Cited by 472Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

Microbial immobilization of ammonium and nitrate in relation to ammonification and nitrification rates in organic and conventional cropping systems

Burger, Martin, Jackson, Louise E·2003·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Abstract

Agricultural systems that receive high or low organic matter (OM) inputs would be expected to differ in soil nitrogen (N) transformation rates and fates of ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-). To compare NH4+ availability, competition between nitrifiers and heterotrophic microorganisms for NH4+, and microbial NO3- assimilation in an organic vs. a conventional irrigated cropping system in the California Central Valley, chemical and biological soil assays, 15N isotope pool dilution and 15N tracer techniques were used. Potentially mineralizable N (PMN) and hot minus cold KCl-extracted NH4+ as indicators of soil N supplying capacity were measured five times during the tomato growing season. At mid-season, rates of gross ammonification and gross nitrification after rewetting dry soil were measured in microcosms. Microbial immobilization of NO3- and NH4+ was estimated based on the uptake of 15N and gross consumption rates. Gross ammonification, PMN, and hot minus cold KCl-extracted NH4+ were approximately twice as high in the organically than the conventionally managed soil. Net estimated microbial NO3- assimilation rates were between 32 and 35% of gross nitrification rates in the conventional and between 37 and 46% in the organic system. In both soils, microbes assimilated more NO3- than NH4+. Heterotrophic microbes assimilated less NH4+ than NO3- probably because NH4+ concentrations were low and competition by nitrifiers was apparently strong. The high OM input organic system released NH4+ in a gradual manner and, compared to the low OM input conventional system, supported a more active microbial biomass with greater N demand that was met mainly by NO3- immobilization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00233-x

Cites

1 of 1 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
Burger, M., & Jackson, L. E.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Burger, Martin
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-01
Volume
35
Issue
1
Pages
29-36
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2106629735
Cited by
472
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 24
FWCI
15.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • University of California, Davis
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
microbial immobilization, ammonium, nitrate, ammonification, nitrification, organic production systems, conventional cropping systems, soil organic matter, soil nitrogen transformation, 15N tracer, potentially mineralizable nitrogen, microbial biomass, tomato, irrigated 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