4.6 Article

Long-term effects of manure and inorganic fertilizers on yield and soil fertility for a winter wheat-maize system in Jiangsu, China

Journal

PEDOSPHERE
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 25-32

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1002-0160(06)60022-2

Keywords

manure; NPK-fertilizer; soil organic matter; Triticum aestivum L.; Zea mays L.

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Winter wheat-maize rotations are dominant cropping systems on the North China Plain, where recently the use of organic manure with grain crops has almost disappeared. This could reduce soil fertility and crop productivity in the long run. A 20-year field experiment was conducted to 1) assess the effect of inorganic and organic nutrient sources on yield and yield trends of both winter wheat and maize, 2) monitor the changes in soil organic matter content under continuous wheat-maize cropping with different soil fertility management schemes, and 3) identify reasons for yield trends observed in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, over a 20-year period. There were eight treatments applied to both wheat and maize seasons: a control treatment (C); three inorganic fertilizers, that is, nitrogen (N), nitrogen and phosphorus (NP), and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK); and addition of farmyard manure (FYM) to these four treatments, that is, M, MN, MNP, and MNPK. At the end of the experiment the MN, MNP, and MNPK treatments had the highest yields, about 7 t wheat ha(-1) and 7.5 t maize ha(-1), with each about 1 t ha(-1) more than the NPK treatments. Over 20 years with FYM soil organic matter increased by 80% compared to only 10% with NPK, which explained yield increases. However, from an environmental and agronomic perspective, manure application was not a superior strategy to NPK fertilizers. AA If manure was to be applied, though, it would be best applied to the wheat crop, which showed a better response than maize.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available