008). There was a negative relationship between ASDCU and both aggregate stability (P = 0.018) and root dry weight (P = 0.013) where larger ASDCU values were associated with U0126 supplier reduced aggregate stability and with lower root weights when the whole data set was analysed. Aggregate stability and ASDCU was also negatively correlated in the bare soil treatments. Aggregate water repellency (R index) was similar in months 1 and 3 (mean R values 1.97 and 1.92 respectively) with a measurable increase in repellency in month 5 which remained at month 7 (2.41 and 2.16 respectively) (month as a single

factor in ANOVA, F3,55 = 5.60, P = 0.002, LSD = 0.27). No other factors significantly affected

the R index although there was a trend towards increased repellency in the planted treatments compared to the bare soil from month 3 onwards (planting regime × month interaction, F6,55 = 2.14, LSD 0.46, P = 0.063, Fig. 7). The optimum GLM that explained the water repellency data for the whole data set was root dry wt. (P < 0.001) and fungal TRF richness (P = 0.018). There was a positive relationship between R index and root dry weight and a negative relationship between Anti-diabetic Compound Library order fungal TRF richness and R index. When these data were analysed separately according to planting regime, water repellency in the mycorrhizal macrocosms could be potentially explained by three different models. The first of these included the terms bacterial TRF richness (P < 0.001) and microbial biomass-C (P = 0.006); the second included bacterial TRF richness (P = 0.003) and root dry weight (P = 0.013) and the third included fungal TRF richness (P = 0.015) and root dry weight (P = 0.004). Based on lowest Akaike and highest adjusted R2 values the first of the three is the optimum model. Bacterial and fungal TRF richness was negatively DOK2 correlated with water repellency whilst microbial

biomass-C and root dry weight were positively correlated with water repellency. These models did not explain water repellency in the non-mycorrhizal planted macrocosms. When data relating to the bare and non-mycorrhizal macrocosms were analysed together by GLM, root dry wt. was significant (P = 0.022) but when the NM and bare soils were analysed separately, none of the biological parameters had any effect on water repellency. Total porosity (%) was consistently lower in the bare soil treated with the 10−6 dilution compared to the bare soil with the 10−1 amendment. This observation was consistent and significant in all months apart from month 7 when porosity was the same in bare soil irrespective of dilution treatment.