## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & & **R** & **NpH** & **CUD** & **CIM** & **FID0** & **XPL** & **LED** & **ALA** & **DEH** & **SUL** & **URE** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Brasistor} & Non-biosaugmented & Control & \(1.8\pm 0.2^{\circ}\) & \(31.4\pm 34\) & \(349\pm 60\) & \(223\pm 19\) & \(2054\pm 38\) & \(172\pm 10^{\circ}\) & \(300\pm 48\) & \(497\pm 52\) & \(17\pm 4\) & \(49\pm 6\) & \(17\pm 6\) \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Unplanned} & Bioaugmented & Control & \(1.9\pm 0.3^{\circ}\) & \(3.5\pm 4\) & \(37\pm 30\) & \(255\pm 12\) & \(217\pm 120\) & \(71\pm 6^{\circ}\) & \(343\pm 13\) & \(568\pm 20\) & \(24\pm 3\) & \(46\pm 20\) & \(9\pm 3\) \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Unplanned} & Non-biosaugmented & Control & \(1.3\pm 0.1^{\circ}\) & \(2.5\pm 1\) & \(32\pm 4\) & \(259\pm 9\) & \(164\pm 10^{\circ}\) & \(94\pm 30\) & \(70\pm 65\) & \(587\pm 96\) & \(96\pm 12\) & \(76\pm 7\) & \(13\pm 0\) \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Unplanned} & Bioaugmented & Control & \(1.3\pm 0.1^{\circ}\) & \(16\pm 9\) & \(36\pm 12\) & \(41\pm 74\) & \(4073\pm 18\) & \(407\pm 10^{\circ}\) & \(207\pm 9\) & \(87\pm 56\) & \(137\pm 48\) & \(21\pm 23\) \\  & & & &Regarding parameters that provide information on soil microbial biomass, according to the RDA, values increased in amended soils (Figure 3). The first axis explained 65% of the variance (F = 21.7; \(p<\) 0.002). The variation partitioning analysis showed that the \"amendment\" factor was the most important: it explained 58% of the variation, while \"plant\" and \"bioaugmentation\" factors explained only 12 and 5% of the variation, respectively. Unexpectedly, in unamended controls, CMB values were higher in unplanted (1.652 \(\pm\) 342 mg C kg\({}^{-1}\) DW soil) than in planted (977 \(\pm\) 24 mg C kg\({}^{-1}\) DW soil) soils (Table 5). In general, the bioaugmentation treatment resulted in higher CMB values. Both the 16S rRNA (total bacteria) and 18S rRNA (total fungi) gene copy numbers increased in amended soils with respect to controls. The highest gene copy numbers were found in bioaugmented planted soils amended with dried cow slurry: 3.9\(\times 10^{8}\)\(\pm\) 7.7\(\times 10^{7}\) for 16S rRNA and 30e \({}^{5}\)\(\pm\) 2.7e\({}^{5}\) for 18S rRNA. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CMB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bacterial**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fungal Abundance**} \\ \hline _Brassica_ & Non-bioaugmented & Control & 960 \(\pm\) 202 & \(0.9\times 10^{8}\)\(\pm\) 3 \(\times 10^{7}\) & \(0.9\times 10^{5}\)\(\pm\) 0.3 \(\times 10^{5}\)\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\) \\  & & Compost & 1159 \(\pm\) 260 & \(2.1\times 10^{8}\)\(\pm\) 4.7 \(\times 10^{7}\) & \(2.4\times 10^{5}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 \(\times 10^{5}\)\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\) \\  & & Cow slurry & 1505 \(\pm\) 226 & \(2.7\times 10^{8}\)\(\pm\) 5.4 \(\times 10^{7}\) & \(8.2\times 10^{5}\)\(\pm\) 1.6 \(\times 10^{5}\)\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\) \\ \hline  & Bioaugmented & Control & 994 \(\pm\) 255 & \(1.1\times 10^{8}\)\(\pm\) 3.1 \(\times 10^{7}\) & \(1.7\times 10^{5}\)\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro}\) \\  & & Compost & 1672 \(\pm\) 106 & \(2.4\times 10^{8}\)\(\pm\) 2.5 \(\times 10^{7}\) & \(8.6\times 10^{5}\)\(\mathrm{\SIRegarding microbial diversity parameters, the duration of the lag phase and t\({}_{1/2}\) values (time corresponding to the middle of the exponential phase), calculated from the growth curves of the BiologTM CLPPs, were significantly shorter in soils amended with dried cow slurry (Table 6).