Evaluation of Cyperus Fertility Improvement in Aeolian Soils from an Application of Humic Acid Combined with Compound Fertilizer
by
, , ,
Jianfa Yan
1,2,3,
Xianmei Zhang
2,4,*,
Fanrong Meng
5,6,
Guodong Chen
1,3,
Ruodi Wang
6,
Ziyi Ma
6,
Zhenquan He
7,8,
Guosheng Gai
5,8 and
Jinhu Zhi
1,3,* 1
College of Agriculture, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Efficient Utilization of Arid and Semi-Arid Arable Land in Northern China, The Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
3
Key Laboratory of Genetic Improvement and Efficient Production for Specialty Crops in Arid Southern Xinjiang of Xinjiang Corps, Alar 843300, China
4
Key Laboratory of Arable Land Quality Monitoring and Evaluation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, The Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
5
Wuxi Institute of Applied Technology, Tsinghua University, Wuxi 214106, China
6
Shandong Qingda Ecological Technology Co., Ltd., Dongying 257000, China
7
Zibo Qingda Powder Material Engineering Co., Ltd., Zibo 255000, China
8
Hebei Tsinghua Development Research Institute, Beijing 100084, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2023, 11(12), 3273; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11123273
Submission received: 6 September 2023
/
Revised: 29 October 2023
/
Accepted: 30 October 2023
/
Published: 22 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental and Green Processes)
Abstract
:Humic acid is a macromolecular organic compound with active groups that, when applied to the soil, can regulate the storage and release of nutrient elements. The effects of a humic acid application at two application rates (F-1: 15 t·hm−2 and F-2: 30 t·hm−2) on soil physicochemical properties and plant growth and yield were compared in field experiments to explore the impact of the humic acid dosage on the soil fertility of aeolian sandy soils. The CEC, EC, pH, organic matter, and available nutrient content were measured in the 0~20 cm and 20~40 cm soil before and after the humic acid application. The results showed that the soil organic matter and available nutrient content increased significantly with an increased humic acid application rate. In the 0~20 cm soil layer, the contents of soil alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available potassium, and organic matter were the highest in the F-2 treatment, at 24.97, 207.66 mg·kg−1, and 8.99 g·kg−1, respectively, which increased by 76%, 66%, and 54% compared with the control treatment. On the other hand, the content of available phosphorus was the highest in the F-1 treatment, at 13.23 mg·kg−1, which was 38% higher than the control. In the 20~40 cm soil layer, the contents of soil alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium were the highest after the F-2 treatment, at 16.33, 8.51, and 17.14 mg·kg−1, respectively, which increased by 19%, 113%, and 58% compared with the control. The organic matter content was the highest in the F-1 treatment, at 7.61 g·kg−1. After the humic acid application, the CEC and EC increased significantly, and the pH decreased. In addition, the growth status (leaf length, tillering number, and chlorophyll content) and yield of the Cyperus plants significantly increased with an increase in the humic acid dosage. In short, adding humic acid can effectively improve the physical and chemical properties of aeolian soils, regulate the nutrient circulation in the soil, and increase the yield and income from Cyperus cultivation.
1. Introduction
Cyperus, also known as tiger nut, is an annual tuber of the sedge family. It is native to Africa and is a natural, non-transgenic herb grain and oil dual-purpose crop [1]. Cyperus is a high-quality crop with a solid drought tolerance and rich nutrition. It is used for grain and oil feed production and can be planted in sandy soil. Cyperus can be planted from early March to July and has been developed as a regional characteristic crop [2]. In addition, the root system of Cyperus has a strong tillering ability that significantly affects its wind prevention and sand fixation, so it has a good application prospect in desert management [3,4].
China is one of the countries in the world with the most significant areas affected by desertification, the largest affected population, and the heaviest damage caused by sandstorms. The total area of land that has been subject to desertification in China is 261.16 × 104 km2, accounting for 27.2% of the land area Aeolian sandy soils are mainly found in northern China’s semi-arid, arid, and extremely arid areas. They are characterized by a loose structure, a low organic matter content, weak hydraulic and nutritional properties, loose soil, a strong permeability, and low crop productivity [5,6,7,8]. In northern and southern Xinjiang, aeolian soil can be developed into farmland by leveling the land and developing irrigation. Humic acid is a kind of high-molecular-weight organic matter in nature that mainly comes from the sediment of soil, water, and plants after microbial decomposition [9,10]. Studies have shown that humic acid has good chemical properties, and the addition of humic acid to soil can regulate nitrogen transformation in the soil and reduce nitrogen migration and loss in the soil [11,12]; improve the range of phosphorus in the soil; increase the content of available nutrients and organic matter in sandy soil [13]; improve soil structure and fertility [14,15]; improve the effectiveness of trace elements in the soil [16]; and promote crop growth [17].
Humic acid has been widely used to improve the physical and chemical properties of aeolian soil, but the application of humic acid for the cultivation of Cyperus in newly reclaimed aeolian soil has not yet been reported. This paper studied the effects of different amounts of humic acid on soil fertility and Cyperus crop growth in aeolian soil and provided technical support for improving aeolian soil and increasing the Cyperus yield.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site Profile
The experimental site was located on Ulastai Farm (42°12′ N, 86°20′ E), Hejing County, Bayingol Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang, with an altitude of 1686 m and a medium-temperate continental dry climate with little rain, where the annual rainfall is only 68 mm, but the yearly evaporation is 2100 mm.
2.2. Experimental Material
The experimental land was newly reclaimed aeolian soil near the abandoned channel of the Kaidu River in Yanqi Basin. The basic physical and chemical properties of the soil before the experiment are shown in Table 1. The tested crop was Cyperus, also known as tiger nut, and its seeds were provided by Jilin Province Haoyishou Cyperus Oil Co., Ltd., located in Baicheng City, Jilin Province, China. The seed rate was >90%. The humic acid was purchased from Jinan Xundali Chemical Co., Ltd., in Jinan City, Shandong Province, China, and was in a powder form with an available content of 13.49%. The basic physical and chemical properties of humic acid are shown in Table 2. The fertilizer was produced by Xinjiang XLX Energy and Chemical Co., Ltd., located in Changji Prefecture, Xinjiang, China; its total nutrient content was ≥45%, and the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium nutrient ratio was 15:15:15.
2.3. Experimental Methods
2.3.1. Experiment Design
The experiment was made up of four treatments, which are shown in Table 3. Each treatment was repeated three times. In this experiment, except for the humic acid dosage, the other management measures, fertilization, and irrigation methods were the same. The base compound fertilizer (15-15-15) was used in the IOR, F-1, and F-2 treatments at 600 kg·hm−2 before sowing. A topdressing was applied four times for all treatments, with the integration of water, at a dose of 300 kg·hm−2 of compound fertilizer (17-17-17), starting 30 d after sowing and with 15 days apart for subsequent doses. Before sowing, the F1 and F2 treatments were fertilized with 15,000 and 30,000 kg·hm−2 of humic acid, respectively.
The experiment was conducted on 30 May 2022. The experiment was performed with 12 plots at random in aeolian soil, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 1. The area of the plot was 6.67 m2 (2 m × 3.335 m). Four rows were planted in each plot and the row spacing was 0.6 m. The plant spacing was 0.2 m and two Cyperus grains were planted in each hole.
2.3.2. Sample Collection
Sixty days after sowing, soil samples from the 0~20 cm and 20~40 cm layers were collected from the plots using a five-point sampling method. Three plants were measured from each plot for their height, leaf width, tillering number, and chlorophyll content. After air drying, the samples were crushed and passed through a 1 mm sieve for further analysis. The Cyprus plants were harvested for their tubers on 20 September.
2.3.3. Measurement of Plant and Soil Indexes
The SPAD value of the ear leaf was measured using an LD-YD handheld plant nutrient rapid measuring instrument, and each leaf was measured three times. The leaf length was measured with a steel ruler along the veins, and the leaf width was measured along the leaf’s widest length. The tiller number was counted from five randomly selected plants in each plot, and their average value was taken. The soil pH was measured with a type of PH-3C pH meter at a water/soil rate of 2.5:1. The soil available phosphorus was determined using the sodium bicarbonate extraction–molybdenum antimony colorimetric method. The soil available potassium was determined with ammonium acetate extraction–flame spectrophotometry, and the alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen was determined using the alkali-diffusion method. The soil organic matter was determined using the oil-bath-heating potassium dichromate oxidation volumetric method [18].
2.3.4. Data Processing
The SPSS26, Origin 2021, and Excel 2010 software packages were used for data processing and analysis.
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Combined Application of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on the Growth and Yield of Cyperus
3.1.1. Effects of Combined Application of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on the Growth of Cyperus
As shown in Table 5, the addition of humic acid with conventional fertilization had an apparent growth-promoting effect on Cyperus plants. Regarding the leaf length and tiller number, there were significant differences (p > 0.05) between the humic acid and control treatments. Compared with the control, the leaf length of plants in the F-2 treatment increased by 9.75 cm, and those of F-1 increased by 5.69 cm. The tiller number of the F-2-treatment plants increased by 4.04 compared with the control, and the tiller number of F-1-treatment plants increased by 2.90 compared with the control. Compared with the IOR treatment, the leaf length of plants in the F-2 and F-1 treatments increased by 6.66 cm and 2.60 cm, respectively. Compared with the IOR treatment, the tiller number of plants in the F-2 and F-1 treatments increased by 3.07 and 1.93, respectively.
In terms of the chlorophyll content (SPAD), there was a significant difference between the humic acid treatments and the control. Compared with the control, the SPAD of the F-1-treated leaves increased by 4.52, and the SPAD of the F-2-treated leaves increased by 6.96. The humic acid treatments increased the SPAD more than the IOR treatments by a significant difference. However, there was no significant difference in the leaf width between the humic acid treatments and the control.
3.1.2. Effects of Combined Application of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on the Yield of Cyperus
Cyperus can be used as food for human consumption and animal feeds. Its tubers are usually used as food or to extract high-quality oil, and the product above the ground may be used as feed. The effects of different humic acid application rates on the yield of Cyperus plants are shown in Table 6. With an increase in the humic acid dosage, the yield of Cyperus gradually increased. Compared with CK, the yield of leaves and tubers increased by 22% and 44%, respectively, under the F-1 treatment. The F-2 treatment had the highest yield, with the leaf and tuber yield of Cyperus increasing by 27% and 155% compared with CK, respectively, both exhibiting statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
3.1.3. Correlation Analysis of Humic Acid Dosage with Growth Index and Yield of Cyperus
According to the correlation analysis in Table 7, the amount of humic acid was significantly positively correlated with the SPAD, leaf length, tiller number, leaf yield, and tuber yield. The SPAD was significantly positively correlated with the leaf length, tiller number, leaf yield, and tuber yield. The leaf length was significantly positively correlated with the tiller number, leaf yield, and tuber yield. The tiller number was significantly positively correlated with the leaf yield and tuber yield. There was a significant positive correlation between the leaf yield and the tuber yield. The results showed that adding humic acid could significantly increase the plant height, tiller number, and yield of Cyperus.
3.2. Effects of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on the Physical and Chemical Properties of Aeolian Soil
3.2.1. Effect of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on Aeolian Soil Properties
Organic matter is one of the active components in the soil. There is usually a low organic matter content in newly cultivated aeolian soils. The effect of humic acid and compound fertilizer on the soil organic matter is shown in Table 2. As shown in Figure 2, although the IOR treatment increased the soil organic matter content in the 0~20 cm topsoil and 20~40 cm bottom soil compared with the control, the difference was insignificant. With the application of humic acid, the soil organic matter content was significantly increased. The soil organic matter content in the 0~20 cm topsoil under the F-1 and F-2 treatments was 8.69 and 8.99 g·kg−1, respectively, and significantly higher than that of the control (p < 0.05), increasing by 49% and 54%, respectively. Since some humic acid was dissolved in the drip irrigation water, applying humic acid also increased the organic matter content in the bottom 20~40 cm of the soil. The organic matter content in the 20~40 cm layer of the soil in the F-1 and F-2 treatments reached 7.61 and 7.31 g·kg−1, respectively, which was significantly higher than the control (p < 0.05), increasing by 63% and 57%, respectively.
3.2.2. Effects of Combined Application of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on the Content of Available Nutrients in Aeolian Soil
The content of soil available nutrients is correlated with the nutrient supply of the soil to the crop. As shown in Figure 3, the effects of compound fertilizer on the alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen content of the aeolian soil were not significant. However, the content of alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen in the 0~20 cm topsoil was higher than that of the control after 60 days of compound fertilizer application. The combined application of the F-1 and F-2 treatments with humic acid significantly increased the alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen content in the 0~20 cm topsoil. With an increase in the humic acid dosage, the soil alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen in the 0~20 cm topsoil increased. The F-2 treatment resulted in a significantly greater increase than the F-1 treatment (p < 0.05). However, the increase in the humic acid dosage had little effect on the alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen content in the bottom soil layer at 20~40 cm, and there was no significant difference between the F-2 treatment and the F-1 treatment. The above results indicate that the combined application of humic acid could reduce the nitrogen loss from compound fertilizer and is beneficial to soil nitrogen retention.
The changes in the available phosphorus content of the aeolian soil induced by the application of compound fertilizer combined with humic acid are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that, after 60 days of compound fertilizer application, the available phosphorus content in the 0~20 cm topsoil was higher than in the control, but the difference was insignificant. The phosphorus content in the 0~20 cm topsoil in the F-1 treatment reached 13.23 mg·kg−1, significantly higher than that of the CK treatment (p < 0.05). With an increase in the humic acid dosage, the content of available phosphorus in the 0~20 cm surface soil was lower in the F-2 treatment than in F-1. In the bottom soil at 20~40 cm, the soil available phosphorus content was as follows: F-2 > F-1 > IOR > CK, from the highest to the lowest. The highest content was reached in the F-2 treatment, at 8.51 mg·kg−1, which was significantly higher than that of the control (p < 0.05). The results indicate that the combined application of humic acid could increase the available phosphorus content in the soil and promote the migration of surface phosphorus to the bottom soil layer under drip irrigation.
The change in the available potassium content in the aeolian soil after the application of humic acid combined with compound fertilizer is shown in Figure 5. Although the potassium content in the IOR treatment in the 0~20 cm topsoil and 20~40 cm bottom soil was higher than in the CK treatment, the difference was not significant. However, the F-1 and F-2 treatments with humic acid significantly increased the content of available potassium in the 0~20 cm topsoil and the 20~40 cm bottom soil (p < 0.05). The available potassium in the 0~20 cm topsoil and the 20~40 cm bottom soil in the F-1 treatment reached 199.62 mg·kg−1 and 159.79 mg·kg−1, respectively. The available potassium in the F-2 treatment, in the 0~20 cm topsoil and the 20~40 cm bottom soil, reached 207.66 mg·kg−1 and 179.32 mg·kg−1, respectively. However, the difference in the available K in the 0~20 cm topsoil and the 20~40 cm bottom soil between the F-1 and F-2 treatments was insignificant. The results indicate that the combined application of humic acid could promote the retention of soil available potassium and the availability of soil potassium.
3.2.3. Effect of Humic Acid Combined with Compound Fertilizer on the CEC of Aeolian Soil
The soil’s cation exchange capacity (CEC) can be used as an index to evaluate the fertilizer-holding capacity of the 0~20 soil. As shown in Figure 6, the IOR treatment increased the CEC compared to the CK treatment, but the difference was insignificant. The CEC of soil treated with humic acid was higher than that of the control. The CEC in the F-1 treatment was 2.64 cmol·kg−1 and increased by 4% compared with the control, but no significant difference was identified. The CEC in the F-2 treatment was 3.01 cmol·kg−1 and increased by 18% compared with the CK treatment, which was significantly higher compared to the other treatments. This shows that applying humic acid can improve the fertilizer-retaining ability of aeolian soil.
3.2.4. Effects of Humic Acid and Compound Fertilizer on the pH and EC of Aeolian Soil
Soil pH is an essential indicator of a soil’s acid–base status, affecting the soil nutrient elements’ form and availability. A high or low soil pH is not conducive to nutrient absorption by plant roots. The pH changes under the different treatments in this study are shown in Figure 7. The soils were alkaline, with pH values between 8 and 8.5. Under drip irrigation conditions, the pH in the 0~20 cm soil layer was lower than that in the 20~40 cm soil. The soil pH after applying compound fertilizer and humic acid was lower than the control. However, there were no significant differences in the pH values between treatments.
The aeolian soil reclaimed for farmland use in Xinjiang depends on irrigation, and as the soil evaporation is significant, there is a threat of salinization. The effect of the humic acid application on the soil EC content is shown in Figure 8. The IOR treatment slightly increased the EC compared with the control, but no significant difference was observed. The soil ECs after the application of humic acid increased, and the highest EC content was 2.32 ms·m−1 in the F-1 treatment, which was 4.27 times higher than that of the control, reaching a significant difference (p < 0.05). The EC content of the F-2 treatment was 1.14 ms·m−1, which was 1.59-fold higher than the control, reaching a significant difference (p < 0.05). Applying humic acid promoted the retention of ions in the surface soil. However, the EC of the F-2 treated soil, with double the humic acid amount, was lower than that of F-1, indicative of a trend of promoting salt migration to the deeper soil layers.
3.2.5. Correlation Analysis of Humic Acid Dosage and Physical and Chemical Properties of Aeolian Soil
According to the correlation analysis in Table 8. The amount of humic acid was very significantly positively correlated with the content of organic matter and available potassium in aeolian soil, and significantly positively correlated with the content of available phosphorus, CEC and EC. The organic matter content was significantly positively associated with the available phosphorus and potassium, the EC, and the nitrogen content. The content of available phosphorus was significantly positively correlated with the EC. The available potassium content was significantly positively correlated with the CEC and EC. The results show that adding humic acid significantly increased the range of organic matter and available nutrients in the soil, increased the soil’s CEC and EC values, and decreased the soil’s pH value.
4. Discussion
In terms of the growth index and yield of Cyperus, the combined application of humic acid increased the leaf length, tiller number, chlorophyll content, and yield of Cyperus, which is consistent with previous research results [19]. After adding humic acid, due to its robust ion exchange and adsorption capacity, it reduced the loss of the nitrogen content in the soil and promoted the decomposition and transformation of organic matter, thus promoting the growth and development of crops [20].
Crop growth and yield are closely related to soil fertility, so adjusting and improving the soil nutrient availability and organic matter content effectively ensures high crop yields. Natural aeolian soil has a low fertility, and the addition of humic acid increased the soil fertility and promoted the fertilizer-applied nutrient holding capacity. The contents of organic matter, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, and available potassium in 0~40 cm aeolian soil under the combined application of humic acid were higher than those in the blank and conventional fertilization treatments. They increased with the humic acid application amount, which is consistent with previous research conclusions [21]. In addition to the content of organic matter and available nutrients, humic acid can also react with nutrient elements in aeolian soil to increase the fixation of nitrogen in the soil and increase the potassium content in the soil [22]. With an increase in the humic acid dosage, the content of available phosphorus in the 0~20 cm soil layer of the aeolian soil decreased, contrary to previous research results [23]. This may have been because, under drip irrigation conditions, the application of humic acid promoted the absorption of available phosphorus by Cyperus and promoted the migration of phosphorus from the soil plow layer to the soil bottom, which reduced the available phosphorus content in the soil plow layer.
The CEC of soil is an important index to evaluate a soil’s water and fertility capacity. The CEC and EC of aeolian soil increased after the addition of compound fertilizer and humic acid, but the difference between the compound fertilizer treatment and the control was not significant. The F-1 treatment increased the CEC and EC by 18% and 327% when compared to the control, respectively. Regarding the soil EC value, it needs to be inconsistent with previous research results [24]. The effect of a biochar and humic acid addition on reducing soil EC is inconsistent, which may be related to formula differences. In terms of the soil CEC value, it is consistent with the results of previous studies [25]. Humic acid can increase the CEC value of soil.
5. Conclusions
Under drip irrigation conditions, compound fertilizer combined with humic acid can improve the physical and chemical properties of aeolian soil and soil fertility. The application of humic acid increased the soil CEC, EC, organic matter, and available nutrient content and increased the yield of Cyperus. The tuber yield of Cyperus increased by 155%. The soil CEC increased by 18%. The contents of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium in 0~20 cm topsoil increased by 76%, 37%, and 66%, respectively, compared with the control. The contents of alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium in the bottom soil at 20~40 cm increased by 19%, 113%, and 58%, respectively. An application of humic acid can significantly improve the physical and chemical properties of aeolian soil and increase the growth index and yield of Cyperus.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.Z. and G.G.; methodology, X.Z. and Z.H.; software, J.Y., R.W. and Z.M.; validation, X.Z., Z.H. and J.Y.; formal analysis, J.Y. and G.C.; investigation, X.Z., Z.H. and G.C.; resources, G.G., F.M. and J.Z.; data curation, J.Y. and Z.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Y.; writing—review and editing, X.Z., J.Z. and R.W.; visualization, X.Z., J.Z. and Z.H.; supervision, J.Z., X.Z. and F.M.; project administration, G.G., X.Z. and F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32260807), the Hebei Province Aiding Xinjiang Fund Project (BMAP D&RC AXF (2021), number 37), and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Non-profit Scientific Institution (No. 1610132020008).
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
Author Z.M. was employed by the company Shandong Qingda Ecological Technology Co., Ltd. and Z.H. was employed by the company Zibo Qingda Powder Material Engineering Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
- Sun, Y. Cultivation Technology Research and Development Suggestions of Cyperus esculentus. Henan Agric. 2021, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Zhu, W. Research status and prospect of Cyperus esculentus. Grain Oil 2020, 33, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
- Manjeera, S.K.; Subbaiah, V.P.; Prasad, K.R.P.; Rekha, S.M. Available Nutrient Status of Soil as Influenced by Combined Application of Humic Acid and Inorganic Nitrogen. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2021, 33, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Jia, H.; Li, X.; Liu, Y.; Wei, A.; Zhu, W. Effect of drying methods on the quality of tiger nuts (Cyperus esculents L.) and its oil. LWT 2022, 167, 113827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X. China has achieved remarkable results in combating desertification. China Financial News, 23 June 2022; 8. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, Y.; Zhang, S.; Shi, Z.; Zhou, H.; Zheng, H.; Hu, J.; Mei, J.; Bai, L.; Jia, J. Effects of mixed-based biochar on water infiltration and evaporation in aeolian sand soil. J. Arid Land 2022, 14, 374–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, W.; Chen, S.; Zuo, H.; Zhao, X.; Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X. Effect of compounding of soil modification materials on the quality of aeolian sandy soil. Arid Area Resour. Environ. 2023, 37, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tahoun, A.M.A.; El-Enin, M.M.A.; Mancy, A.G.; Sheta, M.H.; Shaaban, A. Integrative Soil Application of Humic Acid and Foliar Plant Growth Stimulants Improves Soil Properties and Wheat Yield and Quality in Nutrient-Poor Sandy Soil of a Semiarid Region. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jing, J.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, L.; Li, Y.; Lin, Z.; Xiong, Q.; Zhao, B. Combining humic acid with phosphate fertilizer affects humic acid structure and its stimulating efficacy on the growth and nutrient uptake of maize seedlings. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17502–17512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, S.; Liu, C.; Liang, Y. Review on Structural Properties and Multiple Functionalities of Humic Acids. Nat. Prod. Res. Dev. 2017, 29, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Lu, S. Effects of conditioner on soil physical properties, nitrogen uptake and migration of upland rice. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2022, 50, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, Y.; Wei, Z.; Wang, Y.; Mei, P.; Xu, L.; Zhang, S. Effects of humic acid on maize yield, nitrogen use efficiency and soil properties. J. Henan Univ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 50, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Ma, N.; Qiu, G.; Guo, B.; Liu, S.; Lin, Y.; Fu, Q. Effects of zeolite and humic acid on rice yield and soil properties in coastal salt soil. Zhejiang Agric. Sci. 2022, 63, 1165–1168+1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rekaby, S.A.; AL-Huqail, A.A.; Gebreel, M.; Alotaibi, S.S.; Ghoneim, A.M. Compost and Humic Acid Mitigate the Salinity Stress on Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd L.) and Improve Some Sandy Soil Properties. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 23, 2651–2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wandansari, R.N.; Kurniawan, S.; Suntari, R.; Soemarno. Improving Soil Fertility and Maize Growth in Suboptimal Land Through Application of Humic Acid. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 2022, 17, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zhong, P.; Yang, Z.; Lai, Y.; Wang, H.; Xu, Y.; Chai, H.; Li, S.; Wu, Y.; Gao, H.; et al. Application value and tissue culture research advances of Cyperus esculentus. Chin. Feed 2023, 7, 136–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sootahar, M.K.; Zeng, X.; Wang, Y.; Su, S.; Soothar, P.; Bai, L.; Kumar, M.; Zhang, Y.; Mustafa, A.; Ye, N. The Short-Term Effects of Mineral- and Plant-Derived Fulvic Acids on Some Selected Soil Properties: Improvement in the Growth, Yield, and Mineral Nutritional Status of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Soils of Contrasting Textures. Plants 2020, 9, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bao, S. Soil Agrochemical Analysis; China Agricultural Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Ying, Y.; Fu, Q.; Guo, B.; Liu, C.; Lin, Y. Effects of Humic Acid on Soil Properties and Rice Yield in Coastal Saline Soil. Anhui Agric. Bull. 2021, 27, 121–123+131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, D.; Yu, Y. Effect of application of humic acid on maize yield. Spec. Econ. Anim. Plants 2023, 26, 48–50. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, W. Effect of Replacing Nitrogen Fertilizer with Humic Acid Organic Fertilizer on Soil Nutrients and Apple Yield and Quality. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest Agriculture & Forestry University, Xianyang, China, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Ye, X.; Zhang, H.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y.; Ai, Y.; Wang, J. Effects of lignite humic acid on corn growth and nutrient content in fluvoaquic soil along the Yellow River. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 36, 905–910. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Pan, J.; Mo, B.; Yao, X.; Yi, K.; Tan, M.; Tang, X. Effects of humic acid and biochar on soil phosphorus transformation and sugarcane growth. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2023, 51, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Sun, P. Effect of biochar and humic acid on physical and chemical properties of saline-alkali soil. Agric. Res. Dry Areas 2020, 38, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y. Research on the Improvement Effect of Biochar and Humic Acid on Saline Alkali Soil; University of Science and Technology: Inner Mongolia, China, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Planting methods of Cyperus. Note: Yellow, green and orange double lines are the boundary lines of the plot; the green-blue double horizontal line is the film in the cell; blue bullet is the number of holes on the membrane.
Figure 1.
Planting methods of Cyperus. Note: Yellow, green and orange double lines are the boundary lines of the plot; the green-blue double horizontal line is the film in the cell; blue bullet is the number of holes on the membrane.
Figure 2.
Soil organic matter content in the 0–40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 2.
Soil organic matter content in the 0–40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 3.
Soil alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen content in the 0~40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 3.
Soil alkaline-hydrolyzable nitrogen content in the 0~40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4.
Soil available phosphorus content in the 0~40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 4.
Soil available phosphorus content in the 0~40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 5.
Soil available potassium content in the 0~40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 5.
Soil available potassium content in the 0~40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 6.
Soil CEC under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 6.
Soil CEC under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 7.
Soil pH in the 0–40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 7.
Soil pH in the 0–40 cm soil layer under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 8.
Soil EC values under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 8.
Soil EC values under different treatments. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. The lowercase letters above the bar chart indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Table 1.
Basic physical and chemical properties of the soil.
| Organic Matter (g·kg−1) | Available Phosphorus (mg·kg−1) | Available Potassium (mg·kg−1) | Available Nitrogen (mg·kg−1) | pH | Electron Conductivity (ms·m−1) | Cation Exchange Capacity (cmol·kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.22 | 10.89 | 75.51 | 36.4 | 8.96 | 0.57 | 2.29 |
Table 2.
Basic physical and chemical properties of humic acid.
| Effective Content of Humic Acid (%) | Available Nitrogen (g·kg−1) | Available Phosphorus (g·kg−1) | Available Potassium (g·kg−1) | pH | Electron Conductivity (ms·m−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.49 | 0.03 | 0.58 | 0.22 | 6.83 | 4.97 |
Table 3.
Experimental design.
| Treatment | Humic Acid (kg·hm−2) | Compound Fertilizer (kg·hm−2) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | - | - |
| IOR | - | 600 |
| F-1 | 15,000 | 600 |
| F-2 | 30,000 | 600 |
Table 4.
The plot layout diagram.
| CK | IOR | F-1 | F-2 |
| F-2 | F-1 | IOR | CK |
| CK | IOR | F-2 | F-1 |
Note: Green, blue and gray are different repetitions of the experiment, and the letters in the lattice are the experimental treatment codes.
Table 5.
Agronomic properties of Cyperus plants.
| Treatment | Chlorophyll Content | Leaf Length (cm) | Tiller Number | Leaf Width (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 76.67 ± 0.57 c | 35.49 ± 1.95 c | 7.13 ± 0.51 b | 0.88 ± 0.09 a |
| IOR | 78.10 ± 0.90 c | 38.58 ± 1.64 b | 8.10 ± 0.85 b | 0.93 ± 0.05 a |
| F-1 | 81.19 ± 0.51 b | 41.18 ± 2.70 a | 10.03 ± 0.25 a | 0.95 ± 0.07 a |
| F-2 | 83.63 ± 1.50 a | 45.24 ± 2.50 a | 11.17 ± 1.01 a | 0.93 ± 0.04 a |
Note: Different lowercase letters in the table indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Table 6.
Yield of Cyperus plants.
| Treatment | Leaf Yield (g·m−2) | Tuber Yield (g·m−2) |
|---|---|---|
| CK | 406.10 ± 11.56 b | 103.88 ± 11.93 c |
| IOR | 421.80 ± 10.87 b | 113.76 ± 6.41 bc |
| F-1 | 496.77 ± 14.35 a | 149.56 ± 12.30 b |
| F-2 | 514.54 ± 7.71 a | 264.81 ± 27.98 a |
Note: Different lowercase letters in the table indicate significant treatment differences (p < 0.05).
Table 7.
Correlation between humic acid dosage and growth index and yield of Cyperus.
| Use Level | SPAD | Length of Blade | Tiller Number | Leaf Width | Leaf Yield | Tuber Yield | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use level | 1 | ||||||
| SPAD | 0.871 ** | 1 | |||||
| Length of blade | 0.905 ** | 0.727 ** | 1 | ||||
| Tiller number | 0.827 ** | 0.687 ** | 0.718 ** | 1 | |||
| Leaf width | 0.326 | 0.233 | 0.326 | 0.422 | 1 | ||
| Leaf yield | 0.771 ** | 0.667 ** | 0.636 ** | 0.595 ** | 0.078 | 1 | |
| Tuber yield | 0.838 ** | 0.697 ** | 0.788 ** | 0.870 ** | 0.295 | 0.667 ** | 1 |
Annotation: ** represents a very significant correlation.
Table 8.
Correlation analysis of humic acid dosage and physical and chemical properties of aeolian soil.
Table 8.
Correlation analysis of humic acid dosage and physical and chemical properties of aeolian soil.
| Use Level | Organic Matter | Alkaline Hydrolysis Nitrogen | Available Phosphorus | Available Potassium | pH | CEC | EC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use level | 1 | |||||||
| Organic matter | 0.637 ** | 1 | ||||||
| Alkaline hydrolysis nitrogen | 0.442 | 0.492 * | 1 | |||||
| Available phosphorus | 0.469 * | 0.636 ** | 0.277 | 1 | ||||
| Available potassium | 0.704 ** | 0.606 ** | 0.215 | 0.364 | 1 | |||
| pH | −0.134 | −0.030 | 0.092 | 0.030 | −0.182 | 1 | ||
| CEC | 0.608 * | 0.412 | 0.326 | 0.168 | 0.534 * | −0.229 | 1 | |
| EC | 0.469 * | 0.667 ** | 0.400 | 0.606 ** | 0.515 * | 0.061 | 0.351 | 1 |
Annotation: * represents significant correlation; ** represents extremely significant correlation.
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. |
© 2023 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
MDPI and ACS Style
Yan, J.; Zhang, X.; Meng, F.; Chen, G.; Wang, R.; Ma, Z.; He, Z.; Gai, G.; Zhi, J. Evaluation of Cyperus Fertility Improvement in Aeolian Soils from an Application of Humic Acid Combined with Compound Fertilizer. Processes 2023, 11, 3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11123273
AMA Style
Yan J, Zhang X, Meng F, Chen G, Wang R, Ma Z, He Z, Gai G, Zhi J. Evaluation of Cyperus Fertility Improvement in Aeolian Soils from an Application of Humic Acid Combined with Compound Fertilizer. Processes. 2023; 11(12):3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11123273
Chicago/Turabian StyleYan, Jianfa, Xianmei Zhang, Fanrong Meng, Guodong Chen, Ruodi Wang, Ziyi Ma, Zhenquan He, Guosheng Gai, and Jinhu Zhi. 2023. "Evaluation of Cyperus Fertility Improvement in Aeolian Soils from an Application of Humic Acid Combined with Compound Fertilizer" Processes 11, no. 12: 3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11123273
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
