Protection and Modeling in the Use of S, Ca, and Mg Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainable Fertilization Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- -
- With decreasing pH, through acidification, the soil S content decreases by increasing anion adsorption in clay (as SO42−);
- -
- The organic and mineral S content decreases with the reduction in humus and organic C content through fertilization and conventional technologies;
- -
- -
- With pH reduction, acidification and acidity correction (by CaCO3, without CaCO3 and MgCO3) update interferences with Ca2+ and with Al3+.
- -
2. Materials and Methods
- 1.
- An amendment (CaCO3) experiment was carried out to study Ca-Mg-K interaction.
- -
- 0 Ah; 0.5 Ah; 1.0 Ah; 2.0 Ah;
- -
- Fertilizer background: N100P70K60;
- -
- Grain maize crop.
- 2.
- Long-term experiments [30,31] at the Office of Pedological and Agrochemical Studies Alba (OSPA Alba) and the Turda Agricultural Research and Development Station (SCDA Turda) (for 55 years of fertilizing effect, during the 1967–2022 period), with exclusively mineral NP fertilizations, have endangered the S status and chemistry, previously predicted as exposed to a reduction in the humus reserve of the investigated soils over time. The reduction in this indicator may reveal the need for its application from NP mineral compositions, NP + S + Mg, or from organic input (in organo-mineral fertilizations). The evolution of total S and mobile content was monitored in the following long-term NP experiments at OSPA Alba and SCDA Turda:
- -
- NP experiments: 0, 40, 80, 120, 160 kg N a.s./ha, wheat;
- -
- Soil: wheat, maize, soya.
- 3.
- The effect of S + Mg application (from MgSO4) on wheat, maize and soybean (5-year average) was monitored as follows:
- -
- Promotion of S, Ca, Mg fertilization with various simple and complex assortments on various crops.
- 4.
- The soil characteristics in the experiments conducted were as follows:
- —
- Pedological characteristics: protic soil class, Am diagnosis horizon;
- —
- Agrochemical characteristics: pH 7.2–7.4 (weak alkaline); humus—2.60–2.90% (medium supply); 10–15 ppm P (medium supply); 150–170 ppm K (good supply).
- —
- Pedological characteristics: luvisol class, superficial A0 horizon and Bt intermediate one;
- —
- Agrochemical characteristics: pH 5.6–5.8 (moderately acidic) borderline amendable; V—80–85%; humus—2.20% (low-medium supply); IN = 1.72; 5–6.5 ppm P (very low supply); 120–130 ppm K (medium supply).
- —
- Pedological characteristics: luvisol class, superficial Ap-Ea-BEw horizon;
- —
- Agrochemical characteristics: pH—4.8–5.2; V—38–42%; humus—1.4%; P-AL—8–10 ppm (low supply); 130–140 ppm k (medium supply).
- —
- Pedological characteristics: in the current taxonomies, vertic clay–loam chernozem or vertic clay–phaeozem;
- —
- Agrochemical characteristics: pH—6.90–7.10; T—59.14 m.e.; V—96%; humus—3.92; Nt—0.196%; P—15 ppm; K—250 ppm.
- 5.
- Current agrochemical analyses performed (method):
- -
- 6.
3. Results and Discussion
- 1.
- Results from the study of Ca-Mg-K interaction under conditions of amendment and fertilization of acidic soils:
- 2.
- Monitoring of total and mobile S content in long-term experiments:
- -
- Proportion of elements: C14:N1:P0.1:S0.055:H11.4:O57;
- -
- Gravimetric ratios—elemental: 168pC:14pN:3.1pP:1.75pS:11,4pH:91.2pO;
- -
- Percentage weights of the elements: 58%C:4.84%N:1.07%P:0.60%S:3.94%H:31.55%O.
- Long-term NP and organo-mineral experiments at OSPA Alba
- Long-term experiments at SCDA Turda
- Promotion of S, Ca, Mg fertilization with various simple and complex assortments on various crops.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bergmann, W. Nutritional Disorders of Plants: Developments, Visual and Analytical Diagnosis; Gustav Fischer Verlang Jena: New York, NY, USA, 1992; Available online: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=815768 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Marschner, H. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Marschner, P., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; Available online: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&journal=Marschner%E2%80%99s+Mineral+Nutrition+of+Higher+Plants&author=Marschner+H.+(2012).+Marschner%E2%80%99s+Mineral+Nutrition+of+Higher+Plants+3rd+Edn+ed.+Marschner+P.&publication_year=2012 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Davidescu, D.; Davidescu, V. Agrochimia Horticolă; Academiei Române: București, Romania, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Rusu, M.; Marghitas, M.; Mihaiescu, T.; Oroian, I.; Dumitras, A. Tratat de Agrochimie; Ceres: Bucureşti, Romania, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rusu, M. Compendiu Agrochimic; Academic Press: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Krishna, K.R. Secondary nutrients in soil and their influence on crop productivity. In Soil Fertility and Crop Production; Science Publishers, Inc.: Enfield, NH, USA, 2002; pp. 155–168. [Google Scholar]
- Black, C.A. Soil Fertility Evaluation and Control; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalal, C.R. Plant nutrient availability-intensity, quantity and buffer power. In Encyclopedia of Soil Science; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 996–999. [Google Scholar]
- Correndo, A.A.; Rubio, G.; García, F.O.; Ciampitti, I.A. Subsoil–potassium depletion accounts for the nutrient budget in high–potassium agricultural soils. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 11597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rusu, M.; Munteanu, V. The Effect of Applying Some Microelements (B+Mo+Zn) to Wheat, Corn and Soybeans; Bul. USAMV; Academic Press: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 1994; 48/2; pp. 99–105. [Google Scholar]
- Bindraban, P.S.; Dimkpa, C.; Nagarajan, L.; Roy, A.; Rabbinge, R. Revisiting fertilisers and fertilisation strategies for improved nutrient uptake by plants. Biol. Fertil Soils 2015, 51, 897–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, J.C.; Smith, M.W.; Penn, C.J.; Cheary, B.S.; Conaghan, K.J. Nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium applied individually or as a slow release or controlled release fertilizer increase growth and yield and affect macronutrient and micronutrient concentration and content of field-grown tomato plants. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 211, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lošák, T.; Válka, T.; Elbl, J.; Kintl, A.; Keutgen, A.; Keutgen, N.; Demková, L.; Árvay, J.; Varga, L.; Hnátková, H.; et al. Fertilization with Magnesium- and Sulfur-Supplemented Digestate Increases the Yield and Quality of Kohlrabi. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahal, N.K.; Sawyer, J.E.; Iqbal, J.; Sassman, A.M.; Mathur, R.; Castellano, M.J. Role of Sulfur Mineralization and Fertilizer Source in Corn and Soybean Production Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2022, 86, 1058–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Cadre, E.; de Oliveira, A.B.; Arkoun, M.; Yvin, J.C.; Hinsinger, P. Nitrogen fertilization of intercropped cereal-legume: A potassium, sulfur, magnesium and calcium plant acquisition dataset. Data Br. 2022, 40, 107816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweeney, D.W.; Ruiz–Diaz, D.A. Utilizing soil phosphorus and potassium reserves for soybean production on a claypan soil. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 4386–4394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, R.; Moore, K. Nutrient Management for South Carolina Based on Soil Test Results; EC 476; Clemson University: Clemson, SC, USA, 2001; Available online: https://www.clemson.edu/extension/camm/manuals/publications/nutrient_management_for_south_carolina_ec476e.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Moreira, A.; Moraes LA, C.; Moretti, L.G.; Aquino, G.S. Phosphorus, potassium and sulfur interactions in soybean plants on atypic hapludox. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, D.E.; Kim, K.I. Soybean response to sulfur fertilizer applied as a broadcast or starter using replicated strip trials. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putman, J.L.; Ketterings, Q.; Cherney, J.H.; Overton, T.R. Impact of sulfur application on soybean yield and quality in New York. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 2858–2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rusu, M.; Mihai, M.; Mihai, V.C.; Moldovan, L.; Ceclan, O.A.; Toader, C. Areas of agrochemical deepening resulting from long-term experiments with fertilizers—Synthesis following 20 years of annual and stationary fertilization. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurtinecz, P.; Bânățeanu, C.; Ursan, P. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Fertilization and Long-Term Amendment; ADER project 1.5.3; ARDS: Livada, Romania, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Kurtinecz, P.; Rusu, M. Certain possibilities for the internation of analytical results from long-term experiments regarding the fertilization and liming of acid soils North-Western Transylvania. In Proceedings of the First International Conference Metagro, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 14–16 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, B.T.; Thomsen, I.K.; Eriksen, J. The Askov long-term field experiment (1894–2021) represents a unique research platform. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2022, 185, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hera, C. Fertilizers and Sustainable agriculture. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of International Scientific Centre of Fertilizers (CIEC), Pretoria, South Africa, 27–30 September 2008; “Terra Nostra” Publishing House: Iaşi, Romania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Krishna, K.R. Agroecosystems: Soils, Climate, Crops, Nutrient Dynamics and Productivity.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gransee, A.; Führs, H. Magnesium mobility in soils as a challenge for soil and plant analysis, magnesium fertilization and rootuptake under adverse growth conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 368, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodowska, M.S.; Kaczor, A. The effect of various forms of sulphur and nitrogen on calcium and magnesium content and uptakein spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.). J. Elem. 2009, 14, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debreczeni, K.; Körschens, M. Long term field experiments of the word. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2003, 49, 465–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, R.J.; Brown, J.R. The Sanborn field experiment: Implications for long-term soil organic carbon levels. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, A.E.; Poulton, P.R. Phosphorus in agriculture: A review of results from 175 years of research at Rothamsted, UK. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 1133–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Methodology for Agrochemical Analysis of Soils in Order to Determine the Need for Amendments and Fertilizers; Partea I; MAIA; ASAS; ICPA: Bucuresti, Romania, 1981; Volume I.
- SR 7184-13:2001; Soils—Determination of pH in Aqueous and Saline Suspensions (Mass/Volume) and in Saturated Paste. ICPA: București, Romania, 2001.
- Schollenberger, C.J.; Dreibelbis, F.R. Analytical methods in base exchange investigations on soils. Soil Sci. 1930, 30, 161. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schollenberger,+C.+J.+and+Dreibelbis,+F.+R.,+1930.+Soil+Sci.,+30,+161 (accessed on 10 January 2024). [CrossRef]
- Egnér, H.; Riehm, H.; Domingo, W.R. Untersuchungen Über Die Chemische Bodenanalyse Als Grundlage Für Die Beurteilung Des Nährstoffzustandes Der Böden. II. Chemische Extraktionsmethoden zur Phosphor-und Kaliumbestimmung. K. Lantbrukshögskolans Ann. 1960, 26, 199–215. [Google Scholar]
- Nafziger, E.D.; Dunker, R.E. Soil Organic Carbon Trends Over 100 Years in the Morrow Plots. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Hopmans, J.W.; van Kessel, C.; King, A.P.; Evatt, K.J.; Louie, D.; Rolston, D.E.; Six, J. Tillage and seasonal emissions of CO2, N2O and NO across a seed bed and at the field scale in a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhunmwunse, A.S.; Farmaha, B.S. Soybean response to potassium, magnesium, and sulfur fertilization on Southeastern Coastal Plain soils. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 2023, 6, e20333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fryer, M.S.; Slaton, N.A.; Roberts, T.L.; Ross, W.J. Validation of soil-test-based phosphorus and potassium fertilizer recommendations for irrigated soybean. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2019, 83, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, C.C.; Huluka, G. Potassium dynamics in US coastalplain soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slaton, N.A.; Golden, B.R.; Delong, R.E.; Mozaffari, M. Correlation and calibration of soil potassium availability with soy-bean yield and trifoliolate potassium. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 1642–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jungers, J.M.; Kaiser, D.E.; Lamb, J.F.; Lamb, J.A.; Noland, R.L.; Samac, D.A.; Wells, M.S.; Sheaffer, C.C. Potassium fertilization affects alfalfa forage yield, nutritive value, root traits, and persistence. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 2843–2852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, G.; Smith, P.; Pan, W. The Role of Soil Organic Matter in Maintaining the Productivity and Yield Stability of Cereals in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Römheld, V.; Kirkby, E.A. Research on Potassium in Agriculture: Needs and Prospects. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klikocka, H.; Marks, M.; Barczak, B.; Szostak, B.; Podleśna, A.; Podleśny, J. Response of spring wheat to NPK and S fertilization. The content and uptake of macronutrients and the value of ionic ratios. Open Chem. 2018, 16, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potarzycki, J.; Grzebisz, W.; Szczepaniak, W. Magnesium Fertilization Increases Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plants 2022, 11, 2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Muneer, M.A.; Jin, D.; Zhang, H.; Cai, Y.; Ma, C.; Wang, C.; Chen, X.; Huang, C.; et al. Characterization of Different Magnesium Fertilizers and Their Effect on Yield and Quality of Soybean and Pomelo. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Indicator | Supply | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Insufficient | Optimal | Excess | ||
Sulfur S, SO42− | IAS * | <9 | 10–19 | >19 |
S-SO4, ppm (Method 1, 2) | <5 | 5.1–10 | >10 | |
Loss S: | <10 | 10.1–50 | >50 | |
IAS | <5 | |||
S-SO4, ppm | <3 | |||
Calcium Ca2+ | Exchangeable calcium from % (TY *) | <35 | 35–70 | >70 |
Soluble calcium, ppm | <100 | 100–150 | >500 | |
Deficiency Ca: | ||||
Ca, % of T | <20–30 | |||
Soluble Ca, ppm | <50–70 | |||
Magnesium Mg2+ | Exchangeable Mg, % of T | <2 | 2–8 | >8 |
Soluble Mg, ppm | <60 | 60–500 | >500 | |
Water-soluble Mg, ppm | <3 | 3–6 | >6 | |
Mg deficiency: | ||||
Mg, % of T | <6 | |||
ICMg = Exchangeable Mg/Ksch.FR *** | 0.3 | 0.30–0.60 | >0.60 |
Crop | Fertilizing Elements Cs/kg/t | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | CaO | MgO | Soluble S | |
Wheat-autumn | 29 | 16 | 29 | 8 | 4 | 2 |
Grain maize | 28 | 18 | 30 | 12 | 4 | 3 |
Rapeseed | 55 | 40 | 50 | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Sunflower | 50 | 30 | 60 | 35 | 20 | 12 |
Soya | 75 * | 30 | 40 | 25 | 15 | 12 |
Sugar beet | 6 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
Potatoes | 7 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
Liming Level Ah | Soil Analysis | Plant Analysis | Ca/Mg Ratio | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pHH2O | Exchangeable Ca n.e. | Exchangeable Mg m.e. | Ca% Stems and Leaves | Mg % | ||||
Stems + Leaves | Roots | Ratio 1/2 | ||||||
0 Ah CaCO3 | 4.18 | 1.2 | 0.90 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 1.3 | y = 0.28 − 0.16x r = −0.800 (Gl-16) |
0.5 Ah CaCO3 | 5.50 | 4.8 | 0.63 | 0.52 | 0.18 | 2.96 | 2.9 | |
1.0 Ah CaCO3 | 6.36 | 7.9 | 0.53 | 0.69 | 0.17 | 1.76 | 4.9 | |
2.0 Ah CaCO3 | 7.21 | 11.9 | 0.30 | 1.60 | 0.12 | 0.71 | 13.3 | |
1.0 Ah CaCO3·MgCO3 | 6.58 | 5.8 | 1.09 | 0.58 | 0.38 | 1.34 | 1.5 | - |
Ah Amendment Level | Mg-ppm | Report 1/2 | K-ppm | 4/5 Ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
in HCl-0.05 N | in Ac-NH4 | Unexchangeable | Exchangeable | |||
CaCO3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
0 Ah CaCO3 | 336 | 108 | 3.1 | 614 | 83 | 7.4 |
0.5 Ah CaCO3 | 300 | 76 | 3.9 | 637 | 30 | 11.3 |
1.0 Ah CaCO3 | 288 | 64 | 4.5 | 657 | 66 | 9.9 |
2.0 Ah CaCO3 | 252 | 36 | 7.0 | 734 | 97 | 7.6 |
1.0 Ah CaCO3·MgCO3 | 428 | 144 | 2.9 | 582 | 124 | 4.2 |
Total Fertilization kg Active Ingredient/ha | Basic Fertilization kg Commercial Substance/ha Active Ingredient/ha | Phase Fertilization kg Commercial Substance/ha Active Ingredient/ha | Production kg/ha | Average Production (Grain) kg/ha | Sigificance of Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N140P80K0 | 400/20-20-0 80-80-0 | 180/AN; 60 N 130/h; 60 N 220/CAN; 60 N | 4540 | 4547 | ns |
4520 | |||||
4580 | |||||
N140P80K80 + 70S | 533/15-15-15-12.8S 80-80-80 + 70S | 180/AN; 60 N 130/h; 60 N 220/CAN; 60 N | 4620 | 4603 | ** |
4530 | |||||
4660 | |||||
N140P100K100 + 70S | 533/15-15-15-12.8S 80-80-80 + 70S | 260/23-9-9 + 0.5CaO + 0.5MgO + 0.05Zn + 0.05B 60-23-23-Mg + Ca + Zn + B | 4820 | 4820 | ** |
N140P80K80 + 70S | 533/15-15-15-12.8S 80-80-80 + 70S | 220/CAN; 60 N + Ca + Mg | 4700 | 4700 | ** |
Unamended | Amended | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % |
P0N0 | 2.30 | P80N0 | 2.18 | P0N0 | 2.40 | P80N0 | 2.27 |
P0N40 | 2.23 | P80N40 | 2.30 | P0N40 | 2.29 | P80N40 | 2.24 |
P0N80 | 2.27 | P80N80 | 2.34 | P0N80 | 2.34 | P80N80 | 2.31 |
P0N120 | 2.32 | P80N120 | 2.28 | P0N120 | 2.31 | P80N120 | 2.16 |
P0N160 | 2.34 | P80N160 | 2.34 | P0N160 | 2.37 | P80N160 | 2.29 |
Media | 2.29 | - | 2.62 | - | 2.34 | - | 2.25 |
Unamended | Amended | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % |
P0N0 | 2.10 | P80N0 | 2.15 | P0N0 | 2.14 | P80N0 | 2.26 |
P0N50 | 2.10 | P80N50 | 1.75 | P0N50 | 2.15 | P80N50 | 2.06 |
P0N100 | 1.89 | P80N100 | 2.18 | P0N100 | 2.11 | P80N100 | 2.07 |
P0N150 | 2.00 | P80N150 | 2.03 | P0N150 | 2.00 | P80N150 | 2.08 |
P0N200 | 2.13 | P80N200 | 1.86 | P0N200 | 1.98 | P80N200 | 1.88 |
Media | 2.04 | - | 1.99 | - | 2.07 | - | 1.88 |
Alluvial Mollisol—Wheat | Alluvial Mollisol—Maize | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Fertilization Variant | Humus % |
P0N0 | 2.64 | P80N0 | 2.70 | P0N0 | 2.45 | P80N0 | 2.64 |
P0N40 | 2.65 | P80N40 | 2.76 | P0N50 | 2.70 | P80N50 | 2.65 |
P0N80 | 2.68 | P80N80 | 2.90 | P0N100 | 2.71 | P80N100 | 2.75 |
P0N120 | 2.72 | P80N120 | 2.91 | P0N150 | 2.65 | P80N150 | 2.66 |
P0N160 | 2.65 | P80N160 | 2.70 | P0N200 | 2.60 | P80N200 | 2.57 |
Media | 2.67 | - | 2.79 | - | 2.62 | - | 2.65 |
Crop/Soil/Amendment | Fertilization Variant | Humus % | Organic C % | Total S % | IAS * | S-SO4 ppm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No amendment wheat/typical preluvisol | P0N0–160 | 2.29 | 1.33 | 0.020 | 4.5 | 4/<5 |
P80N0–160 | 2.28 | 1.32 | 0.021 | 4.8 | 4/<5 | |
Amendment wheat/typical preluvisol | P0N0–160 | 2.34 | 1.35 | 0.021 | 3.7 | 4/<5 |
P80N0–160 | 2.25 | 1.31 | 0.020 | 3.6 | 3/<5 | |
No amendment maize/typical preluvisol | P0N0–160 | 2.04 | 1.18 | 0.018 | 3.3 | 3/<5 |
P80N0–160 | 1.99 | 1.15 | 0.017 | 2.1 | 3/<5 | |
Amendment maize/typical preluvisol | P0N0–160 | 2.07 | 1.20 | 0.019 | 3.3 | 3/<5 |
P80N0–160 | 1.88 | 1.09 | 0.017 | 3.0 | 3/<5 | |
wheat/preluvisol alluvial mollisol | P0N0–160 | 2.67 | 1.55 | 0.027 | 7.2 | 5/7–10 |
P80N0–160 | 2.79 | 1.62 | 0.029 | 8.1 | 5/7–10 | |
maize/preluvisol alluvial mollisol | P0N0–160 | 2.62 | 1.52 | 0.027 | 7.1 | 4/6–7 |
P80N0–160 | 2.67 | 1.55 | 0.027 | 7.2 | 4/6–7 |
Indicator Tracked | NP Fertilization | Years/% Humus—% of Original | Difference from the Original | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1968 | 1984 | 1995 | 1999 | 2020 | |||||||
Humus | N0P0 | 3.78 | 3.90 | 103 | 3.21 | 84 | 3.18 | 84 | 3.12 | 82 | −0.66% |
N120P0 | 3.72 | 3.50 | 94 | 3.37 | 91 | 3.26 | 88 | 3.21 | 86 | −0.51% | |
N120P120 | 3.68 | 3.83 | 104 | 3.47 | 94 | 3.31 | 88 | 3.19 | 86 | −0.49% | |
IAS | N0P0 | 13.1 | 13.7 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 10.9 | −2.20 | ||||
N120P120 | 12.9 | 13.4 | 12.1 | 11.5 | 11.1 | −1.18 |
Fertilization Variant * | Prod. kg/ha | Diff. kg/ha | Significance of the Difference | Prod. kg/ha | Diff. kg/ha | Significance of the Difference | Prod. kg/ha | Diff. kg/ha | Significance of the Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wheat | Maize | Soya | |||||||
Control C1 | 3056 | - | - | 6591 | - | - | 2253 | - | - |
NPK-DOE C2 | 4699 | 1643 - | *** | 8172 | 1581 - | *** | 2454 | 201 - | *** |
NPK-DOE + Mg + S | 4877 | 1821 178 | *** | 8883 | 2292 751 | *** | 2853 | 600 399 | *** |
NPK-DOT | 4765 | 1709 66 | *** | 8694 | 2103 522 | *** | 2894 | 641 440 | *** |
NPK-DOT + Mg + S | 4885 | 1799 186 | *** | 8904 | 2313 732 | *** | 2979 | 726 525 | *** |
F.O.-1/3-DOE + NPK ind. DOE | 4664 | 1608 −35 | *** | 7913 | 1322−259 | ** | 2627 | 374 173 | ** |
F.O.-1/3-DOE + NPK ind. DOE + Mg + S | 4861 | 1805 162 | *** | 8210 | 1619 38 | *** | 2906 | 653 152 | *** |
F.O.-1/3-DOT + NPK ind. DOT | 4854 | 1798 155 | *** | 8774 | 2183 602 | *** | 3106 | 853 471 | *** |
F.O.-1/3-DOT + NPK ind. DOT + Mg + S | 4954 | 1898 255 | *** | 8914 | 2323 712 | *** | 3246 | 993 792 | *** |
DL C1 | 476 (5%) 641 (1%) 849 (0.1%) | DL C1 | 787 (5%) 1058 (1%) 1401 (0.1%) | DL C1 | 238 (5%) 319 (1%) 423 (0.1%) |
Total Fertilization kg a.s./ha | Autumn Commercial Substance/ha | Spring Commercial Substance/ha | Yield kg/ha | Diff. kg/ha | Significance of Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control N120P80K80 | 300/16-16-16 (MOP) 60-60-60 | 60-0-0 AN | 3680 | - | |
N120P80K80 + 50 S (K2SO4) | 400/NPK 15-15-15 +SO4 60-60-60 | 60-0-0 AN | 4275 | 495 | ns |
60-0-0 Urea | 4212 | 532 | * | ||
60-0-0 CAN | 4166 | 486 | - | ||
N120P80K80 + 30S + 17MgO | 428/NPK+ (14-14-14 + 7S + 4MgO) (from kiserit) 60-60-60 | 60-0-0 AN | 4348 | 668 | ** |
60-0-0 Urea | 4366 | 686 | ** | ||
60-0-0 CAN | 4280 | 600 | * | ||
N120P80K80 + 30S + 17MgO + CaO + MgO + B + Zn | 428/NPK+ (14-14-14 + 7S + 4MgO) (from kiserit) 60-60-60 | 60-23-23 + 0.5CaO + 0.5MgO + 0.05B + 0.05Zn 23-9-9 + CaO+ MgO + B + Zn | 4489 | 809 | *** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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
Rusu, M.; Mihai, M.; Tritean, N.; Mihai, V.C.; Moldovan, L.; Ceclan, A.O.; Russu, F.; Toader, C. Protection and Modeling in the Use of S, Ca, and Mg Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainable Fertilization Systems. Agronomy 2024, 14, 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030515
Rusu M, Mihai M, Tritean N, Mihai VC, Moldovan L, Ceclan AO, Russu F, Toader C. Protection and Modeling in the Use of S, Ca, and Mg Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainable Fertilization Systems. Agronomy. 2024; 14(3):515. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030515
Chicago/Turabian StyleRusu, Mihai, Mihaela Mihai, Nicolae Tritean, Valentin C. Mihai, Lavinia Moldovan, Adrian Ovidiu Ceclan, Florin Russu, and Constantin Toader. 2024. "Protection and Modeling in the Use of S, Ca, and Mg Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainable Fertilization Systems" Agronomy 14, no. 3: 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030515