Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on Soil Properties, Yield and Quality of Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Experiment Design
2.3. Determination Index and Method
2.3.1. Determination of Plant Rhizosphere Soil Characteristics
2.3.2. Growth, Quality, Photosynthetic Parameters and Yield Indexes
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Rhizosphere Soil Chemical Properties during the Whole Growing Stage
3.2. Soil Urease, Invertase, Acid Phosphatase, FDA Enzyme Activities of the Rhizosphere soil
3.3. Activity of the Root, Photosynthetic Pigment Content and Photosynthetic Characteristics of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage
3.4. Quality of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage
3.5. Growth, Yield and Economic Benefits of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage
3.6. Correlation between Rhizosphere Soil Chemical Properties with Yield, Quality of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage by Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on the Chemical Properties of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage Rhizosphere Soil
4.2. Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on the Photosynthetic Characteristics and Quality of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage
4.3. Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on the Growth and Yield of ‘Yellow Rose’ Cabbage
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gai, X.; Liu, H.; Zhai, L.; Tan, G.; Liu, J.; Ren, T.; Wang, H. Vegetable yields and soil biochemical properties as influenced by fertilization in southern China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 107, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, W.; Yao, J.; Yan, F. Vegetable cultivation under greenhouse conditions leads to rapid accumulation of nutrients, acidification and salinity of soils and groundwater contamination in south-eastern China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2009, 83, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, J.; Han, W.; Zhang, W.; Christie, P.; Goulding, K.; Vitousek, P.; Zhang, F. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science 2010, 327, 1008–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Curtin, D.; Trolove, S. Predicting pH buffering capacity of New Zealand soils from organic matter content and mineral characteristics. Soil Res. 2013, 51, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Ye, G.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Liu, D.; Fan, J.; Ding, W. Long-term manure application increases soil organic matter and aggregation, and alters microbial community structure and keystone taxa. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2019, 134, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.; Tang, J.; Li, C.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, S. Reducing potential of chemical fertilizers and scientific fertilization countermeasure in vegetable production in China. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 23, 1480–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steiner, C.; Teixeira, W.; Lehmann, J.; Nehls, T.; Macêdo, J.; Blum, W.; Zech, W. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil 2007, 291, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Negi, Y.k.; Sajwan, P.J.; Uniyal, S.; Mishra, A.C. Enhancement in yield and nutritive qualities of strawberry fruits by the application of organic manures and biofertilizers. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 283, 110038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, M.T.; Phuong, T.; Nhan, D.; Cong, P.; Hien, N.; Kennedy, I. Up to 52% N fertilizer replaced by biofertilizer in lowland rice via farmer participatory research. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 857–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, F.; Yan, T.; Yang, L.; Qiao, J. Influences of organic fertilizer application on soil biological properties. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2010, 18, 1372–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Misra, A.K.; Ghosh, P.K.; Hati, K.M. Effect of integrated use of farmyard manure and chemical fertilizers on soil physical properties and productivity of soybean. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 110, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, D.; Cao, F.; Li, L. Development status and prospect of microbial organic fertilizer in China. China Soil Fertil. 2007, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, R.; Jana, J.C.; Paul, P.K. Enhancement of head yield and quality of cabbage (Brassica oleracea) by combining different sources of nutrients. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 82, 324–328. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Y.; Zhao, X.; Bao, E.; Li, J.; Zou, Z.; Cao, K. Bio-organic fertilizer with reduced rates of chemical fertilization improves soil fertility and enhances tomato yield and quality. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hou, X.; Song, X. Research and utilization of Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis Makino (non-heading Chinese cabbage) germplasm resources. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2012, 35, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, S.; Wang, Y.; Jin, J.; Tang, J. Status of salinity, pH and nutrients in soils in main vegetable production regions in China. Plant Nutr. Fertil. Sci. 2011, 17, 906–918. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.; Cui, Z.; Chen, X.; Ju, X.; Shen, J.; Chen, Q.; Liu, W.; Mi, G.; Fan, M.; Jiang, R. Integrated nutrient management for food security and environmental quality in China. Adv. Agron. 2012, 116, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, W.; Lin, W.; Gao, N.; Zhang, H.; Yin, R.; Shi, W.; Duan, Z. Land use intensification affects soil microbial populations, functional diversity and related suppressiveness of cucumber Fusarium wilt in China’s Yangtze River Delta. Plant Soil 2008, 306, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Ren, Y.; Meng, L.; Hong, L.; Hui-Min, F.; Wang, H. Simultaneous determination of total nitrogen and organic carbon in soil with an elemental analyzer. Chin. J. Anal. Lab. 2013, 32, 41–45. [Google Scholar]
- Bao, S.D. Analysis Method of Soil and Agricultural Chemistry; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 2000; pp. 25–108. [Google Scholar]
- Raigón, M.D.; García, M.; Maquieira, A.; Puchades, R. Determination of available nitrogen (nitic and ammoniacal) in soils by flow-injection analysis. Analysis 1992, 20, 483–487. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, X.; Zhu, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Su, B.; Liu, T.; Zhang, C.; Gao, C.; Shao, Y. Toxic effects of ionic liquid 1-octyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate on soil enzyme activity and soil microbial community diversity. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 135, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guan, S.Y. (Ed.) Methodology of Soil Enzyme Measurement; Methods of Soil Enzymology; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 1986; pp. 274–314. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, J.P.; Wilson, B.; Mills, M.S.; Burns, R.G. Comparison of microbial numbers and enzymatic activities in surface soils and subsoils using various techniques. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arono, D.I. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts, polyphenol oxidase in Brta vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 1949, 24, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Clemensson, A.; Persson, H. Fine-root vitality in a norway spruce stand subjected to various nutrient supplies. Plant Soil 1995, 168, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cataldo, D.A.; Maroon, M.; Schrader, L.E.; Youngs, A.L. Rapid colorimetric determination of nitrate in plant-tissue by nitration of salicylic-acid. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1975, 6, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Kirkham, M.B. Antioxidant responses to drought in sunflower and sorghum seedlings. New Phytol. 1996, 132, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buysse, J.A.N.; Merckx, R. An improved colorimetric method to quantify sugar content of plant tissue. J. Exp. Bot. 1993, 44, 1627–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozkurt, S.; Agca, N.; Odemis, B. Influence of different nitrogen sources and leaching practices on soil chemical properties under tomato vegetation in a greenhouse. Agron. J. 2008, 7, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eltun, R.; Korsth, A.; Nordheim, O. A comparison of environmental, soil fertility, yield, and economical effects in six cropping systems based on an 8-year experiment in Norway. Agric. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 90, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youssef, I.; Ali, M.; Noufal, E.; Ismail, S.; Ali, M. Effect of different sources and levels of nitrogen fertilizers with and without organic and bio-fertilizers on growth and yield components of fennel plants (Foeniculum vulgare mill.). Asian J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 6, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, A.; Fenoll, J.; Hellín, P.; Flores, P. Physical characteristics and mineral composition of two pepper cultivars under organic, conventional and soilless cultivation. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 150, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, N.; Liang, Q.; Feng, Y.; Xiang, L.; Wong, M. Improving yield and quality of vegetable grown in paes-contaminated soils by using novel bioorganic fertilizer. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 139883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gou, J.Y.; Suo, S.Z.; Shao, K.Z.; Zhao, Q.; Rensing, C. Biofertilizers with beneficial rhizobacteria improved plant growth and yield in chili (Capsicum annuum L.). World J. Microbiol. 2020, 36, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.; Nan, H.; Feng, K. Effects of reduced chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer application on soil microbial biomass, enzyme activity and cotton yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 31, 173–181. [Google Scholar]
- Gai, Z.; Zhang, J.; Li, C.; Hui, D. Effects of starter nitrogen fertilizer on soybean root activity, leaf photosynthesis and grain yield. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Wei, C.; Burger, M.; Yang, L.; Ping, G.; Wu, Z. Changes in soil carbon and enzyme activity as a result of different long-term fertilization regimes in a greenhouse field. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction on Yield and Quality of Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage; Nanjing Agricultural University: Nanjing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brunetti, G.; Traversa, A.; Mastro, F.D.; Cocozza, C. Short term effects of synergistic inorganic and organic fertilization on soil properties and yield and quality of plum tomato. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 252, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, P.; Jian, L.; Sohail, H.; Yu, J.; Li, J. Partial substitution of mineral fertilizer with biofertilizer enhances cauliflower nutritional quality, yield, and soil characteristics. Crop Sci. 2020, 60, 934–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, B.; Tao, J.; Hu, L.; Cao, Y.; Jin, Y. Effects of Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Application on Growth, Yield and Quality of Cabbage and Soil nutrients. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2020, 48, 106–111. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Y.; Wang, Y.; Teng, L.; Wang, G.; Yang, G. Effect of Nitrogen Reduction on Yield and Quality of Tomato in Greenhouse. Hortic. Seedl. 2020, 40, 39. [Google Scholar]
- Briseis, A.; Xiao, O.; Yu, T.; Bu, T.; Gong, Y.; Hong, L.; Nathaniel, R.; Wong, H.; Mary, H. Thyroid cancer risk and dietary nitrate and nitrite intake in the Shanghai women’s health study. Int. J. Cancer 2013, 132, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawlor, D.W. Ecophysiology and agronomy. carbon and nitrogen assimilation in relation to yield: Mechanisms are the key to understanding production systems. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 773–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nicodemus, M.A.; Salifu, F.K.; Jacobs, D.F. Growth, Nutrition, and Photosynthetic Response of BlaNF Walnut to Varying Nitrogen Sources and Rates. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 1917–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauromicale, G.; Ierna, A.; Marchese, M. Chlorophyll fluorescence and chlorophyll content in field-grown potato as affected by nitrogen supply, genotype, and plant age. Photosynthetica 2006, 44, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, M.; Shen, J.; Yuan, L.; Jiang, R.; Zhang, F. Improving crop productivity and resource use efficiency to ensure food security and environmental quality in China. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Arafat, Y.; Din, I.U.; Yang, B.; Zhou, L.; Wang, J.; Letuma, P.; Wu, H.; Qin, X.; Wu, L.; et al. Nitrogen fertilizer amendment alter the bacterial community structure in the rhizosphere of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and improve crop yield. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yuan, J.; Ruan, Y.; Wang, B.; Zhang, J.; Waseem, R.; Huang, Q.; Shen, Q. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens NJN-6-enriched bio-organic fertilizer suppressed Fusarium wilt and promoted the growth of banana plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 3774–3780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Farmer, J.; Sun, J. Effects of bio-organic fertilizer on pepper growth and Fusarium wilt biocontrol. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Liu, J.; Liang, H.; Huang, J.; Chen, Z.; Nie, Y.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y. Manipulation of the rhizosphere microbial community through application of a new bioorganic fertilizer improves watermelon quality and health. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sarkar, D.; Rakshit, A. Bio-priming in combination with mineral fertilizer improves nutritional quality and yield of red cabbage under middle gangetic plains, india. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 283, 110075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sripontan, Y.; Tan, C.; Hung, M.; Young, C.; Hwang, S. Effects of plant-growth-promoting microorganisms and fertilizers on growth of cabbage and tomato and spodoptera litura performance. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2014, 17, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, C.; El-Sawah, A.M.; Ali, D.; Hamoud, Y.A.; Sheteiwy, M.S. The Integration of Bio and Organic Fertilizers Improve Plant Growth, Grain Yield, Quality and Metabolism of Hybrid Maize (Zea mays L.). Agron. J. 2020, 10, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bronick, C.J.; Mokma, D.L. Podzolization in a sand pit in northern michigan. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 1757–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Xu, S.; Yang, R.; Zhao, W.; Huang, Z. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens fh-1 significantly affects cucumber seedlings and the rhizosphere bacterial community but not soil. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Treatment | N kg·ha−1 | P2O5 kg·ha−1 | K2O kg·ha−1 | No.1 kg·ha−1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
NF | 193.2 | 45.0 | 45.0 | - |
NF20 | 154.5 | 45.0 | 45.0 | - |
NF30 | 135.2 | 45.0 | 45.0 | - |
BNF20 | 109.5 | 18.0 | 34.5 | 1500 |
BN30 | 45.2 | 18.0 | 34.5 | 3000 |
Sampling Time | Treatments | pH Value | Electric Conductivity μs·cm−1 | Total Nitrogen g·kg−1 | Nitrate Nitrogen mg·kg−1 | Organic Matter g·kg−1 | Available Phosphorus mg·kg−1 | Available Potassium mg·kg−1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Early growth period | NF | 5.17 ± 0.1 b | 222.67 ± 2.08 a | 1.49 ± 0.06 a | 63.45 ± 2.82 b | 30.40 ± 1.25 a | 55.87 ± 0.42 c | 263.33 ± 2.89 b |
NF20 | 5.01 ± 0.3 d | 137.00 ± 2.65 d | 1.62 ± 0.08 a | 27.50 ± 0.90 e | 27.80 ± 0.52 b | 53.80 ± 1.78 c | 235.00 ± 5.00 c | |
NF30 | 5.24 ± 0.2 a | 185.33 ± 3.51 c | 0.44 ± 0.09 b | 71.70 ± 1.31 a | 27.71 ± 0.45 b | 60.33 ± 0.95 b | 263.33 ± 2.89 b | |
BNF20 | 5.07 ± 0.2 c | 186.33 ± 2.51 c | 0.61 ± 0.13 b | 48.15 ± 0.38 d | 28.57 ± 0.09 b | 59.73 ± 1.30 b | 216.67 ± 2.89 d | |
BNF30 | 4.99 ± 0.3 d | 196.67 ± 2.89 b | 0.69 ± 0.01 b | 51.14 ± 1.02 c | 28.84 ± 1.55 ab | 65.40 ± 1.73 a | 281.67 ± 2.89 a | |
Middle growth period | NF | 4.87 ± 0.1 c | 217.00 ± 1.73 a | 1.20 ± 0.05 bc | 49.44 ± 0.97 a | 28.68 ± 0.86 a | 64.40 ± 0.87 a | 161.67 ± 2.89 c |
NF20 | 4.84 ± 0.1 c | 167.00 ± 5.20 c | 0.98 ± 0.06 cd | 42.59 ± 0.82 b | 28.07 ± 0.32 a | 50.53 ± 0.81 d | 223.33 ± 5.77 a | |
NF30 | 4.94 ± 0.2 b | 208.00 ± 1.73 b | 1.38 ± 0.09 b | 39.79 ± 0.75 c | 28.04 ± 0.22 a | 48.87 ± 1.50 d | 218.33 ± 2.89 a | |
BNF20 | 5.05 ± 0.4 a | 120.00 ± 1.00 e | 1.81 ± 0.14 a | 24.27 ± 0.70 e | 28.13 ± 1.09 a | 52.80 ± 0.69 c | 151.67 ± 2.89 d | |
BNF30 | 4.82 ± 0.3 c | 146.00 ± 1.73 d | 0.77 ± 0.05 d | 33.52 ± 0.54 d | 28.79 ± 0.89 a | 54.80 ± 0.72 b | 185.00 ± 5.00 b | |
Harvest time period | NF | 5.04 ± 0.2 bc | 124.67 ± 2.89 d | 0.96 ± 0.02 b | 22.16 ± 0.27 d | 29.39 ± 0.68 abc | 52.33 ± 1.17 b | 158.33 ± 2.89 e |
NF20 | 5.13 ± 0.3 a | 119.00 ± 3.61 e | 1.05 ± 0.09 b | 25.17 ± 0.58 c | 28.39 ± 1.11 c | 50.07 ± 0.46 c | 211.67 ± 2.89 b | |
NF30 | 5.09 ± 0.4 ab | 215.00 ± 3.00 b | 0.90 ± 0.08 b | 36.08 ± 0.65 b | 30.29 ± 0.28 ab | 44.60 ± 1.06 d | 216.67 ± 2.89 a | |
BNF20 | 4.98 ± 0.5 c | 223.33 ± 2.89 a | 1.54 ± 0.10 a | 48.45 ± 0.44 a | 29.01 ± 0.22 bc | 50.00 ± 0.87 c | 186.67 ± 2.89 d | |
BNF30 | 5.16 ± 0.5 a | 168.00 ± 1.00 c | 1.78 ± 0.08 a | 36.39 ± 0.99 b | 30.67 ± 1.06 a | 65.00 ± 0.87 a | 195.00 ± 0.00 c |
Leaf Position | Treatment | Vitamin C Content (mg 100 g−1) | Soluble Protein Content (mg g−1) | Nitrate Content (mg kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
External green leaves | NF | 73.70 ± 4.46 ab | 15.37 ± 0.11 b | 2988.23 ± 151.22 a |
NF20 | 60.37 ± 3.21 b | 15.87 ± 0.23 ab | 1871.45 ± 276.04 b | |
NF30 | 61.26 ± 0.86 b | 15.58 ± 0.15 ab | 1658.22 ± 150.50 b | |
BNF20 | 85.51 ± 2.39 a | 16.24 ± 0.11 a | 1763.66 ± 114.10 b | |
BNF30 | 86.42 ± 9.03 a | 16.25 ± 0.42 a | 1557.89 ± 610.00 b | |
Central yellow leaves | NF | 46.35 ± 1.91 b | 14.68 ± 0.16 c | 1303.66 ± 331.16 a |
NF20 | 46.07 ± 2.78 b | 14.74 ± 0.11 bc | 1864.22 ± 445.65 a | |
NF30 | 56.74 ± 0.68 a | 15.64 ± 0.33 a | 1223.95 ± 225.25 a | |
BNF20 | 45.24 ± 2.33 b | 15.16 ± 0.21 abc | 1378.22 ± 433.89 a | |
BNF30 | 45.3 ± 2.82 b | 15.42 ± 0.16 ab | 863.99 ± 24.35 ab | |
Inner heart leaves | NF | 41.07 ± 1.25 b | 15.11 ± 0.06 b | 456.46 ± 33.26 bc |
NF20 | 40.99 ± 0.65 b | 14.89 ± 0.12 b | 761.92 ± 105.60 a | |
NF30 | 50.57 ± 3.59 a | 15.39 ± 0.20 b | 629.59 ± 94.94 ab | |
BNF20 | 38.64 ± 2.21 b | 16.35 ± 0.48 a | 490.03 ± 50.36 bc | |
BNF30 | 42.47 ± 1.59 b | 15.44 ± 0.03 b | 324.32 ± 78.60 c |
Period | Treatment | Plant Height (cm) | Leaf Length (cm) | Leaf Width (cm) | Crown Length (cm) | Crown Width (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Early growth period | NF | 9.44 ± 0.44 b | 14.40 ± 0.42 c | 13.49 ± 0.38 b | 30.63 ± 0.72 b | 27.69 ± 0.58 c |
NF20 | 9.50 ± 0.40 b | 15.63 ± 0.49 ab | 14.13 ± 0.40 ab | 30.13 ± 0.58 b | 28.88 ± 0.52 bc | |
NF30 | 10.44 ± 0.50 ab | 15.06 ± 0.39 bc | 13.88 ± 0.41 ab | 32.38 ± 0.46 b | 30.00 ± 0.63 ab | |
BNF20 | 11.06 ± 0.48 a | 16.44 ± 0.27 a | 15.00 ± 0.33 a | 33.63 ± 0.32 a | 31.75 ± 0.53 a | |
BNF30 | 11.38 ± 0.42 a | 16.50 ± 0.37 a | 14.88 ± 0.49 a | 33.38 ± 0.38 a | 31.13 ± 0.58 a | |
Middle growth period | NF | 16.44 ± 0.40 b | 21.42 ± 1.01 a | 18.49 ± 0.50 a | 34.22 ± 0.99 b | 33.69 ± 0.12 b |
NF20 | 16.50 ± 0.37 b | 22.10 ± 1.04 ab | 17.13 ± 0.37 b | 32.06 ± 1.02 b | 33.86 ± 0.21 b | |
NF30 | 17.44 ± 0.90 ab | 21.00 ± 0.88 b | 17.87 ± 0.69 ab | 33.42 ± 1.41 b | 32.00 ± 1.21 b | |
BNF20 | 18.06 ± 0.60 a | 23.20 ± 0.74 a | 18.00 ± 0.84 a | 3604 ± 1.03 a | 35.75 ± 1.60 a | |
BNF30 | 18.38 ± 0.21 a | 23.00 ± 0.89 a | 18.40 ± 0.23 a | 36.01 ± 0.98 a | 34.65 ± 1.00 a | |
Harvest period | NF | 19.75 ± 1.123 ab | 22.17 ± 1.17 a | 21.62 ± 1.30 a | 37.58 ± 2.29 b | 36.33 ± 2.25 c |
NF20 | 19.25 ± 0.52 b | 19.00 ± 0.84 c | 20.42 ± 1.11 a | 38.00 ± 2.19 b | 36.67 ± 1.50 bc | |
NF30 | 18.67 ± 0.68 b | 19.83 ± 1.03 bc | 18.33 ± 1.33 b | 37.00 ± 1.41 b | 35.67 ± 1.37 c | |
BNF20 | 20.67 ± 1.12 a | 21.08 ± 1.28 ab | 20.17 ± 0.98 a | 40.83 ± 1.17 a | 38.50 ± 1.38 ab | |
BNF30 | 20.67 ± 1.33 a | 22.33 ± 1.21 a | 20.17 ± 0.93 a | 42.17 ± 0.75 a | 38.67 ± 1.21 a |
Treatment | Yield (kg∙hm−2) | Cost of Production ($∙hm−2) | Total Production Value ($∙hm−2) | Economic Benefit ($∙hm−2) | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NF | 64,943.55 b | 2921.53 | 50,737.15 | 47,815.62 | 4 |
NF20 | 65,275.88 b | 2895.75 | 50,996.78 | 48,101.03 | 3 |
NF30 | 61,566.75 b | 2813.72 | 48,099.02 | 45,285.30 | 5 |
BNF20 | 84,501.00 a | 3298.13 | 66,016.41 | 62,718.28 | 1 |
BNF30 | 75,269.25 ab | 3720.00 | 58,804.10 | 55,084.10 | 2 |
Yield | Total Chlorophyll | Soluble Sugar | Soluble Protein | Nitrate | VC | Root Activity | pH | EC | TN | NO3− | OM | AP | AK | Urea | Acid P | Invertase | FDA | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
Total chlorophyll | 0.177 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
Soluble sugar | −0.617 | −0.589 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Soluble protein | 0.903 * | 0.395 | −0.786 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
Nitrate | −0.666 | −0.624 | 0.365 | −0.714 | 1 | |||||||||||||
VC | 0.572 | 0.329 | −0.935 * | 0.648 | −0.085 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Root activity | 0.776 | −0.163 | −0.438 | 0.82 | −0.407 | 0.4 | 1 | |||||||||||
pH | −0.282 | 0.544 | −0.045 | 0.093 | −0.366 | −0.264 | −0.04 | 1 | ||||||||||
EC | 0.617 | 0.416 | −0.321 | 0.373 | −0.575 | 0.295 | −0.01 | −0.413 | 1 | |||||||||
TN | 0.731 | 0.528 | −0.971 ** | 0.905 * | −0.488 | 0.873 | 0.625 | 0.102 | 0.288 | 1 | ||||||||
NO3− | 0.882 * | 0.371 | −0.584 | 0.705 | −0.65 | 0.556 | 0.388 | −0.401 | 0.905 * | 0.607 | 1 | |||||||
OM | −0.104 | 0.911 * | −0.464 | 0.062 | −0.29 | 0.302 | −0.503 | 0.372 | 0.378 | 0.314 | 0.22 | 1 | ||||||
AP | 0.15 | 0.539 | −0.8 | 0.52 | −0.119 | 0.68 | 0.301 | 0.484 | −0.258 | 0.774 | 0.002 | 0.437 | 1 | |||||
AK | 0.231 | 0.359 | 0.22 | 0.245 | −0.815 | −0.507 | 0.126 | 0.503 | 0.297 | −0.075 | 0.216 | 0.082 | −0.263 | 1 | ||||
Urea | −0.102 | −0.764 | 0.73 | −0.493 | 0.335 | −0.512 | −0.156 | −0.685 | 0.138 | −0.707 | −0.031 | −0.633 | −0.939 * | −0.021 | 1 | |||
Acid P | 0.481 | 0.903 * | −0.557 | 0.542 | −0.819 | 0.322 | −0.004 | 0.28 | 0.734 | 0.539 | 0.693 | 0.755 | 0.269 | 0.518 | −0.5 | 1 | ||
Invertase | 0.221 | 0.705 | −0.211 | 0.461 | −0.835 | −0.146 | 0.191 | 0.815 | 0.125 | 0.319 | 0.157 | 0.405 | 0.317 | 0.825 | −0.581 | 0.675 | 1 | |
FDA | −0.116 | −0.69 | 0.028 | −0.035 | 0.618 | 0.157 | 0.431 | −0.162 | −0.742 | 0.025 | −0.474 | −0.679 | 0.236 | −0.612 | 0.067 | −0.824 | −0.511 | 1 |
−1 | −0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Qi, Y.; Jiang, F.; Zhou, R.; Wu, Y.; Hou, X.; Li, J.; Lin, W.; Wu, Z. Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on Soil Properties, Yield and Quality of Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2196. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112196
Qi Y, Jiang F, Zhou R, Wu Y, Hou X, Li J, Lin W, Wu Z. Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on Soil Properties, Yield and Quality of Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage. Agronomy. 2021; 11(11):2196. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112196
Chicago/Turabian StyleQi, Yingbin, Fangling Jiang, Rong Zhou, Ying Wu, Xilin Hou, Jiaxi Li, Wenyuan Lin, and Zhen Wu. 2021. "Effects of Reduced Nitrogen with Bio-Organic Fertilizer on Soil Properties, Yield and Quality of Non-Heading Chinese Cabbage" Agronomy 11, no. 11: 2196. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112196