Next Article in Journal
Yield-Related Traits of 20 Spring Camelina Genotypes Grown in a Multi-Environment Study in Serbia
Next Article in Special Issue
Maximizing Land Use Efficiency and Productivity of Soybean and Fodder Maize Intercrops through Manipulating Sowing Schedule and Maize Harvest Regime
Previous Article in Journal
Mineral and Antioxidant Attributes of Petroselinum crispum at Different Stages of Ontogeny: Microgreens vs. Baby Greens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interseeding Camelina and Rye in Soybean with Varying Maturity Provides Soil Cover without Affecting Soybean Yield
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy11050859
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Subsurface Placement of Mineral Fertilizer on Some Soil Properties under Reduced Tillage Soybean Cultivation

by
Piotr Kraska
,
Sylwia Andruszczak
*,
Paweł Gierasimiuk
and
Hubert Rusecki
Department of Herbology and Plant Cultivation Techniques, University of Life Sciences, Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(5), 859; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050859
Submission received: 20 March 2021 / Revised: 21 April 2021 / Accepted: 25 April 2021 / Published: 28 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cropping Systems and Agronomic Management Practices of Field Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the adverse effects of no-tillage is the accumulation of nutrients (in particular P and K) in the top soil layer. The subsurface application of mineral fertilizers at a depth of 10–30 cm can reduce this phenomenon and at the same time provide a relatively uniform access to soil nutrients for plant roots. Such a method of mineral fertilizer application can additionally decrease the environmental risk associated with water eutrophication because the water runoff from fields, where the soil P content is high, is reduced. The aim of this research was to evaluate the effect of the subsurface application of different rates of a compound mineral fertilizer on the content of some macronutrients, soil organic carbon content (SOC), and soil pH in a field after the harvest of soybean grown under reduced tillage conditions. The field experiment was conducted during the growing seasons of 2014/2015–2016/2017 in the village of Rogów, Zamość County, Poland. It was set up as a split-plot design in four replicates. The first experimental factor included two methods of mineral fertilization application: fertilizer broadcast over the soil surface (S); fertilizer applied deep (subsurface placed) using a specially designed cultivator (Sub-S). The other factor was the rates of the mineral fertilizer (NPKS): 85 kg∙ha−1 (F85) and 170 kg∙ha−1 (F170). Over the successive years of the study, the SOC content was found to increase. However, neither the fertilization rate nor the method of fertilizer application caused any significant difference in organic carbon. Under subsurface fertilizer application conditions, a higher soil pH was found in treatment F85, however, when the fertilizer was surface-applied, the soil in treatment F170 had a higher pH value. During the three-year study period, the P and K content in the 0–30 cm soil layer was higher than in the 30–60 cm and 60–90 cm layers. In turn, the highest Mg content was determined in the 30–60 cm layer. In the case of both mineral fertilizer application methods, a higher P content was determined in the soil fertilized at a rate of 170 kg NPKS, compared with a rate of 85 kg∙ha−1. The surface application of the higher rate of mineral fertilization resulted in an increase in the soil K content. On the other hand, when the mineral fertilizer was subsurface-applied, a higher soil K was determined in the treatments with lower mineral fertilization.

1. Introduction

In studies addressing the effects of different agronomic practices on the productivity of agroecosystems, it is of key importance to evaluate the direction of changes that occur in soil biological, chemical, and physical properties. Currently, conventional tillage with a plow dominates in Central Europe. Such tillage helps to aerate the soil, introduce crop residues, and control weeds to prepare the final seedbed. On the other hand, a traditional plow-based system can lead to many negative changes in the soil environment, such as leaching nutrients from the soil and reducing the amount of soil organic matter (SOM). In addition, the loss of SOM has a negative effect on soil structure, water capacity, and biological activity. It also increases susceptibility to water and wind erosion [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The degradation of the soil environment associated with conventional soil tillage results in a need to use new tillage technologies that will allow the biodiversity of biocenosis to be preserved, including soil conservation [7,8]. Lahmar [9] and Wauters et al. [10] report that, during the last decade, minimum/reduced tillage systems and no-tillage systems have attracted an ever-greater interest, as parts of a sustainable agriculture. Reduced cultivation is a tillage practice that does not invert the soil, combined with 30% of crop residues left on the soil surface, while no-tillage is defined as a system in which the soil remains undisturbed from harvest to planting and the seeds are drilled into the stubble of the previous crop. Compared with conventional tillage, these cultivation methods are less labor- and energy-consuming; they also beneficially affect the biological activity of soil as well as its chemical and physical properties [1,2,3,11,12]. It was found that no-tillage is conducive to increasing the content of organic matter in soil. Additionally, water and wind erosion are reduced, and the risk of elements being leached outside an agricultural ecosystem diminishes substantially [6,8,13,14,15,16,17,18].
The chemical properties of soil depend on the content of the elements present in the soil, the forms in which they occur, and the changes they undergo. Furthermore, the chemical properties of soil also depend on soil fauna and vegetation, human activity, as well as cropping and soil use intensity [5,7,17,19,20]. According to Wróbel and Pabin [21], changes in soil chemistry under reduced tillage conditions adversely affect nutrient supply to plants. Mineral fertilization, as one of the elements of agronomic practices, directly impacts the availability of essential nutrients in soil.
Modern agronomic technologies allow mineral fertilizers to be placed at different depths relative to the soil surface [22,23,24,25]. Lakew [26] thinks that nutrients must be supplied at an appropriate amount, form, and time in order to provide to the greatest possible extent, proper growth, and development conditions for crops. The yield-increasing effect of various nutrient application methods largely depends on soil nutrient availability and the tillage system used. The beneficial effects of subsurface fertilization are manifested more strongly under low soil disturbance conditions; hence, this fertilization method is primarily recommended in the no-tillage system [23,24,27,28,29].
One of the negative effects of no-tillage is the accumulation of nutrients in the top soil layer. This applies in particular to phosphorus and potassium [4,7,16,30,31,32,33]. The deep (subsurface) application of mineral fertilizers prevents P and K from accumulating in the limited soil volume and can contribute to an increased nutrient efficiency. The deep application of fertilizers, especially P-containing ones, can reduce the concentration of this element on the field surface. In this way, the environmental risks related to water erosion and the surface runoff of water, from fields in which the level of the soil P content is high, is reduced. At the same time, the deep placement of fertilizers is thought to improve the availability of nutrients contained in them, thus enhancing the effectiveness of their application [22,25,28,34,35,36,37]. Randall and Hoeft [38] give several methods of localized subsurface fertilization, notably, deep band placement, surface band placement under the seed, and band placement of fertilizer directly with the seed. Stanisławska-Glubiak and Korzeniowska [39] are of the opinion that such application of mineral fertilizers should increase the use of nutrients by plants.
This study’s hypothesis was that the deep application of mineral fertilizer, compared with its surface placement, under reduced tillage conditions, would allow soybean plants to have better availability of nutrients supplied with the mineral fertilizer. Moreover, the subsurface placement of the mineral fertilizer could contribute to more even distribution of nutrients in the soil profile.
The aim of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of subsurface application of various doses of mineral fertilizer on soil pH; soil organic carbon (SOC) and the content of P, K; and Mg in the soil after the harvest of soybean grown in crop rotation (soybean—winter wheat—maize), under the conditions of reduced tillage system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Field Experiment

This study was conducted over the period 2015–2017, based on a field experiment established in the autumn of 2014 in the village of Rogów, Municipality of Grabowiec, Zamość County [50°48′22.4″ N; 23°30′00.5″ E]. The experiment was set up on brown soil (CAMBISOLS according to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014) [40,41].
Before the establishment of the experiment in the autumn of 2014, soil samples were taken to determine the availability of essential elements (P, K, Mg) in the soil and its pH in the layer from 0 to 90 cm, as well as the soil organic carbon content in the 0–30 cm layer. The properties of the initial soil are given in Table 1.
The study was set up as a split-plot design. The first experimental factor included two methods of mineral fertilization application under reduced tillage conditions. In one treatment, the compound mineral fertilizer was broadcast over the soil surface (S). In the other treatment, the fertilizer was placed deep, using a specially designed cultivator, evenly at a depth of 10–30 cm of the operation of the soil loosening and fertilizer spreading attachment (S-Sub). Another factor included was the different rates of the mineral fertilizer: 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F85) and 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F170). In total, the experiment consisted of four treatments, each in four replicates (16 plots per year). The area of a single plot was 175 m2. Between the plots with the different mineral fertilization treatments, there was a 20 m wide buffer zone necessary to properly perform specific agronomic operations.
In the experiment, the soybean cultivar, ‘Annushka’, was grown in crop rotation with winter wheat and maize. ‘Annushka’, which originated from the soybean breeding company Hodowla Soi Agroyoumis Polska, was listed in the Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species (CCA) in 2009 [42]. It is recommended for cultivation across the entire country, it is a very early variety (earliness group 0000), and its growing season lasts about 100–130 days.
Before the establishment of the experiment, winter oilseed rape was grown in the field under the condition of conventional tillage and after its harvest liming was applied by spreading chalk (CaO content 39.2%; CaCO3—70%) at a rate of 5 t∙ha−1 (New Holland Tm 165 + Joskin Siroko spreader).
Soil cultivation involved disking (Terradisc 6001 T disk harrow), which was performed twice: after harvesting the previous crop and before winter. Before seed sowing, a cultivator was used (Pöttinger SYNKRO 5003 K cultivator). On the plots with surface fertilizer application, such cultivation treatment was carried out immediately after fertilizer placement (Amazone ZA TS 4200), whereas on plots with subsurface fertilizer application, the treatment was carried out during the same pass (Figure 1).
Before sowing the soybean seeds, mineral fertilizer was applied in the form of Polifoska®6 NPK(S) 6-20-30(7), at a rate of 200 (F85) or 400 (F170) kg∙ha−1. The percentage content of all nutrients in the applied fertilizer was as follows: N—6%; P2O5—20%; K2O—30%; SO3—7%. In total, the mineral fertilization was the following (per hectare):
F85 = 12 kg N, 17.5 kg P, 50 kg K, 5.5 kg S (85 kg NPKS∙ha−1).
F170 = 24 kg N, 35 kg P, 100 kg K, 11 kg S (170 kg NPKS∙ha−1).
As soybean is a plant that fixes atmospheric nitrogen, no nitrogen top dressing was applied in the soybean crop. Moreover, the soybean plants were not irrigated during the growing season.
The surface placement of the fertilizer was carried out using an Amazone ZA TS 4200 spreader, whereas the subsurface application was performed using a rigid tine cultivator with its sweeps adapted to subsurface fertilizer placement. The sweeps were connected with a fertilizer hopper via a compressed air turbine, used to feed the fertilizer to the sweeps through the distribution mechanism. Moreover, this device places the fertilizer evenly at a depth of 10–30 cm of the operation of the soil loosening and fertilizer spreading attachment during one travel (Figure 1).
Cv. ‘Annushka’ soybeans were sown at a rate of 120 kg∙ha−1. A TERRASEM C6 seed drill was used to seed soybeans. The chemical plant protection of the soybean was as shown in Table 2.
The soybean crop was harvested at full maturity stage using a New Holland CR 8090 combine harvester.

2.2. Analyses

In each year of the study, soil samples were collected for analysis after the soybean harvesting, using a modified soil auger. Soil samples were taken at 10 randomly selected sites from each experimental plot, at a soil depth of 0–30 cm, 30–60 cm, and 60–90 cm. Then, the collected soil samples were combined into one aggregate sample from each plot, separately for each soil layer. The total number of samples was 48 per year. The content of phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium, as well as the pH were determined for soil layers 0–30 cm, 30–60 cm, and 60–90 cm. The organic carbon content, in turn, was determined for a layer of 0–30 cm. The chemical analyses were carried out at the accredited laboratory, Chemical and Agricultural Station in Lublin (accreditation certificate No. AB 1186 issued by the Polish Centre for Accreditation), which meets the requirements of the PN/EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018-02 standard. The organic carbon content in the soil was determined by the Tiurin method (oxidation of soil organic carbon with excess potassium dichromate in concentrated sulphuric acid) [44], total nitrogen by the Kjeldahl method [45], available phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) by the Egner-Riehm method [46,47], available magnesium (Mg) by ASA, after the extraction of 0.0125 mole CaCl2·dm−3 [48], and pHKCL was determined potentiometrically [49].

2.3. Data Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically analyze the results by employing Statistica PL 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). Tukey’s multiple comparison test was applied to determine the differences between the means for the main factors (methods of fertilizer application: MFA; fertilizer dose: FD; soil layer: SL; years: Y), whereas confidence intervals for the means of LSD (lowest significant difference; p = 0.05) were used to compare the means from the subclasses (interaction Y × SL; Y × MFA; Y × FD; MFA × SL; MFA × FD; FD × SL). The three-way interactions were not considered.

2.4. Characteristics of Three Growing Seasons Based on Selyaninov’s Hydrothermal Coefficient

To evaluate the thermal and pluvio-thermal conditions in the three growing seasons analyzed, Selyaninov’s hydrothermal coefficient was applied, following Stachowski [50], in the following form:
K = (P·10)/∑t
P—sum of monthly total rainfall in mm
Ʃt—sum of mean daily temperatures >0 °C.
The humidity characteristics of the months and the interpretation of the hydrothermal coefficient followed Skowera and Puła [51] as well as Skowera [52], depending on the value of the coefficient k: extremely dry—k ≤ 0.4; very dry—0.4 < k ≤ 0.7; dry—0.7 < k ≤ 1.0; rather dry—1.0 < k ≤ 1.3; optimal—1.3 < k ≤ 1.6; rather humid—1.6 < k ≤ 2.0; humid—2.0 < k ≤ 2.5; very humid—2.5 < k ≤ 3.0; extremely humid—k > 3.0.
In 2015, the hydrothermal coefficient values show that water deficits occurred only in the months of June, July, and August (Table 3). The humidity index in this year demonstrates that March, April, and May were humid months.
In the second year of the experiment (2016), April was a humid month that had been preceded by an extremely humid March, whereas May was a rather dry month, similarly to June.
In 2017, the humidity characteristics of the analyzed months of the growing season tended toward humid periods. Only June and August were very dry months (Selyaninov’s hydrothermal coefficient was k = 0.50 and k = 0.65, respectively). During the spring and summer period, the highest rainfall was recorded in May and July, which is confirmed by Selyaninov’s coefficient, according to which these months were rather humid.

3. Results

Given the variance analysis, the effect of years, the method of fertilizer application, the fertilizer dose, and the soil layer, as well as the interaction of these factors on pH and the content of P, K, and Mg in the soil, were significant. In contrast, no significant interactions were found between experimental factors with regard to the content of organic carbon in the soil (Table 4).
The content of SOC differed significantly between the years. The highest value of SOC was found in the last year of the experiment, whereas 2015 and 2016 have similar values (Table 5). Over the three-year study period, the fertilizer application method and fertilizer rate did not significantly affect the soil organic carbon content.
The soil pH value differed significantly over the years of the study. The lowest pH was found in 2015, while the highest in the second year of the experiment (Table 6). The pH value was shown to change significantly, depending on the depth. The soil in the top 0–30 cm layer exhibited the lowest pH, whereas, with the increase in depth, the pH measured in the successive soil layers increased significantly. Treatments S were found to have a higher soil pH, compared with Sub-S. Moreover, the higher rate of mineral fertilization contributed to a significant increase in pH (Table 6).
In the soil after soybean harvest, a significant increase in the P content was found in each successive year of the study (Table 6). Furthermore, in the last year of the experiment, the soil K content was shown to significantly increase, relative to the first two years of observation. In turn, the highest Mg content was determined in 2016 (Table 6).
The content of the evaluated macronutrients in the individual soil layers differed significantly. The highest amount of P was determined in the top soil layer; it was significantly lower at the level of 60–90 cm, while it was at its lowest in the 30–60 cm layer. In the case of potassium, with the increasing depth, the content of this element significantly decreased. In turn, the highest Mg content was found in the 30–60 cm soil layer; it was significantly lower in the top 0–30 cm layer, while it was at its lowest in the 60–90 cm layer (Table 6).
In the soil sampled from the plots where the fertilizer was surface-applied (S), a significantly higher K content and, at the same time, a lower P and Mg content were found, compare to those found under deep fertilizer application conditions (Sub-S). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the increased level of mineral fertilization promoted an increase in the soil P and K content. On the other hand, in the soil taken from the plots where the lower rate of the fertilizer Polifoska®6 had been used, a higher Mg content was determined (Table 5).
The subsurface application of mineral fertilizer, compared with S treatment, significantly decreased the soil pH in each of the evaluated soil layers (0–30 cm, 30–60 cm, and 60–90 cm) (Figure 2A). The experiment confirmed that the effect of mineral fertilizer rate on soil pH is dependent on soil depth. In the 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm layers, a higher pH was found in treatment F170, whereas, in the 60–90 cm layer, the double rate of fertilizer (F170) significantly decreased the soil pH, in comparison with treatment F85 (Figure 2B).
The highest pH was found in the plots where the higher rate of surface-applied mineral fertilization was applied (SF170) (Figure 2C).
The effect of the fertilizer application method on the soil P content was dependent on soil depth. As regards the 0–30 cm soil layer, subsurface fertilization resulted in a significant increase in the content of this element; whereas, in the 30–60 cm layer, such application of fertilizer decreased the P content, compared with the plots where the fertilizer was surface-applied. In the deepest soil layer (60–90 cm), a different method of fertilizer application did not cause any significant differences in the P content in soil (Figure 3A).
In all the soil layers evaluated, fertilization with a doubled rate of NKPS (F170) resulted in a significant increase in the P content, compared with the lower dose of 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (Figure 3B). The statistically proven interaction between experimental factors showed that the highest content of P in the soil was in the plot with the higher rate of mineral fertilization, applied over the soil surface (SF170) (Figure 3C).
In the 0–30 cm soil layer, the soil K content in treatment S was significantly higher, compared with SubS. A similar relationship was found for the 30–60 cm soil layer. As far as the 60–90 cm layer is concerned, the soil K concentration in treatments S and SubS was similar (Figure 4A).
The proven interaction demonstrated that an increased mineral fertilization of the soybean crop significantly increased the K content in the soil only to a depth of 30 cm; whereas, in the deeper soil layers (30–60 cm and 60–90 cm), the different fertilizer rate had no impact on the K content (Figure 4B).
The surface application of the higher rate of fertilizer (SF170) resulted in an increase in the soil K content, compared with treatment F85. On the other hand, when the mineral fertilizer was subsurface-applied (SubS), a reverse relationship was found—a higher soil K content in the soil was determined in treatments F85 (Figure 4C).
The effect of the fertilizer application method on the soil Mg content was dependent on soil depth. In the 30–60 cm and 60–90 cm soil layers, a significantly higher soil Mg content was found in the treatment with subsurface fertilizer application (SubS), whereas, in the soil up to a depth of 30 cm, the Mg content did not significantly differ in both fertilization treatments (S and SubS) (Figure 5A).
The effect of fertilizer rate on the soil Mg content depended on soil layer. Evaluating the content of this element in the 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm layers, it was found that mineral fertilization at a higher rate (170 kg NPKS) essentially did not have any statistically proven effect on its occurrence. In turn, in the 60–90 cm soil layer, a higher content of Mg was found in plots with the lower rate of mineral fertilizer (F85) (Figure 5B). The experiment did not prove a significant interaction between the fertilizer application method and fertilizer rate in relation to the soil Mg content (Figure 5C).

4. Discussion

In the study discussed in this paper, the soil pH in the top soil layer (0–30 cm) was lower than the one at the deeper soil levels (30–60 cm and 60–90 cm). Limousin and Tessier [53], López-Fando and Pardo [31], as well as Neugschwandtner et al. [7] also report that the non-tilled upper soil layer generally has a lower value of pH. One of the reasons for the acidification of surface soil layers under reduced tillage conditions is the accumulation of decomposition products and fertilizer substances with an acidifying effect [54]. In the study carried out by Wróbel and Pabin [21], the changes in the concentration of the main nutrients in the soil in which reduced tillage was used were accompanied by a decrease in the value of pHKCl in the 0–5 cm soil layer, relative to the 10–15 cm layer. Dorneles et al. [33] found a similar relationship with regard to the 5–10 cm layer. Haruna and Nkongolo [55] also obtained a lower soil pH for the 0–10 cm layer, in comparison with the soil levels of 10–20 cm, 20–40 cm, and 40–60 cm.
In the third year of the experiment, the SOC content in the top soil layer (0–30 cm) was shown to significantly increase in relation to the first and the second year of the study. It is worth noting that the value of this parameter in 2015–2017 was distinctly higher than the one determined before the establishment of the experiment (2014), by 47% in 2015 and 68% in 2016; this is while, in 2017, the value of this parameter was twice as high as in 2014. The likely cause of the increase in the soil organic carbon was the change in tillage methods: from the conventional to the reduced tillage system. Plowing, which was used in the years prior to the experiment, could accelerate the warming and drying of the soil, and thus contributed to accelerating the mineralization of organic matter and reducing its content in the soil. In turn, in our experiment, a minimum/reduced tillage without plowing was used, which was conducive to increasing the SOC content. Likewise, Alam et al. [25] found that the elimination of plowing leads to a slowed-down rate of mineralization of soil organic matter and lower soil aeration, which, in turn, promotes the greater accumulation of organic carbon in the top soil layer. Ogle et al. [56], Hermle et al. [57], Chatterjee and Lal [58], as well as Erns and Emmerling [59] found that, in non-tilled soil, the amount of the accumulated organic matter in the soil layer below 10-15 cm is lower than that in the surface layers.
Under the reduced tillage system and direct drilling, nutrients are unevenly distributed due to their greater accumulation in the top soil layer [5,7,17,55,60,61,62]. Under such tillage conditions, the accumulation of crop residues in the surface soil layer promotes a higher concentration of P, K, and Mg, compared with conventional tillage [7,16,31,63]. This relationship was confirmed under the conditions of the present experiment.
In the 0–30 cm and 30–60 cm soil layers, a higher potassium content was found in the treatments with the surface placement of the mineral fertilizer, compared with the deep fertilization treatment. Wróbel and Pabin [21] report that the slow movement of K deeper into the soil profile is the reason for the increased K concentration in the top soil layer under no-tillage conditions. Borges and Mallarino [37], as well as Mallarino and Borges [22] found an increased uptake of P and K by soybean under the subsurface fertilizer placement conditions. In the studies carried out by Kraska [16], as well as by Woźniak and Soroka [8], no-tillage increased the potassium content in the top soil layer. Alvarez [64], Kraska et al. [65], and Van den Putte et al. [66] also found reduced tillage to promote an increased potassium content in the soil.
Kraska et al. [65], as well as Haruna and Nkongolo [55], found that the use of reduced tillage leads to an increase in the magnesium content in the top soil layer. Włodek et al. [67], on the other hand, revealed an opposite relationship—they obtained a higher soil magnesium content in conventional tillage treatments, compared with those obtained in the reduced tillage plots. Biskupski et al. [68], in turn, did not find tillage to affect the magnesium content in the 0–40 cm soil layer. Likewise, the present study found no clear trend with regard to Mg concentration in the soil profile layers based on the method of mineral fertilizer placement under reduced tillage conditions.
According to Biskupski et al. [68], the variability in the study-results regarding the soil content of available forms of elements in different tillage systems can be due to the fact that soil can exhibit a lower temperature under reduced tillage conditions, compared with the conventional tillage conditions. This, in turn, may contribute to the slowing of chemical reactions occurring in the soil. Shen et al. [69] confirm a decrease in soil temperature under reduced tillage conditions.
The diversified level of mineral fertilizer significantly influenced the content of nutrients in the soil. The higher dose of NPKS (170 kg∙ha−1), compared with the 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1, increased the P content in all tested soil layers and increased the K content in the 0–30 cm soil layer. However, in the case of Mg, a higher dose of mineral fertilization resulted in a decrease in the content of this element in the 60–90 cm soil layer. According to Bhatt et al. [70], high doses of NPK fertilizers are required to maintain soil fertility and raise crop yields. Skowrońska [71] is of the opinion that the content of the elements in soil is primarily determined, apart from mineral fertilization, by the quantity of the yields and the uptake of nutrients from an agroecosystem.

5. Conclusions

The method of application and rate of mineral fertilizer did not have a significant effect on the SOC content in the top soil layer (0–30 cm). Under the deep fertilizer application conditions, the pH was lower in all the soil layers considered, in comparison with the surface fertilization treatment. The mineral fertilizer applied at the double rate (170 kg NPKS) contributed to an increase in the pH in the surface soil layer of 0–30 cm. The P and K content in the 0–30 cm soil layer was higher than the one at deeper levels of the soil profile (30–60 cm and 60–90 cm). The subsurface application of mineral fertilizer favored an increase in the content of P and Mg in the soil and a decrease in the K content, in comparison with the surface application of mineral fertilizer. The higher level of mineral fertilization promoted an increase in the soil P and K content.

Author Contributions

P.K., P.G., and S.A. conceptualized the research; P.K. and P.G. designed the research; P.K., P.G., and H.R. performed the experiments; P.K., S.A., P.G., and H.R. analyzed the data; P.K. and S.A. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to give a special thanks to W. Gryn, who made it possible to conduct the field experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Nouri, A.; Lee, J.; Yin, X.; Tyler, D.D.; Jagadamma, S.; Arelli, P. Soil physical properties and soybean yield as influenced by long-term tillage systems and cover cropping in the Midsouth USA. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Nouri, A.; Youssef, F.; Basaran, M.; Lee, J.; Saxton, A.M.; Erpul, G. The Effect of Fallow Tillage Management on Aeolian Soil Losses in Semiarid Central Anatolia, Turkey. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2018, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fonteyne, S.; Gamiño, M.-A.M.; Tejeda, A.S.; Verhulst, N. Conservation Agriculture Improves Long-term Yield and Soil Quality in Irrigated Maize-oats Rotation. Agronomy 2019, 9, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Harasim, E.; Antonkiewicz, J.; Kwiatkowski, C.A. The effects of catch crops and tillage systems on selected physical properties and enzymatic activity of loess soil in a spring wheat monoculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Singh, D.; Lenka, S.; Lenka, N.K.; Trivedi, S.K.; Bhattacharjya, S.; Sahoo, S.; Saha, J.K.; Patra, A.K. Effect of Reversal of Conservation Tillage on Soil Nutrient Availability and Crop Nutrient Uptake in Soybean in the Vertisols of Central India. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bienes, R.; Marques, M.J.; Sastre, B.; García-Díaz, A.; Esparza, I.; Antón, O.; Navarrete, L.; Hernánz, J.L.; Sánchez-Girón, V.; Sánchez del Arco, M.J.; et al. Tracking Changes on Soil Structure and Organic Carbon Sequestration after 30 Years of Different Tillage and Management Practices. Agronomy 2021, 11, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Liebhard, P.; Kaul, H.-P.; Wagentristl, H. Soil chemical properties as affected by tillage and crop rotation in a long-term field experiment. Plant. Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Woźniak, A.; Soroka, M. Effect of crop rotation and tillage system on the weed infestation and yield of spring wheat and on soil properties. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018, 16, 3087–3096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lahmar, R. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe. Lessons of the KASSA project. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wauters, E.; Bielders, C.; Poesen, J.; Govers, G.; Mathijs, E. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T. Global overview of conservation agriculture adoption. In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, New Delhi, India, 4–7 February 2009; pp. 429–438. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.C.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Holland, J.M. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: Reviewing the evidence. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2004, 103, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Berner, A.; Hildermann, I.; Fliessbach, A.; Pfiffer, L.; Niggli, U.; Mäder, P. Crop yield and soil fertility response to reduced tillage under organic management. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 101, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vogeler, I.; Rogasik, J.; Funder, U.; Schnug, E. Effect of tillage systems and P-fertilization on soil physical and chemical properties, crop yield and nutrient uptake. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kraska, P. Effect of conservation tillage and catch crops on some chemical properties of rendzina soil. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2011, 10, 77–92. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kraska, P. The content of some micronutrients in rendzina soil cultivated using different tillage systems and catch crops. Polish J. Agron. 2011, 4, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van den Putte, A.; Govers, G.; Diels, J.; Gillijns, K.; Demuzere, M. Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: A meta-regression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 33, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lipiński, W. The content of available phosphorus in soils of Poland. Fertil. Fertil. 2005, 2, 49–54. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  20. Lipiński, W. Agrochemical properties of agriculturally used soils. Inż. Ekol. 2019, 20, 1–12. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wróbel, S.; Pabin, J. Effect of tillage system on macronutrient content in soil and maize plants cultivated in monoculture. Rocz. Glebozn. 2008, 59, 226–232. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  22. Mallarino, A.P.; Borges, R. Phosphorus and Potassium Distribution in Soil Following Long-Term Deep-Band Fertilization in Different Tillage Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 702–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barbieri, P.A.; Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Covacevich, F.; Echeverría, H.E. Phosphorus placement effects on phosphorous recovery efficiency and grain yield of wheat under no-tillage in the humid pampas of Argentina. Int. J. Agron. 2014, 2014, 507105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hansel, F.D.; Amado, T.J.C.; Ruiz Diaz, D.A.; Rosso, L.H.M.; Nicoloso, F.T.; Schorr, M. Phosphorus Fertilizer Placement and Tillage Affect Soybean Root Growth and Drought Tolerance. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 2936–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Alam, M.; Bell, R.W.; Salahin, N.; Pathan, S.; Mondol, A.T.; Alam, M.J.; Rashid, M.H.; Paul, P.L.; Hossain, M.I.; Shil, N.C. Banding of fertilizer improves phosphorus acquisition and yield of zero tillage maize by concentrating phosphorus in surface soil. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Lakew, A. Influence of N and P fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Sekota District of Wag-Himira Zone, North Eastern Ethiopia. Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2019, 4, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Randall, G.W.; Vetsch, J.A.; Murrell, T.S. Corn response to phosphorus placement under various tillage practices. Better Crops 2001, 85, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  28. Randall, G.W.; Vetsch, J.A. Optimum placement of phosphorus for corn/soybean rotations in a strip-tillage system. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 63, 152A–153A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. de Andrade Costa, S.E.V.G.; Souza, E.D.; Anghinoni, I.; Flores, J.P.C.; Cao, E.G.; Holzschuh, M.J. Phosphorus and root distribution and corn growth related to longterm tillage systems and fertilizer placement. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2009, 33, 1237–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Galvani, R.; Hotta, L.F.K.; Rosolem, C.A. Phosphorus sources and fractions in an oxisol under no-tilled soybean. Sci. Agric. 2008, 65, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. López-Fando, C.; Pardo, M.T. Changes in soil chemical characteristics with different tillage practices in a semi-arid environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Abdi, D.; Cade-Menun, B.J.; Ziadi, N.; Parent, L.-É. Long-Term Impact of Tillage Practices and Phosphorus Fertilization on Soil Phosphorus Forms as Determined by 31P Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. J. Environ. Qual. 2014, 43, 1431–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Dorneles, E.P.; Lisboa, B.B.; Abichequer, A.D.; Bissani, C.A.; Meurer, E.J.; Vargas, L.K. Tillage, fertilization systems and chemical attributes of a Paleudult. Sci. Agric. 2015, 72, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Randall, G.W.; Hoeft, R.G. Placement Methods for Improved Efficiency of P and K Fertilizers: A Review. J. Prod. Agric. 1988, 1, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Duiker, S.W.; Beegle, D.B. Soil fertility distributions in long-term no-till, chisel/disk and moldboard plow/disk systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 88, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nkebiwe, P.M.; Weinmann, M.; Bar-Tal, A.; Muller, T. Fertilizer placement to improve crop nutrient acquisition and yield: A review and meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2016, 196, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Borges, R.; Mallarino, A.P. Broadcast and deep-band placement of phosphorus and potassium for soybean managed with ridge tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2003, 67, 1920–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Randall, G.W.; Hoeft, R.G. Fertilizer placement methods: New wrinkles on a new face. Crops Soils Magaz. 1986, 38, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stanisławska-Glubiak, E.; Korzeniowska, J. Efficiency of deep-placed fertilization for maize and pea in conventional and no-tillage system. Fragm. Agron. 2010, 27, 160–169. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  40. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; Update 2015; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Polish Society of Soil Science. Particle size distribution and textural classes of soils and mineral materials—Classification of Polish Society of Soil Science 2008. Soil Sci. Ann. 2009, 60, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  42. European Commission. Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species, 28th ed.; 2009/C 302 A/01; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bleiholder, H.; Buhr, L.; Feller, C.; Hack, H.; Hess, M.; Klose, R.; Lancashire, P.D.; Meier, U.; Stauss, R.; Van den Boom, T.; et al. Growth stages of mono- and dicotyledonous plants. In BBCH Monograph; Uwe Meier Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI), Ed.; Open Agrar Repositorium: Berlin, Germany, 2018; ISBN 978-3-95547-071-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Józefowska, A.; Miechówka, A. Comparison of the results of organic carbon determination in soils of the Carpathian Foothills obtained by the Tiurin and dry combustion methods (thermal method). Rocz. Gleb. 2011, 1, 65–69. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  45. ISO 11261. Soil Quality—Determination of Total Nitrogen—Modified Kjeldahl Method; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  46. PN-R-04023. Analiza Chemiczno-Rolnicza Gleby. Oznaczanie Zawartości Przyswajalnego Fosforu w Glebach Mineralnych./Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Phosphorus Content in Mineral Soils. 1996. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/19239.html (accessed on 27 April 2021).
  47. PN-R-04022:1996/Az1. Analiza Chemiczno-Rolnicza Gleby. Oznaczanie Zawartości Przyswajalnego Potasu w Glebach Mineralnych./Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Potassium in Mineral Soils. 2002. [Google Scholar]
  48. PN-R-04020:1994/Az1. Analiza Chemiczno-Rolnicza Gleby. Oznaczanie Zawartości Przyswajalnego Magnezu./Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil. Determination of Available Magnesium Content. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  49. ISO 10390. International Standard Organization. Soil Quality—Determination of pH. 2002. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/40879.html (accessed on 27 April 2021).
  50. Stachowski, P. Assessment of meteorological droughts on the postmining areas in the Konin Region. Środkowo-Pomorskie Towarzystwo Naukowe Ochrony Środowiska. Rocz. Ochr. Środowiska 2010, 12, 587–606. [Google Scholar]
  51. Skowera, B.; Puła, J. Pluviometric extreme conditions in spring season in Poland in the years 1971–2000. Acta Agrophys. 2004, 3, 171–177. [Google Scholar]
  52. Skowera, B. Changes of hydrothermal conditions in the polish area (1971–2010). Fragm. Agron. 2014, 31, 74–87. [Google Scholar]
  53. Limousin, G.; Tessier, D. Effect of no-tillage on chemical gradients and topsoil acidification. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 92, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lilienfein, J.; Wilcke, W.; Vilela, L.; Lima, S.D.; Thomas, R.; Zech, W. Effect of no-tillage and conventional tillage systems on the chemical composition of soil. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. 2000, 163, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Haruna, S.I.; Nkongolo, N.V. Tillage, cover crop and crop rotation effects on selected soil chemical properties. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ogle, S.M.; Breidt, F.J.; Paustian, K. Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon sto-rage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 2005, 72, 87–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hermle, S.; Anken, T.; Leifeld, J.; Weisskopf, P. The effect of the tillage system on soil organic carbon content under moist, cold-temperate conditions. Soil Till. Res. 2008, 98, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chatterjee, A.; Lal, R. On farm assessment of tillage impact on soil carbon and associated soil quality parameters. Soil Till. Res. 2009, 104, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ernst, G.; Emmerling, C. Impact of five different tillage systems on soil organic carbon content and the density, biomass, and community composition of earthworms after a ten year period. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Thomas, G.A.; Dalal, R.C.; Standley, J. No-till effect on organic matter, pH, cation exchange capacity and nutrient distribution in a Luvisol in the semi-arid subtropics. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 94, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shi, X.H.; Yang, X.M.; Drury, C.F.; Reynolds, W.D.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Zhang, X.P. Impact of ridge tillage on soil organic carbon and selected physical properties of a clay loam in southwestern Ontario. Soil. Till. Res. 2012, 120, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hausherr Lüder, R.-M.; Qin, R.; Richner, W.; Stamp, P.; Streit, B.; Noulas, C. Effect of tillage systems on spatial variation in soil chemical properties and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) performance in small fields. Agronomy 2019, 9, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Martin-Rueda, I.; Munoz-Guerra, L.M.; Yunta, F.; Esteban, E.; Tenorio, J.L.; Lucena, J.J. Tillage and crop rotation effects on barley yield and soil nutrients on a Calciortidic Haploxeralf. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 92, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alvarez, R. A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil organic carbon storage. Soil Use Manag. 2005, 21, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kraska, P.; Palys, E.; Jedruszczak, M. Conservation tillage system and chemical properties of sandy soil under crops in crop rotation. In Proceedings of the 17th Triennial Conference Sustainability–its Impact on Soil Management and Environment, Kiel, Germany, 28 August–3 September 2006; pp. 566–570. [Google Scholar]
  66. Van den Putte, A.; Govers, G.; Diels, J.; Langhans, C.; Clymans, W.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Merckx, R.; Raes, D. Soil functioning and conservation tillage in the Belgian Loam Belt. Soil Till. Res. 2012, 122, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Włodek, S.; Hryńczuk, B.; Pabin, J.; Biskupski, A. The contents of carbon and nutrients in the soil after many years’ use of different cultivation systems. Zesz. Prob. Post. Nauk Rol. 2003, 493, 727–732. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  68. Biskupski, A.; Sienkiewicz-Cholewa, U.; Włodek, S.; Pabin, J. Differentiation in the contents of carbon and nutrients in experiment with many years simplifications in cultivation. Rocz. Gleb. 2009, 60, 5–11. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  69. Shen, Y.; McLaughlin, N.; Zhang, X.; Xu, M.; Liang, A. Effect of tillage and crop residue on soil temperature following planting for a Black soil in Northeast China. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bhatt, M.K.; Labanya, R.; Joshi, H.C. Influence of long-term chemical fertilizers and organic manures on soil fertility—A review. Univ. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 5, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Skowrońska, M. Nutrient balance under differentiated maize fertilization and sowing. Przem. Chem. 2018, 95, 1595–1598. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 00859 g001 550
Figure 1. The sweep for deep mineral fertilizer application used in soybean cultivation technology.
Figure 1. The sweep for deep mineral fertilizer application used in soybean cultivation technology.
Agronomy 11 00859 g001
Agronomy 11 00859 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on soil pH: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant differences (p = 0.05).
Figure 2. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on soil pH: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant differences (p = 0.05).
Agronomy 11 00859 g002
Agronomy 11 00859 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil content of available P [mg∙kg−1]: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant difference (p = 0.05).
Figure 3. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil content of available P [mg∙kg−1]: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant difference (p = 0.05).
Agronomy 11 00859 g003
Agronomy 11 00859 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil content of available K [mg∙kg−1]: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant difference (p = 0.05).
Figure 4. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil content of available K [mg∙kg−1]: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant difference (p = 0.05).
Agronomy 11 00859 g004
Agronomy 11 00859 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil content of available Mg [mg∙kg−1]: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant difference (p = 0.05).
Figure 5. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil content of available Mg [mg∙kg−1]: (A) Method of fertilizer application × soil layer; (B) Fertilizer dose × soil layer; (C) Method of fertilizer application × fertilizer dose (S—Surface fertilizer application, SubS—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1); different letters indicate significant difference (p = 0.05).
Agronomy 11 00859 g005
Table
Table 1. Properties of the initial soil of the experiment site at Rogów, in 2014.
Table 1. Properties of the initial soil of the experiment site at Rogów, in 2014.
Initial Soil PropertiesValue
Soil pH0–30 cm soil depth5.01
30–60 cm soil depth5.94
60–90 cm soil depth6.61
Available P content (mg∙kg−1)0–30 cm soil depth18.84
30–60 cm soil depth10.68
60–90 cm soil depth16.69
Available K content (mg∙kg−1)0–30 cm soil depth78.92
30–60 cm soil depth43.77
60–90 cm soil depth44.51
Available Mg content (mg∙kg−1)0–30 cm soil depth64.07
30–60 cm soil depth69.33
60–90 cm soil depth65.46
SOC (g∙kg−1)0–30 cm soil depth7.9
Particle size distributionSand (%)23.6
Silt (%)70.6
Clay (%)5.8
SOC—soil organic carbon.
Table
Table 2. Chemical plant protection of the soybean during the growing seasons.
Table 2. Chemical plant protection of the soybean during the growing seasons.
Plant Protection ProductDoseApplication Date
Seed dressingT75 DS/WS [thiuram (a compound from the dithiocarbamate group)—750 g∙kg−1]2g∙kg−1 seedsBefore sowing
Nitragina300 g∙ha−1Before sowing
HerbicideRoundup 360
SL [glyphosate (a compound from the amino phosphonic acid group) as potassium salt—360 g∙L−1].		1.5 L∙ha−1Before emergence
Corum 502.4 SL [bentazon (a compound from the diazine group)—480 g∙L−1; imazamox (a compound from the imidazolinone group)—22.4 g∙L−1]1.25 L∙ha−1BBCH 12–25
AdjuvantDash HC [methyl oleate—348.75 g∙L−1; fatty alcohol (alkoxylated phosphoric acid ester)– 209.25 g∙L−1]1.0 L∙ha−1.BBCH 12–25
BBCH—scale used to identify the phenological development stages of plants [43].
Table
Table 3. Selyaninov hydrothermal coefficients (K) during the growing seasons in the years of the experiment.
Table 3. Selyaninov hydrothermal coefficients (K) during the growing seasons in the years of the experiment.
MonthsYears
201520162017
Marchk = 2.73
very humid		k = 4.49
extremely humid		k = 1.79
rather humid
Aprilk = 1.47 optimalk = 2.40
humid		k = 2.66
very humid
Majk = 4.75
extremely humid		k = 1.23
rather dry		k = 1.67
rather humid
Junek = 0.30
extremely dry		k = 1.23
rather dry		k = 0.50
very dry
Julyk = 0.70
very dry		k = 2.20
humid		k = 1.66
rather humid
Augustk = 0.10
extremely dry		k = 0.94
dry		k = 0.65
very dry
Septemberk = 1.90
rather humid		k = 0.24
extremely dry		k = 2.50
very humid
Octoberk = 2.14
humid		k = 5.89
extremely humid		k = 3.97
extremely humid
Novemberk = 2.35
humid		k = 7.30
extremely humid		k = 3.11
extremely humid
Table
Table 4. Effect of years, method of fertilizer application, fertilizer dose, soil layer, and interaction of experimental factors on examined features.
Table 4. Effect of years, method of fertilizer application, fertilizer dose, soil layer, and interaction of experimental factors on examined features.
FeatureYMFAFDSLY × MFAY × FDY × SLMFA × FDMFA × SLFD × SL
SOC**nsns–nsns–ns––
pH********************
P********************
K********************
Mg**************ns****
Y—year; MFA—method of fertilizer application; FD—fertilizer dose; SL—soil layer; SOC—soil organic carbon [g∙kg−1]; P—content of available P [mg∙kg−1]; K—content of available K [mg∙kg−1]; Mg—content of available Mg [mg∙kg−1]; **—significant at p = 0.05; ns—not significant at p = 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Soil organic carbon content in the 0–30 cm soil layer after soybean harvest (g∙kg−1).
Table 5. Soil organic carbon content in the 0–30 cm soil layer after soybean harvest (g∙kg−1).
Method of Fertilizer Application (MFA)Fertilizer Dose (FD)Years (Y)
201520162017
SF8511.312.918.7
F17010.813.218.5
Mean11.113.118.6
Sub-SF8512.714.019.5
F17011.713.222.0
Mean12.213.620.7
MeanF8512.013.519.1
F17011.313.220.3
Mean11.613.319.7
LSD 0.05 Years 4.25
S—Surface fertilizer application, Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; LSD 0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Evaluation of the pH and soil content of available forms of selected macronutrients after soybean harvest.
Table 6. Evaluation of the pH and soil content of available forms of selected macronutrients after soybean harvest.
SpecificationpH (KCl)P
(mg∙kg−1)		K
(mg∙kg−1)		Mg
(mg∙kg−1)
Years (Y)20155.7413.5353.7368.43
20166.2315.0154.1771.09
20175.8916.8055.0269.05
LSD 0.050.0060.2930.6730.842
Soil layer (SL)0–30 cm5.3219.2672.5369.80
30–60 cm6.0011.2946.4271.66
60–90 cm6.5514.7943.9867.11
LSD 0.050.0060.2930.6730.842
Method of fertilizer application (MFA) S6.1714.5957.4568.43
Sub-S 5.7415.6451.1670.62
LSD 0.050.0040.1990.4570.572
Fertilizer dose (FD)F855.9413.0453.9569.98
F1705.9717.1854.6769.07
LSD 0.050.0040.1990.4570.572
S—Surface fertilizer application, Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; LSD 0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kraska, P.; Andruszczak, S.; Gierasimiuk, P.; Rusecki, H. The Effect of Subsurface Placement of Mineral Fertilizer on Some Soil Properties under Reduced Tillage Soybean Cultivation. Agronomy 2021, 11, 859. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050859

AMA Style

Kraska P, Andruszczak S, Gierasimiuk P, Rusecki H. The Effect of Subsurface Placement of Mineral Fertilizer on Some Soil Properties under Reduced Tillage Soybean Cultivation. Agronomy. 2021; 11(5):859. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050859

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kraska, Piotr, Sylwia Andruszczak, Paweł Gierasimiuk, and Hubert Rusecki. 2021. "The Effect of Subsurface Placement of Mineral Fertilizer on Some Soil Properties under Reduced Tillage Soybean Cultivation" Agronomy 11, no. 5: 859. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050859

APA Style

Kraska, P., Andruszczak, S., Gierasimiuk, P., & Rusecki, H. (2021). The Effect of Subsurface Placement of Mineral Fertilizer on Some Soil Properties under Reduced Tillage Soybean Cultivation. Agronomy, 11(5), 859. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050859

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop