Next Article in Journal
Mind the Market Opportunity: Digital Energy Management Services for German Dairy Farmers
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Year QTL Mapping and RNA-seq Reveal Candidate Genes for Early Floret-Opening Time in Japonica Rice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/agriculture13040860
agriculture-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

A Fertilisation Strategy Combining Mineral Fertiliser and Biosolid Improves Long-Term Yield and Carbon Storage in a Calcareous Soil

by
Armelle Zaragüeta
1,2,*,
Alberto Enrique
1,*,
Xavier Portell
1,
Rodrigo Antón
1,3,
Iñigo Virto
1 and
Luis Orcaray
2
1
Departamento Ciencias, Instituto de Innovación y Sostenibilidad en la Cadena Agroalimentaria (IS-FOOD), Universidad Pública de Navarra, 31006 Pamplona, Spain
2
Área de Innovación, Sección de Sistemas Sostenibles, Instituto Navarro de Tecnologías e Infraestructuras Agroalimentarias, 31610 Villava, Spain
3
INRAE, Info&Sols, 45075 Orléans, France
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(4), 860; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040860
Submission received: 13 March 2023 / Revised: 5 April 2023 / Accepted: 11 April 2023 / Published: 13 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Ecosystem, Environment and Climate Change in Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
At a strategic moment for agricultural soils, which are expected to contribute to climate change mitigation through carbon storage while safely feeding a growing world population, the fertiliser strategies used will be key. In a calcareous soil with extensive rainfed agricultural use and straw removal, different fertiliser strategies were evaluated with the aim of determining their effects on crop yield, nitrogen agronomic efficiency, and the storage of organic carbon and total nitrogen in the soil. Different doses of mineral fertiliser, expressed as kg of mineral nitrogen ha−1 year−1 (0, 60, 120, 180, and 240 nitrogen fertilising units (NFUs)), were applied to plots with and without biosolid amendment. The biosolid, applied at a rate of 40 Mg ha−1 every 3 years for 18 years, complied with national and European regulations to be applied on agricultural soil. The use of combined fertilisation reduced the amount of mineral fertiliser applied between 33 and 67% and the total fertiliser units between 7 and 40%, while maintaining similar yields to the reference mineral fertilisation (180 NFUs). These results could be related to a higher nitrogen agronomic efficiency in the combined fertilisation treatments that do not exceed the total NFUs required by the crop. Combined fertilisation was also an effective fertiliser technique to store total nitrogen and organic carbon in the soil. However, compared to the reference mineral fertilisation (180 NFUs), no significant changes in the soil organic carbon were observed, probably due to the crop management method in which the straw is removed and to higher gas emissions. Our results support the need to assess the efficacy of each agricultural technique at local scales in order not to overestimate or underestimate the potential of each agricultural technique to store soil organic carbon.

1. Introduction

Agricultural soil management is a key aspect of restoring soil fertility and helping to mitigate climate change through the storage of soil organic carbon (SOC) [1,2,3,4]. However, the response of agricultural soils to different management techniques can be highly variable in relation to SOC storage [5,6,7,8,9]. Some agronomic techniques, such as fertilisation, minimum tillage, or the application of organic residues, tend to increase SOC [6,10,11,12,13,14]. However, the efficacy of these techniques is determined by the edaphoclimatic characteristics of the agricultural area [12,15,16,17]. Therefore, it is essential to define the local soil and climatic conditions and the agricultural management of the field in order to apply the techniques that increase SOC. Part of the difficulty in increasing SOC lies in its cycling rate, which is closely related to the total N in the soil. Thus, the amount of C and N, as well as their ratio, will determine various biological and abiotic processes such as the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) or a priming effect that will directly influence the SOC stock [18]. In addition, organic N determines the stability of SOC to a great extent by influencing soil fertility [18,19]. Therefore, knowledge of the soil total nitrogen (STN) will be essential to understand the possible dynamics of SOC.
At the same time, agricultural soils must be able to safely feed a continuously growing world population [20,21,22,23]. This challenge comes at a time where unexpected state movements, such as wars, can lead to a rise in the price of inputs as a consequence of low supply [24,25]. To meet this challenge, increasing the nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE), defined as the amount of additional grain harvested per kilogram of N applied to a grain crop, is positioned as a key strategy. Some nitrogen fertiliser management strategies can positively alter the NAE (the use of rotations, organic fertilisers, or slow-release mineral fertilisers or the fractionation of mineral doses) [26,27,28]. Therefore, replacing fertiliser strategies that can decrease the NAE [29,30,31] with fertiliser techniques that maintain or increase the NAE would allow a reduction in the use of mineral fertilisers and contribute to more economical and environmentally sustainable agriculture.
Therefore, to simultaneously increase the SOC and STN and feed the world, different fertiliser techniques will be a key strategy. On the one hand, the use of mineral nitrogen fertilisers has favoured food production [29,30,32] and has been able to increase SOC and STN stocks by favouring aerial and root biomass growth [32,33,34,35,36], while avoiding a loss of organic matter through mineralisation [37,38,39,40]. However, the inadequate and excessive use of these mineral fertilisers can cause environmental damage such as soil acidification, leaching, the emission of a high amount of GHGs, and a loss of SOC [41,42,43,44,45,46]. On the other hand, the use of organic amendments such as biosolids from urban wastewater treatment plants has demonstrated multiple benefits while favouring the circular economy. These benefits can be agronomic, by contributing to crop yields [47,48,49], or edaphic, contributing to an increase in SOC and STN, among other benefits [36,50,51]. However, the poor usage of biosolids can have disadvantages such as the accumulation of trace metals and/or emerging pollutants [52,53,54], as well as GHG emissions [6,55,56,57].
A fertilisation strategy that could be interesting as opposed to “monotype” fertilisation (organic only vs. mineral only) is the use of balanced combined fertilisation (CF) created by mixing an organic amendment and mineral fertiliser. With the use of CF, several studies have observed a simultaneous increase in yield, STN, and SOC, contributing to valuable agricultural objectives [58,59,60,61,62,63]. However, to correctly employ combined fertilisation, it would be essential to know the efficiency of the biosolid to provide N to the crop annually to accordingly adjust the amount of mineral fertiliser applied. Not accounting for this substitute value could have consequences, such as either not reaching the N needs of the crop or providing higher amounts of available N than necessary.
From this vantage point, we hypothesised that the use of a biosolid would reduce the amount of mineral fertiliser required and increase organic carbon and total nitrogen in the soil without hindering the cereal yield potential. The overall objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of alternative fertilisation strategies combining a mineral fertiliser and a biosolid in a calcareous soil. Specifically, we focused on the effects of the fertilisation strategy in four relevant agronomic parameters: (I) the crop yield, (II) the soil organic carbon stock, (III) the soil total nitrogen stock, and (IV) nitrogen agronomic efficiency. Our work is motivated by the need to define effective, locally grounded strategies to simultaneously increase food production and maintain a healthy soil organic carbon and nitrogen content.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site and Experimental Design

The sampling site belongs to a long-term trial that began in September 2003 and that has continued without interruption for 18 years, up to the time of sampling. It is located on an experimental field of the Commonwealth of Pamplona, in the municipality of Arazuri in the region of Navarre, in Northwestern Spain. According to the Papadakis climate classification, the climate corresponds to the humid temperate Mediterranean group (Meth), with a temperature, precipitation, and potential evapotranspiration (according to Thornthwaite) of 12.9 °C, 771 mm, and 696.7 mm, respectively [64]. The soil of the plot is a Calcareous Cambisol [65] and the tilled horizon (0–30 cm) has a silt–clay loam texture, pH 8.5, 16% carbonates, and no slope, and has been used for rainfed farming for decades. Crop management is conventional, with annual mouldboard tillage, the application of agrochemicals according to the needs of the season, the incorporation of stubble, and the removal of straw. A three-year cereal¬–cereal–fallow rotation, typical of this rainfed area, is followed. The trial has a factorial design, with elementary plots of 54 m2 (9 m long by 6 m wide) and 4 replications for each fertiliser treatment. The different fertiliser treatments were formed with the combination of two factors: (I) BioSolid: application or not of a biosolid (2 levels) and (II) Mineral Nitrogen (Nmin): proportions of the recommended dose (NFUs, kg of mineral nitrogen ha−1 year−1) to satisfy the local and annual extraction needs of the crop (6 levels).
The levels of the factor BioSolid correspond to an application of 40 Mg ha−1 of a biosolid every 3 years or the lack of this application (BioSolid 0 Mg ha−1). This dose was calculated in 1992, at the opening of the Arazuri urban wastewater treatment plant, following the restrictive regulation of 250 NFUs in areas that are not considered vulnerable to nitrate pollution without taking into account the N efficiency for the year of application [66,67]. Biosolid application was carried out with a 3.5 m wide spreader trailer and the biosolid was mixed in the first 30 cm of the soil in the following 48 h after the application. Subsequently, seeding was carried out. Since the beginning of the trial, the treatments receiving 40 Mg ha−1 every 3 years have received a cumulative amount of 240 Mg ha−1 of the biosolid spread over 6 applications. This amount corresponds to 15.8 Mg ha−1 accumulated organic carbon applied to the soil over the 18 years (2.6 Mg ha−1 per application) according to analytical data (Table 1). The factor Nmin was computed as the proportion of mineral N applied by mineral fertiliser corresponding to 0, 1/3, 2/3, 3/3, and 4/3 of 100% of the recommended NFUs for the implanted crop. This recommended NFU dose was calculated considering a restitution dose of nitrogen extractions for an average production of 6 Mg ha−1 of winter wheat in the area, corresponding to the average productivity of the agroclimatic zone. This quantity corresponds to 180 NFUs in the case of rainfed wheat, a crop grown in the sampling year, thus obtaining the technoeconomic optimum. Therefore, the NFUs applied by mineral fertiliser in each treatment were 0, 60, 120, 180, and 240. The NFUs corresponding to each fertiliser treatment were applied at two different times depending on the phenological stage of the crop. The first 60 NFUs were applied coinciding with the phenological stage of tillering, and the remaining dose was applied during the stem elongation stage. The mineral nitrogen fertiliser used was a mixture of 46% urea and 21% ammonium sulphate in a ratio of 70:30. The treatments that did not receive the biosolid also received a bottom dressing of 60 P2O5 fertiliser units in super format at 45%.
From the combination of both factors, 10 treatments were obtained, one being the control treatment (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 0 NFUs) and the other the reference treatment (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 180 NFUs). The treatments were named according to the amount of NFUs in the mineral fertiliser format they contained, and in the case of the biosolid treatments, a “+” was added. The studied fertiliser treatments, as well as their nomenclature, are shown in detail in Table 2.

2.2. Biosolid Composition and Amendment Properties

The Arazuri urban wastewater treatment plant receives wastewater from the City of Pamplona and its metropolitan area, a population of approximately 335,000 [68]. The wastewater is subjected to a primary phase (pretreatment and settling), followed by a secondary or biological phase (aeration basin and secondary settling). The resulting sludge receives anaerobic digestion, homogenisation, and dewatering. From this point on, it is called a biosolid. The use of this biosolid as an organic amendment in agriculture complies with national and European regulations [69,70]. For this reason, its physical and chemical properties are monitored by the competent official authorities from the beginning of the trial. Regarding the concentration of heavy metals in the biosolid and their possible transfer to the soil and crops, a study was carried out on the joint experimental plot amended with this same biosolid [71]. Table 1 shows that these properties remained relatively unchanged during the study period.
Table
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of the biosolid used in this study in 2003 (start of the experiment) and 2018 (application) together with the analytical methods used. Mean annual values ± standard deviation. In the table, SOC and STN stand for soil organic carbon and soil total nitrogen, respectively.
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of the biosolid used in this study in 2003 (start of the experiment) and 2018 (application) together with the analytical methods used. Mean annual values ± standard deviation. In the table, SOC and STN stand for soil organic carbon and soil total nitrogen, respectively.
Physical-Chemical Properties20032018Analysis Method
General parameters
pH8.2 ± 0.038.2 ± 0.03Soil pH in water 1:5 [72]
Electrical conductivity (μs cm−3)1749 ± 241795 ± 28Diluted extracts 1:5 [73]
Dry matter (%)19.0 ± 0.3518.1 ± 0.4Direct calcination at 540 °C [74]
Organic carbon (% of dry matter)38.7 ± 0.736.4 ± 1.1Walkley–Black wet oxidation [75]
C:N6.0 ± 0.15.5 ± 0.1SOC: STN ratio
Fertilizing elements (% of dry substance)
N total6.5 ± 0.26.6 ± 0.2Kjeldahl digestion and distillation [76]
Phosphorus (P2O5) 7.1 ± 0.25.6 ± 0.2Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Potassium (K2O) 0.6 ± 0.00.6 ± 0.1Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Nitrogen Fertiliser Units (NFUs)493478Estimation from total N
Trace metals (mg kg−1 dry weight)
Cadmium (Cd)*0.88 ± 0.09Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Copper (Cu)303 ± 13.2187 ± 11Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Nickel (Ni)51 ± 2.232.1 ± 0.77Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Lead (Pb)71 ± 4.239.0 ± 1.2Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Zinc (Zn)1408 ± 71874 ± 38Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Mercury (Hg)*0.003 ± 0.003Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
Chromium (Cr)180 ± 8.158.3 ± 3.2Microwave digestion + ICP-MS [77,78]
*—Not analysed.
Table
Table 2. Nitrogen fertiliser units (NFUs) contributed to the crop in the sampling year by biosolid (BS), mineral fertiliser (Nmin), and total (sum of BS and Nmin).
Table 2. Nitrogen fertiliser units (NFUs) contributed to the crop in the sampling year by biosolid (BS), mineral fertiliser (Nmin), and total (sum of BS and Nmin).
Fertiliser TreatmentBSNminTotalNomenclature
0 Mg ha−1 of BS + 0 NFUs of mineral fertiliser0000 NFUs
0 Mg ha−1 of BS + 60 NFUs of mineral fertiliser0606060 NFUs
0 Mg ha−1 of BS + 120 NFUs of mineral fertiliser0120120120 NFUs
0 Mg ha−1 of BS + 180 NFUs of mineral fertiliser0180180180 NFUs
0 Mg ha−1 of BS + 240 NFUs of mineral fertiliser0240240240 NFUs
40 Mg ha−1 of BS + 0 NFUs of mineral fertiliser480480+ NFUs
40 Mg ha−1 of BS + 60 NFUs of mineral fertiliser486010860+ NFUs
40 Mg ha−1 of BS + 120 NFUs of mineral fertiliser48120168120+ NFUs
40 Mg ha−1 of BS + 180 NFUs of mineral fertiliser48180228180+ NFUs
40 Mg ha−1 of BS + 240 NFUs of mineral fertiliser48240288240+ NFUs
The effectiveness of the biosolid to supply mineral N to the crop used in this trial was 30% for the 1st year, 20% for the 2nd year, and 10% for the 3rd year after its application. These coefficients were calculated from previous trials on cereal crops managed by the Instituto Navarro de Tecnologías e Infraestructuras Agroalimentarias (INTIA) [79].

2.3. Nitrogen Fertiliser Units in Each Fertiliser Treatment

The NFUs available to the crop of each treatment can be seen in Table 2. The NFUs of the biosolid in the year of sampling (3rd year after the last application) were calculated using the biosolid efficiencies mentioned in the previous section (10%) and the initial biosolid fertilisation dose applied (478 NFUs, Table 1). The total NFUs of the treatments were calculated by adding the NFUs contributed by the biosolid (0 or 48) and the NFUs added using mineral fertilisation (0, 60, 120, 180, and 240).

2.4. Soil Sampling and Analytical Determinations

The soil samples were taken in early summer 2021, before harvest, 18 years after the start of the trial, and 3 years after the last biosolid application. Disturbed soil samples were collected from each treatment and replicated at a 0–30 cm depth with an Edelman auger. For each treatment and replicate, a sample composed of three randomly located subsamples was collected, avoiding the edges of the plots. The three subsamples were mixed in a polythene bag and transferred for processing, protected from sunlight. Undisturbed samples with 100 cm3 rings were also taken from each plot for bulk density determination. In the laboratory, the disturbed samples were air-dried at room temperature and ground to a size of 2 mm for further analysis. The undisturbed samples were oven-dried at 105 °C for 48 h.

2.4.1. Crop Yield and Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency

Wheat, of the variety “Filón” [80], was harvested a few days after the sample collection. The yields were assessed by harvesting a 13.5 m2 (1.5 m × 9 m) area from each plot. The harvester used was a self-propelled HALDRUP C-65 microplot harvester (Haldrup, Denmark) with automated yield and quality records and a 1.5 m cut. The yields, expressed as Mg ha−1, were calculated with reference to 12% grain moisture.
The nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE, kg ha−1) was computed as follows:
N A E = ( Υ T − Υ C ) F
where  Υ T  is the grain yield of the treatment (kg ha−1),  Υ C  is the yield of the control treatment (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 0 NFUs) (kg ha−1), and F is the total NFUs of the treatment (kg ha−1, Table 2).

2.4.2. Soil Organic Carbon and Soil Total Nitrogen Analysis

The soil organic carbon content was determined according to the Walkley–Black wet oxidation method [75] due to the high concentration of carbonates in the soil. The total nitrogen in the soil was determined following the Dumas combustion method. The scaling of both determinations to a soil mass per area corresponding to a soil depth of 30 cm was conducted by using the bulk density of each microplot.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using R software [81]. Nitrogen agronomic efficiency was analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the determination of the significance between treatments. The soil carbon content, soil nitrogen content, and grain yield were analysed using a full-factorial, two-way ANOVA for the determination of the significance between Nmin and BioSolid treatments. The “lm” and “anova” functions of the Stats package were used for this analysis. A Type III Sum of Squares provided by the “Anova” function of the car package [82] was assumed when data were not fully balanced due to a missing value. Post hoc analysis using the “HSM.test” function from the agricolae package [83] with the appropriate setting of the “unbalanced” flag and the default signification level of 0.05 were used to separate the significant treatment combinations. The normality and homoscedasticity of the residuals were assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test provided by the function “shapiro.test” of the stats package [81] and the “leveneTest” function of the car package [82].
The data were also analysed by means of a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the Nmin levels as the numerical covariate and the BioSolid treatments as the factor. With this approach, the significance of the interaction term allows assessing if the slope of the data (the increase in the dependent variable per mineral NFU added) differs in the presence of an organic amendment, which would highlight differences in the efficiency of fertilisation to store carbon or nitrogen in the soil.
The ANOVA and ANCOVA tables obtained in this contribution can be seen in the supplementary material file (Tables S1–S7), where interested readers are referred.

3. Results

3.1. Crop Yield

ANOVA found a significant effect of the factors BioSolid (p-value < 0.001) and Nmin (p-value < 0.001), as well as the interaction (p-value < 0.001), on the grain yield of the crop. The significance of the interaction term was due to the saturation of the grain yield at higher fertilisation levels (Figure 1). Without the addition of organic fertiliser (BioSolid: No), the maximum grain yield was attained from the Nmin level of 180 NFUs. Nonetheless, when the organic fertiliser was present (BioSolid: Yes), attaining the maximum grain yield required a lower dose of Nmin: 120 NFUs. The mean yields of the treatments allowing the achievement of maximum yield production (letter a in Figure 1) were not statistically distinguishable (α = 0.5), irrespective of whether the organic fertiliser was added or not.
The ANCOVA analyses were conducted including the Nmin levels 0, 60, and 120 NFUs, which showed a linear relationship with the grain yield. A significant effect of BioSolid (p-value < 0.001) and Nmin (p-value < 0.001) was found. The interaction between the factor and the covariate was shown to be not significant (p-value < 0.65), suggesting that, before the yield saturation, the increase in yield per NFU was not statistically different using a pure mineral (BioSolid: No) or a mixed organic–mineral amendment strategy (BioSolid: Yes).

3.2. Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency

The ANOVA found significant differences between the fertiliser treatments (p-value < 0.01). As can be seen in Table 3, the highest NAE was observed in the fertiliser treatments adding 60 NFUs (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 60), 60+ NFUs (BioSolid: Yes; Nmin: 60), and 120+ NFUs (BioSolid: Yes; Nmin: 120). The lowest NAE was obtained in the 240+ NFUs (BioSolid: Yes; Nmin: 240) treatment.

3.3. Soil Organic Carbon

The ANOVA found a significant effect of the factors BioSolid (p-value < 0.001) and Nmin (p-value = 0.02), but not of their interaction (p-value < 0.92), on the soil organic carbon content. In general terms, the soil organic carbon stocks found when the organic fertiliser was used (BioSolid: Yes) were similar to the ones obtained at the higher Nmin levels (180 and 240 NFUs) (Figure 2).
The ANCOVA suggested a highly significant effect of BioSolid (p-value < 0.001) and Nmin (p-value < 0.001) to explain the soil organic carbon stocks. The interaction between the factor and the covariate was not significant (p-value < 0.55), suggesting that the increase in soil organic carbon per mineral NFU added was not statistically different, irrespective of whether a pure mineral amendment strategy (BioSolid: No) or a mixed organic–mineral approach (BioSolid: Yes) was assumed.

3.4. Soil Total Nitrogen

The ANOVA suggested a highly significant effect of the factor BioSolid (p-value < 0.001) to explain the observed values of total nitrogen. The Nmin factor was not significant at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value = 0.11) and the BioSolid:Nmin interaction was clearly not significant (p-value = 0.96). Therefore, only the application of the biosolid significantly increased the soil total nitrogen content. Taking this into account, the soil total nitrogen was significantly higher when the organic fertiliser was used (BioSolid: Yes) (Figure 3).
A significant effect of both BioSolid (p-value < 0.001) and Nmin (p-value < 0.01) to explain the measured total soil nitrogen could, nonetheless, be detected using ANCOVA, which suggests that both Nmin and BioSolid may indeed explain the soil total nitrogen recorded in the study. A not-significant effect of the BioSolid:Nmin interaction (p-value = 0.62) was supported by ANCOVA as well. This suggests that there was no statistical difference between the accumulation rate of soil total nitrogen as the mineral nitrogen dose increased, irrespective of whether the organic fertiliser was added (BioSolid: Yes) or not (BioSolid: No).

4. Discussion

4.1. Crop Yield and Nitrogen Use

Yield saturation was reached earlier with the application of BioSolid. As shown in Figure 1, the maximum yield was reached with the 120+ treatment (168 total NFUs, Table 2), and from the Nmin 120 NFUs onwards, the yield stagnated. In contrast, when the BioSolid was not applied, the maximum yield was reached at 180 NFUs. The ANCOVA showed no difference in the yield increase per unit of Nmin input independently of BioSolid; that is, the yield increase rate before the grain yield saturated was the same with and without the biosolid.
The 120+ NFUs treatment (BioSolid: Yes; Nmin: 120) provided the N necessary to cover the maximum productive needs of the crop, as did the 180 NFUs treatment. In this combined fertilisation (CF) treatment, the biosolid is likely to have provided progressively inorganic N released by the mineralization and nitrification processes [59,84,85,86,87]. This was probably also favoured by increased soil total nitrogen (STN) stocks motivated by the CF used (Figure 3) [63,88]. This supply of inorganic N can also be partially explained by an increased biological activity favoured by the biosolid. In that respect, some authors [84] found an increase in root metabolism induced by microbial activity three years after the biosolid application, which ensured the maximum wheat grain yield.
The grain yields observed in our study were comparable to the historical average production of the agricultural region (Region III in [89]). In this area, approximately 180–240 NFUs are used, and its grain yield is around 5.5–6 Mg ha−1 [90,91,92]. In the study year, the 120+ NFUs and 180 NFUs treatments obtained yields of 7.5 Mg ha−1, with the average for the area that year being 5.8 Mg ha−1 [93]. Focusing on the latter, even the 60+ treatment (108 total NFUs, Table 2) would have been sufficient to achieve the average yield of the region (Figure 1). Decreased mineral NFU needs to achieve maximum yields have been reported by similar studies performing annual applications of organic amendments including biosolids [59,61,62,63,94]. Our contribution extends their findings by demonstrating (i) the long-term effect of these effects and (ii) that not only minerals, but also the total NFUs, can be reduced with the use of CF.
Specifically, we report reductions of approximately 33% in mineral fertilisers and 7% in the total NFUs to obtain the maximum grain yield, which could represent a 67% reduction in mineral fertilisers and a 40% reduction in the total NFUs to obtain the average yield of the area. These findings are in agreement with a recent similar study, where a reduction of between 18 and 54% of mineral fertiliser as a function of organic amendment applied was estimated [60]. Another recent study quantified similar values with a decrease of 22% in the use of mineral fertiliser [94]. Additionally, similarly, sewage sludge (aerated and dewatered) was reported to show the highest potential for mineral fertiliser replacement [60].
The good performance of the CF strategy translates into a higher NAE. Treatments 120+ and 60+ also showed the highest NAE values, which further suggests they are the most efficient alternatives among the studied treatments (Table 3). Generally, the NAE is a function of the N application rate, crop type, and nitrogen fertiliser applied [31]. In our study, an increased NAE when CF was applied could be due to the existence of fewer losses from the system motivated by the reduction in the inorganic, more labile N [29,31,63]. In addition, the organic amendment effect on the regulation of the soil quality, root growth, and the N accumulation postanthesis [62,95,96,97] likely contributed to increasing the NAE as well. From this perspective, previous studies have similarly shown an increased nitrogen use efficiency when CF was adopted [62,95,97,98,99,100].
For a rational use of biosolids, their contaminant content must also be considered, as their use can be related to a possible transmission of heavy metals and contaminants. The biosolid used in this study was fully compliant with the current legislation to be applied on agricultural soil (see Section 2.2 for further details). In addition, a recent study [71] carried out with the same biosolid at a higher application rate and frequency concluded that the concentration of heavy metals in grain and soil after 26 years of application were below the legislative levels. Therefore, the application of this biosolid as an organic amendment in the edaphic, climate, and agricultural management conditions of our study is compatible with soil health and the promotion of the circular economy.

4.2. Soil Organic Carbon and Soil Total Nitrogen Storage

In our study, BioSolid and Nmin, but not their interaction, were significant in explaining organic C storage, and the rate of the carbon storage per unit of NFU added was not statistically different, irrespective of whether the biosolid was added or not. The combined organic–inorganic fertilisation showed the highest soil organic carbon (SOC) stock values (Figure 2). No differences in SOC stocks were observed among the mineral-only treatments or among the CF treatments. A significant difference was observed between some CF treatments and the lower Nmin mineral-only treatments (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 60 and 120) and between the CF treatments and the control treatment (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 0). This suggests that, at low NFUs, the CF is more effective in storing C than the mineral-only fertilisation. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the combined organic–inorganic fertiliser combinations showed the highest SOC stock values (Figure 2), these stocks were not statistically distinguishable from the SOC stock shown by the reference mineral fertilisation (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 180).
An organic amendment application was also one of the most effective strategies favouring C storage in a recent study conducted in the region [16]. In a recent meta-analysis assessing carbon storage after biosolid application to soil, four variables were found to be related to SOC stocks. The cumulative rate of the biosolid was the main factor affecting soil C content, followed by time after application, soil depth, and the C content of the biosolid [4]. The significance of Nmin in increasing SOC is also consistent with previous studies [33,34,36,101]. However, we did not observe a higher SOC accumulation for the CF compared to the reference fertilisation (BioSolid: No; Nmin: 180). This could be due to the management of the trial, where straw was removed. In this respect, the fertiliser technique used favoured the development of aerial biomass (grain and straw). With the application of mineral fertilisers [32] and a biosolid [47], this vegetative development increased. The biomass increase is suggested to be particularly acute for organic amendments with a C:N ratio of 10 or lower [102], ratios similar to the ones observed for our biosolid (Table 1). Nonetheless, the highest aerial vegetative growth was observed with the use of CF [61,62,103,104,105]. Leaving straw in the field is a practice usually recommended to increase the SOC stock [11,12,106]. In fact, a study also testing a CF strategy found a significant correlation between wheat biomass and SOC and STN in the 0 to 20 cm soil layer [105]. Therefore, by removing the straw, a large amount of organic C would be lost from the system, preventing further SOC storage potential. On the other hand, the low SOC accumulation with the use of CF may also be related to an increased emission of gases produced by microbial respiration after biosolid application [55,56,107,108]. Organic amendments with a low C:N ratio, such as the one in our study (Table 1), have been found to produce higher CO2 and N2O emissions when combined with mineral fertilisation [84,103,109]. Therefore, soil respiration in CF approaches would be favoured by the low C:N ratio of biosolids, which have a high amount of C and labile N available as a consequence of incomplete reactions of anaerobic digestion [107,110].
When it comes to STN, the BioSolid factor was found to be the sole factor to significantly increase STN, with a significantly higher stock being observed when it was applied (Figure 3). A simultaneous increase in SOC and STN content as a consequence of the application of organic amendments has been previously documented [36,63,111,112]. This simultaneous improvement would be related to the linear correlation of STN with SOC, especially for the CF treatments [63]. Furthermore, the application of organic amendments is related to an increase in the light and heavy fractions of soil organic matter, contributing to the stabilisation of SOC and STN [51,113]. In this sense, the increase in SNT would contribute to the stable storage of SOC [18,19].

5. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that with the agronomic use of a biosolid, the amount of mineral fertiliser needed to obtain yields similar to the reference treatment (180 mineral NFUs) decreased, even 3 years after the last application of the organic fertiliser. This translated to decreased fertilisation needs. Specifically, mineral N and total NFU needs required to obtain yields similar to the reference mineral-only treatment decreased by 33% and 7%, respectively. When compared to the mean local crop production, the combined fertilisation obtained similar yields with 67% less mineral fertiliser and 40% fewer total NFUs. These results may be related to a higher NAE, which was observed in combined fertilisation treatments whose fertilisation properties did not exceed the total NFUs required by the crop. From this vantage point, this contribution demonstrates that the use of an organic–mineral fertilisation strategy would simultaneously allow for a reduction in expensive mineral fertilisers while maintaining soil organic carbon storage, soil total nitrogen storage, and average regional grain yields. Considering that soil amended with this biosolid over a long period of time has been reported not to exceed the trace metals allowed by the national and European legislation when used at the rates in this study, these combined organic–mineral strategies are well aligned with the simultaneous improvement in soil health and the promotion of the circular economy.
This contribution also suggests the need for assessing the efficacy of each agricultural technique locally to avoid overestimating or underestimating their potential to produce food, while maintaining or improving soil functioning and health.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture13040860/s1, Table S1. Two-way ANOVA table for grain yield (kg ha−1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factors Biosolid (2 levels), dose of mineral fertiliser nitrogen (Nmin, 5 levels), and the interaction between both (BioSolid:Nmin) are presented. Table S2. ANCOVA table for grain yield (kg ha−1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factor Biosolid (2 levels), the covariate dose of mineral fertiliser nitrogen (Nmin, 3 levels), and the interaction between both (BioSolid:Nmin) are presented. Table S3. One-way ANOVA table for nitrogen agronomic efficiency (kg Nitrogen Fertiliser Unit-1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factor fertiliser-treatment (9 levels) are presented. Table S4. Two-way ANOVA table for soil organic carbon (kg ha−1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factors Biosolid (2 levels), dose of mineral fertiliser nitrogen (Nmin, 5 levels), and the interaction between both (BioSolid:Nmin) are presented. Table S5. ANCOVA table for soil organic carbon (kg ha−1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factor Biosolid (2 levels), the covariate dose of mineral fertiliser nitrogen (Nmin, 5 levels), and the interaction between both (BioSolid:Nmin) are presented. Table S6. Two-way ANOVA table for soil total nitrogen (kg ha−1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factors Biosolid (2 levels), dose of mineral fertiliser nitrogen (Nmin, 5 levels), and the interaction between both (BioSolid:Nmin) are presented. Table S7. ANCOVA table for soil total nitrogen (kg ha−1). The Sum of Squares (Sum Sq), Degrees of freedom (Df), F value, and p-value (Pr(>F)) for the factor Biosolid (2 levels), the covariate dose of mineral fertiliser nitrogen (Nmin, 5 levels), and the interaction between both (BioSolid:Nmin) are presented.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A., X.P. and L.O.; methodology, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A. and X.P.; software, X.P.; validation, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A., X.P. and L.O.; formal analysis, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A. and X.P.; investigation, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A., X.P. and L.O.; resources, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A., X.P. and L.O.; data curation, A.Z., R.A. and X.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A. and X.P.; visualization, A.Z., R.A. and X.P.; supervision, A.Z., A.E., I.V., R.A., X.P. and L.O.; project administration, A.E. and L.O.; funding acquisition, L.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded and promoted by the National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA) which granted aid for the hiring of teaching and research staff through the RTA2017-00088-C03-01 project from 2019 to 2023.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their belonging to a multi stakeholder project.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the services and disposition of the Commonwealth of Pamplona, which contributed the experimental plot and the sludge from the Arazuri treatment plant. We also thank the team from the Soil Science Laboratory of the Public University of Navarra (UPNA) and the team from the Navarre Institute of Agri-Food Technologies and Infrastructures. XP is a María Zambrano Fellow at the UPNA. RA is a Margarita Salas Fellow at the UPNA. XP and RA acknowledge funding from the European Union—NextGenerationEU through the Spanish program “Ayuda para la Recualificación del Sistema Universitario Español”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lal, R.; Delgado, J.A.; Groffman, P.M.; Millar, N.; Dell, C.; Rotz, A. Management to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011, 66, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W.T. Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change: A Critical Re-Examination to Identify the True and the False. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 62, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dignac, M.-F.; Derrien, D.; Barré, P.; Barot, S.; Cécillon, L.; Chenu, C.; Chevallier, T.; Freschet, G.T.; Garnier, P.; Guenet, B.; et al. Increasing Soil Carbon Storage: Mechanisms, Effects of Agricultural Practices and Proxies. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Wijesekara, H.; Colyvas, K.; Rippon, P.; Hoang, S.A.; Bolan, N.S.; Manna, M.C.; Thangavel, R.; Seshadri, B.; Vithanage, M.; Awad, Y.M.; et al. Carbon Sequestration Value of Biosolids Applied to Soil: A Global Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 112008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Eglin, T.; Ciais, P.; Piao, S.L.; Barre, P.; Bellassen, V.; Cadule, P.; Chenu, C.; Gasser, T.; Koven, C.; Reichstein, M.; et al. Historical and Future Perspectives of Global Soil Carbon Response to Climate and Land-Use Changes. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2010, 62, 700–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Wang, G.; Wang, M.; Guo, X.; Yu, Y.; Han, P.; Luo, Z. Efficiency of Additional Organic Inputs for Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils Modulated by the Priming Effect and Physical Accessibility. Geoderma 2022, 406, 115498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bhattacharyya, S.S.; Ros, G.H.; Furtak, K.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; Parra-Saldívar, R. Soil Carbon Sequestration—An Interplay between Soil Microbial Community and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 815, 152928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chenu, C.; Angers, D.A.; Barré, P.; Derrien, D.; Arrouays, D.; Balesdent, J. Increasing Organic Stocks in Agricultural Soils: Knowledge Gaps and Potential Innovations. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 188, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, R.; Senbayram, M.; Blagodatsky, S.; Myachina, O.; Dittert, K.; Lin, X.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Kuzyakov, Y. Soil C and N Availability Determine the Priming Effect: Microbial N Mining and Stoichiometric Decomposition Theories. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 2356–2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xiao, L.; Zhou, S.; Zhao, R.; Wei, C. The Net and Combined Effects of Minimum Tillage and Straw Mulching on Carbon Accumulation in Global Croplands. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 143, 126719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, B.; Liang, F.; Wang, Y.; Cao, W.; Song, H.; Chen, J.; Guo, J. Science of the Total Environment Magnitude and Ef Fi Ciency of Straw Return in Building up Soil Organic Carbon: A Global Synthesis Integrating the Impacts of Agricultural Managements and Environmental Conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 875, 162670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhu, C.; Zhong, W.; Han, C.; Deng, H.; Jiang, Y. Driving Factors of Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration under Straw Returning across China’ s Uplands. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 335, 117590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rieke, E.L.; Cappellazzi, S.B.; Cope, M.; Liptzin, D.; Mac Bean, G.; Greub, K.L.H.; Norris, C.E.; Tracy, P.W.; Aberle, E.; Ashworth, A.; et al. Linking Soil Microbial Community Structure to Potential Carbon Mineralization: A Continental Scale Assessment of Reduced Tillage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 168, 108618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dijkstra, F.A.; Zhu, B.; Cheng, W. Root Effects on Soil Organic Carbon: A Double-Edged Sword. New Phytol. 2021, 230, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sun, T.; Wang, Y.; Hui, D.; Jing, X.; Feng, W. Soil Properties Rather than Climate and Ecosystem Type Control the Vertical Variations of Soil Organic Carbon, Microbial Carbon, and Microbial Quotient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 148, 107905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Antón, R.; Arricibita, F.J.; Ruiz-Sagaseta, A.; Enrique, A.; de Soto, I.; Orcaray, L.; Zaragüeta, A.; Virto, I. Soil Organic Carbon Monitoring to Assess Agricultural Climate Change Adaptation Practices in Navarre, Spain. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2021, 21, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lembaid, I.; Moussadek, R.; Mrabet, R.; Douaik, A.; Bouhaouss, A. Modeling the Effects of Farming Management Practices on Soil Organic Carbon Stock under Two Tillage Practices in a Semi-Arid Region, Morocco. Heliyon 2021, 7, e05889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gärdenäs, A.I.; Ågren, G.I.; Bird, J.A.; Clarholm, M.; Hallin, S.; Ineson, P.; Kätterer, T.; Knicker, H.; Nilsson, S.I.; Näsholm, T.; et al. Knowledge Gaps in Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Interactions—From Molecular to Global Scale. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 702–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Knicker, H. Soil Organic N—An under-Rated Player for C Sequestration in Soils? Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1118–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Barthel, S.; Isendahl, C.; Vis, B.N.; Drescher, A.; Evans, D.L.; van Timmeren, A. Global Urbanization and Food Production in Direct Competition for Land: Leverage Places to Mitigate Impacts on SDG2 and on the Earth System. Anthr. Rev. 2019, 6, 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. INED. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-92-1-148316-1. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gouel, C.; Guimbard, H. Nutrition Transition and the Structure of Global Food Demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 101, 383–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W.; Wang, P.; McKenna, B.A.; Lombi, E. Soil and the Intensification of Agriculture for Global Food Security. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. FAO. World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2018; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; ISBN 9789251086926. [Google Scholar]
  25. FAO Producción de Alimentos Para El 2050. Available online: https://www.fao.org/americas/noticias/ver/es/c/229357/ (accessed on 22 March 2022).
  26. Montemurro, F.; Diacono, M. Towards a Better Understanding of Agronomic Efficiency of Nitrogen: Assessment and Improvement Strategies. Agronomy 2016, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Verzeaux, J.; Hirel, B.; Dubois, F.; Lea, P.J.; Tétu, T. Agricultural Practices to Improve Nitrogen Use Efficiency through the Use of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae: Basic and Agronomic Aspects. Plant Sci. 2017, 264, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. An, N.; Wei, W.; Qiao, L.; Zhang, F.; Christie, P.; Jiang, R.; Dobermann, A.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Fan, J.; Fan, M. Agronomic and Environmental Causes of Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency Gaps in Chinese Rice Farming Systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 93, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xu, A.; Li, L.; Xie, J.; Wang, X.; Coulter, J.A.; Liu, C.; Wang, L. Effect of Long-Term Nitrogen Addition on Wheat Yield, Nitrogen Use Efficiency, and Residual Soil Nitrate in a Semiarid Area of the Loess Plateau of China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Guo, C.; Liu, X.; He, X. A Global Meta-Analysis of Crop Yield and Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Nitrogen Fertilizer Application. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liang, G.; Sun, P.; Waring, B.G. Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency under Nitrogen Fertilization Does Not Change over Time in the Long Term: Evidence from 477 Global Studies. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 223, 105468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xia, J.; Wan, S. Global Response Patterns of Terrestrial Plant Species to Nitrogen Addition. New Phytol. 2008, 179, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Geisseler, D.; Scow, K.M. Long-Term Effects of Mineral Fertilizers on Soil Microorganisms—A Review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 75, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yue, K.; Peng, Y.; Peng, C.; Yang, W.; Peng, X.; Wu, F. Stimulation of Terrestrial Ecosystem Carbon Storage by Nitrogen Addition: A Meta-Analysis OPEN. Sci. Rep. 2015, 6, 19895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Luo, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Liu, S.; Peng, P. Nitrogen Fertilization Increases Rice Rhizodeposition and Its Stabilization in Soil Aggregates and the Humus Fraction. Plant Soil 2019, 445, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ladha, J.K.; Reddy, C.K.; Padre, A.T.; van Kessel, C. Role of Nitrogen Fertilization in Sustaining Organic Matter in Cultivated Soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1756–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Ding, F.; Ji, D.; Yan, K.; Dijkstra, F.A.; Bao, X.; Li, S. Science of the Total Environment Increased Soil Organic Matter after 28 Years of Nitrogen Fertilization Only with Plastic Fi Lm Mulching Is Controlled by Maize Root Biomass. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 810, 152244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zang, H.; Wang, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. N Fertilization Decreases Soil Organic Matter Decomposition in the Rhizosphere. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 108, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, W.; Qiao, C.; Yang, S.; Bai, W.; Liu, L. Geoderma Microbial Carbon Use e Ffi Ciency and Priming e Ff Ect Regulate Soil Carbon Storage under Nitrogen Deposition by Slowing Soil Organic Matter Decomposition. Geoderma 2018, 332, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zang, H.; Blagodatskaya, E. Nitrogen Fertilization Increases Rhizodeposit Incorporation into Microbial Biomass and Reduces Soil Organic Matter Losses. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2017, 53, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhao, M.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, M.; Yao, Y.; Ao, Y.; Yin, B.; Zhu, Z. Nonlinear Response of Nitric Oxide Emissions to a Nitrogen Application Gradient: A Case Study during the Wheat Season in a Chinese Rice-Wheat Rotation System. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 102, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, S.A.; Mulvaney, R.L.; Ellsworth, T.R.; Boast, C.W. The Myth of Nitrogen Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration. J. Environ. Qual. 2007, 36, 1821–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Raza, S.; Zamanian, K.; Ullah, S.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Virto, I.; Zhou, J. Inorganic Carbon Losses by Soil Acidification Jeopardize Global Efforts on Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change Mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lu, M.; Yang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Fang, C.; Zhou, X.; Chen, J.; Yang, X.; Li, B. Responses of Ecosystem Nitrogen Cycle to Nitrogen Addition: A Meta-Analysis. New Phytol. 2011, 189, 1040–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Singh, B.; Sapkota, T.B. The Effects of Adequate and Excessive Application of Mineral Fertilizers on the Soil. In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment; Goss, M., Oliver, M., Eds.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 1–14. ISBN 9780128229743. [Google Scholar]
  46. Vetsch, J.A.; Randall, G.W.; Fernández, F.G.; Vetsch, J.; Randall, G. Nitrate Loss in Subsurface Drainage from a Corn–Soybean Rotation as Affected by Nitrogen Rate and Nitrapyrin. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 988–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Siebielec, G.; Siebielec, S.; Lipski, D. Long-Term Impact of Sewage Sludge, Digestate and Mineral Fertilizers on Plant Yield and Soil Biological Activity. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Boudjabi, S.; Kribaa, M.; Chenchouni, H. Sewage Sludge Fertilization Alleviates Drought Stress and Improves Physiological Adaptation and Yield Performances in Durum Wheat (Triticum Durum): A Double-Edged Sword. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2019, 31, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Luo, G.; Li, L.; Friman, V.P.; Guo, J.; Guo, S.; Shen, Q.; Ling, N. Organic Amendments Increase Crop Yields by Improving Microbe-Mediated Soil Functioning of Agroecosystems: A Meta-Analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 124, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hemmat, A.; Aghilinategh, N.; Rezainejad, Y.; Sadeghi, M. Long-Term Impacts of Municipal Solid Waste Compost, Sewage Sludge and Farmyard Manure Application on Organic Carbon, Bulk Density and Consistency Limits of a Calcareous Soil in Central Iran. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 108, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Huang, X.; Jia, Z.; Jiao, X.; Wang, J.; Huang, X. Long-Term Manure Applications to Increase Carbon Sequestration and Macroaggregate-Stabilized Carbon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 174, 108827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Urra, J.; Alkorta, I.; Mijangos, I.; Epelde, L.; Garbisu, C. Application of Sewage Sludge to Agricultural Soil Increases the Abundance of Antibiotic Resistance Genes without Altering the Composition of Prokaryotic Communities. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 647, 1410–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hospido, A.; Carballa, M.; Moreira, M.; Omil, F.; Lema, J.M.; Feijoo, G. Environmental Assessment of Anaerobically Digested Sludge Reuse in Agriculture: Potential Impacts of Emerging Micropollutants. Water Res. 2010, 44, 3225–3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Marguí, E.; Iglesias, M.; Camps, F.; Sala, L.; Hidalgo, M. Long-Term Use of Biosolids as Organic Fertilizers in Agricultural Soils: Potentially Toxic Elements Occurrence and Mobility. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 4454–4464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Thangarajan, R.; Bolan, N.S.; Tian, G.; Naidu, R.; Kunhikrishnan, A. Role of Organic Amendment Application on Greenhouse Gas Emission from Soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 465, 72–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Obi-Njoku, O.; Boh, M.Y.; Smith, W.; Grant, B.; Price, G.W.; Hussain, N.; Whalen, J.K.; Clark, O.G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Following Biosolids Application to Farmland: Estimates from the DeNitrification and DeComposition Model. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Zhou, J.; Wen, Y.; Shi, L.; Marshall, M.R.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Zang, H. Strong Priming of Soil Organic Matter Induced by Frequent Input of Labile Carbon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 152, 108069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wei, W.; Yan, Y.; Cao, J.; Christie, P.; Zhang, F.; Fan, M. Effects of Combined Application of Organic Amendments and Fertilizers on Crop Yield and Soil Organic Matter: An Integrated Analysis of Long-Term Experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 225, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Motta, S.R.; Maggiore, T. Evaluation of Nitrogen Management in Maize Cultivation Grows on Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge and Urea. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 45, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, H.; Levavasseur, F.; Montenach, D.; Lollier, M.; Morel, C.; Houot, S. An 18-Year Field Experiment to Assess How Various Types of Organic Waste Used at European Regulatory Rates Sustain Crop Yields and C, N, P, and K Dynamics in a French Calcareous Soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 221, 105415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhai, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhai, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, M.; Yao, H.; Lv, L.; Shen, H.; Zhang, J.; Yao, Y.; et al. Partial Substitution of Chemical Fertilizer by Organic Fertilizer Benefits Grain Yield, Water Use Efficiency, and Economic Return of Summer Maize. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 217, 105287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, P.; Guo, X.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, Q.; Ren, X.; Wang, R.; Wang, X.; Chen, X.; Li, J. Quantify the Effect of Manure Fertilizer Addition and Optimal Nitrogen Input on Rainfed Wheat Yield and Nitrogen Requirement Using Nitrogen Nutrition Index. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 345, 108319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gai, X.; Liu, H.; Liu, J.; Zhai, L.; Yang, B.; Wu, S.; Ren, T.; Lei, Q.; Wang, H. Long-Term Benefits of Combining Chemical Fertilizer and Manure Applications on Crop Yields and Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 208, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gobierno de Navarra Mapa de Estaciones. Available online: http://meteo.navarra.es/estaciones/mapadeestaciones.cfm# (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  65. FAO. FAO/Unesco Soil Map of the World, Revised Legend, with Corrections and Updates; World Soil Resources Report 60; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  66. European Commission Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources. Off. J. Eur. Union 1991, 375, 1–8.
  67. Gobierno de Navarra Orden Foral 359/2010, De 26 de Julio, de la Consejera de Desarrollo Rural y Medio Ambiente, Por la que se regula la utilización de lodos de depuración en la agricultura de la comunidad foral de navarra. Bol. Of. Navar. 2010, 359.
  68. Instituto Nacional de Estadística INE. Available online: https://www.ine.es/ (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  69. European Commission Directive 86/278/EEC. Protection of the Environment, and in Particular of the Soil, When Sewage Sludge Is Used in Agriculture. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1986, 4, 6–12.
  70. Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentación y Medio Ambiente Orden AAA/1072/2013, de 7 de Junio, Sobre Utilización de Lodos de Depuración En El Sector Agrario. Boletín Of. Estado 2013, 6414, 44966–44973.
  71. Zaragüeta, A.; Enrique, A.; Virto, I.; Antón, R.; Urmeneta, H.; Orcaray, L. Effect of the Long-Term Application of Sewage Sludge to A Calcareous Soil on Its Total and Bioavailable Content in Trace Elements, and Their Transfer to the Crop. Minerals 2021, 11, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hendershot, W.H.; Lalande, H. Chapter 16. Soil Reactionand Exchangeable Acidity. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Carter, M.R., Ed.; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993; pp. 141–142. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pansu, M.; Gautheyrou, J. Chapter 18. Soluble Salts. In Handbook of Soil Analysis. Mineralogical, Organic and Inorganic Methods; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2003; pp. 608–609. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ministerio de la Presidencia, Relaciones con las Cortes y Memoria Democrática. Orden de 17 de Septiembre de 1981 Por La Que Se Establecen Métodos Oficiales de Análisis de Aceites y Grasas, Aguas, Carnes y Productos Cárnicos, Fertilizantes, Productos Fitosanitarios, Leche y Productos Lácteos, Piensos y Sus Primeras Materias, Producto. Agencia Estatal Bol. Del Estado 1981, 246, 24003–24034. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tiessen, H.; Moir, J.O. Chapter 21. Total and Organic Carbon. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Carter, M., Ed.; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993; pp. 187–191. [Google Scholar]
  76. McGill, W.B.; Figueiredo, C.T. Chapter 22. Total Nitrogen. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Carter, M., Ed.; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993; pp. 201–207. [Google Scholar]
  77. UNE-EN 17053:2018; AENOR Alimentos Para Animales. Métodos de Muestreo y Análisis. Determinación de Elementos Traza, Metales Pesados y Otros Elementos En Los Alimentos Para Animales Por ICP-MS (Multimétodo). UNE: Madrid, Spain, 2018.
  78. U.S. EPA. Method 3051A (SW-846): Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges, and Oils; Revision 1; U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  79. Irañeta Goicoa, J.; Amorena Udabe, A.; Blánquez Moreno, S. Valoración Agronómica Del Lodo de Depuradora. Navar. Agrar. 2013, 119, 5. [Google Scholar]
  80. Flormond Desprez Ficha Técnica Trigo FILON 2021.Pdf 2021. Available online: https://www.florimond-desprez.com/es/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/10/ficha_trigo_ippon_2021.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2022).
  81. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  82. Fox, J.; Weisberg, S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  83. De Mendiburu F Agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research_. R Package Version 1.3-5. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=agricolae (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  84. Calleja-Cervantes, M.E.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.M.; Villadas, P.J.; Irigoyen, I.; Irañeta, J.; Fernández-González, A.J.; Fernández-López, M.; Menéndez, S. Rational Application of Treated Sewage Sludge with Urea Increases GHG Mitigation Opportunities in Mediterranean Soils. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 238, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jorge-Mardomingo, I.; Jiménez-Hernández, M.E.; Moreno, L.; de la Losa, A.; de la Cruz, M.T.; Casermeiro, M.Á. Application of High Doses of Organic Amendments in a Mediterranean Agricultural Soil: An Approach for Assessing the Risk of Groundwater Contamination. Catena 2015, 131, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Roig, N.; Sierra, J.; Martí, E.; Nadal, M.; Schuhmacher, M.; Domingo, J.L. Long-Term Amendment of Spanish Soils with Sewage Sludge: Effects on Soil Functioning. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 158, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fuchs, M.; Frick, H.; Moinet, G.Y.K.; Mayer, M.; Katrin, E. Residual Nitrogen from Slurry and Mineral Fertiliser Two Years after Application: Fractionation and Plant Availability. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 177, 108908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Reddy, K.S.; Singh, M.; Tripathi, A.K.; Singh, M.; Saha, M.N. Changes in Amount of Organic and Inorganic Fractions of Nitrogen in an Eutrochrept Soil after Long-Term Cropping with Different Fertilizer and Organic Manure Inputs. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2003, 166, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gobierno de Navarra. Orden Foral, de 2 de Marzo de 1998, por la Que Se da Publicidad A La División Territorial De Navarra En Comarcas Agrarias. Boletín Of. Navar. 1998, 36. [Google Scholar]
  90. Gobierno de Navarra Gran Enciclopedia de Navarra. Available online: http://www.enciclopedianavarra.com/?page_id=6891 (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  91. Gobierno de Navarra. Indice de Tablas Producciones Agrícolas Total Navarra 2020 (Cierre). In Sección Estadística Rural y Ambient; Gobierno de Navarra: Pamplona, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  92. Gobierno de Navarra. Indice de Tablas Producciones Agrícolas Total Navarra 2019 (Cierre). In Sección Estadística Rural y Ambient; Gobierno de Navarra: Pamplona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  93. Gobierno de Navarra. Indice de Tablas Producciones Agrícolas Total Navarra 2021 (Cierre). In Sección Estadística Rural y Ambient; Gobierno de Navarra: Pamplona, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tang, Q.; Cotton, A.; Wei, Z.; Xia, Y.; Daniell, T.; Yan, X. How Does Partial Substitution of Chemical Fertiliser with Organic Forms Increase Sustainability of Agricultural Production? Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 803, 149933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Tang, H.; Cheng, K.; Shi, L.; Li, C.; Wen, L.; Li, W.; Sun, M.; Sun, G.; Long, Z. Effects of Long-Term Organic Matter Application on Soil Carbon Accumulation and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in a Double-Cropping Rice Field. Environ. Res. 2022, 213, 113700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cai, A.; Xu, M.; Wang, B.; Zhang, W.; Liang, G.; Hou, E.; Luo, Y. Manure Acts as a Better Fertilizer for Increasing Crop Yields than Synthetic Fertilizer Does by Improving Soil Fertility. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 189, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zhu, X.; Ros, G.H.; Xu, M.; Cai, Z.; Sun, N.; Duan, Y.; de Vries, W. Long-Term Impacts of Mineral and Organic Fertilizer Inputs on Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Different Cropping Systems and Site Conditions in Southern China. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 146, 126797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hayatu, N.G.; Liu, Y.; Han, T.; Daba, N.A.; Zhang, L.; Shen, Z.; Li, J.; Muazu, H.; Lamlom, S.F.; Zhang, H. Carbon Sequestration Rate, Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Rice Yield Responses to Long-Term Substitution of Chemical Fertilizer by Organic Manure in a Rice-Rice Cropping System. J. Integr. Agric. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pan, G.; Zhou, P.; Li, Z.; Smith, P.; Li, L.; Qiu, D.; Zhang, X.; Xu, X.; Shen, S.; Chen, X. Combined Inorganic/Organic Fertilization Enhances N Efficiency and Increases Rice Productivity through Organic Carbon Accumulation in a Rice Paddy from the Tai Lake Region, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 131, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wu, H.; Yang, T.; Liu, X.; Li, H.; Gao, L.; Yang, J.; Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, S. Towards an Integrated Nutrient Management in Crop Species to Improve Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use Efficiencies of Chaohu Watershed. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mustafa, A.; Saeed, Q.; Tahsin, M.; Nezhad, K.; Nan, S.; Hongjun, G.; Ping, Z.; Naveed, M.; Minggang, X.; Nú, A. Physically Separated Soil Organic Matter Pools as Indicators of Carbon and Nitrogen Change under Long-Term Fertilization in a Chinese Mollisol. Environ. Res. 2023, 216, 114626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Dhanker, R.; Chaudhary, S.; Goyal, S.; Kumar Garg, V. Influence of Urban Sewage Sludge Amendment on Agricultural Soil Parameters. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 23, 101642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Gong, W.; Yan, X.; Wang, J.; Hu, T.; Gong, Y. Long-Term Manure and Fertilizer Effects on Soil Organic Matter Fractions and Microbes under a Wheat–Maize Cropping System in Northern China. Geoderma 2009, 149, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rasool, R.; Kukal, S.S.; Hira, G.S. Soil Organic Carbon and Physical Properties as Affected by Long-Term Application of FYM and Inorganic Fertilizers in Maize-Wheat System. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 101, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Van der Sloot, M.; Kleijn, D.; De Deyn, G.B.; Limpens, J. Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio and Quantity of Organic Amendment Interactively Affect Crop Growth and Soil Mineral N Retention. Crop Environ. 2022, 1, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Roman-Perez, C.C.; Hernandez-Ramirez, G.; Kryzanowski, L.; Puurveen, D.; Lohstraeter, G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Nitrogen Dynamics and Barley Productivity as Impacted by Biosolids Applications. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 320, 107577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Roohi, M.; Saleem, M.; Guillaume, T.; Yasmeen, T.; Riaz, M.; Shakoor, A.; Hassan, T.; Muhammad, S.; Bragazza, L. Geoderma Role of Fertilization Regime on Soil Carbon Sequestration and Crop Yield in a Maize-Cowpea Intercropping System on Low Fertility Soils. Geoderma 2022, 428, 116152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhengchao, Z.; Zhuoting, G.; Zhouping, S.; Fuping, Z. Effects of Long-Term Repeated Mineral and Organic Fertilizer Applications on Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen in a Semi-Arid Cropland. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 45, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhang, H.; Hobbie, E.A.; Feng, P.; Zhou, Z.; Niu, L.; Duan, W.; Hao, J.; Hu, K. Responses of Soil Organic Carbon and Crop Yields to 33-Year Mineral Fertilizer and Straw Additions under Different Tillage Systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 209, 104943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wu, J.; Cheng, X.; Liu, G. Increased Soil Organic Carbon Response to Fertilization Is Associated with Increasing Microbial Carbon Use Efficiency: Data Synthesis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 171, 108731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Walling, E.; Vaneeckhaute, C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Inorganic and Organic Fertilizer Production and Use: A Review of Emission Factors and Their Variability. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Iqbal, S.; Xu, J.; Khan, S.; Ruth, F.; Zaman, H. Regenerative Fertilization Strategies for Climate-Smart Agriculture: Consequences for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Drylands. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 398, 136650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Egene, C.E.; Regelink, I.; Sigurnjak, I.; Adani, F.; Tack, F.M.G.; Meers, E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Sandy Loam Soil Amended with Digestate-Derived Biobased Fertilisers—A Microcosm Study. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 178, 104577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 00860 g001 550
Figure 1. Grain yield (Mg ha−1) as a function of the Nmin and BioSolid levels. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.5). Error bars show 1 standard deviation of 4 replicated data.
Figure 1. Grain yield (Mg ha−1) as a function of the Nmin and BioSolid levels. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.5). Error bars show 1 standard deviation of 4 replicated data.
Agriculture 13 00860 g001
Agriculture 13 00860 g002 550
Figure 2. Soil organic carbon (Mg ha−1) as a function of the Nmin and BioSolid levels. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.5). Error bars show 1 standard deviation of 4 replicated data. Symbol “ * ” denotes a group with one missing value.
Figure 2. Soil organic carbon (Mg ha−1) as a function of the Nmin and BioSolid levels. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.5). Error bars show 1 standard deviation of 4 replicated data. Symbol “ * ” denotes a group with one missing value.
Agriculture 13 00860 g002
Agriculture 13 00860 g003 550
Figure 3. Soil total nitrogen (Mg ha−1) as a function of the Nmin and BioSolid levels. Error bars show 1 standard deviation of 4 replicated data.
Figure 3. Soil total nitrogen (Mg ha−1) as a function of the Nmin and BioSolid levels. Error bars show 1 standard deviation of 4 replicated data.
Agriculture 13 00860 g003
Table
Table 3. Nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE) as a function of fertiliser treatment. The table shows the mean value ± standard deviation of each BioSolid and Nmin combination. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.5).
Table 3. Nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE) as a function of fertiliser treatment. The table shows the mean value ± standard deviation of each BioSolid and Nmin combination. Treatments with the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.5).
NminBioSolid
NoYes
0*31.5 ± 11.8 (ab)
6037.9 ± 8.9 (a)36.2 ± 7.2 (a)
12034.2 ± 6.7 (ab)37.2 ± 4.2 (a)
18033.6 ± 6.0 (ab)28.4 ± 3.8 (ab)
24027.6 ± 1.3 (ab)19.6 ± 1.7 (b)
*—Not calculated.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zaragüeta, A.; Enrique, A.; Portell, X.; Antón, R.; Virto, I.; Orcaray, L. A Fertilisation Strategy Combining Mineral Fertiliser and Biosolid Improves Long-Term Yield and Carbon Storage in a Calcareous Soil. Agriculture 2023, 13, 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040860

AMA Style

Zaragüeta A, Enrique A, Portell X, Antón R, Virto I, Orcaray L. A Fertilisation Strategy Combining Mineral Fertiliser and Biosolid Improves Long-Term Yield and Carbon Storage in a Calcareous Soil. Agriculture. 2023; 13(4):860. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zaragüeta, Armelle, Alberto Enrique, Xavier Portell, Rodrigo Antón, Iñigo Virto, and Luis Orcaray. 2023. "A Fertilisation Strategy Combining Mineral Fertiliser and Biosolid Improves Long-Term Yield and Carbon Storage in a Calcareous Soil" Agriculture 13, no. 4: 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040860

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