# Restoring soil health from long-term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a review”

Long Nguyen Van, Duy Nguyen Quang, Laetitia Herrmann, Aydin Enez, Lambert Brau, Chung Nguyen Van, Mathias Katz, Didier Lesueur

► To cite this version:

Long Nguyen Van, Duy Nguyen Quang, Laetitia Herrmann, Aydin Enez, Lambert Brau, et al. Restoring soil health from long-term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a review”. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2025, 45 (3), pp.31. 10.1007/s13593-025-01023-4. hal-05113471

HAL Id: hal-05113471

https://hal.science/hal-05113471v1

Submitted on 16 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Restoring soil health from long-term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a review”

Long Nguyen Van<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Duy Nguyen Quang<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" /> · Laetitia Herrmann<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" /> · Aydin Enez<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Lambert Brau<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Chung Nguyen Van<fnref n="6" /> · Mathias Katz<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="7" /> · Didier Lesueur<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="8" />,<fnref n="9" />,<fnref n="10" />

Accepted: 11 April 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

Robusta coffee, a vital cash crop for Vietnamese smallholders, significantly contributes to the national economy. Vietnam is the largest exporter of Robusta coffee, supplying 53% of the global market. However, this success has come at a cost. Decades of intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam have led to severe soil acidification and biodiversity loss, favoring soil-borne pathogens. There is a lack of literature analyzing how intensive management causes soil acidification, advances the spread of soilborne pathogens, and the application of soil amendments to address these issues. Therefore, this review explores the causes of acidification, pathogen proliferation, and sustainable amendments like lime and biochar to mitigate these effects. The study synthesizes findings from studies on soil acidification, soil-borne pathogen dynamics, and sustainable soil amendments in Robusta coffee systems. We found that the overuse of nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers to grow coffee is the primary driver of soil acidification, consequently increasing soilborne diseases and the severity of plant diseases. Additionally, the effects of soil amendments as a sustainable solution to reduce soil acidity, enhance soil health, and better control soilborne pathogens. The implementation of sustainable coffee farming systems is strongly recommended to meet the increased demand for safe and green products worldwide. Locally available resources (lime, biochar, and agricultural wastes) present immediate solutions, but urgent action is required to prevent irreversible damage. However, the effects of amendments significantly vary in field conditions, suggesting that further studies should be conducted to address these challenges and promote sustainability.

**Keywords** Intensive coffee cultivation · Soil acidification · Soilborne pathogen · Agricultural soil amendment

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Didier Lesueur
didier.lesueur@cirad.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Pepper Research and Development Center (PRDC), The Western Highlands, Agriculture and Forestry Science Institute (WASI), Province of Gia Lai, Pleiku, Vietnam</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Common Microbial Biotechnology Platform (CMBP), Asia hub, Hanoi, Vietnam</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Centre for Regional and Rural Futures (CeRRF), Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ School Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), Bac Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ AgroParisTech, 22 Place de l'Agronomie, 91123 Palaiseau Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UMR Eco&Sols, Hanoi, Vietnam</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Eco&Sols, Université de Montpellier (UMR), CIRAD, Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (INRAE), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Montpellier SupAgro, 34060 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Rubber Research Institute, Haikou, China</footnote>
# Contents

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Acidification caused by coffee cultivation

4. Effects of soil acidification in coffee plantation

4.1. Physicochemical effects

4.2. Biological effects

5. Potential effects of soil amendments on soil health and soilborne pathogens

5.1. Potential effects of biochar amendment

Soil physicochemical effects

Soil biological effects

5.2. Potential effects of lime amendment

Soil physicochemical effects

Soil biological effects

5.3. Potential effects of organic fertilizer amendment by plant and animal residues

Soil physicochemical effects

Soil biological effects

5.4. Potential effects of organic mulching by plant residues

Soil physicochemical effects

Soil biological effects

5.5. Potential effects of intercropping and agroforest systems

6. Conclusion and Future Perspectives

Acknowledgments

References

# 1 Introduction

Robusta coffee (*Coffea canephora* var. *Robusta*) dominates Vietnam's agricultural economy, with 650,000 hectares contributing 53% of the global supply (ICO 2022; DCP 2023). However, intensive cultivation practices have led to severe soil degradation, threatening long-term sustainability. Coffee cultivation is primarily concentrated in the Central Highlands (Figure 3), with 90% of the coffee farms being managed by smallholder farmers (Rigal et al 2023).

The shift towards intensive coffee cultivation, particularly the excessive use of nitrogen (N) fertilizers over the past few decades, has been aimed at maximizing coffee yields (Castro et al 2012; Capa et al. 2015), but this has led to adverse agronomic, economic, and ecological consequences, with soil degradation, particularly acidification (lowering of soil pH), and soilborne plant diseases posing significant threats to coffee production (Dung et al 2019; Zhang et al 2022). While N fertilizer application is marginally positively correlated with coffee yield, it has also been identified as the primary cause of soil acidification (Castro et al 2012; Zhang et al 2022). Acidification results in reduced soil pH,

increased metal toxicity including aluminum (Al), manganese (Mn), and iron (Fe), and deficiencies in phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K), consequently impacting soil fertility, plants, and soil microorganisms (Kunhikrishnan et al 2016). Acidification disrupts the balance of microbial ecosystems (Deng et al 2024), leading to a decrease in the overall relative abundances of bacteria and fungi, as well as a reduction in potential beneficial microbes (Zhao et al 2018). Furthermore, acidification has been shown to increase soilborne diseases and the severity of plant diseases while also promoting pathogen establishment (Fagard et al 2014; Martinez et al 2021; Zhang et al 2022) (Fig. 1).

The intensive farming practices adopted in Vietnam led to a 115% increase in coffee yields from 1996 to 2020 (Hong et al. 2017; DCP 2021). However, this approach has resulted in a significant decrease in soil pH and an increase in the occurrence of yellowing leaf diseases. These diseases are caused by plant parasitic nematodes (*Meloidogyne* spp. and *Pratylenchus* spp.) and fungi (*Fusarium* spp. and *Rhizoctonia* spp.) (Khoa et al 2014; Hoa et al 2016; Hoang et al 2021). These pathogens are well-known as the most economically damaging diseases in coffee-producing countries globally, including Vietnam (Barros et al 2014; Hoa et al 2016; Hoang et al 2021; Machado, Kumar and Fatobene 2023), causing up to 40–50% yield losses (Barbosa et al 2004; Mulatu et al 2023). Soil acidity has been identified as a significant issue in coffee farming systems in Vietnam (Anh and Thuy 2017; Dung et al 2019), with populations of pathogenic fungi and plant parasitic nematodes under crops being 3–5 times higher than background levels (Dung et al 2019). Nematodes and fungi have infected around 36–43% of productive coffee plantations and 79% of replanted coffee farms in the Central Highlands (Khoa et al 2014; Dung et al 2019), resulting in the death of approximately 40% of replanted coffee plantations (Da et al. 2012; Khoa et al 2014). Long-term intensive coffee cultivation with high density (1100 trees ha⁻¹) has created optimal conditions for soil pathogen incidence (Fig. 2) (Arita, Silva and Machado 2020; Machado, Kumar and Fatobene 2023). To control these diseases, farmers used excessive chemical inputs, with their application only increasing in an attempt to maintain high yields in the face of increasing disease pressures (Nysanth et al 2022). Seriously, relying solely on synthetic pesticides can degrade coffee quality, pose health risks, contribute to environmental pollution, and lead to long-term inefficiency (Malta et al. 2003; Mekonen et al. 2014; Silva et al 2017; Duong 2021; Khan et al 2021). Sustainable practices, such as intercropping, biochar and lime application, and agricultural waste applications (e.g., organic fertilizers and mulch), have been identified as potential soil amendments that could help mitigate acidic soil pH, control soilborne diseases, and improve soil fertility and crop yield through complex mechanisms (Beltagi et al 2022; Golden

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** An example of a conventional Robusta coffee plantation in Vietnam (mono-culture, high density with 1100 trees per hectare, and intensive mineral fertilization and irrigation). Photo credit: Long</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Example of mature Robusta coffee tree infected by plant parasitic nematodes and pathogenic fungi. The specific symptoms are a stunting, leaf yellowing and b galls on root system. Photo credit: Long</figcaption></figure>

et al 2023; Sánchez et al 2023; Souza et al 2023; Deng et al 2024). However, their effects depend on various factors such as the materials used, application rates, soil types, target species, and agroecological conditions (Li et al. 2018; Rayne and Aula 2020; Poveda et al. 2021) (Fig. 3).

There are currently no studies or reviews that investigate the link between soil acidification and soilborne pests and diseases caused by long-term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam. It is clear that there is a need for more knowledge about potential strategies using

sustainable soil practices to remedy the issues. Moreover, knowledge of the mechanisms contributing to soil acidification and the role of soil amendments in protecting coffee from soilborne pests and diseases remains limited. This review paper provides comprehensive insights into the consequences of long-term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation related to soil acidification and the spread of soilborne pathogens, the mechanisms of soil acidification, and the impact of implementing soil amendments on soil acidification and soilborne disease incidence.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Distribution of coffee cultivated areas in the Central Highlands, Vietnam. The region consists of five provinces. accounting for 90% of the coffee farms (data was retrieved from DCP 2023)</figcaption></figure>

## 2 Methodology

This review synthesizes findings from studies on soil acidification, soil-borne pathogens, and sustainable amendments in the cultivation of Robusta coffee, particularly in Vietnam's Central Highlands. A systematic search was conducted across the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases to gather comprehensive literature (including peer-reviewed papers, books, and articles) using the keywords "coffee cultivation," "soil acidification," "soil-borne pathogens," and "sustainable soil amendments." The search

focused on publications from 1995 to 2024 within the agricultural domain (see Figure 4). A comprehensive search yielded a total of 1679 papers, including 950 from Scopus, 91 from Web of Science, and 638 from Google Scholar. This diverse collection highlights the extensive research available on the topic. Given the limited number of publications specifically addressing the impact of intensive coffee cultivation on soil health indicators in Vietnam, it was necessary to expand the literature search on a global scale. All papers were exported to EndNote 21 (Clarivate Analytics) to identify and remove duplicates and irrelevant topics. Next, we

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Description of scoping review search method to identify the articles, screen with inclusion criteria, and the number of included studies</figcaption></figure>

screened the titles and abstracts of articles and documents addressing various aspects of intensive coffee plantation, soil acidification, soil-borne disease pressure, and sustainable soil amendments. Ultimately, we selected 195 papers that met our criteria, which included 2 papers published in 1997 and 1999, and 193 articles published between 2000 and 2024. We then carefully reviewed the full texts to identify the study design, findings, and recommendations.

## 3 Acidification caused by coffee cultivation

Coffee is the key crop in Vietnam that requires the largest application of mineral fertilizers and chemical pesticides. While there is a relationship between coffee yield and fertilizer rates (Castro et al 2012; Byrareddy et al 2019), they are not strongly correlated (Byrareddy et al 2019), and excessive N inputs can also reduce yield (Lesueur et al 2022). Unfortunately, smallholder coffee growers have embraced intensive farming methods and heavily use agrochemicals in attempts to chase high yields (Castro et al 2012; Hong et al. 2017). Vietnam has achieved the highest coffee yield, with an average of 3 t green coffee bean ha⁻¹, compared to other coffee-producing countries (Havemann et al 2015; DCP 2023). The recommended use of mineral fertilizers in coffee cultivation by public extension services varied significantly, depending on soil types, plantation ages, and target yields (MARD

2013). However, mineral fertilizers have been excessively applied up to 50% higher than recommendations (especially N) (Byrareddy et al 2019; Rigal et al 2023).

Soil pH is a critical indicator of soil health, with a broad impact on soil nutrient availability, microbial diversity, and crop production (Lauber et al 2009). One of the main causes of soil acidification in intensified agriculture is the excessive use of mineral N fertilizers (Zhou et al 2013; Zhang et al 2022). Acidification occurs primarily due to the accumulation of H⁺ in the soil, resulting from nitrification and urea hydrolysis, which releases protons into the soil (Barak et al 1997). The mechanisms of N application that significantly accelerate soil acidification and increase trace metal toxicity can be explained as follows: (1) N addition directly promotes soil nitrification and hydrolysis (Cai et al 2014; Zhao et al 2020), leading to the indirect stimulation of NH₄⁺ or NO₃⁻ assimilation into root systems (Britto and Kronzucker 2002), resulting in the exudation of H⁺ ions; (2) N addition significantly decreases exchangeable Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and K⁺ (Cai et al 2014) while increasing Cd, Mn²⁺, and Al³⁺ (Tian and Niu 2015; Zhao et al 2020). These processes are summarized in Figure 5.

Zhao et al. (2018) conducted a study on the soil characteristics of coffee plantations with varying lengths of monoculture history and intensive management in Hainan, China. They found that long-term monoculture of intensive coffee farming resulted in a significant decrease in soil pH. There was a difference of about 1.8 pH units between the youngest
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** How intensive nitrogen application and high annual precipitation cause soil acidification in coffee plantations in Vietnam</figcaption></figure>

and oldest plantations. In the Central Highlands of Vietnam, coffee plantations currently have strongly acidic soils, with pH levels ranging from 4.06 to 5.64 (Tu and Toan 2015; Ha 2016; Anh and Thuy 2017; Huyen et al 2018; Dung et al 2019). These acidic soil conditions lead to nutrient limitations, such as low phosphorus availability and toxicities from Al and Mn. These conditions are also exacerbated by leaching from the high annual precipitation, ranging from 1800 to 2000 mm in the Central Highlands (Dinh, Aires and Rahn 2022).

# 4 Effects of soil acidification in coffee plantations

## 4.1 Physicochemical effects

One of the most harmful effects of soil acidification is an increase in Al and Mn bioavailability, which can be toxic to crops (Rosilawati et al. 2014; Wang et al 2015). When the pH drops below 5.6, the production of $H^+$ and $Al^{3+}$ occurs much faster (Cai et al 2014). High concentrations of $Al^{3+}$ and $Mn^{2+}$ in acidic soil can lead to deformities and dysfunction of the root system, inhibiting root cell development

(Barcelo and Poschenrieder 2002; Kochian et al. 2004) and growth (Zu et al. 2014; Panhwar et al. 2020).

Soil acidification also decreases soil exchangeable base cations, causing nutrient imbalance and deficiency, adversely impacting plant growth (Cai et al 2014; Tian and Niu 2015). Base cations are also known to buffer the soil pH (Tian and Niu 2015; Zhao et al 2020). Acidification promotes the leaching of base cations such as $Ca^{2+}$, $Mg^{2+}$, $K^+$, and $Na^+$ and allows $H^+$ and $Al^{3+}$ ions to concentrate in the exchangeable cation pool (White 2006; Neina 2019). Similarly, P is bioavailable at a neutral pH, but only 30% remains bioavailable at a pH below 6. Similar observations are found for available N and K, which decrease by 30% and 50% at pH 5.5 and 5.0, respectively, compared to a neutral pH (Zimdahl 2015).

Several studies have investigated the impact of intensive management on the soil of coffee plantations in Vietnam (Anh and Thuy 2017; Hong 2017; Dung et al 2019). Soil porosity declined by 9–48%; Al and Fe bioavailability increased by 41% and 27% (Ha 2016) and Ca and Mg bioavailability. In addition to the degradation of soil health, plant health is also negatively impacted by soil acidification, as it reduces plant defense (Liao, Li and Yao 2019; Joseph et al 2021; Zhang, Wang and Feng 2021) (Fig. 6).

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Summary of the relationships between intensive coffee cultivation, soil health, and soilborne pathogens</figcaption></figure>

## 4.2 Biological effects

The root microbiome acts as a biological barrier and plays a crucial role in enhancing plant resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses, improving nutrient uptake, protecting plants from pathogen infection, regulating soilborne disease occurrence, and promoting plant growth (Banerjee and Heijden 2023; Wu et al. 2023). Soil acidification has been found to decrease the biodiversity of soil organisms. For example, at pH <4, 70% of important soil biota was lost (Han et al. 2007), and soil fauna community composition at pH 7.0 was significantly higher than at pH 3.5 (Wei et al. 2017). Relative abundance and diversity of bacteria at soil pH 8.3 were double compared to soil pH 4.0 (Rousk et al. 2010). Moreover, soil enzymatic and microbial activities, along with microbial biomass, are strongly negatively correlated with soil acidification (Zhang et al. 2015; Shili et al. 2017). Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and ammonia-oxidizing archaea play a vital role in N cycling and nitrification, and they are adversely impacted by acidic soil pH (Epelde et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2018b; Zhao et al. 2020).

Acidification promotes the growth of pathogens and decreases beneficial microbiomes and plant resistance to disease. This results from the deterioration of soil parameters and reduced available soil nutrients (Fan et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2022). Mulder et al. (2005) reported a close relationship between nematodes, fungal and bacterial abundance, and soil acidification. Decreased pH directly disrupts the balance of soil microbial communities, shifting from bacterial-dominant to fungal-dominant communities and promoting the growth of soilborne pathogens (Deng et al. 2024). Zhang et al. (2017) found that bacterial richness and diversity indexes were significantly lower in acidic soils, while

the abundance of pathogenic fungi (such as *Cladosporium*, *Pyrenochaeta*, and *Exophiala*) gradually increased (Deng et al. 2024). An example of the effects of acidic soil is the 90% decrease in the abundance of *Rhizophagus irregularis*, inhibiting arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi development and formation (Liu et al. 2020). Soil pH strongly influences bacteria, particularly beneficial microorganisms, more than fungal abundance (Branco et al. 2022; Coleine et al. 2022; Deng et al. 2024). Zhao et al. (2018) demonstrated that long-term monoculture coffee in Hainan, China, with intensive management, decreased soil pH and organic matter content (OM). This resulted in a decline in soil bacteria and fungi abundance over time. Specifically, the relative abundances of bacterial *Proteobacteria*, *Bacteroidetes*, Nitrospira, and fungal Ascomycota phyla decreased. Additionally, acidic soil in coffee plantations was found to promote the growth and reproduction of plant parasitic nematodes, particularly root-knot nematodes (Wang et al. 2009; Nisa et al. 2021). The soil acidity indirectly decreased the abundance and diversity of antagonistic microorganisms due to soil nutrient deficiency. Since antagonistic microorganisms rely heavily on soil nutrients, soil pathogens are less reliant on soil nutrients and more reliant on their host plants; thus, the growth inhibition of antagonistic microorganisms and the promotion of pathogens in the soil micro-ecosystems occur (Cortois et al. 2016; Shen et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2022; Deng et al. 2024).

Due to the perennial nature and intensive cultivation of coffee crops, in addition to changes in soil properties, a significant increase in nematode parasitism in crops and nematode density in soils has been observed (Arita, Silva and Machado 2020; Machado, Kumar and Fatobene 2023). Reports have also indicated that *Fusarium* species cause severe damage to coffee production, leading to a significant

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
decrease in coffee yield (Mulatu 2019; López et al 2020; Faifi et al 2022). It is important to note that nematodes and fusarium coexist in infected plantations, making management challenging (Khoa et al 2014; Khan 2023). In Vietnam, approximately 40% of replanted coffee plantations failed due to nematode and fungal infections (Da et al. 2012; Khoa et al. 2012; Dan and Van 2016). Nematodes have been identified as the primary pathogens or predisposing agents, with the independent capability to attack and weaken host plants, leading to modifications that promote fungal and bacterial invasion and increase fungal pathogenicity (Nair 2021; Salgado and Terra 2021; Khan et al 2023). Therefore, managing nematodes could indirectly reduce the threat of *Fusarium* infections in coffee plantations.

# 5 Potential effects of soil amendments on soil health and soilborne pathogens

Many amendments (e.g., lime, biochar, and agricultural wastes) have been trialed to decrease soil acidification and ameliorate soil acidity. Those materials provide nutrients (Dai et al 2018; Amoah et al 2020; Saliu and Oladoja 2021; Siedt et al 2021), reduce H⁺, neutralize acid (Dai et al 2017; Shi et al 2019; Rayne and Aula 2020), and improve soil physicochemical and biological parameters (Kader et al 2017; Azim et al 2018; Shuning et al 2020; Wang et al 2020; Siedt et al 2021). Additionally, soilborne pathogen management by soil amendments resulted from the various mode actions through soil pH increase, modifying soil characteristics, microbial community, and function, especially significantly enhancing the abundance of beneficial biocontrol fungi, promoting the induction of plant defenses, increasing nutrient and space competition, and producing pathogen-inhibiting compounds (Jaiswal et al 2017; Abbott et al 2018; Deng et al 2024). Due to extreme acidification, increasing soil pH is an urgent and mandatory practice to raise soil pH, improve soil health, and retain coffee production. Furthermore, the high demand for “green” coffee products and maintenance of certain yield levels, restoring soil health, and control of soilborne diseases through sustainable practices is a positive strategy.

## 5.1 Potential effects of biochar amendment

### 5.1.1 Soil physicochemical effects

The alkalinity of biochar was demonstrated through its calcium carbonate equivalent, which can significantly improve soil pH, affect soil properties, and suppress soilborne pathogens. Increasing the amount of biochar application gradually raises soil pH and improves acidic soil and soil properties due to the alkaline nature and high pH buffering capacity of biochar (Chintala et al 2013b; Dai et al 2017). Since most

biochar is alkaline, it directly increases pH and base cations and decreases H⁺ and Al³⁺ concentrations in acidic soil, with no positive effect in alkaline soil (Zwieten et al 2010). Carbonates and oxides formed from the pyrolysis process of feedstocks react with H⁺ and Al³⁺ in the soil, thereby raising soil pH and reducing the exchangeable acidity (Novak et al 2009; Enders et al 2012). Additionally, the functional groups of biochar (-COO- and -O-) also react with H⁺ in the soil (Yuan et al. 2011). The mitigation of soil acidity by biochar addition in coffee cultivation was investigated in greenhouse and field conditions. Soil pH value increased by varying amounts, from 0.03 to 1.17 units, depending on biochar feedstocks, application rate and method, and ecological conditions. The positive effects of biochar on coffee cultivation are summarized in Table 1. Generally, under greenhouse conditions, a 2% biochar application increased pH by 1.1 units, significantly decreasing Al, compared to the control (Herviyanti et al 2020). In field conditions, soil pH was 0.18, 0.23, and 0.37 units higher than the control after two years of adding 4, 8, and 16 t ha⁻¹, respectively (Sánchez et al 2023).

The molecular structure of biochar and the acidic aromatic carbon in biochar are primary factors contributing to soil nutrient improvement and providing agronomic benefits (Zhang, Wang and Feng 2021). These factors promote cation adsorption, raise CEC, improve mycorrhizae and bacteria abundance, enhance the availability of N and P, and reduce leaching and N₂O soil emissions (Atkinson et al. 2010; Güereña et al 2013). For example, coffee husk biochar increased soil porosity (7.5–13.1%), soil moisture (6.6–12.3%), OM (16.9–21.4%), CEC (25.0–30.5%), %N (8.7–12.5%), available P (15.9–17.1%), and K (3.6–3.7%). These changes have promoted plant growth and increased coffee yield by 17.2–24.5 % (An, Cong and Hoa 2023). Furthermore, reactive functional groups on the biochar surface can absorb and detoxify heavy metals (Li et al 2017; Zhao et al 2017), and biochar mitigates climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Karhu et al 2011). However, it has been reported that biochar application can accumulate heavy metal pollutants such as As, Ni, Cu, and organic pollutants (Jin et al 2016) if care is not taken to screen these out from feedstocks before pyrolysis (Xiang et al 2021). Additionally, many previous studies have reported the positive effects of biochar on soil behavior and plant growth, particularly in acid soils and under controlled conditions (Jones et al 2012; Premalatha, Poorna Bindu, Nivetha et al 2023; Khan et al 2024). However, the impacts observed in controlled environments may differ in field conditions and need further validation (Han et al 2023).

### 5.1.2 Soil biological effects

The addition of biochar has a positive impact on the microbial community and structure. It increases microbial

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
taxonomic and functional diversity and activities in the rhizosphere due to the increased pH, which provides optimal conditions and habitat (Jaiswal et al 2017; Sun et al 2018). For example, biochar has been shown to increase bacterial diversity by 25% (Kim et al 2007) and to enhance arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization by 10–20% (Solaiman et al 2010). However, there are some drawbacks to using biochar, including a decrease in the abundance of beneficial fungi and an increase in bacterial nitrification (Gundale and Luca 2006; Rondon et al. 2007; Anderson et al. 2011; Nie et al. 2018).

Biochar can help manage soilborne pathogens through various mechanisms. It increases the abundance of beneficial genera, regulates the balance of the soil microbial community and functions, and can suppress soilborne plant diseases, promote plant growth, and enhance biological nitrogen fixation (Jaiswal et al 2017). The introduction of biochar led to a significant increase in the abundance of *Rhizobium*, *Mesorhizobium*, *Brevundimonas*, and *Ochrobactrum* of 2- to 10-fold; *Pseudomonas*, *Paenibacillus*, *Shinella*, and *Bacillus* of 10- to 20-fold; and *Microvirga* of 91-fold compared to the control. Some members of *Pseudomonas*, *Bacillus*, and *Streptomyces* are known to produce antibiotics, thereby increasing their abundance can help suppress soil pathogens (Jaiswal et al 2017). Additionally, biochar has been found to reduce the relative abundance of soil fungal pathogens (*Ceratobasidium* and *Monosporascus*) by stimulating soil polyphenol oxidase (Ge et al 2023). This reduction in soil-borne pathogens is also attributed to promoting nutrient and space competition and the production of pathogen-inhibiting compounds (Joseph et al 2021).

Crucially, changes in soil properties due to biochar characteristics, application rates, and soil types should be considered (Poveda et al 2021). It is important to consider the risks associated with biochar, such as decreased abundance of microorganisms and accumulation of heavy metals. Additionally, the cost of biochar incorporation may be prohibitive for small coffee farmers (Siedt et al 2021). Excessive use of biochar could have negative effects on soil microbial activities, nitrogen levels, and production costs (Gundale and Luca 2006; Rondon et al 2007; Dai et al 2017; Cong et al 2023; Khan et al 2024a, b), indicating the need for further research to verify the benefits of biochar.

Moreover, the modification of nematode populations (Zhang et al 2013; Poveda et al 2021) and the decomposition of biochar (Rahayu and Sari 2017) contribute to the reduction of nematode densities. For example, the population of *Pratylenchus coffeae* with a 4% biochar addition was significantly lower than the control after a three-month experiment (Rahayu and Sari 2017). Similarly, biochar amendment led to a 61.4–73.1% decrease in *Pratylenchus* spp. in coffee roots and 23.6–32.1% in *Fusarium* spp. in the soil compared to the control (An, Cong and Hoa 2023). The increase in soil

pH due to biochar application could reduce nematode abundance and inhibit the growth and reproduction of root-knot nematodes (Wang et al. 2009; Nisa et al 2021).

## 5.2 Potential effects of lime amendment

### 5.2.1 Soil physicochemical effects

Applying lime to soil increases pH, alters soil chemical and biological properties, and helps control soilborne diseases (Deng et al 2024). Agricultural liming materials are valuable resources that consist of Ca and/or Mg compounds, essential for effectively neutralizing soil acidity and enhancing soil health. When these materials are applied to the soil, carbonate and hydroxide ions neutralize, reduce, and displace hydrogen ions from the soil solution (Mahmud and Chong 2022), raising the soil's pH value. Several studies in greenhouse and field conditions have shown that applying 1.6–4.8 t lime $ha^{-1}$ in coffee cultivation increased soil pH values by 0.4 to 1.3 units (Table 2) (Cyamweshi et al 2014; Dibaba 2021; Parecido et al 2021; Teshale, Kufa and Regassa 2021; Fitria and Soemarno 2022). The addition of lime improves soil physical parameters such as flocculation, aggregates, and porosity by promoting greater particle dispersion and increasing mean aggregate formation (Junior et al 2020). Soil structure improvement results from reduced turbidity, indicating increased aggregate stability (Ulén and Etana 2014; Gunnarsson et al 2022).

Furthermore, lime enhances the mobility and availability of essential plant nutrients through abiotic and biotic processes and immobilizes toxic heavy metals (Li et al 2018; Silva et al 2019). Lime also provides Ca and Mg as nutrients that plants can uptake (Silva et al 2019), promoting soil fertility enhancement. The application of 4.8 t lime $ha^{-1}$ significantly increased N, P, and K from 0.16 to 0.19%, 8.59 to 16.40 ppm, and 0.49 to 0.77 meq 100 $g^{-1}$ soil, respectively (Dibaba 2021). Lime amendment decreases $Al^{3+}$, increases methane oxidation, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by inhibiting the activity of methane oxidizers in acidic soils (Kunhikrishnan et al 2016).

### 5.2.2 Soil biological effects

Soil pH increases, as regulated by adding lime, are key factors that directly affect the presence of soil pathogens and trigger plant defense against diseases (Deng et al 2024). Higher soil pH and nutrient levels promote the diversity of microbial communities and enhance the population of beneficial bacteria (such as *Bradyrhizobium*, *Rhodoplanes*, *Mesorhizobium*, and *Gemmatimonas*), which helps in restoring and balancing soil microbiomes and suppressing soilborne pathogens (Deng et al 2024). Moreover, the abundance of pathogenic fungi (like *Cladosporium*, *Pyrenochaeta*, and
<table><caption>**Table 1** Summary of previous investigations of the application of biochar to mitigate soil acidification, improve soil health, and coffee growth</caption><thead><tr><th>Soil type, location</th><th>Experiment type, liming rates, and time</th><th>Soil pH effect</th><th>Other positive and or/negative effects on soil, plantations, and the environment</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Basalt soil (pH:4.58)<br>Vietnam</td><td>Field trial.<br>Coffee husk biochar rates: 100% NPK (control), 1.0 t biochar + 80% NPK ha<sup>-1</sup>, 2.0 t biochar + 80% NPK ha<sup>-1</sup>, 3.0 t biochar + 80% NPK ha<sup>-1</sup><br>Trial time: 5 months</td><td>Soil pH increased by 1.05–1.17 units compared to the control</td><td>Addition of 2–3 t biochar increased soil porosity (7.5–13.1%), soil moisture (6.6–12.3%), OM (16.9–21.4%), CEC (25.0–30.5%), %N (8.7–12.5%), available P (15.9–17.1%), and K (3.6–3.7%)<br><i>Pratylenchus</i> spp. density in roots reduced by 61.5–73.1%, <i>Fusarium</i> spp. decreased 23.6–32.1%</td><td>An, Cong and Hoa (2023)</td></tr><tr><td>Ultisols (pH: 4.17)<br>Indonesia</td><td>Greenhouse trial. Young coconut waste biochar and soil were mixed evenly<br>Biochar rates: 0.0% (control), 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.0%<br>Trial time: 3 months</td><td>Soil pH has increased by 1.1 units for the rate of 2% biochar addition compared to the control</td><td>2% biochar addition increased available P, organic C, and CEC by 1.70 ppm, 0.99%, and 9.12 cmol[+1] kg<sup>-1</sup> compared to the control. Ca, Mg, and K increased along with the increase in rates of biochar<br>The effect of biochar was not significantly different in the increase in plant growth after 3 months among biochar rates</td><td>Herviyanti et al (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Andisol soil. (pH:5.50)<br>Colombia</td><td>Field trial.<br>Coffee pulp biochar rates: 0 (control), 4, 8, and 16 t ha<sup>-1</sup><br>Trial time: 2 years</td><td>Soil pH increased by 0.18–0.37 units according to the increase in biochar rates</td><td>Rates of 8 and 16 t ha<sup>-1</sup> reduced bulk density by 0.82 and 0.83 g cm<sup>-3</sup>, respectively, and increased aggregation status by 96.5% and 96.84% compared to the control<br>Decreased up to 60% of the exchangeable acidity; increased OM by 0.27% and soil respiration by 50–60%</td><td>Sánchez et al (2023)</td></tr><tr><td>Basalt soil (pH:4.58)<br>Vietnam</td><td>Field trial. Coffee husk biochar was applied to the soil surface.<br>Biochar rates: 100% NPK (control), 0.5 t biochar + 75% NPK ha<sup>-1</sup>, and 1.0 t biochar + 75% NPK ha<sup>-1</sup><br>Trial time: 15 months</td><td>Soil pH increased slightly by 0.03 and 0.05 after applying 0.5 and 1.0 t of biochar ha<sup>-1</sup> compared to the control</td><td>Compared to control, soil moisture raised by 5.33% and 7.02%, available P increased by 21.8 and 42.8%, at the rates of 0.5 t and 1.0 t biochar ha<sup>-1</sup>, respectively<br>CEC rose from 8.92 (control) to 14.83 (0.5 t biochar) and 14.87 meq 100 g<sup>-1</sup> (1.0 t biochar), OC%, %N, and K<sub>2</sub>O were improved</td><td>Thanh et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>Oxisols (pH: 3.74)<br>China</td><td>Laboratory incubation. Soils were mixed with rice straw biochar<br>Biochar rates: 0%, 1%, 2% and 5% (w/w)<br>Trial time: 21 days</td><td>Soil pH levels increased to 3.63, 3.84, 3.95, and 4.27 for the 0%, 1%, 2%, and 5% biochar amendments, respectively</td><td>The addition of biochar did not affect the net mineralization rates when compared to the control<br>The net nitrification rates increased between the application rates of biochar</td><td>Wang et al (2018a, b)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Table 1 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Soil type, location</th><th>Experiment type, liming rates, and time</th><th>Soil pH effect</th><th>Other positive and or/negative effects on soil, plantations, and the environment</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The red soil (pH:4.67)<br>China</td><td>Laboratory incubation. Soils were mixed with rice husk and wood sawdust biochar<br>Biochar rates: 0, 2% and 5% (w/w)<br>Trial time: 35 days</td><td>The pH value slightly increased, even at the highest level of biochar<br>pH increased by 0.73 from 4.75 to 5.48 after 5% of wood sawdust biochar addition</td><td>The soil bulk density declined from 1.01 g cm<sup>-3</sup> to 0.85 and 0.82 g cm<sup>-3</sup> after 5% rice husk and wood sawdust biochar added, respectively<br>Water-holding capacity increased by 33.5–51.3%. There was a positive correlation between water-holding capacity and biochar level<br>Exchangeable Ca, K and Mg improved, by contrast, the decline in the contents of soil exchangeable acidity and aluminum resulted as the increasing biochar level<br>For 5% of wood sawdust biochar amendment, the exchangeable acidity and aluminum were reduced by 84% and 88%, respectively</td><td>Wang and Liu (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Sandy loam (pH:7.1)<br>China</td><td>Laboratory incubation. Soil was mixed evenly with woodchip biochar<br>Biochar rates: 0 (control), 50, and 100 g biochar kg<sup>-1</sup> soil<br>Trial time: 100 days</td><td>Soil pH increased by 1.13 and 1.11 units at the rates of 50 and 100 g biochar addition compared to the control, respectively</td><td>Biochar addition increased total C, microporosity, water retention, micro-scale shear stress, macro-scale cohesion, and precompression stress of the amended soils</td><td>Ajayi and Horn (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Shallow Aridic Ustorthents (pH: 4.78)<br>America</td><td>Laboratory incubation. Corn stover biochar and soil were mixed evenly<br>Biochar rates: 0, 20, 40, and 60 g kg<sup>-1</sup> soil<br>Trial time: 165 days</td><td>Soil pH increased by 0.73, 0.99 and 1.36 units at the biochar rates of 20, 40 and 60 g kg<sup>-1</sup> soil compared to the control, respectively</td><td>EC significantly improved from 92.8 to 113, 130 and 240 µS cm<sup>-1</sup> followed by the biochar rates of 20, 40, and 60 g kg<sup>-1</sup> soil, respectively<br>CEC significantly increased from 7.86 to 14.71, 17.33, and 19.04 cmol kg<sup>-1</sup> soil, followed by the biochar rates, respectively<br>Exchangeable acidity also considerably declined from 3.54 to 0.24, 0.07, and 0.02 cmol kg<sup>-1</sup> soil, followed by the biochar rates</td><td>Chintala et al (2013a)</td></tr><tr><td>Shallow Aridic Ustorthents (pH: 4.78)<br>America</td><td>Laboratory incubation. Switchgrass biochar and soil were mixed evenly<br>Biochar rates: 0, 20, 40 and 60 g kg<sup>-1</sup> soil<br>Trial time: 165 days</td><td>Soil pH increased by 0.49, 0.91 and 0.74 units for biochar rates of 20, 40 and 60 g kg<sup>-1</sup> soil compared to the control, respectively</td><td>EC significantly improved from 92.8 to 110, 140, and 146 µS cm<sup>-1</sup>, corresponding to the biochar rates of 20, 40, and 60 g soil kg<sup>-1</sup>, respectively<br>CEC meaningfully increased from 7.86 to 12.44, 14.87, and 17.51 cmol kg<sup>-1</sup> soil, followed by the biochar rates, respectively<br>Exchangeable acidity also considerably reduced from 3.54 to 0.44, 0.07, and 0.01 cmol kg<sup>-1</sup> soil, respectively</td><td>Chintala et al (2013a)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Summary of previous investigations of the application of lime to mitigate soil acidification and improve soil health and coffee growth</caption><thead><tr><th>Soil type, location</th><th>Experiment type, liming rates, and time</th><th>Soil pH effect</th><th>Other positive and or/negative effects on soil, plantations, and the environment</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alfisols (pH:5.6) Indonesia</td><td>Glasshouse trial. CaCO<sub>3</sub> was mixed evenly with the soil. Lime rates: 0, 2.5 t ha<sup>-1</sup> Trial time: 8 weeks</td><td>Soil pH increased significantly from 5.63 to 6.36 at 10–30 cm depth and from 5.75 to 6.33 at 30–60 cm depth</td><td>Lime increased the availability of cations K, Ca, Mg, and Na, whereas it decreased the levels of Al, Fe, and Mn Saturated soil hydraulic conductivity and CEC also significantly improved due to the addition of lime The combination of 2.5 t lime and 20 t compost significantly improved the soil chemical characteristics and saturated soil hydraulic conductivity Soil exchangeable (Ca<sup>2+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup>, and Mg<sup>2+</sup>) was positively correlated with rising lime rate. Maximum available P and nutrient uptake were at 20 g lime addition. Exchangeable acidity was dramatically decreased as the rates of lime increased</td><td>Fitria and Soemarno (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Acidic soil (pH: 4.86) Ethiopia</td><td>Greenhouse trial. CaCO<sub>3</sub> mixed with soil Lime rates: 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 g 2.5 kg<sup>-1</sup> soil Time: not provided</td><td>Soil pH increased linearly with an increased rate of lime addition 1.13 units significantly raised soil pH at the rate of 20 g lime</td><td>Soil exchangeable (Ca<sup>2+</sup>, K<sup>+</sup>, and Mg<sup>2+</sup>) was positively correlated with rising lime rate. Maximum available P and nutrient uptake were at 20 g lime addition. Exchangeable acidity was dramatically decreased as the rates of lime increased</td><td>Teshale, Kufa and Regassa (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Acrisol (pH:4.6) Brazil</td><td>Field trial. CaCO<sub>3</sub> was applied as a surface band under the canopy Lime rates: 0, 2.1 and 4.2 t ha<sup>-1</sup> Trial time: 5 years</td><td>Soil pH increased by 0.4 and 1.3 units in the 10–20 cm depth after a 5-year experiment compared to the control</td><td>Liming efficiently improved soil chemical attributes up to a depth of 10–20 cm but slightly affected the depth of 20–40 cm Lime increased the concentrations of Ca<sup>2+</sup>, Mg<sup>2+</sup>, and leaf Zn but reduced the soil Al<sup>3+</sup> concentration and the coffee leaf Mn concentration At 2.1 and 4.2 t of lime amendment, better plant height and stem diameter were achieved. The average bean yield rose by 42% compared to the control</td><td>Parecido et al (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Acrisols (pH:4.72) Ethiopia</td><td>Greenhouse trial. CaCO<sub>3</sub> was mixed evenly with soil Lime rates: 0 (control). 1.6, 3.2, and 4.8 t ha<sup>-1</sup> Trial time: not provided</td><td>The rate of 1.6, 3.2, and 4.8 t of lime application increased soil pH by 0.6, 0.9, and 1.04 units, respectively, compared to the control</td><td>Exchangeable acidity was reduced from 3.3 meq 100 g<sup>-1</sup> (control) to 0.47 meq 100 g<sup>-1</sup> (4.8 t lime ha<sup>-1</sup>) Total N, available P, and exchangeable K significantly improved as rates of lime addition increased, from 0.16%, 8.59 ppm and 0.49 meq 100 g<sup>-1</sup> (control) to 0.19%, 16.40 ppm and 0.77 meq 100 g<sup>-1</sup> (4.8 t lime ha<sup>-1</sup>), respectively Total dry matter expressionally rose by 14.7–61.8% with increasing rates The application of 2.2 t lime ha<sup>-1</sup> in combination with 10 t coffee husk compost ha<sup>-1</sup> obtained high dry matter yield and nutrient uptake</td><td>Dibaba (2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>Table 2 (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Soil type, location</th><th>Experiment type, liming rates, and time</th><th>Soil pH effect</th><th>Other positive and or/negative effects on soil, plantations, and the environment</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Acidic soil (pH:4.9)<br>America</td><td>Laboratory incubation. CaCO<sub>3</sub> was thor-oughly mixed with the soil.<br>Lime rates: 0, 4.4, 8.8 and 17.6 t ha<sup>-1</sup><br>Trial time: 149 days</td><td>Soil pH (0–20 cm) increased by 1.0, 1.7, and 2.8 units for the addition of 4.4, 8.8, and 17.6 t lime compared to untreated lime</td><td>Organic matter was 7.5–12.5-fold higher in limed than in non-limed soil. Soil nitrate increased over time<br>The respiration rate was higher in lime-limed soil than in non-limed soils<br>Microbial biomass-C at rates of 4.4, 8.8, and 17.6 t lime ha<sup>-1</sup> were 3.3, 4.4, and 7.2 times higher than the control, respectively</td><td>Fuentes et al (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Oxisols (pH: 3.74)<br>China</td><td>Laboratory incubation. Soil was mixed with CaO<br>Lime rates: 0% (control), 0.10%, 0.25%, and 0.35%<br>Trial time: 21 days</td><td>The soil pH increased to 3.63, 4.04, 4.91, and 6.40, respectively, corresponding to 0%, 0.10%, 0.25%, and 0.35% lime application</td><td>Lime addition significantly increased net mineralization rates. The highest figure was at the lime rate of 0.35%<br>The net nitrification rate significantly decreased as the lime addition increased</td><td>Wang et al (2018a)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Exophiala) gradually decreases with increasing pH (Deng et al 2024). However, limited reports on managing soilborne pests and diseases through lime amendment in coffee production exist. Additionally, the effects of lime amendment vary and largely depend on the rates and properties of liming materials (Álvarez et al. 2009; Li et al 2018), as well as the initial soil physiochemical characteristics (Bolan et al. 2003). Excessive application of lime did not significantly increase soil pH, however, it led to higher production costs, Ca toxicity (Yan et al 2021; Norberg and Aronsson 2022), soil eutrophication, and damage to soil microbial communities, which in turn exacerbated soilborne diseases (Deng et al 2024). Further research is needed to understand the potential impact of lime amendment on soil health and its ability to suppress soilborne plant diseases in coffee crops in acidic soils (Fig. 7).

## 5.3 Potential effects of organic fertilizer amendment by plant and animal residues

### 5.3.1 Soil physicochemical effects

Organic fertilizers are derived from plant and animal sources, such as plant residues and animal wastes (Michael 2021; Badu and Abigail 2022). They offer several benefits, including improving soil physiochemical properties and water retention capacity, reducing erosion, promoting beneficial microorganisms, suppressing plant pathogens, and decreasing reliance on mineral fertilizers (Abbott et al. 2018; Goldan et al. 2023). Organic wastes can also alleviate soil acidification (Citak and Sonmez 2011; Chen et al 2022). For example, applying manure compost to acidic coffee plantation soils increased soil pH by 0.5 units after a three-year trial (Dzung et al. 2013). Organic amendments release organic compounds into the soil, reducing leaching and adsorbing acid cations, resulting in decreased acid availability and retained acid cations (Michael 2021). Additionally, organic fertilizers contain organic anions, bicarbonates, and base cations that enrich in alkaline cations, promoting buffer and neutralizing H⁺ ions (Butterly et al. 2013; Abbott et al 2018). However, organic amendments can also decrease soil pH by stimulating ammonium nitrification during the mineralization of organic N and increasing cation replacement H⁺ in the exchange sites (Wang et al 2013; Xiao et al 2014; Arafat et al 2020; Lúcio et al 2020).

Organic amendment effectively increases organic matter (OM) from biomass waste (Adugna 2016). This process reduces bulk density and enhances the soil's capacity to hold water and nutrients. It also improves the buffer capacity, microbial activity, nutrient mineralization rates, and soil texture (Brown and Cotton 2011; Badu and Abigail 2022). For instance, adding compost decreased soil erosion

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** Beneficial effects of some soil amendments on soil properties and soilborne diseases of coffee plantations</figcaption></figure>

by 67%, runoff by 60%, and bulk density by 8%, but it increased OM by 21% compared to the control (Strauss 2003). Organic amendments also provide essential nutrients through the decomposition process, serving as an organic multi-nutrient fertilizer supply to the plant and improving soil quality and productivity (Dzung et al. 2013; Lúcio et al 2020).

### 5.3.2 Soil biological effects

Additionally, organic amendments stimulate soil biodiversity and suppress disease by reducing the population of soil pathogens, increasing the presence of soil microbial antagonists, and releasing chemical compounds (Abbott et al 2018). Soil fungal and bacterial diversity is improved due to these amendments' provision of food for microorganisms (Brown and Cotton 2011; Rayne and Aula 2020). For example, adding compost in coffee plantations improved soil urease and phosphatase activities by around 96% and 30%, respectively. It also enriched the abundance of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes by 62.15%, 46.21%, and 68.42%, respectively (Jiang et al 2023).

To date, there have been limited reviews of the effects of organic fertilizers on the suppression of soilborne pathogens

in coffee cultivation. The effects of organic fertilizers on soil properties vary depending on the types of materials, rate of addition, agricultural practices, soil type, and ecological conditions (Citak and Sonmez 2011; Rayne and Aula 2020). Moreover, organic fertilizers made from plant and animal substances can contain pathogens that pose risks to humans and plants (Chen 2006), and large amounts of organic fertilizer are required to increase soil pH and other soil health indicators, which may not be readily available to smallholder coffee farmers and can pose a threat to surface and groundwater pollution (Bhatt, Labanya and Joshi 2019; Goldan et al 2023). The drawbacks of organic amendments also include the acceleration of acidification and the accumulation of heavy metals. Therefore, the potential effects of agricultural organic amendments on acidic soil in coffee plantations should be further investigated.

## 5.4 Potential effects of organic mulching by plant residues

### 5.4.1 Soil physicochemical effects

Using organic mulch materials such as plant residues and agricultural wastes can potentially help alleviate soil acidification

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>
(Iqbal et al. 2020; Beltagi et al. 2022). (2019) reported that mulches in coffee farming systems significantly raised soil pH by 0.56 and 0.52 units compared to the control. The decomposition of mulching materials enriched exchangeable base cations and soil organic carbon, which can neutralize and absorb soil exchangeable acidity, thus leading to an increase in soil pH (Li and Johnson 2016; Awopegba, Oladele and Awodun 2017). However, some authors have found negative influences of organic mulches on soil pH (Bekeko 2014; San et al 2021; Beltagi et al 2022) due to increased organic and carbonic acids produced by crop residue decomposition (Bekeko 2014; Arafat et al 2020), and the release of $H^+$ from the process of mineralization of organic N (Dai et al 2017).

In addition, mulching mitigates soil erosion, reduces water evaporation, improves soil moisture retention, regulates soil temperatures, enhances available nutrients and plant absorption, supports soil biological activities, and suppresses weeds, thereby improving soil health (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019; San et al 2021). Mulches also control fertilizer leaching, enrich soil nutrient availability and soil organic matter content, reduce soil $Al^{3+}$ concentration (Nzeyimana et al 2019; Beltagi et al 2022), and improve soil physiochemical and biological parameters (Albiach et al 2000; Thy and Buntha 2005). After three years of mulching with *Leucaena* variety KX2 trees, total soil OM and N increased by 2.90 and 1.42 t ha⁻¹, respectively (Youkhana and Idol 2015). Soil surfaces covered by organic mulches lead to soil moisture conservation and regulation of soil temperature (colder in summer or warmer in winter) by managing surface evaporation and reducing soil temperature variation (Iqbal et al 2020). These changes are primary factors in coordinating soil microbial community structure and function and enzyme activities (Brockett et al. 2012; Onwuka 2018; Tan et al. 2018).

## 5.4.2 Soil biological effects

The use of biomass mulches for planting can suppress pests and diseases and rejuvenate soils through different mechanisms (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019). Plant residues provide favorable conditions for anti-pathogenic species (Mochiah and Baidoo 2012), produce chemicals (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019; Iqbal et al 2020), and enhance soil microbial diversity. Coffee pericarp mulch significantly improved bacteria diversity (2.79%) and richness (7.75%), as well as the abundance of *Proteus* (22.35%) and *Chla-myomonas* (80.04%), compared to the control (Zhao et al 2023). Likewise, *Mucuna* sp. mulch promoted antimicrobial activities against bacterial and fungal species such as *Fusarium sporum*, *Rhizoctonia solani*, and *Pseudomonas syringae* (Rayavarapu and Kaladhar 2011). Tomato root galls caused by *Meloidogyne incognita* were reduced by maple leaf mulch

due to soil temperature increase (Petrikovszki et al 2016). Mulch materials reduce irrigation water, which carries and spreads disease spores, and support the nutrition of soil-beneficial organisms that compete with pathogens (Iqbal et al 2020). Furthermore, mulches also provide and improve soil nutrients so that plants become more vigorous and can tolerate pathogens (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019).

The impact of different mulching materials on soil health and disease management varies greatly depending on the type of crop, the materials used for mulching, and the specific agricultural conditions (Iqbal et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2023). The use of mulches can lead to increased labor costs and investment, and the availability of mulch materials may be a challenge for farmers, particularly for smallholder coffee growers (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019). Certain mulching materials can create conditions that promote disease occurrence (Iqbal et al 2020). Excessive mulch application can result in very high soil moisture and N levels, which can limit oxygen supply to the root systems and create favorable conditions for pathogen growth, ultimately harming plant health (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019; Beltagi et al 2022). Therefore, when amending mulch in acidic coffee plantations, both the positive and negative effects should be taken into consideration.

## 5.5 Potential effects of intercropping and agroforest systems

Intercropping is an effective method for improving soil pH and nutrients, controlling soil diseases, and enhancing the functionality of soil microbes (Vukicevich et al 2016; Reyes et al. 2019). Rigal et al. (2020) discovered that shaded coffee cultivation increased soil pH by 0.5 units and resulted in higher OM, N, and Ca soil contents and a greater abundance of soil microbial communities compared to open coffee cultivation. Similarly, intercropping coffee with papaya improves soil pH and physiochemical characteristics and reduces Al and $H^+$ levels compared to full-sun coffee (Souza, Carlette Thiengo, Silva et al.). The decomposition of plant residues on the soil surface releases water-soluble organic anions that absorb $H^+$ (Pavan et al 1999). Intercropping practices that enhance OM, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and nutrients can help suppress disease infections (Medeiros et al 2019). For example, intercropping coffee with buckwheat and Sunn hemp leads to higher parasitism and predation of pests than in monoculture (Rosado et al 2021). Similarly, *crotalaria* species used as intercrops can potentially suppress plant parasitic nematodes and improve soil fertility (Wang, Sipes and Schmitt 2002; László 2010).

On the other hand, some studies have reported no significant differences in soil physical attributes between agroforestry coffee farming systems and conventional cultivation (Carmo et al 2014; Jácome et al 2020). Intercropping can also lead to an increase in the nematode population due to the presence of nematode hosts (Mazzafera et al. 2004). In
light of these results, intercropping shows promise as an approach for restoring soil quality and promoting more sustainable practices in intensive coffee production. However, it is important to carefully consider the suitable model of the intercropping system and the choice of crops to intercrop with coffee due to some drawbacks.

# 6 Conclusion and future perspectives

The intensification of coffee production in Vietnam has brought significant socioeconomic benefits to the country, improving the livelihoods and income of Central Highland farmers. While high yields have historically been achieved through intensive agricultural practices, these practices have led to serious consequences, such as soil acidification and the spread of soilborne pests and diseases, that now heavily reduce coffee yields. Our review found that acidification is a serious issue in Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam that is caused by excessive N fertilization. The links between intensive cultivation, acidification, and soil-borne pathogens were clearly identified. A low soil pH significantly adversely affects soil physicochemical indicators and promotes the growth of soilborne pathogens. Additionally, the potential effects of soil amendments on mitigating soil acidification, improving soil fertility, and controlling soil diseases were investigated.

However, the effects of various amendments on soil acidification and pathogens can vary significantly due to factors such as the materials used, application rates, soil properties, agricultural practices, and ecological conditions. Several drawbacks include limited resource availability, time-consuming processes, soil acidification, heavy metal accumulation, and environmental risks. Additionally, significant volumes of soil amendments are needed to enhance soil health, which may be economically unfeasible for smallholder coffee farmers and may have other negative effects. Finally, most research on the application of agricultural wastes and products has been conducted outside Vietnam, often in locations with specific but limited soil characteristics, climate conditions, and agronomic practices.

Implementing sustainable coffee farming systems is essential for producing high-quality green products, creating a safe environment, and meeting global market demands. Therefore, agricultural soil amendments are urgently needed to address soil acidification, improve soil health, and suppress soilborne pathogens. This will ultimately reduce the reliance on chemicals and lower production costs for smallholder coffee growers. Disease management through soil amendments modifies soil characteristics, which can be a barrier compared to immediate chemical treatments. However, various chemicals are being prohibited and restricted, resulting from their toxicity to human and animal health, environmental risks, soil pollution, decreased

product quality, increased production, and inefficiency after long-term use. Ultimately, this research gap underscores the need for future studies to focus on the effects of acidification on plant health and pathogen growth, as well as on optimizing the use of biochar, lime, and organic amendments to address these challenges and promote sustainability.

**Acknowledgments** The authors are thankful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

**Authors'contributions** All authors participated in conceptualization, original draft preparation, review, and editing. Long Nguyen Van wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on previous versions. The authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

**Funding** Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. The project funded this work: "*Enhancing small-holder livelihoods in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam through improving the sustainability of coffee and black pepper farming systems and value chains*", ACIAR.

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, AGB-2018-175, Didier Lesueur

**Data Availability** Not applicable.

**Code availability** Not applicable.

# Declarations

**Ethics approval** Not applicable.

**Consent to participate** Not applicable.

**Consent to for publication** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of interest** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

# References

Abbott LK, Macdonald LM, Wong MTF, Webb MJ, Jenkins SN, Farrell M (2018) Potential roles of biological amendments for profitable grain production – a review. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 256:34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.021

Adugna G (2016) A review on impact of compost on soil properties, water use and crop productivity. Acad Res J Agri Sci Res 4(3):93–104. https://doi.org/10.14662/ARJASR2016.010

Ajayi AE, Horn R (2017) Biochar-Induced changes in soil resilience: effects of soil texture and biochar dosage. Pedosphere 27(2):236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1002-0160(17)60313-8

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>
Albiach R, Canet R, Pomares F, Ingelmo F (2000) Microbial biomass content and enzymatic activities after the application of organic amendments to a horticultural soil. Bioresour Technology 75(1):43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00030-4

Álvarez E, Viadé A, Fernández MM (2009) Effect of liming with different sized limestone on the forms of aluminium in a Galician soil (NW Spain). Geoderma 152(1–2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.04.011

Amoah AC, Kwiatkowska MJ, Thornton SF, Fenton O, Malina G, Szara E (2020) Restoration of soil quality using biochar and brown coal waste: a review. Sci Total Environ 722:137852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137852

An DTK, Cong THV, Hoa PTQ (2023) Effects of coffee husk biochar on the growth and development of the productive Robusta coffee (Coffea canephora Pierre var. robusta). T N J Sci 17 (61):40-49. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10100358

Anderson CR, Condron LM, Clough TJ, Fiers M, Stewart A, Hill RA, Sherlock RR (2011) Biochar induced soil microbial community change: implications for biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Pedobiologia 54(5):309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2011.07.005

Anh LT, Thuy NT (2017) Assessment of basalt soil quality under different land use types in Bao Loc - Di Linh Area, Lam Dong Province. J Earth Environ Sci 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1094/vnuees.4117

Arafat Y, Din IU, Tayyab M, Jiang Y, Chen T, Cai Z, Zhao H, Lin X, Lin W, Lin S (2020) Soil sickness in aged tea plantation is associated with a shift in microbial communities as a result of plant polyphenol accumulation in the tea gardens. Front Plant Sci 11:601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00601

Arita LY, Silva SAd, Machado ACZ (2020) Efficacy of chemical and biological nematicides in the management of Meloidogyne paraensis in Coffea arabica. Crop Protect 131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105099

Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5

Awopegbma M, Oladele S, Awodun M (2017) Effect of mulch types on nutrient composition, maize (Zea mays L.) yield and soil properties of a tropical Alfisol in Southwestern Nigeria. Eurasian J Soil Sci 6 (2):121–121. https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.286546

Azim K, Soudi B, Boukhari S, Perissol C, Roussos S, Thami Alami I (2018) Composting parameters and compost quality: a literature review. Org Agr 8:141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0180-z

Badu MB, Abigail A-D (2022) Improving soil fertility with organic fertilizers. In: Metin T, Ertan Y (eds) New Generation of Organic Fertilizers. IntechOpen, Rijeka. https://doi.org/10.5772/intec happen.103944

Banerjee S, Heijden vdMGA, (2023) Soil microbiomes and one health. Nat Rev Microbiol 21(1):6–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00779-w

Barak P, Jobe BO, Krueger AR, Peterson LA, Laird DA (1997) Effects of long-term soil acidification due to nitrogen fertilizer inputs in Wisconsin. Plant Soil 197:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004297607070

Barbosa D, Vieira HD, Souza RM, Viana AP, Silva CP (2004) Field estimates of coffee yield losses and damage threshold by Meloidogyne exigua. Nematol Bras 28(1):49–54

Barcelo J, Poschenrieder C (2002) Fast root growth responses, root exudates, and internal detoxification as clues to the mechanisms of aluminium toxicity and resistance: a review. Environ Exp Bot 48(1):75–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(02)00013-8

Barros AF, Oliveira RDL, Lima IM, Coutinho RR, Ferreira AO, Costa A (2014) Root-knot nematodes, a growing problem for Conilon coffee in Espírito Santo state, Brazil. Crop Protect 55:74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.004

Bekeko Z (2014) The effect of maize stover application as soil mulch on yield of Arabica coffee (Coffee arabica L.) and some soil properties at Chiro, Western Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. Sustain Agric Res 2 (2):145-151. https://doi.org/10.22004/age.econ.230551

Beltagi HSE, Basit A, Mohamed HI, Ali I, Ullah S, Kamel EAR, Shalaby TA, Ramadan KMA, Alkhateeb AA, Ghazzawy HS (2022) Mulching as a sustainable water and soil saving practice in agriculture: a review. Agronomy 12 (8). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081881

Bhatt MK, Labanya R, Joshi HC (2019) Influence of long-term chemical fertilizers and organic manures on soil fertility-a review. Univers J Agric Res 7 (5):177-188. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujar.2019.070502

Bolan N, Adriano D, Curtin D (2003) Soil acidification and liming interactions with nutrient and heavy metal transformation and bioavailability. Adv Agron 78(21):215–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(02)78006-1

Branco S, Schauster A, Liao H-L, Ruytinx J (2022) Mechanisms of stress tolerance and their effects on the ecology and evolution of mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 235(6):2158–2175. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18308

Britto DT, Kronzucker HJ (2002) NH4+ toxicity in higher plants: a critical review. J Plant Physiol 159(6):567–584. https://doi.org/10.1078/0176-1617-0774

Brockett BFT, Prescott CE, Grayston SJ (2012) Soil moisture is the major factor influencing microbial community structure and enzyme activities across seven biogeoclimatic zones in western Canada. Soil Biol Biochem 44(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.09.003

Brown S, Cotton M (2011) Changes in soil properties and carbon content following compost application: results of on-farm sampling. Compost Sci Util 19(2):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736983

Butterly CR, Baldock JA, Tang C (2013) The contribution of crop residues to changes in soil pH under field conditions. Plant Soil 366(1):185–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1422-1

Byrareddy V, Kouadio L, Mushtaq S, Stone R (2019) Sustainable production of robusta coffee under a changing climate: a 10-year monitoring of fertilizer management in coffee farms in Vietnam and Indonesia. Agronomy 9(9):499. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090499

Cai Z, Wang B, Xu M, Zhang H, He X, Zhang L, Gao S (2014) Intensified soil acidification from chemical N fertilization and prevention by manure in an 18-year field experiment in the red soil of southern China. J Soils Sed 15(2):260–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0989-y

Capa D, Pérez-Esteban J, Masaguer A (2015) Unsustainability of recommended fertilization rates for coffee monoculture due to high N2O emissions. Agron Sustain Dev 35(4):1551–1559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0316-z

Carmo DL, Nannetti DC, Junior MSD, Lacerda TM, Nannetti AN, Manuel L (2014) Chemical and physical attributes of a laticol and coffee crop nutrition in agroforestry and conventional management systems. Coffee Sci 9(1):122–131

Castro ST, Dietsch T, Urena N, Vindas L, Chandler M (2012) Analysis of management and site factors to improve the sustainability of smallholder coffee production in Tarrazú, Costa Rica. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 155:172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.013

Chen J-H (2006) The combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers and/or biofertilizer for crop growth and soil fertility. In: International workshop on sustained management of the
soil-rhizosphere system for efficient crop production and fertilizer use, 10-20 Oct, Bangkok Thailand, vol 20. Citeseer, pp 1-11. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=088d6ce3800f6a92f9890eaa4f77d04f1ac35df3

Chen D, Ye X, Jiang Y, Xiao W, Zhang Q, Zhao S, Shao S, Gao N, Huang M, Hu J (2022) Continuously applying compost for three years alleviated soil acidity and heavy metal bio-availability in a soil-asparagus lettuce system. Front Plant Sci 13:972789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.972789

Chintala R, Mollinedo J, Schumacher TE, Malo DD, Julson JL (2013a) Effect of biochar on chemical properties of acidic soil. Arch Agron Soil Sci 60(3):393-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.789870

Chintala R, Schumacher TE, McDonald LM, Clay DE, Malo DD, Papiernik SK, Clay SA, Julson JL (2013b) Phosphorus sorption and availability from biochars and soil/biochar mixtures. Clean: Soil, Air, Water 42(5):626-634. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201300089

Citak S, Sonmez S (2011) Effects of chemical fertilizer and different organic manure application on soil pH, EC and organic matter content. J Food Agric Environ 9(3):739-741

Coleine C, Stajich JE, Selbmann L (2022) Fungi are key players in extreme ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol 37(6):517-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.02.002

Cong M, Hu Y, Sun X, Yan H, Yu G, Tang G, Chen S, Xu W, Jia H (2023) Long-term effects of biochar application on the growth and physiological characteristics of maize. Front Plant Sci 14:1172425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1172425

Cortois R, Schröder GT, Weigelt A, van der Putten WH, De Deyn GB (2016) Plant-soil feedbacks: role of plant functional group and plant traits. J Ecol 104(6):1608-1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12643

Cyamweshi R, Nabahungu N, Mukashema A, Ruganzu V, Gatarayiha M, Nduwumuremyi A, Mbonigaba J (2014) Enhancing nutrient availability and coffee yield on acid soils of the central plateau of southern Rwanda. Global J Agric Res 2(2):44-55

Da CT, Hong TX, Mai NTT (2012) The actual status of coffee replanting on land second tenure in the central highlands. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 04(22):80-84. https://tapchi.vaas.vn/sites/tapchi.vaas.vn/files/tapchi/2021-09/tc15_15.pdf

Dai Z, Zhang X, Tang C, Muhammad N, Wu J, Brookes PC, Xu J (2017) Potential role of biochars in decreasing soil acidification - a critical review. Sci Total Environ 581-582:601-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.169

Dai Y, Sun Q, Wang W, Lu L, Liu M, Li J, Yang S, Sun Y, Zhang K, Xu J (2018) Utilizations of agricultural waste as adsorbent for the removal of contaminants: a review. Chemosphere 211:235-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.179

Dan CT, Van TTT (2016) Effect of plant-parasitic nematodes on yellow leaf-dead tree symptom of coffee tree. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 02(63), 2016. https://tapchi.vaas.vn/vi/tap-chi/nghien-cuu-anh-huong-cua-tuyen-trung-ky-sinh-den-hien-tuong-vang-la-chet-cay-cua-cay-ca-phe

DCP (2021) Report on crop production in the summer-autumn crop season in 2021; implement production plan for winter-spring crop 2021-2022 in the south Central Coastal and Central Highlands. Department of Crop Production (DCP)-Ministry of Agriculture Rural Development Vietnam

DCP (2023) Report on crop production in the summer-autumn crop season in 2023; implement production plan for winter-spring crop 2023-2024 in the South Central Coastal, South-East, and Central Highlands. Department of Crop Production

(DCP)-Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Vietnam

Deng W, Gong J, Peng W, Luan W, Liu Y, Huang H, Mei X, Yang M, Zhu S (2024) Alleviating soil acidification to suppress Panax notoginseng soil-borne disease by modifying soil properties and the microbiome. Plant Soil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06577-y

Dibaba BT (2021) Dry matter yield and nutrient uptakes of arabica coffee seedlings as influenced by lime and coffee husk compost amendments at Western Ethiopia. Pelita Perkeb 37(2):97-106

Dinh TLA, Aires F, Rahn E (2022) Statistical Analysis of the Weather Impact on Robusta Coffee Yield in Vietnam. Front Environ Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.820916

Dung ND, Lai NX, Truc HC, Tien TM, Ha NT, Hiep NV, Hoai NTT, Quyen NT (2019) Characteristic and changing of soil fertility under coffee and black pepper cultivation in Central Highlands. Sci Technol Agric Rural Dev 10:3-9

Duong A (2021) Pesticides containing toxic glyphosate should be avoided. Periodical Pesticides containing toxic glyphosate should be avoided. https://vietq.vn/canh-bao-khong-su-dung-thuoc-bao-ve-thuc-vat-chua-hoat-chat-glyphosate-d192898.html. Accessed 25th March 2023

Dzung NA, Dzung TT, Khanh VTP (2013) Evaluation of coffee husk compost for improving soil fertility and sustainable coffee production in rural central highland of Vietnam. Resour Environ 3(4):77-82

Enders A, Hanley K, Whitman T, Joseph S, Lehmann J (2012) Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agro-nomic performance. Bioresour Technol 114:644-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022

Epelde L, Becerril JM, Kowalchuk GA, Deng Y, Zhou J, Garbisu C (2010) Impact of metal pollution and Thlaspi caerulescens growth on soil microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 76(23):7843-7853. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01045-10

Fagard M, Launay A, Clement G, Courtial J, Dellagi A, Farjad M, Krapp A, Soulie MC, Masclaux-Daubresse C (2014) Nitrogen metabolism meets phytopathology. J Exp Bot 65(19):5643-5656. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru323

Faifi ZA, Alsolami W, Abada E, Khemira H, Almalki G, Modafer Y (2022) Fusarium oxysporum and Colletotrichum musae associated with wilt disease of Coffea arabica in coffee gardens in Saudi Arabia. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2022:6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3050495

Fan K, Weisenhorn P, Gilbert JA, Shi Y, Bai Y, Chu H (2018) Soil pH correlates with the co-occurrence and assemblage process of diazotrophic communities in rhizosphere and bulk soils of wheat fields. Soil Biol Biochem 121:185-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.03.017

Fitria L, Soemarno S (2022) Effects of lime and compost on chemical characteristics and soil hydraulic conductivity of alfisols at ATP Jatikerto Coffee Plantation. Caraka Tani J Sustain Agric 37(1):48-61. https://doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v37i1.54010

Fuentes JP, Bezdicek DF, Flury M, Albrecht S, Smith JL (2006) Microbial activity affected by lime in a long-term no-till soil. Soil Tillage Res 88(1-2):123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.05.001

Ge S, Gao J, Chang D, He T, Cai H, Wang M, Li C, Luo Z, E Y, Meng J, Gao M (2023) Biochar contributes to resistance against root rot disease by stimulating soil polyphenol oxidase. Biochar 5 (55). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-023-00257-3

Goldan E, Nedeff V, Barsan N, Culea M, Panainte-Lehadus M, Mosnegutu E, Tomozei C, Chitimus D, Irimia O (2023) Assessment
of manure compost used as soil amendment—a review. Processes 11 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041167

Güereña D, Lehmann J, Hanley K, Enders A, Hyland C, Riha S (2013) Nitrogen dynamics following field application of biochar in a temperate North American maize-based production system. Plant Soil 365(1):239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1383-4

Gundale MJ, Luca THD (2006) Temperature and source material influence ecological attributes of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir charcoal. For Ecol Manage 231(1–3):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.004

Gunnarsson A, Blomquist J, Persson L, Olsson Å, Hamnér K, Berglund K (2022) Liming alkaline clay soils: effects on soil structure, nutrients, barley growth and yield. Acta Agric Scand - B Soil Plant Sci 72(1):803–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2022.2089590

Ha LV (2016) Study on chemical properties of basaltic soil for coffee growing at highland Di Linh, Lam Dong. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 01(62):30–35

Han W, Kemmitt SJ, Brookes PC (2007) Soil microbial biomass and activity in Chinese tea gardens of varying stand age and productivity. Soil Biol Biochem 39(7):1468–1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.12.029

Han M, Zhang J, Zhang L, Wang Z (2023) Effect of biochar addition on crop yield, water and nitrogen use efficiency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep.ro.2023.138425

Havemann T, Nair S, Cassou E, Jaffee S (2015) Coffee in Dak Lak, Vietnam. In: Scherr SJ, Mankad K, Jaffee S, Negra C (eds) Steps toward green: policy responses to the environmental footprint of commodity agriculture in East and Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners and the World Bank., Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners and the World Bank, pp 99–122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282768221_Steps_Toward_Green_Policy_Responses_to_the_Environmental_Footprint_of_Commodity_Agriculture_in_East_and_S

Herviyanti H, Maulana A, Prima S, Aprisal A, Crisna SD, Lita AL (2020) Effect of biochar from young coconut waste to improve chemical properties of ultisols and growth coffee [Coffea arabica L.] plant seeds. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 497 (1):012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/497/1/012038

Hoa NX, Phong NH, Dan CT, Van TNT, Trang NTT, Phi LV (2016) Effect of nematode on yellow leaf and root rot diseases of replanting coffee. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 02(63):78–83

Hoang H, Pham HM, Phuong TMC, Nguyen TH, Tran LH, Trinh PQ, de Boer T, Brouwer A, Thi Anh Nguyen D, Chu HH (2021) Investigation of the soil nematode community composition in a monoculture Robusta coffee plantation in Dak Lak, Vietnam. Glob Ecol Conserv 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01932

Hong T (2017) The variation of basaltic soil fertility growing coffee in Western Highlands. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 09(82):104–110

Hong NT, Cassou E, Binh C (2017) An overview of agricultural pollution in Vietnam. Prepared for the World Bank, Washington, DC

Huyen PTT, Giang PQ, Van Toan N, Trinh P (2018) Correlation between the distribution of nematodes and soil physicochemical characteristics in coffee rejuvenation areas. EnvironmentAsia 11:141–156. https://doi.org/10.14456/ea.2018.11

ICO (2022) Exports of all forms of coffee by exporting countries to all destinations from Feb 2020 to Jan. 2021. International Coffee Organization. https://ico.org/prices/m1-exports.pdf. Accessed 26th July 2024

Iqbal R, Raza MAS, Valipour M, Saleem MF, Zaheer MS, Ahmad S, Toleikiene M, Haider I, Aslam MU, Nazar MA (2020)

Potential agricultural and environmental benefits of mulches—a review. Bull Natl Res Cent 44 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-020-00290-3

Jácome MGO, Ricardo JM, Silva ABd, Teruel Rezende T, Córrea Landgraf PR (2020) Soil attributes and coffee yield in an agroforestry system. Coffee Sci 15:1-9. https://doi.org/10.25186/v15i.1676

Jaiswal AK, Elad Y, Paudel I, Graber ER, Cytryn E, Frenkel O (2017) Linking the belowground microbial composition, diversity and activity to soilborne disease suppression and growth promotion of tomato amended with biochar. Sci Rep 7:44382. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44382

Jiang Z, Lou Y, Liu X, Sun W, Wang H, Liang J, Guo J, Li N, Yang Q (2023) Combined application of coffee husk compost and inorganic fertilizer to improve the soil ecological environment and photosynthetic characteristics of Arabica coffee. Agronomy 13 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051212

Jin J, Li Y, Zhang J, Wu S, Cao Y, Liang P, Zhang J, Wong MH, Wang M, Shan S, Christie P (2016) Influence of pyrolysis temperature on properties and environmental safety of heavy metals in biochars derived from municipal sewage sludge. J Hazard Mater 320:417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.08.050

Jones DL, Rousk J, Edwards JG, DeLuca TH, Murphy DV (2012) Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil Biol Biochem 45:113-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012

Joseph S, Cowie AL, Zwieten LV, Bolan N, Budai A, Buss W, Cayuela ML, Graber ER, Ippolito JA, Kuzyakov Y, Luo Y, Ok YS, Palansooriya KN, Shepherd J, Stephens S, Weng Z, Lehmann J (2021) How biochar works, and when it doesn't: a review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. GCB Bioenergy 13(11):1731–1764. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885

Junior EC, Gonçalves AC, Seidel EP, Ziemer GL, Zimmermann J, Oliveira VHDd, Schwantes D, Zeni CD (2020) Effects of liming on soil physical attributes: a review. J Agric Sci 12 (10). https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v12n10p278

Kader M, Senge M, Mojid M, Ito K (2017) Recent advances in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Tillage Res 168:155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.01.001

Karhu K, Mattila T, Bergström I, Regina K (2011) Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity—results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 140(1–2):309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.005

Khan MR (2023) Plant nematodes, an underestimated constraint in the global food production. In: Nematode Diseases of Crops and their Sustainable Management. Elsevier, pp 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91226-6.00009-2

Khan A, Aiman SI, Baber Y, Hassan F, Usman HM, Sohail MA, Abbas A (2021) An overview of root-knot nematodes and their management. J Entomol Zool Stud 9(1):35–40

Khan MR, Mohiddin FA, Haque Z, Sharma RK (2023) Chapter 4: Disease complexes and their sustainable management. In: Nematode Diseases of Crops and their Sustainable Management. Elsevier, pp 65-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91226-6.00016-X

Khan S, Irshad S, Mehmood K, Hasnain Z, Nawaz M, Rais A, Gul S, Wahid MA, Hashem A, Abd Allah EF, Ibrar D (2024) Biochar production and characteristics, its impacts on soil health, crop production, and yield enhancement: a review. Plants 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020166

Khan Z, Zhang K, Khan MN, Zhu K, Hu L (2024b) Effects of biochar persistence on soil physicochemical properties, enzymatic activities, nutrient utilization, and crop yield in a three-year
rice-rapeseed crop rotation. Eur J Agron 154:127096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2024.127096

Khoa LD, Trang NTT, Van NT (2012) Biology control of parasite nematodes in the root system of the replanting coffee trees. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 05(23):127-133

Khoa LD, Ha PV, Dan CT, Long HH, Nuong NK (2014) Studying on evaluation of the recent status of replanted coffee plantations in Central Highland. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 03(45):3-11

Kim J-S, Sparovek G, Longo RM, De Melo WJ, Crowley D (2007) Bacterial diversity of terra preta and pristine forest soil from the Western Amazon. Soil Biol Biochem 39(2):684-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.08.010

Kochian LV, Hoekenga OA, Pineros MA (2004) How do crop plants tolerate acid soils? Mechanisms of aluminum tolerance and phosphorous efficiency. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:459-493. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141655

Kunhikrishnan A, Thangarajan R, Bolan NS, Xu Y, Mandal S, Gleeson DB, Seshadri B, Zaman M, Barton L, Tang C, Luo J, Dalal R, Ding W, Kirkham MB, Naidu R (2016) Chapter One - Functional Relationships of Soil Acidification, Liming, and Greenhouse Gas Flux. In: Sparks DL (ed) Adv Agron, vol 139. Academic Press, pp 1-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.05.001

László M (2010) Sustainability effects of Crotalaria juncea L. and Crotalaria spectabilis ROTH on soil fertility and soil conservation. In: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. p 3271. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010EGUGA..12.3271L

Lauber CL, Hamady M, Knight R, Fierer N (2009) Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(15):5111-5120. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00335-09

Lesueur D, Rigal C, Phuong NM, Tuan DM, Thi C, Herrmann L, Nguyen QT, Bräu L, Van L, Van PT (2022) Project full title Identifying entry points for black pepper and coffee production in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. https://www.aciar.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/SLAM-2018-209-Final-Report.pdf

Li W, Johnson CE (2016) Relationships among pH, aluminum solubility and aluminum complexation with organic matter in acid forest soils of the Northeastern United States. Geoderma 271:234-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.02.030

Li H, Dong X, Silva EBd, de Oliveira LM, Chen Y, Ma LQ (2017) Mechanisms of metal sorption by biochars: biochar characteristics and modifications. Chemosphere 178:466-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.072

Li Y, Cui S, Chang SX, Zhang Q (2018) Liming effects on soil pH and crop yield depend on lime material type, application method and rate, and crop species: a global meta-analysis. J Soils Sed 19(3):1393-1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2120-2

Liao H, Li Y, Yao H (2019) Biochar amendment stimulates utilization of plant-derived carbon by soil bacteria in an intercropping system. Front Microbiol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01361

Liu X, Feng Z, Zhao Z, Zhu H, Yao Q (2020) Acidic soil inhibits the functionality of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi by reducing arbuscule formation in tomato roots. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 66(2):275-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2020.1721320

López LD, Carrión G, Petra SN, Desgarennes D, Villain L (2020) Functional diversity and Fusarium oxysporum pathogenicity associated with coffee corky-root disease in Mexico. Rev Fac Cienc Agrar 52(1):276-292

Lúcio MNF, Peralta AN, Pimenta MDP, Pinto Coelho Evangelista JS, Silva Santos RH (2020) Soil chemical characteristics on coffee plantations fertilized with continuous application of compost and green manure. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 51(6):829-838. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1729790

Machado ACZ, Kumar R, Fatobene BJDR (2023) Nematode problems in coffee and their sustainable management. In: Nematode

Diseases of Crops and their Sustainable Management. pp 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91226-6.00008-0

Mahmud MS, Chong KP (2022) Effects of liming on soil properties and its roles in increasing the productivity and profitability of the oil palm industry in Malaysia. Agriculture 12 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12030322

Malta MR, Nogueira FD, Guimarães PTG (2003) Composição química, produção e qualidade do café fertilizado com diferentes fontes e doses de nitrogênio. Cienc Agrotecnologia 27(6):1246-1252. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-70542003000600006

MARD (2013) The process of coffee cultivation -Decision number 273/BNN-PTNT 3/7/2013 of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/linh-vuc-khac/quyet-dinh-273-qd-tt-ccn-2013-quy-trinh-tai-canh-caphe-voi-212568.aspx

Martinez DA, Loening UE, Graham MC, Gathorne-Hardy A (2021) When the medicine feeds the problem; do nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides enhance the nutritional quality of crops for their pests and pathogens? Front Sustain Food Syst 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.701310

Mazzafera P, Kubo RK, Inomoto MM (2004) Carbon fixation and partitioning in coffee seedlings infested with Pratylenchus confae. Eur J Plant Pathol 110(8):861-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-004-4839-4

Medeiros EV, Notaro KdA, Barros JAd, Duda GP, Moraes MdCHdS, Ambrósio MMdQ, Negreiros AMP, Sales Júnior R (2019) Soils from intercropped fields have a higher capacity to suppress black root rot in cassava, caused by Scytalidium lignicola. J Phytopathol 167(4):209-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/jph.12788

Mekonen S, Ambelu A, Spanoghe P (2014) Pesticide residue evaluation in major staple food items of Ethiopia using the Quechers method: a case study from the Jimma zone. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(6):1294-1302

Michael PS (2021) Role of organic fertilizers in the management of nutrient deficiency, acidity, and toxicity in acid soils-a review. J Global Agric Ecol 12(3):19-30

Mochiah M, Baidoo P (2012) Effects of mulching materials on agro-nomic characteristics, pests of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) and their natural enemies population. Agric Biol J N Am 3 (6):253-261. https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2012.3.6.253.261

Mulatu A (2019) Incidence and prevalence of coffee wilt disease (Gibberella xylarioides)) and its impact on the rural livelihoods in Western Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am J Biosci 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajbio.20190701.12

Mulatu A, Megersa N, Teferi D, Alemu T, Vetukuri RR (2023) Biological management of coffee wilt disease (Fusarium xylarioides) using antagonistic Trichoderma isolates. Front Plant Sci 14:1113949. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1113949

Mulder C, Wijnen HJV, Wezel APV (2005) Numerical abundance and biodiversity of below-ground taxocenes along a pH gradient across The Netherlands. J Biogeogr 32(10):1775-1790. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01321.x

Nair KP (2021) Coffee. Tree crops: harvesting cash from the world's important cash crops:215-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62140-7

Neina D (2019) The role of Soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl Environ Soil Sci 2019:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5794869

Ngosong C, Okolle JN, Tening AS (2019) Mulching: a sustainable option to improve soil health. In: Soil Fertility Management for Sustainable Development. pp 231-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5904-0_11

Nie C, Yang X, Niazi NK, Xu X, Wen Y, Rinklebe J, Ok YS, Xu S, Wang H (2018) Impact of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar on heavy metal availability and microbial activity: A field study. Chemosphere 200:274-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.134

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>
Nisa RU, Tantray AY, Kouser N, Allie KA, Wani SM, Alamri SA, Aly-
emeni MN, Wijaya L, Shah AA (2021) Influence of ecological and
edaphic factors on biodiversity of soil nematodes. Saudi J Biol Sci
28(5):3049-3059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.02.046

Norberg L, Aronsson H (2022) Mitigating phosphorus leaching from a clay loam through structure liming. Acta Agric Scand - B Soil Plant Sci 72(1):987-996. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2022.2138528

Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Laird DL, Ahmedna M, Watts DW, Nian-dou MAS (2009) Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a Southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Sci 174(2):105-112. https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0b013e3181981d9a

Nysanth NS, Divya S, Nair CB, Anju AB, Praveena R, Anith KN (2022) Biological control of foot rot (Phytophthora capsici Leonian) disease in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) with rhizospheric microorganisms. Rhizosphere 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2022.100578

Nzeyimana I, Hartemink AE, Ritsema C, Mbonigaba JJM, Geissen V (2019) Mulching effects on soil nutrient levels and yield in coffee farming systems in Rwanda. Soil Use Manag 36(1):58-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12534

Onwuka B (2018) Effects of soil temperature on some soil properties and plant growth. Adv Plants Agric Res 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.15406/apar.2018.08.00288

Panhwar QA, Naher UA, Shamshuddin J, Ismail MR (2020) Effects of biochar and ground magnesium limestone application, with or without bio-fertilizer addition, on biochemical properties of an acid sulfate soil and rice yield. Agronomy 10(8):1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081100

Parecido RJ, Soratto RP, Perdoná MJ, Gitari HI, Dognani V, Santos AR, Silveira L (2021) Liming method and rate effects on soil acidity and arabica coffee nutrition, growth, and yield. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 21(4):2613-2625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00550-9

Pavan MA, Chaves JCD, Siqueira R, Androcioli Filho A, Colozzi Filho A, Balota EL (1999) High coffee population density to improve fertility of an oxisol. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 34:459-465. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X1999000300018

Petrikovszki R, Körösi K, Nagy P, Simon B, Zalai M, Tóth F (2016) Effect of leaf litter mulching on the pests of tomato. J Agric Environ Sci 3. https://doi.org/10.18380/SZIE.COLUM.2016.3.2.35

Poveda J, Martinez AG, Fenoll C, Escobar C (2021) The use of biochar for plant pathogen control. Phytopathology 111(9):1490-1499. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-06-20-0248-RVW

Premalatha RP, Poorna Bindu J, Nivetha E, Malarvizhi P, Manorama K, Parameswari E, Davamani V (2023) A review on biochar's effect on soil properties and crop growth. Front Energy Res 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1092637

Rahayu DS, Sari NP (2017) Development of Pratylenchus coffeee in biochar applied soil, coffee roots and its effect on plant growth. Pelita Perkeb 33 (1(3)):24-32. https://doi.org/10.22302/iccri.jur.pelitaperkebunan.v33i1.251

Rayavarapu K, Kaladhar D (2011) Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of Mucuna pruriens on plant pathogens. Asian J Biochem Pharm Res 2:593-600

Rayne N, Aula L (2020) Livestock manure and the impacts on soil health: a review. Soil Syst 4(4):64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040064

Reyes BS, Isaac ME, Blesh J (2019) Effects of intercropping and soil properties on root functional traits of cover crops. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 285:106614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106614

Rigal C, Xu J, Vaast P (2020) Young shade trees improve soil quality in intensively managed coffee systems recently converted to

agroforestry in Yunnan Province. China. Plant Soil 453(1):119-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04004-1

Rigal C, Tuan D, Cuong V, Le Van B, Trung Hq, Long CTM (2023) Transitioning from monoculture to mixed cropping systems: the case of coffee, pepper, and fruit trees in Vietnam. Ecol Econ 214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107980

Rondon MA, Lehmann J, Ramírez J, Hurtado M (2007) Biolog-
cal nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biol Fertility Soils 43
(6):699-708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-006-0152-z

Rosado MdC, Araújo GJd, Pallini A, Venzon M (2021) Cover crop intercropping increases biological control in coffee crops. Biol Control 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2021.104675

Rosilawati A, Shamshuddin J, Fauziah C (2014) Effects of incubating an acid sulfate soil treated with various liming materials under submerged and moist conditions on pH, Al and Fe. Afr J Agric Res 9(1):94-112

Rousk J, Baath E, Brookes PC, Lauber CL, Lozupone C, Caporaso JG, Knight R, Fierer N (2010) Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J 4(10):1340-1351. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.58

Strauss P (2003) Runoff, soil erosion and related physical proper-
ties after 7 years of compost application. In: Applying Com-
post-Benefits and Needs. Seminar Proceedings Brussels, pp
219-224. https://kh.aquaenergyexpo.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/11/APPLYING-COMPOST-BENEFITS-ANDNEEDS.
pdf#page=229

Salgado SML, Terra WC (2021) The root-knot nematode: importance and impact on coffee in Brazil. In: Integrated nematode management: state-of-the-art and visions for the future. pp 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789247541.0033

Saliu T, Oladoja N (2021) Nutrient recovery from wastewater and reuse in agriculture: a review. Environ Chem Lett 19(3):2299-2316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01159-7

San LV, Herrmann L, Hudek L, Nguyen TB, Bräu L, Lesueur D (2021) How application of agricultural waste can enhance soil health in soils acidified by tea cultivation: a review. Environ Chem Lett 20(1):813-839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01313-9

Sánchez RAD, Pedraza EÁÁ, Lombardini L, Restrepo-Díaz H (2023) The application of coffee pulp biochar improves the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of soil for coffee cultivation. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 23(2):2512-2524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-023-01208-4

Shen G, Zhang S, Liu X, Jiang Q, Ding W (2018) Soil acidification amendments change the rhizosphere bacterial community of tobacco in a bacterial wilt affected field. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102(22):9781-9791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9347-0

Shi R-Y, Ni N, Nkoh JN, Li J-Y, Xu R-k, Qian W (2019) Beneficial dual role of biochars in inhibiting soil acidification resulting from nitrification. Chemosphere 234:43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.06.030

Shili L, Liu Y, Wang J, Yang L, Zhang S, Xu C, Ding W (2017) Soil acidification aggravates the occurrence of bacterial wilt in South China. Front Microbiol 8:703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00703

Shuning Z, Wang Y, Sun L, Qiu C, Ding Y, Gu H, Wang L, Wang Z, Ding Z (2020) Organic mulching positively regulates the soil microbial communities and ecosystem functions in tea plantation. BMC Microbiol 20(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01794-8

Siedt M, Schäffer A, Smith KE, Nabel M, Roß-Nickoll M, van Dongen JT (2021) Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure,
nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 751:141607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2020.141607

Silva SA, Mendes FQ, Reis MR, Passos FR, de Carvalho AMX, de Oliveira Rocha KR, Pinto FG (2017) Determination of heavy metals in the roasted and ground coffee beans and brew. Afr J Agric Res 12(4):221–228

Silva EMB, Costa AS, José JV, Ferraz APF, Damasceno APAB, da Silva TJA (2019) Correction of acidity of a brazilian cerrado oxi- sol with limestone and wood ash on the initial growth of cowpea. Agric Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2019.107064

Solaiman ZM, Blackwell P, Abbott LK, Storer P (2010) Direct and residual effect of biochar application on mycorrhizal root colo- nisation, growth and nutrition of wheat. Soil Res 48(7):546–554. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10002

Souza SdG, Carlette Thiego C, Silva SdA, Armani Borghi EJ (2023) Improvement of the soil quality under intercropped conilon coffee (Coffea canephora P.) in the coastal tablelands of Southeast Brazil. Acta Agron 71 (3). https://doi.org/10.15446/acag.v71n3.93941

Sun W, Gu J, Wang X, Qian X, Tuo X (2018) Impacts of biochar on the environmental risk of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements during anaerobic digestion of cattle farm waste- water. Bioresour Technol 256:342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2018.02.052

Tan X, Shao D, Gu W (2018) Effects of temperature and soil moisture on gross nitrification and denitrification rates of a Chinese lowland paddy field soil. Paddy Water Environ 16(4):687–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0660-0

Teshale E, Kufa T, Regassa A (2021) Effects of lime on phosphorus availability and nutrient uptake of hybrid coffee (Coffea arabica L.) seedlings under acidic nursery soil. Agric, For, Fish 10 (1):21. https://doi.org/10.11648/a.j.aff.20211001.14

Thanh LH, Nga VT, Anh DT (2020) Effects of coffee husk biochar on coffee productivity and soil quality. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 03(112):80–84

Thy S, Buntha P (2005) Evaluation of fertilizer of fresh solid manure, composted manure or biodigester effluent for growing Chinese cabbage (Brassica pekinensis). Livest Res Rural Dev 17:149–154

Tian D, Niu S (2015) A global analysis of soil acidification caused by nitrogen addition. Environ Res 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1748-9326/10/2/024019

Tu VA, Toan NV (2015) Physical and chemical properties of basal- tic soils replanted with coffee in Gia Lai Province. J Sci Dev 13(1):75–81

Ulén B, Etana A (2014) Phosphorus leaching from clay soils can be coun- teracted by structure liming. Acta Agric Scand - B Soil Plant Sci 64(5):425–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2014.920043

Vukicevich E, Lowery T, Bowen P, Úrbez-Torres JR, Hart M (2016) Cover crops to increase soil microbial diversity and mitigate decline in perennial agriculture. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 36(3):48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0385-7

Wang Y, Liu R (2018) Improvement of acidic soil properties by biochar from fast pyrolysis. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 37(5):1743– 1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12825

Wang K-H, Sipes BS, Schmitt D (2002) Crotalaria as a cover crop for nematode management: a review. Nematropica 32(1):35–58. https://journals.flvc.org/nematropica/article/view/69643

Wang C, Bruening G, Williamson VM (2009) Determination of pre- ferred pH for root-knot nematode aggregation using pluronic F-127 gel. J Chem Ecol 35(10):1242–1251. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10886-009-9703-8

Wang Y, Liu X, Butterly C, Tang C, Xu J (2013) pH change, carbon and nitrogen mineralization in paddy soils as affected by Chinese milk vetch addition and soil water regime. J Soils Sed 13:654– 663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-012-0645-3

Wang W, Zhao XQ, Hu ZM, Shao JF, Che J, Chen RF, Dong XY, Shen RF (2015) Aluminium alleviates manganese toxicity to rice by decreasing root symplastic Mn uptake and reducing availability to shoots of Mn stored in roots. Ann Bot 116(2):237–246. https:// doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv090

Wang J, Beibei Z, Ye T, Huanchao Z, Yi C, Jinbo Z (2018a) A soil management strategy for ameliorating soil acidification and reducing nitrification in tea plantations. Eur J Soil Biol 88:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2018.06.001

Wang J, Wang L, Zhu L, Wang J (2018b) Individual and combined effects of enrofloxacin and cadmium on soil microbial bio- mass and the ammonia-oxidizing functional gene. Sci Total Environ 624:900–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2017.12.096

Wang Y, Huang Q, Liu C, Ding Y, Liu L, Tian Y, Wu X, Li H, Awasthi MK, Zhao Z (2020) Mulching practices alter soil microbial functional diversity and benefit to soil quality in orchards on the Loess Plateau. J Environ Manage 271:110985. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2020.110985

Wei H, Liu W, Zhang J, Qin Z (2017) Effects of simulated acid rain on soil fauna community composition and their ecological niches. Environ Pollut 220:460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol. 2016.09.088

White R (2006) Principles and practice of soil science: the soil as a natural resource. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 4th Edn.

Wu D, Wang W, Yao Y, Li H, Wang Q, Niu B (2023) Microbial interac- tions within beneficial consortia promote soil health. Sci Total Envi- ron 900:165801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165801

Xiang L, Liu S, Ye S, Yang H, Song B, Qin F, Shen M, Tan C, Zeng G, Tan X (2021) Potential hazards of biochar: the negative environmental impacts of biochar applications. J Hazard Mater 420:126611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126611

Xiao K, Yu L, Xu J, Brookes PC (2014) pH, nitrogen mineraliza- tion, and KCl-extractable aluminum as affected by initial soil pH and rate of vetch residue application: results from a labora- tory study. J Soils Sed 14:1513–1525. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11368-014-0909-1

Yan P, Zou Z, Zhang J, Yuan L, Shen C, Ni K, Sun Y, Li X, Zhang L, Zhang L, Fu J, Han W (2021) Crop growth inhibited by over- liming in tea plantations. Beverage Plant Res 1 (1):1-7. https:// doi.org/10.48130/bpr-2021-0009

Youkhana AH, Idol TW (2015) Leucaena-KX2 mulch additions increase growth, yield and soil C and N in a managed full-sun coffee system in Hawaii. Agrofor Syst 90(2):325–337. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9857-z

Yuan J-H, Xu R-K, Zhang H (2011) The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced from crop residues at different temperatures. Bioresour Technol 102(3):3488–3497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech. 2010.11.018

Zhang X-K, Li Q, Liang W-J, Zhang M, Bao X-L, Xie Z-B (2013) Soil nematode response to biochar addition in a Chinese Wheat Field. Pedosphere 23(1):98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002- 0160(12)60084-8

Zhang X, Liu W, Zhang G, Jiang L, Han X (2015) Mechanisms of soil acidification reducing bacterial diversity. Soil Biol Biochem 81:275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.004

Zhang Y, Shen H, He X, Thomas BW, Lupwayi NZ, Hao X, Thomas MC, Shi X (2017) Fertilization shapes bacterial community structure by alteration of soil pH. Front Microbiol 8:1325. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01325

Zhang Y, Wang J, Feng Y (2021) The effects of biochar addition on soil physicochemical properties: A review. Catena 202. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105284

Zhang Y, Ye C, Su Y, Peng W, Lu R, Liu Y, Huang H, He X, Yang M, Zhu S (2022) Soil Acidification caused by excessive application
of nitrogen fertilizer aggravates soil-borne diseases: Evidence from literature review and field trials. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108176

Zhao Y, Feng D, Zhang Z, Sun S, Zhang Y (2017) Physical-chemical properties of sawdust biochar. Biochar. Nova Science, New York, pp 1–45

Zhao Q, Xiong W, Xing Y, Sun Y, Lin X, Dong Y (2018) Long-term coffee monoculture alters soil chemical properties and micro-bial communities. Sci Rep 8(1):6116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24537-2

Zhao H, Yu L, Yu M, Afzal M, Dai Z, Brookes P, Xu J (2020) Nitrogen combined with biochar changed the feedback mechanism between soil nitrification and Cd availability in an acidic soil. J Hazard Mater 390:121631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121631

Zhao S, Zhang A, Zhao Q, Zhang Y, Wang D, Su L, Lin X, Sun Y, Yan L, Wang X, An N, Dong Y, Tan J, Long Y, Lu Z, Li L (2023) Effects of coffee pericarp and litter mulching on soil micro-biomes diversity and functions in a tropical coffee plantation. South China. Front Microbiol 14:1323902. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1323902

Zhou J, Xia F, Liu X, He Y, Xu J, Brookes PC (2013) Effects of nitro-gen fertilizer on the acidification of two typical acid soils in South China. J Soils Sed 14(2):415–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0695-1

Zimdahl RL (2015) Lime. In: Six Chemicals That Changed Agriculture. pp 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-800561-3.00003-1

Zu C, Li Z, Yang J, Yu H, Sun Y, Tang H, Yost R, Wu H (2014) Acid soil is associated with reduced yield, root growth and nutrient uptake in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.). Agric Sci 05 (05):466-473. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2014.55047

Zwieten VL, Kimber S, Morris S, Chan KY, Downie A, Rust J, Joseph S, Cowie A (2010) Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 327(1):235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>