@article{overstreet_hoyt_2008, title={Effects of strip tillage and production inputs on soil biology across a spatial gradient}, volume={72}, ISSN={["0361-5995"]}, DOI={10.2136/sssaj2007.0143}, abstractNote={Strip tillage results in soil disturbance levels similar to those of conventional tillage systems in the row locations (strip) and properties of no‐till in the interrow (between‐row) locations. In this study, biological and physical soil properties in the region spanning the row to interrow were investigated and results were compared among strip–tillage systems utilizing different inputs (conventional fertilizer and pesticides vs. USDA‐approved organic inputs) and rotation regimes (continuous tomato [Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.] vs. a 3‐yr vegetable rotation). Bulk density was significantly greater in the interrow locations. Soil respiration potential was greatest in the interrow and least in the row locations, and greater in treatments receiving organic inputs relative to synthetic inputs. No differences in soil N mineralization potential were determined. Microbial biomass C and N were greatest in interrow and least in row locations. Total soil C and N values did not vary from row to interrow locations or as a result of synthetic vs. organic inputs. The data suggest that organically managed production systems are less biologically stratified than conventional input systems under strip‐tillage management. Although net C mineralization was similar between chemical and organically managed systems, greater microbial biomass values in the organic treatment systems may have been the result of continuous additions of weed biomass during the summer. The hypothesis of a gradient effect for biological activity in strip‐tillage systems from row to interrow appears to be true in systems managed with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but not true of organically managed systems.}, number={5}, journal={SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL}, author={Overstreet, Laura F. and Hoyt, Greg D.}, year={2008}, pages={1454–1463} }
 @article{rideout_overstreet_2004, title={A survey of fertility practices, soil fertility status, and tree nutrient status on eastern North Carolina Christmas tree farms}, volume={35}, ISSN={["0010-3624"]}, DOI={10.1081/CSS-120030348}, abstractNote={Abstract “Choose and cut” Christmas tree production is gaining popularity in North Carolina, as well as the Southeastern United States. There are few recommendations concerning the fertility of Christmas trees except for the large Fraser fir (Abies fraseri) industry in the Appalachian mountain region. Outside of the mountains, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and Leyland cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii) are commonly grown as “choose and cut” trees. This study was conducted in the piedmont and coastal plain of North Carolina with the objectives to determine (1) the fertility practices currently being used and (2) the current soil and tissue nutrient status of “choose and cut” Christmas tree fields. A mail survey was used to accomplish the first objective. Twenty farms, selected from survey respondents, were sampled to determine current soil and tissue nutrient status. Soil samples were taken at three depths to 45 cm. Survey data indicated that a wide variety of fertilization materials and practices were being used. Spring applications were somewhat common, but actual time of application varied. Tissue and soil levels of nutrients also varied. There was a poor relationship between soil test nutrient levels and tissue nutrient levels, indicating the need for routine tissue analysis. This study indicated the need for future research and extension programs focusing on eastern Christmas tree fertility. In particular, the survey indicated that Leyland cypress, for which no specific soil fertility recommendations exist, is grown widely enough to merit recommendation development.}, number={5-6}, journal={COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS}, author={Rideout, JW and Overstreet, ALAF}, year={2004}, month={Mar}, pages={631–647} }