Using organic fertilizers to increase crop yield, economic growth, and soil quality in a temperate farmland

PeerJ. 2020 Aug 19:8:e9668. doi: 10.7717/peerj.9668. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

We used a constant total N application base rate to conduct a two-year field experiment comparing the effects of three organic fertilizers (rapeseed meal (RSM), soybean meal (SBM), and cattle manure (CM)) on the crop yield, economic growth, and soil quality of a winter wheat-summer maize rotation system. Winter wheat and summer maize in rapeseed meal treatment (RSMT), soybean meal treatment (SBMT), and cattle manure treatment (CMT) showed yield increases of 161%, 299%, and 256%, respectively, when compared to no organic fertilizer treatment (CK) (P < 0.05). The annual net incomes of SBMT and CMT were 1.46 and 1.42 times higher, respectively, than RSMT. Compared to the results of the CK group, RSM, SBM, and CM stimulated the soil physically, chemically, and biologically. We found the highest soil macroaggregate proportions, soil organic matter (SOM) levels, total N (TN) levels, and phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) levels in SBMT. The highest soil pH, microbial biomass carbon (MBC) levels, and microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) levels were observed in CMT. We used a soil quality index (SQI) to evaluate soil quality. After the two-year fertilization treatments, we calculated the SQI using a minimum data set (MDS). We used SOM levels and actinomycete quantity for the MDS properties. The SQI values were significantly different across the four treatments, with the highest values occurring in SBMT, then CMT and RSMT. In conclusion, SBM and CM were more effective than RSM at maintaining crop yield, economic growth, and soil quality.

Keywords: Cattle manure; Crop yield; Microbial biomass; PLFA; Rapeseed meal; Soil aggregate; Soil chemical characteristics; Soil quality; Soybean meal.

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC050708 and 2017YFC1700701) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31670413). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.