CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyAgricultural Science and Fertilization

Bacterial community structure and microbial activity in different soils amended with biogas residues and cattle slurry

Abubaker, J., Cederlund, H., Arthurson, V., Pell, M.·2013·Applied Soil Ecology
DOI 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.07.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion of organic materials generates residues of differing chemical composition compared to undigested animal manures, which may affect the soil microbial ecosystem differently when used as fertilizers. This study investigated the effects of two biogas residues (BR-A and BR-B) and cattle slurry (CS) applied at rates corresponding to 70kgNH4+-Nha−1 on bacterial community structure and microbial activity in three soils of different texture (a sandy, a clay and an organic clay soil). 16S rRNA genes were targeted in PCR reactions and bacterial community profiles visualized using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism. General microbial activity was measured as basal respiration (B-resp), substrate-induced respiration (SIR), specific growth rate (μSIR), metabolic quotient (qCO2) and nitrogen mineralization capacity (NMC). Non-metric multidimensional scaling analysis visualized shifts in bacterial community structure related to microbial functions. There were significant differences in bacterial community structure after 120 days of incubation (+20°C at 70% of WHC) between non-amended (control) and amended soils, especially in the sandy soil, where CS caused a more pronounced shift than biogas residues. Terminal-restriction fragment (TRF) 307, the predominant peak in CS-amended sandy soil, was identified as possibly Bacillus or Streptococcus. TRF 226, the dominant peak in organic soil amended with BR-B, was classified as Rhodopseudomonas. B-resp significantly increased and SIR decreased in all amendments to organic soil compared with the control, potentially indicating decreased efficiency of heterotrophic microorganisms to convert organic carbon into microbial biomass. This was also reflected in an elevated qCO2 in the organic soil. The μSIR level was higher in the sandy soil amended with BR-A than with BR-B or CS, indicating a shift toward species capable of rapidly utilizing glucose. NMC was significantly elevated in the clay and organic soils amended with BR-A and BR-B and in the sandy soil amended with BR-B and CS. Thus, biogas residues and cattle slurry had different effects on the bacterial community structure and microbial activity in the three soils. However, the effects of biogas residues on microbial activities were comparable in magnitude to those of cattle slurry and the bacterial community structure was less affected. Therefore, we do not see any reason not to recommend using biogas residues as fertilizers based on the results presented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.07.002

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • Differences in soil microbial community and activity between manure and digestate were not such that they justified recommendation of either substrate before the other.

    “While differences in soil microbial community and activity between manure and digestate were not such that they justified the recommendation of either substrate before the other (Abubaker et al., 2013), Insam et al. (2015) concluded that digestate could enhance soil microbial activity and biomass as compared to manure.”

    From Intensify production, transform biomass to energy and novel goods and protect soils in Europe—A vision how to mobilize marginal lands (2018) · cites this paper as Abubaker et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Abubaker, J., Cederlund, H., Arthurson, V., & Pell, M.
Affiliations
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Abubaker, J.
ORCID
Venue
Applied Soil Ecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
72
Pages
171-180
ISSN
0929-1393 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.07.002
OpenAlex
W2061166993
Cited by
98
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Applied Soil Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
Keywords
biogas residue, cattle slurry, soil bacterial community structure, microbial activity, soil amendment, nitrogen mineralization, basal respiration, substrate-induced respiration, metabolic quotient, soil texture, 16S rRNA gene, Rhodopseudomonas, Bacillus, Streptococcus, organic fertilizer

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