Next Article in Journal
An Evaluation of the PV Integrated Dynamic Overhangs Based on Parametric Performance Design Method: A Case Study of a Student Apartment in China
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Organic Amendments on Soil Carbon Sequestration Potential of Paddy Soils under Two Irrigation Regimes
Previous Article in Journal
Evolutionary Game Analysis of Enterprise Green Innovation and Green Financing in Platform Supply Chain
Previous Article in Special Issue
Greenhouse Gas Fluxes from Selected Soil Fertility Management Practices in Humic Nitisols of Upper Eastern Kenya
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/su14137809
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Synergizing Microbial Enriched Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Mineral Gypsum for Optimizing Rice-Wheat Productivity in Sodic Soils

by
Yash P. Singh
*,
Sanjay Arora
*,
Vinay K. Mishra
and
Atul K. Singh
ICAR—Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Lucknow 226002, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7809; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137809
Submission received: 9 May 2022 / Revised: 18 June 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published: 27 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Sustainability of Agricultural Soils)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Municipal solid waste management and poor fertility status of sodic soils are two important issues experienced by all developing nations including India. Disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) being produced in huge amounts is a challenging task for researchers and policy makers. Reclamation of salt affected soils with chemical amendments is a costly affair for resource-poor farmers. Composting of MSW and its enrichment with microbes is one of the options for its recycling and utilization for the reclamation of salt-affected soils. A field experiment was conducted in sodic soil to study the performance of microbial enriched municipal solid waste compost (EMSWC) alone and in combination with a reduced dose of gypsum on growth, yield, nutrient uptake, and grain quality of rice and wheat. The experiment was conducted for three consecutive years from 2018 to 2019 and 2020 to 2021 at ICAR Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Research farm, Shivri, Lucknow, India, in sodic soil having pH 9.2, electrical conductivity (EC) 1.14 dSm−1, exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) 48, and organic carbon 0.30%. There were six treatments consisting of control, recommended dose of gypsum (50% GR), and enriched and un-enriched MSW compost with reduced dose of gypsum (25% GR). Based on the results pertaining to plant growth, yield-attributing characters, and yields, the treatment T6 (application of microbial enriched MSW compost @ 10 t ha−1 in conjunction with gypsum @25% GR) performed the best. Grain yield of rice and wheat (5.45 and 3.92 t ha−1) with treatment T6 was 29.45% and 110.75% higher over control (T1) and 29.45% and 110.06% over the recommended dose of gypsum (T2). Maximum nutrient content and N, P, and K uptake in rice-wheat grain and straw was observed with the treatment T6 (MSW compost plus gypsum @ 25 GR). However, the highest Na content and Na: K ratio in plant parts were recorded in treatment T2. The highest positive net return and benefit to cost (B/C) ratio were observed in treatment T6 followed by T5 and the lowest in treatment T1 (control), whereas negative return was calculated in treatment of gypsum alone (T2). This shows that the cost of sodic soil reclamation with application of gypsum was not recovered until the second year of cultivation. The results of this study showed significant impacts in MSW management for regaining the productivity potential of sodic soils.

1. Introduction

Salt-induced soil degradation is a global concern because it frequently results in the dramatic decline of agricultural production in arid and semi-arid regions [1]. It is estimated that about one billion ha of the world’s soil is affected by some degree of salinization and sodification problems [2] and it is projected that by the end of 2050 more than 50% of arable land will be salt affected. On one side, cultivated land around the world is expected to decrease due to increasing salinity and sodicity and on the other side, the population is increasing. By 2050, the world population will reach 9.1 billion, more than 34% of the present population. To meet the food requirement of increasing population, about 70% more food production will be required. Thus, there is a need to develop cost-effective technology for harnessing production potential of salt-affected soils.
In salt-affected soils, plant growth and nutrient availability is subdued due to low osmotic potential of soil solution, toxicity, and imbalance of ions [3]. In such soils, the salt load also reduces soil microbial activities as well as microbial biomass [4,5]. Of the 329 million ha geographical area of India, 6.73 million ha is salt-affected soil [6] having excess amounts of soluble salts, which gravely affect crop growth and yield. Out of the total salt-affected soils, 2.8 million ha is sodic land suffering from low hydraulic conductivity caused by dispersion. Part of this sodic land has been reclaimed with a chemical amelioration approach using gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) with 50% of the gypsum requirement of the soil. However, this approach fails to improve the physical and biological properties of sodic soils [7]. Application of organic amendments, such as farm yard manure (FYM) and pressmud (by product from sugar mills) in combination with reduced dose of mineral gypsum, i.e., 25% GR + 10 t ha−1 FYM/pressmud/municipal solid waste (MSW) compost was found equally effective in improving soil physical, chemical, and biological properties without any significant loss in grain yield, besides its role as a fertilizer but, their availability in such a large quantity is a major concern [8,9,10,11,12].
As per the global estimates, the municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated in a quantity of about 1.3 billion tons per year and is becoming a grave problem for dumping. It is expected that by the year 2025, MSW may reach about 2.2 billion tons per year [13]. About 12.74 million tons of MSW per day is produced in India [14] and the Government of India has initiated integrated municipal solid waste-management projects and established MSW treatment plants in almost every metropolitan city for producing compost from the MSW. Several strategies have been applied for efficient utilization of MSW compost but very few studies have been conducted to find its efficacy for sustainable reclamation of salt-affected soils. From the studies, it has been observed that the municipal solid waste (MSW) compost application helps in improving the soil, physical, bio-chemical, and microbiological properties of sodic soil because of high organic matter content and low concentration of inorganic and organic pollutants present in the compost, thereby providing low-cost soil recovery solution [9,15]. Furthermore, MSW compost is found to be a good source of nutrients that help in improving fertility of soil and may thereby contribute in restoring the productivity of salt-affected soils [9,10,11,12,16]. Halophilic plant growth-promoting microbes are known to have potential in bio-remediation of salt-affected soils by alleviating salt stress and enhancing availability of nutrients for plant growth and yield [17,18,19]. To enhance the efficacy of compost further, the present study was undertaken with the hypothesis that the enrichment of the municipal solid waste compost with halophilic plant growth promoting microbes can fasten the bio-reclamation process vis-à-vis enhancing productivity of rice-wheat cropping systems in sodic soils.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Enrichment of MSW Compost

Marketable municipal solid waste compost for this study was obtained from a company that has established an MSW treatment plant. This company is producing and marketing MSW compost from the solid waste collected from Lucknow city, India. This compost was enriched with halophilic plant growth-promoting microbial consortium consisting of Azotobacter, Phosphobacteria, and zinc-solubilizing bacterial strains to upgrade the nutritive value of this industrial compost. Both enriched and un-enriched composts were analyzed for physico-chemical and microbial properties. The chemical composition of the enriched and un-enriched compost material is presented in Table 1.

2.2. Site Characterization

2.2.1. Climatic Features

The study site has a semi-arid, subtropical, and monsoonal climate receiving an average annual rainfall of 817 mm. Maximum rainfall received between standard weeks 23 and 40 (June–October) in 2014 amounts to 394 mm, which accounts for 91% of the total annual rainfall. The remaining 9% rainfall is received during 41–19 standard weeks (November–May). The mean annual evaporation is 1580 mm and the evaporation rate varies with increasing air temperature, and atmospheric water demands steadily increase from weeks 1–22 (January–June). In the rainy season, generally between weeks 23–40 (June–October), the evaporation rate gradually decreases following rains. Thereafter, up to 52 weeks (December), there is a gradual decrease in evaporation due to low temperature. The water surplus is generally during the period from weeks 23 to 40 (June–October). There is a water deficit period between weeks 1–22 and 41–52 because of low rainfall and higher evaporation rates. On an average, the mean maximum temperature of 39 °C is noted in the month of May and the mean minimum temperatures of 7.1 °C in the month of January, indicating a seasonal climate. During the study period, the mean annual temperature was recorded as 24.6 °C (Figure 1).

2.2.2. Soil Characteristics

Initial soil samples were collected from 0–15 cm soil depth before initiation of the experiment. The soil samples were air-dried and ground in a mortar and pestle to pass through a 2.0 mm sieve. Soil physical properties including sand, silt, and clay content were determined using the International Pipette Method [20], bulk density was determined through intact cores [21] extracted with a core sampler of 10 cm in diameter and 15 cm length, and the infiltration rate was measured using double concentric infiltrometer cylinders with 60 cm outer and 30 cm inner diameters. The porosity was calculated from the bulk density (BD) and particle density (PD) as (1 − bD/pD) × 100 [22]. The cation exchange capacity of soil was determined by ammonium acetate–sodium acetate substitution method [22]. The soil pH and EC were determined in 1:2 soil:water suspension through digital pH and conductivity meters, respectively. The calculation for exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) was performed as exchangeable sodium concentration (cmol·kg−1)/cation exchange capacity (cmol·kg−1) × 100. Soil organic carbon content was determined by the rapid titration method [23]. Available N content was determined by steam distillation of soil with KMnO4 and NaOH [24], while available P content by the Olsen sodium bicarbonate extraction method [25] and available K content by the sodium acetate extraction [26]. The concentrations of Na+ and K+ in the soil saturation extract were measured by Flame Photometer, and the concentrations of cations viz. Ca2+ and Mg2+ in the soil extract were estimated by the Versenate titration method [27] using EDTA. Anions, carbonate (CO3−), and bi-carbonate (HCO3−) contents in the soil extract were determined by titration with 0.01 N H2SO4 using phenolphthalein and methyl orange indicators. Gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) requirement (GR) of the soil from the experimental field was determined through a modified Schoonover (1952) method [28]. Bacterial and fungal population in fresh soil samples were enumerated using the standard serial dilution plate-count method on nutrient agar, potato dextrose agar, and actinomycetes-specific media [29] (Dubey and Maheshwari 2002). The physico-chemical and biological properties of the initial soil from experimental field are presented in Table 2.

2.2.3. Irrigation Water Quality

The irrigation water quality was examined employing the standard methods ascribed by APHA (1998) and Singh et al. (2007) [30,31]. The irrigation water drawn from a tubewell that was applied to the experimental crops was having low electrolyte concentration and EC ranging between 0.57 and 0.68 dSm−1 and moderately alkaline in reaction. Among cations, Na+ dominated over Ca2+ and Mg+ followed by K+. To assess the irrigation water quality, bicarbonates plus carbonates dominated over chloride, while sulphates were absent in irrigation water with residual alkalinity to the extent of 1.3 to 1.5 meql−1, which categorize it as safe for irrigation (Table 3).

2.2.4. Experimental Design and Treatment Details

Before calculating the amount of gypsum to be applied as per treatment, the mineral gypsum used was analyzed for its chemical composition. The gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) had 18.3% Ca and 16.1% SO4. The calculated quantity of gypsum in different treatment plots was broadcasted in the month of June and mixed with power tiller in the surface soil up to 10–12 cm depth (Figure 2). Heavy irrigation and ponding of about 10 cm water for at least 8–10 days was carried out to displace the reaction product of Ca–Na exchange down to the root zone. After appropriate leaching of salts, organic amendments such as un-enriched MSW compost and enriched MSW compost were applied at 10 t ha−1 as per the treatment and mixed in the surface soil up to 15 cm depth (Figure 2).
The field experiment comprised of six treatments, viz. T1-Control (No amendments), T2-Gypsum @50% GR, T3-Un-enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T4-Enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T5-Gypsum @25%, GR + un-enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T6-Gypsum @25%, GR + Enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1 and was conducted during 2018–19 to 2020–21 and replicated four times in a Randomized block design (RBD) having plot area of 90 m2.
The seedlings of the salt-tolerant variety of rice ‘CSR 36′ grown in normal soil was transplanted at 30 days after sowing in 20 × 15 cm row-to-row and plant-to-plant spacing in the month of July and harvested in November. Recommended dose of nutrients (150 kg N: 60 kg P2O5: 40 kg K2O: 25 kg ZnSO4 ha−1) through chemical fertilizers: urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP), muriate of potash (MOP), and zinc sulphate (heptahydrate) were applied uniformly in all the treatments. Basal application of half dose of N and full dose of P, K, and zinc sulphate were applied uniformly in all the treatment plots. The remaining half quantity of N was applied in two equal splits at 30 days after transplanting and at panicle initiation stage. Other agronomic practices were followed as and when required. The grains were harvested from each net plot area and were dried to weigh at 14% moisture content and the yield was expressed in t ha−1. Straw was sun dried from each plot and straw yield was expressed in t ha−1. Plant samples collected from tagged plants were chopped into pieces, dried, and ground into fine powder in a Willy mill and used for chemical analysis. Total nitrogen content in grain and straw was analyzed in acid digest of sample following the micro-Kjeldhal method [32]. Phosphorus was determined in di-acid digested extract of samples through calorimetric method [22] and K through flame photometric method [22]. The experimental field was irrigated from a bore tube well situated about 100 m away from the experimental field. The quality of irrigation water is given in Table 3.

2.2.5. Statistical Analysis

The data collected from the experiment were statistically analyzed using MSTAT-C version 2.1. The least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% significance level probability was used to test the significance (p < 0.05) of treatment effects [33]. The data are presented as average values of four replications ± standard error.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Enriched MSW Compost and Gypsum on Growth and Yield of Rice and Wheat

The data given in Table 4 showed that the maximum plant height of rice (124.40 cm) and wheat (83.55 cm) crops was recorded with treatment T2 and T6, respectively; however, there was no significant difference in this character due to application of inorganic amendment alone (T2) or in combination with organic amendments. Number of productive tillers hill−1 is a very important parameter in rice as it is directly related to panicle density and grain yield. Tilling was distinctly influenced by the application of microbial-enriched municipal solid waste compost (EMSWC) along with mineral gypsum. Maximum number of productive tillers hill−1 and panicle density were recorded with treatment T6 where enriched compost was applied along with gypsum, which were significantly higher over T1, T3, and T4 but statistically at par with T5 and T6. Application of enriched MSW compost (T6) in combination with reduced dose of gypsum had a significant effect on panicle/spike density and dry matter content in rice and wheat over the application of inorganic amendment alone (T2) and control (T1). Highest panicle length in rice was recorded with treatment T6 which was significantly higher than treatments T1, T3, and T4 but at par with treatment T2 and T5. Highest spikelet fertility was recorded with T2, which was significantly higher over T1, T3, and T4 but at par with T5 and T6. Significantly higher numbers of grains per panicle were recorded in treatment T6 where microbial-enriched MSW compost was applied in combination with a reduced dose of gypsum but it was at par with T5. Maximum of 1000 grain weight was recorded in treatment T2 but it was on par with rest of the treatments. The grain yield of rice increased significantly with the addition of organic amendments over the sole application of inorganic amendment. The yield varied from 4.21 to 5.45 t ha−1 over the treatments (Table 5). Like other parameters, treatment T6 (gypsum @25% GR + Enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1) produced the highest grain yield, showing 29.45% and 3.41% yield enhancement over control (T1) and gypsum @50% GR (T2) which was at par with treatment T5 but significantly higher over T1, T3, and T4 (Table 5). Wheat yield-attributing characteristics such as length of spike, grains/spike, and 1000 grain weight in wheat were significantly higher in treatment T6 over treatments T1, T3, and T4 but almost at par with treatment T2 and T5. Maximum grain yield was recorded with treatment T6 and minimum with control. The grain yield can be attributed by the increase in yield-attributing characteristics. Muhammad et al., 2008 [34] reported that the application of compost increased plant height, tillers hill−1 1000 grain weight, and yield of rice. Grain yield of wheat with treatment T6 (enriched EMSWC @ 10 t ha− + gypsum @25% GR) was 110.75% and 20.61% higher over the treatments T1 and T2 (Table 5). Treatment T2 having only gypsum @50%GR produced significantly higher grain yield over the treatment T3 and T4 where only MSW compost were used. The yield advantage due to enrichment of MSW compost over un-enriched MSW compost with a similar dose of gypsum was 21.36%. The increase in plant growth and yield with synergistic use of organic and inorganic sources of organic amendments may be because the decomposition of organic matter available in MSW compost increases organic acid exudates in soil that mobilizes dissolution of soil calcium and reduces soil pH and ESP and increases soil organic carbon, resulting in increased plant growth [35,36]. Addition of organic matter into soil can bring beneficial effects on crop root growth by improving the physical and chemical environments of the rhizosphere [37]. This may also be due to the enhancement of biological activities in the crop rhizosphere by amino acid and some physiological active substances such as humic acid in the organic amendments [38]. Yield and yield-related attributes significantly affected alkaline soils because of restricted water movement, nutrient translocation, and the toxic effect of sodium in the rhizosphere. Addition of organic matter in the form of EMSWC improved soil physico-chemical and biological properties, resulting in improved crop growth and related yield attributes and yields [37,39]. EMSWC, being an organic source of amendment, helped in leaching of excessive salts to the deeper soil layer and reduced the salt concentration in top soil, which favored plant growth and ultimately increased crop yields [40].

3.2. Effect of Enriched MSW Compost and Gypsum on Nutrient Content in Grain and Straw of Rice and Wheat

The nitrogen content in the rice grain and straw was affected owing to combined use of organic and inorganic amendments. The maximum content of N (1.25%) in rice grain and straw (0.35%) was obtained with treatment T6 where the reduced dose of gypsum (25% GR) was applied in combination with enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1 (Figure 3). This may be due to the slow release of organic nitrogen from MSW compost and improvement in soil physico-chemical properties. The phosphorus content in rice grain and straw differed significantly due to different treatments. Maximum P content in rice grain (0.28%) as well as straw (0.11%) was recorded in treatment T6 followed by T5 and minimum content (0.13% and 0.05%) with T1.
There was a significant correlation of total P content in rice grain and straw with the organic P contents of both EMSWC and gypsum. This may be due to the increased solubility of organic P with diminishing soil pH under sodic soils. Uwasawa et al. (1988) and Willet (1989) [41,42] also reported that the contribution of organic matter to P release under salt stress appears to be mainly through organic P mineralization, which increased under stress environment. Organic acids produced by micro-organisms or plant roots results in org-P being solubilized to a greater extent. Potassium content in rice grain was not significantly affected due to different treatments; however, a significant effect among the treatments was observed in the case of rice straw. The highest content of K in the rice grain (0.37%) and straw (2.2%) was observed in case of treatment T6 and the lowest K content in T1.
In case of wheat, the nitrogen content in both grain and straw varied significantly (p < 0.05) with the application of organic and inorganic amendments. The combined application of organic and inorganic amendments resulted in an increased N content in wheat grain and straw (Figure 3). In wheat grain, maximum N content (1.25%) was recorded in treatment T6 where a reduced dose of gypsum was applied in combination with enriched MSW compost and minimum with control. A similar trend was recorded in the case of wheat straw. The soil nitrogen level influencing its uptake is a function of several factors [43,44]. The phosphorus concentration in both grain and straw was higher in treatment T6 where combined use of organic and inorganic amendments was applied but the difference between T5 and T6 was not statistically significant. Maximum K content in wheat grain (0.37%) and straw (2.2%) was recorded in treatment where gypsum at 25% GR was used in conjunction with enriched MSW compost and minimum (0.27% and 1.4%) with control and 0.28% and 1.8% where only gypsum was used. Ponnamperuma (1972) [45] and Bhattacharyya et al. (2003) [46] reported that P content of grain and straw was significantly correlated with the bound P of MSWC probably due to the reason that P became soluble under stress conditions.

3.3. Effect of Enriched MSW Compost and Gypsum on Nutrient Uptake in Grain and Straw of Rice and Wheat

The integrated use of organic and inorganic amendments significantly influenced the N uptake in grain and straw of rice. Maximum N uptake in rice grain and straw was recorded in treatment T6, which was at par with T5 but significantly higher over the rest of the treatments. The results are in line with the work carried out by Kropisz and Wojciechowsky 1978 [47]. Similar to N uptake, the P uptake was also found significantly increased in rice grain (15.26 kg ha−1) and straw 9.77 kg ha−1) in treatment T6 over T1, T2, T3, and T4 but at par with T5. The results can be evident from the findings of Ali et al., 2003 [48] and King et al., 1977 [49]. In rice grain, maximum potassium uptake (20.16 kg ha−1) was observed in treatment T6 but it was not significantly higher over the rest of the treatments. However, in rice straw, K uptake in treatment T6 was significantly higher than treatment T1, T2, T3, and T4 with a value of 195.43 kg ha−1 (Figure 4). Lowest K uptake in rice grain and straw was recorded in T1 (control) treatment. Our results could also be proved by the reports of Ali et al., 2003 [48] and Duggan and Wiles 1976 [50], which suggested that the incorporation of garbage compost leads to a significant increase in plant potassium content.
Data shown in Figure 4 demonstrate that N uptake in wheat grain and straw was significantly higher in treatment T6 over the other treatments. Similarly, P uptake in wheat grain was recorded as significantly higher in treatment T6 but at par with combined use of un-enriched MSW compost and gypsum. The P uptake in wheat straw was not significantly affected due to the application of organic and inorganic amendments (Figure 4). These findings of the present study are similar to Imran et al., 2011 [51] who reported the highest P uptake in maize with rock phosphate enriched compost. The potassium uptake by wheat plant revealed that there was significant increase in K uptake by the combined application of gypsum and EMSWC (T6) over rest of the treatments. Our findings are in agreement with Han et al., 2006 [52], who reported maximum K uptake in pepper with application of microbial enriched compost. The quantity of nutrient uptake is dependent on yields and nutrient contents in grain and straw. In this study, highest grain yields in wheat were obtained in treatment T6 where gypsum was used in conjunction with enriched MSW compost.

4. Grain Qualities

4.1. Ionic Accumulation

In different plant parts, the ionic accumulation (Na, K, and Na:K ratio) varied under different treatments. The highest sodium content in rice root was observed in treatment T1 and the lowest in T6. The Na: K ratio in rice plant parts was higher in treatment T2 followed by T1 and the lowest in T6. The K content in these plant parts increased with the addition of an organic source of amendments. Similarly, in stem, leaf, and grain Na content was higher in treatment T1 and T2 and the lowest in treatment T6. Similar results pertaining to Na content have also been reported by Cha-um et al., 2007 [53]. In our study, Na+ in rice grown in sodic soil treated with the conjoint use of enriched MSW compost and gypsum was lower than that of control and gypsum-treated plots.
In the case of wheat, the highest Na:K ratio in all plant parts was observed in Treatment T2 and the lowest in T6. The maximum Na ionic content was accumulated in stem followed by root, leaf, and grain. This shows that the level of sodicity plays an important role in ionic accumulation in rice and wheat plant parts (Figure 5). Cha-um et al., 2011 [39] reported that sodium ion accumulation in both root and shoot organs of rice and wheat cultivated in the soil treated with gypsum and enriched MSW compost was lower than control (T1) and gypsum alone, while the potassium ion level was enriched. Addition of organic matter through enriched MSW compost and gypsum may function as salt-ion chelating agents which detoxify the toxic ions, especially Na+ [54,55,56,57].

4.2. Nutrient Contents and Heavy metals

The occurrence of heavy metals (i.e., Cd, Cu, Zn, Pb etc.) in MSW compost is always a matter of concern, as they may accumulate in the soil that can be assimilated in the agricultural crops grown and that may cause a variety of human health issues when shifted at high levels through the progression of food chain [58,59,60,61,62,63]. The data given in Table 6 revealed that highest Zn, Cu, and Fe contents in rice grain were recorded with T3, T2, and T4, respectively. However, higher concentration of these nutrients in wheat was recorded in treatments T5, T5, and T6. The higher concentration of these nutrients in these treatments over the application of gypsum may be due to addition of MSW compost. Hargreaves et al., 2008 [60] and Nayak et al., 2009 [64] assessed and compared the effect of MSWC and inorganic fertilizer on grain quality and reported that the mineral concentration increased significantly with MSW compost over inorganic fertilizer.

5. Economics of Technology

After the first year of reclamation by use of different amendments, followed by the cultivation of rice and wheat, a small positive net return was calculated with treatment T3 and T4 where no inorganic amendment was used and only organic amendments were used. The net economic return was negative in all the remaining treatments. Highest negative return was obtained in treatment T2 followed by T5 and T6. This was obviously due to higher reclamation cost including the cost of gypsum at 50% GR and 25% GR, respectively. During the second and third years, the highest positive cumulative net return was observed in treatment T6 followed by T5 and the lowest in treatment T1, whereas a negative return was calculated in treatment T2. Although, the current study did not account for the carryover residual fertilizer or nutrients present in soil [65]. This shows that the cost of sodic soil reclamation with addition of gypsum is not recovered even after the second year of cultivation (Figure 6). On the basis of cost economic analysis, the highest B/C ratio was observed in T6 which was at par with T5 but significantly higher over the rest of the treatments.

6. Conclusions

The bio-chemical and nutritive value of the MSW compost is generally enhanced with enrichment by halophilic plant growth-promoting microbes. The plant growth, yield-attributing characteristics and yield of rice and wheat were favorably influenced with the combined use of enriched MSW compost and gypsum. Synergistic use of microbial enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1 with 50% reduction in gypsum dose significantly influenced the productive tillers, panicle density, and dry matter contents. The grain yield of rice and wheat with enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1 along with gypsum @25% GR was 29.45% and 110.75% higher over control and 3.41% and 20.61% over sole application of gypsum @50% GR. The uptake of N, P, and K level in different parts of plants were enhanced to a significant level with combined use of reduced dose of gypsum and microbial-enriched MSW compost. Grain quality of rice and wheat also improved with the addition of an organic source of amendment in sodic soils. Application of microbial-enriched MSW compost in conjunction with a reduced dose of gypsum reduced 35.6% reclamation cost on account of saving of gypsum and improved soil fertility status than the application of gypsum alone. This saved the quantity of mineral gypsum that can be utilized to bring more area under reclamation. Thus, it can be concluded that the combined use of gypsum and microbial-enriched MSW compost in sodic soils and cultivation of salt-tolerant varieties of rice and wheat were proved as cost-effective sustainable sodic soil reclamation technology which can also be helpful for the efficient utilization of municipal solid waste.

Author Contributions

Conceptualized the project, submitted to funding agency, conducted experiment in the field, collected agronomical data, Y.P.S.; analysing soil physico-chemical and biological properties, enrichment of municipal solid waste compost, S.A.; Water quality analysis, V.K.M. and A.K.S.; Data analysis and preparing draft of manuscript, Y.P.S. and S.A.; reviewing and editing, S.A., V.K.M. and A.K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was partially funded by the U.P. Council of Science and Technology, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India vide CST/AAS/D-8349 dated 14 March 2018.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are highly thankful to the, U.P. Council of Science and Technology, Lucknow for awarding the project and providing financial support to conduct this study. Thanks are also due to P.C. Sharma, ICAR-CSSRI, Karnal for providing technical guidance and all the facilities to conduct field study at Research farm, Shivri and utilizing laboratory for analysis. We are thankful to D.K. Srivastava, U.P. Council of Science and Technology, Lucknow for timely releasing the funds to avoid any financial hardship for conducting the study. Authors are also thankful to Shyam Ji Mishra, Priya Mishra, Pulkit Srivastava, Mamta Prajapati (JRFs) and Somshekhar (PA) for providing necessary assistance to conduct the experiments smoothly.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rengasamy, P. Salinity in the landscape: A growing problem in Australia. Geotimes 2008, 53, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAO. Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service. 2008. Available online: htpp://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/spush (accessed on 27 January 2022).
  3. Marschner, P. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Choudhary, M.; Sharma, P.C.; Jat, H.S.; Nehra, V.; McDonald, A.J.; Garg, N. Crop residue degradation by fungi isolated from conservation agriculture fields under rice–wheat system of North-West India. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2012, 5, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Yan, N.; Marschner, P. Microbial activity and biomass recover rapidly after leaching of saline soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mandal, A.K.; Sharma, R.C.; Singh, G. Assessment of salt affected soils in India using GIS. Geo. Int. 2009, 24, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Responses of soil properties and grain yields to deep ripping and gypsum application in a compacted loamy sand soil contrasted with a sandy clay loam soil in Western Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2003, 4, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dhanushkodi, V.; Subrahmaniyan, K. Soil Management to increase rice yield in salt affected coastal soil—A Review. Int. J. Res. Chem. Environ. 2012, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  9. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Composting of municipal solid waste and farm wastes for its use as amendment in sodic soil. J. Soil Water Cons. 2017, 16, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Conjoint use of chemical amendments and municipal solid waste compost for amelioration of degraded sodic soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2018, 66, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on amelioration of sodic soil and sustaining rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 2018, 88, 1455–1462. [Google Scholar]
  12. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Dixit, H.; Gupta, R.K. Plant and Soil Responses to the Combined Application of Organic Amendments and Inorganic Fertilizers in Degraded Sodic Soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2640–2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management; Urban Development and Local Government Unit; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 8. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/17388 (accessed on 27 January 2022).
  14. Central Pollution Control Board. Management of Municipal Solid Waste; Ministry of environment and forest: New Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  15. Walter, I.; Martinez, F.; Cuevas, G. Plant and soil responses to the application of composted MSW in a degraded, semiarid shrub land in central Spain. Compos. Sci. Util. 2006, 14, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lakhdar, A.; Hafsi, C.; Rabhi, M.; Debez, A.; Montemurro, F.; Abdelly, C.; Jedidi, N.; Querghi, Z. Application of municipal solid waste compost reduces the negative effects of saline water in Hordeum maritime L. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7160–7167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Arora, S.; Vanza, M.; Mehta, R.; Bhuva, C.; Patel, P. Halophilic microbes for bio-remediation of salt affected soils. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 8, 3070–3078. [Google Scholar]
  18. Arora, S.; Singh, Y.P.; Vanza, M.; Sahni, D. Bioremediation of saline and sodic soils through halophilic bacteria to enhance agricultural production. J. Soil Water Cons. 2016, 15, 302–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arora, S.; Singh, Y.P.; Singh, A.K. (Eds.) Bioremediation of Salt Affected Soils: An Indian Perspective; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; p. 356. [Google Scholar]
  20. Day, P.R. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling; Black, C.A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; pp. 545–567. [Google Scholar]
  21. Blake, G.R.; Hartge, K.H. Bulk density. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling, 9.1, 2nd ed.; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy-Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 363–382. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis; Prentice Hall of India Private Limited: New Delhi, India, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  23. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of Degtijareff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Subbiah, B.V.; Asija, G.L. A rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current Sci. 1965, 25, 259–263. [Google Scholar]
  25. Olsen, S.R.; Dean, L.R. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Norman, A.G., Ed.; Agronomy Monographs, American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; Volume 9, pp. 920–926. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hanway, J.J.; Heidel, H. Soil analysis methods as used in Iowa state college soil testing laboratory. Iowa Agri. 1952, 54, 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cheng, K.L.; Bray, R.H. Determination of calcium and magnesium in soil and plant material. Soil Sci. 1951, 72, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schoonover, W.R. Examination of Soils for Alkali; University of California, Extension Service: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1952. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dubey, R.C.; Maheshwari, D.K. Practical Microbiology; S. Chand and Co. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2002; pp. 21–47. [Google Scholar]
  30. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Waters and Wastewaters; APHA AWAA-WEF: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  31. Singh, D.; Chhonkar, P.K.; Dwivedi, B.S. Manual on Soil, Plant and Water Analysis; Westville Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2007; p. 199. [Google Scholar]
  32. Humphries, E.C. Mineral Components and Ash Analysis. In Moderne Methoden der Pflanzenanalyse/Modern Methods of Plant Analysis; Paech, K., Tracey, M.V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H.; Dicky, D.A. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biological Approach, 3rd ed.; McGraw Hill Book: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muhammad, I.; Hassan, A.U.; Muhammad, I.; Ehsan, E.V. Response of wheat growth and yield to various levels of compost and organic manure. Pak. J. Bot. 2008, 40, 2135–2141. [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Asten, P.J.A.; Van’tzelfde, J.A.; Vander Zee, A.T.M.S.E.; Hammecker, C. The effect of irrigated rice cropping on the alkalinity of two alkaline rice soils in the Sahel. Geoderma 2004, 119, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Bharadwaj, A.K. Regaining the agricultural potential of sodic soils and improved smallholder food security through integration of gypsum, pressmud and salt tolerant varieties. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 46, 410–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sidiras, N.; Bilalis, D.; Vavoulidou, E. Effect of tillage and fertilization on some selected physical properties of soils (0–30cm) depth and on the root growth dynamic of winter barley (Hordeum vulgare cv. Niki). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2002, 187, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gondek, K.; Filipek-Mazur, B. The effect of mineral treatment and amendments by organic and organo mineral fertilizers on crop yield, plant nutrient status and soil properties. Plant Soil Environ. 2005, 54, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
  39. Cha-um, S.; Pokasombat, Y.; Kirdmanee, C. Remediation of salt-affected soil by gypsum and farmyard manure—Importance for the production of Jasmine rice. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 4, 458–465. [Google Scholar]
  40. Muhammad, D.; Khattak, R.A. Wheat yield and chemical composition as influenced by integrated use of gypsum, pressmud and FYM in saline sodic soil. J. Chem. Soc. Pak. 2011, 33, 82–86. [Google Scholar]
  41. Uwasawa, M.; Sangtong, P.; Cholitkul, W. Behavior of phosphorous in paddy soils of Thailand. I. Contents of inorganic, organic and available soil P in relation to rice plant P nutrition. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1988, 34, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Willet, I.R. Causes and prediction of changes in extractable phosphorous during flooding. Aust. J. Soil Res. 1989, 27, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Maaz, T.; Pan, W. Residual fertilizer, crop sequence, and water availability impact rotational nitrogen balances. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 2839–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dhakal, C.; Lange, K. Crop yield response functions in nutrient application: A review. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 5222–5234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ponnamperuma, F.N. The chemistry of submerged soils. Adv. Agron. 1972, 24, 26–92. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bhattacharyya, P.; Ghosh, A.K.; Chakraborty, A.; Chakrabarti, K.; Tripathy, S.; Powell, M.A. Arsenic uptake by rice and accumulation in soil amended with municipal solid waste compost. Comm. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 2003, 34, 2779–2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kropisz, A.; Russel, S. Effect of fertilization of light loamy soil with the Dano compost on microflora as well as on yields and chemical composition of lettuce and spinach. Rocz. Nauk. Rol. Ser. 1978, 103, 20–37. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ali, H.I.; Ismail, M.R.; Manan, M.M.; Saud, H.M. Rice straw compost used as a soil less media for organic tomato transplant production. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci. 2003, 5, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  49. King, L.D.; Leyshon, A.J.; Webber, L.R. Application of municipal refuse and liquid sewage sludge to agricultural land. II. Lysimeter study. J. Environ. Qual. 1977, 6, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duggan, J.C.; Wiles, C.C. Effect of municipal compost and nitrogen fertilizer on selected soils and plants. Compost. Sci. 1976, 17, 24–31. [Google Scholar]
  51. Imran, M.; Waqas, R.; Nazli, Z.H.; Shaharoona, B.; Arshad, M. Effect of recycled and value added organic waste on solubilization of rock phosphate in soil and its influence on maize growth. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 2011, 36, 138–156. Available online: http://www.fspublishers.org/ (accessed on 3 July 2021).
  52. Han, H.S.; Supanjani, L.K.D. Effect of co-inoculation with phosphate and potassium solublizing bacteria on mineral uptake and growth of pepper and cocummber. Plant Soil Environ. 2006, 3, 130–136. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cha-um, S.; Vejchasarn, P.; Kirdmanee, C. An effective defensive response in Thai aromatic rice varieties (Oryza sativa L. spp. indica) to salinity. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 2007, 10, 257–264. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zaka, M.A.; Mujeeb, F.; Sarwar, G.; Hassan, N.M.; Hassan, G. Agromelioration of saline sodic soil. OnLine J. Biol. Sci. 2003, 3, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Hanay, A.; Büyüksönmez, F.; Kızıloglu, F.M.; Canbolat, M.Y. Reclamation of saline-sodic soils with gypsum and MSW compost. Compost. Sci. Util. 2004, 12, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tejada, M.; Garcia, C.; Gonzalez, J.L.; Hernandez, M.T. Use of organic amendment as a strategy for saline soil remediation: Influence on the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zahid, L.; Niazi, M.F.K. Role of Ristech material in the reclamation of saline-sodic soils. Pak. J. Water Resour. 2006, 10, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  58. MacLean, K.S.; Robinson, A.R.; MacConnell, H.H. The effect of sewage-sludge on the heavy metal content of soils and plant tissue. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1987, 18, 1303–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Singh, R.P.; Agrawal, M. Effects of sewage sludge amendment on heavy metal accumulation and consequent responses of Beta vulgaris plants. Chemosphere 2007, 67, 2229–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hargreaves, J.C.; Adl, M.S.; Warman, P.R. A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 123, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Smith, S.R. A critical review of the bioavailability and impacts of heavy metals in municipal solid waste compost compared to sewage sludge. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 142–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Singh, J.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Assessment of bioavailability and leachability of heavy metals during rotary drum composting of green waste (Water hyacinth). Ecol. Eng. 2013, 52, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alvarenga, P.; Mourinha, C.; Farto, M.; Santos, T.; Palma, P.; Sengo, J.; Morais, M.C.; Cunha-Queda, C. Sewage sludge, compost and other representative organic wastes as agricultural soil amendments: Benefits versus limiting factors. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nayak, A.K.; Sharma, D.K.; Mishra, V.K.; Jha, S.K. Effect of phosphogypsum amendment on floride content of soil and plants under rice (Oryza sativa) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) system in sodic sols of Indo-gangetic plains. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 79, 615–619. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dhakal, C.; Lange, K.; Parajulee, M.N.; Segarra, E. Dynamic optimization of nitrogen in plateau cotton yield functions with nitrogen carryover considerations. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2019, 51, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 07809 g001 550
Figure 1. Climatic features of the experimental site.
Figure 1. Climatic features of the experimental site.
Sustainability 14 07809 g001
Sustainability 14 07809 g002 550
Figure 2. Layout plan and imposition of treatments in the experimental field.
Figure 2. Layout plan and imposition of treatments in the experimental field.
Sustainability 14 07809 g002
Sustainability 14 07809 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on nutrient contents in grain and straw of rice and wheat.
Figure 3. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on nutrient contents in grain and straw of rice and wheat.
Sustainability 14 07809 g003
Sustainability 14 07809 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on nutrient uptake in grain and straw of rice and wheat.
Figure 4. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on nutrient uptake in grain and straw of rice and wheat.
Sustainability 14 07809 g004
Sustainability 14 07809 g005 550
Figure 5. Sodium and potassium ratio (Na:K) in (A) rice and (B) wheat plant parts under different treatments.
Figure 5. Sodium and potassium ratio (Na:K) in (A) rice and (B) wheat plant parts under different treatments.
Sustainability 14 07809 g005
Sustainability 14 07809 g006 550
Figure 6. Cumulative net returns of the rice-wheat cropping system over a two year period with organic and inorganic amendments of sodic soil.
Figure 6. Cumulative net returns of the rice-wheat cropping system over a two year period with organic and inorganic amendments of sodic soil.
Sustainability 14 07809 g006
Table
Table 1. Bio-chemical composition of enriched and un-enriched MSW composts.
Table 1. Bio-chemical composition of enriched and un-enriched MSW composts.
ParametersConcentration
Un-Enriched MSW Compost ± SDEnriched MSW Compost ± SD
   Bulk density (Mg m−3) 0.78 ± 0.010.89 ± 0.01
   Moisture (%)9.23 ± 0.2111.12 ± 0.16
   pHw (1:5) 7.60 ± 0.247.86± 0.32
   ECw (dS m−1) 0.64 ± 0.261.22 ± 0.24
   CEC [cmol (p+) kg−1 compost]186 ± 8.0183 ± 11.0
   Total C (%) 25.47 ± 0.3220.38 ± 0.26
   Total N (%) 0.64 ± 0.060.79 ± 0.04
   C:N ratio 39.80 ± 0.4025.79 ± 0.35
   Total P (%) 0.41 ± 0.040.71 ± 0.04
   Total K (%) 0.57 ± 0.020.84 ± 0.04
   Total Ca (mg kg−1) 340.00 ± 26.2406.00 ± 21.3
Total Mg (mg kg−1) 195.00 ± 26.5228.00 ± 23.5
Total Zn (mg kg−1)1620.00 ± 45.62115.00 ± 51.2
Bacterial population (cfu g−1 × 105) 48 ± 4.075 ± 6.0
Fungal population (cfu g−1 × 105)45 ± 5.079 ± 4.0
Phosphate solubilizing microbes (cfu g−1 × 105) 9.0 ± 3.053 ± 5.0
Total Ni (mg kg−1)49.12 ± 2.342.6 ± 4.1
Total Pb (mg kg−1)29.30 ± 4.024.3 ± 5.0
Total Cd (mg kg−1)7.30 ± 0.235.12 ± 0.11
Total Cr (mg kg−1)45.50 ± 1.240.23 ± 1.3
Table
Table 2. Initial soil (0–15 cm) properties of the experimental field soil.
Table 2. Initial soil (0–15 cm) properties of the experimental field soil.
Soil Properties Values Soil PropertiesValues
    Sand (%) 65.55Available P (kg ha−1)16.5
   Silt (%)18.5Available K (kg ha−1)238
   Clay (%)16Ca (mel−1)2.2
   Textural classLoamMg (mel−1)2.4
   Bulk density (Mg m−3) 1.57Na (mel−1)60.34
   Porosity (%) 46.4K (mel−1)2.29
   Infiltration rate (mm day−1)2.1CO3 (mel−1)3.1
   pH29.2HCO3 (mel−1)1.8
   EC2 (dSm−1)1.14Cl (mel−1)4.8
ESP 48GR (t ha−1) 10
OC (%) 0.3Bacterial count (Cfu g−1) 1.3 × 106
Available N (kg ha−1) 142.5Fungal count (Cfu g−1) 0.2 × 105
Table
Table 3. Quality of irrigation water applied to the crop.
Table 3. Quality of irrigation water applied to the crop.
Quality ParametersTube Well No. 1Tube Well No. 2
EC (dSm−1) 0.680.57
pH7.568.08
CO3 (mel−1)1.201.20
HCO3 (mel−1)4.003.20
Cl− (mel−1)2.101.50
SO4 (mel−1)0.000.00
Ca2+ Mg (mel−1)3.703.10
Na+ (mel−1)4.103.70
K+ (mel−1)0.120.12
RSC 1.501.30
SAR3.002.90
RSC: residual sodium carbonate, SAR: sodium adsorption ratio.
Table
Table 4. Combined effect of inorganic amendments and enriched municipal solid waste compost on crop growth of rice and wheat.
Table 4. Combined effect of inorganic amendments and enriched municipal solid waste compost on crop growth of rice and wheat.
TreatmentsRiceWheat
Plant Height (cm)Productive Tillers hill−1Panicle Density
(m2)		Dry Matter
(g hill−1)		Plant Height (cm)Spike
Density
(m2)		Dry Matter
(g hill−1)
T1111.229.65286.0 93.5969.2363.41647.3
T2124.4014.77387.9 144.5577.9388.22674.6
T3123.4311.65345.0 123.6376.12341.30623.3
T4122.3512.80359.1 130.4376.22343.90632.3
T5123.4013.42381.0 144.5577.90391.31681.4
T6123.4016.47389.6 148.1083.55394.20688.3
LSD
(p = 0.05)		ns3.1211.236.35ns6.238.63
LSD = least significant difference. ns= non-significant. T1—Control (No amendments), T2—Gypsum @50% G.R., T3—Un-enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T4—Enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T5—Gypsum @25% G.R. + un-enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T6—Gypsum @25% G.R. + Enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1.
Table
Table 5. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on yield attributes and yields of rice and wheat crops.
Table 5. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on yield attributes and yields of rice and wheat crops.
TreatmentsRiceWheat
Panicle Length
(cm)		Spikelet Fertility
(%) 		Grains
Panicle−1		1000
Grain
Weight
(g)		Grain Yield
(t ha−1)		Length of Spike (cm)Grains Spike−11000
Grain Weight
(g)		Grain Yield
(t ha−1)
T121.3073.2 114.3022.224.2113.0830.9532.01.86
T225.3787.5 132.2226.625.2718.7833.7041.83.25
T323.5276.3 126.0224.624.5016.8530.9538.52.43
T423.7781.2 129.6223.554.7017.2032.2030.42.47
T525.3785.3 138.0525.375.1718.0533.5040.93.23
T625.5285.8 138.3025.955.4519.5535.1043.13.92
LSD
(p = 0.05)		0.53 5.23 5.32 ns 0.43 0.633.122.130.21
LSD = least significant difference; ns = non-significant. T1—Control (No amendments), T2—Gypsum @50% G.R., T3—Un-enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T4—Enriched MSW compost @10 t ha−1, T5—Gypsum @25% G.R. + un-enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1, T6—Gypsum @25% G.R. + Enriched MSW compost at 10 t ha−1.
Table
Table 6. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on micronutrient and heavy metal content in rice and wheat grain.
Table 6. Effect of organic and inorganic amendments on micronutrient and heavy metal content in rice and wheat grain.
TreatmentsRiceWheat
Zn
(ppm) 		Cu
(ppm)		Fe
(ppm) 		Zn
(ppm)		Cu
(ppm)		Fe
(ppm)
T110.933.66147.0434.2012.3638.62
T210.363.90 197.4534.5214.2040.20
T311.224.23 233.4336.2016.2042.32
T411.914.30242.5338.4213.5040.60
T512.804.90 296.0641.30117.2041.20
T612.876.26 537.9642.1018.2043.20
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Singh, Y.P.; Arora, S.; Mishra, V.K.; Singh, A.K. Synergizing Microbial Enriched Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Mineral Gypsum for Optimizing Rice-Wheat Productivity in Sodic Soils. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7809. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137809

AMA Style

Singh YP, Arora S, Mishra VK, Singh AK. Synergizing Microbial Enriched Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Mineral Gypsum for Optimizing Rice-Wheat Productivity in Sodic Soils. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7809. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137809

Chicago/Turabian Style

Singh, Yash P., Sanjay Arora, Vinay K. Mishra, and Atul K. Singh. 2022. "Synergizing Microbial Enriched Municipal Solid Waste Compost and Mineral Gypsum for Optimizing Rice-Wheat Productivity in Sodic Soils" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7809. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137809

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