Cited by 80Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

Decomposition of wheat straw differing in nitrogen content in soils under conventional and organic farming management

Scheller, Edwin, Rainer Georg Joergensen, †·2008·Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

Abstract

An incubation experiment was carried out to investigate the interactions of two straw qualities differing in N content and two soils differently accustomed to straw additions. One soil under conventional farming management (CFM) regularly received straw, the other soil under organic farming management (OFM) only farmyard manure. The soils of the two sites were similar in texture, pH, cation‐exchange capacity, and glucosamine content. The soil from the OFM site had higher contents of organic C, total N, muramic acid, microbial biomass C and N (C mic and N mic), but a lower ergosterol content and lower ratios ergosterol to C mic and fungal C to bacterial C. The straw from the CFM had threefold higher contents of total N, twofold higher contents of ergosterol and glucosamine, a 50% higher content of muramic acid, and a 30% higher fungal C–to–bacterial C ratio. The straw amendments led to significant net increases in C mic, N mic, and ergosterol. Microbial biomass C showed on average a 50% higher net increase in the organic than in the CFM soil. In contrast, the net increases in N mic and ergosterol differed only slightly between the two soils after straw amendment. The CO 2 evolution from the CFM soil always exceeded that from the OFM, by 50% or 200 µg (g soil)–1 in the nonamended control soil and by 55% or additional 600 µg (g soil)–1 in the two straw treatments. In both soils, 180 µg g–1 less was evolved as CO 2‐C from the OFM straw. The metabolic quotient q CO 2 was nearly twice as high in the control and in the straw treatments of the CFM soil compared with that of the OFM. In contrast, the difference in q CO 2 was insignificant between the two straw qualities. Differences in the fungal‐community structure may explain to a large extent the difference in the microbial use of straw in the two soils under different managements.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jpln.200700272

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Scheller, E., & Rainer Georg Joergensen, †.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Venue
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12
Volume
171
Issue
6
Pages
886-892
ISSN
  • 1436-8730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2624
OpenAlex
W1975472118
Cited by
80
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science (publishedVersion)
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
wheat straw decomposition, organic farming, conventional farming, microbial biomass carbon, microbial biomass nitrogen, ergosterol, CO2 evolution, metabolic quotient, soil microbial community structure, farmyard manure, soil organic carbon

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