Next Article in Journal
A Novel Crop Pest Detection Model Based on YOLOv5
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatial Correlations between Nitrogen Budgets and Surface Water and Groundwater Quality in Watersheds with Varied Land Covers
Previous Article in Journal
A Lightweight Algorithm for Recognizing Pear Leaf Diseases in Natural Scenes Based on an Improved YOLOv5 Deep Learning Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/agriculture14020274
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

Selected Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds in a Maize Agroecosystem under the Use of Nitrogen Mineral Fertilizer, Farmyard Manure, Urease, and Nitrification Inhibitors

by
Monika Skowrońska
1,*,
Sebastian Kuśmierz
2,* and
Jacek Walczak
3
1
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 15, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
2
Institute of Soil Science, Environment Engineering and Management, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczyńskiego 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
3
Institute of Environmental Protection-National Research Institute, The National Centre for Emissions Management (KOBiZE), Słowicza 32, 02-170 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(2), 274; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020274
Submission received: 11 December 2023 / Revised: 4 February 2024 / Accepted: 6 February 2024 / Published: 8 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integrated Management and Efficient Use of Nutrients in Crop Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Carbon and nitrogen compounds in agroecosystems have attracted much attention in recent years due to their key roles in crop production and their impacts on environment quality and/or climate change. Since fertilization profoundly disrupted the C and N cycles, several mitigation and/or adaptation strategies, including the application of farmyard manure (FYM) and/or urease and nitrification inhibitors (UI and NI), have been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contents of soil organic carbon and its fractions, the total and mineral forms of nitrogen, as well as CO2 and N2O emissions under mineral and organic fertilization with and without urease and nitrification inhibitors in a maize agroecosystem. A two-year field study was carried out on Cambisols (silt) in Poland. The experiment scheme included nine treatments: C (the control without fertilization), UAN (Urea Ammonium Nitrate), UAN+UI, UAN+NI, UAN+UI+NI, FYM with N mineral fertilizer base, FYM with N mineral fertilizer base+UI, FYM with N mineral fertilizer base+NI, and FYM with N mineral fertilizer base+UI+NI. It was found that treatments fertilized with cattle FYM were higher sinks and sources of C and N compounds in comparison to the UAN plots. The organic carbon, humic and humin acid, and total nitrogen concentrations, in contrast to ammonium and nitrate nitrogen, were not affected by the inhibitors added. Nitrification and urease inhibitors were effective in decreasing N2O emissions only in treatments that were exclusively applied with UAN and had no significant influence on CO2 emissions.

1. Introduction

Soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen (N) in agricultural ecosystems have achieved tremendous attention over the past few decades due to their crucial roles in soil health maintenance, the efficiency of crop productivity, environmental quality, and/or climate change mitigation and adaptation [1].
Soil organic matter (SOM), which is critical to diverse soil functions and ecosystem services, represents the largest organic carbon reservoir in terrestrial ecosystems, which can accumulate 5–15% of the annual global C emissions mainly in humic substances (HS), which are classified according to their solubility into humins (insoluble at all pH conditions), humic acids (soluble in pH > 2), and fulvic acids (soluble at all pH values) [1,2]. Even small changes in SOC stocks may have a substantial effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentrations [3]. It was reported that 25–29% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions originate from agricultural soils. SOM also determines the amount of nitrogen in agroecosystems. Its microbiological decomposition results in the formation of mineral nitrogen–ammonium (NH4-N) and nitrate (NO3-N), which are available to plants but also easily subjected to losses via leaching, surface runoff, and volatilization [4,5]. These bring threats to the environmental quality, including the eutrophication and acidification of land and water ecosystems, ozone depletion, the formation of particulate matter, smog and acid rains, biodiversity loss, health problems, and effects on global warming [6,7]. Soil mineral forms of nitrogen can also be consumed by microorganisms and immobilized into organic forms. Approximately 833 kg of nitrogen is needed to sequester 10,000 kg of carbon in humus, assuming a C:N ratio of 12:1 [8].
The close connection of soil C and N cycling, driven mainly by the degradation and fixation of C and N, as well as nitrification and denitrification, means that even slight changes in their pools can have serious production and environmental consequences [9]. Agricultural practices, such as fertilization, have profoundly disrupted the C and N cycles [10]. The application of mineral and organic fertilizers into soil may lead to significant short-term changes in the organic matter cycling and acceleration of SOM mineralization or the immobilization of C and N. According to some authors, N mineral fertilizers initially intensify SOM mineralization; however, in the long-term period, due to increasing yields and crop residues, which can enhance carbon sequestration, they positively affect the SOC content. Some researchers, however, believe that one-sided mineral fertilization leads not only to the acceleration of mineralization processes and CO2 emission, but also to the deterioration of humus quality [1,11]. Other studies indicate that mineral fertilizers in doses covering the fertilization needs of crops only prevent a decrease in the humus level [12].
Nitrogen fertilizer use aiming to replace microbially mediated N mineralization and supply this nutrient directly to crops [13] increases the content of total nitrogen and its mineral forms. This is caused by mineral N not being absorbed by the plants and the larger biomass of crop residues left in the field after harvesting. In contrast, organic fertilization providing SOC and nutrients such as N in agroecosystems can create a more tightly coupled cycle of C and N [13]. A meta-analysis based on 101 studies with a total of 592 treatments showed that the use of farmyard-(FYM), cattle-, and pig manure caused the highest SOM increases of 50%, 32%, and 41%, respectively [14]. If manure inputs were combined with N mineral fertilizers, the SOC accumulation was even greater. There are also studies showing no or adverse effects on SOM [15]. Therefore, according to some authors [14,15], there is a need for further research under local management and environmental conditions concerning the magnitude of change in SOC stocks as the result of manure application.
Organic inputs alter the soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics affecting the chemical structure of soil organic matter. The identification of organic carbon sequestration in humic substances (HS) (humins and humic and fulvic acids) is crucial for understanding SOC stabilization and carbon cycling [16]. It is commonly believed that FYM fertilization increases the contents of humic acids and humins. However, some authors indicated the high susceptibility of the OM of soils treated with manure to oxidation, which may favor mineralization, leading to N losses.
Nitrogen and carbon inputs affect the emissions of CO2 and N2O [17]. Agroecosystems treated with mineral and organic fertilizers, however, have the potential to be not only sources but also sinks of CO2 [18,19]. Nitrogen-containing fertilizers also boost the production of the most powerful long-lived greenhouse gas—N2O—by providing a substrate for microbial denitrification, nitrification, and nitrifier denitrification processes, i.e., NO3-N and NH4-N [18,20,21]. A direct emission factor for N2O from N inputs (mineral and organic) applied to soils is 0.01 kg N2O-N/kg N input [22]. Several mitigation strategies have been developed to decrease the N emissions in agroecosystems, including the application of urease and/or nitrification inhibitors (UI and NI) [20,21,23,24]. NIs delay the bacterial oxidation of NH4-N by depressing the activities of nitrifiers in soil, whereas UIs slow down the hydrolysis of urea to NH4-N by preventing its binding to the enzyme urease [23,25]. UI and NI temporarily retard the microbiological transformations of nitrogen-based fertilizers, improving the synchronization of N bioavailability with plant uptake and mitigating N losses [25].
Previous studies indicated inconsistent or no impacts of inhibitors on CO2 and N2O emissions under maize cropping [20,21]. Recent research has combined UI with NI to increase the effectiveness in the reduction of N2O emissions [21]. In Zaman’s and Nguyen’s experiment [26], the DIs (1:7 ratio w/w of UI and NI) were more effective in minimizing N losses. Chen et al. [27], after synthesizing data from 26 meta-analyses and reviews, stated that future research should focus on double inhibitors (DIs). There is also a lack of studies comprehensively examining the impacts of UI, NI, and/or DI inhibitors under organic and mineral fertilization on the quantity and quality of soil C and N compounds as well as CO2 and N2O emissions. We hypothesized that there were such relationships. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the contents of soil organic carbon and its fractions, total and mineral forms of nitrogen, as well as CO2 and N2O emissions under mineral and organic fertilization with and without UI, NI, and DI.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Experimental Design

A two-year field study was carried out in the 2020–2021 period in a randomized complete block design with three replicates at a farm situated in Piława Górna, Poland (50°66′74.73″ N, 16°76′47.16″ E) on Cambisols (silt) with a soil pH of 6.5, an SOC content of 10 g C kg−1, a total nitrogen (TN) content of 1.11 g N kg−1, and a CEC of 11.28 cm(+) kg−1. The test plant was maize, specifically the SY Talisman variety (FAO 220–230). The annual precipitation was 589.0 mm and 603 mm in the first and second years of the experiment, respectively. Average monthly temperatures in January and July were −1.2 °C and 19.4 °C and −1 °C and 20.0 °C, respectively. Each treatment plot had dimensions of 13.5 m in width × 13.5 m in length. The experiment scheme included nine treatments (Table 1).

2.2. Soil Sampling and Analysis

Soil samples (25 per plot) were collected before the beginning of the experiment and at the end of each growing season. Soil samples were air-dried, homogenized, and sieved (2 mm sieve-mesh). The soil samples for NH4-N and NO3-N analysis were placed in polyethylene bags and stored in the refrigerator. In air-dried soil samples, the following parameters were determined: soil organic carbon by sulfochromic oxidation with titration of excess K2Cr2O7 with FeSO4(NH4)2SO4·6H2O, total nitrogen according to the Kjeldahl method, and particle size distribution using the laser diffraction method (LDM) based on the light intensity distribution pattern of the scattered light emitted from that particle group [28]. The isolation of HA, FA, and H from soil samples were carried out according to the Schnitzer method [29].
Mineral nitrogen content was determined using Skalar SAN plus Segmented Flow Analyzer (Skalar Analytic B.V., De Breda, The Netherlands) after extraction with 1% of K2SO4 [28]. The data are presented in this paper in the form of the means of the two years of studies.

2.3. CO2 and N2O Measurements

Soil CO2 and N2O emissions were measured (30 measurements per year) in situ using a portable FTIR analyzer model, GT5000 Terra (Gasmet Technologies Oy, Vantaa, Finland), equipped with the device chamber. The soil CO2 and N2O emissions were measured at randomly selected locations in each experimental plot between 11 am and 1 pm to eliminate the diurnal variability. The results were extrapolated to 24 h and 1 ha. The data were presented in the paper in the form of the means of the two years of studies.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of the results was performed using Statistica 13.3. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s mean separation were used to determine the statistical significance at p < 0.05. Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient was calculated with a significance level of p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

Mineral and organic fertilization, as well as the use of nitrification and urease inhibitors, caused quantitative and qualitative changes in the contents of carbon and nitrogen compounds in the maize agroecosystem. It is worth noting that, in the experiment conducted, the largest statistically significant differences were observed in the nitrogen pool under the conditions of mineral fertilization and the application of urease and nitrification inhibitors. The weaker effects of UI and NI under organic fertilization may have indicated the occurrence of their adsorption, faster degradation, and effectiveness reduction at higher SOC contents [25].

3.1. Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen in the Soil

Significantly higher contents of SOC (11.28 g kg−1) and TN (1.40 g kg−1) were found in the soil applied with farmyard manure combined with mineral fertilizer compared to the unfertilized control (Figure 1 and Figure 2), suggesting that organic and mineral fertilization had a beneficial effect on these parameters. Several authors also reported that the SOC levels increase in treatments with farmyard manure [17,30,31] and/or with N inorganic fertilizers [30,32]. This was linked to the amount of additional C and N applied with fertilizers and/or improvements in the crop yields and higher C and N input via rhizodeposition and plant residues [30,33]. In the present study, urease and nitrification inhibitors did not have a significant effect on the SOC and TN concentrations (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The SOC/TN ratios were low (below 10; Figure 3).

3.2. Humus Fractions in the Soil

In the present study, the SOM content fluctuations were accompanied by changes in the fractional composition of the humus. Our results showed significant quantitative differences between the major components of the soil organic matter, i.e., humic substances (HS). The HS fractions in the soils tested were dominated by C-HA (2.21–2.62 g kg−1) and C-H (5.42–6.22 g kg−1), which is consistent with the previous research [34]. Organic and mineral-amended plots registered higher C-FA, C-HA, and C-H contents compared to the control treatment (Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). However, significant differences in impact between organic and mineral fertilization were found only in the case of the C-HA and C-H concentrations. According to some authors [34,35], OM application into soil favored HA formation mainly from FAs during the inception phase of the humification process.
The ratios between C-HA and C-FA expressed as a humification index (HI), indicating the intensity of humification [34,36] were higher in the soils of the FYM treatments (1.10–1.12) than in the plots with UAN (1.0–1.04) (Figure 7). According to some authors [35], HI values > 1 showed longer residence periods for the humic acid fraction in soils. In the present study, urease and nitrification inhibitors did not have significant impacts on the HS fractions (Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6).

3.3. Mineral Nitrogen in the Soil

The transformations of nitrogen in the soil are mainly determined by mineralization, immobilization, oxidation, and reduction. Two of the key compounds in these processes are ammonium and nitrate ions.
In our research, the FYM treatment had the highest NO3-N and NH4-N contents, respectively, which were 7.70–8.01 mg kg−1 and 3.15–3.24 mg kg−1 (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Several authors also noticed that a combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers plays a significant role in the improvement of N bioavailability in soils [37,38,39]. The mineral nitrogen concentrations rose considerably under FYM application with an increasing N rate to ≥80 kg N∙ha−1 in 0–15 cm and to 120 kg N∙ha−1 in 15–60 cm depths [40].
In the present study, the inhibitor addition (NBPT, DMPP, DI) decreased the soil NO3-N content compared to the soil with applied FYM (Figure 9). However, this reduction was not statistically significant. There were also no significant effects of inhibitor use with farmyard manure on the NH4-N concentrations, although the treatments with nitrification and double inhibitors had numerically greater contents than the FYM and FYM+UI treatments.
The addition of DMPP with the UAN fertilizer effectively decreased the nitrification rates in the soil, raised the content of NH4-N by 8.70%, and lowered the NO3-N concentration by 14.46% (Figure 8 and Figure 9), which is consistent with the results of other studies [7,24,41]. DMPP extends the residence time of NH4-N in soils due to the deactivation of the enzyme responsible for the first step of nitrification, i.e., the oxidation of NH4+ to NH2OH via indiscriminate binding and suppressing ammonium monooxygenase activity [23,24,25,41,42,43]. Abalos et al. [44] noticed that NI applications could diminish denitrification-induced N losses by decreasing the soil NO3-N contents for denitrification, which allows the available nitrogen to be retained in the soil and become absorbed by the plants for a longer time.
In the present study, the application of NBPT with mineral fertilizer led to a decrease in the contents of both mineral forms of nitrogen (Figure 8 and Figure 9). N-(n-butyl)thiophosphoric triamide is quickly converted to its more effective O analog, N-(n-butyl)phosphoric triamide, which forms a tridentate ligand with the urease enzyme to slow down the catalytic hydrolysis of urea to NH4+ [25,45]. As a result of these processes, NH4+ is gradually produced, which enables its more efficient uptake by plants and, at the same time, reducing the extent of nitrification and the potential loss of NO3-N [25,42].
In previous studies [43], mineral fertilization with NI and UI inhibited not only nitrification but also urea hydrolysis, which resulted in significant decreases in the NO3-N and NH4-N concentrations, which was observed in the present experiment in the case of the latter (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

3.4. CO2 and N2O Emissions

In the conducted experiment, changes were observed not only in the pool of soil carbon and nitrogen but also in the emissions of their gaseous compounds, i.e., CO2 and N2O.
The carbon dioxide emissions ranged between 100 and 125 kg CO2 ha−1 d−1 (Figure 10). The control treatment showed the lowest CO2 losses, and the application of UAN did not induce significant changes in the CO2 emissions in comparison to the unfertilized treatment, which was consistent with other authors’ research [46,47]. The addition of DMPP and NBPT with the UAN had no significant impact on CO2 efflux (Figure 10).
Previous studies showed contradictory effects of UI and NI on CO2 fluxes. Zhang et al. [48] noticed a decrease in CO2 emissions following the use of DMPP with mineral fertilizers in field experiments. Other authors reported that the application of NBPT together with nitrification inhibitors in wheat fields mitigated soil CO2 release by blocking soil carbon mineralization. Huéfrano et al. [46] and Wang et al. [49] observed that CO2 emissions were not affected by inhibitors. Zhang et al. [48] reported that CO2 efflux from a clay loam grassland was unaffected by DMPP addition. The discrepancy observed in the inhibitory impact on the soil CO2 emission may partially lie in the differences in soil physicochemical properties (pH, Eh, and clay content) [48].
Since CO2 emission is closely linked with the decomposition of organic matter [48,50], the cattle manure treatments significantly stimulated the soil CO2 emissions by 17.92% and 25%, respectively, in comparison to the UAN and C plots (Figure 10). Sistani et al. [47] also stated that animal manure applied in farmland may be beneficial to soil health. However, it can also increase the production of GHG. Several authors reported [17,30] that carbon dioxide emissions are greater from soils treated with manure compared to inorganic fertilizer, which was attributed to a greater OM availability for microbial respiration in soil. According to previous studies, the soil C/N ratio plays a key role in controlling CO2 emissions [17], which is consistent with our study. The low SOC/TN ratios in our experiment imply that a prevailing decomposition of OM resulted in significantly higher CO2 emissions in the treatments characterized by lower values of this parameter (FYM, FYM+UI, FYM+NI, and FYM+UI+NI treatments; Figure 3 and Figure 10; r = −0.963). Abdalla et al. [30] reported that organic fertilization enhances microbial growth and activities, resulting in accelerated SOM mineralization and a priming effect. It should be underlined that, in the present study, despite the greater SOM mineralization in the FYM treatments, the final SOC level was still significantly higher in comparison to the mineral-fertilized plots (Figure 1). Significant correlations were noticed between CO2 emissions and concentrations of SOC (r = 0.622), TN (r = 0.794), C-HA (r = 0.833), C-H (r = 0.844), NH4-N (r = 0.921), and NO3-N (r = 0.932) (Table 2). Other authors reported earlier that the availability of N and SOM quality are the key factors to C mineralization in soils [17,34].
Changes in N2O emissions significantly depended on the fertilization used. The highest flux rate (5.68 g ha−1 day−1) was observed for the FYM treatment, while the lowest one was found in the control treatment (Figure 11). This was consistent with other studies where organic fertilization increased N2O emissions [38,51,52], and this might be explained by two crucial mechanisms. Firstly, the total nitrogen input was higher in the FYM treatments. Several researchers reported that the amount of N2O emissions rose strongly when the N rate was higher than 90 kg N ha−1–200 kg N ha−1 [20]. According to some authors [45], the N2O emission flux increased exponentially with a nitrogen rate of 0–225 kg N ha−1. A positive correlation was also observed between N application rates and N-N2O emissions [45,51]. Secondly, FYM provides a source of readily available C, which could stimulate nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria and N2O production in soils [40,51,52]. The growth of active microorganisms and O2 consumption in soil pores may result in the formation of a micro-anaerobic environment, favoring denitrification and N-N2O production [51]. Cai et al. [45] stated that, under conditions with limited O2, nitrous oxide may be produced via nitrifier denitrification or nitrification-coupled denitrification, and under highly anaerobic conditions, its production is dominated by denitrification.
In the present study, the application of urease, nitrification, and double inhibitors with organic fertilizer did not significantly affect the N2O emissions, which were within the range of 5.54–5.59 g ha−1 day−1 (Figure 11). Other studies also did not report an impact of UI, NI, and DI added to manure regarding the reduction in nitrous oxide emissions [53], which was due to the gradual release of mineral forms of nitrogen from FYM and the absorption or increasing decomposition of inhibitors in the presence of higher organic C concentrations [53,54].
Compared with the UAN treatment, the use of DMPP and NBPT+DMPP significantly decreased the N2O emissions by 11.89% and 13.88%, respectively (Figure 11). This was in line with studies by other authors [20], who noticed that the application of nitrification inhibitors reduced the soil N2O emissions by 1.8–61.0%. Cui et al. [7] and Ma et al. [41] reported that DMPP with urea-based fertilizers significantly inhibited the potential of the nitrification rate since it is characterized by low mobility, slow biodegradation, and persistence in the soil environment as well as interactions with ammonium monooxygenase to suppress the first rate-limiting step of soil nitrification.
The results of the current research indicate that the addition of NBPT to the mineral fertilizer decreased the value of the N2O emissions, but the reduction was not significant. Urease inhibitors, such as NBPT, influence the conversion of amide nitrogen to ammonium nitrogen during urea hydrolysis. Hence, they could retard the N-NH4 supply, which decreases the substrate availability for both nitrification and subsequent denitrification, i.e., the main processes of N2O production [20,43]. According to the data in the literature [25,42], although NBPT may delay urea hydrolysis for 3–15 days, depending on environmental factors, its influence on N2O emissions is highly variable, ranging from no effect to reduced or even increased emissions of nitrous oxide. The relatively low N2O reductions under the inhibitor used in the conducted experiment could be the result of the high contents of clay and silt in the soil tested. According to some authors, NBPT and DMPP applications were more effective in depleting N2O emissions in coarse than in fine soil due to the larger adsorption of inhibitors by clays in the latter [25,41].
There were positive correlations between the emission of N2O and concentrations of SOC (r = 0.786), TN (r = 0.884), C-HA (r = 0.931), C-H (r = 0.907), NH4-N (r = 0.924), and NO3-N (r = 0.987) (Table 2), which is consistent with other studies [17,53,55]. The high correlation between N2O emission and NH4-N concentration in the tested soil confirms that nitrification can be an important source of N2O [32,45]. The soil mineral N content is regarded as one of the key drivers of N2O emissions since ammonium and nitrate serve as sources for nitrification and denitrification, respectively, which are processes that produce nitrous oxide [49,55]. Some authors [53] reported that the NO3- intensity explained 80–90% of the variability in N2O emissions. In the present experiment, more than 97.48% and 85.35% of the variability in N2O emissions may be explained by the regression equation, in which the explanatory variables are NO3-N and NH4-N, respectively (Figure 12 and Figure 13). According to some authors [55], NH4-N enhances soil N2O emission only at a lower soil moisture.
It should be kept in mind that agronomic treatments impact GHG efflux differently, and relationships between CO2 and N2O emissions and soil properties are not universal [17].

4. Conclusions

The treatments that included fertilization with farmyard manure were higher sinks and sources of carbon and nitrogen compounds compared to the UAN plots. Despite the significant increases in CO2 and N2O emissions in organic fertilized soils, the final levels of soil organic carbon, humic acids, humins, total nitrogen, ammonium, and nitrate nitrogen were still significantly higher in comparison to the mineral-fertilized ones. Nitrification and double inhibitors were effective in decreasing N2O emissions only in treatments that exclusively applied UAN and had no impact on the CO2 efflux. In the present study, the soil organic carbon, humic acid, humin, and total nitrogen concentrations, in contrast to the NH4-N and NO3-N contents, were not affected by the inhibitors added. The analyzed soil parameters were positively correlated with CO2 and N2O emissions, indicating their contributions to the processes of soil respiration, nitrification, and denitrification. Further, longer-lasting studies on quantitative and qualitative changes in the contents of carbon and nitrogen compounds in agroecosystems under mineral and organic fertilization, as well as the use of nitrification and urease inhibitors, are recommended under different climate and soil conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K. and M.S.; methodology, S.K. and M.S.; formal analysis, S.K., M.S. and J.W. writing—original draft preparation, review and editing, M.S. and S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

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

References

  1. Kuśmierz, S.; Skowrońska, M.; Tkaczyk, P.; Lipiński, W.; Mielniczuk, J. Soil organic carbon and mineral nitrogen contents in soils as affected by their ph, texture and fertilization. Agronomy 2023, 13, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pham, D.M.; Kasai, T.; Yamaura, M.; Katayama, A. Humin: No longer inactive natural organic matter. Chemosphere 2021, 269, 128697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wu, L.; Zhang, W.; Wei, W.; He, Z.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Bol, R.; Hu, R. Soil organic matter priming and carbon balance after straw addition is regulated by long-term fertilization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 135, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liang, K.; Zhang, X.; Liang, X.Z.; Jin, V.L.; Birru, G.; Schmer, M.R.; Moglen, G.E. Simulating agroecosystem soil inorganic nitrogen dynamics under long-term management with an improved SWAT-C model. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 879, 162906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Valenzuela, H. Ecological Management of the Nitrogen Cycle in Organic Farms. Nitrogen 2023, 4, 58–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, C.; Song, X.; Zhang, Y.; Rees, R.; Wang, D.; Rees, R.M.; Ju, X. Using nitrification inhibitors and deep placement to tackle the trade-offs between NH3 and N2O emissions in global croplands. Glob Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 4409–4422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cui, L.; Li, D.; Wu, Z.; Xue, Y.; Xiao, F.; Gong, P.; Zhang, L.; Song, Y.; Yu, C.; Du, Y.; et al. Effects of combined nitrification inhibitors on soil nitrification, maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency in three agricultural soils. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0272935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mishram, P.K.; Sharma, N.K.; Mandal, D.; Kumar, G.; Kaushal, R.; Das, A.; Singh, R.J. (Eds.) Sustainable Land Management: Issues, Problems and Prospects; Satish Serial Publishing House: Azadpur, Delhi, India, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hu, X.; Gu, H.; Liu, J.; Wei, D.; Zhu, P.; Zhou, B.; Wang, G. Metagenomics reveals divergent functional profiles of soil carbon and nitrogen cycling under long-term addition of chemical and organic fertilizers in the black soil region. Geoderma 2022, 418, 115846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Harindintwali, J.D.; Zhou, J.; Muhoza, B.; Wang, F.; Herzberger, A.; Yu, X. Integrated eco-strategies towards sustainable carbon and nitrogen cycling in agriculture. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 293, 112856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Skowrońska, M. Influence of waste application on selected soil quality parameters. Chem. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 14, 1073–1082. [Google Scholar]
  12. Murawska, B.; Spychaj-Fabisiak, E.; Janowiak, J. The influence of minerał fertilization on chosen indicators of soil fertility. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Rol. 2006, 512, 439–447. [Google Scholar]
  13. Berthrong, S.T.; Buckely, D.H.; Drinkwater, L.E. Agricultural management and labile carbon additions affect soil microbial community structure and interact with carbon and nitrogen cycling. Soil Microbiol. 2013, 66, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gross, A.; Glaser, B. Meta-analysis on how manure application changes soil organic carbon storage. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bai, X.; Tang, J.; Wang, W.; Ma, J.; Shi, J.; Ren, W. Organic amendment effects on cropland soil organic carbon and its implications: A global synthesis. Catena 2023, 231, 107343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, M.; Hu, H.; He, X.; Jia, J.; Drosos, M.; Wang, G.; Liu, F.; Hu, Z.; Xi, B. Organic carbon sequestration in soil humic substances as affected by application of different nitrogen fertilizers in a vegetable-rotation cropping system. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 3106–3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Abbasi, N.A.; Madramootoo, C.A.; Zhang, T.; Tan, C.S. Soil nutrients and plant uptake parameters as related to greenhouse gas emissions. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 1129–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Chataut, G.; Bhatta, B.; Joshi, D.; Subedi, K.; Kafle, K. Greenhouse gases emission from agricultural soil: A review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 11, 100533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lal, R. Soil management for carbon sequestration. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil. 2021, 38, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ni, K.; Vietinghoff, M.; Pacholski, A. Targeting yield and reducing nitrous oxide emission by use of single and double inhibitor treated urea during winter wheat season in Northern Germany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 347, 108391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, C.; Liu, H.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zang, H.; Li, G.; Pan, B.; Zhang, M.; Li, Z. Nitrogen stabilizers mitigate nitrous oxide emissions across maize production areas of China: A multi-agroecosystems evaluation. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 143, 126692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Poland’s National Inventory Report. Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 1988–2021 Submission under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; National Centre for Emission Management (KOBiZE) at the Institute of Environmental Protection–National Research Institute: Warsaw, Poland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  23. Akiyama, H.; Yan, X.; Yagi, K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: Meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 16, 1837–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Hou, W.; Yan, L. The combined use of liquid fertilizer and urease/nitrification inhibitors on maize yield, nitrogen loss and utilization in the Mollisol region. Plants 2023, 12, 1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gupta, S.; Yildirim, S.; Andrikopoulos, B.; Wille, U.; Roessner, U. Deciphering the interactions in the root–soil nexus caused by urease and nitrification inhibitors: A review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zaman, M.; Nguyen, M.L. How application timings of urease and nitrification inhibitors affect N losses from urine patches in pastoral system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 156, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, M.; Schievano, A.; Bosco, S.; Montero-Castano, A.; Tamburini, G.; Pérez-Soba, M.; Makowski, D. Evidence map of the benefits of enhanced-efficiency fertilisers for the environment, nutrient use efficiency, soil fertility, and crop production. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 043005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jones, J.B., Jr.; Case, V.V. Sampling, handling, and analyzing plant tissue samples. In Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, 3rd ed.; Westerman, R.L., Ed.; SSSA Book Series 3; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schnitzer, M.; Shuppli, P. Method for sequential exctraction of organic matter from soils and soil fractions. Soil. Sci. Am. J. 1989, 53, 1418–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abdalla, K.; Sun, Y.; Zarebanadkouki, M.; Gaiser, T.; Seidel, S.; Pausch, J. Long-term continuous farmyard manure application increases soil carbon when combined with mineral fertilizers due to lower priming effects. Geoderma 2022, 428, 116216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Singh, P.; Bijay-Singh; Farmaha, B.S. Nutrient management impacts on organic carbon pool in soils under different cropping systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains in South Asia. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 2023, 89, 520–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mohan Meena, H.; Sharma, R.P. Long-term effect of fertilizers and amendments on different fractions of organic matter in an Acid Alfisol. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Šimanský, V.; Juriga, M.; Jonczak, J.; Uzarowicz, Ł.; Stępień, W. How relationships between soil organic matter parameters and soil structure characteristics are affected by the long-term fertilization of a sandy soil. Geoderma 2019, 342, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ukalska-Jaruga, A.; Klimkowicz-Pawlas, A.; Smreczak, B. Characterization of organic matter fractions in the top layer of soils under different land uses in Central-Eastern Europe. Soil Use Manag. 2019, 35, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dou, S.; Zhang, J.; Li, K. Effect of organic matter applications on 13C-NMR spectra of humic acids of soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2008, 59, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ukalska-Jaruga, A.; Bejger, R.; Debaene, G.; Smreczak, B. Characterization of soil organic matter individual fractions (fulvic acids, humic acids, and humins) by spectroscopic and electrochemical techniques in agricultural soils. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Loura, D.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, P.; Bedwal, S.A. Comparative effect of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on yield, soil properties, and economics of wheat under rice-wheat cropping system. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2022, 21, 685–694. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang, Q.; Liu, P.; Dong, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, B. Combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers mitigates ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions in a maize field. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020, 117, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zaman Khan, H.; Iqbal, S.; Akbar, N.; Farrukh Saleem, M.; Iqbal, A. Integrated management of different nitrogen sources for maize production. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 50, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shamsuzzaman, S.M.; Hanafi, M.M.H.; Samsuri, A.W.; Halimi, S.M.; Begum, M.; Maisarah, J.N. Impact of nitrification inhibitor with organic manure and urea on nitrogen dynamics and N2O emission in acid sulphate soil. Bragantia 2015, 75, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ma, H.; Jia, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, J.; Shangguan, Z.; Yan, W. Inhibitors mitigate N2O emissions more effectively than biochar: A global perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 859, 160416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guardia, G.; Marsden, K.A.; Vallejo, A.; Jones, D.L.; Chadwick, D.R. Determining the influence of environmental and edaphic factors on the fate of the nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 1202–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hao, X.; Sun, L.; Zhou, B.; Ma, X.; Wang, S.; Liu, S.; Ji, J.; Kuang, E.; Qiu, S. Change in maize yield, N use efficiencies and climatic warming potential after urea combined with Nitrapyrin and NBPT during the growing season in a black soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 231, 105721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abalos, D.; Jeffery, S.; Sanz-Cobena, A.; Guardia, G.; Vallejo, A. Meta-analysis of the effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 189, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cai, Z.; Gao, S.; Hendratna, A.; Duan, Y.; Xu, M.; Hanson, B.D. Key factors, soil nitrogen processes, and nitrite accumulation affecting nitrous oxide emissions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 1560–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huérfano, X.; Fuertes-Mendizábal, T.; Duñabeitia, M.K.; González-Murua, C.; Estavillo, J.M.; Menéndez, S. Splitting the application of 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP): Influence on greenhouse gases emissions and wheat yield and quality under humid Mediterranean conditions. Eur. J. Agron. 2015, 64, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sistani, K.R.; Jn-Baptiste, M.; Lovanh, N.; Cook, K.L. Atmospheric emissions of nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide from different nitrogen fertilizers. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1797–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zhang, H.; Zhang, L.; Tao, R.; Hu, J.; Chu, G. Nitrapyrin addition mitigated CO2 emission from a calcareous soil was closely associated with its effect on decreasing cellulolytic. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 5299–5309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wang, H.; Köbke, S.; Dittert, K. Use of urease and nitrification inhibitors to reduce gaseous nitrogen emissions from fertilizers containing ammonium nitrate and urea. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e00933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zheng, J.; Wang, H.; Fan, J.; Zhang, F.; Guo, J.; Liao, Z.; Zhuang, Q. Wheat straw mulching with nitrification inhibitor application improves grain yield and economic benefit while mitigating gaseous emissions from a dryland maize field in northwest China. Field Crops Res. 2021, 265, 108125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dong, D.; Yang, W.; Sun, H.; Kong, S.; Xu, H. Effects of animal manure and nitrification inhibitor on N2O emissions and soil carbon stocks of a maize cropping system in Northeast China. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 15202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, M.; Song, F.; Yin, Z.; Chen, P.; Zhang, Z.; Qi, Z.; Wang, B.; Zheng, E. Organic fertilizer substitutions maintain maize yield and mitigate ammonia emissions but increase nitrous oxide emissions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 53115–53127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Halvorson, A.D.; Del Grosso, S.J.; Pozzi Jantalia, C. Nitrogen source effects on soil nitrous oxide emissions from strip-till corn. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1775–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lasisi, A.A.; Akinremi, O.O.; Kumaragamage, D. Nitrification inhibitor reduces the inhibitory effect of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) on the hydrolysis of urea. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2020, 84, 1782–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sosulski, T.; Szara, E.; Stępień, W.; Szymańska, M. Nitrous oxide emissions from the soil under different fertilization systems on a long-term experiment. Plant Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 00274 g001
Figure 1. Soil organic carbon (SOC) content. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 1. Soil organic carbon (SOC) content. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g001
Agriculture 14 00274 g002
Figure 2. Total nitrogen (TN) content. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 2. Total nitrogen (TN) content. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g002
Agriculture 14 00274 g003
Figure 3. SOC/TN ratios. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 3. SOC/TN ratios. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g003
Agriculture 14 00274 g004
Figure 4. Content of humic acids (C-HA). The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 4. Content of humic acids (C-HA). The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g004
Agriculture 14 00274 g005
Figure 5. Content of fulvic acids (C-FA). The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 5. Content of fulvic acids (C-FA). The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g005
Agriculture 14 00274 g006
Figure 6. Content of humins (C-H). The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 6. Content of humins (C-H). The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g006
Agriculture 14 00274 g007
Figure 7. Humification index (HI). C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 7. Humification index (HI). C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g007
Agriculture 14 00274 g008
Figure 8. Ammonium content (NH4-N) in the soil. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 8. Ammonium content (NH4-N) in the soil. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g008
Agriculture 14 00274 g009
Figure 9. Nitrate content (NO3-N) in the soil. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 9. Nitrate content (NO3-N) in the soil. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g009
Agriculture 14 00274 g010
Figure 10. CO2 emission in a maize agroecosystem. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 10. CO2 emission in a maize agroecosystem. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g010
Agriculture 14 00274 g011
Figure 11. N2O emissions in a maize agroecosystem. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Figure 11. N2O emissions in a maize agroecosystem. The same letter means not significantly different. C—control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; FYM—farmyard manure with N mineral fertilizer base.
Agriculture 14 00274 g011
Agriculture 14 00274 g012
Figure 12. The relationship between N2O emissions and NH4-N contents in the soil.
Figure 12. The relationship between N2O emissions and NH4-N contents in the soil.
Agriculture 14 00274 g012
Agriculture 14 00274 g013
Figure 13. The relationship between N2O emissions and NO3-N contents in the soil.
Figure 13. The relationship between N2O emissions and NO3-N contents in the soil.
Agriculture 14 00274 g013
Table 1. Experimental treatments.
Table 1. Experimental treatments.
TreatmentMineral N FertilizationOrganic FertilizationInhibitor
C–––
UANUAN (150 kg N ha−1)––
UAN+UIUAN (150 kg N ha−1 )–NBPT *
UAN+NIUAN (150 kg N ha−1 )–DMPP *
UAN+UI+NIUAN (150 kg N ha−1 )–NBPT+DMPP *
FYMUAN (150 kg N ha−1)Cattle FYM (129 kg N ha−1)–
FYM+UIUAN (150 kg N ha−1)Cattle FYM (129 kg N ha−1)NBPT **
FYM+NIUAN (150 kg N ha−1)Cattle FYM (129 kg N ha−1)DMPP **
FYM+UI+NIUAN (150 kg N ha−1)Cattle FYM (129 kg N ha−1)NBPT+DMPP **
Notes: C—the control without fertilization; UAN—urea ammonium nitrate; FYM—farmyard manure; UI—urease inhibitor; NI—nitrification inhibitor; NBPT—N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide; DMPP—3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate; *—the inhibitor applied with the mineral fertilizer; **—the inhibitor applied with the organic fertilizer.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between determined soils’ parameters.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between determined soils’ parameters.
ParameterSOCTNC-HAC-FAC-HNH4-NNO3-NCO2N2O
SOC 0.930 ***0.935 ***0.750 ***0.914 ***0.790 ***0.818 ***0.622 ***0.786 ***
TN0.930 *** 0.948 ***0.529 ***0.942 ***0.913 ***0.908 ***0.794 ***0.884 ***
C-HA0.935 ***0.948 *** 0.585 ***0.965 ***0.904 ***0.947 ***0.833 ***0.931 ***
C-FA0.750 ***0.529 ***0.585 *** nsnsnsnsns
C-H0.914 ***0.942 ***0.965 ***ns 0.930 ***0.918 ***0.844 ***0.907 ***
NH4-N0.790 ***0.913 ***0.904 ***ns0.930 *** 0.929 ***0.921 ***0.924 ***
NO3-N0.818 ***0.908 ***0.947 ***ns0.918 ***0.929 *** 0.932 ***0.987 ***
CO20.622 ***0.794 ***0.833 ***ns0.84 ***40.921 ***0.932 *** 0.936 ***
N2O0.786 ***0.884 ***0.931 ***ns0.907 ***0.924 ***0.987 ***0.936 ***
Notes: *** p < 0.001; ns—not significant.
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

Skowrońska, M.; Kuśmierz, S.; Walczak, J. Selected Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds in a Maize Agroecosystem under the Use of Nitrogen Mineral Fertilizer, Farmyard Manure, Urease, and Nitrification Inhibitors. Agriculture 2024, 14, 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020274

AMA Style

Skowrońska M, Kuśmierz S, Walczak J. Selected Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds in a Maize Agroecosystem under the Use of Nitrogen Mineral Fertilizer, Farmyard Manure, Urease, and Nitrification Inhibitors. Agriculture. 2024; 14(2):274. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020274

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skowrońska, Monika, Sebastian Kuśmierz, and Jacek Walczak. 2024. "Selected Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds in a Maize Agroecosystem under the Use of Nitrogen Mineral Fertilizer, Farmyard Manure, Urease, and Nitrification Inhibitors" Agriculture 14, no. 2: 274. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020274

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