Advertisement

Plant Growth and Nutrient Uptake in Soil Amended with Mixes of Organic Materials Differing in C/N Ratio and Decomposition Stage

  • Thi Hoang Ha Truong
  • Petra MarschnerEmail author
Original Paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

To determine the effect of low C/N organic amendments differing in decomposability and high C/N residue added to soil separately or as mixes with different ratios on plant growth and nutrient uptake, nutrient availability and microbial biomass over time. A sandy clay loam soil was amended with young faba bean shoot (C/N 9), sheep manure (C/N 6) and mature wheat straw (C/N 82) individually or as mixes of low and high C/N residues at different proportions. Wheat was planted on days 0, 35 and 70 and grown for 35 days. Soil and plants were sampled on days 35, 70 and 105. Shoot and root dry weights were low with high C/N residues alone but similar in the other treatments. Shoot N uptake was 0.3- to 2.5-fold higher than that of the control with low C/N residues alone and their mixes. Available N decreased with the proportion of low C/N residues. Increasing proportion of sheep manure in mixes with faba bean residues reduced shoot N uptake and available N. But in mixes with high C/N wheat straw, the proportion of sheep manure had little effect on shoot N uptake and available N. The effect of slowly decomposing sheep manure on the measured parameters depended on the other organic material in the mix. An increasing proportion of sheep manure increased shoot N uptake under N limiting conditions (mixed with wheat straw), but decreased it with faba bean residues that released large amounts of N.

Keywords

C/N ratio Manure Microbial biomass N Mixes N availability Shoot dry weight 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thi Hoang Ha Truong receives a postgraduate scholarship from Vietnamese International Education Development.

Supplementary material

42729_2019_49_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. Bending GD, Turner MK (1999) Interaction of biochemical quality and particle size of crop residues and its effect on the microbial biomass and nitrogen dynamics following incorporation into soil. Biol Fertil Soils 29:319–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard E, Larkin RP, Tavantzis S, Erich MS, Alyokhin A, Gross SD (2014) Rapeseed rotation, compost and biocontrol amendments reduce soilborne diseases and increase tuber yield in organic and conventional potato production systems. Plant Soil 374:611–627.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1909-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair JM, Parmelee RW, Beare MH (1990) Decay rates, nitrogen fluxes, and decomposer communiies of single- and mixed-species foliar litter. Ecology 71:1976–1985.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1937606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bremner JM, Mulvaney C (1982) Nitrogen—total. In: Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  5. Brouwer R (1962) Nutritive influences on the distribution of dry matter in the plant. Neth J Agri Sci 10:399–408Google Scholar
  6. Bunyasi WS (1997) Effect of chemical composition of plant residues on nitrogen release and crop uptake. Doctoral thesis, University of NairobiGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterly CR, Marschner P, McNeill AM, Baldock JA (2010) Rewetting CO2 pulses in Australian agricultural soils and the influence of soil properties. Biol Fertil Soils 46:739–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman SK, Koch GW (2007) What type of diversity yields synergy during mixed litter decomposition in a natural forest ecosystem? Plant Soil 299:153–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9372-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman K, Whittaker JB, Heal OW (1988) Metabolic and faunal activity in litters of tree mixtures compared with pure stands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 24:33–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(88)90054-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuchietti A, Marcotti E, Gurvich DE, Cingolani AM, Pérez Harguindeguy N (2014) Leaf litter mixtures and neighbour effects: low-nitrogen and high-lignin species increase decomposition rate of high-nitrogen and low-lignin neighbours. Appl Soil Ecol 82:44–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forster J (1995) Soil nitrogen. In: Alef K, Nannipieri P (eds) Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic Press, London, pp 79–87Google Scholar
  12. Gartner TB, Cardon ZG (2004) Decomposition dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos 104:230–246.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12738.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gee GW, Or D (2002) Particle-size analysis. In: Dane JH, Topp CG (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4 physical methods, vol 5.4. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 255–293Google Scholar
  14. Hadas A, Kautsky L, Goek M, Kara EE (2004) Rates of decomposition of plant residues and available nitrogen in soil, related to residue composition through simulation of carbon and nitrogen turnover. Soil Biol Biochem 36:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson W (1950) The photometric determination of phosphorus in fertilizers using the phosphovanado-molybdate complex. J Sci Food Agric 1:172–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hättenschwiler S, Vitousek PM (2000) The role of polyphenols in terrestrial ecosystem nutrient cycling. Trends Ecol Evol 15:238–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01861-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hungate RE (1966) The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Kouno K, Tuchiya Y, Ando T (1995) Measurement of soil microbial biomass phosphorus by an anion exchange membrane method. Soil Biol Biochem 27:1353–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li Z, Schneider RL, Morreale SJ, Xie Y, Li C, Li J (2018) Woody organic amendments for retaining soil water, improving soil properties and enhancing plant growth in desertified soils of Ningxia, China. Geoderma 310:143–152.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mao R, Zeng D-H (2012) Non-additive effects vary with the number of component residues and their mixing proportions during residue mixture decomposition: a microcosm study. Geoderma 170:112–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marschner P, Hatam Z, Cavagnaro T (2015) Soil respiration, microbial biomass and nutrient availability after the second amendment are influenced by legacy effects of prior residue addition. Soil Biol Biochem 88:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miranda KM, Espey MG, Wink DA (2001) A rapid, simple spectrophotometric method for simultaneous detection of nitrate and nitrite. Nitric Oxide 5:62–71.  https://doi.org/10.1006/niox.2000.0319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore J, Klose S, Tabatabai M (2000) Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen as affected by cropping systems. Biol Fertil Soils 31:200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moritsuka N, Yanai J, Mori K, Kosaki T (2004) Biotic and abiotic processes of nitrogen immobilization in the soil-residue interface. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1141–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nguyen TT, Marschner P (2016) Soil respiration, microbial biomass and nutrient availability in soil after repeated addition of low and high C/N plant residues. Biol Fertil Soils 52:165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-015-1063-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olsen S, Sommers L (1982) Phosphorus, methods of analysis, part 2, chemical and microbiological properties. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. ASA and SSSA, Madison, pp 403–430Google Scholar
  28. Rayment G, Higginson FR (1992) Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical methods. Inkata Press Pty Ltd, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwendener CM, Lehmann J, de Camargo PB, Luizão RCC, Fernandes ECM (2005) Nitrogen transfer between high- and low-quality leaves on a nutrient-poor Oxisol determined by 15N enrichment. Soil Biol Biochem 37:787–794.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seastedt TR (1984) The role of microarthropods in decomposition and mineralization processes. Annu Rev Entomol 29:25–46.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.29.010184.000325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shi A, Penfold C, Marschner P (2013) Decomposition of roots and shoots of perennial grasses and annual barley—separately or in two residue mixes. Biol Fertil Soils 49:673–680.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-012-0760-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tian G, Kang BT, Brussaard L (1992) Biological effects of plant residues with contrasting chemical compositions under humid tropical conditions—decomposition and nutrient release. Soil Biol Biochem 24:1051–1060.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(92)90035-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van der Werf A, Nagel OW (1996) Carbon allocation to shoots and roots in relation to nitrogen supply is mediated by cytokinins and sucrose: opinion. Plant Soil 185:21–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02257562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vickery HB (1946) The early years of the Kjeldahl method to determine nitrogen. Yale J Biol Med 18:473–516Google Scholar
  35. Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Nicholson KS (1997) Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79:247–258.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3546010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilke B-M (2005) Determination of chemical and physical soil properties. In: Monitoring and assessing soil bioremediation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 47–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zai AKE, Horiuchi T, Matsui T (2008) Effects of compost and green manure of pea and their combinations with chicken manure and rapeseed oil residue on soil fertility and nutrient uptake in wheat-rice cropping system. Afr J Agric Res 3:633–639Google Scholar
  39. Zhang Y, Marschner P (2016) Nutrient availability, soil respiration and microbial biomass after the second residue addition are influenced by the C/N ratio of the first residue added, but not by drying and rewetting between residue amendments. Eur J Soil Biol 77:68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang Y, Marschner P (2017) Soil amendment with high and low C/N residue -influence of low soil water content between first and second residue addition on soil respiration, microbial biomass and nutrient availability. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 17:594–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang Y, Marschner P (2018) Respiration, microbial biomass and nutrient availability are influenced by previous and current soil water content in plant residue amended soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 18:173–187Google Scholar
  42. Zheng B, Marschner P (2017) Previous residue addition rate and C/N ratio influence nutrient availability and respiration rate after the second residue addition. Geoderma 285:217–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedad Chilena de la Ciencia del Suelo 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Food and WineThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Quang Binh UniversityDong Hoi CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations