CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsAgricultural Science and Fertilization

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Interactive effects of compost and pre-planting soil moisture on plant biomass, nutrition and formation of mycorrhizas: a context dependent response

Open access
Ngo, H. T. T., Cavagnaro, T. R.·2018·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-18780-2PMC PMC5784012
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We aimed to investigate the combined impacts of compost addition and pre-planting soil moisture conditions, on plant-available nutrients, and subsequent impacts on the biomass, nutrition and formation of AM by two important crop species. A glasshouse study was undertaken in which wheat and tomato plants were grown in compost amended or un-amended soil that was subjected to different moisture regimes prior to planting. The availability of P was strongly influenced by compost addition, but not pre-planting moisture conditions. In contrast, mineral N pools were affected by compost addition and pre-planting soil moisture conditions in complex ways. These changes in nutrient availability affected plant biomass, nutrient uptake and formation of AM. In general, plant performance was better where pre-planting soil moisture conditions were wet or dry, and worse where they involved a wet/dry cycle, and mycorrhizal colonisation was lower where compost was added to the soil. That pre-planting moisture conditions affect the biomass of subsequent crops is an important finding, the potential implications of which are considered here.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-18780-2

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Concentrations of (a) NH4+-N, (b) NO3−-N, and (c) plant-available (Colwell) P, in soils at the time of planting, that were amended with compost (black bars), or were un-amended (white bars), and subjected to different pre-planting soil moisture conditions (see text). Values are means ± SE (n = 10). Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the P < 0.05 level.
Figure 1 Concentrations of (a) NH4+-N, (b) NO3−-N, and (c) plant-available (Colwell) P, in soils at the time of planting, that were amended with compost (black bars), or were un-amended (white bars), and subjected to different pre-planting soil moisture conditions (see text). Values are means ± SE (n = 10). Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the P < 0.05 level.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Biomass of (a) tomato and (b) wheat; N content of (c) tomato and (d) wheat; and P content of (e) tomato and (f) wheat, grown in soils that were amended with compost (black bars), or were un-amended (white bars), and subjected to different pre-planting soil moisture conditions (see text). Values, where are means ± S.E. (n = 5), for above- and below-ground tissues are presented above- and below the x-axis, respectively. For tomatoes, above-ground biomass was for vegetative tissues only. For wheat, above-ground biomass was divided into shoots and heads, which presented as the lower and upper portions of the bars above the x-axis, respectively. Where the ANOVA revealed a significant two-way interaction bars are labelled with individual letters; means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the P < 0.05 level. Where the main effect of compost was significant this is reported in the text. Where the main effect of pre-planting watering treatment was significant, differences between watering treatments (i.e. pooled over compost treatment within a given compost watering treatment) are indicated with letters sitting immediately above a horizontal line. N.B. valid statistical comparisons cannot be made between plant species, nor tissue types.
Figure 2 Biomass of (a) tomato and (b) wheat; N content of (c) tomato and (d) wheat; and P content of (e) tomato and (f) wheat, grown in soils that were amended with compost (black bars), or were un-amended (white bars), and subjected to different pre-planting soil moisture conditions (see text). Values, where are means ± S.E. (n = 5), for above- and below-ground tissues are presented above- and below the x-axis, respectively. For tomatoes, above-ground biomass was for vegetative tissues only. For wheat, above-ground biomass was divided into shoots and heads, which presented as the lower and upper portions of the bars above the x-axis, respectively. Where the ANOVA revealed a significant two-way interaction bars are labelled with individual letters; means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the P < 0.05 level. Where the main effect of compost was significant this is reported in the text. Where the main effect of pre-planting watering treatment was significant, differences between watering treatments (i.e. pooled over compost treatment within a given compost watering treatment) are indicated with letters sitting immediately above a horizontal line. N.B. valid statistical comparisons cannot be made between plant species, nor tissue types.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Mycorrhizal colonisation (precent root length colonised) of (a) tomato and (b) wheat, grown in soils that had been amended with compost (black bars), or were un-amended (white bars), and subjected to different pre-planting soil moisture conditions (see text). Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the P < 0.05 level. N.B. valid statistical comparisons cannot be made between plant species.
Figure 3 Mycorrhizal colonisation (precent root length colonised) of (a) tomato and (b) wheat, grown in soils that had been amended with compost (black bars), or were un-amended (white bars), and subjected to different pre-planting soil moisture conditions (see text). Values are means ± SE (n = 5). Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the P < 0.05 level. N.B. valid statistical comparisons cannot be made between plant species.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Pre-planting soil moisture conditions. Soil moisture conditions are expressed as a percentage of soil Water Holding Capacity (WHC). Soil that was amended with compost, and un-amended controls are represented by closed and open symbols, respectively. Pre-planting moisture treatments were Wet (circle), Dry (squares) and Cycle (triangles) and described in the text. Values are means, n = 10. Standard errors were extremely small and so are not visible on the figure at this scale, and so are not included. N. B. plants were introduced into these pots on day 40, after which all pots were maintained at 75% of WHC – see text for details.
Figure 4 Pre-planting soil moisture conditions. Soil moisture conditions are expressed as a percentage of soil Water Holding Capacity (WHC). Soil that was amended with compost, and un-amended controls are represented by closed and open symbols, respectively. Pre-planting moisture treatments were Wet (circle), Dry (squares) and Cycle (triangles) and described in the text. Values are means, n = 10. Standard errors were extremely small and so are not visible on the figure at this scale, and so are not included. N. B. plants were introduced into these pots on day 40, after which all pots were maintained at 75% of WHC – see text for details.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 27

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Mikha, M. M., Rice, C. W. & Milliken, G. A. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization as affected by drying and wetting cycles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 339–347, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.003 (2005). · DOI
  2. Borken, W. & Matzner, E. Reappraisal of drying and wetting effects on C and N mineralization and fluxes in soils. Globe. Change Biol. 15, 808–824 (2009). · DOI
  3. Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 99, 125–161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004 (2010). · DOI
  4. Kaiser, M., Kleber, M. & Berhe, A. A. How air-drying and rewetting modify soil organic matter characteristics: An assessment to improve data interpretation and inference. Soil Biol. Biochem. 80, 324–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.018 (2015). · DOI
  5. Warren, C. R. Response of osmolytes in soil to drying and rewetting. Soil Biol. Biochem. 70, 22–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.12.008 (2014). · DOI
  6. Johnson, C. B. Physiological processes limiting plant productivity. (Elsevier, 2013).
  7. Kirkham, M. B. Principles of soil and plant water relations. (Academic Press, 2014).
  8. Jackson, L. E., Burger, M. & Cavagnaro, T. R. Roots, nitrogen transformations, and ecosystem services. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 59, 341 (2008). · DOI
  9. Yu, Z., Wang, G. & Marschner, P. Drying and rewetting - Effect of frequency of cycles and length of moist period on soil respiration and microbial biomass. Europe. J Soil Biol. 62, 132–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2014.03.007 (2014). · DOI
  10. Cavagnaro, T. R. Soil moisture legacy effects: Impacts on soil nutrients, plants and mycorrhizal responsiveness. Soil Biol. Biochem. 95, 173–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.12.016 (2016). · DOI
  11. Burger, M. et al. Microbial responses and nitrous oxide emissions during wetting and drying of organically and conventionally managed soil under tomatoes. BIol. Fert. Soil. 42, 109–118 (2005). · DOI
  12. Watts-Williams, S. J. & Cavagnaro, T. R. Nutrient interactions and arbuscular mycorrhizas: a meta-analysis of a mycorrhiza-defective mutant and wild-type tomato genotype pair. Plant Soil 384, 79–92 (2014). · DOI
  13. Verzeaux, J., Hirel, B., Dubois, F., Lea, P. J. & Tétu, T. Agricultural practices to improve nitrogen use efficiency through the use of arbuscular mycorrhizae: basic and agronomic aspects. Plant Science, in press, avaliable online, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.08.004 (2017). · DOI
  14. Gattinger, A. et al. Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 109, 18226–18231 (2012). · DOI
  15. Piccolo, A. In Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils 1–19 (Springer, 2012). · DOI
  16. Donn, S., Wheatley, R. E., McKenzie, B. M., Loades, K. W. & Hallett, P. D. Improved soil fertility from compost amendment increases root growth and reinforcement of surface soil on slopes. Ecol. Eng. 71, 458–465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.066 (2014). · DOI
  17. Cavagnaro, T. R. Biologically regulated nutrient supply systems: compost and arbuscular mycorrhizasd - a review. Advance. Agron. 129, 293–321 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  18. Abdou, G. et al. Nutrient release patterns of compost and its implication on crop yield under Sahelian conditions of Niger. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 105, 117–128, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-016-9779-9 (2016). · DOI
  19. Requejo, M. I. et al. Nitrogen mineralisation in soil after addition of wine distillery waste compost: laboratory and field evaluation. Soil Res. 54, 144–153, https://doi.org/10.1071/SR15031 (2016). · DOI
  20. D’Hose, T. et al. The positive relationship between soil quality and crop production: A case study on the effect of farm compost application. Appl. Soil Ecol. 75, 189–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.11.013 (2014). · DOI
  21. Nguyen, T.-T., Fuentes, S. & Marschner, P. Growth and Water Use Efficiency of Capsicum annuum in a Silt Loam Soil Treated Three Years Previously With a Single Compost Application and Repeatedly Dried. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 20, 187–196, https://doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2013.764508 (2014). · DOI
  22. Stark, J. M. & Firestone, M. K. Mechanisms for Soil Moisture Effects on Activity of Nitrifying Bacteria. Appl. Env. Microb. 61, 218–221 (1995). · DOI
  23. Zhalnina, K., de Quadros, P. D., Camargo, F. A. O. & Triplett, E. W. Drivers of archaeal ammonia-oxidizing communities in soil. Front. Microb. 3, 210, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00210 (2012). · DOI
  24. Dividson, E. A., Stark, J. M. & Firestone, M. K. Microbial Production and Consumpution of Nitrate in an Annual Grassland. Ecology 71, 1968–1975, https://doi.org/10.2307/1937605 (1990). · DOI
  25. Austin, A. T. et al. Water pulses and biogeochemical cycles in arid and semiarid ecosystems. Oecologia 141, 221–235 (2004). · DOI
  26. Cui, M. & Caldwell, M. M. A large ephemeral release of nitrogen upon wetting of dry soil and corresponding root responses in the field. Plant Soil 191, 291–299, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004290705961 (1997). · DOI
  27. Butterly, C. R., McNeill, A. M., Baldock, J. A. & Marschner, P. Changes in water content of two agricultural soils does not alter labile P and C pools. Plant Soil, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0931-7 (2011). · DOI
  28. Nguyen, T. T., Fuentes, S. & Marschner, P. Effect of incorporated or mulched compost on leaf nutrient concentrations and performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 13, 485–497 (2013).
  29. Duong, T. T., Penfold, C. & Marschner, P. Amending soils of different texture with six compost types: impact on soil nutrient availability, plant growth and nutrient uptake. Plant Soil 354, 197–209 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  30. Hargreaves, J. C., Adl, M. S. & Warman, P. R. A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Ag. Ecosys. Environ. 123, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.07.004 (2008). · DOI
  31. Corrêa, A., Cruz, C., Pérez-Tienda, J. & Ferrol, N. Shedding light onto nutrient responses of arbuscular mycorrhizal plants: Nutrient interactions may lead to unpredicted outcomes of the symbiosis. Plant Sci. 221, 29–41 (2014). · DOI
  32. Santiago, L. S. et al. Tropical tree seedling growth responses to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium addition. J of Ecol. 100, 309–316 (2012). · DOI
  33. Baon, J. B., Smith, S. E., Alston, A. M. & Wheeler, R. D. Phosphorus efficiency of three cereals as related to indigenous mycorrhizal infection. Aust. J. Ag. Res. 43, 479–491 (1992). · DOI
  34. Giovannetti, M., Sbrana, C. & Avio, L. In Mycorrhizal technology in agriculture 49–58 (Springer, 2002). · DOI
  35. Giovannetti, M., Sbrana, C. & Avio, L. In Mycorrhizal Technology in Tropical Agriculture (eds S. Gianinazzi, H. Schüepp, J. M. Barea, & K. Haselwandter) 49–58 (Birkhäuser Basel, 2002). · DOI
  36. Herman, D. J., Firestone, M. K., Nuccio, E. & Hodge, A. Interactions between an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and a soil microbial community mediating litter decomposition. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 80, 236–247 (2012). · DOI
  37. Mackay, J. E., Macdonald, L. M., Smermik, R. J. & Cavagnaro, T. R. Organic amendments as phosphorus fertilisers: chemical analyses, biological processes and plant P uptake. Soil Biol. Biochem. 107, 50–59 (2017). · DOI
  38. Cavagnaro, T. R. Impacts of compost application on the formation and functioning of arbuscular mycorrhizas. Soil Biol. Biochem. 78, 38–44 (2014). · DOI
  39. Miranda, K. M., Espey, M. G. & Wink, D. A. A rapid, simple spectrophotometric method for simultaneous detection of nitrate and nitrite. Nitric oxide 5, 62–71 (2001). · DOI
  40. Forster, J. Soil nitrogen. Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry. (pp. 79–87. Academic Press, London, 1995).
  41. Murphy, J. & Riley, J. P. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica chimica acta 27, 31–36 (1962). · DOI
  42. Vierheilig, H., Coughlan, A. P., Wyss, U. & Piché, Y. Ink and vinegar, a simple staining technique for arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi. Appl. Env. Microb. 64, 5004–5007 (1998). · DOI
  43. Giovannetti, M. & Mosse, B. An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol. 84, 489–500 (1980). · DOI
  44. Hanson, W. The photometric determination of phosphorus in fertilizers using the phosphovanado‐molybdate complex. J. Sci. Food Ag. 1, 172–173 (1950). · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Ngo, H. T. T., & Cavagnaro, T. R.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Cavagnaro, T. R.
ORCID
Cavagnaro, T. R.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-01-24
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
1509-1509
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-18780-2
PMC
PMC5784012
OpenAlex
W2794557448
Cited by
27
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Adelaide
  • Australian Research Council (FT120100463)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
Keywords
compost, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, mycorrhizal colonization, wheat, tomato, phosphorus availability, inorganic nitrogen, plant nutrient uptake, plant biomass, soil amendment
MeSH terms
Composting, Soil, Soil Microbiology, Water, Triticum, Biomass, Solanum lycopersicum, Mycorrhizae, Plant Development

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interactive effects of compost and pre-planting soil moisture on plant biomass, nutrition and formation of mycorrhizas: a context dependent response. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-017-18780-2
The paper
Ngo, H. T. T., & Cavagnaro, T. R. (2018). Interactive effects of compost and pre-planting soil moisture on plant biomass, nutrition and formation of mycorrhizas: a context dependent response. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18780-2