Cited by 76Bioenergy crop production and managementSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and Fertilization

Effect of the Organic Residues of Miscanthus × giganteus on the Soil Organic Matter Level of Arable Soils

Beuch, S., Boelcke, B., Belau, L.·2000·Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science

Abstract

During a complex investigation programme on the evaluation of the long‐term ecological impact of cropping Miscanthus, the substrate composition of residues in 4–8‐year‐old stands of Miscanthus × giganteus and the contribution of Miscanthus residues to soil organic matter (SOM) were investigated. Only about 50 % of the above‐ground biomass produced yearly was suitable for harvest because of pre‐harvest losses and harvesting residues. The potential supply to SOM was therefore 3.1 t ha−1 carbon annually accumulated by the litter, and 9.1 t ha−1 carbon accumulated by rhizomes and roots in the long term. These organic residues mineralized differently in laboratory experiments at generally high rates of decomposition. Analysis of soluble portions of the organic substance of these biomass components by hydrolysis with hot water, 2 % HCl and 80 % H 2 SO 4 confirmed the results. Setting the SOM effect of an equivalent farmyard‐manure (FYM) supply to 100 %, Miscanthus residues reached 60 % (stubble, rhizomes), 80–90 % (pre‐harvest losses) and 100 % (roots). Established Miscanthus stands are able to produce about 8.2 t ha−1 organic substance, which is comparable with FYM in terms of SOM impact. This kind of calculation showed higher values for Miscanthus than for the agricultural crops investigated to date. An SOM increase of about 0.5 % on sandy soils and 0.2 % on silt soil was determined after 6–8 years of cropping Miscanthus × giganteus.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00367.x

Cites

20 of 20 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 reliability of some carbon input data is reduced when inputs are approximated from biomass yield and an average carbon content of residues.

    “The reliability of some data is reduced when C inputs are approximated from biomass yield and an average C content of the residues [30, 62].”
  • Fresh and easily decomposable matter such as fine roots and leaves has a slightly smaller biomass carbon fraction (43%) than woody material (46%).

    “In general, fresh and easily decomposable matter, like fine roots and leaves, have a slightly smaller biomass C fraction (43 %) than woody material (46 %) [60, 62].”
  • Data for carbon inputs from belowground biomass are difficult to interpret, especially for roots, because they are based on many single observations rather than time series.

    “Data for C inputs from BGB are difficult to interpret, especially for roots because they are based on many single observations [45, 61, 62, 64, 80] rather than time series [26, 32, 81–83].”
  • Mean residence time for leaves, alone or combined with other aboveground residues, ranged between 0.9 and 3.19 years and was longer under drier and colder conditions.

    “MRT for leaves, alone or combined with other aboveground residues, ranged between 0.9 and 3.19 years and were longer under drier [62] and colder conditions [108].”
  • Potential decomposition rates of Miscanthus residues decreased in order from young rhizome to litter and roots, with mean residence time ranging from 1.2 to 2.4 years.

    “Potential decomposition rates of Miscanthus residues, both in situ (litter bags) and by laboratory incubation, decreased in order from young rhizome to litter and roots, with MRT ranging from 1.2 to 2.4 years [64, 69], similar to other results [62].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beuch, S., Boelcke, B., & Belau, L.
Affiliations
Landesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Fischerei Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Beuch, S.
  • Boelcke, B.
  • Belau, L.
Venue
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-04
Volume
184
Issue
2
Pages
111-120
ISSN
  • 0931-2250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-037X
OpenAlex
W2155917347
Cited by
76
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • 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
Keywords
Miscanthus × giganteus, soil organic matter, crop residues, rhizome, root biomass, litter decomposition, pre-harvest losses, long-term ecological effects, sandy soil, silty soil, carbon accumulation

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