Next Article in Journal
Testing the Validity of CV for Single-Plant Yield in the Absence of Competition as a Homeostasis Index
Previous Article in Journal
Bermudagrass Responses and Tolerance to Salt Stress by the Physiological, Molecular Mechanisms and Proteomic Perspectives of Salinity Adaptation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy13010175
agronomy-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

Long-Term Application of Organic Fertilizers in Relation to Soil Organic Matter Quality

by
Ondřej Sedlář
1,*,
Jiří Balík
1,
Jindřich Černý
1,
Martin Kulhánek
1 and
Michaela Smatanová
2
1
Department of Agro-Environmental Chemistry and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 16500 Praha, Czech Republic
2
Department of Plant Nutrition, Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture, 60300 Brno, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(1), 175; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010175
Submission received: 9 December 2022 / Revised: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 3 January 2023 / Published: 5 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The quality of soil organic matter plays a central role in soil structure, carbon sequestration and pollutant immobilization. The effect of 16–23 years of fertilization on the quality of soil organic matter was studied in field experiments at ten experimental sites in Central Europe. Soil samples were collected in 2016 after barley harvest. Six crops were rotated: pea–canola–winter wheat–spring barley–beet/potato–spring barley. Six treatments were studied: unfertilized control, mineral fertilization (NPK), farmyard manure, farmyard manure + NPK, straw incorporation, and straw incorporation + NPK. Although carbon input did not significantly correlate with any soil organic carbon fractions, the C/N ratio of applied organic fertilizers significantly correlated with the content of humic acid carbon (C-HA), the C-HA/C-FA ratio and humification index in soil. The combination of farmyard manure + NPK resulted in a higher humic acid carbon content in soil, humification rate, and humification index compared to the application of NPK, straw return, and the combination of straw return + NPK. Although straw return led to a lower E4/E6 (A400/A600, Q4/6) ratio compared to farmyard manure application, the C-HA/C-FA ratio was unchanged among these treatments. The application of farmyard manure with and without the addition of NPK led to higher values of carbon sequestration efficiency in soil compared to the straw return with and without the addition of NPK.

1. Introduction

Additions of organic manures result in increased soil organic matter content. Many reports have shown that this results in increased water holding capacity, porosity, infiltration capacity, hydraulic conductivity and water stable aggregation and decreased bulk density and surface crusting [1]. A straw return is the main method of crop straw treatment. However, the straw return method commonly used has many adverse effects on the levels and improvement of soil fertility and crop yield [2]. The application of mineral fertilizers also results in an increase in the amount of organic matter returned to the soil [1].
There are two means to increase the organic matter content in soils; one is to increase the organic matter gains or additions to the soil, and the other is to decrease organic matter losses. Storage of soil organic carbon is a balance between carbon additions from non-harvested portions of crops and organic amendments and carbon losses, primarily through organic matter decomposition and release of respired CO2 to the atmosphere. Organic matter returned to the soil, directly from crop residues or indirectly as manure, consists of many different organic compounds. Some of these are digested quickly by soil microorganisms. The result of this is a rapid formation of microbial compounds and body structures, which are important in holding particles together to provide soil structure and limit soil erosion, and the release of carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere through microbial respiration. Thus, soil organic matter is not only an important source of carbon for soil processes but also a sink for carbon sequestration. Cultivation can reduce soil organic carbon content and lead to soil deterioration, and finally reduce soil productivity [3].
The favorable quality of the humus positively influences the stabilization of water-stable soil aggregates, which are the basic units of the soil structure. As a consequence of soil cultivation, macroaggregates are broken into microaggregates which are stabilized mostly by humic acid carbon with highly condensed and stabilized macromolecules [4].
Humic substances are a major stable part of soil organic carbon that play a central role in soil carbon accumulation [5]. Humification depends on soil organic matter contents [6] and the C/N ratio of a particular fertilizer [7]. The continuous application of farmyard manure to field soils generally results in a higher humic acid content compared to the application of mineral fertilizers alone [8]. Furthermore, a regular application of rotted or composted farmyard manure within the rotation can increase soil organic carbon content much more than the separate application of straw and cattle slurry [5].
Both humic and fulvic acids have high sorption capacity with respect to many contaminants, including heavy metals, which can result in their immobilization and consequently protection of food and groundwater against contamination [9]. The increase in water-soluble sugars, “non-matured” lignin and fulvic acids is an indicator of a labile system characterized by a rapid course of changes and a longer period of stabilization or acquisition of dynamic equilibrium in the mineralization and humification process [10]. Furthermore, the high humic acid to fulvic acid ratio may explain decreased concentrations of metals in plants [11]. Heclik et al. [12] describe this phenomenon in their study on nanoparticles; fulvic acid molecules only form a salt with heavy metal ions, while the conformation of humic acid molecules is responsible for metal ion capture.
The E4/E6 ratio is inversely related to the degree of condensation of the aromatic network in humic acids. A low E4/E6 ratio is indicative of a relatively high degree of aromatic constituent condensation while a high ratio reflects a low degree of aromatic condensation and the presence of relatively large proportions of aliphatic structures [13]. Therefore, the humic to fulvic acid ratio is increased together with decreasing values of the E4/E6 ratio measured in the visible spectrum range [14].
Reliable quantitative evaluation of humic substances formation using, for example, parameters such as the humification index, humification degree and humification rate requires data from long-term experiments which are lacking because they are usually costly and time-consuming [9]. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the long-term application of mineral fertilizers, farmyard manure and plant residue incorporation on the quality of soil organic matter.

2. Materials and Methods

Long-term on-farm trials have been established within the years 1993 and 2000 by the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture at ten experimental sites with various soil-climatic conditions in the Czech Republic. The characteristics of the experimental sites are given in Table 1. The average total organic carbon content varied between 8.1 and 15.0 g/kg. Within these trials, six crops were rotated in the following order: pea, canola, winter wheat, spring barley (1), beet/potato, and spring barley (2).
As follows from Table 2, six treatments were studied: unfertilized treatment (unfert.), mineral fertilization (NPK)–basal application of Ca(H2PO4)2 + KCl + (NH4)2SO4 and top-dressing of calcium ammonium nitrate, application of farmyard manure (FYM), a combination of farmyard manure and mineral fertilization (FYM + NPK), incorporation of plant residues (STRAW/BT) and a combination of plant residues incorporation and mineral fertilization (STRAW/BT + NPK). The supply of nutrients in mineral fertilizers respected both the demands of crops and the maintenance of the optimal content (‘good’) of the available nutrients (Mehlich 3) nutrients in soil (K 170–310 mg/kg, P 80–115 mg/kg). At the sites of Lednice, Pusté Jakartice and Věrovany, beet was grown instead of potato, which resulted in the incorporation of the beet tops into the soil (Table 1 and Table 2). The incorporation of cereal and canola straw was accompanied by the application of 40 kg N/ha and 20 kg N/ha, respectively. Each treatment had four replicates. Furthermore, each replicate was repeated three times during the soil analysis.
Due to missing data related to the composition of organic fertilizers applied in all years of the experiments, the following parameters in dry matter were used to calculate carbon input and the C/N ratio: cereal straw 44% C [15,16] and a C/N ratio of 82 [15,17], pea straw 45% C [18,19] and a C/N ratio of 25 [20,21], beet tops 37% C [22,23] and a C/N ratio of 16 [21,23], farmyard manure 35% C [24,25] and a C/N ratio of 30 [26,27].
Soil samples were collected in 2016 after spring barley harvest (1) and analyzed as follows: A sample of 5.0 g of soil was stirred for 10 min in a mixture of 0.1 mol/L sodium pyrophosphate and 0.1 mol/L sodium hydroxide solution. After 24 h of storage, a saturated solution of sodium sulfate was added. A filtration followed. The filtrate formed was used for:
  • The E4/E6 ratio measurement directly in the filtrate. For the E4/E6 ratio, a visible light spectrometer Lambda 25 (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) was used to calculate the specific spectral absorbance ratio at 465 and 665 nm [28].
  • Determination of carbon in humic substances. The filtrate was neutralized by sulphuric acid and then vaporized. Iodometric titration followed.
  • Determination of carbon in fulvic acids. The filtrate was acidified by sulphuric acid to a pH of 1.0–1.5 and warmed up for 30 min. After storage for 24 h, the solution was filtrated and washed using the 0.05 mol/L sulphuric acid solution. The newly formed filtrate was vaporized. Iodometric titration followed.
The carbon of humic acids was determined. The remaining precipitate was dissolved using the hot 0.05 mol/L sodium hydroxide solution. After neutralization by sulfuric acid and vaporization, iodometric titration followed.
Before titration of all samples, dry matter formed by vaporization was dissolved in a mixture of the 0.067 mol/L potassium dichromate solution and concentrated sulfuric acid and warmed up for 45 min.
Humification indices were calculated according to Raiesi [29] and Iqbal et al. [30]:
degree of polymerization: CHA/CFA
humification rate: HR = (CFA + CHA)/TOC
humification index: HI = CHA/TOC
where CFA is the fulvic acid carbon, CHA is the humic acid carbon and TOC is the total organic carbon in soil. The total organic carbon content in soil was determined from about 50 mg of soil by the modified Dumas combustion method at 960 °C with a CHNS Vario MACRO cube analyzer (Elementar, Langenselbold, Germany).
Except for the humification index, the studied variables significantly differed among experimental sites. Therefore, the effect of treatments was also evaluated by replacing the current values of variables with relative ones. Relative values were calculated as:
Vtreatment/Vsite-average
where Vtreatment was the value of each treatment, and Vsite-average was the average value of a particular site among all treatments.
Relative contribution (RC) of organic fertilizers to soil organic carbon stock was calculated according to Wang et al. [31]. The unfertilized treatment (0) and the NPK treatment, respectively, were taken to be the “control”; the FYM and STRAW/BT treatments were compared with the unfertilized treatment, whereas the FYM + NPK and STRAW/BT + NPK treatments were compared with the NPK treatment.
RC (%) = [(TOCtreatment − TOCcontrol)/TOCcontrol] × 100
The carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE) was calculated as follows:
CSE (%) = [(TOCtreatment − TOCcontrol)/TCI] × 100
where TCI is the total C input (t/ha) applied in organic fertilizers during the duration of individual experiments [31].
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Fisher’s LSD test was calculated. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to analyze the relationships among the variables studied in Table 4. The probability value of 0.05 or less (p < 0.05) was considered statistically significant. A statistical analysis of the data was carried out using the Statistica version 13.3 software (TIBCO Software, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

3. Results

As is shown in Table 3, unlike the content of fulvic acid carbon (CFA), the content of humic acid carbon (CHA) correlated significantly with the weighted average of the C/N ratio of applied organic fertilizers, RC and CSE (moderate correlations).
The E4/E6 ratio correlated significantly with the humic to fulvic acid carbon (CHA/CFA) ratio, although this correlation was weak. Although the E4/E6 ratio was significantly correlated with carbon input in organic fertilizers (moderate correlation), the CHA/CFA ratio was significantly correlated with the C/N ratio of organic fertilizers (weak correlation). The long-term annual average of both precipitation amount and air temperature was moderately correlated with both the CHA/CFA and the E4/E6 ratio. Higher values of the CHA/CFA ratio and lower values of the E4/E6 ratio were recorded under conditions of lower precipitation amount and higher air temperature. A stronger correlation was found between the CHA/CFA ratio and the CHA content, rather than the CFA content.
Unlike the humification rate, the humification index correlated significantly with the weighted average of the C/N ratio of applied organic fertilizers (moderate correlation), RC (weak correlation) and CSE (weak correlation).
Both the relative contribution of organic fertilizers to soil organic carbon stock (RC) and carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE) correlated positively with the CHA content and negatively with both carbon input in organic fertilizers and the weighted average of the C/N ratio of applied organic fertilizers. All these correlations were moderate.
Carbon input did not correlate significantly with any fractions of soil organic carbon in soil. In contrast, the weighted average of the C/N ratio of applied organic fertilizers correlated significantly with the CHA content and the humification index (moderate correlation), and with the CHA/CFA ratio (weak correlation).

3.1. Organic Carbon Fractions

The relative values of studied variables independent of the site effect are often mentioned in the following tables (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). The FYM + NPK treatment led to an increase in the relative CFA content compared to the NPK and FYM treatments (Table 4). Except for the FYM + NPK treatment, no significant differences in the CFA content among other treatments were found.
The FYM + NPK treatment resulted in an increased relative CHA content compared to the unfertilized treatment, NPK treatment, STRAW/BT and STRAW/BT + NPK treatment. The STRAW/BT + NPK treatment led to a decrease in relative CHA content compared to all other treatments except the unfertilized. Even though the relative CHA content did not differ between the FYM treatment and the STRAW/BT treatment, in absolute figures, the FYM treatment achieved higher CHA content compared to the STRAW/BT treatment at half of the experimental sites.
Compared to the unfertilized treatment, the relative CHA/CFA ratio was increased in the NPK, FYM and FYM + NPK treatments (Table 5). The FYM + NPK treatment resulted in an increased relative CHA/CFA ratio in comparison with the STRAW/BT + NPK treatment. A decrease in the relative CHA/CFA ratio was recorded in the STRAW/BT + NPK treatment compared to the NPK treatment. Even though the relative CHA/CFA ratio did not differ between the FYM and the STRAW/BT treatment, in absolute figures, a higher CHA/CFA ratio in the FYM treatment compared to the STRAW/BT treatment was recorded at four experimental sites.
The highest E4/E6 ratio was found in the FYM treatment at half of the experimental sites. Lower values of the relative E4/E6 ratio were recorded in the STRAW/BT treatment in comparison with the FYM treatment. However, no significant difference in relative E4/E6 ratio between the FYM + NPK and STRAW/BT + NPK treatment was recorded.

3.2. Degree of Humification

The FYM + NPK treatment resulted in an increased relative humification rate compared to all other treatments except for the unfertilized one (Table 6).
In terms of the relative humification index, the FYM + NPK treatment achieved higher values in comparison with all other treatments while the STRAW/BT + NPK treatment resulted in a lower relative humification index compared to all treatments except for the STRAW/BT one. Even though no significant difference in relative humification index between the FYM and the STRAW/BT treatment was found, in absolute numbers, a higher humification index in the FYM treatment compared to the STRAW/BT treatment was recorded at half of the experimental sites.

3.3. Carbon Sequestration

The influence of treatment was recorded on neither the relative contribution of organic fertilizers to soil organic carbon stock (RC) nor carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE) at only two experimental sites (Table 7). Unlike the straw return, farmyard manure application resulted in higher (positive) values of both RC and CSE. On average, 30.75% and 43.20% of the carbon input in farmyard manure was converted to the organic carbon content of the soil in the FYM and the FYM + NPK treatment, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Fractions of Organic Carbon in Soil

The findings of Kutova et al. [32], who state that mineral fertilization increased the CFA content in soil compared to organic fertilization, were not approved in our research. However, Hao et al. [33] found no difference between the mineral fertilization and straw return with the addition of mineral fertilizer in the CFA content after 13 years of experiments which is in accordance with our results. Unlike Zheng et al. [34] who compared mineral fertilization with deep incorporation of maize straw, no significant difference in the CHA content was recorded between the NPK and the STRAW/BT treatment in our results. The findings of Hao et al. [35] recording decreased CHA content in mineral treatment compared to the straw return with the addition of mineral fertilizers, were not confirmed either.
Although humic acids with larger molecules increased in all manured plots, differences between humic acids in plots with and without manure applied at practical levels in elemental and spectroscopic analyzes were small or scarce [35]. The effect of not only the farmyard manure application but also mineral fertilization, on the CHA content, can be concluded.
In contrast to the findings of Song et al. [28] and Sarma and Gogoi [36], the E4/E6 ratio significantly correlated with neither the CHA content nor the CFA content. Furthermore, Gerzabek et al. [37] and Oktaba et al. [38] recorded a significant effect of different fertilizers on the E4/E6 ratio, while no effect on the CHA/CFA ratio was found by the authors. Balik et al. [39] whose research was carried out under similar soil-climatic conditions also state that the E4/E6 ratio did not provide relevant information about soil organic matter quality [39].
Compared to mineral fertilization, straw return [40] and poultry manure [41] increased both the CHA content and the CHA/CFA ratio in soil. This phenomenon was not confirmed in our research, not even in the case of the FYM + NPK treatment, because this treatment led to an increase in both the CHA content and the CFA content.
A higher CHA/CFA ratio and lower E4/E6 ratio were recorded at the experimental sites with lower annual precipitation, which agrees with the results of Larionova et al. [42] and Radmanovic et al. [43].

4.2. Degree of Humification

Some studies have shown a decrease in the degree of soil humification as a result of the application of farmyard manure [37,44]. On the other hand, Marinari et al. [45] recorded a higher humification index and a lower proportion of aliphatic and aromatic fractions in soil due to farmyard manure application compared to mineral nitrogen fertilization. The reason for this may be the formation of stable humic substances during the ripening or composting of manure [5]. Wei et al. [46] concluded that long-term fertilization with organic matter with or without NPK could increase the humification degree of soil. However, this phenomenon was shown only in the case of the FYM + NPK treatment in our results. Due to the higher humification rate and humification index in the FYM + NPK treatment compared to the others, according to Tavares and Nahas [6], only this treatment (FYM + NPK) affected microbial composition and activity.

4.3. Carbon Sequestration

Even though Ghafoor et al. [47] state that nitrogen fertilization causes greater stabilization of plant residues, presumably due to increased microbial carbon use efficiency, no significant decrease in STRAW/BT compared to the STRAW/BT + NPK one was recorded regarding all studied variables. Furthermore, a negative correlation was found between carbon sequestration efficiency and the weighted average of the C/N ratio in applied fertilizers. According to Wang et al. [31], carbon sequestration efficiency is primarily related to soil fertility. This can explain a positive correlation of the RC and carbon sequestration efficiency with the CHA content and a negative correlation with carbon input and the C/N ratio in applied fertilizers because, according to Klik et al. [48], a higher content of stable carbon forms (CHA) is beneficial for carbon sequestration in soil. Organic inputs to soil with a high C/N ratio lose more carbon in turnover than the amendments with a low C/N ratio [49]. According to Wang et al. [31], the effect of straw return on soil organic carbon stock is attributed to site-specific conditions; straw return did not significantly increase soil organic carbon stocks at the experimental site with low soil organic carbon density (13.5 g/kg), while the carbon pool was enhanced at the sites with high soil organic carbon contents (24.5 and 31.3 g/kg). However, our research was conducted on soils corresponding to a low organic carbon content (12.5 g/kg on average), which can clarify no positive effect of straw incorporation on the soil organic carbon stock.
A significant correlation between humification index and both the RC and carbon sequestration efficiency is in accordance with the findings of Mockeviciene et al. [50] and Hao et al. [33] who state that polymerization of humic acids, i.e., higher humification index, creates more favorable conditions for carbon sequestration.

4.4. Treatment

Although carbon input did not significantly correlate with any soil organic carbon fractions, the C/N ratio of applied organic fertilizers significantly correlated with the CHA content and humification index (moderate correlation). Balik et al. [50] confirmed in another experiment that the CHA content and the CHA/CFA ratio were affected by the C/N ratio in applied fertilizer, while the effect of the amount of carbon input was not recorded or only led to an increase in the CFA content [51,52]. The initial C/N ratio of the substrate has a significant effect on the microbial community and degradation of organic matter [53]. A decrease in the C/N ratio occurs during composting and the C/N ratio is a common indicator of compost maturity [54]. The initial C/N ratio of 25 favors the formation of high-quality compost [54], which is closer to the C/N ratio of manured treatments (C/N = 38) compared to the treatments with straw return (C/N ratio > 60).
The STRAW/BT + NPK treatment brought no benefit in comparison with the NPK treatment in terms of soil organic matter quality. The NPK treatment resulted in increased CHA content, CHA/CFA ratio and humification index compared to the STRAW/BT + NPK treatment. Therefore, the results of a 15-year experiment by Hao et al. [55] were supported because the authors stated that the organic matter of the soil under straw return conditions becomes enriched by aliphatic components and reduced by aromatic components, suggesting that the degree of humification of the organic matter of soil decreases with straw return. Similarly, Arlauskiene et al. [56] found a lower CHA/CFA ratio and humification degree after barley straw incorporation into soil compared to the treatment with straw removed from soil. However, the results of Koishi et al. [44] were not supported; these authors stated that in the absence of organic matter input the application of mineral fertilizers alone resulted in decreased soil organic carbon content and an increased humification index.
The FYM treatment resulted only in an increased E4/E6 ratio compared to the STRAW/BT treatment, but despite the findings of Aparna et al. [57], the humification index did not differ among these two treatments. Except for the TOC content, no soil organic carbon fractions or humification indices differed between the FYM and the NPK treatments. A significant increase in the CHA content, CHA/CFA ratio, humification rate and humification index was recorded in the FYM + NPK treatment in comparison with the STRAW/BT + NPK treatment. The STRAW/BT + NPK treatment brought no benefits in comparison with the FYM + NPK treatment. The FYM + NPK treatment led to a higher content of CFA and CHA, a humification rate and a humification index compared to the NPK treatment.

5. Conclusions

A significant correlation between the E4/E6 ratio and soil organic carbon fractions, humification rate, and humification index was not recorded. Additionally, no significant correlation was found between the carbon input applied in fertilizers and the organic carbon fractions of the soil. On the other hand, the weighted average of the C/N ratio in organic fertilizers negatively correlated with the humic acid carbon, humification index, and CHA/CFA ratio. Although straw return led to a lower E4/E6 ratio compared to the farmyard manure application, the CHA/CFA ratio was unchanged among these treatments. Only the combination of farmyard manure with mineral NPK resulted in a higher humification index, humification rate, humic acid carbon content and fulvic acid carbon content compared to the application of mineral fertilizers alone. Neither straw return nor the combination of straw return with mineral NPK brought any benefit compared to the application of mineral fertilizers alone in terms of soil organic matter quality. The application of farmyard manure with and without the addition of NPK led to higher values of carbon sequestration efficiency in soil compared to the straw return with and without the addition of NPK. Carbon sequestration efficiency negatively correlated with the weighted average of the C/N ratio in applied fertilizers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.S.; methodology, M.S. and J.B.; validation, J.Č., J.B. and M.K.; formal analysis, O.S.; investigation, O.S. and M.S.; resources, J.B.; data curation, M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, O.S.; writing—review and editing, J.B.; supervision, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the NAZV QK21010124 research project “Soil organic matter–evaluating of quality parameters” financed by the Czech Ministry of Agriculture.

Data Availability Statement

Data available from corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Petr Kolbábek for the precise chemical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

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

References

  1. Haynes, R.J.; Naidu, R. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: A review. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 1998, 51, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jin, Z.Q.; Shah, T.R.; Zhang, L.; Liu, H.Y.; Peng, S.B.; Nie, L.X. Effect of straw returning on soil organic carbon in rice-wheat rotation system: A review. Food Energy Secur. 2020, 9, e200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Liu, X.; Herbert, S.J.; Hashemi, A.M.; Zhang, X.; Ding, G. Effects of agricultural management on soil organic matter and carbon transformation—A review. Plant Soil Environ. 2006, 52, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Pollakova, N.; Simansky, V.; Kravka, M. The influence of soil organic matter fractions on aggregates stabilization in agricultural and forest soils of selected Slovak and Czech hilly lands. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2790–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gerke, J. Carbon accumulation in arable soils: Mechanisms and the effect of cultivation practices and organic fertilizers. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tavares, R.L.M.; Nahas, E. Humic fractions of forest, pasture and maize crop soils resulting from microbial activity. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2014, 45, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Yan, L.L.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.D.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y. Effects of C/N ratio variation in swine biogas slurry on soil dissolved organic matter: Content and fluorescence characteristics. Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 2021, 209, 111804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kawasaki, S.; Maie, N.; Kitamura, S.; Watanabe, A. Effect of organic amendment on amount and chemical characteristics of humic acids in upland field soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2008, 59, 1027–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kwiatkowska-Malina, J. Qualitative and quantitative soil organic matter estimation for sustainable soil management. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2801–2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sotakova, S. The rate and the direction parameters of humus transformation in intensively cultivated orthic Luvisols. Zentralbl. Mikrobiol. 1991, 146, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Murray, H.; Pinchin, T.A.; Macfie, S.M. Compost application affects metal uptake in plants grown in urban garden soils and potential human health risk. J. Soils Sediments 2011, 1, 815–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Heclik, K.I.; Heclik, K.; Zarzyka, I. Metal-humus acid nanoparticles-synthesis, characterization and molecular modeling. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 3587–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Quatmane, A.; Orazio, V.D.; Hafidi, H.; Senesi, N. Chemical and physico chemical characterization of humic acid like materials from compost. Compost Sci. Util. 2002, 10, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fasurova, N.; Pospisilova, L. Characterization of soil humic substances by ultraviolet-visible and synchronous fluorescence spectroscopy. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2010, 1, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van Den Bossche, A.; De Bolle, S.; De Neve, S.; Hofman, G. Effect of tillage intensity on N mineralization of different crop residues in a temperate climate. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Butterly, C.R.; Baldock, J.A.; Tang, C. The contribution of crop residues to changes in soil pH under field conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 366, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sotnikov, B.A.; Kravchenko, V.A.; Shchuchka, R.V. The rate of crop residue decomposition as a function of the chemical composition of field crops. Entomol. Appl. Sci. Lett. 2021, 8, 16–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mould, F.L.; Hervas, G.; Owen, E.; Wheeler, T.R.; Smith, N.O.; Summerfield, R.J. The effect of cultivar on the rate and extent of combining pea straw degradability examined in vitro using the Reading Pressure Technique. Grass Forage Sci. 2001, 56, 374–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oliveira, M.; Rebac, D.; Coutinho, J.; Ferreira, L.; Trindade, H. Nitrogen mineralization of legume residues: Interactions between species, temperature and placement in soil. Span. J. Agric. 2020, 18, e1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Goh, K.M.; Totua, S.S. Effects of organic and plant residue quality and orchard management practices on decomposition rates of residues. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2004, 35, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Essich, L.; Nkebiwe, P.M.; Schneider, M.; Ruser, R. Is crop residue removal to reduce N2O emissions driven by quality or quantity? A field study and meta-analysis. Agriculture 2020, 10, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rahn, C.R.; Bending, G.D.; Turner, M.K.; Lillywhite, R.D. Management of N mineralization from crop residues of high N content using amendment materials of varying quality. Soil Use Manag. 2003, 19, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. de Ruijter, F.J.; Huijsmans, J.F.M.; Rutgers, B. Ammonia volatilization from crop residues and frozen green manure crops. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 3362–3368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Larney, F.J.; Ellert, B.H.; Olson, A.F. Carbon, ash and organic matter relationships for feedlot manures and composts. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2005, 85, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kimura, S.D.; Mishima, S.I.; Yagi, K. Carbon resources of residue and manure in Japanese farmland soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2011, 89, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lopez Fernandez, S.; Serrato Cuevas, R.; Castelan Ortega, O.A.; Aviles Nova, F. Comparison between two methods of ventilation in the chemical composition of compost of livestocks. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient. 2018, 34, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Dey, A.; Srivastava, P.C.; Pachauri, S.P.; Shukla, A.K. Time-dependent release of some plant nutrients from different organic amendments in a laboratory study. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2019, 8, S173–S188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Song, X.Y.; Liu, S.T.; Liu, Q.H.; Zhang, W.J.; Hu, C.G. Carbon sequestration in soil humic substances under long-term fertilization in a wheat-maize system from North China. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raiesi, F. The quantity and quality of soil organic matter and humic substances following dry-farming and subsequent restoration in an upland pasture. Catena 2021, 202, 105249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Iqbal, M.K.; Shafiq, T.; Hussain, A.; Ahmed, K. Effect of enrichment on chemical properties of MSW compost. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5969–5977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, S.C.; Zhao, Y.W.; Wang, J.Z.; Zhu, P.; Cui, X.; Han, X.Z.; Xu, M.G.; Lu, C.A. The efficiency of long-term straw return to sequester organic carbon in Northeast China’s cropland. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kutova, A.; Hetmanenko, V.; Skrylnik, I.; Paramonova, T.; Kuts, A. Effect of irrigation and fertilization on the content and composition of humus of Chernozem in the vegetable-fodder crop rotation. Sci. Papers Ser. A Agron. 2020, 63, 86–91. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hao, X.X.; Han, X.Z.; Zou, W.X.; Wang, S.Y.; Kwaw-Mensah, D. Changes in soil organic carbon and its fractions after 13 years of continuous straw return in a soybean-maize cropping system. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 8267–8284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zheng, S.; Dou, S.; Duan, H.M. Effects of straw enrichment and deep incorporation on humus composition and humic acid structure of black soil profile in Northeast China. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2022, 20, 1051–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Watanabe, A.; Kawasaki, S.; Kitamura, S.; Yoshida, S. Temporal changes in humic acids in cultivated soils with continuous manure application. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2007, 53, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sarma, B.; Gogoi, N. Nitrogen management for sustainable soil organic carbon increase in Inceptisols under wheat cultivation. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 1428–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gerzabek, M.H.; Pichlmayer, F.; Kirchmann, H.; Haberhauer, G. The response of soil organic matter to manure amendments in a long-term experiment at Ultuna, Sweden. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1997, 48, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Oktaba, L.; Odrobinska, D.; Uzarowicz, L. The impact of different land uses in urban area on humus quality. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2823–2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Balik, J.; Kulhanek, M.; Cerny, J.; Sedlar, O.; Suran, P.; Asrade, D.A. The influence of organic and mineral fertilizers on the quality of soil organic matter and glomalin content. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guo, Z.B.; Hua, K.K.; Wang, J.; Guo, X.S.; He, C.L.; Wang, D.Z. Effects of different regimes of fertilization on soil organic matter under conventional tillage. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 12, 801–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Marchi, E.C.S.; Alvarenga, M.A.R.; Marchi, G.; Silva, C.A.; de Souza, J.L. Organic fertilizer effects upon carbon fractions from soils cultivated with iceberg lettuce. Cienc. Agrotecnologia 2008, 32, 1760–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Larionova, A.A.; Maltseva, A.N.; de Gerenyu, V.O.L.; Kvitkina, A.K.; Bykhovets, S.S.; Zolotareva, B.N.; Kudeyarov, V.N. Effect of temperature and moisture on the mineralization and humification of leaf litter in a model incubation experiment. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2017, 50, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Radmanovic, S.; Dordevic, A.; Nikolic, N. Humus composition of Rendzina soils in different environmental conditions of Serbia. Arch. Tech. Sci. 2018, 19, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Koishi, A.; Bragazza, L.; Maltas, A.; Guillaume, T.; Sinaj, S. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil organic matter quantity and quality in conventional cropping systems in Switzerland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Marinari, S.; Masciandaro, G.; Ceccanti, B.; Grego, S. Evolution of soil organic matter changes using pyrolysis and metabolic indices: A comparison between organic and mineral fertilization. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2495–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wei, D.; Li, Y.; Cai, S.S.; Jin, L.; Li, Y.M.; Wang, W.; Bai, Y.; Hu, Y.; Clarke, N. Fluorescence characteristics of humic acid in Chinese black soil under long-term fertilization. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2019, 2019, 5627575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ghafoor, A.; Poeplau, C.; Katterer, T. Fate of straw- and root-derived carbon in a Swedish agricultural soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2017, 53, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Klik, B.; Kulikowska, D.; Gusiatin, Z.M.; Pasieczna-Patkowska, S. Washing agents from sewage sludge: Efficiency of Cd removal from highly contaminated soils and effect on soil organic balance. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Dannehl, T.; Leithold, G.; Brock, C. The effect of C:N The relation between CUE and ratios on the fate of carbon from straw and green manure in soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 68, 988–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mockeviciene, I.; Repsiene, R.; Amaleviciute-Volunge, K.; Karcauskiene, D.; Slepetiene, A.; Lepane, V. Effect of long-term application of organic fertilizers on improving organic matter quality in acid soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2022, 68, 1192–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Balik, J.; Kulhanek, M.; Cerny, J.; Sedlar, O.; Suran, P. Soil organic matter degradation in long-term maize cultivation and insufficient organic fertilization. Plants 2020, 9, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Balik, J.; Sedlar, O.; Kulhanek, M.; Cerny, J.; Smatanova, M.; Suran, P. Effect of organic fertilisers on glomalin content and soil organic matter quality. Plant Soil Environ. 2020, 66, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Xie, Y.Q.; Zhou, L.Y.; Dai, J.P.; Chen, J.; Yang, X.P.; Wang, X.W.; Wang, Z.F.; Feng, L. Effects of the C/N ratio on the microbial community and lignocellulose degradation, during branch waste composting. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2022, 45, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Guo, X.X.; Liu, H.T.; Wu, S.B. Humic substances developed during organic waste composting: Formation mechanisms, structural properties, and agronomic functions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hao, X.X.; Han, X.Z.; Wang, S.Y.; Li, L.J. Dynamics and composition of soil organic carbon in response to 15 years of straw return in a Mollisol. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 215, 105221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Arlauskiene, A.; Maiksteniene, S.; Slepetiene, A. Application of environmental protection measures for clay loam Cambisol used for agricultural purposes. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. 2011, 19, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aparna, C.; Saritha, P.; Himabindu, V.; Anjaneyulu, Y. Techniques for the evaluation of maturity for composts of industrially contaminated lake sediments. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1773–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the experimental sites and year of establishment of the experiment.
Table 1. Characteristics of the experimental sites and year of establishment of the experiment.
LocationRoot CropSinceAltitude (m)Precip. 1 (mm/year)Air Temp. 1 (°C)Soil GroupCHS (%)TOC (%)
1. Horažďovicepotato19944725857.8Cambisol0.405 ± 0.0611.34 ± 0.02
2. Hradec n. S.potato19934606167.4Haplic Luvisol0.286 ± 0.0421.19 ± 0.05
3. Chrastavapotato20003457388Haplic Luvisol0.421 ± 0.0851.08 ± 0.04
4. Jaroměřicepotato19944254888.2Haplic Luvisol0.552 ± 0.1021.26 ± 0.06
5. Lípapotato19935055947.5Cambisol0.545 ± 0.0951.35 ± 0.06
6. Lednicebeet19941724619.6Chernozem0.368 ± 0.1021.57 ± 0.03
7. Pusté Jakarticebeet19942905848.3Retisol0.445 ± 0.1140.88 ± 0.01
8. Staňkovpotato19943705498.3Haplic Luvisol0.470 ± 0.0701.05 ± 0.04
9. Věrovanybeet19932075028.7Chernozem0.502 ± 0.0381.29 ± 0.04
10.Vysokápotato20005956117.1Cambisol0.484 ± 0.0661.48 ± 0.08
1 long-term (30 years) annual average. CHS—humic substances carbon in the year 2020, TOC—total organic carbon in soil during the years 2011–2018.
Table
Table 2. Carbon input (t/ha) and C/N ratio of organic fertilizers applied in the individual treatments.
Table 2. Carbon input (t/ha) and C/N ratio of organic fertilizers applied in the individual treatments.
CropOrg. Fert.Treatment
Unfert.NPKFYMFYM + NPKSTRAW/BTSTRAW/BT + NPK
peabarley straw 1.581.58
C/N 82C/N 82
canolapea straw 0.430.43
C/N 25C/N 25
FYM 2.102.10
C/N 30C/N 30
winter wheatcanola straw1.551.551.551.551.551.55
C/N 70C/N 70C/N 70C/N 70C/N 70C/N 70
spring barleywheat straw 1.581.58
C/N 82C/N 82
potato/
beet		barley straw 1.581.58
C/N 82C/N 82
FYM 2.802.80
C/N 30C/N 30
spring barleybeet tops * 1.891.89
C/N 16C/N 16
∑ C input per rotation1.551.556.456.456.73 (8.61 *)6.73 (8.61 *)
A weighted average of C/N in input per rotation70.070.038.038.075.7 (60.7 *)75.7 (60.7 *)
* if beet instead of potato is grown. FYM—farmyard manure. Fresh weight of applied organic fertilizers: 4 t/ha of cereal straw, 4 t/ha of canola straw, 1 t/ha of pea straw, 30 t/ha of beet tops, 30 t/ha and 40 t/ha of farmyard manure applied to canola and potato/beet, respectively.
Table
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) among variables.
Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) among variables.
Var.CFACHACHA/CFAE4/E6HRHIC inputC/N inputRCCSE
CHA0.42 **
CHA/CFA−0.32 *0.51 ***
E4/E60.03−0.15−0.38 *
HR0.73 ***0.61 ***−0.090.03
HI0.52 ***0.85 ***0.33 *−0.110.87 ***
C input−0.15−0.140.24−0.48 **−0.04−0.04
C/N input0.02−0.43 **−0.37 *−0.03−0.23−0.45 **0.32 *
RC0.220.41 **0.050.31 *0.190.32 *−0.59 ***−0.54 ***
CSE0.250.50 ***0.160.250.230.38 *−0.47 **−0.50 **0.96 ***
precip.−0.00−0.24−0.43 **0.49 **0.03−0.11−0.290.100.070.03
temp.−0.250.070.53 ***−0.47 **−0.050.110.43 **−0.15−0.40 *−0.37 *
The r-values marked with asterisks are significant at the levels of significance * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001. CFA—fulvic acids carbon, CHA—humic acids carbon, CHA/CFA—humic to fulvic acid carbon ratio, E4/E6—absorbances ratio at the wavelengths of 465 and 665 nm, HR—humification rate HR = (CFA + CHA)/TOC, HI—humification index HI = CHA/TOC, C input—carbon amount applied in organic fertilizers during the duration of individual experiments, C/N input—weighted average of C/N in organic fertilizers per rotation, RC–relative contribution of organic fertilizers to soil organic carbon stock, CSE–carbon sequestration efficiency, precip.—long-term annual precipitation, temp.—long-term average annual air temperature.
Table
Table 4. Content of the fulvic acids carbon (CFA) and humic acids carbon (CHA) in soil at the individual experimental sites.
Table 4. Content of the fulvic acids carbon (CFA) and humic acids carbon (CHA) in soil at the individual experimental sites.
Site/TRTUnfert.NPKFYMFYM + NPKSTRAW/BTSTRAW/BT + NPK
CFA (%)
10.186 b0.270 c0.225 a0.231 a0.180 b0.240 a
20.229 b0.156 a0.159 a0.157 a0.127 a0.166 a
30.284 c0.197 ab0.213 abc0.242 bc0.151 a0.199 ab
40.287 a0.240 a0.219 a0.256 a0.271 a0.242 a
50.239 a0.244 a0.242 a0.381 c0.229 a0.308 b
60.178 b0.153 ab0.136 a0.270 c0.135 a0.137 a
70.198 a0.155 c0.224 ab0.199 a0.238 b0.203 ab
80.248 a0.269 a0.229 a0.269 a0.295 a0.241 a
90.197 bc0.119 e0.155 a0.170 ab0.251 d0.232 cd
100.254 ab0.235 ab0.211 a0.237 ab0.267 b0.252 ab
relative CFA 11.065 ab0.924 a0.921 a1.103 b0.975 ab1.012 ab
CHA (%)
10.146 ab0.177 a0.181 a0.191 a0.113 b0.147 ab
20.124 a0.165 b0.116 a0.104 a0.227 c0.105 a
30.141 ab0.122 ab0.173 bc0.207 c0.106 a0.109 a
40.157 a0.162 a0.143 a0.272 b0.153 a0.118 a
50.176 ab0.215 a0.212 a0.316 c0.134 b0.178 ab
60.247 a0.246 a0.257 a0.331 d0.182 c0.089 b
70.127 a0.156 c0.107 ab0.129 a0.234 d0.097 b
80.170 a0.187 a0.309 b0.275 b0.197 a0.156 a
90.207 a0.207 a0.212 a0.234 ab0.225 ab0.241 b
100.204 a0.226 ab0.283 bc0.304 c0.236 abc0.181 a
relative CHA 10.915 ab1.010 a1.053 ac1.254 c1.002 a0.766 b
Values within the row marked with the same letters are not different at the p < 0.05 level of significance (Fisher’s test). 1 relative to the average value of a variable within each experimental site.
Table
Table 5. The CHA/CFA and E4/E6 ratio in soil at the individual experimental sites.
Table 5. The CHA/CFA and E4/E6 ratio in soil at the individual experimental sites.
Site/TRTUnfert.NPKFYMFYM + NPKSTRAW/BTSTRAW/BT + NPK
CHA/CFA
10.783 a0.655 a0.804 a0.828 a0.628 a0.613 a
20.545 a0.924 b0.732 ab0.664 a0.941 b0.634 a
30.495 a0.616 ab0.814 ab0.882 b0.737 ab0.546 ab
40.552 a0.694 ab0.655 ab0.900 b0.566 a0.480 a
50.743 ab0.880 b0.879 b0.833 ab0.584 a0.578 a
60.648 d1.223 a1.351 ab1.390 ab1.666 bc1.908 c
70.640 b1.007 c0.489 a0.648 b0.976 c0.479 a
80.724 a0.706 a1.381 b1.026 ab0.708 a0.672 a
91.062 ab1.820 c1.375 ac1.374 ac0.900 b1.008 ab
100.801 a0.993 ab1.340 b1.278 b0.882 a0.719 a
relative CHA/CFA 10.826 b1.089 a1.120 a1.134 a0.990 ab0.840 b
E4/E6
16.26 a6.12 a5.86 a6.05 a6.14 a6.24 a
25.52 c5.87 a5.97 a6.18 a6.77 b6.97 b
35.58 c5.66 c6.31 a6.56 ab6.62 ab7.00 b
46.12 bc5.88 ab6.68 d5.72 a6.02 abc6.31 cd
56.91 ab6.95 ab7.08 b6.51 a3.57 c3.91 c
64.08 a5.08 b4.78 b4.28 a4.10 a4.22 a
75.04 a5.07 a5.08 a5.36 a5.12 a5.35 a
85.39 ac4.41 c5.80 ab6.30 ab6.07 ab6.83 b
94.98 d4.35 c4.19 bc3.94 b3.50 a3.24 a
106.60 c5.58 e6.52 bc6.28 ab3.72 d6.06 a
relative E4/E6 11.019 ab0.993 ab1.046 b1.023 ab0.922 a0.998 ab
Values within the row marked with the same letters are not different at the p < 0.05 level of significance (Fisher´s test). CHA/CFA—humic to fulvic acid carbon ratio, E4/E6—absorbances ratio at the wavelengths of 465 and 665 nm. 1 relative to the average value of a variable within each experimental site.
Table
Table 6. Humification rate (HR) and humification index (HI) in soil at the individual experimental sites.
Table 6. Humification rate (HR) and humification index (HI) in soil at the individual experimental sites.
Site/TRTUnfert.NPKFYMFYM + NPKSTRAW/BTSTRAW/BT + NPK
HR
10.246 b0.339 a0.297 a0.313 a0.222 b0.298 a
20.304 b0.255 ab0.243 ab0.218 a0.201 a0.213 a
30.394 ab0.322 abc0.344 ab0.412 b0.233 c0.285 ac
40.380 c0.338 abc0.281 ab0.364 bc0.331 abc0.277 a
50.288 a0.327 ab0.339 ab0.513 c0.288 a0.371 b
60.278 a0.261 a0.247 a0.383 d0.203 c0.139 b
70.365 a0.361 a0.371 a0.368 a0.527 b0.349 a
80.426 ab0.430 ab0.475 ab0.494 b0.478 ab0.378 a
90.310 a0.243 c0.278 d0.314 a0.378 b0.378 b
100.331 ab0.336 ab0.337 ab0.345 b0.331 ab0.280 a
relative HR 11.027 ab0.990 a0.981 a1.142 b0.957 a0.903 a
HI
10.108 ab0.134 a0.132 a0.142 a0.086 b0.113 ab
20.107 bc0.121 c0.103 abc0.087 ab0.097 ab0.082 a
30.130 ab0.123 ab0.154 bc0.190 c0.096 a0.100 a
40.134 ac0.136 ac0.111 ab0.170 c0.120 ab0.090 b
50.122 ab0.153 a0.158 a0.233 c0.106 b0.136 ab
60.161 a0.161 a0.162 a0.211 d0.116 c0.055 b
70.142 a0.181 c0.120 ab0.145 a0.260 d0.113 b
80.174 a0.177 a0.263 c0.250 bc0.192 ab0.148 a
90.159 ab0.155 b0.161 ab0.181 ac0.179 ac0.190 c
100.148 ab0.165 a0.193 a0.194 a0.155 ab0.117 b
relative HI 10.954 a1.041 a1.054 a1.225 c0.946 ab0.780 b
Values within the row marked with the same letters are not different at the p < 0.05 level of significance (Fisher´s test). HR = (CFA + CHA)/TOC, HI = CHA/TOC. 1 relative to the average value of a variable within each experimental site.
Table
Table 7. The relative contribution of organic fertilizers to soil organic carbon stock (RC) and carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE) at the individual experimental sites.
Table 7. The relative contribution of organic fertilizers to soil organic carbon stock (RC) and carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE) at the individual experimental sites.
Site/TRTFYMFYM + NPKSTRAW/BTSTRAW/BT + NPK
RC (%)
16.27 a8.28 a14.96 a8.90 a
211.89 b15.42 b−3.25 a3.25 a
3−1.88 ab15.16 b−19.85 a−3.77 ab
416.95 b10.36 b−4.46 a−7.90 a
510.09 a7.54 a−2.26 a8.57 a
68.70 b8.61 b−12.34 a−11.90 a
78.19 b4.03 ab−7.45 a−9.45 a
820.68 b20.82 b−4.93 a−3.16 a
91.04 b−0.62 b−7.62 a−9.16 a
1018.83 ab36.72 b2.00 a11.55 a
CSE (%)
116.0 a22.5 a36.4 a21.9 a
221.6 b28.7 b−5.7 a5.9 a
344.5 b29.7 b−11.3 a−21.9 a
4−12.1 ab55.1 b−85.9 a−16.3 ab
532.6 a25.2 a−9.1 a27.5 a
631.3 b32.2 b−31.5 a−31.1 a
721.0 b9.4 ab−18.4 a−24.9 a
863.2 b67.6 b−14.8 a−9.5 a
93.3 c−2.1 bc−18.1 ab−22.4 a
1086.1 ab163.6 b8.1 a47.6 a
Values within the row marked with the same letters are not different at the p < 0.05 level of significance (Fisher´s test). RC = [(TOCtreatment–TOCcontrol)/TOCcontrol] × 100, CSE = [(TOCtreatment–TOCcontrol)/TCI] × 100.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sedlář, O.; Balík, J.; Černý, J.; Kulhánek, M.; Smatanová, M. Long-Term Application of Organic Fertilizers in Relation to Soil Organic Matter Quality. Agronomy 2023, 13, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010175

AMA Style

Sedlář O, Balík J, Černý J, Kulhánek M, Smatanová M. Long-Term Application of Organic Fertilizers in Relation to Soil Organic Matter Quality. Agronomy. 2023; 13(1):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010175

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sedlář, Ondřej, Jiří Balík, Jindřich Černý, Martin Kulhánek, and Michaela Smatanová. 2023. "Long-Term Application of Organic Fertilizers in Relation to Soil Organic Matter Quality" Agronomy 13, no. 1: 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010175

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