Cited by 654Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

Nitrogen retention and plant uptake on a highly weathered central Amazonian Ferralsol amended with compost and charcoal

Steiner, Christoph, Glaser, Bruno, Geraldes Teixeira, Wenceslau, Lehmann, Johannes, Blum, Winfried E.H., Zech, Wolfgang·2008·Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

Abstract

Leaching losses of N are a major limitation of crop production on permeable soils and under heavy rainfalls as in the humid tropics. We established a field trial in the central Amazon (near Manaus, Brazil) in order to study the influence of charcoal and compost on the retention of N. Fifteen months after organic‐matter admixing (0–0.1 m soil depth), we added 15 N‐labeled (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 (27.5 kg N ha –1 at 10 atom% excess). The tracer was measured in top soil (0–0.1 m) and plant samples taken at two successive sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) harvests. The N recovery in biomass was significantly higher when the soil contained compost (14.7% of applied N) in comparison to only mineral‐fertilized plots (5.7%) due to significantly higher crop production during the first growth period. After the second harvest, the retention in soil was significantly higher in the charcoal‐amended plots (15.6%) in comparison to only mineral‐fertilized plots (9.7%) due to higher retention in soil. The total N recovery in soil, crop residues, and grains was significantly ( p < 0.05) higher on compost (16.5%), charcoal (18.1%), and charcoal‐plus‐compost treatments (17.4%) in comparison to only mineral‐fertilized plots (10.9%). Organic amendments increased the retention of applied fertilizer N. One process in this retention was found to be the recycling of N taken up by the crop. The relevance of immobilization, reduced N leaching, and gaseous losses as well as other potential processes for increasing N retention should be unraveled in future studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jpln.200625199

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steiner, C., Glaser, B., Geraldes Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Blum, W. E. H., & Zech, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Bayreuth (DE)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • BOKU University (AT)
Corresponding author
Steiner, Christoph
Venue
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12
Volume
171
Issue
6
Pages
893-899
ISSN
  • 1436-8730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2624
OpenAlex
W2142849766
Cited by
654
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 39
FWCI
30.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
nitrogen retention, nitrogen leaching, compost, biochar, charcoal, organic amendments, 15N tracer, nitrogen uptake, sorghum, Ferralsols, highly weathered soils, Amazonian soils, nitrogen immobilization, nitrogen recycling, mineral fertilizer comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review