Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:42:52.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Microbiology of Farmyard Manure Decomposition in Soil I. Changes in the Microflora, and their Relation to Nitrification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. L. Jensen
H. L. Jensen
Affiliation:
(Department of Bacteriology, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Decomposition experiments were carried out in the laboratory with different kinds of farmyard manure in various soils (sand and clay, acid and neutral). In neutral or slightly acid soil there was a very strong multiplication of bacteria and, to a smaller extent, of actinomycetes immediately after the addition of manure. This increase, which was especially marked when fresh straw was present in the manure, was sooner or later followed by a rather sudden decrease, which caused the numbers of bacteria gradually to approach those in the control soils. The actinomycetes were generally more abundant in the later stages of the process. This suggests that they may be especially active in the decomposition of the more resistant residues. The “numbers” of fungi were not affected by the addition of manure alone (except to a slight degree in strongly acid soil, where the bacteria seemed inactive), but the presence of fresh straw caused them to become active, especially in strongly acid soil, where their “numbers” remained at a very high level for a long time, this abundance of fungi consisting of both mycelium and spores.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 1931 , pp. 38 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Allison, F. E.Soil Sci. (1927), 24, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Arnd, Th.Landw. Jahrb. (1916), 49, 191–213.Google Scholar
(3)Bach, M.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1925), 104, 245–84.Google Scholar
(4)Balks, R.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1925), 103, 221–58.Google Scholar
(5)Barthel, Chr. Meddelande No. 150 fr. Centralanst. f. Försöoksv. på Jordbruksomr (1917), Bakt. Avd. No. 17. Stockholm.Google Scholar
(6)Barthel, Chr. and Bengtsson, N. Meddelanden No. 172, 211, 269, 311 fr. Centralanst. f. Försöksv. på Jordbruksomr. (1918–1926), Bakt. Avd. No. 19, 23, 34, 44. Stockholm.Google Scholar
(7)Berthelot, M.Chimie véqétale et agricole (1892), 4, 179–82.Google Scholar
(8)Brierley, W. B., Jewson, S. T. and Brierley, M.Proceedings and papers of the First Intern. Congr. of Soil Sci. Washington (1928), Commission III.Google Scholar
(9)Christensen, H. R.Tidsskr. f. Planteavl (1927), 33, 197–411.Google Scholar
(10)Cutler, D. W. and Dixon, A.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1927), 14, 247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Dehérain, P. P.Cours de chimie agricole (1873).Google Scholar
(12)Dehérain, P. P. —Ann. Agronomiques (1888), 14, 97–133.Google Scholar
(13)Dehérain, P. P. —Ann. Agronomiques (1892), 18, 273–99.Google Scholar
(14)Dennstedt, M.Abderhaldens Handb. d. biol. Arbeitsmethoden (1921), Abt. 1, 3, 485–503.Google Scholar
(15)Doryland, C. J. T.North Dakota Agric. Exp. Sta. (1916), Bull. 116.Google Scholar
(16)Fisher, R. A., Thornton, H. G. and Mackenzie, W. A.Ann. Appl. Biol (1922), 9, 325–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Fisher, R. A.Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1925).Google Scholar
(18)Fraps, G. S.Texas Agric. Exp. Stat. (1915), Bull. 181.Google Scholar
(19)Gerlach, and Seidel, . Z. Pflanzenern. u. Düngung (1929), 8B, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Glathe, H.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1927), 107, 65–129.Google Scholar
(21)Goeters, W.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1929), 108, 1–60.Google Scholar
(22)Gray, P. H. H. and Thornton, H. G.Nature (1928), 122, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(23)Hansen, N. A.Tidsskr. f. Planteavl (1920), 27, 1–157.Google Scholar
(24)Hill, H. H.Virginia Agric. Exp. Sta. (1915), Techn. Bull. 6.Google Scholar
(25)Hobson, R. P. A Study of the Nitrogen Compounds of Mineral Soils (1925). Thesis, London.Google Scholar
(26)Holtz, H. F. and Singleton, H. P.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1925), 17, 326–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(27)Honcamp, F.Z. Pflanzenern. u. Düngung (1922), 1A, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(28)Hutchinson, H. B. and Richards, E. H.J. Min. Agric. (1921), 28, 398.Google Scholar
(29)Iversen, K.Tidsskr. f. Planteavl (1927), 33, 557–752.Google Scholar
(30)Jensen, H. L.J. Agric. Sci. (1929), 19, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(31)Joshi, N. V.Agric. Journ. of India (1920), 15, 398–409.Google Scholar
(32)Kaserer, H.Z. Landw. Versuchsw. Österreich (1907), 37–40.Google Scholar
(33)Krüger, W. and Schneidewind, W.Landw. Jahrb. (1901), 30, 633–64.Google Scholar
(34)Lathrop, E. C.Soil Sci. (1916), 1, 509–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(35)Lemmermann, O., Aso, K., Fischer, H. and Fresenius, L.Landw. Jahrb (1911), 41, 217–56.Google Scholar
(36)Lemmermann, O. and Wiessmann, H.Z. Pflanzenern. u. Düngung (1924), 3A, 387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(37)Lemoigne, M. and Dopter, P.Comp. rend. Acad. Sci. Paris (1926), 183, 160–2.Google Scholar
(38)Liesche, K.Landw. Jahrb. (1928), 68, 435–88.Google Scholar
(39)Lipman, J. G. and Blair, W. A.Soil Sci. (1920), 9, 371–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(40)Löhnis, F.Vorlesungen iiber landwirtschaftliche Bakleriologie (1913).Google Scholar
(41)Löhnis, F. and Green, H. H.Centr. Bakt. (1914), II, 40, 52–60.Google Scholar
(42)Löhnis, F. and Smith, J. H.Fühlings Landw. Zeitung (1914), 63, 153–67.Google Scholar
(43)Löhnis, F.Soil Sci. (1926), 22, 253–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(44)Löhnis, F. —Ill Landw. Zeitung (1928), 48, No. 10.Google Scholar
(45)Maillard, L. C.Genèse des matières protéiques et des matières humiques (1913).Google Scholar
(46)Marshall, C. E. The Chemistry of Humic Matter (1927). Thesis, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(47)Martin, T. L.Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. (1921), Bull. 406.Google Scholar
(48)May, F. V.Mitt. d. landw. Lehrkanzeln d. K. K. Hochschule f. Bodenkultur, Wien (1914), 2, 433–54.Google Scholar
(49)Mclennan, E.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1928), 15, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(50)Murray, T. J.Soil Sci. (1921), 12, 233–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(51)Nikitinsky, J.Jahrb. wiss. Bot. (1902), 37, 365–420.Google Scholar
(52)Niklewsky, B.Centr. Bakt. (1928), II, 75, 206–13.Google Scholar
(53)Nolte, O.Centr. Bakt. (1919), II, 49, 182–4.Google Scholar
(54)Oelsner, A.Centr. Bakt. (1917), II, 48, 210–11.Google Scholar
(55)Oppenheimer, C.Z. physiol. Chem. (1904), 41, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(56)Pfeiffer, Th.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1899), 51, 249–310.Google Scholar
(57)Pfeiffer, Th. and Lemmermann, O.Landw. Verswhs-Stat. (1900), 54, 386–462.Google Scholar
(58)Popp, M.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1908), 68, 253–300.Google Scholar
(59)Potter, R. S. and Snyder, R. S.J. Agric. Res. (1917), 11, 677–69.Google Scholar
(60)Rahn, O.Z. techn. Biol. (1919), 7, 172–86.Google Scholar
(61)Ramann, E.Bodenkunde (1911).Google Scholar
(62)Rimbach, C.J. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1900), 22, 695–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(63)Ruschmann, G.Centr. Bakt. (1927), II, 70, 214–60, 383–411; 72, 192–235.Google Scholar
(64)Russell, E. J. and Hutchinson, H. B.J. Agric. Sci. (1913), 5, 152–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(65)Russell, E. J. and Richards, E. H.J. Agric. Sci. (1917), 8, 495–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(66)Russell, E. J.Soil Conditions and Plant Growth (1921).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(67)Sabachnikoff, A. Abstract in Centr. Bakt. (1916), II, 49, 471–2.Google Scholar
(68)Sacharowa, T. M.Centr. Bakt. (1925), II, 63, 15–35.Google Scholar
(69)Scheibe, K.Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1929), 108, 61–114.Google Scholar
(70)Schittenhelm, A. and Sohröter, F.Z. physiol. Chem. (1903–1904), 39, 203–207; 40, 62–9, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(71)Sebelien, J.Nordisk Jordbrugsforskning (1921), 3, 461–2.Google Scholar
(72)Shutt, F. T.J. Agric. Sci. (1910), 3, 335–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(73)Thornton, H. G.Ann. Appl. Biol. (1922), 9, 241–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(74)Du Toit, M. S. On the Origin and Mode of Formation of the Humic Matter of the Soil (1924). Thesis, Cambridge.Google Scholar
(75)Tuxen, C. F. A.Tidsskr. f. Landökonomi (1884), 5, 192–230.Google Scholar
(76)Tuxen, C. F. A. —Landw. Versuchs-Stat. (1898), 50, 336–342.Google Scholar
(77)Wagner, P.Arb. d. Deutsch. Landw.-Gesellsch. (1903), 80, 1–335.Google Scholar
(78)Waksman, S. A.Soil Sci. (1922), 14, 285–98.Google Scholar
(79)Waksman, S. A.J. Agric. Sci. (1924), 14, 555–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(80)Waksman, S. A. —Soil Sci. (1926), 22, 123–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(81)Waksman, S. A. —Soil Sci. (1926), 22, 221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(82)Waksman, S. A. —Soil Sci. (1926), 22, 421–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(83)Waksman, S. A. and Tenney, F. G.Soil Sci. (1927), 24, 317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(84)Whiting, A. L. and Richmond, T. L.Soil Sci. (1927), 24, 31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(85)Wilson, B. D. and Wilson, J. K.Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. (1925), Mem. 95.Google Scholar
(86)Winogradsky, S.C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris (1924), 179, 861–3.Google Scholar
(87)Winogradsky, S. —Ann. Inst. Pasteur (1925), 39, 299–354.Google Scholar
(88)Withers, W. A. and Fraps, G. S.N. Carolina Agric. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rept 1902–1903, pp. 27–32.Google Scholar
(89)Wollny, E.J. Landw. (1886), 34, 213–320.Google Scholar
(90)Wright, R. C.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1915), 7, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar