Cited by 26Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

Mid-term tracing of 15N derived from urine and dung in soil microbial biomass

Wachendorf, Christine, Joergensen, Rainer Georg·2011·Biology and Fertility of Soils

Abstract

Large amounts of C and N are returned to pasture soils by grazing animals in the form of urine and dung. Therefore, a field trial was carried out to investigate the mid-term effects of ¹⁵N-labeled excrements, produced by feeding a cow with ¹⁵N-labeled grass silage, on the soil microbial biomass. Simulating the deposition of excrements, ¹⁵N-labeled urine and dung were applied to a 0.09-m² area of a sandy pasture soil in October 2000 and 2001. Applied amounts of N were 1,030 and 1,052 kg ha⁻¹, respectively. Soil was sampled at 0-15 cm depth, three times over 7 months and analyzed for total C and N, and microbial biomass C and N. Recovery of urine and dung N in microbial biomass was determined by ¹⁵N analysis of K₂SO₄ extracts of pre-extracted fumigated and unfumigated soils. Under dung patches, microbial biomass C was 16% and 45% higher, and microbial biomass N was 24% and 57% higher than under the untreated soil in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Under urine patches, microbial biomass C was increased after 12 weeks and decreased after 27 weeks. Microbial biomass assimilated 7% to 17% and 10% to 21% of the ¹⁵N applied initially as urine and dung, respectively. These percentages were considerably higher than those for artificially with spiked ¹⁵N urea-created and labeled manures reported in previous experiments. An important reason may be that the naturally ¹⁵N-labeled N components behave differently in soil than urea spikes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00374-010-0516-2

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 26

Authors
Wachendorf, C., & Joergensen, R. G.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Corresponding author
Wachendorf, Christine
Venue
Biology and Fertility of Soils
Published
2010-11-16
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
147-155
ISSN
  • 0178-2762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0789
OpenAlex
W1987724721
Cited by
26
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biology and Fertility of Soils (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Universität Hamburg
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
soil microbial biomass, 15N tracer, urine, dung, grazing animals, pasture soils, nitrogen recovery, nitrogen assimilation, manure deposition, sandy soil, nitrogen cycling

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