Effect of Organic Manure on Crop Yield, Soil Properties, and Economic Benefit in Wheat-Maize-Sunflower Rotation System, Hetao Irrigation District
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Soil Properties
2.2. Yield and Yield Components
2.3. Correlation between Soil Properties, Yield Components, and Crop Yield
2.4. Economic Benefits
3. Discussion
3.1. Soil Properties and Crop Yield
3.2. Mechanisms That Affecting Yield under Organic Fertilization
3.3. Economic Income
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Site Description
4.2. Experimental Design
4.3. Sample Collection and Measurement
4.4. Data Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cooledge, E.C.; Chadwick, D.R.; Smith, L.M.J.; Leake, J.R.; Jones, D.L. Agronomic and environmental benefits of reintroducing herb-and legume-rich multispecies leys into arable rotations: A review. Fase 2022, 9, 245–271. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, X.; Zhang, C.; Ju, X.T. Crop responses to application of optimum nitrogen fertilizers on soils of various fertilities formed from long-term fertilization regimes. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 148, 126857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brar, J.S.; Mahal, S.S.; Saini, K.S.; Brar, N.S. Response of sunflower yield to planting methods and irrigation schedules. Indian JAR 2016, 50, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, G.; Zhou, J.; Liu, B.C.; Alharbi, S.A.; Liu, E.; Kuzyakov, Y. Carbon footprint of maize-wheat cropping system after 40-year fertilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 29, 172082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, E.; Zhou, J.; Yang, X.; Zhao, B.Q.; Li, L.L.; Wen, Y.C.; Soldatova, E.; Zamanian, K.; Gopalakrishnan, S.; Mei, X.R. Long-term organic fertilizer-induced carbonate neoformation increases carbon sequestration in soil. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhatt, M.; Singh, A.P.; Singh, V.; Kala, D.C.; Kumar, V. Long-term effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil physico-chemical properties of a silty clay loam soil under rice-wheat cropping system in Tarai region of Uttarakhand. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 2113–2118. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Z.H.; Dai, D.Q. Evaluation of water use efficiency and optimal irrigation quantity of spring maize in Hetao Irrigation District using the Noah-MP Land Surface Model. Agr. Water Manag. 2022, 264, 107498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; Ma, Q.X.; Wu, L.; Hu, R.G.; Jones, D.L.; Chadwick, D.R.; Jiang, Y.B.; Wu, Y.P.; Xia, X.G.; Yang, L.; et al. The effect of organic manure or green manure incorporation with reductions in chemical fertilizer on yield-scaled N2O emissions in a citrus orchard. Agrecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.P.; Song, X.; Yang, J.K.; Zhao, Y.Y.; Yuan, Z.Q.; Zhao, G.B.; Abbott, L.K.; Zhang, F.; Li, F.M. Yield benefits from joint application of manure and inorganic fertilizer in a long-term field pea, wheat and potato crop rotation. Field Crops Res. 2023, 294, 108873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.L.; Wang, Y.H.; Zhang, Q.; Lin, S.X.; Zhang, Y.; Du, M.R.; Chen, M.H.; Yan, J.H.; Wu, Z.Y.; Wang, H.B. Reasonable deep application of sheep manure fertilizer to alleviate soil acidification to improve tea yield and quality. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1179960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, G.X.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Wan, C.Y.; Lu, P.R.; Bakour, A. Effects of saline water irrigation on soil salinity and yield of summer maize (Zea mays L.) in subsurface drainage system. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 193, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaziritabar, Y.; Frei, M.; Yan, F.; Vaziritabar, Y.; Honermeier, B. Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency and plant productivity in long–term precrop/crop rotation and fertilization management. Field Crops Res. 2024, 306, 109210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Zheng, C.L.; Ning, S.R.; Cao, C.Y.; Li, K.J.; Dang, H.K.; Wu, Y.Q.; Zhang, J.P. Impacts of long-term saline water irrigation on soil properties and crop yields under maize-wheat crop rotation. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 286, 108383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, R.Y.; Xu, X.T.; Zhan, L.P.; Chen, A.F.; Zhang, Q.Q.; Xiong, Z.Q. Proper organic substitution attenuated both N2O and NO emissions derived from AOB in vegetable soils by enhancing the proportion of Nitrosomonas. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 866, 161231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bayannur City of Statistics Data, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau. Available online: https://www.bynr.gov.cn (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Zhao, N.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.H.; Ma, J.; Cao, J.F.; Liu, H.J.; Wang, X.Q.; Bai, L.F.; Wang, Z.G. Limited Advantages of Green Manure Planting on Soil Nutrients and Productivity in Intensive Agriculture: A Case Study of Wheat–Maize–Sunflower Rotation in Hetao Irrigation District. Agronomy 2023, 14, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). China Statistics Yearbook; Chinese Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
- Yu, R.; Zhang, H.Y.; Chang, F.D.; Song, J.S.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.Q.; Kan, Z.R.; Zhao, N.; Li, X.H.; Ma, J. Mixed sowing of Feed rape and Vicia villosa can substitute nitrogen fertilizer to improve soil multifunctionality in the Hetao irrigation District. Catena 2024, 235, 107617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzamel, N.M.; Taha, E.M.M.; Bakr, A.A.A.; Loutfy, N. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties, growth yield, and physiochemical properties of sunflower seeds and oils. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, H.; Peng, M.W.; Lu, W.D.; Hou, Z.N.; Li, J.H. Commercial organic fertilizer substitution increases wheat yield by im-proving soil quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 158132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, J.Q.; Dong, Y.Y.; Zhang, M. Chemical fertilizer reduction with organic fertilizer effectively improve soil fertility and microbial community from newly cultivated land in the Loess Plateau of China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 165, 103966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zingore, S.; Murwira, H.K.; Delve, R.J.; Giller, K.E. Soil type, management history and current resource allocation: Three dimensions regulating variability in crop productivity on African smallholder farms. Field Crops Res. 2007, 101, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lal, B.; Sharma, S.C.; Meena, R.L.; Sarkar, S.; Sahoo, A.; Balai, R.C.; Gautam, P.; Meena, B.P. Utilization of byproducts of sheep farming as organic fertilizer for improving soil health and productivity of barley forage. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, E.K.; Yan, C.R.; Mei, X.R.; He, W.Q.; Bing, S.H.; Ding, L.P.; Liu, Q.; Liu, S.; Fan, T.L. Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China. Geoderma 2010, 158, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zingore, S.; Delve, R.J.; Nyamangara, J.; Giller, K.E. Multiple benefits of manure: The key to maintenance of soil fertility and restoration of depleted sandy soils on African smallholder farms. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 2008, 80, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hua, W.; Luo, P.Y.; An, N.; Cai, F.F.; Zhang, S.Y.; Chen, K.; Yang, J.F.; Han, X.R. Manure application increased crop yields by promoting nitrogen use efficiency in the soils of 40-year soybean-maize rotation. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garland, G.; Edlinger, A.; Banerjee, S.; Degrune, F.; García-Palacios, P.; Pescador, D.S.; Herzog, C.; Romdhane, S.; Saghai, A.; Spor, A.; et al. Crop cover is more important than rotational diversity for soil multifunctionality and cereal yields in European cropping systems. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vries, F.; Jansen, D.M.; Berge, H.F.M.; Bakema, A. Simulation of Ecophysiological Processes of Growth in Several Annual Crops, 1st ed.; International Rice Research Institute: Laguna, Philippines, 1989; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, W.; Li, H.J.; Qu, H.C.; Wang, Y.L.; Misselbrook, T.; Li, X.; Jiang, R. Water stress in maize production in the drylands of the Loess Plateau. Vadose Zone J. 2018, 17, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, E.I.; George, M.; Herreman, T.; Brown, H.; Fletcher, A.; Chakwizira, E.; Ruiter, J.D.; Malet, S.; Noble, A. The impact of water and nitrogen limitation on maize biomass and resource-use efficiencies for radiation, water and nitrogen. Field Crops Res. 2014, 168, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dissanayaka, D.; Ghahremani, M.; Siebers, M.; Wasaki, J.; Plaxton, W.C. Recent insights into the metabolic adaptations of phosphorus-deprived plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2021, 72, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aguiar Neto, P.; Oliveira, F.A.; Marques, L.F.; Rodrigues, A.F.; Santos, F.G.B. Effects of phosphorus application on sunflower crop growth. Green J. Agroecol. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 5, 24. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, J.T.A.; Braga, J.M. Influência de características físicas e químicas sobre o fator capacidade-tampão de fósforo em Latossolos do Estado de Minas Gerais. Rev. Ceres 2015, 40, 575–583. [Google Scholar]
- Abbasi, K.M.; Hina, M.; Khalique, A.; Khan, S.R. Mineralization of three organic manures used as nitrogen source in a soil incubated under laboratory conditions. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 2007, 38, 1691–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Sun, Y.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Berauer, B.J.; Schuchardt, M.; Holz, M.; Shi, L.L.; Dannenmann, M.; Kiese, R.; Jentsch, A.; et al. Response of microbial growth and enzyme activity to climate change in European mountain grasslands: A translocation study. Catena 2024, 239, 107956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Sun, T.T.; Shi, L.L.; Kurganova, I.; de Gerenyu, V.L.; Kalinina, O.; Giani, L.; Kuzyakov, Y. Organic carbon accumulation and microbial activities in arable soils after abandonment: A chronosequence study. Geoderma 2023, 435, 116496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, P.M.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Philipps, L.; Hatch, D.J.; Cuttle, S.P.; Rayns, F.W.; Gosling, P. Is the productivity of organic farms restricted by the supply of available nitrogen? Soil. Use Manag. 2002, 18, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, S.S.; Hu, Q.L.; Cheng, Y.Q.; Bai, L.Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Xiao, W.J.; Gong, Z.H.; Wu, Y.N.; Feng, K.; Deng, Y.; et al. Application of organic fertilizer improves microbial community diversity and alters microbial network structure in tea (Camellia sinensis) plantation soils. Soil Till Res. 2019, 195, 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luan, H.A.; Gao, W.; Huang, S.W.; Tang, J.W.; Li, M.Y.; Zhang, H.Z.; Che, X.P. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic amendments affects soil organic carbon composition and stability in a greenhouse vegetable production system. Soil Till Res. 2019, 191, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morra, L.; Bilotto, M.; Baldantoni, D.; Alfani, A.; Baiano, S. A seven-year experiment in a vegetable crops sequence: Effects of replacing mineral fertilizers with Biowaste compost on crop productivity, soil organic carbon and nitrates concentrations. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 290, 110534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, S.; Zhu, Z.P.; Zhao, J.; Chadwick, D.R.; Dong, H.M. Policies and regulations for promoting manure management for sustainable livestock production in China: A review. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2021, 8, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.P.; Li, K.R.; Chen, S.F.; Fu, X.L.; Feng, S.Y.; Zhuang, Z.S. A sustainable agricultural supply chain considering substituting organic manure for chemical fertilizer. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 29, 432–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, X.; Zhou, J.; Luo, B.L.; Dai, H.C.; Hu, Y.G.; Ren, C.Z.; Peixoto, L.; Guo, L.C.; Wang, C.L.; Zamanian, K.; et al. Yield advantage and carbon footprint of oat/sunflower relay strip intercrop depending on nitrogen fertilization. Plant Soil 2022, 481, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekunda, M.A.; Bationo, A.; Ssali, H. Soil fertility management in Africa: A review of selected research trials. Replenishing Soil Fertil. Afr. 1997, 51, 63–79. [Google Scholar]
- Sáez-Plaza, P.; Michałowski, T.; Navas, M.J.; Agustín, G.A.; Sławomir, W. An overview of the Kjeldahl method of nitrogen determination. Part, I. Early history, chemistry of the procedure, and titrimetric finish. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2013, 43, 178–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, X.K.; Zhou, T.; Liu, S.H.; Sun, X.B.; Zhou, Y.F.; Xu, L.; Xie, B.L.; Ying, J.; Shi, Y.J. Effects of climate on variation of soil organic carbon and alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen in subtropical forests: A case study of Zhejiang province, China. Forests 2023, 14, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenau, J.J.; O’halloran, I.P. Sodium bicarbonate-extractable phosphorus. Soil. Sampl. Methods Anal. 2008, 2, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Warncke, D.; Brown, J.R. Potassium and other basic cations. Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North. Cent. Reg. 1998, 1001, 31. [Google Scholar]
- Nie, J.W.; Wang, X.Q.; Mas, T.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, X.Q.; Zhao, J.; Zang, H.D.; Yang, Y.D.; Zeng, Z. Evaluation of crop productivity, water and nitrogen use, and carbon footprint of summer peanut-winter wheat cropping systems in the North China Plain. Food Energy Secur. 2022, 11, e401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Treatments | Cycle 1 (2015–2017) | Cycle 2 (2018–2020) | Cycle 3 (2021–2023) | Two-Way ANOVA | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPK | NPKO | NPK | NPKO | NPK | NPKO | RC | FT | RC × FT | |
Wheat season (2015, 2018, 2021) | |||||||||
Spike number (m−2) | 720 ± 3 | 717 ± 3 | 728 ± 4 | 707 ± 18 | 724 ± 19 | 714 ± 5 | ns | ns | ns |
Grain number (spike−1) | 34.7 ± 1.2 | 32.8 ± 2.1 | 36.4 ± 1.9 | 32.3 ± 1.4 | 35.4 ± 1.6 | 37.4 ± 2.5 | ns | ns | ns |
1000-grain weight (g) | 53.9 ± 1.8 a | 49.0 ± 3.7 b | 50.1 ± 3.1 | 43.2 ± 0.7 | 49.6 ± 2.2 | 50.6 ± 0.8 | ns | ns | ns |
AGB (Mg ha−1) | 13.3 ± 0.3 | 13.1 ± 0.3 | 13.6 ± 0.4 | 13.9 ± 0.2 | 12.7 ± 0.4 | 13.5 ± 0.2 | ns | ns | ns |
HI | 0.51 ± 0.00 | 0.51 ± 0.00 | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 0.47 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.00 | 0.51 ± 0.00 | ** | ns | ns |
Maize season (2016, 2019, 2022) | |||||||||
Ear number (m−2) | 7.40 ± 0.26 | 7.37 ± 0.12 | 7.20 ± 0.30 | 7.65 ± 0.04 | 7.12 ± 0.07 | 7.95 ± 0.20 | ns | ns | ns |
Kernel number (ear−1) | 654 ± 29 | 686 ± 30 | 634 ± 19 | 660 ± 16 | 623 ± 29 | 608 ± 41 | ns | ns | ns |
100-kernel weight (g) | 35.1 ± 0.7 | 35.6 ± 0.7 | 33.4 ± 0.2 | 35.7 ± 0.9 | 32.8 ± 0.5 | 33.2 ± 0.6 | * | ns | ns |
AGB (Mg ha−1) | 33.2 ± 1.0 | 34.5 ± 0.5 | 31.8 ± 0.9 | 32.4 ± 0.5 | 29.9 ± 1.0 | 31.3 ± 1.0 | ns | ns | ns |
HI | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.00 | 0.47 ± 0.02 | 0.48 ± 0.03 | 0.46 ± 0.02 | 0.47 ± 0.02 | ns | ns | ns |
Sunflower season (2017, 2020, 2023) | |||||||||
Head number (m−2) | 3.01 ± 0.02 | 3.12 ± 0.07 | 3.00 ± 0.12 | 3.03 ± 0.03 | 2.63 ± 0.03 | 2.53 ± 0.03 | ** | ns | ns |
Seed number (head−1) | 970 ± 93 | 913 ± 20 | 1320 ± 32 | 1325 ± 43 | 1190 ± 117 a | 990 ± 57 b | * | ns | ns |
Seed setting rate (%) | 88.7 ± 3.4 | 85.3 ± 2.5 | 83.6 ± 0.5 | 83.5 ± 2.0 | 41.9 ± 2.3 b | 69.2 ± 1.1 a | ** | * | ** |
100-seed weight (g) | 17.7 ± 0.9 | 17.7 ± 0.2 | 23.4 ± 1.0 | 23.7 ± 0.8 | 27.4 ± 0.6 | 26.9 ± 0.2 | ** | ns | ns |
AGB (Mg ha−1) | 12.7 ± 0.2 | 13.1 ± 0.2 | 12.5 ± 0.5 | 13.8 ± 0.6 | 20.1 ± 0.6 | 20.8 ± 0.7 | ** | ns | ns |
HI | 0.29 ± 0.00 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 0.27 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.00 | ns | ns | ns |
Wheat Yield (2015, 2018, 2021) | Maize Yield (2016, 2019, 2022) | Sunflower Yield (2017, 2020, 2023) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spike number | −0.42 | Ear number | 0.43 | Head number | 0.47 |
Grain number | 0.42 | Kernel number | 0.50 * | Seed number | −0.28 |
1000-grain weight | 0.13 | 100-kernel weight | 0.46 | 100-seed weight | −0.59 * |
AGB | 0.51 * | AGB | 0.61 ** | AGB | −0.55 * |
HI | 0.47 * | HI | 0.55 * | HI | 0.29 |
Seed setting rate | 0.89 ** |
Item | Spring Wheat | Maize | Sunflower | Price | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPK | NPKO | NPK | NPKO | NPK | NPKO | ||
Average inputs | |||||||
Seed (kg ha−1) | 375 | 375 | 45 | 45 | 30 | 30 | ¥5, 20, and 40 kg−1 for wheat, maize, and sunflower, respectively |
Organic fertilizer (kg ha−1) | 0 | 7500 | 0 | 7500 | 0 | 7500 | ¥0.1 kg−1 |
Urea (kg ha−1) | 387 | 387 | 485 | 485 | 485 | 485 | ¥4 kg−1 |
Diammonium phosphate (kg ha−1) | 261 | 261 | 261 | 261 | 261 | 261 | ¥3.7 kg−1 |
Potassium sulfate (kg ha−1) | 180 | 180 | 180 | 180 | 180 | 180 | ¥3.3 kg−1 |
Herbicide (bottle ha−1) | 15 | 15 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 22.5 | ¥20 bottle−1 |
Irrigation (m3 ha−1) | 1875 | 1875 | 2250 | 2250 | 1125 | 1125 | ¥0.8 m−3 |
Plastic film mulching (kg ha−1) | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 37.5 | 37.5 | ¥12 kg−1 |
Labor (No. ha−1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | ¥150 labor−1 |
Machinery (times year−1) | |||||||
Rotary tillage | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ¥675 ha−1 |
Soil rolling | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ¥750 ha−1 |
Sowing | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ¥750 ha−1 |
Harvest | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ¥750, 1200, and 900 ha−1 for wheat, maize, and sunflower, respectively |
Plough tillage | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ¥750 ha−1 |
Total (¥ ha−2) | 9713 | 11,213 | 10,630 | 12,130 | 10,330 | 11,830 | |
Average outputs, crop yield (Mg ha−1, 13%, 14% of wheat, maize moisture content) | |||||||
Cycle1 (2015–2017) | 6.8 | 6.8 | 15.2 | 15.5 | 3.7 | 3.8 | ¥3200, 2100, and 6000 Mg−1 for wheat, maize, and sunflower, respectively |
Cycle 2 (2018–2020) | 6.6 | 6.7 | 15.1 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 4.1 | ¥3200, 2400, and 6400 Mg−1 for wheat, maize, and sunflower, respectively |
Cycle 3 (2021–2023) | 6.5 | 6.9 | 13.5 | 14.2 | 2.2 | 3.6 | ¥3200, 2600, and 8600 Mg−1 for wheat, maize, and sunflower, respectively |
Net income (¥ ha−1) | |||||||
Cycle1 (2015–2017) | 11,994 | 10,294 | 21,395 | 21,227 | 11,759 | 10,803 | |
Cycle 2 (2018–2020) | 11,308 | 9643 | 25,683 | 24,859 | 11,220 | 11,210 | |
Cycle 3 (2021–2023) | 11,061 | 10,958 | 24,551 | 24,701 | 8301 | 19,105 |
Soil Depth (cm) | SOM (g kg−1) | TN (g kg−1) | TP (g kg−1) | TK (g kg−1) | AN (mg kg−1) | AP (mg kg−1) | EK (mg kg−1) | TWS Salt (g kg−1) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0–20 | 13.0 ± 1.1 | 0.80 ± 0.3 | 0.40 ± 0.1 | 20.0 ± 2.1 | 73 ± 3.8 | 26.2 ± 2.2 | 130 ± 6.9 | 0.58 ± 0.1 | 8.8 ± 1.3 |
20–40 | 12.3 ± 0.8 | 0.73 ± 0.2 | 0.56 ± 0.1 | 17.5 ± 1.9 | 70 ± 4.2 | 21.5 ± 1.7 | 130 ± 7.1 | 0.52 ± 0.1 | 8.9 ± 0.9 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, N.; Ma, J.; Wu, L.; Li, X.; Xu, H.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; Bai, L.; Wang, Z. Effect of Organic Manure on Crop Yield, Soil Properties, and Economic Benefit in Wheat-Maize-Sunflower Rotation System, Hetao Irrigation District. Plants 2024, 13, 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13162250
Zhao N, Ma J, Wu L, Li X, Xu H, Zhang J, Wang X, Wang Y, Bai L, Wang Z. Effect of Organic Manure on Crop Yield, Soil Properties, and Economic Benefit in Wheat-Maize-Sunflower Rotation System, Hetao Irrigation District. Plants. 2024; 13(16):2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13162250
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Na, Jun Ma, Linmei Wu, Xiaohong Li, Hongwei Xu, Jun Zhang, Xiquan Wang, Yongqiang Wang, Lanfang Bai, and Zhigang Wang. 2024. "Effect of Organic Manure on Crop Yield, Soil Properties, and Economic Benefit in Wheat-Maize-Sunflower Rotation System, Hetao Irrigation District" Plants 13, no. 16: 2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13162250