Cited by 2,346Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldSoil and Unsaturated Flow

Effect of Water‐Filled Pore Space on Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Production in Tilled and Nontilled Soils

Linn, D. M., Doran, J. W.·1984·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

The percentage of soil pore space filled with water (percent water‐filled pores, % WFP), as determined by water content and total porosity, appears to be closely related to soil microbial activity under different tillage regimes. Soil incubated in the laboratory at 60% WFP supported maximum aerobic microbial activity as determined by CO 2 production and O 2 uptake. In the field, % WFP of surface no‐tillage soils (0–75 mm) at four U.S. locations averaged 62% at time of sampling, whereas that for plowed soils was 44%. This difference in % WFP was reflected in 3.4 and 9.4 times greater CO 2 and N 2 O production, respectively, from surface no‐tillage soils over a 24‐h period as compared to plowed soils. At a depth of 75 to 150 mm, % WFP values increased in both no‐tillage and plowed soils, averaging approximately 70% for no tillage compared with 50 to 60% for plowed soils. Production of CO 2 in the plowed soils was enhanced by the increased % WFP, resulting in little or no difference in CO 2 production between tillage treatments. Nitrous oxide production, however, remained greater under no‐tillage conditions. Substantially greater amounts of N 2 O were produced from the N‐fertilized soils, regardless of tillage practice. Production of CO 2 and N 2 O was primarily related to the % WFP of tillage treatments although, in several instances, soil‐water‐soluble C and NO ‐ 3 levels were important as well. Calculations of relative aerobic microbial activity between no‐tillage and plowed soils, based on differences in % WFP relative to maximum activity at 60%, indicated linear relationships for CO 2 and N 2 O production between WFP values of 30 to 70%. Below 60% WFP, water limits microbial activity, but above 60%, aerobic microbial activity decreases—apparently the result of reduced aeration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800060013x

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linn, D. M., & Doran, J. W.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1984-11
Volume
48
Issue
6
Pages
1267-1272
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2037893757
Cited by
2,346
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 106 · 2016: 110 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 107 · 2012: 102
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
Keywords
water-filled pore space, soil aeration, soil microbial activity, CO2 emissions, nitrous oxide production, no-tillage, plowed soil, tillage, soil moisture, soil porosity, nitrogen fertilization, soil incubation, soil respiration

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