Bacterial and fungal abundance and biomass in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems along two climatic gradients · Knowledge Library

BonaResKnowledge Library

Bacterial and fungal abundance and biomass in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems along two climatic gradients · Knowledge Library

bacterial biomass C

↑ 2↓ 1= 14

increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–5 cm · May–June1996 · Sidney, NE · Manhattan, KS
Numbers
- treatment 50.8 vs. control 35.5 μg C g-1 soil (+43.1 %) · Sidney
- treatment 82.6 vs. control 41.2 μg C g-1 soil (+100.5 %) · Manhattan
Source · p. 7
“Bacterial biomass C was significantly higher in NT compared to CT at only two sites (Sidney, NE, and Manhattan, KS) for the 0–5 cm depth increment.”
no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–5 cm · May–June1996 · Mandan, ND · Stratton, CO · Bushland, TX · Lexington, KY
Numbers
- treatment 39.7 vs. control 44.8 μg C g-1 soil (-11.38 %) · Mandan
- treatment 46.6 vs. control 60.2 μg C g-1 soil (-22.59 %) · Stratton
- treatment 19.9 vs. control 23.4 μg C g-1 soil (-14.96 %) · Bushland
- treatment 48.3 vs. control 42.2 μg C g-1 soil (+14.45 %) · Lexington
Source · p. 7
“Bacterial biomass C was significantly higher in NT compared to CT at only two sites (Sidney, NE, and Manhattan, KS) for the 0–5 cm depth increment.”
Source · p. 1
“Bacterial abundance and biomass were not consistently influenced by tillage treatment or site location at either depth.”
decrease
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 5–20 cm · June1996 · Mandan, ND · Stratton, CO
Numbers
- treatment 31.5 vs. control 50.9 μg C g-1 soil (-38.11 %) · Mandan
- treatment 28.5 vs. control 60.3 μg C g-1 soil (-52.74 %) · Stratton
Source · p. 7
“absolute amounts of bacterial and fungal biomass C followed the same trends as the abundance data”
Source · p. 6
“these dierences were only significant at the Mandan, ND, and Stratton, CO, sites.”
increase
with soil water contentsignificant · 0–5 cm · May–June1996 · Mandan, ND · Sidney, NE · Stratton, CO · Bushland, TX · Manhattan, KS · Lexington, KY · Overallpositiveassociationbut saturatesnear.15g/g; both treatments/all34plots
Numbers
- r = 0.67, n = 34
Source · p. 9
“Both bacterial and fungal biomass were positively related to water content.”
Source · p. 9
“Bacterial biomass increased linearly from water contents of 0.05 g gÿ1 dry soil to approximately 0.15 g gÿ1 dry soil and then remained relatively constant above that value.”
Source · p. 11
“bacterial biomass was not strongly aected by tillage and remained relatively constant in response to changing soil moisture above a water content of approximately 0.15 g gÿ”

fungal biomass C

↑ 2= 24

increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–5 cm · May–June1996 · Mandan, ND · Sidney, NE · Stratton, CO · Bushland, TX · Manhattan, KS · Lexington, KY
Numbers
- treatment 16.3 vs. control 8.5 μg C g-1 soil (+91.76 %) · Mandan
- treatment 20.4 vs. control 8 μg C g-1 soil (+155 %) · Sidney
- treatment 42.5 vs. control 19.6 μg C g-1 soil (+116.8 %) · Stratton
- treatment 6.8 vs. control 2.8 μg C g-1 soil (+142.9 %) · Bushland
- treatment 19.8 vs. control 7.9 μg C g-1 soil (+150.6 %) · Manhattan
- treatment 74.3 vs. control 32.7 μg C g-1 soil (+127.2 %) · Lexington
Source · p. 7
“Fungal biomass C was significantly higher in NT compared to CT in surface soil for all sites.”
no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 5–20 cm · May–June1996 · Mandan, ND · Sidney, NE · Stratton, CO · Bushland, TX · Manhattan, KS · Lexington, KY
Numbers
- treatment 11.3 vs. control 7.5 μg C g-1 soil (+50.67 %) · Mandan
- treatment 15.7 vs. control 19.8 μg C g-1 soil (-20.71 %) · Sidney
- treatment 59.3 vs. control 56.7 μg C g-1 soil (+4.586 %) · Stratton
- treatment 9.7 vs. control 8 μg C g-1 soil (+21.25 %) · Bushland
- treatment 14.7 vs. control 12.1 μg C g-1 soil (+21.49 %) · Manhattan
- treatment 38.9 vs. control 39.6 μg C g-1 soil (-1.768 %) · Lexington
Source · p. 7
“absolute amounts of bacterial and fungal biomass C followed the same trends as the abundance data”
Source · p. 6
“No significant treatment dierences in fungal hyphal length at 5–20 cm were observed”
no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–5 cm · May–June1996 · Mandan, ND · Sidney, NE · Stratton, CO · Bushland, TX · Manhattan, KS · Lexington, KY · ANCOVAadjustedforsoilmoisture;n34;2leveltillagefactor, notunadjustedsitepairs
Source · p. 10
“When the data were adjusted for soil moisture, significant tillage treatment eects on fungal biomass and the pro- portion of the microbial biomass composed of fungi were not observed (Table 6).”
increase
with soil water contentsignificant · 0–5 cm · May–June1996 · Mandan, ND · Sidney, NE · Stratton, CO · Bushland, TX · Manhattan, KS · Lexington, KY · Both tillage treatments/allplots combined;moisturerange.05–.35g/g
Numbers
- r = 0.85, n = 34
Source · p. 9
“Fungal biomass was linearly related to soil moisture across the entire range of water contents measured (r 2=0.72, n = 34, P \< 0.001).”
Source · p. 11
“fungal biomass increased linearly, while bacterial biomass was relatively constant across most of the observed range in soil water content.”