,
8.7 kg P ha−1 , and 4.6 kg K ha−1 ; Lubbock plots received an average
of 47 kg N ha−1 , 17 kg P ha−1 , and 17 kg K ha−1 ; and, Mount Ver-
non plots received 95 kg N ha−1 , 19.4 kg P ha−1 , and 16.4 kg K ha−1 .
Details regarding fertilizer types and rates each year are provided
in Li et al. (2014). The effects of the mulch treatments used in
this study on crop yield and quality and weed pressure have been
reported elsewhere (Cowan et al., 2014; Miles et al., 2012).
Prior to tomato planting and mulch laying, baseline soil sam-
ples (0–15 cm) were collected using a 5-cm diameter soil probe
at Knoxville or by shovel (15 cm wide) at Lubbock and Mount Ver-
non. At least three subsamples were collected within each assigned
mulch treatment subplot. Subsamples for each subplot were mixed
gently by hand to obtain one composite sample, and stored in a
cooler until transport to the laboratory for soil quality analyses as
described below. Samples were collected on February 24 (high tun-
nel plots) and March 8 (open field plots) at Knoxville; on April 7
for both production systems at Lubbock; and, on May 17 at Mount
Vernon. Tunnel installation at Knoxville was completed approxi-
mately two months before baseline sampling. At Lubbock, two of
the tunnels were installed in March and the remaining two were
completed a few days prior to baseline sampling. At Mount Vernon,
tunnels initially were installed in April but a wind storm occurred
on May 5 which destroyed the tunnels. Reinstallation of tunnels
at Mount Vernon was completed approximately one week after
baseline soil samples were collected.
The high tunnel models varied to accommodate grower prefer-
ences and site specific requirements at each location (Miles et al.,
2012). At Knoxville, the Windjammer Series 5000 (Cold Frame;
Griffin Greenhouse & Nursery Supplies, Knoxville, TN) was used
and each of the four tunnels measured 29.3 m long by 9.2 m wide. At
Lubbock, the ClearSpan ‘Colossal’ (ClearSpan, Windsor, CT) model
was used, and had the same dimensions as the Windjammer Series.
At Mount Vernon each tunnel measured 36.5 m long by 8.4 m wide,
and was the Haygrove ‘Solo’ model (Haygrove Ltd., U.K). The high
tunnels at Mount Vernon were dismantled each winter due to the
3-season nature of the ‘Solo’ model (Miles et al., 2012).
During the 18-month study, soil temperature sensors (Hobo® ;
Onset, Pocasset, MA) were installed in one high tunnel and one
open field replicate at each location, and temperature was mea-
sured every 15 min. Soil temperature sensors were placed at a 7-cm
depth in the center of each mulch subplot during the growing sea-
son. During the winter fallow period, there was no mulch on the soil
surface. During this time at Lubbock and Knoxville, soil tempera-
ture data from the sensors were averaged across mulch subplots.
At Mount Vernon, where high tunnels were dismantled for the
winter, soil temperature data were provided by the WSU AgWeath-
erNet weather station located approximately 500 m away from the
study site. Average daily soil temperature was calculated and aver-
aged over each 6-month period prior to the 6, 12, and 18-month
mesh-bag extractions.
2.2. Mesh bag incubation study for the five mulch treatments
Five mulches were used in this study, and assigned randomly
to each subplot. Treatments included two commercially available
films (BioAgri® Ag-Film and BioTelo Agri); one experimental mulch
61
(Spunbond-PLA-10); a commercially available paper mulch (Weed-
GuardPlus); and, a bare ground no mulch control (no mulch).
BioAgri® Ag-Film (BioBag, Palm Harbor, FL, USA) and BioTelo
Agri (Dubois Agrinovation, Waterford, ON, CA) are two leading
starch-based commercial mulches produced from Mater-Bi® , a co-
polyester and starch blend by Novamont (Novara, Italy) (Hayes
et al., 2012). Both are black mulch films, and 0.025 mm thick.
Spunbond-PLA-10 is a white experimental nonwoven spunbond
mulch, 0.56 mm thick, and made from 100% polylactic acid. The
feedstock for Spunbond-PLA-10 was provided by NatureWorks LLC
(Blair, NE, USA). WeedGuardPlus (Sunshine Paper Co. LLC; Aurora,
CO, USA) is a black paper mulch, 0.18 mm thick, and was included
as a cellulose control.
An 18-month in situ mesh bag incubation study was initiated to
monitor mulch degradation and subsequent effects on soil quality
under the various experimental conditions. The bags were 250-␮m
mesh and measured 161 cm2 . Each was filled with (i) resident soil
collected from each respective mulch subplot at a 0–8 cm depth
plus (ii) a mulch subsample (approximately 103 cm2 ) cut from each
weathered mulch treatment following final tomato harvest in 2010.
Resident soil from each subplot was collected as described above
for baseline samples. The weathered mulches originally covered the
soil surface of the tomato beds in each subplot (0.6–0.9 m wide by
4.3 m long with 1.8 m spacing between bed centers). Each mesh bag
with a mulch sample was buried in September (high tunnel plots)
and October 2010 (open field plots) at Knoxville, and in October
2010 at Lubbock and Mount Vernon (both production systems), at
a depth of 8–12 cm in the center of each subplot. Sufficient bags
were buried at each location to recover one bag per subplot at each
planned sampling time. Mesh bags were extracted after approxi-
mately 6, 12, and 18 months. Those collected at 6 and 18 months
followed a winter fallow period, and were collected in early spring
in 2011 and 2012, prior to replanting tomatoes. Bags collected at
12 months followed final tomato harvest in fall 2011. Although cor-
responding mulch again was laid on the soil surface of subplots at
the time of tomato planting in 2011 and 2012, all subsequent mulch
was removed after each tomato harvest. At each sampling time, one
mesh bag per subplot was removed carefully and delivered, on ice,
within 24 h to the Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry Laboratory at
Texas Tech University. When subplots were plowed and prepared
for either winter fallow or summer tomato cropping, remaining
buried mesh bags were removed temporarily from the plots, and
stored in a walk-in cooler at 4 ◦ C. Within 72 h of removal, bags were
re-buried in their respective subplots.
2.3. Soil management assessment framework (SMAF) indicators
Upon laboratory receipt, each mesh bag was cut open on three
sides. Mulch pieces were removed by gloved hands with forceps
and degradation was assessed as described previously by Li et al.
(2014). Soil samples were sieved (<4.75 mm), and then subsam-
pled for pH, electrical conductivity and TOC as well as for microbial
biomass C and ␤-glucosidase activity. All soil analyses were con-
ducted on air-dried soil except for microbial biomass C which was
assessed within seven days of collection using field-moist soil that
had been stored at 4 ◦ C prior to analysis. Soil pH was measured in
a 1:1 soil to water ratio using an AS3010 Robotic pH system (Lab-
Fit Inc., Atlanta, GA) and electrical conductivity was measured in a
1:1 soil to water ratio using a YSI Model 30 handheld salinity, con-
ductivity, and temperature system (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH)
(Rhoades, 1996). Total soil C was determined on air-dried, ground
soil (<40 ␮m) by dry combustion using a Thermo Flash EA1112 Soil
CN analyzer (CE Elantech, Inc., Lakewood, NJ). For Lubbock samples,
in which high levels of inorganic calcium carbonate are a com-
mon component of total carbon, the calcium carbonate equivalent
was estimated using a pressure calcimeter method (Loeppert and
62 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69
Table 1
Inherent soil properties used to adjust soil quality index as calculated by the soil management assessment framework (SMAF) and described by Anderson et al. (2004).
Knoxville
Soil seriesa Dewey
Suborder Udult
Texture Silt loam
Clay (%) 22
Slope (%) 0–3
Weathering class High (Ultisols)
Mineral class Non smectitic/non-glassy
Climateb >170 degree days
>550 mm precipitation
Region Humid
EC methodc 1:1
a
Soil series, subgroup classification, texture and slope data were obtained from the Web Soil Survey (Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. Web
Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [2011].
b
Climate data were obtained from NOAA, http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climatenormals/climatenormals.pl?directive=prod select2&amp;prodtype=CLIM20&
amp;subrnum=; accessed [2012].
c
Soil EC was measured in a 1:1 soil:water ratio.
Suarez, 1996) by exposing soil to 6 M HCl + 3% ferrous chloride in a
closed system to produce CO2 and reading the pressure produced.
Samples contained less than 0.06% CaCO3 -C on average. Thus, total
soil C as measured by dry combustion was assumed to represent
TOC. It was not necessary to determine inorganic C on Knoxville
or Mount Vernon samples given the relatively humid climate and
slightly acidic soils that would have leached any carbonates out
of the soil profile during soil formation. Soil microbial biomass
C was determined using the chloroform fumigation–extraction
method in duplicate on 15 g oven-dry equivalent field-moist soil
samples and one non-fumigation control (Brookes et al., 1985).
Soil samples were fumigated for 24 h and C was extracted after
addition of 75 ml of 0.5 M K2 SO4 . Extracts were analyzed using a
Shimadzu Model TOC/VCPH-TN C/N analyzer (Shimadzu, Kyoto,
Japan). Values for non-fumigated samples were subtracted from
fumigated samples and a KEC of 0.45 was applied to calculate
microbial biomass C as recommended by Wu et al. (1990). Results
were expressed on a moisture-free basis determined by drying a
subsample of soil in an oven at 105 ◦ C for 48 h. The activity of
␤-glucosidase was assayed using air-dried soil as described by
Tabatabai (1994). Following incubation, the reaction was stopped
by addition of tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (THAM) at pH 12
and the concentration of p-nitrophenol formed from the substrate,
p-nitro-phenyl-d-glucopyranoside, was determined by measuring
absorbance at 420 nm with an Epoch microplate spectrophotome-
ter (BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA). Glucosidase activities for each soil
sample were assayed in duplicate along with one control, to which
the substrate was added after incubation. Results were expressed
in mg of p-nitrophenol released kg−1 soil h−1 . Control values were
subtracted from each sample value.
Each dynamic soil indicator was adjusted for crop (tomato),
season, EC method (EC 1:1), region (climate), and basic soil data
including soil suborder, texture, slope, and weathering/mineral
class (Table 1) according to the algorithms developed by Andrews
et al. (2004) and Stott et al. (2010). Basic soil data were obtained
from Web Soil Survey (Soil Survey Staff, 2011). Each scoring curve
has an algorithm or logic statement, from which each measured
indicator was transformed into a unitless score of 1 (the highest
potential function) to 0 (the lowest potential function). The unit-
less values were converted into an overall index of soil quality by
summing the scores for each indicator, dividing by the total num-
ber of indicators, and then multiplying by 100 (Andrews et al.,
2004). Although soil physical indicators, such as bulk density and
aggregate stability typically are included in SMAF assessments,
these properties were assumed to be constant in our study because
soil first was mixed and homogenized, thus artificially altering
aggregate stability, and then placed into mesh bags resulting in
a constant volume of soil in all treatments.
Lubbock Mount Vernon
Acuff/Olton Skagit
Ustoll Aquept
Loam (Acuff) Clay loam (Olton) Silt loam
22 (Acuff); 29 (Olton) 21
0–1 0–1
Low (calcareous) Intermediate (slightly)
Non smectitic/non-glassy Non smectitic/non-glassy
>170 degree days <170 degree days
<550 mm precipitation >550 mm precipitation
Arid Humid
1:1 1:1
2.4. Statistical analysis
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) of SQI were conducted using
SAS 9.3 with a split-split plot design where sampling time (i.e.,
6, 12, and 18 months) was the main effect and production sys-
tem and mulch treatments were the subplots. Each location was
evaluated independently to make comparisons of mulch treatment
and production systems across sampling time. The experiments at
the Knoxville and Lubbock locations had a completely randomized
design with four replicates, and the experiment at the Mount Ver-
non location had a randomized complete block design with four
blocks. For subplots, there were two production systems and five
mulch treatments. All possible two- and three-way interactions
were evaluated. All pairwise comparisons were adjusted using
Tukey’s honestly significant difference at the 5% significance level.
Baseline SQI values are included to show the status of each study
site prior to implementation of the experiment. Statistical analyses
for baseline samples were conducted only to test for the effect of
production system because some high tunnels had been erected up
to two months prior to baseline sampling. For this analysis, subsam-
ples collected for each mulch treatment were evaluated separately
but then combined for statistical analysis (i.e., N = 4 for each sys-
tem). Comparison of the no mulch controls to the baseline values
permitted evaluation of the effect of the experimental system over-
all on the SQI.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of production system on SQI
For baseline samples, the SQI was significantly different
(p < 0.05) between high tunnel and open field production systems
at Knoxville and Mount Vernon, but not at Lubbock (Table 2). At
Knoxville, the tunnels had been installed for approximately two
months before sampling and the mean baseline SQI was greater
for high tunnel plots (78) than open field plots (72). Among the
soil quality indicators used to calculate SQI, scores for TOC and
␤-glucosidase were greater in the high tunnel plots than open
field plots (Table 2). Collection of soil temperature data had not
yet begun when baseline samples were collected, but during the
growing season (Miles et al., 2012) and winter fallow periods
(Table 3), greater soil temperatures were measured in high tun-
nel than in open field plots. It is possible that higher temperatures
associated with high tunnels stimulated microbial activity; this
interpretation is supported by the higher ␤-glucosidase activity
detected. However, higher ␤-glucosidase activity does not explain
the increased TOC. In fact, depletion of TOC would seem more
likely with increased soil temperatures in the high tunnel plots
 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69 63

Table 2
Baseline summary values of each soil management assessment framework (SMAF) indicator and subsequent SMAF scores used to calculate soil quality index at Knoxville,
Lubbock and Mount Vernon in high tunnel (HT) and open field (OF) plots (n = 4).

SMAF indicator Production system Knoxville Lubbock Mount Vernon

Actual valuea SMAF scoreb , c Actual value SMAF score Actual value SMAF score

␤-Glucosidase HT 84.7 0.58 104.6 0.15 96.4 0.07

OF 69.0 0.41 141.4 0.16 114.8 0.09

Microbial biomass C HT 136.4 0.74 146.0 0.26 216.5 0.35

OF 144.6 0.77 175.5 0.21 165.3 0.23

pH HT 7.0 0.99 7.8 0.96 6.4 1.00

OF 7.0 0.99 7.8 0.96 6.5 1.00

Electrical conductivity HT 0.12 0.68 0.3 1.00 0.14 0.82

OF 0.12 0.69 0.29 1.00 0.11 0.65

Total organic C HT 1.40 0.92 0.85 0.13 1.40 0.16

OF 1.04 0.73 0.76 0.07 1.40 0.17

Soil quality index HT 78.4 A 50.0 A 48.1 A

OF 71.8 B 47.9 A 42.9 B
a
Units of actual value are mg p-nitrophenol released kg−1 soil h−1 for ␤-glucosidase; g kg−1 soil for microbial biomass C; dS m−1 for electrical conductivity; and % for total
organic C.
b
SMAF score for five soil quality indicators is unitless (0–1) and soil quality index (0–100) is the result of 100 times the average score of five indicators.
c
A and B indicate the statistical difference between high tunnel and open field for soil quality index (p = 0.05).

and with the tillage operations that were implemented to prepare
fields for planting because decomposition rates increase as temper-
ature increases and plant inputs were absent at this sampling time.
Significantly higher SQI in high tunnel than in open field systems
persisted throughout the 18-month incubation (Fig. 1). It is pos-
sible that inherent site-specific differences in SQI existed prior to
our experiment and thus the effect due to production system was
an artifact (Fig. 1). Alternatively, higher crop yields in high tun-
nel plots than in open field plots (Cowan et al., 2014; Miles et al.,
2012) added C substrates, increased TOC, and stimulated microbial
enzymatic activities (Table 4) (Acosta-Martínez et al., 2011). The
increase in ␤-glucosidase activity without a corresponding increase
in overall microbial biomass indicates more efficient metabolism
by the microbial community (Klose et al., 2004). The increased soil
temperature and C inputs (due to increased plant growth) in the
high tunnel system compared to open field is expected to increase
overall metabolic efficiency (Allison, 2005; Koch et al., 2007).
At Lubbock, the SQI was not significantly different between high
tunnel (50) and open field plots (48) for baseline samples. Although
significant differences in SQI between production systems were not
found, the two tunnels that had been installed two months prior
to sampling had an average SQI of 55 whereas the two tunnels that
had only been completed a few days prior to sampling had an aver-
age of 45. The time the tunnels had been in place at Lubbock may
have been long enough to increase soil temperatures and stimulate
microbial biomass (Table 2). During the 18-month incubation, the
SQI at Lubbock was affected by a three-way interaction among pro-
duction system, sampling time, and mulch treatment (p = 0.003).
To evaluate the effect of production system, comparisons were
made within each sampling time and mulch treatment. Only two
instances existed where the difference between production sys-
tems was significant; the SQI was higher in the high tunnel system
for both BioAgri and BioTelo mulch treatments than in the open
field system at 18-months (Fig. 2). The SMAF indicator that showed
the greatest difference between systems for these mulches and
sampling time was soil microbial biomass C, which was higher for
both mulches in high tunnels than in open fields (Table 4). Increased
microbial biomass may have been in response to the higher soil
temperature in high tunnel system than that measured in the open
field system (Table 3). (Wardle, 1992) but this response was specific
to the starch-based BioAgri and BioTelo mulch treatments (Table 5).
At Mount Vernon, the mean baseline SQI was greater for high
tunnel plots than open field plots (48 vs. 43; Table 2). However, in
contrast to Knoxville, TOC at Mount Vernon was similar between
the two production systems. The SMAF indicators that differed the
most between the two systems at Mount Vernon were microbial
biomass C and electrical conductivity (Table 2). Given the destruc-
tion of high tunnels during a storm less than one month after
installation and two weeks prior to baseline sampling, a significant
difference in SQI was not expected. It is possible that the variation
in SQI values may represent pre-existing differences among samp-
ling sites, as well as a bona fide increase in SQI due to high tunnels.

Table 3
Average daily soil temperature (at 7 cm) (◦ C) for each 6 month mesh bag incubation period in high tunnel and open field tomato production systems at Knoxville, Lubbock,
and Mount Vernon. Adapted from Li et al. (2014).

Measurement perioda Temperature locationb Knoxville Lubbock Mount Vernonc

High tunnel Open field High tunnel Open field High tunnel Open field

0–6 months (fallow) Bare soil 14.6 8.4 14.6 14.4 7.1 7.1

6–12 months (growing season) Mulched soil 25.6 25.3 25.8 23.4 16.7 16.1
No-mulch soil 26.2 26.3 25.4 23.0 17.1 15.5

12–18 months (fallow) Bare soil 15.5 12.1 14.9 10.2 6.7 6.7
a
Soil temperatures during 0–6 and 12–18 months (approximate) are the average soil temperatures for all mulch treatments collected during the fallow periods when no
mulches were present on the surface. All data were collected with Hobo temperature sensors connected to a data logger (Hobo; Onset, Pocasset, MA). Sensors were installed
in one high tunnel and one open field replicate at each location and temperature was measured every 15 min, and averaged over each 24-h period.
b
Data for mulched samples were averaged over the four biodegradable mulch treatments during the growing season.
c
For time periods between 0 and 6 months, and between 12 and 18 months, high tunnels at Mount Vernon were not installed due to the three-season tunnel design;
environmental data for these periods were provided by weather station (WSU AgWeatherNet) located approximately 500 m away.
 64
Table 4
Summary of soil management assessment framework (SMAF) indicator scores (0–1) used to calculate soil quality index (SQI) after 6, 12, and 18 months incubation at Knoxville, Lubbock and Mount Vernon in high tunnel (HT)
and open field (OF) plots (n = 4).

SMAF indicator Mulch treatments Knoxville Lubbock Mount Vernon

6 months 12 months 18 months 6 months 12 months 18 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF

␤-Glucosidase No-mulch 0.70 0.64 0.86 0.62 0.44 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.04
Spunbond-PLA-10 0.49 0.66 0.64 0.55 0.29 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.05

C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69

BioAgri® Ag-Film 0.55 0.56 0.65 0.50 0.39 0.20 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04
BioTelo Agri 0.56 0.51 0.67 0.62 0.38 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.04
WeedGuardPlus 0.68 0.57 0.74 0.66 0.59 0.22 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.04

Microbial No-mulch 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 0.91 1.00 0.25 0.10 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.88 0.26 0.10 0.99 0.80 0.99 0.98
biomass C Spunbond-PLA-10 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.89 1.00 0.18 0.09 1.00 0.87 0.98 0.85 0.26 0.12 0.99 0.76 0.98 0.98
BioAgri® Ag-Film 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.17 0.08 1.00 0.89 0.94 0.51 0.23 0.36 0.97 0.92 0.94 0.92
BioTelo Agri 0.95 0.84 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.30 0.08 1.00 0.89 0.95 0.49 0.23 0.26 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.92
WeedGuardPlus 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.31 0.11 1.00 0.96 0.62 0.06 0.44 0.81 0.53 0.99 0.48 0.63

pH No-mulch 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Spunbond-PLA-10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
BioAgri® Ag-Film 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
BioTelo Agri 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
WeedGuardPlus 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Electrical No-mulch 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.91 0.98 0.83 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00
conductivity Spunbond-PLA-10 1.00 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 0.76 0.99 1.00 0.74 0.92
BioAgri® Ag-Film 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.81 1.00 0.95 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.75 1.00 0.99 0.78 0.84
BioTelo Agri 1.00 0.92 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.73 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.73
WeedGuardPlus 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.59 1.00 0.83 0.92 0.99 1.00 0.71 0.90

Total organic C No-mulch 0.96 0.80 0.91 0.74 0.87 0.75 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.19
Spunbond-PLA-10 0.93 0.79 0.92 0.76 0.92 0.74 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.20
BioAgri® Ag-Film 0.95 0.75 0.92 0.78 0.93 0.78 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.17
BioTelo Agri 0.92 0.76 0.92 0.74 0.95 0.72 0.16 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.20
WeedGuardPlus 0.97 0.82 0.97 0.80 0.97 0.78 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.17
Table 5
Mean actual soil property values used to calculate soil quality index (SQI) after 6, 12, and 18 months field incubation at Knoxville, Lubbock and Mount Vernon in high tunnel (HT) and open field (OF) plots (n = 4).

SMAF indicator Mulch treatments Knoxville Lubbock Mount Vernon

6 months 12 months 18 months 6 months 12 months 18 months 6 months 12 months 18 months

HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF HT OF

␤-Glucosidase (mg p- No-mulch 98 89 127 87 72 38 86 79 63 86 24 35 93 135 120 120 58 57

nitrophenol kg−1 soil h−1 ) Spunbond-PLA-10 76 90 89 81 59 42 78 82 65 71 26 29 96 112 108 100 49 59

C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69

BioAgri® Ag-Film 80 82 95 77 67 48 85 53 66 55 27 28 89 105 91 88 46 43
BioTelo Agri 82 77 93 87 66 35 88 67 63 59 28 27 86 100 100 97 43 43
WeedGuardPlus 96 83 112 91 85 50 92 65 67 65 29 33 92 111 96 121 44 55

Microbial biomass C No-mulch 300 209 349 221 182 521 154 114 500 533 441 468 178 101 537 334 563 539
(g kg−1 soil) Spunbond-PLA-10 268 248 254 227 165 491 128 109 623 456 469 445 175 113 538 317 533 534
BioAgri® Ag-Film 204 202 367 434 215 393 125 94 735 463 396 302 163 207 479 403 435 425
BioTelo Agri 201 157 350 408 295 357 162 104 756 458 421 295 165 173 491 402 398 417
WeedGuardPlus 298 173 325 327 480 202 173 126 602 546 261 78 233 349 250 581 244 288

pH No-mulch 6.49 6.58 6.24 6.10 6.55 6.06 8.10 8.12 7.42 7.80 8.07 8.20 6.55 6.56 6.25 6.17 6.51 6.45
Spunbond-PLA-10 6.65 6.80 6.35 6.00 6.31 6.28 8.05 8.21 7.84 7.83 8.11 8.06 6.58 6.48 6.25 6.20 6.65 6.61
BioAgri® Ag-Film 6.65 6.68 5.98 6.18 6.01 6.50 8.02 8.20 7.63 7.85 7.81 8.16 6.58 6.66 6.24 6.21 6.60 6.52
BioTelo Agri 6.67 7.04 6.16 6.13 6.08 6.55 8.10 8.17 7.61 7.77 8.06 8.18 6.47 6.70 6.15 6.35 6.53 6.49
WeedGuardPlus 6.54 6.67 6.01 6.17 6.08 6.38 8.07 8.21 7.50 7.64 8.10 8.14 6.56 6.52 6.21 6.18 6.47 6.49

Electrical conductivity No-mulch 0.48 0.16 0.31 0.18 0.45 0.10 0.37 0.39 0.86 1.07 1.36 1.33 0.14 0.14 0.22 0.32 0.14 0.18
(dS m−1 ) Spunbond-PLA-10 0.35 0.17 0.20 0.27 0.16 0.10 0.54 0.42 0.35 0.59 1.70 0.77 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.27 0.13 0.17
BioAgri® Ag-Film 0.32 0.15 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.14 0.44 0.33 0.90 0.52 0.61 0.86 0.17 0.13 0.20 0.28 0.13 0.14
BioTelo Agri 0.32 0.16 0.21 0.47 0.20 0.10 0.45 0.42 0.89 0.48 1.43 1.02 0.12 0.11 0.32 0.29 0.12 0.12
WeedGuardPlus 0.44 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.44 0.37 1.26 0.84 2.33 0.49 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.28 0.12 0.16

Total organic C (%) No-mulch 1.50 1.10 1.32 1.05 1.27 1.09 0.66 0.86 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.75 1.38 1.42 1.41 1.49 1.45 1.51
Spunbond-PLA-10 1.39 1.10 1.35 1.08 1.34 1.04 0.68 0.76 0.69 0.73 0.66 0.80 1.34 1.43 1.41 1.4 1.42 1.56
BioAgri® Ag-Film 1.45 1.09 1.38 1.09 1.41 1.08 0.64 0.69 0.61 0.63 0.68 0.76 1.35 1.44 1.30 1.46 1.41 1.41
BioTelo Agri 1.35 1.07 1.38 1.04 1.58 1.05 0.99 0.77 0.83 0.72 0.86 0.71 1.35 1.39 1.40 1.43 1.41 1.55
WeedGuardPlus 1.60 1.14 1.61 1.11 1.64 1.09 0.68 0.70 0.64 0.75 0.69 0.72 1.41 1.46 1.39 1.44 1.39 1.43

65
66 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69

Despite these initial differences for baseline samples, the SQI was
significantly higher in the open field system than in high tunnel
system only for the WeedGuardPlus mulch at 6 and 12 months
(p = 0.03; Fig. 3). Soil microbial biomass C and ␤-glucosidase activ-
ity SMAF scores were higher for the WeedGuardPlus at 6 and 12
months in the open field systems, which is in contrast to the results
for these variables at Knoxville and Lubbock production systems
(Table 3). It is possible that the dismantling of high tunnels at Mount
Vernon during the fallow months affected soil microbial dynamics
in an opposite manner to the year-round tunnel systems at the
other locations.

3.2. Effect of mulch treatment on SQI

At Knoxville, SQI was affected significantly by the main effect

Fig. 1. Box plot showing average Soil Quality Index (0–100) across sampling times
for high tunnel and open field production systems at Knoxville, TN. Five treatments
(no mulch control, Spunbond-PLA-10, BioAgri® Ag-Film, BioTelo Agri, and Weed-
GuardPlus) were averaged. Dashed lines within boxes indicate the median, cross
hatches indicate means, upper and lower box edges represent the 75th and 25th
percentiles, respectively. Maximum and minimum observations are shown as the
endpoint of upper and lower whiskers, respectively. Within each production sys-
tem cohort, different capital letters indicate significant differences over sampling
times. Within each sampling time, lower case letters indicate significant differences
between production systems (˛ = 0.05).
of mulch treatment (p = 0.006). WeedGuardPlus had the highest
SQI (88), which was not significantly different from BioAgri AgFilm
(85), but was greater than BioTelo Agri (84) and Spunbond-PLA-10
(83). Despite these differences, none of the mulch treatments dif-
fered significantly from the no mulch control (85) for SQI (data not
shown).
To evaluate the effect of mulch treatment at Lubbock, compar-
isons were made within each production system and sampling time
due to the significant three-way interaction (p = 0.003; Fig. 2). The
effect of mulch treatment was significant only at 18 months when
the SQI of the WeedGuardPlus treatment was lower than all other
mulch treatments, including the no mulch control, in both high
tunnel and open field systems. Additionally, the SQI of BioAgri and
BioTelo treatments within open field plots was lower than no mulch
control and the Spunbond-PLA-10 treatment (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Box plot showing average Soil Quality Index (0–100) for five treatments (no mulch control, Spunbond-PLA-10, BioAgri® Ag-Film, BioTelo Agri, and WeedGuardPlus)
across sampling times for high tunnel and open field production systems at Lubbock, TX. Dashed lines within boxes indicate the median, cross hatches indicate means, upper
and lower box edges represent the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. Maximum and minimum observations are shown as the endpoint of upper and lower whiskers,
respectively. Within each time cohort and production system (high tunnel and open field), different capital letters (A, AB, and B) indicate significant differences among
mulch treatments. Within each production system and mulch treatment, lower case letters (a, ab, b, and c) indicate significant differences among sampling time. Within each
sampling time cohort and mulch treatment, different capital letters (X and Y) indicate significant differences between production systems.
 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69 67

Fig. 3. Box plot showing average Soil Quality Index (0–100) for five treatments (no mulch control, Spunbond-PLA-10, BioAgri® Ag-Film, BioTelo Agri, and WeedGuardPlus)
across sampling times for high tunnel and open field production systems at Mount Vernon. Dashed lines within boxes indicate the median, cross hatches indicate means,
upper and lower box edges represent the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. Maximum and minimum observations are shown as the endpoint of upper and lower
whiskers, respectively, and outliers are plotted (when present) by circles. Within each sampling time cohort and production system (high tunnel and open field), different
capital letters (A, AB, and B) indicate significant differences among mulch treatments. Within each production system and mulch treatment, lower case letters (a, ab, b,
and c) indicate significant differences among sampling time. Within each sampling time cohort and mulch treatment, different capital letters (X and Y) indicate significant
differences among production systems.

Comparisons for Mount Vernon also were made within each
production system and sampling time due to the significant three-
way interaction (p = 0.03; Fig. 3). Differences in SQI resulting from
the three-way interaction among mulch, production system and
sampling time associated mostly with the WeedGuardPlus mulch.
In the open field system, the SQI of WeedGuardPlus was highest
at 6 months, but by 18 months, the SQI of WeedGuardPlus was
significantly lower than all other treatments except BioTelo. The
high tunnel system reflected this pattern; SQI for WeedGuardPlus
was higher (though not significantly so) at 6 months, but by 12
and 18 months, WeedGuardPlus had the lowest SQI. It is possi-
ble that WeedGuardPlus treatments degraded more quickly than
other mulches inside mesh bags, thus boosting microbial activity,
but because no C inputs of a similar size (e.g. roots, decaying insects)
could penetrate the mesh bags to sustain microbial activity, the SQI
dropped accordingly.
BioAgri® Ag-Film and BioTelo Agri in our study were both
made with MaterBi, though the formulation may have changed
from year to year. In a study by Kapanen et al. (2008), the eco-
toxicity of biodegradable mulches using mulch materials made
from MaterBi was examined at one month and one year follow-
ing tillage incorporation of biodegradable mulches. No evidence
of toxicity on Enchytraeus albidus (common soil mesofauna) or
Vibrio fisheri (a Gram-negative bacterium common to marine
environments) was found. Our study did not measure ecotox-
icity, but rather measured more nonspecific markers of soil
health. Nevertheless, both ecotoxicity studies and SQI provide
measures for the effect of biodegradable mulches on living organ-
isms in soil. Our study revealed negative effects of the MaterBi
mulches only at Lubbock, after 18 months – representing a
timeframe much longer than that in the study by Kapanen
et al. (2008). Thus, longer-term studies may be required for an
accurate picture of the impact of such mulches on soil ecosys-
tems.
3.3. Effect of sampling time on SQI
The effect of sampling time on SQI at Knoxville was depend-
ent upon production system (i.e., significant two-way interaction;
p = 0.0002). In general, the SQI within each production system was
similar between 6 and 12 months, and was lowest by 18 months
(Fig. 1). In contrast, the SQI at Lubbock and Mount Vernon was low-
est at 6 months but the effect of sampling time was dependent
upon production system and mulch treatment (Figs. 2 and 3). At
Lubbock, the SQI of all mulch treatments for both production sys-
tems increased from 6 to 12 months and either remained the same
at 18 months (all mulch treatments in high tunnel plots exclud-
ing WeedGuardPlus) or decreased slightly (BioAgri, BioTelo and
WeedGuardPlus treatments in open field plots) (Fig. 2). Similarly
at Mount Vernon, the SQI of most of the mulch treatments for both
production systems increased from 6 to 12 months, and remained
the same at 18 months (excluding WeedGuardPlus in both systems
and BioTelo in high tunnel plots) (Fig. 3). The initial increase in SQI at
Lubbock and Mount Vernon between 6 months (sampled after the
winter fallow) and 12 months (sampled after the growing season)
may reflect higher soil temperatures at the 12 month sampling time
(Table 3) and the presence of plants during the preceding growing
season. However, the high SQI values at the 12 month sampling
persisted at Lubbock and Mount Vernon through the next fallow
period (at 18 months), suggesting that the entire agronomic sys-
tem continued to enhance soil quality. That the SQI of the no mulch
control also increased from 6 to 12 and 18 months suggests that
factors other than the mulch treatments are responsible for the
increase in soil quality over time.
68 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69
3.4. Relationship between SQI and degradation levels and
mulches
As reported previously by Li et al. (2014), WeedGuardPlus
degraded completely (i.e., 0% of the mulch visibly remained) within
12 months at all three locations, whereas >90% of the Spunbond-
PLA-10 remained after 24 months incubation. The percent of area
that remained for BioAgri and BioTelo varied across locations and
was lowest (2% on average) at Lubbock compared to Knoxville
(mean of 49%) and Mount Vernon (mean of 89%). There was no
significant correlation between SQI values and degradation levels
of the various mulches at any location (data not shown), suggest-
ing that SQI and the variables used to assess soil quality were not
good predictors of mulch degradability, or vice versa. This work
supports our finding, described elsewhere, that biogeographical
effects strongly outweighed any influence of the buried biodegrad-
able mulch pieces on mulch degradation and microbial community
structure (Li et al., 2014).
By the final sampling time at Lubbock (18 months), the SQI of
the WeedGuardPlus treated soil in both the high tunnel (45) and
open field (42) plots was significantly lower than all other mulch
treatments, including the no mulch control (58 in both systems).
At Mount Vernon, the SQI of the WeedGuardPlus treatment was
higher at six months (50 and 60 in high tunnel and open field plots,
respectively), but then by 12 months in the high tunnel plots, the
SQI of the WeedGuardPlus treatment (55) was lower than all other
mulch treatments (64). At 18 months at Mount Vernon, the SQI of
the WeedGuardPlus-treated soil in high tunnel (48) and open field
(55) plots was lower than all other mulch treatments (mean of 58
and 61 in high tunnel and open field plots, respectively). Based on
visual measurements of area remaining over time as reported by
Li et al. (2014), WeedGuardPlus had degraded completely within
6 months at Lubbock and Mount Vernon. Therefore, it is possible
that the WeedGuardPlus treatment provided a nutrient source that
permitted rapid microbial growth and consequent degradation of
the cellulosic mulch for the first 6 months. However, due to the
lack of new organic inputs into the mesh bags, soil microbes sub-
sequently may have been C-limited, causing populations to decline
and the SQI to decrease. Microbial biomass C for the WeedGuard-
Plus treatments at both sites also increased, and then diminished
over time (Table 5), supporting the idea of rapid microbial growth
followed by C-limitation. Microbial biomass C at the final sampling
time was never as low for any other mulch treatment as it was for
WeedGuardPlus at Lubbock and Mount Vernon, suggesting that the
slower-degrading mulches (Li et al., 2014) do not cause the same
growth patterns in soil microbial populations.
4. Conclusions
Previous work (Li et al., 2014) that used the same experimental
sites and mulch products revealed that mulch degradation was
dependent on mulch type and geographic location. The results
reported here, however, suggest that impacts on SQI from weath-
ered buried mulches were minor, and more dependent upon
production system and sampling time than on mulch type. The
SQI was higher in the high tunnel systems than in open fields
for some of the mulch treatments at Knoxville and Lubbock and
corresponded to increased soil temperature and C inputs (due to
increased plant growth) in the high tunnel systems compared to
open fields. At Mount Vernon, the SQI was lower in the high tunnel
systems but the dismantling of tunnels during the fallow periods
may have reduced the overall influence of soil temperature on soil
quality. Reduced SQI, such as those associated with degradation
of WeedGuardPlus and MaterBi mulches, showed up late in the
study, and underline the need for longer-term investigations of
the impact of biodegradable mulches on soil ecosystems, espe-
cially considering that these products are comprised of polymers,
additives and/or fillers that are foreign to a soil environment.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Marko Davinic, Dr. Lisa Fultz, Babette Gundersen,
Jeffrey Martin, Jonathan Roozen, Dr. Russell Wallace, and Joel Webb
for their technical and field support. We also thank Dr. Veronica
Acosta-Martinez’s lab for assistance with the microbial biomass
analysis and Dr. Arnold Saxton for assistance with statistical mod-
els. This study was funded by the NIFA Specialty Crops Research
Initiative, USDA SCRI-SREP Grant Award No. 2009-0284.
References
Acosta-Martinez, V., Cruz, L., Sotomayor-Ramirez, D., Perez-Alegria, L., 2007. Enzyme
activities as affected by soil properties and land use in a tropical watershed. Appl.
Soil Ecol. 35, 35–45.
Acosta-Martínez, V., Lascano, R., Calderón, F., Booker, J.D., Zobeck, T.M., Upchurch,
D.R., 2011. Dryland cropping systems influence the microbial biomass and
enzyme activities in a semiarid sandy soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 47, 655–667.
Albregts, E., Howard, C., 1972. Effect of mulches on okra, pepper and strawberries in
central Florida. Agricultural Research Center, IFAS, University of Florida.
Allison, S.D., 2005. Cheaters, diffusion and nutrients constrain decomposition by
microbial enzymes in spatially structured environments. Ecol. Lett. 8, 626–635.
Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L., Cambardella, C.A., 2004. The soil management assessment
framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68,
1945–1962.
ASTM, 2012a. D883-12 Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D0883-12
www.astm.org
ASTM, 2012b. Wk29802—New Specification for Aerobically Biodegradable Plas-
tics in Soil Environment. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D5988-12 www.astm.org
Bailes, G., Lind, M., Ely, A., Powell, M., Moore-Kucera, J., Miles, C., Inglis, D., Brodhagen,
M., 2013. Isolation of native soil microorganisms with potential for breaking
down biodegradable plastic mulch films used in agriculture. J. Vis. Exp., e50373.
Briassoulis, D., Babou, E., Hiskakis, M., Scarascia, G., Picuno, P., Guarde, D., Dejean, C.,
2013. Review, mapping and analysis of the agricultural plastic waste generation
and consolidation in Europe. Waste Manage. Res. 31, 1262–1278.
Briassoulis, D., Dejean, C., 2010. Critical review of norms and standards for
biodegradable agricultural plastics. Part I. Biodegradation in soil. J. Polym. Envi-
ron. 18, 384–400.
Brookes, P., Landman, A., Pruden, G., Jenkinson, D., 1985. Chloroform fumigation
and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure
microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17, 837–842.
Corbin, A., Miles, C., Cowan, J., Hayes, D., Dorgan, J., Inglis, D., 2013a.
Using biodegradable plastics as agricultural mulches. FS103E. In: Washing-
ton State University Extension Fact Sheet., pp. 6, http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/
CEPublications/FS103E/FS103E.pdf (Verified: 8 February 2014).
Corbin, A., Miles, C., Cowan, J., Hayes, D., Moore-Kucera, J., Inglis, D., 2013b. Current
and future prospects for biodegradable plastic mulch in certified organic produc-
tion systems. In: eXtension Foundation, eOrganic Community of Practice, May
2, 2013, http://www.extension.org/pages/67951/ (Verified: 22 August 2013).
Cowan, J.S., Inglis, D.A., Miles, C.A., 2013. Deterioration of three potentially
biodegradable plastic mulches before and after soil incorporation in a broccoli
field production system in Northwestern Washington. HortTech. 23, 849–858.
Cowan, J.S., Miles, C.A., Andrews, P.K., Inglis, D.A., 2014. Biodegradable mulch
performed comparable to polyethylene in high tunnel tomato (Solanum lycop-
ersicum l.) production. J. Sci. Food Agric., http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6504, in
press.
Deng, S., Popova, I., 2011. Carbohydrate hydrolases. In: Dick, R.P. (Ed.), Methods of
Soil Enzymology. Soil Science Society of America, pp. 185–209.
Derraik, J.G., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852.
Dick, R.P., Breakwell, D.P., Turco, R.F., 1996. Soil enzyme activities and biodiversity
measurements as integrative microbiological indicators. In: Doran, J.W., Jones,
A.J. (Eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America,
pp. 247–271.
Esmaeili, A., Pourbabaee, A.A., Alikhani, H.A., Shabani, F., Esmaeili, E., 2013. Biodegra-
dation of low-density polyethylene (ldpe) by mixed culture of Lysinibacillus
xylanilyticus and Aspergillus niger in soil. PLoS ONE 8, e71720.
Goldberger, J.R., Jones, R.E., Miles, C.A., Wallace, R.W., Inglis, D.A., 2013. Barriers and
bridges to the adoption of biodegradable plastic mulches for us specialty crop
production. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 1–11.
Hayes, D.G., Dharmalingam, S., Wadsworth, L.C., Leonas, K.K., Miles, C., Inglis, D.,
2012. Biodegradable agricultural mulches derived from biopolymers. In: Khe-
mani, K.C., Scholz, C. (Eds.), Degradable Polymers and Materials: Principles and
Practice, vol. 1114, 2nd edition. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC,
pp. 201–223.
 C. Li et al. / Applied Soil Ecology 79 (2014) 59–69
Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
NY, USA.
Kapanen, A., Schettini, E., Vox, G., Itavaara, M., 2008. Performance and environ-
mental impact of biodegradable films in agriculture: a field study on protected
cultivation. J. Polym. Environ. 16, 109–122.
Karlen, D.L., Stott, D.E., 1994. A framework for evaluating physical and chemical indi-
cators of soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A.
(Eds.), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society
of America and American Society of Agronomy, pp. 53–72.
Kasirajan, S., Ngouajio, M., 2012. Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agri-
cultural applications: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 501–529.
Klemchuk, P.P., 1990. Degradable plastics: a critical review. Polym. Degrad. Stabil.
27, 183–202.
Klose, S., Wernecke, K.D., Makeschin, F., 2004. Microbial activities in forest soils
exposed to chronic depositions from a lignite power plant. Soil Biol. Biochem.
36, 1913–1923.
Koch, O., Tscherko, D., Kandeler, E., 2007. Temperature sensitivity of microbial res-
piration, nitrogen mineralization, and potential soil enzyme activities in organic
alpine soils. Global Biogeochem. Cy., 21.
Kuzyakov, Y., 2010. Priming effects: interactions between living and dead organic
matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1363–1371.
Kyrikou, I., Briassoulis, D., 2007. Biodegradation of agricultural plastic films: a critical
review. J. Polym. Environ. 15, 125–150.
Lalitha, M., Kasthuri Thilagam, V., Balakrishnan, N., Mansour, M., 2010. Effect of
plastic mulch on soil properties and crop growth—a review. Agric. Rev. 31,
145–149.
Lament, W.J., 1993. Plastic mulches for the production of vegetable crops. HortTech.
3, 35–39.
Lamont, W.J., 2005. Plastics: modifying the microclimate for the production of veg-
etable crops. HortTech. 15, 477–481.
Larson, W., Pierce, F., 1991. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality. In: Evalu-
ation for sustainable land management in the developing world: Proceedings of
the International Workshop on Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in
the Developing World, Chiang Rai, Thailand, 15–21 September 1991. [Bangkok,
Thailand: International Board for Soil Research and Management, 1991].
Li, C., Moore-Kucera, J., Miles, C., Leonas, K., Lee, J., Corbin, A., Inglis, D.,
2014. Degradation of potentially biodegradable plastic mulch films at three
diverse U.S. locations. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., www.tandfonline.com/
doi/abs/10.1080/21683565.2014.884515#preview, in press.
Li, F.-M., Song, Q.-H., Jjemba, P.K., Shi, Y.-C., 2004. Dynamics of soil microbial biomass
c and soil fertility in cropland mulched with plastic film in a semiarid agro-
ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 1893–1902.
Loeppert, R.H., Suarez, D.L., 1996. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L.,
Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H. (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis part 3—chemical
methods. Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Madi-
son, WI, pp. 437–474.
69
Ma, H., Mei, X.-R., Yan, C.-R., He, W.-Q., Li, K., 2008. The residue of mulching plastic
film of cotton field in north China. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2, 570–573.
Miles, C., Beus, C., Corbin, A., Wallace, R., Saez, H., Walters, T., Leonas, K., Brodhagen,
M., Hayes, D., Inglis, D., 2009. Research and extension priorities to ensure adap-
tation of high tunnels and biodegradable plastic mulch in the United States. In:
Agricultural Plastics Congress, 13–16 July, College Station, PA.
Miles, C., Wallace, R., Wszelaki, A., Martin, J., Cowan, J., Walters, T., Inglis, D., 2012.
Deterioration of potentially biodegradable alternatives to black plastic mulch in
three tomato production regions. Hortscience 47, 1270–1277.
Moreno, M.M., Moreno, A., 2008. Effect of different biodegradable and polyethyl-
ene mulches on soil properties and production in a tomato crop. Sci. Hortic.
Amsterdam 116, 256–263.
Narayan, R., 2010. Misleading claims and misuse proliferate in the nascent.
Bioplastics Magazine 5, 38–41, Polymedia Publisher GmbH, http://www.
bioplasticsmagazine.com/bioplasticsmagazine-wAssets/docs/article/1001 p38
bioplasticsMAGAZINE.pdf (Verified: 22 August 2013).
Otey, F.H., Mark, A.M., Mehltretter, C.L., Russell, C.R., 1974. Starch-based film for
degradable agricultural mulch. Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. R.D 13, 90–92.
Powlson, D.S., Brookes, P.C., Christensen, B.T., 1987. Measurement of soil microbial
biomass provides an early indication of changes in total soil organic matter due
to straw incorporation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19, 159–164.
Ren, X., 2003. Biodegradable plastics: a solution or a challenge? J. Clean. Product. 11,
27–40.
Rhoades, J.D., 1996. Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In:
Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A., Loeppert, R.H. (Eds.), Methods of soil analy-
sis part 3—chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, American Society
of Agronomy, pp. 417–435.
Riggle, D., 1998. Moving towards consensus on degradable plastics. BioCy-
cle 39, 64–70, http://icpe.in/bio%20degradable%20bags%20technical%20know%
20how.pdf (22.08.13).
Shimao, M., 2001. Biodegradation of plastics. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 12, 242–247.
Shogren, R.L., Hochmuth, R.C., 2004. Field evaluation of watermelon grown on paper-
polymerized vegetable oil mulches. Hortscience 39, 1588–1591.
Staff, S.S., 2011. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United
States Department of Agriculture http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/
Stott, D.E., Andrews, S.S., Liebig, M.A., Wienhold, B.J., Karlen, D.L., 2010. Evaluation
of beta-glucosidase activity as a soil quality indicator for the soil management
assessment framework. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74, 107–119.
Tabatabai, M.A., 1994. Soil enzymes. In: Bottomley, P.S., Angle, J.S., Weaver, R.W.
(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 – Microbiological and Biochemical Prop-
erties. Soil Science Society of America, pp. 775–833.
Wardle, D.A., 1992. A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial
biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biol. Rev. 67, 321–358.
Wu, J., Joergensen, R.G., Pommerening, B., Chaussod, R., Brookes, P.C., 1990. Measure-
ment of soil microbial biomass C – an automated procedure. Soil Biol. Biochem.
22, 1167–1169.