The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
EFFECTS OF CRUSHED MAIZE STRAW RESIDUES ON SOIL BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND SOIL RESTORATION
Abstract
ABSTRACT Agriculture soils in the Mediterranean need restoration and rehabilitation after 10 millenia of use and abuse. Maize straw residues crushed at three sizes [<1 (C1), 1–10 (C2) and >10 cm (C3)] at 5 Mg ha−1 y−1 and with and without urea (150 kg N ha−1) were applied during a period of 3 years for the purpose of restoration of a Typic Xerofluvent located near Córdoba (Spain). The effect on the vegetal cover and biological properties (microbial biomass, soil respiration and enzymatic activities) were determined. The size of the crushed maize residues (particle size <1 cm) and N supply influenced in the evolution of soil biological properties and vegetal cover. The stimulation of microbial biomass, soil respiration, dehydrogenase, urease, β‐glucosidase, phosphatase and arylsulphatase activities was higher in C1 + N‐amended soils for 14·9%, 16·3%, 8·8%, 24·3%, 13·5%, 7·1% and 10·3%, respectively, compared with C2 + N and for 25·8%, 26·9%, 18·3%, 38·5%, 28·2%, 19·1% and 18·3%, respectively, compared with C3 + N. Vegetal cover from the C1 + N treatment was 11·4%, 17·8%, 29·4%, 37·6%, 44·9% and 75·1% greater than that in C2 + N, C3 + N, C1, C2, C3 and control soil. These results suggested that under dry climatic conditions, the application of crushed maize straw finely crushed + N fertilizers improved the soil biological properties and also favour the appearance of spontaneous vegetation, which will protect the soil and will contribute to its restoration. Consequently, the addition of the crushed maize straw finely crushed + N fertilizers may be considered a good environmental strategy for recovery of degraded soils. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The benefits of finely crushed straw without fertilization were in most cases comparable to those of coarsely crushed straw with urea fertilization.
“The benefits of the finely crushed straw without fertilization were in most cases comparable to the effects of the coarsely crushed straw with urea fertilization (Tejada and Benítez, 2014).”
From Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides (2021) · cites this paper as Tejada and Benítez, 2014
In a multiple-year field study, microbial biomass C and five enzyme activities were highest with finely crushed straw (<1 cm) plus urea, followed by coarser crushed straw (1-10 cm and >10 cm).
“The highest values were found in treatments receiving finely crushed straw (<1 cm) and urea fertilization, followed by plots fertilized with coarser crushed straw (1-10 cm and >10 cm).”
From Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides (2021) · cites this paper as Tejada and Benítez, 2014
Citations
Cites
Decomposition of wheat straw and rye residues as affected by particle size.
Angers, D. A., & Recous, S. (1997) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1004207219678 · Cited by 237
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 48
- 10.1002/ldr.1069 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.12.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.06.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.02.022 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.08.010 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.12.012 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.03.033 · DOI
- Canfield RH, 1941, Application of the line intercept methods in sampling range vegetation, Journal of Forestry, 39, 384
- 10.4141/S97-060 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.968 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.eja.2003.07.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90142-2 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.still.2010.05.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.10.003 · DOI
- Guitian F, 1976, Técnicas de análisis de suelos
- 10.1046/j.1351-0754.2003.0559.x · DOI
- Jenkinson DS, 1988, Nitrogen cycling in agricultural ecosystems, 368
- 10.1007/BF00257924 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2004.10.001 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.1139 · DOI
- Masciandaro G, 1994, Anaerobic digestion of straw and piggery waste waters. II. Optimization of the process, Agrochimica, 38, 195
- 10.1002/ldr.1146 · DOI
- Nannipieri P, 1990, Soil biochemistry, 293
- 10.1080/00103629109368563 · DOI
- 10.1016/0960-8524(93)90153-3 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.1123 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00298-5 · DOI · Paper page
- Ruggiero P, 1996, Soil biochemistry, 79
- 10.1002/ldr.1100 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.021 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.2148 · DOI
- 10.1016/0038-0717(69)90012-1 · DOI
- 10.2136/sssaj1970.03615995003400020016x · DOI
- 10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00089-8 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.eja.2006.01.007 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00059-1 · DOI
- 10.2134/jeq2005.0460 · DOI · Paper page
- Tejada M, 2007, Tendencias actuales de la ciencia del suelo, 954
- 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.10.007 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.1052 · DOI
- 10.1007/0-387-29112-1_21 · DOI
- 10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1526-100X.2003.rec0216.x · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.2161 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11461-008-0040-9 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.2246 · DOI
- 10.1002/ldr.2239 · DOI
- Zibilske LM, 1994, Methods of soil analysis, 835
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Siedt, M., Schäffer, A., Smith, K. E. C., Nabel, M., Roß-Nickoll, M., & van Dongen, J. T. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141607 · Cited by 563
Metadata
- Authors
- Tejada, M., & Benítez, C.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Sevilla (ES)
- University of Córdoba (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Tejada, M.
- ORCID
- Tejada, M.
- Venue
- Land Degradation & Development
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 501-509
- ISSN
- 1085-3278 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-145X
- OpenAlex
- W1780544765
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 19.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Land Degradation and Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
- Keywords
- maize straw, crop residue management, soil restoration, soil biological properties, microbial biomass, soil respiration, soil enzyme activity, urea fertilization, degraded soils, Mediterranean agriculture
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
