Vol.:(0123456789) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2025) 45:31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-025-01023-4 REVIEW ARTICLE Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a review” Long Nguyen Van1,2,3,4 · Duy Nguyen Quang1,3,4,5 · Laetitia Herrmann1,3 · Aydin Enez1,4 · Lambert Brau1,4 · Chung Nguyen Van6 · Mathias Katz3,7 · Didier Lesueur1,3,8,9,10  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. Dec- ades 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 sustain- able 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 * Didier Lesueur didier.lesueur@cirad.fr 1 School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia 2 Pepper Research and Development Center (PRDC), The Western Highlands, Agriculture and Forestry Science Institute (WASI), Province of Gia Lai, Pleiku, Vietnam 3 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Common Microbial Biotechnology Platform (CMBP), Asia hub, Hanoi, Vietnam 4 Centre for Regional and Rural Futures (CeRRF), Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia 5 School Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 6 Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), Bac Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam 7 AgroParisTech, 22 Place de l’Agronomie, 91123 Palaiseau Cedex, France 8 Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UMR Eco&Sols, Hanoi, Vietnam 9 Eco&Sols, Université de Montpellier (UMR), CIRAD, Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Institut de Recherche pourle Développement (IRD), Montpellier SupAgro, 34060 Montpellier, France 10 Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Rubber Research Institute, Haikou, China http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s13593-025-01023-4&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6694-0869 L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 2 of 23 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 resi- dues 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 con- tributing 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), manga- nese (Mn), and iron (Fe), and deficiencies in phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and potassium (K), conse- quently impacting soil fertility, plants, and soil microorgan- isms (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 bacte- ria 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 establish- ment (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 planta- tions (Da et al. 2012; Khoa et al 2014). Long-term intensive coffee cultivation with high density (1100 trees ha−1) has cre- ated optimal conditions for soil pathogen incidence (Fig. 2) (Arita, Silva and Machado 2020; Machado, Kumar and Fato- bene 2023). To control these diseases, farmers used exces- sive chemical inputs, with their application only increasing in an attempt to maintain high yields in the face of increas- ing disease pressures (Nysanth et al 2022). Seriously, rely- ing 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; Goldan Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 3 of 23  31 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 spe- cies, 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 inves- tigate 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 acid- ification 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 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 irriga- tion). Photo credit: Long Figure 2   Example of mature Robusta coffee tree infected by plant parasitic nematodes and pathogenic fungi. The specific symptoms are a stunt- ing, leaf yellowing and b galls on root system. Photo credit: Long L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 4 of 23 2 � Methodology This review synthesizes findings from studies on soil acidifi- cation, 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 key- words “coffee cultivation,” “soil acidification,” “soil-borne pathogens,” and “sustainable soil amendments.” The search focused on publications from 1995 to 2024 within the agri- cultural 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 avail- able on the topic. Given the limited number of publications specifically addressing the impact of intensive coffee cultiva- tion 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 iden- tify and remove duplicates and irrelevant topics. Next, we 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) Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 5 of 23  31 screened the titles and abstracts of articles and documents addressing various aspects of intensive coffee plantation, soil acidification, soil-borne disease pressure, and sustain- able 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 ferti- lizer 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). Unfortu- nately, 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 aver- age 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, depend- ing 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 charac- teristics of coffee plantations with varying lengths of mono- culture 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 4   Description of scoping review search method to identify the articles, screen with inclusion criteria, and the number of included studies L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 6 of 23 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 limi- tations, 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 Al3+ occurs much faster (Cai et al 2014). High concentrations of Al3+ and Mn2+ in acidic soil can lead to deformities and dysfunc- tion 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). Acidifica- tion promotes the leaching of base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+ and allows H+ and Al3+ ions to con- centrate 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. Simi- lar 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 bio- availability. 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 5   How intensive nitrogen application and high annual precipitation cause soil acidification in coffee plantations in Vietnam Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 7 of 23  31 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 occur- rence, 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 dou- ble 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 acidi- fication (Zhang et al 2015; Shili et al 2017). Ammonia-oxi- dizing 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 param- eters 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 abun- dance, and soil acidification. Decreased pH directly disrupts the balance of soil microbial communities, shifting from bacterial-dominant to fungal-dominant communities and pro- moting the growth of soilborne pathogens (Deng et al 2024). Zhang et al (2017) found that bacterial richness and diver- sity 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 irregula- ris, 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 nutri- ents, 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 6   Summary of the relationships between intensive coffee cultivation, soil health, and soilborne pathogens L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 8 of 23 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 manage- ment 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 iden- tified 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; Sal- gado 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 physicochemi- cal 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 amend- ments 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 pro- ducing pathogen-inhibiting compounds (Jaiswal et al 2017; Abbott et al 2018; Deng et al 2024). Due to extreme acidifica- tion, 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 cal- cium carbonate equivalent, which can significantly improve soil pH, affect soil properties, and suppress soilborne patho- gens. 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). Car- bonates and oxides formed from the pyrolysis process of feed- stocks 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 bio- char (-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, applica- tion 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 decreas- ing 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 aro- matic carbon in biochar are primary factors contributing to soil nutrient improvement and providing agronomic benefits (Zhang, Wang and Feng 2021). These factors pro- mote 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). Fur- thermore, 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 environ- ments may differ in field conditions and need further valida- tion (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 Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 9 of 23  31 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 commu- nity and functions, and can suppress soilborne plant dis- eases, promote plant growth, and enhance biological nitro- gen 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 Bacil- lus 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 char- acteristics, application rates, and soil types should be con- sidered (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. Addi- tionally, 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 activi- ties, 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 reduc- tion of nematode densities. For example, the population of Pratylenchus coffeae with a 4% biochar addition was sig- nificantly lower than the control after a three-month experi- ment (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 abun- dance 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, car- bonate 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 green- house 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 pro- cesses 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 fer- tility enhancement. The application of 4.8 t lime ha−1 sig- nificantly 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 Al3+, 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 fac- tors 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 ben- eficial bacteria (such as Bradyrhizobium, Rhodoplanes, Mes- orhizobium, 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 L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 10 of 23 Ta bl e  1   S um m ar y of p re vi ou s i nv es tig at io ns o f t he a pp lic at io n of b io ch ar to m iti ga te so il ac id ifi ca tio n, im pr ov e so il he al th , a nd c off ee g ro w th So il ty pe , l oc at io n Ex pe ri m en t t yp e, li m in g ra te s, an d tim e So il pH e ffe ct O th er p os iti ve a nd o r/ ne ga tiv e eff ec ts on so il, p la nt at io ns , a nd th e en vi ro n- m en t R ef er en ce s B as al t s oi l (p H :4 .5 8) V ie tn am Fi el d tri al . C off ee h us k bi oc ha r r at es : 1 00 % N PK (c on tro l), 1 .0 t bi oc ha r + 8 0% N PK ha − 1 , 2 .0 t bi oc ha r + 8 0% N PK h a− 1 , 3. 0 t b io ch ar + 8 0% N PK h a− 1 Tr ia l t im e: 5 m on th s So il pH in cr ea se d by 1 .0 5– 1. 17 u ni ts co m pa re d to th e co nt ro l A dd iti on o f 2 –3 t bi oc ha r i nc re as ed so il po ro si ty (7 .5 –1 3. 1% ), so il m oi stu re (6 .6 –1 2. 3% ), O M (1 6. 9– 21 .4 % ), C EC (2 5. 0– 30 .5 % ), % N (8 .7 –1 2. 5% ), av ai la bl e P (1 5. 9– 17 .1 % ), an d K (3 .6 –3 .7 % ) Pr at yl en ch us sp p. d en si ty in ro ot s re du ce d by 6 1. 5– 73 .1 % , F us ar iu m sp p. d ec re as ed 2 3. 6– 32 .1 % A n, C on g an d H oa (2 02 3) U lti so ls (p H : 4 .1 7) In do ne si a G re en ho us e tri al . Y ou ng c oc on ut w as te bi oc ha r a nd so il w er e m ix ed e ve nl y B io ch ar ra te s: 0 .0 % (c on tro l), 0 .5 % , 1. 0% , 1 .5 % , a nd 2 .0 % Tr ia l t im e: 3 m on th s So il pH h as in cr ea se d by 1 .1 u ni ts fo r th e ra te o f 2 % b io ch ar a dd iti on c om - pa re d to th e co nt ro l 2% b io ch ar a dd iti on in cr ea se d av ai l- ab le P , o rg an ic C , a nd C EC b y 1. 70 pp m , 0 .9 9% , a nd 9 .1 2 cm ol [+ ] k g− 1 co m pa re d to th e co nt ro l. C a, M g, a nd K in cr ea se d al on g w ith th e in cr ea se in ra te s o f b io ch ar Th e eff ec t o f b io ch ar w as n ot si gn ifi - ca nt ly d iff er en t i n th e in cr ea se in p la nt gr ow th a fte r 3 m on th s a m on g bi oc ha r ra te s H er vi ya nt i e t a l ( 20 20 ) A nd is ol so il. (p H :5 .5 0) C ol om bi a Fi el d tri al . C off ee p ul p bi oc ha r r at es : 0 (c on tro l), 4 , 8, a nd 1 6 t h a− 1 Tr ia l t im e: 2 y ea rs So il pH in cr ea se d by 0 .1 8– 0. 37 u ni ts ac co rd in g to th e in cr ea se in b io ch ar ra te s R at es o f 8 a nd 1 6 t h a− 1 re du ce d bu lk de ns ity b y 0. 82 a nd 0 .8 3 g cm − 3 , re sp ec tiv el y, a nd in cr ea se d ag gr eg a- tio n st at us b y 96 .5 % a nd 9 6. 84 % co m pa re d to th e co nt ro l D ec re as ed u p to 6 0% o f t he e xc ha ng e- ab le a ci di ty ; i nc re as ed O M b y 0. 27 % an d so il re sp ira tio n by 5 0– 60 % Sá nc he z et  a l ( 20 23 ) B as al t s oi l ( pH :4 .5 8) V ie tn am Fi el d tri al . C off ee h us k bi oc ha r w as ap pl ie d to th e so il su rfa ce . B io ch ar ra te s: 1 00 % N PK (c on tro l), 0 .5 t b io ch ar + 7 5% N PK h a− 1 , a nd 1 .0 t bi oc ha r + 7 5% N PK h a− 1 Tr ia l t im e: 1 5 m on th s So il pH in cr ea se d sl ig ht ly b y 0. 03 a nd 0. 05 a fte r a pp ly in g 0. 5 an d 1. 0 t o f bi oc ha r h a− 1 c om pa re d to th e co nt ro l C om pa re d to c on tro l, so il m oi stu re ra is ed b y 5. 33 % a nd 7 .0 2% , a va ila bl e P in cr ea se d by 2 1. 8 an d 42 .8 % , a t t he ra te s o f 0 .5 t an d 1. 0 t b io ch ar h a− 1 , re sp ec tiv el y C EC ro se fr om 8 .9 2 (c on tro l) to 1 4. 83 (0 .5 t bi oc ha r) a nd 1 4. 87 m eq 1 00 g − 1 (1 .0 t bi oc ha r) . O C % , % N , a nd K 2O w er e im pr ov ed Th an h et  a l. (2 02 0) O xi so ls (p H : 3 .7 4) C hi na La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. S oi ls w er e m ix ed w ith ri ce st ra w b io ch ar B io ch ar ra te s: 0 % , 1 % , 2 % a nd 5 % (w /w ) Tr ia l t im e: 2 1 da ys So il pH le ve ls in cr ea se d to 3 .6 3, 3 .8 4, 3. 95 , a nd 4 .2 7 fo r t he 0 % , 1 % , 2 % , an d 5% b io ch ar a m en dm en ts , r es pe c- tiv el y Th e ad di tio n of b io ch ar d id n ot a ffe ct th e ne t m in er al iz at io n ra te s w he n co m pa re d to th e co nt ro l Th e ne t n itr ifi ca tio n ra te s i nc re as ed be tw ee n th e ap pl ic at io n ra te s o f bi oc ha r W an g et  a l ( 20 18 a, b ) Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 11 of 23  31 Ta bl e  1   (c on tin ue d) So il ty pe , l oc at io n Ex pe ri m en t t yp e, li m in g ra te s, an d tim e So il pH e ffe ct O th er p os iti ve a nd o r/ ne ga tiv e eff ec ts on so il, p la nt at io ns , a nd th e en vi ro n- m en t R ef er en ce s Th e re d so il (p H :4 .6 7) C hi na La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. S oi ls w er e m ix ed w ith ri ce h us k an d w oo d sa w - du st bi oc ha r B io ch ar ra te s: 0 , 2 % a nd 5 % (w /w ) Tr ia l t im e: 3 5 da ys Th e pH v al ue sl ig ht ly in cr ea se d, e ve n at th e hi gh es t l ev el o f b io ch ar pH in cr ea se d by 0 .7 3 fro m 4 .7 5 to 5 .4 8 af te r 5 % o f w oo d sa w du st bi oc ha r ad di tio n Th e so il bu lk d en si ty d ec lin ed fr om 1. 01 g c m − 3 to 0 .8 5 an d 0. 82 g c m − 3 af te r 5 % ri ce h us k an d w oo d sa w du st bi oc ha r a dd ed , r es pe ct iv el y W at er -h ol di ng c ap ac ity in cr ea se d by 33 .5 –5 1. 3% . T he re w as a p os iti ve co rr el at io n be tw ee n w at er -h ol di ng ca pa ci ty a nd b io ch ar le ve l Ex ch an ge ab le C a, K an d M g im pr ov ed , b y co nt ra st, th e d ec lin e i n th e c on te nt s o f so il ex ch an ge ab le ac id ity an d al um in um re su lte d as th e i nc re as in g bi oc ha r l ev el Fo r 5 % o f w oo d sa w du st bi oc ha r am en dm en t, th e ex ch an ge ab le a ci di ty an d al um in um w er e re du ce d by 8 4% an d 88 % , r es pe ct iv el y W an g an d Li u (2 01 8) Sa nd y lo am (p H :7 .1 ) C hi na La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. S oi l w as m ix ed ev en ly w ith w oo dc hi p bi oc ha r B io ch ar ra te s: 0 (c on tro l), 5 0, a nd 1 00 g bi oc ha r k g− 1 so il Tr ia l t im e: 1 00 d ay s So il pH in cr ea se d by 1 .1 3 an d 1. 11 un its a t t he ra te s o f 5 0 an d 10 0 g bi o- ch ar a dd iti on c om pa re d to th e co nt ro l, re sp ec tiv el y B io ch ar a dd iti on in cr ea se d to ta l C , m ic ro po ro si ty , w at er re te nt io n, m ic ro - sc al e sh ea r s tre ss , m ac ro -s ca le c oh e- si on , a nd p re co m pr es si on st re ss o f t he am en de d so ils A ja yi a nd H or n (2 01 7) Sh al lo w A rid ic U sto rth en ts (p H : 4 .7 8) A m er ic a La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. C or n sto ve r bi oc ha r a nd so il w er e m ix ed e ve nl y B io ch ar ra te s: 0 , 2 0, 4 0, a nd 6 0 g kg − 1 so il Tr ia l t im e: 1 65 d ay s So il pH in cr ea se d by 0 .7 3, 0 .9 9 an d 1. 36 u ni ts a t t he b io ch ar ra te s o f 2 0, 40 a nd 6 0 g kg − 1 so il co m pa re d to th e co nt ro l, re sp ec tiv el y EC si gn ifi ca nt ly im pr ov ed fr om 9 2. 8 to 11 3, 1 30 a nd 2 40 μ S cm − 1 fo llo w ed by th e bi oc ha r r at es o f 2 0, 4 0, a nd 6 0 g kg − 1 so il, re sp ec tiv el y. CE C sig ni fi- ca nt ly in cr ea se d fro m 7 .8 6 to 1 4. 71 , 17 .3 3, a nd 1 9. 04 c m ol c kg − 1 so il, fo l- lo w ed b y th e bi oc ha r r at es , r es pe ct iv el y Ex ch an ge ab le a ci di ty a ls o co ns id er ab ly de cl in ed fr om 3 .5 4 to 0 .2 4, 0 .0 7, a nd 0. 02 c m ol c kg − 1 so il, fo llo w ed b y th e bi oc ha r r at es C hi nt al a et  a l ( 20 13 a) Sh al lo w A rid ic U sto rth en ts (p H : 4 .7 8) A m er ic a La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. S w itc hg ra ss bi oc ha r a nd so il w er e m ix ed e ve nl y B io ch ar ra te s: 0 , 2 0, 4 0 an d 60 g k g− 1 so il Tr ia l t im e: 1 65 d ay s So il pH in cr ea se d by 0 .4 9, 0 .9 1 an d 0. 74 u ni ts fo r b io ch ar ra te s o f 2 0, 4 0 an d 60 g k g− 1 so il co m pa re d to th e co nt ro l, re sp ec tiv el y EC si gn ifi ca nt ly im pr ov ed fr om 9 2. 8 to 11 0, 1 40 , a nd 1 46 μ S cm − 1 , c or re - sp on di ng to th e bi oc ha r r at es o f 2 0, 40 , a nd 6 0 g so il kg − 1 , r es pe ct iv el y CE C m ea ni ng fu lly in cr ea se d fro m 7 .8 6 to 12 .4 4, 1 4. 87 , a nd 1 7. 51 cm ol c k g−1 so il, fo llo w ed b y th e b io ch ar ra te s, re sp ec - tiv ely . E xc ha ng ea bl e a ci di ty al so co ns id - er ab ly re du ce d fro m 3 .5 4 to 0 .4 4, 0 .0 7, an d 0. 01 cm ol c k g−1 so il, re sp ec tiv ely C hi nt al a et  a l ( 20 13 a) L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 12 of 23 Ta bl e  2   S um m ar y of p re vi ou s i nv es tig at io ns o f t he a pp lic at io n of li m e to m iti ga te so il ac id ifi ca tio n an d im pr ov e so il he al th a nd c off ee g ro w th So il ty pe , l oc at io n Ex pe ri m en t t yp e, li m in g ra te s, an d tim e So il pH e ffe ct O th er p os iti ve a nd o r/ ne ga tiv e eff ec ts o n so il, p la nt at io ns , a nd th e en vi ro nm en t R ef er en ce s A lfi so ls (p H :5 .6 ) In do ne si a G la ss ho us e tri al . C aC O 3 w as m ix ed e ve nl y w ith th e so il. Li m e ra te s: 0 , 2 .5 t ha − 1 Tr ia l t im e: 8 w ee ks So il pH in cr ea se d si gn ifi ca nt ly fr om 5 .6 3 to 6. 36 a t 1 0– 30 c m d ep th a nd fr om 5 .7 5 to 6. 33 a t 3 0– 60 c m d ep th Li m e in cr ea se d th e av ai la bi lit y of c at io ns K , C a, M g, a nd N a, w he re as it d ec re as ed th e le ve ls o f A l, Fe , a nd M n Sa tu ra te d so il hy dr au lic c on du ct iv ity a nd C EC a ls o si gn ifi ca nt ly im pr ov ed d ue to th e ad di tio n of li m e Th e co m bi na tio n of 2 .5 t lim e an d 20 t co m po st si gn ifi ca nt ly im pr ov ed th e so il ch em ic al c ha ra ct er ist ic s a nd sa tu ra te d so il hy dr au lic c on du ct iv ity Fi tri a an d So em ar no (2 02 2) A ci di c so il (p H : 4 .8 6) Et hi op ia G re en ho us e tri al . C aC O 3 m ix ed w ith so il Li m e ra te s: 0 , 5 , 1 0, 1 5, a nd 2 0 g 2. 5 kg − 1 so il Ti m e: n ot p ro vi de d So il pH in cr ea se d lin ea rly w ith a n in cr ea se d ra te o f l im e ad di tio n 1. 13 u ni ts si gn ifi ca nt ly ra is ed so il pH a t t he ra te o f 2 0 g lim e So il ex ch an ge ab le (C a2+ , K + , a nd M g2+ ) w as p os iti ve ly c or re la te d w ith ri si ng li m e ra te . M ax im um av ai la bl e P an d nu tri - en t u pt ak e w er e at 2 0 g lim e ad di tio n. Ex ch an ge ab le a ci di ty w as d ra m at ic al ly de cr ea se d as th e ra te s o f l im e in cr ea se d Te sh al e, K uf a an d Re ga ss a (2 02 1) A cr is ol (p H :4 .6 ) B ra zi l Fi el d tri al . C aC O 3 w as a pp lie d as a su rfa ce ba nd u nd er th e ca no py Li m e ra te s: 0 , 2 .1 a nd 4 .2 t ha − 1 Tr ia l t im e: 5 y ea rs So il pH in cr ea se d by 0 .4 a nd 1 .3 u ni ts in th e 10 –2 0 cm d ep th a fte r a 5 -y ea r e xp er i- m en t c om pa re d to th e co nt ro l Li m in g effi ci en tly im pr ov ed so il ch em ic al at tri bu te s u p to a d ep th o f 1 0– 20 c m b ut sl ig ht ly a ffe ct ed th e de pt h of 2 0– 40 c m Li m e in cr ea se d th e co nc en tra tio ns o f C a2+ , M g2+ , a nd le af Z n bu t r ed uc ed th e so il A l3+ c on ce nt ra tio n an d th e co ffe e le af M n co nc en tra tio n A t 2 .1 a nd 4 .2 t of li m e am en dm en t, be tte r pl an t h ei gh t a nd st em d ia m et er w er e ac hi ev ed . T he av er ag e be an y ie ld ro se b y 42 % c om pa re d to th e co nt ro l Pa re ci do e t a l ( 20 21 ) A cr is ol s ( pH :4 .7 2) Et hi op ia G re en ho us e tri al . C aC O 3 w as m ix ed e ve nl y w ith so il Li m e ra te s: 0 (c on tro l). 1 .6 , 3 .2 , a nd 4 .8 t ha − 1 Tr ia l t im e: n ot p ro vi de d Th e ra te o f 1 .6 , 3 .2 , a nd 4 .8 t of li m e ap pl ic at io n in cr ea se d so il pH b y 0. 6, 0 .9 , an d 1. 04 u ni ts , r es pe ct iv el y, c om pa re d to th e co nt ro l Ex ch an ge ab le a ci di ty w as re du ce d fro m 3 .3 m eq 1 00 g − 1 (c on tro l) to 0 .4 7 m eq 1 00 g− 1 (4 .8 t lim e ha − 1 ) To ta l N , a va ila bl e P, a nd e xc ha ng ea bl e K si gn ifi ca nt ly im pr ov ed a s r at es o f l im e ad di tio n in cr ea se d, fr om 0 .1 6% , 8 .5 9 pp m an d 0. 49 m eq 1 00 g − 1 (c on tro l) to 0 .1 9% , 16 .4 0 pp m a nd 0 .7 7 m eq 1 00 g − 1 (4 .8 t lim e ha − 1 ), re sp ec tiv el y To ta l d ry m at te r e xp re ss io na lly ro se b y 14 .7 –6 1. 8% w ith in cr ea si ng ra te s Th e ap pl ic at io n of 3 .2 t lim e ha − 1 in c om - bi na tio n w ith 1 0 t c off ee h us k co m po st ha − 1 o bt ai ne d hi gh d ry m at te r y ie ld a nd nu tri en t u pt ak e D ib ab a (2 02 1) Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 13 of 23  31 Exophiala) gradually decreases with increasing pH (Deng et al 2024). However, limited reports on managing soilborne pests and diseases through lime amendment in coffee pro- duction exist. Additionally, the effects of lime amendment vary and largely depend on the rates and properties of lim- ing 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 communi- ties, 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 ben- efits, 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 allevi- ate 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 avail- ability and retained acid cations (Michael 2021). Addition- ally, 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 replace- ment 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 capac- ity, microbial activity, nutrient mineralization rates, and soil texture (Brown and Cotton 2011; Badu and Abigail 2022). For instance, adding compost decreased soil erosion Ta bl e  2   (c on tin ue d) So il ty pe , l oc at io n Ex pe ri m en t t yp e, li m in g ra te s, an d tim e So il pH e ffe ct O th er p os iti ve a nd o r/ ne ga tiv e eff ec ts o n so il, p la nt at io ns , a nd th e en vi ro nm en t R ef er en ce s A ci di c so il (p H :4 .9 ) A m er ic a La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. C aC O 3 w as th or - ou gh ly m ix ed w ith th e so il. Li m e ra te s: 0 , 4 .4 , 8 .8 a nd 1 7. 6 t h a− 1 Tr ia l t im e: 1 49 d ay s So il pH (0 –2 0 cm ) i nc re as ed b y 1. 0, 1 .7 , an d 2. 8 un its fo r t he a dd iti on o f 4 .4 , 8 .8 , an d 17 .6 t lim e co m pa re d to u nt re at ed lim e O rg an ic m at te r w as 7 .5 –1 2. 5- fo ld h ig he r i n lim ed th an in n on -li m ed so il. S oi l n itr at e in cr ea se d ov er ti m e Th e re sp ira tio n ra te w as h ig he r i n lim e- lim ed so il th an in n on -li m ed so ils M ic ro bi al b io m as s- C a t r at es o f 4 .4 , 8 .8 , an d 17 .6 t lim e ha − 1 w er e 3. 3, 4 .4 , a nd 7. 2 tim es h ig he r t ha n th e co nt ro l, re sp ec - tiv el y Fu en te s e t a l ( 20 06 ) O xi so ls (p H : 3 .7 4) C hi na La bo ra to ry in cu ba tio n. S oi l w as m ix ed w ith C aO Li m e ra te s: 0 % (c on tro l), 0 .1 0% , 0 .2 5% , an d 0. 35 % Tr ia l t im e: 2 1 da ys Th e so il pH in cr ea se d to 3 .6 3, 4 .0 4, 4 .9 1, an d 6. 40 , r es pe ct iv el y, c or re sp on di ng to 0 % , 0 .1 0% , 0 .2 5% , a nd 0 .3 5% li m e ap pl ic at io n Li m e ad di tio n si gn ifi ca nt ly in cr ea se d ne t m in er al iz at io n ra te s. Th e hi gh es t fi gu re w as a t t he li m e ra te o f 0 .3 5% Th e ne t n itr ifi ca tio n ra te si gn ifi ca nt ly de cr ea se d as th e lim e ad di tio n in cr ea se d W an g et  a l ( 20 18 a) L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 14 of 23 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 nutri- ents 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 biodiver- sity and suppress disease by reducing the population of soil pathogens, increasing the presence of soil microbial antago- nists, 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, add- ing 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 actino- mycetes 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 eco- logical 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 accu- mulation 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 agri- cultural wastes can potentially help alleviate soil acidification Figure 7   Beneficial effects of some soil amendments on soil properties and soilborne diseases of coffee plantations Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 15 of 23  31 (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 decompo- sition of mulching materials enriched exchangeable base cati- ons 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 minerali- zation of organic N (Dai et al 2017). In addition, mulching mitigates soil erosion, reduces water evaporation, improves soil moisture retention, regu- lates soil temperatures, enhances available nutrients and plant absorption, supports soil biological activities, and suppresses weeds, thereby improving soil health (Ngo- song, Okolle and Tening 2019; San et al 2021). Mulches also control fertilizer leaching, enrich soil nutrient avail- ability and soil organic matter content, reduce soil Al3+ concentration (Nzeyimana et al 2019; Beltagi et al 2022), and improve soil physiochemical and biological param- eters (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 cov- ered by organic mulches lead to soil moisture conserva- tion 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 mecha- nisms (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- mydomonas (80.04%), compared to the control (Zhao et al 2023). Likewise, Mucuna sp. mulch promoted antimicrobial activities against bacterial and fungal species such as Fusar- ium 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-ben- eficial 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 toler- ate 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 agri- cultural conditions (Iqbal et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2023). The use of mulches can lead to increased labor costs and invest- ment, and the availability of mulch materials may be a chal- lenge for farmers, particularly for smallholder coffee growers (Ngosong, Okolle and Tening 2019). Certain mulching mate- rials 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 function- ality 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 physi- ochemical characteristics and reduces Al and H+ levels com- pared 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 infec- tions (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 signifi- cant differences in soil physical attributes between agrofor- estry 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 L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 16 of 23 light of these results, intercropping shows promise as an approach for restoring soil quality and promoting more sus- tainable 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 acidi- fication 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 indi- cators 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 acid- ification 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-con- suming processes, soil acidification, heavy metal accumula- tion, and environmental risks. Additionally, significant vol- umes of soil amendments are needed to enhance soil health, which may be economically unfeasible for smallholder cof- fee 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 loca- tions with specific but limited soil characteristics, climate conditions, and agronomic practices. Implementing sustainable coffee farming systems is essen- tial 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 chemi- cals 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 pro- hibited 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 anony- mous 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 improv- ing 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 Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, 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 proper- ties, water use and crop productivity. Acad Res J Agri Sci Res 4(3):93–104. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14662/​ARJAS​R2016.​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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.021 https://doi.org/10.14662/ARJASR2016.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/s1002-0160(17)60313-8 Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 17 of 23  31 Albiach R, Canet R, Pomares F, Ingelmo F (2000) Microbial bio- mass content and enzymatic activities after the application of organic amendments to a horticultural soil. Bioresour Tech- nol 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 differ- ent 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.​ geode​rma.​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.​scito​tenv.​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.​10100​358 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, nitro- gen 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 differ- ent 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 para- naensis 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 Awopegba 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. Eura- sian 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 lit- erature 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​ hopen.​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:​ 10042​97607​070 Barbosa D, Vieira HD, Souza RM, Viana AP, Silva CP (2004) Field estimates of coffee yield losses and damage threshold by Meloi- dogyne 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/​ag.​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/​agron​omy12​081881 Bhatt MK, Labanya R, Joshi HC (2019) Influence of long-term chemi- cal fertilizers and organic manures on soil fertility-a review. Uni- vers 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.​ soilb​io.​2011.​09.​003 Brown S, Cotton M (2011) Changes in soil properties and carbon con- tent following compost application: results of on-farm sampling. Compost Sci Util 19(2):87–96. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10656​ 57X.​2011.​10736​983 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 pro- duction 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/​ agron​omy90​90499 Cai Z, Wang B, Xu M, Zhang H, He X, Zhang L, Gao S (2014) Intensi- fied soil acidification from chemical N fertilization and preven- tion 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 rec- ommended 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 lato- sol 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) Analy- sis 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 fer- tilizers and/or biofertilizer for crop growth and soil fertility. In: International workshop on sustained management of the https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00030-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00030-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.04.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.04.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137852 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137852 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10100358 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2011.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2011.07.005 https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1094/vnuees.4117 https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1094/vnuees.4117 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105099 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105099 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0464-5 https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.286546 https://doi.org/10.18393/ejss.286546 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0180-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0180-z https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103944 https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103944 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00779-w https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00779-w https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004297607070 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004297607070 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(02)00013-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.10.004 https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.230551 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081881 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081881 https://doi.org/10.13189/ujar.2019.070502 https://doi.org/10.13189/ujar.2019.070502 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(02)78006-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(02)78006-1 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18308 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18308 https://doi.org/10.1078/0176-1617-0774 https://doi.org/10.1078/0176-1617-0774 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736983 https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2011.10736983 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1422-1 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090499 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090499 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0989-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0989-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0316-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0316-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.013 L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 18 of 23 soil-rhizosphere system for efficient crop production and fer- tilizer use,10-20 Oct, Bangkok Thailand, vol 20. Citeseer, pp 1–11. https://​cites​eerx.​ist.​psu.​edu/​docum​ent?​repid=​rep1&​ type=​pdf&​doi=​088d6​ce380​0f6a9​2f989​0eaa4​f77d0​4f1ac​35df3 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/​ 03650​340.​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.​20130​0089 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.​11724​25 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 acidifica- tion - a critical review. Sci Total Environ 581–582:601–611. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​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.​chemo​sphere.​2018.​06.​179 Dan CT, Van TTT (2016) Effect of plant-parasitic nematodes on yel- low 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 proper- ties 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-​glyph​osate-​d1928​98.​ html. Accessed 25th March 2023 Dzung NA, Dzung TT, Khanh VTP (2013) Evaluation of coffee husk com- post 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) Char- acterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agro- nomic performance. Bioresour Technol 114:644–653. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​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 associ- ated 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/​30504​95 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.​soilb​io.​2018.​03.​017 Fitria L, Soemarno S (2022) Effects of lime and compost on chemi- cal 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/​carak​atani.​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, Mos- negutu E, Tomozei C, Chitimus D, Irimia O (2023) Assessment https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=088d6ce3800f6a92f9890eaa4f77d04f1ac35df3 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=088d6ce3800f6a92f9890eaa4f77d04f1ac35df3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.972789 https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.789870 https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.789870 https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201300089 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.02.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.02.002 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1172425 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12643 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12643 https://tapchi.vaas.vn/sites/tapchi.vaas.vn/files/tapchi/2021-09/tc15_15.pdf https://tapchi.vaas.vn/sites/tapchi.vaas.vn/files/tapchi/2021-09/tc15_15.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.169 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.179 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 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 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06577-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06577-y https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.820916 https://vietq.vn/canh-bao-khong-su-dung-thuoc-bao-ve-thuc-vat-chua-hoat-chat-glyphosate-d192898.html https://vietq.vn/canh-bao-khong-su-dung-thuoc-bao-ve-thuc-vat-chua-hoat-chat-glyphosate-d192898.html https://vietq.vn/canh-bao-khong-su-dung-thuoc-bao-ve-thuc-vat-chua-hoat-chat-glyphosate-d192898.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022 https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01045-10 https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru323 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3050495 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3050495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.03.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.03.017 https://doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v37i1.54010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-023-00257-3 Restoring soil health from long‑term intensive Robusta coffee cultivation in Vietnam: “a… Page 19 of 23  31 of manure compost used as soil amendment—a review. Pro- cesses 11 (4). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​pr110​41167 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/​09064​710.​ 2022.​20895​90 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 produc- tivity. Soil Biol Biochem 39(7):1468–1478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/j.​soilb​io.​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. Washing- ton, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners and the World Bank., Wash- ington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners and the World Bank, pp 99–122. https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​28276​8221_​ Steps_​Toward_​Green_​Policy_​Respo​nses_​to_​the_​Envir​onmen​ tal_​Footp​rint_​of_​Commo​dity_​Agric​ulture_​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 cof- fee in Western Highlands. J Vietnam Agric Sci Technol 09(82):104–110 Hong NT, Cassou E, Binh C (2017) An overview of agricultural pollu- tion 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-​expor​ts.​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, Côrrea Landgraf PR (2020) Soil attributes and coffee yield in an agro- forestry 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, diver- sity and activity to soilborne disease suppression and growth promotion of tomato amended with biochar. Sci Rep 7:44382. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​srep4​4382 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 inor- ganic fertilizer to improve the soil ecological environment and photosynthetic characteristics of Arabica coffee. Agronomy 13 (5). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​agron​omy13​051212 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.​jhazm​ at.​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.​soilb​io.​2011.​10.​012 Joseph S, Cowie AL, Zwieten LV, Bolan N, Budai A, Buss W, Cay- uela 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.​v12n1​0p278 Kader M, Senge M, Mojid M, Ito K (2017) Recent advances in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Till- age 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 manage- ment. J Entomol Zool Stud 9(1):35–40 Khan MR, Mohiddin FA, Haque Z, Sharma RK (2023) Chapter 4: Dis- ease 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) Bio- char production and characteristics, its impacts on soil health, crop production, and yield enhancement: a review. Plants 13 (2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​plant​s1302​0166 Khan Z, Zhang K, Khan MN, Zhu K, Hu L (2024b) Effects of bio- char persistence on soil physiochemical properties, enzymatic activities, nutrient utilization, and crop yield in a three-year https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041167 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1383-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.004 https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2022.2089590 https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2022.2089590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.12.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.12.029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138425 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138425 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282768221_Steps_Toward_Green_Policy_Responses_to_the_Environmental_Footprint_of_Commodity_Agriculture_in_East_and_S https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282768221_Steps_Toward_Green_Policy_Responses_to_the_Environmental_Footprint_of_Commodity_Agriculture_in_East_and_S https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282768221_Steps_Toward_Green_Policy_Responses_to_the_Environmental_Footprint_of_Commodity_Agriculture_in_East_and_S https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/497/1/012038 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01932 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01932 https://doi.org/10.14456/ea.2018.11 https://ico.org/prices/m1-exports.pdf https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-020-00290-3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-020-00290-3 https://doi.org/10.25186/.v15i.1676 https://doi.org/10.25186/.v15i.1676 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44382 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051212 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.08.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.08.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885 https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v12n10p278 https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v12n10p278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91226-6.00009-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91226-6.00009-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91226-6.00016-X https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13020166 L. N. Van et al. 31   Page 20 of 23 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 LĐ, 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.​soilb​io.​2006.​08.​010 Kochian LV, Hoekenga OA, Pineros MA (2004) How do crop plants tolerate acid soils? Mechanisms of aluminum tolerance and phos- phorous efficiency. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:459–493. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev.​arpla​nt.​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 spect