Paper · 2017 · Soil Use and Management

Influence of land use and tillage depth on dynamics of soil microbial properties, soil carbon fractions and crop yield after conversion of short‐rotation coppices

C. Wachendorf; R. Stuelpnagel; M. Wachendorf

3
claims
3
verbatim quotes
12
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract The effect of conversion of short‐rotation coppices ( SRC s) to agricultural land on soil organic carbon ( SOC ), soil microbial properties and crop yield is largely unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of subsequent land use and tillage depth after conversion of SRC s on (i) total SOC (ii) soil C fractions with differentiation of total harvest residues and woody harvest residues from SRC and maize by 13 C analysis and (iii) dry matter and N yield of grassland and maize. For this purpose, field trials were established after conversion of SRC s at three sites in Germany and cultivated with maize and grassland with shallow (5 cm), medium (15 cm) and deep tillage depth (30 cm). Crops were sampled for 5 yrs, and soil samples were collected at a depth of 0–5, 5–15 and 15–30 cm. Amount of total carbon and soil carbon fractions immediately and 4 yrs after conversion of SRC were compared. Tillage depth had no effect on dry matter yield of maize and grassland. The amount of woody harvest residues decreased over time following conversion at all sites irrespective of land use or tillage depth, but SOC decreased only at one site. Microbial biomass was particularly sensitive to land use, but microorganisms reacted differently to tillage depth depending on the soil conditions. Our results reveal that decomposition of woody harvest residues is rapid and that effects of tillage and land use on different soil C‐pools are site specific.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage depth did not affect maize dry matter yield.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
Tillage depthe0
Outcome
dry matter yielde0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Tillage depth had no effect on dry matter yield of maize and grassland”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 929–999 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage depth did not affect grassland dry matter yield.

Taxon
grasslande0
Treatment
Tillage depthe0
Outcome
dry matter yielde0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Tillage depth had no effect on dry matter yield of maize and grassland”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 929–999 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Woody harvest residues decreased over time after conversion across all sites.

Taxon
nae0
Outcome
woody harvest residuese0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
irrespective of land use or tillage depthe0

Verbatim

e0

“The amount of woody harvest residues decreased over time following conversion at all sites irrespective of land use or tillage depth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1001–1133 · show in text ↑

schema checkedfield values found in the cited quotesPermalinkReport an issue

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.