Anuoluwapo Ogunleye, Vesh R. Thapa, Deb R. Aryal, Rajan Ghimire, Veronica Acosta-Martinez
This study evaluates cover crop (CC) effects on microbial community structure in a winter wheat–sorghum–fallow rotation with pea, oat, and canola; mixtures of pea and oat; pea and canola; pea, oat, and canola; and six species mixture (SSM) of pea, oat, canola, hairy vetch, forage radish, and barley as CCs, and fallow as treatments. Soil microbial community structure was analyzed at CC termination (phase I), 36 days (phase II), and a year (phase III) after termination using an ester-linked fatty acid methyl ester analysis. Total microbial biomass (TMB) under oats was significantly greater than under canola (by 47%) in phase I (p ≤ 0.05). The TMB was >48% under pea, pea + canola, and SSM, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi was 70%–93% more under pea, canola, and their mixtures than fallow in phase II. While microbial abundance varied with CCs at and after 36 days post-termination, these effects did not persist for a year. Long fallow period after cropping or cover cropping appears detrimental to microbial community proliferation.
{"title":"Microbial community response to cover cropping varied with time after termination","authors":"Anuoluwapo Ogunleye, Vesh R. Thapa, Deb R. Aryal, Rajan Ghimire, Veronica Acosta-Martinez","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20118","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study evaluates cover crop (CC) effects on microbial community structure in a winter wheat–sorghum–fallow rotation with pea, oat, and canola; mixtures of pea and oat; pea and canola; pea, oat, and canola; and six species mixture (SSM) of pea, oat, canola, hairy vetch, forage radish, and barley as CCs, and fallow as treatments. Soil microbial community structure was analyzed at CC termination (phase I), 36 days (phase II), and a year (phase III) after termination using an ester-linked fatty acid methyl ester analysis. Total microbial biomass (TMB) under oats was significantly greater than under canola (by 47%) in phase I (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.05). The TMB was >48% under pea, pea + canola, and SSM, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi was 70%–93% more under pea, canola, and their mixtures than fallow in phase II. While microbial abundance varied with CCs at and after 36 days post-termination, these effects did not persist for a year. Long fallow period after cropping or cover cropping appears detrimental to microbial community proliferation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20118","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"109231633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kabindra Adhikari, Kelsey R. Anderson, Douglas R. Smith, Phillip R. Owens, Philip A. Moore Jr., Zamir Libohova
Soil respiration is one of the main soil health indicators and is influenced by several factors in agricultural fields. Identifying key factors that control soil respiration is desirable for informed soil management decisions and for promoting and scaling up soil health. This study aimed to (i) quantify the relationships between potential soil respiration and selected soil properties, crops, and slope positions, and (ii) identify key factors controlling these relationships using a neural network model. Ninety soil samples from 0- to 5- and 5- to 20-cm soil depth were collected from footslope, backslope, and summit in three fields planted with soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), and corn (Zea mays L.). The model provided great accuracy (coefficient of determination: 0.96; root-mean square error: 7.8; and mean absolute deviation: 3.8) and explained nearly 96% of variations in soil respiration across soil depth, crop, and slope positions. Soil depth, ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4-N), crop types, slope position, and silt content were identified as the top five factors influencing potential soil respiration at the field level. Potential soil respiration was more sensitive to potassium, phosphorus, pH, cation exchange capacity, and mean weight diameter and less sensitive to NH4-N, nitrate nitrogen, soil organic matter, and clay content. It increased with pH, electrical conductivity, mean weight diameter, potential nitrogen mineralization, and potassium, and it decreased with increasing silt content. Soil from 0 to 5 cm under soybean or at the summit slope position exhibited a higher respiration. Using a small dataset, this pilot study accurately predicted potential soil respiration in agricultural fields and identified key drivers controlling it. The results from this study highlight the complexity of using potential soil respiration as a standalone test for evaluating soil health. This does not diminish the usefulness of potential soil respiration as a soil health indicator to support agricultural management decisions and as a reference in future soil health studies. However, it emphasizes the importance of considering multiple factors when interpreting the significance of soil biological indicators for soil health assessments.
土壤呼吸是农田土壤健康的主要指标之一,受多种因素的影响。确定控制土壤呼吸的关键因素是明智的土壤管理决策以及促进和扩大土壤健康的必要条件。本研究旨在(i)量化潜在土壤呼吸与选定土壤性质、作物和斜坡位置之间的关系,以及(ii)使用神经网络模型确定控制这些关系的关键因素。在3块种植大豆(Glycine max L. Merr.)、苜蓿(Medicago sativa L.)和玉米(Zea mays L.)的农田中,分别从坡底、后坡和坡顶采集了90个土壤样品,深度分别为0 ~ 5 cm和5 ~ 20 cm。该模型具有较高的准确度(决定系数:0.96;均方根误差:7.8;平均绝对偏差:3.8),并解释了土壤呼吸在土壤深度、作物和坡位之间近96%的变化。土壤深度、氨态氮(NH4-N)、作物类型、坡位和粉土含量是影响农田土壤呼吸潜力的前5大因素。潜在土壤呼吸对钾、磷、pH、阳离子交换量和平均重径更敏感,对NH4-N、硝态氮、土壤有机质和粘土含量不太敏感。随着pH值、电导率、平均重径、潜在氮矿化和钾含量的增加而增加,随着粉砂含量的增加而降低。大豆下0 ~ 5 cm土层和峰顶坡位土壤呼吸速率较高。该试点研究利用小型数据集,准确预测了农田潜在土壤呼吸,并确定了控制土壤呼吸的关键驱动因素。这项研究的结果强调了使用潜在土壤呼吸作为评估土壤健康的独立测试的复杂性。这并不影响潜在土壤呼吸作为土壤健康指标支持农业管理决策和作为未来土壤健康研究参考的有用性。然而,它强调了在解释土壤生物指标对土壤健康评价的意义时考虑多种因素的重要性。
{"title":"Identifying key factors controlling potential soil respiration in agricultural fields","authors":"Kabindra Adhikari, Kelsey R. Anderson, Douglas R. Smith, Phillip R. Owens, Philip A. Moore Jr., Zamir Libohova","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20117","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil respiration is one of the main soil health indicators and is influenced by several factors in agricultural fields. Identifying key factors that control soil respiration is desirable for informed soil management decisions and for promoting and scaling up soil health. This study aimed to (i) quantify the relationships between potential soil respiration and selected soil properties, crops, and slope positions, and (ii) identify key factors controlling these relationships using a neural network model. Ninety soil samples from 0- to 5- and 5- to 20-cm soil depth were collected from footslope, backslope, and summit in three fields planted with soybean (<i>Glycine max</i> L. Merr.), alfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i> L.), and corn (<i>Zea mays</i> L.). The model provided great accuracy (coefficient of determination: 0.96; root-mean square error: 7.8; and mean absolute deviation: 3.8) and explained nearly 96% of variations in soil respiration across soil depth, crop, and slope positions. Soil depth, ammoniacal nitrogen (NH<sub>4</sub>-N), crop types, slope position, and silt content were identified as the top five factors influencing potential soil respiration at the field level. Potential soil respiration was more sensitive to potassium, phosphorus, pH, cation exchange capacity, and mean weight diameter and less sensitive to NH<sub>4</sub>-N, nitrate nitrogen, soil organic matter, and clay content. It increased with pH, electrical conductivity, mean weight diameter, potential nitrogen mineralization, and potassium, and it decreased with increasing silt content. Soil from 0 to 5 cm under soybean or at the summit slope position exhibited a higher respiration. Using a small dataset, this pilot study accurately predicted potential soil respiration in agricultural fields and identified key drivers controlling it. The results from this study highlight the complexity of using potential soil respiration as a standalone test for evaluating soil health. This does not diminish the usefulness of potential soil respiration as a soil health indicator to support agricultural management decisions and as a reference in future soil health studies. However, it emphasizes the importance of considering multiple factors when interpreting the significance of soil biological indicators for soil health assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20117","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"109169162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ammonium phosphate fertilizers are a common phosphorus (P) source for crops, namely monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, and ammonium polyphosphate. Despite containing appreciable nitrogen (N), ammonium phosphate fertilizers are generally considered P fertilizers. However, the approximately 8.5 million Mg N co-applied with P annually as ammonium phosphate fertilizers represents 8% of global N fertilizer input flux to agroecosystems. Despite this, a systematic review of the literature revealed only one direct assessment of N losses from ammonium phosphate fertilizers. An additional five studies reported NO3-N leaching and N2O-N emissions from soils fertilized with ammonium phosphates, but inadvertently as observations from failed or control treatments that are confounded (e.g., not accounting for non-fertilizer contributions to N losses). The magnitude and fate of N co-applied with P in ammonium phosphate fertilizers is a blind spot in agroecosystem N budgets and environmental footprints that necessitates quantification.
{"title":"The fate of nitrogen of ammonium phosphate fertilizers: A blind spot","authors":"Andrew J. Margenot, Jeonggu Lee","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20116","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ammonium phosphate fertilizers are a common phosphorus (P) source for crops, namely monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, and ammonium polyphosphate. Despite containing appreciable nitrogen (N), ammonium phosphate fertilizers are generally considered P fertilizers. However, the approximately 8.5 million Mg N co-applied with P annually as ammonium phosphate fertilizers represents 8% of global N fertilizer input flux to agroecosystems. Despite this, a systematic review of the literature revealed only one direct assessment of N losses from ammonium phosphate fertilizers. An additional five studies reported NO<sub>3</sub>-N leaching and N<sub>2</sub>O-N emissions from soils fertilized with ammonium phosphates, but inadvertently as observations from failed or control treatments that are confounded (e.g., not accounting for non-fertilizer contributions to N losses). The magnitude and fate of N co-applied with P in ammonium phosphate fertilizers is a blind spot in agroecosystem N budgets and environmental footprints that necessitates quantification.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20116","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50136805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael B. Kantar, Diane R. Wang, Iago Hale, Richard C. Pratt, J. Vernon Jensen, Bruce V. Lewenstein
Although communicating research is a key part of public science, current graduate curricula in the agricultural sciences usually have a narrow focus on communication appropriate for presenting to scientific and academic audiences, such as in the form of the dreaded “seminar.” Yet the importance and impact of agriculture extends well beyond research communities, and communicating with other potential audiences is essential for realizing the full impact of research. Because public speaking is among the greatest fears for many people, it is critical to provide students with the tools needed to communicate effectively with diverse audiences, particularly as only a fraction of them will go on to give regular research seminars once they enter the professional world. Better communication can lead to more constructive engagement with the public as well as with policy-makers, toward improved understanding of the science they are funding and from which they are benefiting. Purposeful instruction in public speaking should help alleviate the common anxieties that student presenters often experience. Here, we summarize general communication strategies that can be incorporated into any graduate agricultural science course to help address this need.
{"title":"Improving agricultural science communication through intentionality","authors":"Michael B. Kantar, Diane R. Wang, Iago Hale, Richard C. Pratt, J. Vernon Jensen, Bruce V. Lewenstein","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20115","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although communicating research is a key part of public science, current graduate curricula in the agricultural sciences usually have a narrow focus on communication appropriate for presenting to scientific and academic audiences, such as in the form of the dreaded “seminar.” Yet the importance and impact of agriculture extends well beyond research communities, and communicating with other potential audiences is essential for realizing the full impact of research. Because public speaking is among the greatest fears for many people, it is critical to provide students with the tools needed to communicate effectively with diverse audiences, particularly as only a fraction of them will go on to give regular research seminars once they enter the professional world. Better communication can lead to more constructive engagement with the public as well as with policy-makers, toward improved understanding of the science they are funding and from which they are benefiting. Purposeful instruction in public speaking should help alleviate the common anxieties that student presenters often experience. Here, we summarize general communication strategies that can be incorporated into any graduate agricultural science course to help address this need.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20115","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50132568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Barbara Chami, Meredith T. Niles, Stephen Parry, Steven B. Mirsky, Victoria J. Ackroyd, Matthew R. Ryan
Farmers are increasingly planting cover crops to improve soil health and provide other ecosystem services. Cover crop incentive programs in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont were compared and farmers using cover crops were surveyed (n = 328) to characterize program participants and assess the effects of programs on cover crop adoption. Farmers who participated in incentive programs differed from nonparticipants in their perspectives about incentive programs, challenges they faced using cover crops, and reasons for cover crop use. When averaged across farmers, results show that incentive programs doubled average farmer cropland with cover crops from 50.7 ha prior to participation to 101.0 ha during participation. Among participants who no longer were enrolled in a program, cover crop use remained on average 37.2% greater than before enrollment. Results highlight the role of incentive programs in facilitating adoption and provide insights for expanding participation to different farmers and increasing program impact.
{"title":"Incentive programs promote cover crop adoption in the northeastern United States","authors":"Barbara Chami, Meredith T. Niles, Stephen Parry, Steven B. Mirsky, Victoria J. Ackroyd, Matthew R. Ryan","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20114","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Farmers are increasingly planting cover crops to improve soil health and provide other ecosystem services. Cover crop incentive programs in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont were compared and farmers using cover crops were surveyed (<i>n</i> = 328) to characterize program participants and assess the effects of programs on cover crop adoption. Farmers who participated in incentive programs differed from nonparticipants in their perspectives about incentive programs, challenges they faced using cover crops, and reasons for cover crop use. When averaged across farmers, results show that incentive programs doubled average farmer cropland with cover crops from 50.7 ha prior to participation to 101.0 ha during participation. Among participants who no longer were enrolled in a program, cover crop use remained on average 37.2% greater than before enrollment. Results highlight the role of incentive programs in facilitating adoption and provide insights for expanding participation to different farmers and increasing program impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20114","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50128629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Robust assessment of crop water availability requires effective integration of soil moisture data within the range of field capacity (θFC) to permanent wilting point (θPWP). Emerging needs for spatiotemporally dynamic θFC and θPWP are difficult to achieve with lab determinations. Therefore, we used long-term data from 182 sites across the United States to evaluate whether soil moisture extremes defined by 95th and 5th percentiles represent θFC and θPWP, respectively. Soil moisture extremes and lab-measured θFC and θPWP were well correlated (R2 = 0.71−0.92), however, both 95th and 5th percentiles overestimated θFC and θPWP at most depths (RMSE = 6%–16% vwc). Percentiles of soil moisture distribution that corresponded to lab-determined θFC and θPWP varied widely and were a function of precipitation received at the site and site- and soil-depth specific clay content. These findings imply that while θFC and θPWP may not be broadly represented by soil moisture extremes (95th and 5th percentiles), there may be potential to statistically infer the positioning of θFC and θPWP within long-term soil moisture distributions using biophysical determinants such as aridity and soil characteristics.
{"title":"Can limits of plant available water be inferred from soil moisture distributions?","authors":"Meetpal S. Kukal, Suat Irmak","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20113","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Robust assessment of crop water availability requires effective integration of soil moisture data within the range of field capacity (<i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub>) to permanent wilting point (<i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub>). Emerging needs for spatiotemporally dynamic <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub> are difficult to achieve with lab determinations. Therefore, we used long-term data from 182 sites across the United States to evaluate whether soil moisture extremes defined by 95th and 5th percentiles represent <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub>, respectively. Soil moisture extremes and lab-measured <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub> were well correlated (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.71−0.92), however, both 95th and 5th percentiles overestimated <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub> at most depths (RMSE = 6%–16% vwc). Percentiles of soil moisture distribution that corresponded to lab-determined <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub> varied widely and were a function of precipitation received at the site and site- and soil-depth specific clay content. These findings imply that while <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub> may not be broadly represented by soil moisture extremes (95th and 5th percentiles), there may be potential to statistically infer the positioning of <i>θ</i><sub>FC</sub> and <i>θ</i><sub>PWP</sub> within long-term soil moisture distributions using biophysical determinants such as aridity and soil characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20113","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50136880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
E. Anu Wille, Christian F. Lenhart, Randall K. Kolka
Many peatlands have been drained for anthropogenic purposes, and there is high interest in restoring them for their carbon storage ability and critical habitat. Peatlands hold a disproportionate amount of global soil carbon, making peatland restoration a promising approach for mitigating carbon emissions. In this study, site factors were investigated that affect peat carbon dioxide flux at Cold Spring fen in Minnesota, which is undergoing restoration. Peat carbon dioxide flux and water table depth were monitored throughout the growing season at two locations previously disturbed to different degrees by row-crop agriculture. Flux ranged from 0.55 to 12.71 µmol m−2 s−1 and was highest during peak growing season. Lower flux corresponded to elevated water table conditions. The more disturbed location often had lower flux, indicating success in hydrological restoration. The water table is an important factor in peatland restoration, and water table management should be considered to maximize carbon sequestration.
{"title":"Carbon dioxide emissions in relation to water table in a restored fen","authors":"E. Anu Wille, Christian F. Lenhart, Randall K. Kolka","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20112","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many peatlands have been drained for anthropogenic purposes, and there is high interest in restoring them for their carbon storage ability and critical habitat. Peatlands hold a disproportionate amount of global soil carbon, making peatland restoration a promising approach for mitigating carbon emissions. In this study, site factors were investigated that affect peat carbon dioxide flux at Cold Spring fen in Minnesota, which is undergoing restoration. Peat carbon dioxide flux and water table depth were monitored throughout the growing season at two locations previously disturbed to different degrees by row-crop agriculture. Flux ranged from 0.55 to 12.71 µmol m<sup>−2</sup> s<sup>−1</sup> and was highest during peak growing season. Lower flux corresponded to elevated water table conditions. The more disturbed location often had lower flux, indicating success in hydrological restoration. The water table is an important factor in peatland restoration, and water table management should be considered to maximize carbon sequestration.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20112","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50131631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) is a popular soil health test developed to measure “labile” C via the reduction of permanganate, dependent on several stoichiometric reduction oxidation assumptions. As a proof-of-concept experiment to evaluate the interpretation of POXC as “labile” C, we tested 17 compounds ranging in biological lability under standard POXC assay conditions at a fixed C mass (25 mg) in a quartz (2–0.053 mm diameter) matrix. POXC was high for lignin, whereas carbohydrates did not differ from the quartz control. Functional group-based reactivity partly explained permanganate reduction. These findings indicate that (i) POXC is not a labile C fraction and (ii) corroborate previous concerns that the stoichiometric oxidation–reduction assumptions in the calculation of C oxidation from permanganate reduced are not sound. POXC interpretation should regard POXC as a chemically defined fraction, report in units of moles permanganate reduced per kg soil, and avoid terms such as “labile” and “active.”
{"title":"Revisiting the permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) assay assumptions: POXC is lignin sensitive","authors":"Finnleigh S. Woodings, Andrew J. Margenot","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20108","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ael2.20108","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) is a popular soil health test developed to measure “labile” C via the reduction of permanganate, dependent on several stoichiometric reduction oxidation assumptions. As a proof-of-concept experiment to evaluate the interpretation of POXC as “labile” C, we tested 17 compounds ranging in biological lability under standard POXC assay conditions at a fixed C mass (25 mg) in a quartz (2–0.053 mm diameter) matrix. POXC was high for lignin, whereas carbohydrates did not differ from the quartz control. Functional group-based reactivity partly explained permanganate reduction. These findings indicate that (i) POXC is not a labile C fraction and (ii) corroborate previous concerns that the stoichiometric oxidation–reduction assumptions in the calculation of C oxidation from permanganate reduced are not sound. POXC interpretation should regard POXC as a chemically defined fraction, report in units of moles permanganate reduced per kg soil, and avoid terms such as “labile” and “active.”</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20108","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47873164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Junko Nishiwaki, Takuya Koseki, Naomi Asagi, Hirotaka Saito, Roy C. Sidle
Living mulch (LM) is used in agricultural fields to suppress weeds, control diseases, and mitigate erosion. It also enhances soil nutrient supply at the root death and decay stage during the growing season. However, benefits of LM to soil hydraulic properties related to soil pore structure have not been elaborated here. We focus on temporal changes in soil hydraulic conductivity (K) in a field where sweet potato was grown with and without LM (barley, Hordeum vulgare L.). K was measured in the field using a mini-disk infiltrometer at three different pressure heads. In the plots with LM, K decreased significantly in August and then increased in October compared to plots without LM (at –0.5 cm pressure head). Changes in soil pore structure due to root growth or death and decay may alter soil hydraulic conductivity.
{"title":"Changes in soil hydraulic conductivity in sweet potato field with living mulch","authors":"Junko Nishiwaki, Takuya Koseki, Naomi Asagi, Hirotaka Saito, Roy C. Sidle","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20106","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ael2.20106","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Living mulch (LM) is used in agricultural fields to suppress weeds, control diseases, and mitigate erosion. It also enhances soil nutrient supply at the root death and decay stage during the growing season. However, benefits of LM to soil hydraulic properties related to soil pore structure have not been elaborated here. We focus on temporal changes in soil hydraulic conductivity (<i>K</i>) in a field where sweet potato was grown with and without LM (barley, <i>Hordeum vulgare</i> L.). <i>K</i> was measured in the field using a mini-disk infiltrometer at three different pressure heads. In the plots with LM, <i>K</i> decreased significantly in August and then increased in October compared to plots without LM (at –0.5 cm pressure head). Changes in soil pore structure due to root growth or death and decay may alter soil hydraulic conductivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20106","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49452703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Maintaining the editorial standards of a scientific journal is the primary task of the journal editors. Their task is made much easier with the help of colleagues who are invited to review manuscripts. Through their critical comments and helpful suggestions, these volunteer reviewers have done much to maintain and further the quality of research reported in <i>Agricultural Letters & Environmental Letters</i>. The members of the <i>Agricultural Letters & Environmental Letters</i> Editorial Board express their appreciation to the following individuals who reviewed manuscripts in 2022. Many of the reviewers listed below reviewed more than one manuscript. We extend our apologies and thanks to those reviewers whose names have been inadvertently omitted from this list.</p><p>Acosta-Martinez, Veronica, USDA-ARS</p><p>Archer, David, USDA-ARS-NGPRL</p><p>Bardhan, Sougata, Lincoln University of Missouri</p><p>Basche, Andrea, University of Nebraska-Lincoln</p><p>Belasco, Eric</p><p>Brorsen, Wade, Oklahoma State University</p><p>Bryant, Ray, USDA-ARS-Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit</p><p>Buda, Anthony, USDA-ARS</p><p>Castellano, Michael, Iowa State University</p><p>Cates, Anna, University of Minnesota Twin Cities</p><p>Chakraborty, Debolina, University of Florida</p><p>Cheng, Weiguo, Yamagata University</p><p>Cheong, Kit-Leong</p><p>Clemensen, Andrea</p><p>Collick, Amy, Morehead State University</p><p>Culman, Steven, Washington State University</p><p>Daigh, Aaron, University of Nebraska-Lincoln</p><p>De Guzman, Christian, University of Arkansas System</p><p>Dell, Curtis, USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit</p><p>DeSutter, Thomas, North Dakota State University</p><p>Devkota, Pratap, University of Florida</p><p>Dungan, Robert, USDA-ARS</p><p>Elnaker, Nancy, Khalifa University</p><p>Essington, Michael, University of Tennessee</p><p>Ewing, Patrick, USDA-ARS North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory</p><p>Farmaha, Bhupinder, Clemson University</p><p>Faulkner, Joshua, University of Vermont</p><p>Francisco, Eros</p><p>Franzen, David, North Dakota State University</p><p>Franzluebbers, Alan, USDA</p><p>Gailans, Stefan, Practical Farmers of Iowa</p><p>Gatiboni, Luke, North Carolina State University at Raleigh</p><p>Ghanem, Michel Edmond, ITK</p><p>Ghimire, Rajan, New Mexico State University</p><p>Ginakes, Peyton, University of Maine System</p><p>Good, Laura, University of Wisconsin-Madison</p><p>Graham, Jennifer, US Geological Survey Northeast Region</p><p>Guo, Mingxin, Delaware State University</p><p>Haden, Ryan, The Ohio State University</p><p>Hatfield, Jerry, USDA-ARS</p><p>Hawkesford, Malcolm J., Rothamsted Res</p><p>He, Zhongqi, USDA-ARS</p><p>Heilman, Philip, USDA-ARS</p><p>Joshi, Deepak, South Dakota State University</p><p>Kharel, Tulsi, USDA-ARS</p><p>Knappenberger, Thorsten, Auburn University</p><p>Kral-O'Brien, Katherine, North Dakota University System</p><p>Kukal, Meetpal, Pennsylvania State
{"title":"Thanks to our 2022 reviewers","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/ael2.20107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20107","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maintaining the editorial standards of a scientific journal is the primary task of the journal editors. Their task is made much easier with the help of colleagues who are invited to review manuscripts. Through their critical comments and helpful suggestions, these volunteer reviewers have done much to maintain and further the quality of research reported in <i>Agricultural Letters & Environmental Letters</i>. The members of the <i>Agricultural Letters & Environmental Letters</i> Editorial Board express their appreciation to the following individuals who reviewed manuscripts in 2022. Many of the reviewers listed below reviewed more than one manuscript. We extend our apologies and thanks to those reviewers whose names have been inadvertently omitted from this list.</p><p>Acosta-Martinez, Veronica, USDA-ARS</p><p>Archer, David, USDA-ARS-NGPRL</p><p>Bardhan, Sougata, Lincoln University of Missouri</p><p>Basche, Andrea, University of Nebraska-Lincoln</p><p>Belasco, Eric</p><p>Brorsen, Wade, Oklahoma State University</p><p>Bryant, Ray, USDA-ARS-Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit</p><p>Buda, Anthony, USDA-ARS</p><p>Castellano, Michael, Iowa State University</p><p>Cates, Anna, University of Minnesota Twin Cities</p><p>Chakraborty, Debolina, University of Florida</p><p>Cheng, Weiguo, Yamagata University</p><p>Cheong, Kit-Leong</p><p>Clemensen, Andrea</p><p>Collick, Amy, Morehead State University</p><p>Culman, Steven, Washington State University</p><p>Daigh, Aaron, University of Nebraska-Lincoln</p><p>De Guzman, Christian, University of Arkansas System</p><p>Dell, Curtis, USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit</p><p>DeSutter, Thomas, North Dakota State University</p><p>Devkota, Pratap, University of Florida</p><p>Dungan, Robert, USDA-ARS</p><p>Elnaker, Nancy, Khalifa University</p><p>Essington, Michael, University of Tennessee</p><p>Ewing, Patrick, USDA-ARS North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory</p><p>Farmaha, Bhupinder, Clemson University</p><p>Faulkner, Joshua, University of Vermont</p><p>Francisco, Eros</p><p>Franzen, David, North Dakota State University</p><p>Franzluebbers, Alan, USDA</p><p>Gailans, Stefan, Practical Farmers of Iowa</p><p>Gatiboni, Luke, North Carolina State University at Raleigh</p><p>Ghanem, Michel Edmond, ITK</p><p>Ghimire, Rajan, New Mexico State University</p><p>Ginakes, Peyton, University of Maine System</p><p>Good, Laura, University of Wisconsin-Madison</p><p>Graham, Jennifer, US Geological Survey Northeast Region</p><p>Guo, Mingxin, Delaware State University</p><p>Haden, Ryan, The Ohio State University</p><p>Hatfield, Jerry, USDA-ARS</p><p>Hawkesford, Malcolm J., Rothamsted Res</p><p>He, Zhongqi, USDA-ARS</p><p>Heilman, Philip, USDA-ARS</p><p>Joshi, Deepak, South Dakota State University</p><p>Kharel, Tulsi, USDA-ARS</p><p>Knappenberger, Thorsten, Auburn University</p><p>Kral-O'Brien, Katherine, North Dakota University System</p><p>Kukal, Meetpal, Pennsylvania State","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.20107","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50122061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}