Advertisement

Biology and Fertility of Soils

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 49–58 | Cite as

Nitrogen conservation in soil and crop residues as affected by crop rotation and soil disturbance under Mediterranean conditions

  • A. de VarennesEmail author
  • M. O. Torres
  • C. Cunha-Queda
  • M. J. Goss
  • C. Carranca
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated conservation and cycling of N under oat–oat and lupine–oat rotations in disturbed and undisturbed soil, when roots or roots plus aboveground residues were retained. Crop residues were labelled with 15N in Year 1, and differential soil disturbance was imposed after harvest. In Year 2, plant growth, N transfer from residue into the various sinks of the second crop (plant, soil, and residual residues), and changes in microbial activity and numbers were determined. Oat biomass was greater after lupine than after oat due to differences in supply of N from these residues. Buried residues of both crops appeared to decompose faster than when left on the soil surface. Lupine residues decomposed faster than oat residues. Oat biomass was not affected by soil disturbance if grown after lupine but decreased when oat straw was buried in the soil. More residue N was recovered from soil than from the crop. Most 15N was recovered from disturbed soil, which also had greater dehydrogenase activity and more culturable fungi. At the end of the oat–oat rotation, 20 and 5 kg N ha−1 were derived from the roots of the first crop in undisturbed or disturbed soil, respectively. Equivalent values for the lupine–oat rotation were 18 and 44 kg N ha−1. Returning aboveground residues provided an extra 52–80 kg N ha−1 for oat and 61–63 kg N ha−1 for lupine relative to treatments where they were removed. Over a year, lupine contributed 9 to 20 kg N ha−1 more to the agroecosystem than did oat.

Keywords

Crop residues Legumes N conservation Lupine Oat Soil disturbance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Portuguese government and the European Union through project POCI/AGG/42616/2001 from the FCT with funds from FEDER. We thank Paula Gonçalves Silva and Madalena Quelhas for technical assistance. We thank the Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Pescas for the use of the Pegões Experimental Station.

References

  1. AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis, 12th edn. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayer C, Mielniczuk J, Amado TJC, Martin-Neto L, Fernandes SV (2000) Organic matter storage in a sandy clay loam Acrisol affected by tillage and cropping systems in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res 54:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bremner JM (1996) Total nitrogen. In: Sparks DL (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 1085–1121Google Scholar
  4. Brooks PD, Stark JM, McInteer BB, Preston T (1989) Diffusion method to prepare soil extracts for automated nitrogen-15 analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:1707–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell CA, Biederbeck VO, Zentner RP, Lafond GP (1991) Effect of crop rotation and cultural practices on soil organic matter, microbial biomass and respiration in a thin black chernozem. Can J Soil Sci 71:363–376Google Scholar
  6. Chaves B, De Neve S, Hofman G, Boeckx P, Van Cleemput O (2004) Nitrogen mineralization of vegetable root residues and green manures as related to their (bio)chemical composition. Eur J Agron 21:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbeels M, O’Connell AM, Grove TS, Mendham DS, Rance SJ (2003) Nitrogen release from eucalypt leaves and legume residues as influenced by their biochemical quality and degree of contact with soil. Plant Soil 250:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diekow J, Mielniczuk J, Knicker H, Bayer C, Dick DP, Kögel-Knabner I (2005) Soil C and N stocks as affected by cropping systems and nitrogen fertilisation in a southern Brazil Acrisol managed under no-tillage for 17 years. Soil Tillage Res 81:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doran JW (1987) Microbial biomass and mineralizable nitrogen distributions in no-tillage and plowed soils. Biol Fertil Soils 5:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franzluebbers AJ, Arshad MA, Ripmeester JA (1996) Alterations in canola residue composition during decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem 28:1289–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gil-Sotres F, Trasar-Cepeda C, Leirós MC, Seoane S (2005) Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol Biochem 37:877–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goss MJ, de Varennes A (2002) Soil disturbance reduces the efficacy of mycorrhizal associations for early soybean growth and N2 fixation. Soil Biol Biochem 34:1167–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heenan DP (1995) Effects of broad-leaf crops and their sowing time on subsequent wheat production. Field Crops Res 43:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heenan DP, Chan KY, Knight PG (2004) Long-term impact of rotation, tillage and stubble management on the loss of soil organic carbon and nitrogen from a Chromic Luvisol. Soil Tillage Res 76:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jensen ES (1997) Nitrogen immobilization and mineralization during initial decomposition of 15N-labelled pea and barley residues. Biol Fertil Soils 24:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen CR, Joernsgaard B, Andersen MN, Christiansen JL, Mogensen VO, Friis P, Petersen CT (2004) The effects of lupins as compared with peas and oats on the yield of the subsequent winter barley crop. Eur J Agron 20:405–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jimenez MP, de la Horra AM, Pruzzo L, Palma RM (2002) Soil quality: a new index based on microbiological and biochemical parameters. Biol Fertil Soils 35:302–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer AW, Doane TA, Horwath WR, van Kessel C (2002) Short-term nitrogen-15 recovery vs. long-term total soil N gains in conventional and alternative cropping systems. Soil Biol Biochem 34:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar K, Goh KM (2002) Management practices of antecedent leguminous and non-leguminous crop residues in relation to winter wheat yields, nitrogen uptake, soil nitrogen mineralization and simple nitrogen balance. Eur J Agron 16:295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. López MV, Arrúe JL, Álvaro-Fuentes J, Moret D (2005) Dynamics of surface barley residues during fallow as affected by tillage and decomposition in semiarid Aragon (NE Spain). Eur J Agron 23:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LQARS (2000) Manual de Fertilização das Culturas, MADRP/INIA, p 221Google Scholar
  22. Mahmood T, Kaiser WM, Ali R, Ashrat M, Gulnaz A, Iqbal Z (2005) Ammonium versus nitrate nutrition of plants stimulates microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 277:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer J, Buegger F, Jensen ES, Schloter M, Heß J (2003) Residual nitrogen contribution from grain legumes to succeeding wheat and rape and related microbial process. Plant Soil 255:541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mubarak AR, Rosenani AB, Anuar AR, Zauyah DS (2003) Recovery of nitrogen from maize residue and inorganic fertilizer in a maize–groundnut rotation system in humid tropics of Malaysia. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 34:2375–2394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pochon J, Tardieux P (1962) Techniques d’ analyse en microbiologie du sol. La Tourelle, Saint Mandé (Seine), France, p 108Google Scholar
  26. Sakonnakhon SPN, Toomsan B, Cadisch G, Baggs EM, Vityakon P, Limpinuntana V, Jogloy S, Patanothai A (2005) Dry season groundnut stover management practices determine nitrogen cycling efficiency and subsequent maize yields. Plant Soil 272:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shah Z, Shah SH, Peoples MB, Schwenke GD, Herridge DF (2003) Crop residue and fertiliser N effects on nitrogen fixation and yields of legume–cereal rotations and soil organic fertility. Field Crops Res 83:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rennie RJ, Dubetz S (1986) Nitrogen-15-determined nitrogen fixation in field-grown chickpea, lentil, fababean, and field pea. Agron J 72:654–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tabatabai MA (1994) Soil enzymes. In: Mickelson SH, Bigham JM (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 775–833Google Scholar
  30. Unkovich MJ, Pate JS, Armstrong EL, Sanford P (1995) Nitrogen economy of annual crop and pasture legumes in southwest Australia. Soil Biol Biochem 27:585–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. de Varennes
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. O. Torres
    • 1
  • C. Cunha-Queda
    • 1
  • M. J. Goss
    • 2
  • C. Carranca
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Environmental ChemistryInstituto Superior de Agronomia, TULISBONLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Kemptville CampusUniversity of GuelphKemptvilleCanada
  3. 3.National Agronomic StationOeirasPortugal

Personalised recommendations