4.7 Article

Phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.) affects soil structure differently depending on soil texture

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 441, 期 1-2, 页码 543-554

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-019-04144-4

关键词

Cover crop; Phacelia; Soil pore connectivity; Soil porosity; X-ray computed tomography; 3D image analysis

资金

  1. BBSRC (Swindon, UK)
  2. Wolfson Foundation (London, UK)
  3. BBSRC [BBS/E/C/000I0310]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [BBS/E/C/000I0130]
  5. BBSRC as part of the Achieving Sustainable Agricultural Systems research programme [BBS/E/C/000I0130]
  6. BBSRC [BBS/E/C/000I0310] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims We studied the effects of Phacelia tanacetifolia, increasingly used as a cover-crop species in arable agricultural systems, upon soil structural properties in the context of two contrasting soil textures. We hypothesised there would be differential effects of the plants upon soil structure contingent on the texture. Methods A sandy-loam and a clay soil were destructured by passing through 2 mm sieves, and planted with Phacelia in a replicated pot experiment, with associated unplanted controls. X-ray Computed Tomography was used to visualise and quantify the soil pore networks in 3D. Results For the sandy-loam soil, there was no impact of plants upon aggregate size distribution porosity, pore connectivity, and pore surface density decreased in the presence of plants, whereas for the clay, there was a significant increase of aggregates <1000 mu m, the porosity was constant, the pore-connectivity decreased, and surface density increased in the presence of plants. Conclusions Plants can impact the structural genesis of soil depending on its inherent textural characteristics, leading to a differential development of pore architecture in different contexts. These results have implications both from an ecological perspective and in terms of the prescription of plants to remediate or condition soil structure in managed systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据