## 3 Results
### The Effects of Liming and Lant Residue Incorporation on Soil Properties  
The soil pH was significantly increased by both CaCO\({}_{3}\) and OM, and plant species also exerted a significant effect on the regulation of soil pH by different treatments (Table 1). In detail, the increase in soil pH of _S. guianensis_ was slightly less than that of _P. natatum_ (average--0.91 vs 0.99), and the increase by CaCO\({}_{3}\) was greater than that by OM (average--1.49 vs 0.41) (Table 1). Figure 1: Influences of liming (CaCO\({}_{3}\)) and plant residue incorporation (OM) on the plant growth of _S. guianensis_ and _P. natatum_. Averages (\(n\) = 5) followed by the same letter are not significantly different ([PERSON]’s post hoc test, \(p\) = 0.05). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Plant Species** & **Treatment** & **pH** & **TOCOC** & **TN** & **AN** & **TP** & **AP** & **TK** & **AK** \\  & & **(g-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(mg-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(g-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(mg-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(g-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(mg-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(g-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(mg-kg\({}^{-1}\))** & **(mg-kg\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{_S. gainments_} & Control & 4.30 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 14.7 \(\pm\) 0.53 & 20.71 \(\pm\) 2.85 & 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 21.85 \(\pm\) 4.87 & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 6.56 \(\pm\) 2.82 & 11.57 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 17.87 \(\pm\) 0.62 \\  & COCO, & 5.93 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 16.4 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 26.01 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 1.64 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1306.2 \(\pm\) 8.15 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 9.80 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 12.28 \(\pm\) 0.26a & 22.69 \(\pm\) 1.19 \\  & OM & 4.89 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 18.85 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 46.8 \(\pm\) 2.84 & 2.59 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 135.28 \(\pm\) 4.06a & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.01 & b & 86.45 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 11.32 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 58.70 \(\pm\) 3.21 b \\  & Control & 4.98 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 18.58 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 25.11 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 1.77 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 12.69 \(\pm\) 6.17 & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 61.40 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 12.10 \(\pm\) 0.17b & 10.66 \(\pm\) 0.86 a \\ \multirow{4}{*}{_P. natural_} & COCO & 6.44 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 14.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 28.21 \(\pm\) 12.0a & 1.52 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 21.36 \(\pm\) 3.47 & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 5.78 \(\pm\) 0.05 & b & 11.23 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 18.50 \(\pm\) 0.47 a \\  & OM & 5.31 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 19.7 \(\pm\) 0.6b & 423.2 \(\pm\) 1.66b & 22.88 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 144.46 \(\pm\) 5.61b & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.011 b & 47.75 \(\pm\) 0.60 a & 11.86 \(\pm\) 0.21 a & 36.79 \(\pm\) 0.81 b \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Plant species (P)} & 0.000 & 0.485 & 0.499 & 0.966 & 0.621 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.977 & 0.000 \\  & coll treatments (P) & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.738 & 0.000 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mathrm{P\times T}\)} & 0.177 & 0.004 & 0.336 & 0.000 & 0.357 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.009 & 0.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Influences of limiting (CaCO) and plant residue incorporation (OM) on soil chemical properties. TOC, total organic carbon; DOC, dissolved organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; AN, available nitrogen; TP, total phosphorus; TK, total potassium; AK, available potassium. Data followed by the same letter are not significantly different for each plant species (Tukey’s post hoc, \(p=0.05,n=5\)). In the soil of _S. guianensis_, CaCO\({}_{3}\) significantly increased TOC, TP and AP, while OM significantly increased TOC, DOC, TN, TP, AP and AK (Table 1). AN and TK were not affected by CaCO\({}_{3}\) or OM (Table 1). Differently, in the soil of _P. natatum_, CaCO\({}_{3}\) significantly decreased TN, TP, AP and TK, while OM significantly increased TOC, DOC, TN, AN and AK, but decreased AP and TK (Table 1). In the soil of _S. guianensis_, CaCO\({}_{3}\) significantly promoted the activities of urase, nitrate reductase and alkaline phosphatase, while OM significantly promoted the activities of \(\beta\)-glucosidase, \(\beta\)-xylosidase, urase, nitrate reductase and chitinase. The activities of \(\alpha\)-glucosidase and cellobiosidase were not affected by either CaCO\({}_{3}\) or OM (Table 2). Differently, in the soil of _P.