2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.03.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of forage cropping treatments on soil structure and relationships with fractal dimensions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
47
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
5
47
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Soil water retention at PWP in the higher suction range (> 1500 kPa) is due to adsorption rather than capillarity, and is influenced less by the structure and more by the texture and specific surface area of the soil particles. However, soil water retention at FC in the lower tension range is structure dependent (Gardner 1968;Taylor 1983;Weil and Magdoff 2004). In the current study, it is possible that the different C:N ratios in the organic wastes induced different levels of microbial activity that in turn influenced the aggregation and structure, and therefore the different water retention at FC and PWP of the loamy sand soil.…”
Section: Effects Of Organic Waste Application On Soil Hydraulic Propementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Soil water retention at PWP in the higher suction range (> 1500 kPa) is due to adsorption rather than capillarity, and is influenced less by the structure and more by the texture and specific surface area of the soil particles. However, soil water retention at FC in the lower tension range is structure dependent (Gardner 1968;Taylor 1983;Weil and Magdoff 2004). In the current study, it is possible that the different C:N ratios in the organic wastes induced different levels of microbial activity that in turn influenced the aggregation and structure, and therefore the different water retention at FC and PWP of the loamy sand soil.…”
Section: Effects Of Organic Waste Application On Soil Hydraulic Propementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For mass fractals such as soil aggregates, the methods to measure aggregate ρ i are not precise (Logsdon, 1995) and introduce error when calculating bulk density-size relationships (Anderson et al, 1998). Total C and polysaccharide contents of aggregates that were reported to vary with cropping systems (Martins et al, 2009) may affect the bulk densities of similar-sized aggregates (Gülser, 2006). On the other hand, tillage disrupts soil aggregates and usually leads to increased decomposition of soil organic matter compounds because of reduced physical protection (Bronik and Lal, 2005;Six et al, 2004).…”
Section: Soil Aggregates As Fractal Objectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, one might consider investigating correlations between each aggregate size fraction and bulk density of the arable layer for the 7 crop treatments presented in Table 1. Soil bulk densities in the top layer (0-0.15 m) varied as follows: 1.37 g cm − 3 for RG, 1.31 g cm − 3 for AL, 1.28 g cm − 3 for BG, 1.29 g cm − 3 for SB, 1.28 g cm − 3 for SC, 1.29 g cm − 3 for CV, and 1.45 g cm − 3 for FC (Gülser, 2006).…”
Section: Spurious Correlations Caused By Scale Dependencymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This also proved the well known protective function of grasses against soil erosion. Such effect of forages in improving aggregate stability and organic carbon content of a clay soil was shown by Gülser (2006). Available phosphorus content differed among the three groups of soils.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%