Cited by 74Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques

Decomposition and mineralization of energy crop residues governed by earthworms

Ernst, Gregor, Henseler, Isabell, Felten, Daniel, Emmerling, Christoph·2009·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Abstract

Energy crops are increasingly cultivated in agricultural management systems world-wide. A substitution of food crops (e.g. cereals) by energy crops may generally alter the biological activity and litter decomposition in soil due to their varying structural and chemical composition and subsequently modify soil functioning. A soil microcosm experiment was performed to assess the decomposition and microbial mineralization of different energy crop residues in soil compared to a food crop, with or without earthworms. Residues of the energy crops winter rape (Brassica napus), maize (Zea mays), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus) and the food crop oat (Avena sativa) were each provided as food source for a mixed earthworm population, each consisting of one individual of Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea caliginosa, and Octolasion tyrtaeum. After 6 weeks, the rate of litter loss from the soil surface, earthworm biomass, microbial biomass-C and -N, microbial activity, and enzyme activities were determined. The results emphasized, that litter loss and microbial parameters were predominantly promoted by earthworms and were additionally influenced by the varying structural and chemical composition of the different litter. Litter decay by earthworms was highest in N-rich maize litter treatment (C-N ratio 34.8) and lowest in the case of miscanthus litter (C-N ratio 134.4). As a consequence, the microbial biomass and basal respiration in soils with maize litter were higher, relative to other litter types. MBC-MBN ratio in soil increased when earthworms were present, indicating N competition between earthworms and microorganisms. Furthermore, enzyme activities responded in different ways on the varying types of litter and earthworm activity. Enzymes involved in the N-cycle decreased and those involved in the C-cycle tended to increase in the presence of earthworms, when litter with high C-N ratio was provided as a food source. Especially in the miscanthus treatments, less N might remain for enzymatic degradation, indicating that N competition between earthworms and microorganisms may vary between different litter types. Especially, an expansion of miscanthus in agricultural management systems might result in a reduced microbial activity and a higher N deficit for microorganisms in soil.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.04.015

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • The C/N ratio of Miscanthus litter increases from 28 to 34 in leaves at the end of season to 43-52 or even more than 100 in mature litter.

    “The C/N ratio of Miscanthus litter increases from 28 to 34 in leaves at the end of season to 43–52 [65] or even >100 [110] in mature litter.”
  • Earthworms enhance the incorporation of residues into the soil and accelerate their decay.

    “Earthworms clearly enhance the incorporation of residues into the soil and accelerate their decay [110, 111].”
  • A microcosm experiment showed that free access by soil fauna increased litter turnover by an order of magnitude compared to litter bags.

    “A microcosm experiment showed that free access by soil fauna increased litter turnover by an order of magnitude [110] compared to those observed in litter bags [64, 123].”
  • A small number of studies using isotopes, model systems and field sampling allow scaling of mean residence times to in situ rates.

    “However, a small number of studies using isotopes [109], model systems [110, 111] and field sampling [32, 81, 82] allow their scaling to in situ rates.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ernst, G., Henseler, I., Felten, D., & Emmerling, C.
Affiliations
Universität Trier (DE)
Corresponding author
Emmerling, Christoph
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-07
Volume
41
Issue
7
Pages
1548-1554
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965031762
Cited by
74
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Composting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Keywords
earthworms, litter decomposition, microbial mineralization, Miscanthus, maize, winter oilseed rape, oat, C/N ratio, Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea caliginosa, Octolasion tyrtaeum, microbial biomass, soil enzyme activity, nitrogen competition, soil microcosms

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