Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Relationship of Agronomic Practices to Soil Nitrogen Dynamics

Written By

Congming Zou, Robert C Pearce, John H Grove, Yan Li, Xiaodong Hu, Jie Chen, Junying Li and Yan Jin

Submitted: March 25th, 2018 Reviewed: April 13th, 2018 Published: November 5th, 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.77229

Chapter metrics overview

1,120 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Soil nitrogen (N) dynamics are a major concern of soil nutrient status and its supply for crop uptake and growth. They are a central focus of agroecosystems. Agronomic practices play a central role in regulating soil N dynamics; the methodologies for investigating soil N mineralization are diverse, but debatable. This chapter discusses the pros and cons of different methods for measuring soil N mineralization, including laboratory, in-situ, and modeling procedures. This chapter illustrates the influence of agronomic practices on root architecture that potentially affects crop nutrient uptake. The relationship between agronomic practices and soil N dynamics were fully discussed, which can substantially inform soil fertility and crop nutrition management.


  • agronomic management
  • nitrogen dynamics
  • methodology
  • N mineralization
  • crop N uptake

1. Agronomic practices reflect the history of managing soil N dynamics

Nitrogen (N) is the most important plant mineral nutrient [1]. It was first discovered in the late eighteenth century, and N’s role in improving crop production was widely recognized by the mid-nineteenth century [2]. Long before these discoveries, ancient farmers often unknowingly employed agronomic practices that resulted in managing soil N availability, thereby helping to ensure the human food supply and nutrition. There were two major sources of N in agroecosystems before synthetic N fertilizers—soil N and legume-based biological N fixation. Ancient farmers constructively developed tillage schemes and rotated nonlegume and legume crops to manage both N sources for millennia. Because the appearance of commercial synthetic N fertilizers in the early twentieth century brought significant changes to traditional agronomic practices, the history of agronomic practices from the perspective of managing soil and biologically fixed N dynamics would seem to be a fruitful review.

Plow tillage is a form of soil N management. Much of the soil N is in complex organic forms, such as decomposing plant and animal residues [3]. Most plants can only take up inorganic N (NH4+ and NO3) [4] although the basic amino acids are absorbed by some plant species (e.g., Picea abies) [5]. Inorganic N and basic amino acids in soil are mainly derived from N mineralization processes. Tillage practices can promote mineralization because disturbance exposes naturally protected (i.e., aggregate-protected) soil organic matter (SOM) to microbes, enhancing microbial activity and N mineralization (Tisdall and Oades [6]). Therefore, plow tillage was considered a great agricultural advance and, from the archeological evidence, has had a very long history. Foot plows [7] also called “digging sticks” are shown in Egyptian tomb paintings [8]. A wooden model of oxen and plow was found in an Egyptian tomb dating from 2000 BCE [8]. In Asia, one of the oldest existing Chinese books titled “Lü Shi Chun Qiu” (compiled in 239 BCE) or “The Annals of Lu Buwei” [9] demonstrated the details of when and how to till according to soil and weather conditions and served as an early example of a practical farming guide.

Rotation can also be a tool to manage soil N through legume bio-fixation of N, depending on the crop species. Monocropping, especially with nonlegumes and heavy-nutrient-using crops (e.g., tobacco and corn) can deplete soil N [10]. Rotation practices, even simple fallow, help to restore soil N [11]. This practice was evident in early Roman times. One of the Rome’s greatest poets, Virgil (70–19 BCE), wrote in his poem Georgics (from the Greek, “On Working the Earth”) “For the field is drained by flax-harvest and wheat-harvest, drained by the slumber-steeped poppy of Lethe, but yet rotation lightens the labour.” This emphasizes that fallow was necessary to rotate with those crops requiring more nutrients. On the other hand, rotations that include a legume crop can bring biological N fixation into agricultural production systems. Although ancient farmers knew nothing of the biological N fixation process, and nothing about the importance of mineral N to plant growth, they intentionally included legume crops into crop sequences. This was evident in the Pliny the Elder’s (23–79 CE) book on natural history that mentioned several legume successions as alternatives to conditions that forbade fallowing [12].

Synthetic fertilizer N application in agricultural production has a relatively short history compared to tillage and rotation practices because knowledge regarding N in plant nutrition and N synthesis techniques is recent. In 1836, Jean-Baptiste Boussingault (1801–1887) investigated manure, crop rotation, and N sources and for the first time concluded that N was a major component of plants and that the nutritional value of fertilizer was proportional to its N content [13]. However, ammonia could not be easily synthesized from constituent elements until 1908, when the Haber-Bosch process was developed. After that, synthetic fertilizer N started to play a greater role in agricultural production, helping to improve global food security [14].


2. Influence of synthetic fertilizer N on traditional agronomic practices

The appearance of synthetic fertilizer N brought a huge increase in the global food supply. Erisman et al. [14] estimated that around 50% of the world population’s food requirements are currently met by using synthetic fertilizer N. However, synthetic fertilizer N fundamentally disturbed the soil N cycling balance in agro-ecosystems and brought significant changes to traditional agronomic practices. Our unpublished data (Zou et al. [91]) show that synthetic fertilizer N can promote or prime soil N mineralization depending on the indigenous SOM level and the amount of synthetic N.

Synthetic fertilizer N played a role in developing modern no-tillage farming. Agriculture derives numerous benefits from no-tillage, including fuel and labor savings, increased soil C stocks and erosion resistance. But few people recognized the fertilizer N contribution to no-tillage until early Kentucky no-tillage × N fertility trials revealed its importance [15]. No-tillage without N fertilizer significantly lowered yield compared to conventional tillage without N fertilizer. However, no-tillage with N fertilizer produced yields comparable to those of conventional tillage with fertilizer N. From this perspective, one can speculate that added fertilizer N compensated for reduced soil N mineralization in no-tillage. Other factors, including herbicide and equipment development, also made no-tillage farming feasible in Kentucky and the rest of the Southeast and mid-Atlantic states in the USA, beginning in the 1960s [16]. At the time, the move away from tillage was viewed with much skepticism, but eventually no-tillage was accepted as a revolution in farming. By 2009, approximately 36% of U.S. cropland, planted to eight major crops, was in no-tillage soil management [17].

Although ancient farmers knew nothing of biological N fixation, legume crops had been an important cropping system component worldwide before synthetic N became available [12]. However, crop rotation was discouraged during the Green Revolution, partially because pest control benefits from crop rotation could be replaced by chemical crop protectants [18]. Also, the N credits from biological N fixation could be easily replaced by synthetic fertilizer N. However, soon after the height of the Green Revolution, many studies reported that no amount of chemical fertilizer or pesticide could fully compensate for crop rotation benefits [19]. Rotation systems then came back into fashion. Currently, 80% of all corn, soybean, and wheat planted acres in the United States are in rotation.


3. Systematic understanding of agronomic practices and soil N dynamics

This brief review of agricultural history shows that managing N dynamics is one of the central reasons farmers developed and implemented specific agronomic practices. Furthermore, in the last few decades, new knowledge indicates how transient N can have negative impacts on global environments and human health [20]. A systematic understanding of “How does soil and crop sequence management influence nitrogen dynamics?” will significantly influence agronomic practice development but also has global meaning for the quality of human life. The aim of optimal agricultural N management is to enhance net N mineralization at times when crops need N, to synchronize soil N mineralization with crop N uptake, and to minimize N loss. To systematically understand this topic, three sequential steps need clarification:

  1. How do agronomic practices affect soil organic matter pools?

  2. How do soil organic matter pools contribute to soil N availability?

  3. How do agronomic practices influence crop N uptake capacity?

Soil organic and crop residue N pools provide the organic N for N mineralization. This microbial process, primarily heterotrophic, also requires soil organic C (SOC) as an energy source [21, 22]. Thus, to understand how soil and crop management affect mineralized soil N, it is critical to first evaluate whether and how tillage, rotation, and fertilizer N application affect SOC and N sequestration. Soil organic matter sequestration has been reported to be linked with soil aggregate formation. The dominant concept that explains SOC and N sequestration is based on the aggregation-SOM model [23]. Zou et al. [24] reported that using NT and/or rotation practices in burley tobacco production maintained desirable soil physical and chemical properties by macroaggregate stabilization, which led to conserving SOC and TSN stocks [24]. The basic idea is that soil organic matter functions as a nucleus/binding agent for aggregate formation. Aggregates are important reservoirs of SOC and N that are protected from microbial access and less subject to physical, chemical, microbial, and enzymatic degradation (Six et al. [25]).

Appropriate and precise estimation of soil N mineralization has been a challenge since the early 1900s [26]. Temporal and spatial variability are large because this process is determined by internal soil factors (e.g., SOM level, labile C and N pools, soil microbial community) and external environment factors (e.g., temperature, precipitation and aeration) [27, 28, 29]. Agronomic management, such as plant species and N fertilizer application, may also affect N mineralization [30, 31]. With current technologies, it is impossible to predict N mineralization by taking these factors into consideration simultaneously. Instead of being a measure of available N supply, N mineralization estimates by current methods should be considered an index of N availability [32].

Isotopic tracers and incubation methods are the two main approaches used to estimate N mineralization. The isotopic tracer method can measure gross N mineralization, but isotope methods are expensive and can also have methodological problems with mineralization rate estimates and other assumption violations [33]. Although incubation methods can only measure net soil N mineralization (net soil N mineralization = gross N mineralization–N immobilization), incubation can fairly estimate the available N pool, which has a practical value for efficient N management in agroecosystems. Therefore, long-term biological mineralization has been considered the most suitable soil N availability index and is often used to validate other indices derived from more rapid chemical or biological assays [4, 34]. There are, however, many variations to incubation methods, including environment, sample pretreatment, and incubation time, and each variation has advantages and disadvantages. To use incubation to meet research objectives, assumptions, benefits, and liabilities of each variation should be considered.

An experimentally derived N availability index might not necessarily reflect total crop N uptake. Besides the amount of available soil N, crop N accumulation also depends on N uptake capacity. Crop N uptake capacity might be determined by either/both genetic and environmental controls. Genetics can control crop growth rate and biomass accumulation, which would result in different N demands at different growth stages [35]. Crop species have different root architectures, mostly controlled by genetics [36]. However, roots, the dominant nutrient uptake organ directly exposed to the soil, interact with a wide array of soil physical, chemical, and biological factors that vary in time and space [37]. To understand the impact of agronomic management practices on crop N uptake or yield, both soil N availability and root architecture must be considered.

For this review, literature concerning the effect of agronomic practices on crop N uptake or yield is reviewed in three sequential steps. First, the mechanism and effect of agronomic practices on SOC and STN sequestration are described. Second, the pros and cons of long-term incubation methodologies for estimating N mineralization are described. Finally, the potential effects of soil and crop management on root architecture are discussed.


4. Mechanisms and effect of agronomic practices on soil C and N sequestration

The link between SOC and total soil N (STN) decomposition and stabilization and soil aggregate dynamics has been developed, recognized, and intensively studied since the 1900s [23]. Soil organic C and N dynamics are important to agricultural production because these affect soil nutrient cycling and plant productivity [38]. The C and N dynamics are also important to the environment because they can affect greenhouse gas emissions and water quality [39, 40]. These processes happen in a heterogeneous soil matrix and have multiple interactions with soil biota [23]. The task of elucidation is complex. Aggregate-SOM models can explain some of these complexities. Aggregates not only physically protect SOC and SON, but also influence soil microbe community structure [41], limit oxygen diffusion [42], regulate water flow [43], determine nutrient adsorption and desorption [44, 45], and reduce surface runoff and erosion [46]. All these processes have fundamental effects on soil C and N sequestration and stabilization.

More current studies to understand the impact of agronomic practices on soil C and N sequestration have been based on the aggregate hierarchy concept proposed and developed by Tisdall and Oades [47, 48]. To apply the theoretical aggregate-SOM models, the first consideration is the physical separation of soil into different aggregate size classes. Two main methods to separate soil aggregates are widely used by researchers: dry and wet sieving [49]. The disruption of aggregates is mainly due to slaking and microcracking when the soil is initially dry. Dry sieving of air-dried samples is used to characterize the aggregate size distribution with minimum destruction. Wet sieving is used to simulate microcracking and slaking [50]. Water-stable aggregate stability from wet sieving procedures was reported to be closely correlated with SOM stabilization because SOM can act as a transient binding agent (Tisdall and Oades [6]) and has served as an effective early indicator of soil C change in numerous studies (e.g., [51]). The wet sieving procedure has been frequently used to evaluate the agronomic practice effects on both SOM sequestration and soil structural stability [52, 53]. In the wet sieving procedure, sample pretreatment is important [46]. The rewetting pretreatments for soils can cause different results when comparing soils and management history treatments [46]. Cambardella and Elliott [54] showed that capillary-wetted soils retained more macroaggregates (>250 μm) than slaked soils. Bissonnais [46] demonstrated that the different aggregate breakdown methods and frequency of crusting soil samples can dramatically affect soil aggregate stability within the same soil management system. Adopting minimum breakdown aggregates in the sieving procedure keeps comparisons between treatments relative to the natural field conditions.

The effect of agronomic practices (including tillage, rotation, and fertilizer N application) on SOC and STN, according to aggregate-SOM models, has been studied intensively in grass and grain crop production systems [55, 56, 57, 58, 59], but not in leaf harvest crop production systems. In these studies, no-tillage increased or maintained SOC and STN compared to conventional tillage. With aggregate separation, conventional tillage can increase large aggregate turnover rate, diminishing the macroaggregate proportion and SOC and STN concentrations [54]. In contrast, no-tillage increases macroaggregates and SOC and STN accumulation.

Most studies show that rotation increases SOC and STN sequestration, compared to monocropping [57, 60]. Crops in rotation schemes have different impacts on SOM stabilization, depending on the quantity and quality of crop residues. Wright and Hons [61] found that crop residue production was similar among wheat, sorghum, and soybean fields, but the wheat field had significantly higher SOC and STN in surface soil than the other two fields, which indicates that the higher C:N ratio in wheat residue can play a role in SOM stabilization. Kong et al. [57] reported that the quantity of crop residue/carbon production had a linear relationship with SOC sequestration in sustainable cropping systems. Therefore, when evaluating crop rotation schemes on SOM sequestration, examining crop residue quantity and quality is important.

Studies on the effect of fertilizer N application on SOM sequestration have produced the most controversial results. Some studies report that fertilizer N application increases SOM because higher fertilizer N input causes more crop residue to be returned to soil [56]. Mulvaney et al. [62] reported that fertilizer N application decreased soil N in the long-term Morrow plot study and argued that synthetic N application enhanced soil microbial decomposition due to the decreasing C:N ratio. Others have found no effect of N fertilizer application on SOM sequestration [63, 64].


5. Methodologies of soil N mineralization measurement

There are many different methods available for long-term aerobic incubation, in laboratory and field, depending on soil sample pretreatment and other incubation conditions [65].

5.1. Laboratory incubation methods

Most aerobic laboratory incubation methods have common features, including maintenance of optimal soil water status (typically with 60% water-filled pore space), constant temperature (commonly 25, 30, or 35°C), and periodic sampling to estimate N mineralization rates [34]. Although there have been several standardized protocols (e.g., [26, 66]), there is significant variation in aerobic incubation details.

5.1.1. Leaching versus non-leaching processes

In early studies with long-term N mineralization incubation, samples were usually incubated continuously in a container without periodic leaching of the accumulated inorganic N. The merit of this method was convenience, but there could be cumulative inhibitory effects, such as pH decline, on mineralization during the incubation [67]. Thus, nonleaching approaches were not recommended for long incubation periods. Stanford and Hanway [68] proposed a periodic leaching approach during incubation. Briefly, 0.01 M CaCl2 was used to leach mineralized N from the sample at the end of each incubation period [69]. The merit of leaching would be avoidance of accumulation of unspecified toxins. While being a time-consuming and apparatus-requiring process, there was also an additional technical concern with potential leaching of soluble organic N during the incubation [65, 70].

5.1.2. Excluded crop residue versus included crop residue

Crop residue can contribute to the soil inorganic N pool by N mineralization or immobilization, depending on the residue C:N ratio. Most laboratory incubation methods exclude such contributions by discarding visible pieces of residue in the pretreatment sieving process [33]. Some laboratory methods cut entrained residues into pieces that are mixed with soil for incubation [71]. Certainly, discarding large portions of residue might influence estimates of the N credit from the previous crop because soil fertility guidelines usually recommend a different fertilizer N rate for the current crop that depends on the previous crop.

5.1.3. Field-moist soil sample versus dried and/or ground soil sample

Using dried and/or ground soil is convenient for a large amount of soil samples that require time to process or for cooperative projects where soil samples come from multiple locations at different times. However, several days are needed to rewet soil for preincubation, which also causes an N mineralization flush during the first weeks of incubation. Numerous studies report that sample sieving and drying-rewetting causes rapid microbial death and enhances microbial respiration and activity, producing an N mineralization bloom [72, 73, 74, 75]. Using field-moist samples might cause less physical damage during preincubation protocols and cause a better transition from field to lab conditions than dried and/or ground soil samples. However, field-moist soil samples intended for incubation need to be gently crushed through the sieve (usually 2–4 mm) immediately after sample collection.

5.1.4. Homogenized soil versus undisturbed soil cores

Most laboratory incubation methods utilize a homogenized sample created by sieving. However, there are reports that homogenized samples do not well represent the effects of field soil tillage. Laboratory soil should have a physical structure similar to that of the field environment the sample represents, but sieving artificially “tills” soil from undisturbed/no-tillage environments. This can expose aggregate-protected SOM and enhance the microbial activity, over-estimating the N mineralization. Undisturbed cores may be a better option for laboratory incubations intended to differentiate the impact of tillage on N mineralization [76].

5.1.5. Constant temperature versus variable temperature

Most laboratory incubation methods use a constant temperature, which does not reflect temperature fluctuation in field conditions. Carpenter-Boggs et al. [77] proposed a variable temperature method for laboratory incubation in which soil samples are incubated in a variable temperature incubator (VTI) that mimicked field soil temperatures under a growing corn canopy. They reported that the VTI technique provided a lower sample variance and a smaller initial flush of N mineralization than constant incubation temperature (35°C).

5.2. Field (in-situ) incubation methods

Due to the uncertainty about the extrapolation of laboratory N mineralization values in the field, estimating N mineralization from SOM and crop residues in field conditions would be a compelling research topic for investigators because more efficient N fertilization practices could be hastened if a reliable in-situ N mineralization method was developed. So far, there have been three dominant in-situ research techniques: buried polyethylene bags, covered cylinders, or resin-trap core methods.

5.2.1. Buried polyethylene bag method

The buried polyethylene bag method for in-situ N mineralization was proposed by Eno [78]. The main driving force behind this technical development was the realization that soil temperature variance results in considerable changes in the soil NO3 production rate. In that preliminary laboratory study, soil in sealed polyethylene bags had an equal nitrification rate compared to soil contained in ventilated bottles. Polyethylene is permeable to oxygen and carbon dioxide, but no NO3 diffused through the polyethylene bag during the 24-week incubation period. The preliminary results and polyethylene characteristics mean this technique has the potential to estimate aerobic in-situ soil N mineralization.

Although this technique mimics field temperature conditions at a low cost, the technique does not reflect transient field moisture conditions [79]. Elevated NO3 and carbon dioxide concentrations inside the bags may promote denitrification [80]. Physical damage to the bags by insects or plant roots may result in loss of mineralized N into the field soil via diffusion and mass flow [77, 78]. Another major limitation of this technique is the inevitable disturbance of soil, which does not allow a valid comparison of tillage effects on N mineralization in field conditions [76].

5.2.2. Covered cylinder method

The covered cylinder method was developed as a more durable alternative to the buried bag. This technique allows incubation of intact soil cores [81]. Covered cylinders are usually constructed from PVC or metal pipes that are capped to exclude rainfall, which is also assumed to stop inorganic N leaching [82]. Although the tubes are open at the bottom, aeration is less than that in field soil, which might result in higher denitrification potential. Modifications such as using gas permeable caps or perforations in the tube sidewall were often added to promote air exchange and reduce denitrification potential [83, 84]. However, sidewall aeration holes could potentially allow mineralized N loss. Water may enter the soil tubes through aeration holes, causing N leaching at the bottom of the soil column. Furthermore, plant roots may potentially grow into the soil column via aeration holes or the open bottom, absorbing mineralized soil from the tubes. Another major limitation of this technique is that the soil in the tube usually has a lower soil moisture content than the surrounding field [79].

The basic principle of the covered cylinder method was to limit N leaching by sheltering incubating soil from precipitation. Based on the same principle, there was another in-situ method called the “rain shelter” [76, 85], which simply used a shelter over the sampled area to prevent leaching. Except for considerations regarding the quality and durability of the rain shelter and surface water run-on during intense rainfall, the major drawback of this technique is a lack of ability to reflect field soil moisture fluctuations.

5.2.3. Resin-trap soil core method

Buried polyethylene bags and covered cylinder methods can capture variation in field temperature, while failing to reflect moisture and aeration conditions, which are reported to play a large role in soil N mineralization [28]. An alternative in-situ method was proposed that employs ion exchange resins to capture mineralized N leaching from undisturbed soil cylinders [86, 87]. The major modification of this technique is an open cylinder top, which allows precipitation and air to freely enter the intact soil column, and a resin trap at the bottom to capture inorganic N that might otherwise leach from the tube. There are some concerns about whether the soil tube causes abiotic differences between soil in the tube and the surrounding field soil. Wienhold et al. [88] reported that soil inside the cylinders was slightly wetter and warmer than adjacent soil, which likely increases soil N mineralization. They pointed out that the magnitude of change in soil N mineralization was likely much less than the normally observed field core-to-core variation. This method was found to better track true field conditions [79] and has the potential to become a standard procedure [89].

The drawback with intact cores and resin bags is a large resource demand. This technique requires preliminary studies to ensure leached ions are efficiently trapped under field conditions. Resin duality, adsorption capacity, and bypass flow are all factors that can potentially influence resin effectiveness in capturing leached N. The extraction of adsorbed N from the resin is also time-consuming. Kolberg et al. [87] reported that five extractions with KCl were required to completely release adsorbed N.

5.2.4. Other modifications to in-situ incubation methods

Except for the major design developments mentioned above, some minor modifications to in-situ incubation methods have been suggested. Hatch et al. [90] proposed a method to combine the soil core with acetylene inhibition, which would limit N loss by nitrification due to uncontrolled soil in-situ incubation conditions. The big concern with this modification is that the tube must be sealed at the top, causing a loss in practical application to the field environment if rainfall is a concern. Given consideration on different drainage characteristics in resin-trap soil cores relative to the surrounding soil, Hanselman et al. [79] developed a “new” type of resin-trap soil core method in which resin is mixed with soil to create an artificial uniform soil column. This method is impractical when undisturbed soil structure is a research concern, as in a comparison of conventional and conservation tillage [76].

5.3. Method selection

As discussed above, each method, including laboratory and in-situ methods, has unique assumptions, advantages, and disadvantages. There is no standard method that will work for every situation. The selection of method depends on the nature of the study, available resources, and site-specific factors. Although laboratory methods might not reflect natural field conditions, they can provide reasonable relative values to estimate differences due to soil type and certain management practices. Zou et al. [91] reported that discarding plant residue in the laboratory incubation method neglects the potential effect of plant residue on soil N mineralization. The primary merit to field incubation is a more practical estimation of N mineralization, which might be more useful in management decision making. However, the substantial time and apparatus requirement for the in-situ incubation methods must be considered. Zou et al. [92] reported that soil C and N fractions contribute variably to predict soil N mineralization in different rotation systems, but SOC (which can be calculated from soil organic matter, a common index in the routine test package of many soil testing laboratories) was the best overall NSNM predictor in their study. The principle is that both biotic and abiotic factors control the soil N mineralization process. Knowing the advantage and disadvantage of each method can help the investigator choose the best method while reducing misinterpretation.


6. The influence of agronomic practices on root architecture

Plant roots are a fundamental component of terrestrial ecosystems and function to maintain nutrient and water supply to the plant [92]. Although root system architecture is controlled mainly by genetic factors [93], plant root systems exhibit high developmental plasticity. This plasticity is possible because root development results from continuous propagation of new meristems. In a heterogeneous soil matrix, a wide array of physical, chemical, and biological factors can affect the initiation and activity of root meristems [37]. Previous studies have reported that certain crop root traits enhance productivity in resource-limited environments due to improved nutrient and water scavenging abilities [94, 95, 96]. Agronomic practices can influence crop nutrient uptake capacity by affecting the root growth environment.

Tillage affects root growth mainly by changing soil structure, strength, and penetration resistance. Any particular root increases its length through primary growth when cells of the meristem divide, elongate, and push the root tip forward through surrounding materials. Turgor pressure in the elongating cells is the driving force and must be sufficient to overcome cell wall constraints and other additional constraints imposed by the surrounding environment [97]. Compared to conventional plow tillage, numerous studies on grain crops report that no-tillage increases mechanical impedance, which can result in reduced root length density, root surface density, and lower biomass production [98, 99, 100]. Similar results were found in a no-tillage burley tobacco study [91, 101]. Furthermore, greater mechanical impedance with no-tillage not only restricts root growth but also changes root morphology, restricting main root axis elongation, stimulating lateral root branching and root thickening [102, 103].

Nutrient supply and distribution (or fertilizer application) can affect root system architecture mainly by signaling [104, 105]. Typically, roots proliferate in volumes where nutrients are most concentrated [106]. However, the mechanisms of plant root response to the different nutrient elements might be controlled by different pathways and signals [107, 108, 109, 110].

There have been few studies on the effect of crop rotation on plant root architecture. Given the basic factors controlling root development, the hypothesis is crop rotation may differentially influence root architecture compared to monocropping systems, if rotated with residue-rich or deep-rooted crops that can increase SOM levels and soil structure. In this case, rotation affects root proliferation by changing soil structure in a manner similar to that observed with no-tillage. If rotation involves legumes, more N nutrition is provided than found with monocropping. In this case, rotation could affect root architecture by changing soil nutrient supply in a manner similar to that found with fertilizer application.

The effects of agronomic practices on crop N uptake not only affect SOM sequestration and soil N mineralization but also alter the soil environment for plant root proliferation. Similarly, in a paper titled “A New Worldview of Soils” [111], soil productivity is broadly defined as the soil’s unique ability to supply water, nutrients, air, and heat, among other life-sustaining resources, adjusting that supply to the demands of plants and microbes. Soil resources fall into two main components: (a) nutrients and moisture and (b) an environment suited for root growth and microbial activity.


7. Conclusion

Agronomic practices reflect agriculture’s N management history. Current agronomic practices have two major responsibilities: (1) promote global food production and (2) maintain the agroecosystem environment. This review shows that soil N dynamics have the potential to provide a framework to understand how agronomic practices connect these two responsibilities. Systematically understanding N cycling in the context of a suite of soil and crop management practices provides a foundation to understand, develop, evaluate, and reshape those agronomic practices.



This work publication was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant (41601330), and the Yunnan Applied Basic Research Project (2017FB074), and the Yunnan Provincial Tobacco Monopoly Bureau Grants (2016YN28,2017YN06,2017YN09). Authors thank Dr. Mark S Coyne for offering the helpful advice and countless reviews on this manuscript.


  1. 1. Epstein E. Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. Sunderland (Massachusetts): Sinauer Associates; 1972. DOI: 10.2307/2484208
  2. 2. Galloway JN, Cowling EB. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment. 2002;31:64-71. DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447-31.2.64
  3. 3. Marschner H, Marschner P. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press; 2012
  4. 4. Keeney DR. Nitrogen availability indices. In: Page AL, et al, editors, Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. Madison, WI: ASA; 1982. pp. 711-733
  5. 5. Boukcim H, Plassard C. Juvenile nitrogen uptake capacities and root architecture of two open-pollinated families of Picea abies. Effects of nitrogen source and ectomycorrhizal symbiosis. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2003;160:1211-1218. DOI: 10.1078/0176-1617-00973
  6. 6. Tisdall J, Oades JM. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal of Soil Science. 1982;33:141-163. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x
  7. 7. Curwen EC. Prehistoric Farming of Europe and the Near East. Pt. I., Plough and Pasture, the Early History of Farming. New York: Henry Schuman; 1953. pp. 3-147
  8. 8. Burke J. Connections. Boston: Brown and Company; 1978
  9. 9. Lü B, Knoblock J, Riegel JK. Lü Shi Chun Qiu. California: Stanford University Press; 2000
  10. 10. Bationo A. Managing Nutrient Cycles to Sustain Soil Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi: Afnet-CIAT; 2004. pp. 127-136
  11. 11. Giller KE, Cadisch G, Ehaliotis C, Adams E, Sakala WD, Mafongoya PL. Building soil nitrogen capital in Africa. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F, editors. Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy; 1997. pp. 151-192
  12. 12. White KD. Fallowing, crop rotation, and crop yields in roman times. Agricultural History. 1970;44(3):281-290
  13. 13. Smil V. Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. MIT press; 2004. DOI: 10.2307/3985938
  14. 14. Erisman JW, Sutton MA, Galloway J, Klimont Z, Winiwarter W. How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience. 2008;1:636-639. DOI: 10.1038/ngeo325
  15. 15. Rice C, Smith M, Blevins R. Soil nitrogen availability after long-term continuous no-tillage and conventional tillage corn production. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1986;50:1206-1210. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000050023x
  16. 16. Phillips SH, Young H Jr. No-Tillage Farming. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Reiman Associates; 1973
  17. 17. Horowitz J, Ebel R, Ueda K. “No-till” Farming Is a Growing Practice. USDA Report. 2010
  18. 18. Bruns HA. Concepts in Crop Rotations. Croatia: InTech Open Access Publisher; 2012
  19. 19. Karlen DL, Varvel GE, Bullock DG, Cruse RM. Crop rotations for the 21st century. In: Donald LS, editor. Advances in agronomy. Academic Press; 1994. pp. 1-45
  20. 20. Townsend AR, Howarth RW, Bazzaz FA, Booth MS, Cleveland CC, Collinge SK, et al. Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2003;1:240-246. DOI: 10.2307/3868011
  21. 21. Chen R, Senbayram M, Blagodatsky S, Myachina O, Dittert K, Lin X, et al. Soil C and N availability determine the priming effect: Microbial N mining and stoichiometric decomposition theories. Global Change Biology. 2014;20:2356-2367. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12475
  22. 22. Sollins P, Spycher G, Glassman C. Net nitrogen mineralization from light-and heavy-fraction forest soil organic matter. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1984;16:31-37. DOI: 10.1016/0038-0717(84)90122-6
  23. 23. Six J, Bossuyt H, Degryze S, Denef K. A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil and Tillage Research. 2004;79:7-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008
  24. 24. Zou C, Pearce RC, Grove JH, Coyne MS. Conservation practices in tobacco production increase large aggregates and associated carbon and nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2015;79:1760-1770. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2015.06.0235
  25. 25. Six J, Elliott E, Paustian K. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: A mechanism for C sequestration under notillage agriculture. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2000;32:2099-2103. DOI:10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00179-6
  26. 26. Bundy L, Meisinger J. Nitrogen availability indices. In: Weaver RW, Angle JS, Bottomley P S, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. SSSA, Madison, WI, USA: Microbiological and Biochemical Properties; 1994. pp. 951-984
  27. 27. Goncalves J, Carlyle J. Modelling the influence of moisture and temperature on net nitrogen mineralization in a forested sandy soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1994;26:1557-1564. DOI: 10.1016/0038-0717(94)90098-1
  28. 28. Sierra J. Temperature and soil moisture dependence of N mineralization in intact soil cores. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1997;29:1557-1563. DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(96)00288-X
  29. 29. Zech W, Senesi N, Guggenberger G, Kaiser K, Lehmann J, Miano TM, et al. Factors controlling humification and mineralization of soil organic matter in the tropics. Geoderma. 1997;79:117-161. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00040-2
  30. 30. Gill K, Jarvis S, Hatch D. Mineralization of nitrogen in long-term pasture soils: Effects of management. Plant and Soil. 1995;172:153-162. DOI: 10.1007/BF00020869
  31. 31. Van Der Krift TA, Berendse V. The effect of plant species on soil nitrogen mineralization. Journal of Ecology. 2001;89:555-561. DOI: 10.1046/j.0022-0477.2001.00580.x
  32. 32. Binkley D, Hart SC. The components of nitrogen availability assessments in forest soils. Advances in Soil Science. Springer; 1989. pp. 57-112. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-8847-0_2
  33. 33. Hart SC, Stark JM, Davidson EA, Firestone MK. Nitrogen mineralization, immobilization, and nitrification. In: Weaver RW, Angle JS, Bottomley PS, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. SSSA, Madison, WI, USA: Microbiological and Biochemical Properties; 1994. pp. 985-1018
  34. 34. Griffin T, Honeycutt C, Albrecht S, Sistani K, Torbert H, Wienhold B, et al. Nationally coordinated evaluation of soil nitrogen mineralization rate using a standardized aerobic incubation protocol. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2007;39:257-268. DOI: 10.1080/00103620701759285
  35. 35. Gastal F, Lemaire G. N uptake and distribution in crops: An agronomical and ecophysiological perspective. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2002;53:789-799. DOI: 10.1093/jexbot/53.370.789
  36. 36. Clark RT, MacCurdy RB, Jung JK, Shaff JE, McCouch SR, Aneshansley DJ, et al. Three-dimensional root phenotyping with a novel imaging and software platform. Plant Physiology. 2011;156:455-465. DOI: 10.1104/pp.110.169102
  37. 37. Lynch J. Root architecture and plant productivity. Plant Physiology. 1995;109(1):7
  38. 38. Bauer A, Black A. Quantification of the effect of soil organic matter content on soil productivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1994;58:185-193. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800010027x
  39. 39. Cole C, Duxbury J, Freney J, Heinemeyer O, Minami K, Mosier A, et al. Global estimates of potential mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 1997;49:221-228. DOI: 10.1023/a:1009731711346
  40. 40. Spalding RF, Exner ME. Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater—A review. Journal of Environmental Quality. 1993;22:392-402. DOI: 10.2134/jeq1993.00472425002200030002x
  41. 41. Lupwayi N, Arshad M, Rice W, Clayton G. Bacterial diversity in water-stable aggregates of soils under conventional and zero tillage management. Applied Soil Ecology. 2001;16:251-261. DOI: 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00123-2
  42. 42. Sullivan L. Soil organic matter, air encapsulation and water-stable aggregation. Journal of Soil Science. 1990;41:529-534. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1990.tb00084.x
  43. 43. Prove B, Loch R, Foley J, Anderson V, Younger D. Improvements in aggregation and infiltration characteristics of a krasnozem under maize with direct drill and stubble retention. Soil Research. 1990;28:577-590. DOI: 10.1071/SR9900577
  44. 44. Linquist B, Singleton P, Yost R, Cassman K. Aggregate size effects on the sorption and release of phosphorus in an Ultisol. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997;61(1):160-166. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010024x
  45. 45. Zhang W, Yao Y, Sullivan N, Chen Y. Modeling the primary size effects of citrate-coated silver nanoparticles on their ion release kinetics. Environmental Science and Technology. 2011;45:4422-4428. DOI: 10.1021/es104205a
  46. 46. Bissonnais Yl. Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and erodibility: I. Theory and methodology. European Journal of Soil Science. 1996;47:425-437. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01843.x
  47. 47. Tisdall J, Oades J. The effect of crop rotation on aggregation in a red-brown earth. Soil Research. 1980a;18:423-433
  48. 48. Tisdall J, Oades JM. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal of Soil Science. 1982;33:141-163
  49. 49. Kemper W, Rosenau R. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute A, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Agronomy Monograph. 9. 2nd ed. Madison.WI: ASA and SSSA; 1986. pp. 425-442
  50. 50. Puget P, Chenu C, Balesdent J. Total and young organic matter distributions in aggregates of silty cultivated soils. European Journal of Soil Science. 1995;46:449-459. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1995.tb01341.x
  51. 51. Veum KS, Goyne KW, Kremer R, Motavalli PP. Relationships among water stable aggregates and organic matter fractions under conservation management. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2012;76:2143-2153. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2012.0089
  52. 52. Angers DA, Giroux M. Recently deposited organic matter in soil water-stable aggregates. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1996;60:1547-1551. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000050037x
  53. 53. Beare M, Hendrix P, Coleman D. Water-stable aggregates and organic matter fractions in conventional-and no-tillage soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1994;58:777-786. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800030020x
  54. 54. Cambardella C, Elliott E. Carbon and nitrogen distribution in aggregates from cultivated and native grassland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1993;57:1071-1076. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700040032x
  55. 55. Brye K, Olk DC, Schmid BT. Rice rotation and tillage effects on soil aggregation and aggregate carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2012;76:994-1004. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2010.0436
  56. 56. Haynes R, Naidu R. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: A review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 1998;51:123-137. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009738307837
  57. 57. Kong AY, Six J, Bryant DC, Denison RF, Van Kessel C. The relationship between carbon input, aggregation, and soil organic carbon stabilization in sustainable cropping systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2005;69:1078-1085. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0215
  58. 58. Sainju UM, Caesar-Tonthat T, Jabro JD. Carbon and nitrogen fractions in dryland soil aggregates affected by long-term tillage and cropping sequence. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2009;73:1488-1495. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2008-0405
  59. 59. Six J, Elliott E, Paustian K, Doran J. Aggregation and soil organic matter accumulation in cultivated and native grassland soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1998;62:1367-1377. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1998.03615995006200050032x
  60. 60. West TO, Post WM. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2002;66:1930-1946. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2002.1930
  61. 61. Wright AL, Hons FM. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in aggregates from different tillage and crop regimes. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2005;69:141-147. DOI: 10.1002/9780470777923.ch16
  62. 62. Mulvaney R, Khan S, Ellsworth T. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers deplete soil nitrogen: A global dilemma for sustainable cereal production. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2009;38:2295-2314. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2008.0527
  63. 63. Brown KH, Bach EM, Drijber RA, Hofmockel KS, Jeske ES, Sawyer JE, et al. A long-term nitrogen fertilizer gradient has little effect on soil organic matter in a high-intensity maize production system. Global Change Biology. 2014;20:1339-1350. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12519
  64. 64. Su YZ, Wang F, Suo DR, Zhang ZH, Du MW. Long-term effect of fertilizer and manure application on soil-carbon sequestration and soil fertility under the wheat–wheat–maize cropping system in Northwest China. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2006;75:285-295. DOI: 10.1007/s10705-006-9034-x
  65. 65. Beauchamp E, Reynolds W, Brasche-Villeneuve D, Kirby K. Nitrogen mineralization kinetics with different soil pretreatments and cropping histories. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1986;50:1478-1483. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000060020x
  66. 66. Honeycutt C, Griffin T, Wienhold BJ, Eghball B, Albrecht S, Powell JM, et al. Protocols for nationally coordinated laboratory and field research on manure nitrogen mineralization. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2005;36:2807-2822. DOI: 10.1080/00103620500304184
  67. 67. Allison F, Sterling LD. Nitrate formation from soil organic matter in relation to total nitrogen and cropping practices. Soil Science. 1949;67:239-252. DOI: 10.1097/00010694-194903000-00005
  68. 68. Stanford G, Hanway J. Predicting nitrogen fertilizer needs of Iowa soils: II. A simplified technique for determining relative nitrate production in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1955;19:74-77. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1955.03615995001900010018x
  69. 69. Stanford G, Smith S. Nitrogen mineralization potentials of soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1972;36:465-472
  70. 70. Smith JL, Schnabel R, McNeal B, Campbell G. Potential errors in the first-order model for estimating soil nitrogen mineralization potentials. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1980;44:996-1000. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050025x
  71. 71. Heumann S, Böttcher J, Springob G. N mineralization parameters of sandy arable soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2002;165:441-450. DOI: 10.1002/1522-2624(200208)165:43.0.CO;2-F
  72. 72. Mikha MM, Rice CW, Milliken GA. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization as affected by drying and wetting cycles. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2005;37:339-347. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.003
  73. 73. Miller AE, Schimel JP, Meixner T, Sickman JO, Melack JM. Episodic rewetting enhances carbon and nitrogen release from chaparral soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2005;37:2195-2204. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.03.021
  74. 74. Wu J, Brookes PC. The proportional mineralisation of microbial biomass and organic matter caused by air-drying and rewetting of a grassland soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2005;37:507-515. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.07.043
  75. 75. Xiang SR, Doyle A, Holden PA, Schimel JP. Drying and rewetting effects on C and N mineralization and microbial activity in surface and subsurface California grassland soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2008;40:2281-2289. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.05.004
  76. 76. Rice C, Grove J, Smith M. Estimating soil net nitrogen mineralization as affected by tillage and soil drainage due to topographic position. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 1987;67:513-520. DOI: 10.4141/cjss87-048
  77. 77. Carpenter-Boggs L, Pikul JL, Vigil MF, Riedell WE. Soil nitrogen mineralization influenced by crop rotation and nitrogen fertilization. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2000;64:2038-2045. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2000.6462038x
  78. 78. Eno CF. Nitrate production in the field by incubating the soil in polyethylene bags. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1960;24:277-279. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1960.03615995002400040019x
  79. 79. Hanselman TA, Graetz DA, Obreza TA. A comparison of in situ methods for measuring net nitrogen mineralization rates of organic soil amendments. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2004;33:1098-1105. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2004.1098
  80. 80. Subler S, Parmelee R, Allen M. Comparison of buried bag and PVC core methods for in situ measurement of nitrogen mineralization rates in an agricultural soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 1995;26:2369-2381. DOI: 10.1080/00103629509369454
  81. 81. Raison R, Connell M, Khanna P. Methodology for studying fluxes of soil mineral-N in situ. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1987;19:521-530. DOI: 10.1016/0038-0717(87)90094-0
  82. 82. Adams M, Attiwill P. Nutrient cycling and nitrogen mineralization in eucalypt forests of South-Eastern Australia. Plant and Soil. 1986;92:341-362. DOI: 10.1007/BF02372483
  83. 83. Dou H, Alva A, Khakural B. Nitrogen mineralization from citrus tree residues under different production conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997;61:1226-1232. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100040031x
  84. 84. Rapp M, Leclerc MC, Lossaint P. The nitrogen economy in a Pinus pinea L. stand. Forest Ecology and Management. 1979;2:221-231. DOI: 10.1016/0378-1127(79)90048-3
  85. 85. Powlson D. Effect of cultivation on the mineralization of nitrogen in soil. Plant and Soil. 1980;57:151-153. DOI: 10.1007/BF02139653
  86. 86. DiStefano JF, Gholz H. A proposed use of ion exchange resins to measure nitrogen mineralization and nitrification in intact soil cores. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 1986;17:989-998. DOI: 10.1080/00103628609367767
  87. 87. Kolberg R, Rouppet B, Westfall D, Peterson G. Evaluation of an in situ net soil nitrogen mineralization method in dryland agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997;61:504-508. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100020019x
  88. 88. Wienhold BJ, Varvel GE, Wilhelm WW. Container and installation time effects on soil moisture, temperature, and inorganic nitrogen retention for an in situ nitrogen mineralization method. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2009;40:2044-2057. DOI: 10.1080/00103620902960575
  89. 89. Khanna PK, Raison RJ. In situ core methods for estimating soil mineral-N fluxes: Re-evaluation based on 25 years of application and experience. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2013;64:203-210. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.09.004
  90. 90. Hatch D, Jarvis S, Philipps L. Field measurement of nitrogen mineralization using soil core incubation and acetylene inhibition of nitrification. Plant and Soil. 1990;124:97-107. DOI: 10.1007/BF00010937
  91. 91. Zou C, Pearce RC, Grove JH, Coyne MS. Laboratory vs. in situ resin-core methods to estimate net nitrogen mineralization for comparison of rotation and tillage practices. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2017;180:294-301. DOI: 10.1002/jpln.201600571
  92. 92. Zou C, Pearce RC, Grove JH, Coyne MS, Roualdes EA, Li Y. Stability of indicators for net soil nitrogen mineralization in tobacco rotation and tillage systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2018;82:483-492. DOI:10.2136/sssaj2017.08.0263
  93. 93. de Dorlodot S, Forster B, Pagès L, Price A, Tuberosa R, Draye X. Root system architecture: Opportunities and constraints for genetic improvement of crops. Trends in Plant Science. 2007;12:474-481. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.012
  94. 94. Liao H, Rubio G, Yan X, Cao A, Brown KM, Lynch JP. Effect of phosphorus availability on basal root shallowness in common bean. Plant and Soil. 2001;232:69-79. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010381919003
  95. 95. Lynch JP. Root phenes for enhanced soil exploration and phosphorus acquisition: Tools for future crops. Plant Physiology. 2011;156:1041-1049. DOI: 10.1104/pp.111.175414
  96. 96. Ribaut JM, Betran J, Monneveux P, Setter T. Drought tolerance in maize. In: Bennetzen JL, Hake SC, editors. Handbook of Maize: Its Biology. New York: Springer; 2009. pp. 311-344. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-79418-1_16
  97. 97. Foy C, Carson E. The plant root and its environment. In: Carson EW, editor. Proceedings of an Institute Sponsored by the Southern Regional Education Board, held at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, July 5-16, 1971. 1974
  98. 98. Gajri P, Arora V, Prihar S. Tillage management for efficient water and nitrogen use in wheat following rice. Soil and Tillage Research. 1992;24:167-182. DOI: 10.1016/0167-1987(92)90099-W
  99. 99. Guan D, Al-Kaisi MM, Zhang Y, Duan L, Tan W, Zhang M, et al. Tillage practices affect biomass and grain yield through regulating root growth, root-bleeding sap and nutrients uptake in summer maize. Field Crops Research. 2014;157:89-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.015
  100. 100. Mosaddeghi M, Mahboubi A, Safadoust A. Short-term effects of tillage and manure on some soil physical properties and maize root growth in a sandy loam soil in western Iran. Soil and Tillage Research. 2009;104:173-179. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2008.10.011
  101. 101. Zartman R, Phillips R, Atkinson W. Tillage and nitrogen influence on root densities and yield of burley tobacco. Tobacco International. 1976;178(18):35-38
  102. 102. Cook A, Marriott C, Seel W, Mullins C. Effects of soil mechanical impedance on root and shoot growth of Lolium perenne L. Agrostis capillaris and Trifolium repens L. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1996;47:1075-1084. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/47.8.1075
  103. 103. Griffith DR, Mannering JV, Moldenhauer WC. Conservation tillage in the eastern Corn Belt [United States]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 1977;32:20-28
  104. 104. López-Bucio J, Cruz Ramı́rez A, Herrera-Estrella L. The role of nutrient availability in regulating root architecture. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2003;6:280-287. DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(03)00035-9
  105. 105. Robinson D. Resource capture by localized root proliferation: Why do plants bother? Annals of Botany. 1996;77:179-186. DOI: 10.1006/anbo.1996.0020
  106. 106. Robinson D. The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients. New Phytologist. 1994;127:635-674. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb02969.x
  107. 107. Mantelin S, Touraine B. Plant growth-promoting bacteria and nitrate availability: Impacts on root development and nitrate uptake. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55:27-34. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erh010
  108. 108. Williamson LC, Ribrioux SP, Fitter AH, Leyser HO. Phosphate availability regulates root system architecture in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 2001;126:875-882. DOI: 10.1104/pp.126.2.875
  109. 109. Zhang H, Forde BG. An Arabidopsis MADS box gene that controls nutrient-induced changes in root architecture. Science. 1998;279:407-409. DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5349.407
  110. 110. Zhang H, Jennings A, Barlow PW, Forde BG. Dual pathways for regulation of root branching by nitrate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999;96:6529-6534. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.11.6529
  111. 111. Lin H. A new worldview of soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2014;78:1831-1844. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2014.04.0162

Written By

Congming Zou, Robert C Pearce, John H Grove, Yan Li, Xiaodong Hu, Jie Chen, Junying Li and Yan Jin

Submitted: March 25th, 2018 Reviewed: April 13th, 2018 Published: November 5th, 2018