Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Inter- and Intra-Row Weed Control for Small-Scale Vegetable Producers
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Storage Time and Temperature on the Fermentation Characteristics of Rumen Fluid from a High-Forage Diet
 
 
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 9
10.3390/agriculture14091482
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhancing Maize Yield and Nutrient Utilization through Improved Soil Quality under Reduced Fertilizer Use: The Efficacy of Organic–Inorganic Compound Fertilizer

by
Xiaoying Chen
1,
Zishuang Li
2,
Huanyu Zhao
1,
Yan Li
1,
Jianlin Wei
1,
Lei Ma
1,
Fuli Zheng
1 and
Deshui Tan
1,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Nutrient Use and Management, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, China
2
Dezhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dezhou 253015, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(9), 1482; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091482
Submission received: 22 July 2024 / Revised: 23 August 2024 / Accepted: 30 August 2024 / Published: 1 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: The substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic alternatives presents a viable strategy for enhancing soil quality and boosting agricultural productivity. However, the question remains whether organic–inorganic compound fertilizers (COIFs) can sustain improved soil quality and crop yields while reducing chemical fertilizer use. The underlying mechanisms of COIF’s impact still warrant further exploration. Methods: In this study, a long-term fertilization trial was conducted from 2020 to 2023 at two sites with different soil textures and types in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China. The experiment involved three fertilization treatments, each replicated three times: (1) LCF (conventional fertilizer treatment); (2) COIF1 (COIF applied at 90% of the recommended rate); and (3) COIF2 (COIF applied at 80% of the recommended rate). The objective was to assess the effects of COIF on summer maize growth, grain yield, nutrient uptake and utilization, and soil quality. Results: Compared to LCF, COIF1 in Yantai and Dezhou increased biomass by 6.4% and 8.1%, grain yield by 5.9% and 4.12%, PFP (N, P, and K) by 17.6% and 15.7%, and soil quality by 563.6% and 462.5%, respectively. No significant differences in biomass and grain yield were observed between COIF2 and LCF, yet COIF1 in Yantai and Dezhou enhanced PFP (N, P, and K) by 19.7% and 18.6%, and soil quality by 109.1% and 175.0%, respectively. In conclusion, COIF improved soil quality by enhancing soil organic matter (SOM), available nutrients, pH, and other soil indices. It promoted summer maize growth, increased grain yield, and improved nutrient utilization. COIF was a practical and effective measure to reduce chemical fertilizer use, enhance field soil quality, and ultimately increase maize yield and nutrient utilization.

1. Introduction

As a comprehensive crop balancing food, economic, and feed needs, maize (Zea mays L.) plays a pivotal role in ensuring national food security and the effective supply of agricultural products. According to the China Statistical Yearbook [1], maize cultivation accounts for 25.3% of the total crop area and 40.4% of the total grain crop output. In agricultural production, farmers often increase fertilizer inputs to achieve higher yields. However, about 50% of nitrogen (N) and 70% of phosphorus (P) are not utilized by crops and are lost in fields [2,3,4]. This leads to escalated planting expenses, deteriorated soil health, and exacerbated environmental issues, including heightened water pollution, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and soil quality deterioration [5,6,7], posing a threat to agricultural sustainability [8,9].
Therefore, it is imperative to develop innovative and sustainable fertilization approaches that aim to reduce fertilizer usage, enhance nutrient-use efficiency (NUE), and mitigate environmental pollution risks. These strategies are essential for ensuring food security, promoting economic growth, maintaining ecosystem viability, and preserving social stability [10,11]. Organic fertilizers play a significant role in enhancing SOM and fertility, mitigating the adverse effects of exclusive chemical fertilizer use, and regulating crop production [12,13,14]. However, relying solely on organic fertilizers may lead to reduced yields due to their limited nutrient content and slower nutrient release dynamics [8,15]. Consequently, several studies advocate for the partial substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic alternatives to optimize nutrient availability and overall nutrient resources, thus fulfilling crop requirements while minimizing nutrient loss from farmland [16,17]. Despite their benefits, conventional organic fertilizers pose significant challenges due to their high demand and labor-intensive application, hindering their widespread adoption [18].
Organic–inorganic compound fertilizers (COIFs) represent an innovative blend of organic materials and chemical fertilizers, meticulously combined in specific ratios through advanced production techniques. This synthesis not only delivers a rich supply of essential nutrients and organic matter but also mitigates the common challenges associated with excessive organic fertilizer usage. In addition, COIFs contain a large number of beneficial bacteria, which help to establish a unique microbial community; promote nutrient cycling driven by soil microorganisms; enhance enzyme activity; modulate the release, transformation, and availability of nutrients; and effectively manage nutrient supply, thus enhancing overall nutrient utilization [19,20,21]. The combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is an effective avenue for developing a more sustainable fertilizer management strategy. It is of great guiding significance for the construction of healthy soil to carry out targeted research and understand its action mechanism. In recent years, COIF has become a popular new fertilizer in China due to advantages such as slow nutrient release, high fertilizer utilization efficiency, and low environmental pollution. At the same time, China’s fertilizer industry has witnessed remarkable growth, spurring continuous advancements in the production and processing technologies of COIF. These developments have led to the increased adoption of COIF in agricultural practices [22,23], promoting the partial substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic alternatives.
Soil quality, a crucial indicator of soil’s ability to provide essential ecosystem services, is vital for environmental preservation and sustainable agricultural productivity [11,24]. Integrating organic fertilizers into soil significantly enhances its quality by increasing carbon and nutrient storage [25,26], stabilizing soil pH [27], improving soil physical properties [28,29], stimulating nutrient recycling [30], modifying microbial communities [31,32], and reducing soil-borne pathogen occurrences. These enhancements collectively support sustained crop productivity over the long term. Previous studies have demonstrated that the application of organic fertilizers significantly enhances various soil indicators. These improvements include increased organic matter and available nutrient content, reduced soil bulk density, and greater soil porosity [18,33,34]. However, these indicators alone do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of organic fertilizers on soil quality. Thus, the soil quality index (SQI), which is derived from a thorough evaluation of diverse soil physical, chemical, and biological properties [35,36,37], offers a holistic measure of the effects of organic fertilizer application on soil quality [38,39]. Various rates of organic fertilizer substitution and different types of organic fertilizers have been shown to enhance both crop yields and SQI across a spectrum of soil fertility levels and agricultural systems [8,15,40].
Nevertheless, the question of whether using organic fertilizers as a substitute for inorganic fertilizers can sustain crop productivity and enhance soil health while reducing overall fertilizer application remains unresolved, necessitating further investigation. Previous studies have shown that replacing 20% of inorganic N with organic fertilizers can improve soil quality and increase crop yields [15,41]. It can be predicted that a 100% dose of COIF has a significant effect on soil quality and crop yield. However, the impact of COIF on crop yield and soil quality under conditions of reduced N, P, and K inputs is not yet well understood. Therefore, this study set up a 90% dose and 80% dose of COIF to study and analyze against a 100% dose of chemical fertilizer. Furthermore, the influence of organic fertilizers on soil quality is highly dependent on site-specific factors, including soil characteristics, the types of organic fertilizers used, their application rates, and the frequency of application. This variability presents a significant research challenge in accurately assessing the impact of organic fertilizers across diverse soil contexts.
To address these issues, this study implemented a 4-year field trial to investigate the long-term effects of COIF on (1) maize growth, yield, nutrient uptake, and utilization, and (2) soil properties and quality under different soil conditions. The objectives were to identify the pivotal soil factors affecting maize yield and to assess their contribution to yield. This study aimed to provide a theoretical basis for the application of COIF in enhancing agricultural productivity and soil quality, thereby fostering robust and sustainable agricultural practices. By comprehensively evaluating the effects of COIF on various soil and crop parameters, this research sought to establish a foundational framework for improving agricultural productivity and soil integrity through the application of COIF.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Parameters

Experimental investigations were conducted in the agricultural fields of Yantai (YT) and Dezhou (DZ), located in Shandong, China. This region experiences a typical monsoon climate. Yantai (121.30° E, 37.19° N) has an average annual temperature of 12.7 °C and an annual precipitation of 633.6 mm, with soil classified as brown soil. Dezhou (116.35° E, 37.36° N) has an average annual temperature of 12.9 °C and an annual precipitation of 547.5 mm, with soil classified as sandy loam. Monthly mean temperature and rainfall during the growth period of summer maize are shown in Figure 1. Soil samples were collected from each experimental plot by extracting five soil cores (0–20 cm depth), which were then combined to form a representative soil sample for each plot. These samples were air-dried and passed through a 2 mm mesh sieve before their basic properties were assessed, as detailed in Table 1.
A 4-year summer maize fertilization experiment was conducted from June to September between 2020 and 2023, employing a completely randomized block design with plots measuring 40 m2 (5.0 m × 8.0 m) and separated by a 1.0 m wide buffer row, with threefold replication for each treatment. The experiment included three fertilization treatments: (1) LCF (conventional fertilizer treatment): 240 kg N ha−1, 105 kg P2O5 ha−1, 135 kg K2O ha−1; (2) COIF1 (90% recommended fertilizer amount): 216 kg N ha−1, 94.5 kg P2O5 ha−1, 121.5 kg K2O ha−1; and (3) COIF2 (80% recommended fertilizer amount): 192 kg N ha−1, 84 kg P2O5 ha−1, 108 kg K2O ha−1. The fertilizers used included urea (46% N), heavy superphosphate (44% P2O5), potassium sulfate (52% K2O), and a COIF (15% N, 5% P2O5, 10% K2O). Further details of fertilizer application rates are presented in Table 2. For the LCF treatment, P and K fertilizers were applied once before sowing, while N fertilizer was split into two applications: 50% before sowing and 50% at the jointing stage. COIF1 and COIF2 treatments were applied once before sowing, based on the amount of K fertilizer applied, with any shortfall in N and P fertilizers supplemented using urea and heavy superphosphate. The maize hybrid cultivar used in the experiment was ‘Zhengdan 958’, with a planting density of 60,000 plants per hectare, resulting in a plant spacing of 27.8 cm. Seeds were sown on 10 June and harvested on 30 September annually. Wheat was used for crop rotation, and the conventional chemical fertilizer rate was 225 kg ha−1 total N, 105 kg ha−1 P2O5, and 75 kg ha−1 K2O, respectively. Prior to this study, any residual wheat straw was removed. Additionally, appropriate management practices and a reliable water supply were maintained throughout the maize cultivation period to ensure optimal growth conditions.

2.2. Sample Collection and Measurements

2.2.1. Biomass, Grain Yield, and Nutrient Content

Samples from the maize plants were harvested at the physiological maturity (R6) stage in 2023. Five random aboveground samples were selected from each experimental plot, dissected into respective organs, and dried at 105 °C for 30 min, followed by drying at 70 °C until a constant weight was achieved. Plant samples were then digested with H2SO4–H2O2. The N and P contents were determined using a Bran+Luebbe continuous-flow analyzer (Bran+Luebbe, Hamburg, Germany), and the potassium (K) content was measured using the atomic absorption method. For yield measurement, at the R6 stage in 2023, two rows (5 m per row) of maize were manually collected from each plot. The grain yield was computed at a moisture content of 14% following the processes of threshing and air-drying.

2.2.2. Soil Properties

At the R6 stage in 2023, five random soil cores, each measuring 0–20 cm in depth, were extracted from each experimental plot using an auger with a 5 cm diameter. The soil samples collected from each plot were pooled to represent one composite sample per replicate. All samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve to remove large particles such as fronds, roots, and stones, then air-dried and assessed for soil properties.
The assessment of soil properties followed the methodological framework outlined by Bao [39,42]. Soil pH was measured using a soil-to-water mixture (1:5 w/v). SOM was determined using the potassium dichromate volumetric method. Soil total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and total potassium (TK) were digested with H2SO4-HClO4 and determined using the Kjeldahl digestion method, the molybdenum blue method, and the atomic absorption method, respectively. Available nitrogen (alkaline hydrolyzed nitrogen, AN) was determined using the alkali diffusion method. Soil nitrate nitrogen (NO3−-N) and ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N) were extracted with 1.0 mol/L KCl and determined using a Bran+Luebbe continuous flow analyzer. Available phosphorus (AP) was extracted with 0.5 mol/L NaHCO3 and determined using the molybdenum blue method. Available potassium (AK) was extracted with 1 mol/L ammonium acetate and assayed using the atomic absorption method.

2.3. Soil Quality Measurement

To assess the impact of varied fertilization treatments on soil quality, a comprehensive dataset was compiled using 10 distinct soil quality indicators: SOM, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, NO3−-N, NH4+-N, and pH. These indicators were measured in this study and used to establish the SQI. Initially, each indicator was transformed into a dimensionless score ranging from 0 to 1 using the ‘more is better’ type (Equation (1)) for most indices, and the ‘less is better’ type (Equation (2)) for pH. The weight (wi) of each chosen indicator was then calculated based on the relative contribution of each variable, assessed through its commonality relative to the collective commonality of all variables using principal component analysis (PCA). Finally, the scored values were multiplied by their respective weights to compute the SQI, as represented by Equation (3) [43].
The SQI was determined using the following formulas:
i = X i − L H − L
s i = H − X i H − L
S Q I = ∑ i = 1 n w i × s i
where Xi, H, and L represent the measured, highest, and lowest values, respectively. The variable n represents the total count of indicators; si and wi are the score and weight of ith indicator, respectively.

2.4. NUE

NUE (including partial factor productivity of N, P, K; PFPN, PFPP, PFPK) was calculated as follows:
P F P N = G Y / F N
P F P P = G Y / F P
P F P K = G Y / F K
where GY is the grain yield (kg ha−1) from the fertilization treatments (LCF, COIF1, and COIF2). FN, FP, and FK are the applied N, P, and K fertilizer rate (kg ha−1), respectively.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Prior to conducting additional analyses, the normality distribution was verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and the homogeneity of variances was assessed using Levene’s test across all raw datasets. One-way ANOVA was utilized to evaluate the significance of treatment differences in biomass, grain yield, nutrient uptake and utilization, soil properties, and the soil quality index. Paired comparisons of treatment means were performed using Tukey’s HSD test at p < 0.05, utilizing SPSS 20.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Pearson correlation analysis was employed to examine the relationship between soil properties and plant indicators. Additionally, the Mantel test was conducted to assess the influence of soil properties on plant growth. Analysis of the structural equation model (SEM) using AMOS 24 (SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA) elucidated the influence of soil quality on yield. Through methodical pruning of superfluous paths, excluding all irrelevant paths, the optimal model was identified

3. Results

3.1. Biomass and Grain Yield

Compared to the conventional fertilization treatment, despite a 10% and 20% reduction in the application rate of NPK fertilizers, the use of COIF ensured the stability and even enhancement of biomass and grain yield of summer maize (Figure 2). In YT, COIF1 increased biomass by 8.1% and yield by 5.9% compared to LCF (p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between COIF2 and LCF. In DZ, COIF1 increased biomass by 6.3% compared to LCF (p < 0.05), with no significant difference in grain yield. For the subsequent wheat yield, the plot with COIF was slightly increased but there was no significant difference.

3.2. Nutrient Uptake and NUE

COIF1 significantly (p < 0.05) increased the uptake of N, P, and K by 12.9%, 13.1%, and 15.2% in YT and 15.3%, 15.4%, and 16.7% in DZ compared to LCF, respectively, with no significant difference between COIF2 and LCF. COIF treatments enhanced the NUE in summer maize, with YT demonstrating superior performance over DZ. COIF1 and COIF2 increased the PFP (N, P, and K) by 17.6% and 19.7% in YT, and by 15.7% and 18.6% in DZ compared with LCF, respectively (both p < 0.05, Figure 3).

3.3. Soil Properties

In the experimental settings of YT and DZ, the application of COIF significantly enhanced SOM, TN, and AN compared to LCF, with COIF1 demonstrating superior performance over COIF2 (Table 3). In YT, compared to LCF, COIF1 and COIF2 decreased pH by 17.6% and 11.6%, respectively, and increased SOM, TN, and AN contents by 12.8% and 5.3%, 57.6% and 12.1%, and 53.6% and 21.3%, respectively. COIF1 also increased the contents of AP, AK, NO3−, and NH4+ by 88.3%, 85.1%, 179.8%, and 46.8%, respectively, while there was no significant difference between COIF2 and LCF.
In DZ, compared to LCF, COIF1 and COIF2 decreased pH by 2.3% and 1.6%, respectively, and increased SOM, TN, AN, NO3−, and NH4+ contents by 26.2% and 12.2%, 56.5% and 23.9%, 57.7% and 20.6%, 133.3% and 83.4%, and 32.1% and 27.1%, respectively. Additionally, COIF1 increased the contents of TP, TK, AP, and AK by 15.5%, 4.7%, 69.1%, and 20.7%, respectively, with no significant difference between COIF2 and LCF (Table 3).

3.4. Correlation Analysis of Soil Properties, Plant Characteristics, and NUE

Correlation analysis revealed a robust positive relationship between SOM and both total and available nutrients in YT and DZ (Figure 4). Conversely, soil pH demonstrated a significant negative correlation with most soil parameters, except for TK in YT (p < 0.05). The Mantel test further underscored a strong positive association between soil parameters and plant growth indicators, as well as nutrient utilization. Notably, this positive relationship did not extend to AP in YT, nor to AP and AK in DZ (Figure 4).

3.5. Evaluation of Soil Quality and Its Relation to Grain Yield

Computational analysis revealed that the SQI for various treatments followed the descending order of COIF1 > COIF2 > LCF (Figure 5). Notably, COIF1 and COIF2 demonstrated significant enhancements over LCF (p < 0.05). This study found that COIF treatments significantly enhanced the SQI by 563.6% and 109.1% in YT, and by 462.5% and 175.0% in DZ, respectively. Furthermore, when comparing YT with DZ, the application of COIF and LCF was found to be particularly effective in increasing the SQI in DZ. Statistical analysis of variance revealed a substantial positive relationship between the SQI and grain yield in both the YT and DZ regions.

3.6. Analysis of SEM

SEM analysis indicated that the fertilization treatments had a significant, albeit indirect, positive impact on soil quality (Figure 6). This improvement was observed through increased levels of SOM, AN, AP, and AK in YT, and SOM, TN, AN, AP, and AK in DZ. Additionally, the treatments caused a slight reduction in soil pH in both regions. These enhancements in soil quality, attributed to the fertilization treatments, also indirectly contributed to an increase in grain yield in both YT and DZ.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of COIF on Maize Biomass, Grain Yield, and Nutrient Utilization

Partial replacement of chemical fertilizers with organic alternatives is a promising strategy to enhance plant growth and boost agricultural productivity [44,45,46]. For instance, He et al. [14,15] have demonstrated that incorporating organic fertilizer to replace 20% of conventional inorganic nitrogen inputs over a 2-year period leads to increased wheat biomass and higher yields compared to the exclusive use of chemical fertilizers. In this study, compared to the LCF, biomass accumulation and grain yield in summer maize were maintained with the application of COIF, even with a 20% reduction in N, P, and K, and further improved with a 10% reduction (Figure 2). This outcome could be attributed to the enhanced soil fertility achieved through the integration of organic materials in COIF, which increased SOM content [47]. Moreover, COIF leveraged the benefits of both organic and chemical fertilizers, ensuring a sustained nutrient supply while minimizing nutrient loss throughout the growing period. This dual action enhanced crop yield and NUE by promoting more effective nutrient uptake. This study found that the uptake of N, P, and K in summer maize was not reduced by the application of COIF under reduced N, P, and K conditions compared to LCF. In fact, it was enhanced to some extent under a 10% reduction, showing a consistent trend at both sites (Figure 3). Enhancing NUE by reducing the application of chemical fertilizers is crucial for sustaining agricultural productivity while mitigating soil nutrient losses [45,48,49]. The partial factor productivity of N, P, and K in summer maize significantly increased with the application of COIF and an appropriate reduction in N, P, and K inputs (Figure 3). In summary, the application of COIF was a viable and effective approach to reducing chemical fertilizer use, thereby enhancing the growth and yield of summer maize while optimizing nutrient utilization. This strategy not only supported robust agricultural productivity but also promoted sustainable farming practices by improving soil health and minimizing nutrient losses. However, compared with the differences in yield and nutrient utilization between the two places, DZ still achieved higher yield and utilization efficiency although the land fertility level was generally lower than that of YT, which may be attributed to the higher rainfall and accumulated temperature in DZ during the whole corn growing season.

4.2. Effect of COIF on Soil Properties

Evidence indicates that substituting a portion of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers can markedly enhance soil fertility [16,46,50,51]. This improvement is primarily due to the acceleration of organic matter conversion and the increase in SOM content resulting from organic fertilizer inputs [52]. Consequently, this enhances soil physical properties, stimulates microbial and soil organism activity, ameliorates the micro-ecological environment, promotes the decomposition of soil nutrients, and improves soil fertility retention and buffering capacity [46]. In the present study, a significant positive correlation was found between SOM and total and available nutrients, indicating a mutually reinforcing relationship (Figure 4). Partial substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers maintains the supply of available nutrients while facilitating the release of organic nutrients, thereby reducing soil nutrient losses and enhancing soil fertility [48,53,54,55]. Integrating fertilizer reduction strategies into agricultural practices necessitates a dual consideration of the implications for yield enhancement and soil fertility optimization. In this study, variations in soil characteristics were observed across different soil types. However, the application of COIF significantly improved soil property indicators (e.g., SOM, total and available N, P, K, and pH) compared to LCF treatment, positively impacting soil fertility (Table 3). Under conditions of reduced N, P, and K inputs, COIF significantly increased SOM, TN, and AN, and decreased pH at both sites. This enhancement in soil properties likely played a key role in promoting maize plant growth and increasing grain yield (Figure 4). These findings reinforced the notion that incorporating organic fertilizers can substantially enhance crop yields [46,48,56,57], even when N, P, and K inputs are moderately reduced. Moreover, the correlation analysis revealed an intriguing detail: the relationship between plant growth indicators and K in YT was not significant (Figure 4a). This could be due to the inherently high baseline levels of TK in YT soils (Table 2). While the application of COIF did increase soil K content (Table 2 and Table 3), its effect on promoting plant growth in YT was less pronounced compared to DZ (Figure 2 and Figure 3, Table 3). This disparity suggested that the already abundant TK in YT soils might have diminished the relative impact of additional K from the COIF, highlighting the complex interplay between soil nutrient content and plant growth responses.

4.3. Effect of Soil Quality on Grain Yield under COIF

Soil quality differences are not only the result of the interaction between soil and crop growth but are also strongly influenced by agricultural management (e.g., tillage, fertilization) [58,59]. The SQI, developed based on various soil properties, serves as an intuitive measure of an ecosystem’s ability to sustain biodiversity, facilitate nutrient cycling, and boost agricultural productivity [43,60,61]. Aligning with previous research suggesting that partial substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers can enhance soil quality [8,15,50], this study revealed that COIF, even with reduced N, P, and K inputs, significantly improved most soil quality indicators at both YT and DZ compared to LCF. The significant increase in soil quality was because of an increase in most soil indicators (e.g., SOM, AN, AP, and AK) and optimizing pH. Notably, the SQI for DZ was markedly higher than that for YT (Table 3, Figure 5), underscoring the variability in soil response to COIF across different regions. This enhancement in soil quality was a testament to the efficacy of integrating organic fertilizers within traditional fertilization regimes, promoting sustainable agriculture. The observed differences in soil quality between YT and DZ might be attributed to varying levels of soil fertility. In DZ, the application of organic and chemical fertilizers resulted in enhanced nutrient availability and increased soil nutrient content, thereby elevating overall soil quality [57,62]. It has been shown that the application of organic manure improves soil quality more effectively in low-fertility soils compared to high-fertility soils. Although crop yield has not been included in the soil quality assessment indicators, it is still of concern because it is the most direct crop indicator that responds to soil characteristics and minimizes the impact of factors not directly related to soil quality [59]. This investigation revealed a substantial positive relationship between the SQI and maize grain yield at both research sites, consistent with findings from previous studies [15,63]. These results underscored the significant impact of soil quality on the growth and yield formation of summer maize. Nevertheless, further research is required to elucidate how COIF specifically influences maize yield through alterations in soil quality.
The SEM analysis indicated that the application of COIF enhanced maize yield in YT and DZ by promoting soil quality (Figure 6). This finding was consistent with previous studies demonstrating that improving soil quality through the application of organic fertilizer can enhance crop yields in maize, wheat, and rice [11,64,65]. This underscores the critical role of soil quality as a determinant of yield. Consequently, adopting judicious fertilization practices is essential for ameliorating soil quality and, in turn, augmenting maize productivity. Hu et al. [15] have demonstrated that, compared to solely relying on chemical inputs, the partial replacement of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers significantly increases wheat yield by 1.52–3.05% and 1.16–1.39% and improves soil quality by 15.09–28.63% and 22.53–64.82% under different soil fertility conditions, respectively. This further supports the importance of integrating organic fertilizers into fertilization practices to enhance both soil quality and crop productivity. These results strongly advocate for the strategic use of COIF to foster sustainable agricultural practices that not only boost yields but also improve the underlying soil health. Similarly, the present study found that compared to LCF, the application of COIF increased soil quality by 563.6% and 462.5% and grain yield by 8.1% and 5.9% in the two soils when N, P, and K inputs were reduced by 10%. With a 20% reduction in N, P, and K inputs, COIF improved soil quality by 109.1% and 175.0%, with no significant difference in grain yield (Figure 5, Table 3). These findings suggested that COIF could mitigate the adverse effects of moderately decreased N, P, and K inputs on yield by significantly enhancing soil quality. COIF altered critical soil attributes, including SOM, available nutrients, and pH, thereby improving overall soil quality and subsequent grain yield. This study highlighted the potential of COIF as a sustainable fertilization strategy to maintain crop productivity while promoting soil health. These soil attributes could serve as valuable indicators for tracking changes in soil quality and productivity. By monitoring parameters such as SOM, available nutrients, and pH, it becomes possible to fine-tune fertilizer application strategies, thereby supporting the sustained productivity of agricultural lands. This approach ensures that fertilization practices are not only effective in maintaining crop yields but also contribute to the long-term health and fertility of the soil.

4.4. The Benefits and Development Prospects of COIF

Currently, China’s grain production has a high input and high output situation, with excessive fertilizer application and low fertilizer utilization rate. Therefore, it is recommended to apply COIF in current agricultural production to improve soil quality and seasonal crop yield while reducing nutrient inputs, which is of great significance to the scientific application of fertilizers in farmland. The application of COIF can also reduce the cost of agronomic management and improve the economic efficiency. After calculating the input and output benefits of different fertilization treatments, we found that COIF1 treatment could increase the economic benefits by 1915.2 RMB ha−1 and 1680.4 RMB ha−1 in YT and DZ (Table S1). The application of COIF also has a certain impact on the growth of subsequent crops [11]. In this study, there was no significant difference between the plots with COIF application, although there was a small increase, which may be attributed to the application of more chemical fertilizers in the wheat season, which masked the subsequent effect of the COIF. The same fertilizer application in the subsequent wheat seasons and continuous observation could provide a more valuable guide to the application of COIF in agricultural production. Therefore, the application of COIF plays a key role in achieving long-term agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability and has promising prospects for development.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the application of 90% dose and 80% dose of COIF could sustain summer maize yields and mitigate the adverse effects of reduced N, P, and K inputs over a 4-year period. The mechanism by which COIF enhanced maize yield was rooted in the significant improvement in soil quality. Across two soil types and fertility levels, COIF effectively enhanced soil quality by increasing SOM, available nutrients, and optimizing pH. The SQI of COIF1 and COIF2 increased significantly by 563.6% and 109.1% in YT, and by 462.5% and 175.0% in DZ, which collectively promoted maize growth, elevated grain yield, and improved nutrient utilization. The grain yield and nutrient use efficiency of COIF1 were significantly increased by 5.9% and 17.6% in YT and 6.3% and 15.7% in DZ. Furthermore, SOM, available nutrients, and pH emerged as key indicators for monitoring soil quality changes and provided essential guidance for the timely optimization of fertilization strategies and soil productivity enhancement. The clear conclusion from this study was that COIF was a practical and effective approach to reducing N, P, and K inputs, enhancing soil quality, and ultimately boosting maize yield and NUE. The findings from this research provide a robust theoretical framework for the implementation and advancement of COIF in agricultural practices, thus promoting the vigorous progression of sustainable agriculture. These insights underscore the pivotal role of COIF in achieving long-term agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14091482/s1, Table S1: Input and output under different fertilization treatments of YT and DZ (RMB ha−1).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.T.; investigation, X.C., Z.L., H.Z., Y.L., J.W., L.M. and F.Z.; methodology, D.T.; resources, X.C., Z.L., H.Z., Y.L., J.W., L.M. and F.Z.; supervision, D.T.; Visualization, D.T.; writing—original draft, X.C.; writing—review & editing, X.C. and D.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFD1901003), the Key Research and Development Program (Science and technology demonstration project) of Shandong Province (2022SFGC0303), the Postdoctoral Innovation Project of Shandong Province (SDCX-ZG-202400114), the earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System (CARS-03), and the Smart Fertilisation Project.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. China Statistical Yearbook. 2023. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2023/indexch.htm (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  2. Omonode, R.A.; Halvorson, A.D.; Gagnon, B.; Vyn, T.J. Achieving lower nitrogen balance and higher nitrogen recovery efficiency reduces nitrous oxide emissions in North America’s maize cropping systems. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gagnon, B.; Ziadi, N.; Bélanger, G.; Parent, G. Validation and use of critical phosphorus concentration in maize. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 120, 126147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jiang, N.; Wei, K.; Pu, J.H.; Huang, W.J.; Bao, H.X.; Chen, L.J. A balanced reduction in mineral fertilizers benefits P reserve and inorganic P-solubilizing bacterial communities under residue input. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 159, 103833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lassaletta, L.; Billen, G.; Grizzetti, B.; Anglade, J.; Garnier, J. 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: The relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 105011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Giles, C.D.; Cade-Menun, B.J.; Liu, C.W.; Hill, J.E. The short-term transport and transformation of phosphorus species in a saturated soil following poultry manure amendment and leaching. Geoderma 2015, 257, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. van der Bom, F.; Nunes, I.; Raymond, N.S.; Hansen, V.; Bonnichsen, L.; Magid, J.; Nybroe, O.; Jensen, L.S. Long-term fertilisation form, level and duration affect the diversity, structure and functioning of soil microbial communities in the field. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 122, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, H.W.; Du, X.F.; Li, Y.B.; Han, X.; Li, B.; Zhang, X.K.; Li, Q.; Liang, W.J. Organic substitutions improve soil quality and maize yield through increasing soil microbial diversity. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 347, 131323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pramanick, B.; Choudhary, S.; Kumar, M.; Singh, S.K.; Jha, R.K.; Singh, A.K.; Salmen, S.H.; Ansari, M.J.; Hossain, A. Can site-specific nutrient management improve the productivity and resource use efficiency of climate-resilient finger millet in calcareous soils in India? Heliyon 2024, 10, e32774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pareek, A.; Dhankher, O.P.; Foyer, C.H. Mitigating the impact of climate change on plant productivity and ecosystem sustainability. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, G.C.; Niu, W.Q.; Ma, L.; Du, Y.D.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, J.; Siddique, K.H.M. Legacy effects of wheat season organic fertilizer addition on microbial co-occurrence networks, soil function, and yield of the subsequent maize season in a wheat-maize rotation system. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 347, 119160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saudy, H.S.; Hamed, M.F.; Abd El-Momen, W.R.; Hussein, H. Nitrogen use rationalization and boosting wheat productivity by applying packages of humic, amino acids and microorganisms. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 1036–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Qaswar, M.; Jing, H.; Ahmed, W.; Li, D.C.; Liu, S.J.; Lu, Z.; Cai, A.D.; Liu, L.S.; Xu, Y.M.; Gao, J.S.; et al. Yield sustainability, soil organic carbon sequestration and nutrients balance under long-term combined application of manure and inorganic fertilizers in acidic paddy soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 198, 104569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abd-Elrahman, S.H.; Saudy, H.S.; Abd El-Fattah, D.A.; Hashem, F.A. Effect of irrigation water and organic fertilizer on reducing nitrate accumulation and boosting lettuce productivity. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 2144–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. He, H.; Peng, M.W.; Lu, W.D.; Hou, Z.N.; Li, J.H. Commercial organic fertilizer substitution increases wheat yield by improving soil quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 158132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ji, L.; Ni, K.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Yi, X.; Yang, X.; Ling, N.; You, Z.; Guo, S.; Ruan, J. Effect of organic substitution rates on soil quality and fungal community composition in a tea plantation with long-term fertilization. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lv, F.L.; Song, J.S.; Giltrap, D.; Feng, Y.T.; Yang, X.Y.; Zhang, S.L. Crop yield and N2O emission affected by long-term organic manure substitution fertilizer under winter wheat-summer maize cropping system. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Z.D.; Jiao, Y.Q.; Yin, J.; Li, D.; Wang, B.B.; Zhang, K.L.; Zheng, X.X.; Hong, Y.; Zhang, H.X.; Xie, C.; et al. Productivity and quality of banana in response to chemical fertilizer reduction with bio-organic fertilizer: Insight into soil properties and microbial ecology. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, J.; Ni, T.; Lia, J.; Lua, Q.; Fang, Z.; Huang, Q.W.; Zhang, R.F.; Li, R.; Shen, B.; Shen, Q.R. Effects of organic–inorganic compound fertilizer with reduced chemical fertilizer application on crop yields, soil biological activity and bacterial community structure in a rice–wheat cropping system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 99, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, X.; Liu, H.L.; Huang, Y.Y.; Yang, H.Z.; Bei, M.R.; Lin, Q.H. Effects of application of organic-inorganic compound fertilizers on microbial communities and enzyme activities in tropical paddy soil. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2021, 27, 619–629. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, M.; Hu, T.T.; Cao, S.F.; Wang, M.D.; Fang, J.; Wang, Q.Y. Present situation and research progress of organic and inorganic compound fertilizer. Agric. Sci. 2023, 10, 890–895. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  22. Lu, S.; Luo, X.G.; Liu, Q.W.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, H.Y.; Li, J.; Zhang, J.L. Effect of organic-inorganic compound fertilizer on wheat growth, nutrients and heavy metal content of soil and wheat. Acta Agric. Zhejiangensis 2023, 35, 922–930. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. Dai, L.; Hu, C.; Wan, J.H.; Xu, H.L.; Liu, M.J.; Guo, H.W.; Qiao, Y. Effects of organic and inorganic compound fertilizers on yield and nutrient uptake and utilization of rice. Soil Fertil. Sci. China 2024, 2, 111–119. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  24. Han, X.; Li, Y.B.; Du, X.F.; Li, Y.H.; Wang, Z.W.; Jiang, S.W.; Li, Q. Effect of grassland degradation on soil quality and soil biotic community in a semi-arid temperate steppe. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, K.L.; Wang, C.; Li, X.L.; Li, H.; Dong, M.M.; Jin, S.J.; Liu, L.; Zhu, C.; Xue, R. Long-term effect of integrated fertilization on maize yield and soil fertility in a calcaric fluvisol. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2021, 67, 1400–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, K.L.; Zhang, H.Y.; Li, X.L.; Wang, C.; Zhang, J.L.; Jiang, R.F.; Feng, G.; Liu, X.J.; Zuo, Y.M.; Yuan, H.M.; et al. Field management practices drive ecosystem multifunctionality in a smallholder-dominated agricultural system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 313, 107389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 401–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Czachor, H.; Charytanowicz, M.; Gonet, S.; Niewczas, J.; Jozefaciuk, G.; Lichner, L. Impact of long-term mineral and organic fertilizer application on the water stability, wettability and porosity of aggregates obtained from two loamy soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2015, 66, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhou, H.; Fang, H.; Mooney, S.J.; Peng, X. Effects of long-term inorganic and organic fertilizations on the soil micro and macro structures of rice paddies. Geoderma 2016, 266, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luo, G.W.; Rensing, C.; Chen, H.; Liu, M.Q.; Wang, M.; Guo, S.W.; Ling, N.; Shen, Q.R. Deciphering the associations between soil microbial diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality driven by long-term fertilization management. Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 1103–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, L.; Redmile-Gordon, M.; Li, J.W.; Zhang, J.B.; Xin, X.L.; Zhang, C.Z.; Ma, D.H.; Zhou, Y.F. Linking cropland ecosystem services to microbiome taxonomic composition and functional composition in a sandy loam soil with 28-year organic and inorganic fertilizer regimes. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 139, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, Q.L.; Ding, J.; Zhu, D.; Hu, H.W.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Ma, Y.B.; He, J.Z.; Zhu, Y.G. Rare microbial taxa as the major drivers of ecosystem multifunctionality in long-term fertilized soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 141, 107686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cai, A.D.; Xu, M.G.; Wang, B.R.; Zhang, W.J.; Liang, G.P.; Hou, E.Q.; Luo, Y.Q. 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]
  34. Du, Y.D.; Cui, B.J.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Sun, J.; Niu, W.Q. Effects of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: A meta-analysis. CATENA 2020, 193, 104617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bünemann, E.K.; Bongiorno, G.; Bai, Z.; Creamer, R.E.; De Deyn, G.; de Goede, R.; Fleskens, L.; Geissen, V.; Kuyper, T.W.; Mäder, P.; et al. Soil quality—A critical review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 120, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yu, P.; Liu, S.; Zhang, L.; Li, Q.; Zhou, D. Selecting the minimum data set and quantitative soil quality indexing of alkaline soils under different land uses in northeastern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, P.; Shi, K.; Wang, Y.Y.; Kong, D.N.; Liu, T.; Jiao, J.G.; Liu, M.Q.; Li, H.X.; Hu, F. Soil quality assessment of wheat-maize cropping system with different productivities in China: Establishing a minimum data set. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 190, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boafo, D.K.; Kraisornpornson, B.; Panphon, S.; Owusu, B.E.; Amaniampong, P.N. Effect of organic soil amendments on soil quality in oil palm production. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nguyen, B.T.; Le, L.B.; Pham, L.P.; Nguyen, H.T.; Tran, T.D.; Van Thai, N. The effects of biochar on the biomass yield of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) and properties of acidic soils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 161, 113224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cen, Y.; Guo, L.Y.; Liu, M.Z.; Gu, X.; Li, C.H.; Jiang, G.M. Using organic fertilizers to increase crop yield, economic growth, and soil quality in a temperate farmland. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shen, C.W.; Yuan, J.P.; Li, X.H.; Zhang, S.L.; Ren, X.J.; Wang, F.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Ou, X.Q.; Chen, X.L. Improving winter wheat N utilization efficiency and soil fertility through replacement of chemical N by 20% organic manure. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2020, 26, 1395–1406. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  42. Bao, S.D. Soil and Agriculture Chemistry Analysis, 3rd ed.; China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  43. Peng, M.W.; He, H.; Wang, Z.K.; Li, G.F.; Lv, X.H.; Pu, X.Z.; Zhuang, L. Responses and comprehensive evaluation of growth characteristics of ephemeral plants in the desert–oasis ecotone to soil types. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adekiya, A.O.; Ejue, W.S.; Olayanju, A.; Dunsin, O.; Aboyeji, C.M.; Aremu, C.; Akinpelu, O. Different organic manure sources and NPK fertilizer on soil chemical properties, growth, yield and quality of okra. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 16083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, Y.J.; Lei, T.; Du, W.; Liang, C.L.; Li, H.D.; Lv, J.L. Substituting chemical fertilizer nitrogen with organic manure and comparing their nitrogen use efficiency and winter wheat yield. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 158, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, X.Y.; Li, B.; Chen, L.; Liang, J.Y.; Huang, R.; Tang, X.Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.Q. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer over seven years increases yields and restores soil bacterial community diversity in wheat-rice rotation. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 133, 126445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, X.Q.; Yang, Y.D.; Zhao, J.; Nie, J.W.; Zang, H.D.; Zeng, Z.H.; Olesen, J.E. Yield benefits from replacing chemical fertilizers with manure under water deficient conditions of the winter wheat-summer maize system in the North China Plain. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 119, 126118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Geng, Y.H.; Cao, G.J.; Wang, L.C.; Wang, S.H. Effects of equal chemical fertilizer substitutions with organic manure on yield, dry matter, and nitrogen uptake of spring maize and soil nitrogen distribution. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cheng, Y.; Wang, H.Q.; Liu, P.; Dong, S.T.; Zhang, J.W.; Zhao, B.; Ren, B.Z. Nitrogen placement at sowing affects root growth, grain yield formation, N use efficiency in maize. Plant Soil 2020, 457, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. von Arb, C.; Bünemann, E.K.; Schmalz, H.; Portmann, M.; Adamtey, N.; Musyoka, M.W.; Frossard, E.; Fliessbach, A. Soil quality and phosphorus status after nine years of organic and conventional farming at two input levels in the Central Highlands of Kenya. Geoderma 2020, 362, 114112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dai, X.L.; Song, D.L.; Zhou, W.; Liu, G.R.; Liang, G.Q.; He, P.; Sun, G.; Yuan, F.S.; Liu, Z.B.; Yao, Y.K.; et al. Partial substitution of chemical nitrogen with organic nitrogen improves rice yield, soil biochemical indictors and microbial composition in a double rice cropping system in south China. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 205, 104753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, J.H.; Wang, X.J.; Xu, M.G.; Feng, G.; Zhang, W.J.; Lu, C.A. Crop yield and soil organic matter after long-term straw return to soil in China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2015, 102, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Y.L.; Li, C.H.; Wang, Y.W.; Hu, Y.M.; Christie, P.; Zhang, J.L.; Li, X.L. Maize yield and soil fertility with combined use of compost and inorganic fertilizers on a calcareous soil on the North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, P.; Wu, M.C.; Kang, G.D.; Zhu, B.J.; Li, H.X.; Hu, F.; Jiao, J.G. Soil quality response to organic amendments on dryland red soil in subtropical China. Geoderma 2020, 373, 114416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, J.A.; Shu, A.P.; Song, W.F.; Shi, W.C.; Li, M.C.; Zhang, W.X.; Li, Z.Z.; Liu, G.R.; Yuan, F.S.; Zhang, S.X.; et al. Long-term organic fertilizer substitution increases rice yield by improving soil properties and regulating soil bacteria. Geoderma 2021, 404, 115287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ning, C.C.; Gao, P.D.; Wang, B.Q.; Lin, W.P.; Jiang, N.H.; Cai, K.Z. Impacts of chemical fertilizer reduction and organic amendments supplementation on soil nutrient, enzyme activity and heavy metal content. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 1819–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pan, Y.H.; Guo, J.J.; Fan, L.Y.; Ji, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wang, F.; Pu, Z.X.; Ling, N.; Shen, Q.R.; Guo, S.W. The source–sink balance during the grain filling period facilitates rice production under organic fertilizer substitution. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 134, 126468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, X.; Qu, J.; Li, H.; La, S.; Tian, Y.; Gao, L. Biochar addition combined with daily fertigation improves overall soil quality and enhances water-fertilizer productivity of cucumber in alkaline soils of a semi-arid region. Geoderma 2020, 363, 114170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, K.L.; Wang, C. Multiple soil quality assessment methods for evaluating effects of organic fertilization in wheat-maize rotation system. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 150, 126929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Denardin, L.G.D.; Carmona, F.D.; Veloso, M.G.; Martins, A.P.; de Freitas, T.F.S.; Carlos, F.S.; Marcolin, E.; Camargo, F.A.D.; Anghinoni, I. No-tillage increases irrigated rice yield through soil quality improvement along time. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 186, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, Q.Y.; Liu, Z.J.; Zhou, J.B.; Xu, X.P.; Zhu, Y.J. Long-term straw mulching with nitrogen fertilization increases nutrient and microbial determinants of soil quality in a maize-wheat rotation on China’s Loess Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xu, F.; Liu, Y.L.; Du, W.C.; Li, C.L.; Xu, M.L.; Xie, T.C.; Yin, Y.; Guo, H. Response of soil bacterial communities, antibiotic residuals, and crop yields to organic fertilizer substitution in North China under wheat-maize rotation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 785, 147248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nath, C.P.; Kumar, N.; Das, K.; Hazra, K.K.; Praharaj, C.S.; Singh, N.P. Impact of variable tillage based residue management and legume based cropping for seven years on enzymes activity, soil quality index and crop productivity in rice ecology. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2021, 10, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pan, J.X.; Shang, Y.W.; Zhang, W.J.; Chen, X.P.; Cui, Z.L. Improving soil quality for higher grain yields in Chinese wheat and maize production. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Asrade, D.A.; Kulhánek, M.; Balík, J.; Černý, J.; Sedlář, O. Side effect of organic fertilizing on the phosphorus transformation and balance over 27 years of maize monoculture. Field Crops Res. 2023, 295, 108902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 01482 g001
Figure 1. Monthly mean temperature and rainfall during the growth period of summer maize in the 2023.
Figure 1. Monthly mean temperature and rainfall during the growth period of summer maize in the 2023.
Agriculture 14 01482 g001
Agriculture 14 01482 g002
Figure 2. Effects of different treatments on biomass and grain yield in YT and DZ. The values presented in the figures are given as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Effects of different treatments on biomass and grain yield in YT and DZ. The values presented in the figures are given as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01482 g002
Agriculture 14 01482 g003
Figure 3. Effects of different treatments on N, P, and K uptake and utilization in YT and DZ. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Effects of different treatments on N, P, and K uptake and utilization in YT and DZ. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01482 g003
Agriculture 14 01482 g004
Figure 4. Pearson’s coefficients for the correlations of soil properties, and the Mantel test analysis of soil properties and plant characteristics (plant growth indication and nutrient utilization) in YT (a) and DZ (b). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Pearson’s coefficients for the correlations of soil properties, and the Mantel test analysis of soil properties and plant characteristics (plant growth indication and nutrient utilization) in YT (a) and DZ (b). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01482 g004
Agriculture 14 01482 g005
Figure 5. SQI and the relationship to grain yield subjected to different fertilization treatments in YT and DZ. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 5. SQI and the relationship to grain yield subjected to different fertilization treatments in YT and DZ. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01482 g005
Agriculture 14 01482 g006
Figure 6. Analysis via SEM elucidated the immediate and mediated impacts of soil properties on soil quality and grain yield under various fertilization treatments in YT and DZ, along with the standardized overall influences on grain yield. The full line arrows signify positive correlations, whereas the dotted line arrows indicate negative correlations. The with the thickness representing the extent of influence. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Figure 6. Analysis via SEM elucidated the immediate and mediated impacts of soil properties on soil quality and grain yield under various fertilization treatments in YT and DZ, along with the standardized overall influences on grain yield. The full line arrows signify positive correlations, whereas the dotted line arrows indicate negative correlations. The with the thickness representing the extent of influence. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01482 g006
Table 1. Basic soil properties in YT and DZ soils.
Table 1. Basic soil properties in YT and DZ soils.
LocationsSOM (g kg−1)TN (g kg−1)TP (g kg−1)TK (g kg−1)AN (mg kg−1)AP (mg kg−1)AK (mg kg−1)pH
YT9.300.600.4930.9960.4322.63145.336.23
DZ8.070.450.7618.2628.487.7397.328.62
Table 2. Chemical and organic–inorganic compound fertilizer application rates under different fertilization regime.
Table 2. Chemical and organic–inorganic compound fertilizer application rates under different fertilization regime.
TreatmentsChemical Fertilizer (kg ha−1)Organic–Inorganic Compound Fertilizer (kg ha−1)Total Nutrients
(kg ha−1)
NP2O5K2ONP2O5K2O
LCF240105135000480
COIF127.7531.750188.2562.75121.5432
COIF23030016254108384
Table 3. Soil properties at R6 stage under different fertilization treatments in YT and DZ soils.
Table 3. Soil properties at R6 stage under different fertilization treatments in YT and DZ soils.
LocationsTreatmentsSOM (g kg−1)TN (g kg−1)TP (g kg−1)TK (g kg−1)AN (mg kg−1)AP (mg kg−1)AK (mg kg−1)NO3− (mg kg−1)NH4+ (mg kg−1)pH
YTLCF10.82 c0.66 c0.51 a32.99 ab87.43 c24.63 b156.00 b7.93 b2.48 b7.04 a
COIF112.21 a1.04 a0.61 a36.14 a134.27 a46.39 a288.83 a22.19 a3.64 a6.38 b
COIF211.39 b0.74 b0.57 a30.95 b106.07 b30.03 b209.00 b14.86 ab2.82 a6.54 b
DZLCF8.63 c0.46 c0.97 b18.38 b34.02 c8.05 b110.33 b24.95 c2.21 b9.44 a
COIF110.89 a0.72 a1.12 a19.25 a53.66 a13.61 a133.17 a58.20 a2.92 a9.22 b
COIF29.68 b0.57 b1.07 ab18.86 ab41.03 b8.97 b115.77 b45.77 b2.81 a9.29 ab
SOM: soil organic matter; TN: soil total nitrogen; TP: soil total phosphorus; TK: soil total potassium; AN: soil alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen; AP: soil available phosphorus; AK: soil available potassium; NO3−: soil nitrate nitrogen; NH4+: soil ammonium nitrogen; pH: soil pH. Different letters delineate the disparities among treatments at a single phase, with statistical significance at p ≤ 0.05. The same below.
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

Chen, X.; Li, Z.; Zhao, H.; Li, Y.; Wei, J.; Ma, L.; Zheng, F.; Tan, D. Enhancing Maize Yield and Nutrient Utilization through Improved Soil Quality under Reduced Fertilizer Use: The Efficacy of Organic–Inorganic Compound Fertilizer. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1482. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091482

AMA Style

Chen X, Li Z, Zhao H, Li Y, Wei J, Ma L, Zheng F, Tan D. Enhancing Maize Yield and Nutrient Utilization through Improved Soil Quality under Reduced Fertilizer Use: The Efficacy of Organic–Inorganic Compound Fertilizer. Agriculture. 2024; 14(9):1482. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091482

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Xiaoying, Zishuang Li, Huanyu Zhao, Yan Li, Jianlin Wei, Lei Ma, Fuli Zheng, and Deshui Tan. 2024. "Enhancing Maize Yield and Nutrient Utilization through Improved Soil Quality under Reduced Fertilizer Use: The Efficacy of Organic–Inorganic Compound Fertilizer" Agriculture 14, no. 9: 1482. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091482

APA Style

Chen, X., Li, Z., Zhao, H., Li, Y., Wei, J., Ma, L., Zheng, F., & Tan, D. (2024). Enhancing Maize Yield and Nutrient Utilization through Improved Soil Quality under Reduced Fertilizer Use: The Efficacy of Organic–Inorganic Compound Fertilizer. Agriculture, 14(9), 1482. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091482

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