Cited by 7Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

Response of maize and soil microorganisms to decomposing poplar root residues after shallow or homogenous mixing into soil

Gad, Hikal, Wachendorf, Christine, Joergensen, Rainer Georg·2015·Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science

Abstract

During re‐conversion of short‐rotation poplar tree plantations back to arable land use, large amounts of tree residues must be incorporated into soil. A 90‐d pot experiment with and without N addition was carried out after mixing the same amounts of chaffed poplar root residues into the pots at 0–5 cm or at 0–20 cm depth. The objective was to investigate whether shallow mixing has positive effects on maize growth, reduces poplar root residue decomposition, and changes the microbial community structure towards fungi. Aboveground maize yield was strongly reduced after mixing of poplar root residues at 0–20 cm depth without N fertilization, but was not affected if mixed at 0–5 cm depth. Neither the mixing nor N fertilization had significant effects on root residue decomposition, estimated as recovered particulate organic matter. The total increase in microbial biomass C and biomass N was strongest after homogenous mixing of root residues at 0–20 cm, but remained unaffected by N fertilization. In contrast, the total amount of ergosterol remained unaffected by the mixing treatments, but responded positively to N fertilization. Shallow incorporation of poplar root residues did not affect the microbial biomass C/N ratio but disproportionately increased the fungal ergosterol to microbial biomass C ratio. Shallow incorporation of poplar root residues seems to reduce the demand for N fertilization of following crops, which should be further tested in field experiments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jpln.201400593

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
Gad, H., Wachendorf, C., & Joergensen, R. G.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Corresponding author
Joergensen, Rainer Georg
Venue
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-05
Volume
178
Issue
3
Pages
507-514
ISSN
  • 1436-8730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2624
OpenAlex
W2127246192
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.91
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
maize growth, soil microbial communities, fungal dominance, microbial biomass carbon, microbial biomass nitrogen, ergosterol, nitrogen fertilization, residue decomposition, particulate organic matter, C/N ratio

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