Next Article in Journal
Alternative Strategies for Controlling the Brown Locust, Locustana pardalina (Walker)
Next Article in Special Issue
A Decade of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Major Agri-Food Systems: Earthworm Abundance and Soil Physico-Biochemical Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Monitoring Robot System for Tomato Fruits in Hydroponic Greenhouses
Previous Article in Special Issue
Labile Soil Organic Matter Pools Are Influenced by 45 Years of Applied Farmyard Manure and Mineral Nitrogen in the Wheat—Pearl Millet Cropping System in the Sub-Tropical Condition
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/agronomy11112213
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

Impact of Subsurface Application of Compound Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Enzymatic Activity under Reduced Tillage

by
Barbara Futa
1,*,
Piotr Kraska
2,
Sylwia Andruszczak
2,
Paweł Gierasimiuk
2 and
Monika Jaroszuk-Sierocińska
1
1
Institute of Soil Science, Environment Engineering and Management, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczynskiego St. 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
2
Department of Herbology and Plant Cultivation Techniques, University of Life Sciences, Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(11), 2213; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112213
Submission received: 11 October 2021 / Revised: 28 October 2021 / Accepted: 29 October 2021 / Published: 31 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Tillage, Cover Crop and Crop Rotation on Soil)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil biochemical properties shaping soil fertility and agro-ecosystem productivity depend on the reduced tillage system and the dose and method of application of fertilizer; therefore, the research hypothesis put forward proposes that under reduced tillage system conditions, the subsurface application of a multi-component mineral fertilizer would increase soil enzymatic activity, thus favourably influencing the biodiversity of the soil environment. The objective of the three-year study was to evaluate the impact of subsurface application of varying mineral fertilizer rates on soil enzymatic activity under reduced tillage system conditions in soybean, winter wheat and maize rotations. The field experiment was set up as a split-plot design in four replicates. The first experimental factor included two methods of mineral fertilization application: fertilizer broadcast over the soil surface (S); fertilizer applied deep (subsurface placed) using a specially designed cultivator (Sub-S). The other factor was the rates of the mineral fertilizer (NPKS): 85 kg∙ha−1 (F85) and 170 kg∙ha−1 (F170). The method of application and rate of mineral fertilizer did not have a significant effect on the organic carbon and total nitrogen content in the soil of the plots with all rotational crops. Subsurface application of fertilizer significantly increased available phosphorus content in soil under soybean and winter wheat crops; however, it significantly decreased soil pHKCl values within sites with all crops in the rotation compared to surface application. At the same time, deep application of mineral fertilizer significantly stimulated dehydrogenase activity in the soil under the winter wheat crops and acid phosphatase activity in the soil under all rotation crops. The higher level of mineral fertilization contributed to reduction of soil pHKCl under winter wheat and maize, and promoted an increase in the soil P content. Additionally, significant increases of dehydrogenases and urease activity in the soil under winter wheat and maize crops, alkaline phosphatase activity in the soil under all the studied crops, and acid phosphatase activity in the soil under the soybean crops were found, compared to mineral fertilizer in the amount of 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1. The results of the present study have demonstrated a positive effect of subsurface application of compound mineral fertilizer on the soil biochemical parameters in reduced tillage. This may be a recommendation for the subsurface use of multicomponent mineral fertilizers in sustainable agriculture. However, a full objective characterization of the soil environment processes induced by in-depth application of mineral fertilizer in reduced tillage requires long-term monitoring.

1. Introduction

In the approach of sustainable development, developed in response to the problems of the modern world, a balance between economic growth, care for the environment and quality of life is extremely important. The 2030 Agenda, a UN resolution promulgated in 2015, contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) addressing, among other things, food security, the promotion of sustainable agriculture, and the protection of biodiversity [1]. Therefore, new ways are constantly being sought to increase crop productivity while making responsible use of environmental capital, including soils. The soil’s ecosystem services depend on its natural resources (i.e., soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agroecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs or disservices (i.e., accelerated water and wind erosion, decline in biodiversity and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by developing sustainable agriculture. A good solution for sustainable agriculture is the use of minimum/reduced tillage systems and no-tillage systems (the absence of mechanical soil disturbance) [2,3,4,5,6]. Reduced cultivation is a tillage practice that does not invert the soil, combined with 30% of crop residues left on the soil surface, whereas no-tillage is defined as a system in which the soil remains undisturbed from harvest to planting and the seeds are drilled into the stubble of the previous crop [6]. Those tillage systems provide many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resistance to natural and anthropogenic disturbances, all of which can affect food security [4]. In contrast to the traditional plough tillage prevailing in Central Europe, they are less labour- and energy-intensive and have a positive effect on the physico-chemical and biochemical properties of the soil. The minimum/reduced tillage systems and no-tillage systems prevent nutrient leaching (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) by reducing water erosion, stimulate soil microbial activity and increase soil organic matter content [6,7,8]. Higher soil organic carbon stocks or concentrations in the topsoil layers not only promote a more productive soil with higher biological activity but also provide resilience to extreme weather conditions. Less intensive tillage practices and no-tillage systems also have significant potential to mitigate climate change through the storage of C. These practices restore soil health and are recognized as important for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions and creating climate-resilient production systems [9,10].
According to some authors, e.g., Van den Putte et al. [11], Messiga et al. [12] and Bian et al. [13], tillage without the use of a plowcan have a negative impact on soil physical properties and lead to an increase in soil compaction, which hinders plant emergence and root system development, and consequently reduces yields, especially in the first year of applying this system. In addition, reduced tillage results in the accumulation of nutrients, particularly phosphorus and potassium, in the topsoil [8,14]. This results in a reduced capacity of plants to take up these nutrients [15]. Therefore, the way mineral fertilizer is applied has a direct impact on the availability of essential nutrients in the soil. The commonly used surface spreading of mineral fertilizers does not ensure optimal uptake of nutrients by plant roots. Agronomic techniques are now available that allow mineral fertilizers to be placed at different depths relative to the soil surface [16,17]. The techniques for fertilizer placement in soil with references were reviewed in the paper of Nkebiwe et al. [17] and include: indirect placement by pre-treatment of seeds with fertilizers before sowing; in the seed hole or furrow during seeding, on the soil surface as a band with or without incorporation; subsurface as: shallow or deep band, in a shallow or deep trench cut in the soil, as shallow or deep point placement or point injection. Fertilizer placement in soil, which refers to the precise application of specific fertilizer formulations close to seeds or plant roots to ensure high nutrient availability, may be a more effective alternative to broadcast application [16,17]. The subsurface (deep) application of mineral fertilizers prevents from it accumulating in the limited soil volume and can contribute to an increased nutrient efficiency [6,18]. Deep subsurface fertilizer placement may be an additional tool for the mitigation of negative consequences of increasingly frequent extreme weather events, such as high temperatures, droughts or heavy rainfall, which affect food production for an expanding global population [17,19].
Agricultural management related to factors such as, fertilization, tillageand cropping systems, determine the properties of the world’s soils, and soil microorganisms and enzymes both mediate and respond to these changes [20]. Enzyme activity in soil is considered to be a potentially sensitive indicator of changes in soil under the influence of tillage, as well as an indicator of the activity of microorganisms involved in nutrient transformation processes [21,22,23]. Soil enzymes are natural catalysts and mediators of many processes in the soil environment, including: decomposition of organic matter, processes of decomposition and formation of soil humus, molecular nitrogen fixation, the release of mineral nutrients and their supply to plants, and the flow of carbon, nitrogen and other major components of the biochemical cycle [24,25]. According to Dick et al. [26], soil enzyme activity should be a fundamental parameter in assessing the quality and fertility of mineral soils because of its rapid response to environmental factors compared to other soil properties. Tillage intensity influences the biological and enzymatic activity of the soil [8,27,28], and therefore tests based on enzymatic tests should also be used to evaluate the tillage system. Research reveals that some enzymatic tests reliably reflect the impact of agronomic practices on soil ecological status [29,30,31].
In the present study, a research hypothesis was formulated proposingthat under reduced tillage system conditions, the subsurface application of a multi-component mineral fertilizer, compared to its surface application, would increase the enzymatic activity of the soil, thus having a beneficial effect on the biodiversity of the soil environment. The aim of the three-year field experiment was to evaluate the effect of subsurface application of varying doses of multi-nutrient mineral fertilizer on soil enzymatic activity under reduced tillage system conditions in soybean, winter wheat and maize rotations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Field Experiment

The field reaserch was established in the autumn of 2014 in Rogów, Municipality of Grabowiec, Zamość County (location 50°48′22.4″ N; 23°30′00.5″ E), Poland. The experiment was set up on brown soil (CAMBISOLS) developed from post-glacial tills [32]. The particle size distribution of arable layer (0–30 cm) of this soil was as follows: 2.0–0.5 mm fraction −23.6%; 0.5–0.25 mm fraction −70.6%; ˂0.002 mm fraction –5.8%. The total content of organic carbon (TOC) in 0–30 cm layer was 7.91 g∙kg−1. Properties of the starting soil of the experiment site were presented in the research Kraska et al. [6].
The experiment was set up as a split-plot design with four replicates in plots with an area of 175 m2. The first experimental factor included two methods of mineral fertilization application under reduced tillage conditions (Table 1). In the first treatment, the compound mineral fertilizer was broadcast over the soil surface (S). In the second treatment, the fertilizer was placed deep (S-Sub), by a specially designed cultivator, evenly at a depth of 10–30 cm of the operation of the soil loosening and fertilizer spreading attachment. Another factor considered included was the different rates of the mineral fertilizer: 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F85) and 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F170). Between the plots with the different mineral fertilization treatments, there was a 20 m wide buffer zone necessary to properly perform specific agronomic operations [6].
In the experiment, the soybean cultivar ‘Annushka’, was grown in crop rotation with winter wheat varieties ‘Patras’ and maize varieties DKC 3711 (FAO 250). ‘Annushka’ originate from the soybean breeding company ‘Hodowla Soi Agroyoumis Poland’and it is listed in the Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species (CCA) in 2009 [33]. It is a very early variety (earliness group 0000), and its growing season lasts about 100–130 days. ‘Annushka’ is recommended for cultivation all over Poland. The winter wheat variety ‘Patras’ by the breeder Saaten Union was entered in the National Register in 2012 and was classified in quality group A. Patras is characterized by good prolificacy, less reaction to intensive agrotechnical level and medium tolerance to soil acidification. The maize variety DKC 3711 (FAO 250) of the breeders Caussade Semences was registered in Poland in 2014 and is recommended for cultivation on poor, medium and good soils [34].
Before the starting the experiment, winter oilseed rape was grown in the condition of conventional tillage. After harvesting forecrop liming was applied by spreading chalk (with CaO: 39.2% and CaCO3: 70%) at a rate of 5 t∙ha−1) [6].
Before sowing the winter wheat, soybean and maize seeds, mineral fertilizer was applied in the form of Polifoska®6 NPK(S) 6-20-30(7), at a rate of 200 kg∙ha−1 (F85) or 400 kg∙ha−1 (F170). The percentage content of all nutrients in the applied fertilizer was as follows: N is 6%; P2O5 is 20%; K2O is 30%; SO3 is 7%. In total, the mineral fertilization was the following (per hectare):
85 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F85) = 12 kg N, 17.5 kg P, 50 kg K, 5.5 kg S;
170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F170) = 24 kg N, 35 kg P, 100 kg K, 11 kg S [6].
In winter wheat, as soon as spring vegetation started, post-emergence nitrogen doses were applied in the form of RSM 26 fertilizer at a density of 1.28 kg∙dm−3 (with N-26% and SO3-7.5%) in the amount of 300 dm3∙ha−1 (99.84 kgN·ha−1 and 11.5 kgS·ha−1) and in the last week of flowering—RSM 32 at a density of 1.32 kg∙dm−3 (with N-32%) in the amount of 250 dm3∙ha−1 (105.60 kgN·ha−1). In a maize field a pre-sowing application was made of RSM 32 in the amount of 300 dm3∙ha−1, and next in the phase of 3-6 leaves RSM 32 in the amount of 200 dm3∙ha−1 (in total 211.2 kg·ha−1 N). As soybean is a plant that fixes atmospheric nitrogen, no nitrogen top dressing was applied in the soybean crop. Furthermore, the soybean plants were not irrigated during the growing season.
Machines and tools for soil tillage, pre-sowing fertilization and sowing are shown in Table 1. Cultivation was performed before sowing all crops of the crop rotation, while in the plots with surface application of fertilizer this treatment was performed immediately after sowing, while in the variant with deep application of fertilizer—during the same pass. The surface placement of the fertilizer was carried out using a ZA TS 4200 spreader (Amazone, Germany), whereas the subsurface application was performed using an own design rigid tine cultivator with its sweeps adapted to subsurface fertilizer placement. The sweeps were connected with a fertilizer hopper via a compressed air turbine, used to feed the fertilizer to the sweeps through the distribution mechanism. Furthermore, this device places the fertilizer evenly at a depth of 10–30 cm of the operation of the soil loosening and fertilizer spreading attachment during one travel [6].
Seeds of soybean cultivar ‘Annushka’ were sown in the amount of 120 kg∙ha−1, and winter wheat grain of cultivar ‘Patras’ in the amount of 170 kg∙ha-1. On the other hand, maize grain of cultivar DKC 3711 was sown at a density of 9 units per 1 m2. For sowing soybean and wheat, the TERRASEM C6 tillage set was used, while for sowing maize the STRIPTILL + Gaspardo Manta seeder was used. The chemical plant protection was as shown in Table S1.

2.2. Weather Conditions

Weather conditions were described on the background of the multiyear period 1974–2010 based on the average monthly air temperature (°C) and total precipitation (mm). Additionally, hydrothermal Sielianinov coefficient (k) was calculated according to the Formula (1):
k = (P×10)/∑t
where P is the total monthly rainfall in mm, ∑t—sum of mean daily temperatures >0 °C [35].
The average air temperature during the field experiment was above the long-term average for most of the months. In the 2014–2015, 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 seasons the air temperature exceeded the long-term average by 2.0 °C, 2.2 °C, and 1.0 °C, respectively (Figure 1). The total rainfall in the 2014–2015 season was only 77% of the long-term average. The highest rainfall deficits occurred in the period from September to November 2014, in February 2015 and also from July to August 2015 (Figure 1). In 2015, the Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficients confirmed that these months were very dry and extremely dry (Table 2). The 2015–2016 season was very humid, since during this season the total rainfall was higher than the long-term average by 31%. The months of September and July were most abundant in rainfall, and the total rainfall in these months was about 60% higher than to the long-term average. The Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficients confirmed that early spring months were extremely humid (March) and humid (April), whereas May was a rather dry month, similar to June. In the third seasons of the experiment (2016–2017), the total rainfall was similar to the long-term average, but the distribution of precipitation in individual months varied. The highest amount of rainfall was recorded in October, in which the sum of precipitation was three times higher than the long-term average. At the same time, the highest rainfall deficit was found in the months of September, June, and August. During these months, the total rainfall was only 19%, 35%, and 56% of the long-term average, respectively. The humidity characteristics of the analysed months of the growing season tended toward humid periods. Only September was extremely dry and June and August were very dry months (Table 2). During the spring and summer period, the highest rainfall was recorded in May and July, which is confirmed by Selyaninov’s coefficient, according to which these months were rather humid [6,36].
The Roman numerals from III to X represent the following months of the growing season: from March to October.

2.3. Sampling and Analyses

In July each year of the study, soil samples were collected for analysis from soybean, winter wheat and maize crops, using a modified soil auger. Soil samples were taken at 10 randomly selected sites from each experimental plot, at a soil depth of 0–30 cm. Then, the collected soil samples were combined into one aggregate sample from each plot. The total number of samples was 36 per year. Each sample was assayed in three replications. Soil samples intended for biochemical analyses were collected and stored in accordance with the principles specified by International Organization for Standardization 18400 [37].
The chemical analyses consisted in determining the following parameters: pHKCl with the potentiometric method for measurement of the pH of soil suspensions in a 1 mol·dm−3 KCl (1:2.5) solution [38], the content of total organic carbon (TOC) by the Tiurin method [39], total nitrogen (TN) [40] and available phosphorus (P) by the Egner-Riehm method [41].
The methodology for determination of soil enzymatic activity was based on a detailed study conducted by Schinner et al. [42] and Dick [43]. The activity of four soil enzymes, i.e., dehydrogenases, urease, acid and alkaline phosphatase, was determined. These enzymes are directly involved in the biogeochemical cycle of carbon (dehydrogenase), nitrogen (urease) and phosphorus (acid and alkaline phosphatase), in the environment. They react clearly to the action of stressors, and the magnitude of changes in their activity is related to the intensity of stress factors [36]. The classification of the soil enzymes tested, their abbreviations, units used to present the analytical data, as well as substrates and products used in the assays are presented in Table 3. Activity of dehydrogenases (ADh) was determined by Thalmann’s method [42] using a 1% solution of 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) as a substrate. Urease activity (AU) was determined following Zantua and Bremner [42] using a 2.5% urea solution as a substrate. Determination of alkaline phosphatase activity (APhal) and acid phosphatase activity (APhac) was performed according to Tabatabai and Bremner [42] using a 0.8% disodium p-nitrophenyl phosphate solution as a substrate in buffer pH 8.5 and pH 5.4, respectively. The activities of the enzymes were determined using a CECIL CE 2011 (Cecil Instrumentation Ltd, UK) spectrophotometer at the following wavelengths: λ = 485 nm for dehydrogenases, λ = 410 nm for urease and λ = 410 nm for acid and alkaline phosphatase.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically analyse the results. The differences between the means for the main factors (methods of fertilizer application; fertilizer dose; years; plant) were checked with Tukey’s multiple comparison test. A significance level of p < 0.05 was assumed, which indicated the presence of statistically significant differences. The statistical analysis of the study results was performed using Microsoft Office Excel 2003 and Statistica PL 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA).

3. Results

The study showed that the chemical properties and enzymatic activity of the soil in the plots studied depended on the type of parameter analysed, the method of application of compound mineral fertilizer and its dose, the plant grown and the years of the study (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9).

3.1. Chemical Properties and Soil Enzymatic Activity of Soybean Growing Plots

The soil within the soybean plots was characterized by an acid reaction. A significant increase in pHKCl was observed in the soil of plots with surface application of mineral fertilizer (S) in comparison with deep application (Sub-S). A higher rate of mineral fertilization (F170) also significantly increased soil pHKCl. Regardless of the tillage treatments applied, the lowest soil pHKCl values were found in 2015 and the highest in 2016 (Table 4). During the three-year study period, the soil of the plot with the deep application of mineral fertilizer was characterized by a significantly higher content of TOC, TN and P in comparison with the variant with surface application of the fertilizer preparation. An application of 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F170) of fertilizer resulted in a significant increase in soil TOC and P content. The content of TOC, TN and P differed between the years. The highest value of TOC and TN were found in the last year of the experiment, whereas the values for 2015 and 2016 were not statistically different. On the other hand, the P content of the soil increased steadily in successive years of observation.
Within the soybean plots, there was no significant influence of the method of multi-nutrient fertilizer application on the activity of dehydrogenases (ADh) and alkaline phosphatase (APhal) in the soil. Surface application of compound mineral fertilizer (S) significantly increased urease activity (AU) in the soil. An opposite trend was observed for acid phosphatase activity (APhac). Irrespective of the application method, fertilizer in the amount of 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F170) caused a significant inhibition of dehydrogenase) and urease activity in the soil. An opposite relationship was noted for APhal and APhac activities (Table 5). Regardless of the method (MFA) and mineral fertilization rate (FD), the first year of the study (2015) recorded the highest activity of ADh and APhal in the soil, and significantly the lowest in the second year of the experiment (2016). In turn, the activity of APhac in soil increased systematically in subsequent years of observation. The highest AU activity was determined in the second year of the study, and the lowest in the last year of the study (Table 5).

3.2. Chemical Properties and Enzymatic Activity of the Soil on Winter Wheat Plots

As in the case of soybean crops, the soil within winter wheat plots was characterized by an acid reaction (Table 6). The subsurface application of fertilizer (Sub-S) resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the value of pHKCl, as with the use of F170. The pHKCl value of the soil increased systematically in subsequent years of observation, irrespective of the tillage treatments carried out. The method of application of the compound fertilizer (MFA) and its dose (FD) did not significantly affect the content of TOC and TN in the soil. The subsurface application of the fertilizer preparation caused a significant increase in the P content of the soil. A higher dose of fertilizer (F170) resulted in a significantly higher accumulation of available P in the soil environment. The content of TOC, TN and P in soil increased, generally statistically significantly, in subsequent years of observation (Table 6).
Within winter wheat plots, under the conditions of deep application of mineral fertilizer (Sub-S), the activity of ADh and APhac in soil was significantly higher than in the variant with surface application of fertilizer (S), (Table 7). However, in the case of AU and APhal, their higher activity was found under surface application of mineral fertilizer compared to its deep application. Introduction of 170 kg of NPKS∙ha−1 into the soil stimulated, in most cases significantly, the activity of dehydrogenases, urease and alkaline phosphatase (Table 7). In the case of APhac, higher activity was observed in the soil of the plots fertilized with the amount of 85 kg of NPKS∙ha−1. During the period of the present study (2015–2017), AU and APhac activities significantly increased in successive years of the experiment regardless of the application method and mineral fertilizer dose. In contrast, the activities of ADh and APhal in the second year (2016) of the study were significantly lower than in the other years. The highest, statistically significant, activity of all monitored soil enzymes was found in the last year of the experiment (Table 7).

3.3. Chemical Properties and Enzymatic Activity of the Soil on Maize Plots

A significant increase in soil pHKCl values was observed in the soil of plots with surface application of mineral fertilizer (S) in comparison with the deep method (Sub-S). Fertilization application at a rate of F170 also significantly increased soil pHKCl values. Regardless of the tillage methods applied, a significant increase in the pHKCl value was observed in subsequent years of the experiment. In the last year of the study (2017), the soil reaction changed from acidic to slightly acidic. The method of application of the fertilizer preparation as well as its dose did not significantly affect the changes in soil TOC and TN content. The surface application of the fertilizer (S) resulted in a significantly higher accumulation of available phosphorus in the soil compared to the subsurface application. The F170 dose of fertilizers significantly influenced higher P content in the soil in comparison with the F85 dose. In subsequent years of the study, a significant increase in the content of TOC and TN in soil was observed. The lowest content of P was determined in the second year of the study and the highest in the last year of the experiment (Table 8).
Within the maize plots, the surface application of compound fertilizer significantly stimulated the activity of most of the enzymes studied, with the exception of acid phosphatase activity. Introduction of a higher dose of mineral fertilizer (F170 objects) into the soil, regardless of the method of its application, significantly increased the activity of soil ADh, AU and APhal (Table 9). An inverse relationship was observed for the activity of APhac, as a higher activity of this enzyme was determined in the soil of plots fertilized with a lower dose of mineral fertilizer (F85). Between 2015 and 2017, AU activity increased significantly in the following study periods. In contrast, the activities of ADh, APhal and APhac in the second year of the study were significantly lower than in the other years. The highest, statistically significant, activity of all monitored soil enzymes was found in the last year of the experiment (Table 9).

3.4. Effect of Method of Fertilizer Application and the Fertilizer Dose on Soil Biochemical Properties of Plant Plots

Analyzing the results obtained over the three-year study period, it was found that surface application of fertilizer caused a significant increase in soil pHKCl values under all crops in rotation compared to Sub-S application (Table 4, Table 6, Table 8). The application of fertilizer at F170 rate caused a decrease in soil pHKCl under winter wheat and maize crops. An opposite relation was observed in the soil of the plot with soybean. Irrespective of the method of application (MFA) and the dose (FD) of fertilizer, the highest pHKCl values were found in the soil under maize crop (Table 4, Table 6, Table 8). It was shown that the method of application and rate of mineral fertilizer did not have a significant effect on the TOC and TN content in the top soil. Soybean plots were characterized by the highest content of these components in comparison with other analysed crops, irrespective of the treatments applied (Table 4, Table 6, Table 8). Under conditions of deep application of mineral fertilizer (Sub-S), a significantly higher content of available form of phosphorus (P) was observed in soil under soybean and winter wheat crops. An opposite relationship was shown in the case of maize crop. A higher dose of compound fertilizer (F170) significantly increased soil P content in all plant plots in the crop rotation compared with F85. Independently of MFA and FD, the highest P content in soil was found in plots with winter wheat crop (Table 4, Table 6, Table 8).
Under conditions of deep application of mineral fertilizer (Sub-S) dehydrogenase activity in the soil of plots with winter wheat crops and acid phosphatase activity in the soil under all plants of crop rotation were significantly higher than in the variant with surface fertilization (S), (Table 5, Table 7, Table 9). An opposite trend was observed for ADh activity in soil under maize, APhal in the variant with winter wheat and maize crops, and AU in the soil of plots with all the crops studied. There was no significant effect of the method of application of compound fertilizer on the activity of dehydrogenases and alkaline phosphatase in soil under soybean crops. The application of mineral fertilizer in the amount of 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 significantly increased the activity of ADh and AU in the soil under winter wheat and maize crops, APhal in the soil of plots with all the plants studied and APhac in the soil of the plot with soybean crop in comparison with the variant F85, (Table 5, Table 7, Table 9). Irrespective of the tillage treatments (MFA and FD), in general, the highest activity of the analysed enzymes was found in the soil under the maize crop (Table 5, Table 7, Table 9). The enzyme tests used proved to be good discriminators of the tested soil plots.

4. Discussion

The tillage system, mineral fertilization and appropriate choice of plants in crop rotation condition the formation of favourable biochemical properties of soil, which consequently affect its quality and fertility as well as agro-ecosystem productivity [44,45]. Such a system of relations was confirmed in the presented studies. The results showed that the physicochemical and biochemical parameters of the soils of the selected study plots varied according to MFA, FD and years of study. Surface application of fertilizers in reduced tillage system, where fertilizers remain on the field surface unmixed with soil, causes stratification of nutrients in the soil, which may affect proper plant nutrition and biomass production [46]. In addition, fertilizers spread in this way may be subject to surface run-off and pollute water bodies [47]. Deep fertilizer application in soil, which refers to precise application of fertilizer close to seeds or plant roots to ensure high nutrient availability, may be a more effective alternative to broadcast placement [17,48]. In the present study it was shown that subsurface application of NPKS fertilization increased the content of organic carbon and total nitrogen in the soil of all objects, but the increase was not statistically significant. There was also no effect of fertilization rate on the soil parameters in question. Similar results were obtained by Kraska et al. [6] analysing soil properties from soybean crops. The subsurface application of fertilizer significantly increased available phosphorus (P) content in the soil under soybean and winter wheat crops. Such a relationship was not observed in the soil of the maize plot. The higher level of mineral fertilization promoted an increase in the soil P content. According to Rychel et al. [49], deeply placed fertilizer is not exposed to greater downward mobility, probably due to smaller changes in soil moisture after rainfall at this depth. According to Hasan et al. [50], urea deep placement is a proven technology that reduces N losses by up to 50% when compared with the conventional broadcast application of urea. This fertilization method is primarily recommended in the no-tillage system [14,51,52]. The benefits of placing nitrogen deeper are likely to depend on the climate and soil type, but could be the next step in precision farming and environmentally sustainable farming [49].
In reduced tillage systems, compared to conventional tillage, there is a tendency towards higher acidity of the soil surface layer [6,53], which is due to the difference in the mineralization process of organic matter, concentration of nutrients, mainly nitrogen, and root secretions [54]. The use of balanced fertilizer application strategies, and rational crop rotations will relieve soil acidification under no-tillage [55]. Our study shows that surface application of fertilizer (S) significantly influenced the increase in soil pHKCl value within the plots with all crops grown in the crop rotation as compared to Sub-S application. Such a relationship was also observed by Kraska et al. [6]. Biomass production is generally associated with the uptake of more cationic than anionic nutrients by the plant root system, resulting in an increase in H+ concentration in the rhizosphere. Deep application of nutrients can promote soil acidification. A dose of a fertilizer also influences the pH of the soil. The mineral fertilizer applied at the double rate (170 kg NPKS) contributed to lowering of the pHKCl of the soil under winter wheat and maize. pH is a critical parameter that influences the bioavailability of many nutrients and toxic elements and the physiology of the roots and rhizosphere microorganisms [56].
There is a lack of information in the global literature on the effect of subsurface application of inorganic fertilizers on soil biochemical parameters in zero-tillage, especially enzymatic activity. In the present study, the activities of dehydrogenases, urease and acid and alkaline phosphatase were investigated. They play a critical role in organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus [57]. In addition, studying the activity of these enzymes can provide information on the metabolic or functional responses of soil to changes in farming practices [8,21,23,29,30,58,59,60]. The direction and intensity of the observed activity changes depended on the individual properties of the enzyme studied, their resistance to environmental stress factors, as well as the content of specific substrates for enzymatic reactions in the soil [61,62]. Reducing the intensity of soil tillage reduces the rate of mineralization of organic matter, which in turn has a positive effect on improving soil structure. Numerous studies [8,28,59,60] have shown that conservation tillage significantly stimulated the activity of soil microbes and enzymes.
The study showed that subsurface application of mineral fertilizer significantly stimulated the activity of dehydrogenases in the soil under winter wheat crop and acid phosphatase in the soil under all rotation plants. There was no significant effect of the multi-nutrient fertilizer application method on ADh and APhal in soil under soybean. The application of mineral fertilizer in the amount of 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 (F170) significantly increased ADh and AU activities in soil under winter wheat and maize crops, APhal in soil of the plots with all the studied crops and APhac in soil with soybean crop. Csitari and Hoffmann [63] showed higher dehydrogenase activity and microbial biomass under conditions of increased mineral fertilization. The increase in dehydrogenase activity in plots with higher fertilization could be due to a higher concentration of root secretions produced by the root system [61]. According to many authors [22,30,64], root secretions are an excellent source of nutrients for microorganisms, especially those living in the rhizosphere. However, it should be remembered that the effect of higher plants on soil enzymes depends on the chemical composition of the plant, which even in the case of root secretions alone may be different in different genera, species and even cultivars [23,65,66,67]. Dehydrogenases are sensitive indicators of changes in soil microbial activity analysis, as they are active only in living microbial cells [67,68]. Being intracellular enzymes, dehydrogenases are more sensitive to natural and anthropogenic stress factors than enzymes associated with soil colloids. The measurement of dehydrogenase activity using TTC, as a reducing substrate, reflects the activity of the entire microbial population of the soil environment [69]. Dehydrogenases are commonly found in organic matter-rich soils and they are regarded as good indicators of the respiratory metabolism of microbes [21,26,70]. Bielińska and Mocek-Płóciniak [22] and Harasim et al. [8] point to the usefulness of dehydrogenases for assessing changes in the soil environment under the influence of the tillage system. Gajda et al. [59,71] found an increase in the activity of enzymes, including dehydrogenases in soil under no-tillage under winter wheat, while Niewiadomska et al. [72] found this increase under spring wheat. On the other hand, Woźniak [73] noticed higher activities of dehydrogenases and phosphatase in the soil tilled in the investigated soils, the activity of acid phosphatase was significantly higher than that of alkaline phosphatase. Acid phosphatase, an enzyme with low substrate specificity, has the ability to hydrolyse many phosphate bonds of different molecular structures [74]. The supply of fertilizers to the soil can increase the microbial activity of the soil, while decreasing the activity of some enzymes [61]. By analysing the relationship between acid and alkaline phosphatase activity and the content of different forms of phosphorus (total, organic and available), Nahas [75] showed positive correlations only for total phosphorus and organic matter. Phosphatases have the ability to hydrolyse organic phosphorus compounds in excess of the plants’ phosphorus requirements and the limiting factor for their activity in soil is the availability of hydrolysable organic phosphorus. An excess of inorganic phosphorus in the soil may inhibit the synthesis of phosphatases [75].
Changes in soil enzymatic activity in the vegetation periods turned out to depend mainly on individual characteristics of the enzymes under study and the different reaction of enzymes to atmospheric conditions in the study years [61,76]. Enzymatic activity in soils depends on a number of factors, such as the content of organic matter, soil pH, the content of biogenic elements, and the quantity and diversity of microorganisms [22,77]. There was a significant correlation between the activity of dehydrogenases, acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase with the content of TOC, TN and bioavailable form of P. Moreover, the activity of APhac was positively correlated with pHKCl (Table 10). It proves that nutrients significantly stimulate the activity of soil enzymes. Numerous authors [59,61] have found that soil enzymatic activity depends on the TOC and TN content of the soil. The lack of correlation between urease activity and the soil parameters studied confirms the reports that urease is resistant to external factors and an increase in its activity is observed even in extreme conditions. The only factor limiting urease activity is the availability of the urea substrate, because as an extracellular enzyme, it is synthesized only in its presence [78]. Nannipieri et al. [74] report that urease participate in ammonification, during which ammonia is released from urea, amino acids, and purine bases.
The soil environment is a highly diverse system in terms of microorganisms. One essential microbial function in soils is the processing and recovery of key nutrients from detrital inputs and accumulated soil organic matter. This requires the activity of extracellular enzymes to process complex organic compounds into assimilable subunits (sugars, amino acids, NH4+, PO4+3). Ratios of various nutrient-processing enzyme activities can provide insight into how the soil community is responding physiologically to changes in the soil environment [79]. Soil microbial communities shift with tillage treatment and soil depth. In Mathew et al. [80] study, soil under the long-term no-till treatment had higher soil carbon and nitrogen contents and phosphatase activities at the 0–5 cm depth than that under the conventional tillage treatment. Differences between tillage treatments at the 5–15 cm depth were negligible with the exception of alkaline phosphatase activities. Tillage practice and soil depth were two important factors affecting soil microbial communities [80]. Therefore, subsurface application of mineral fertilizer can have a positive effect on increasing soil microbial diversity. Tabatabai et al. (1992) found that mineral fertilization can affect soil microorganisms and enzymes through higher crop yield, which in turn affects the amount of crop residue. Vetanovetz and Peterson [81] and Sawicka et al. [61] are of the opinion that mineral nitrogen fertilization increases the population of soil microorganisms and, thus, the biological activity of the soil, but only within certain limits for the optimal fertilization rate. However, further research is needed to determine the effect of changes induced by deep application of mineral fertilizer in reduced tillage on soil enzyme activity, which reflects soil microbial composition and dynamics.
Key strategies to improve nutrient efficiency should include optimal fertilization dose, time and method of application and the use of nutrients appropriate to crop species, varieties and genotypes [61]. As summarized by several reviews [17,82,83], the effectiveness of deep placement of fertilizers may be determined by factors including climatic condition, soil texture, tillage, fertilizing history, nutrient mobility, and crop species. However, further investigations are needed before deeper placement of fertilizer can be recommended as a sustainable farming practice as indicated by our study.

5. Conclusions

The method of application and rate of mineral fertilizer did not have a significant effect on the TOC and TN content in the soil of the plots with all rotational crops. However, subsurface application of fertilizer significantly increased available phosphorus (P) content in soil under soybean and winter wheat crops. Such a relationship was not observed in the soil under maize crop. The higher level of mineral fertilization promoted an increase in the soil P content. Surface application of fertilizer (S) significantly increased soil pHKCl values within sites with all crops in the rotation compared to subsurface application. Deep application of nutrients may promote soil acidification. The mineral fertilizer applied at the double rate (170 kg NPKS) contributed to a reduction of soil pHKCl under winter wheat and maize. Deep application of mineral fertilizer significantly stimulated dehydrogenase activity in the soil under the winter wheat crops and acid phosphatase (APhac) in the soil under all rotation crops. There was no significant effect of the method of application of a compound fertilizer on ADh and APhal in the soil under soybean crop. Application of mineral fertilizer in the amount of 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1 significantly increased ADh and AU activity in the soil under winter wheat and maize crops, APhal in the soil under all the studied crops and APhac in the soil under the soybean crops. As mentioned, there is a lack of information in the global scientific literature on the effect of subsurface application of fertilizer on the biochemical properties of soils. The assessment of soil quality is not easy due to the complexity of the soil environment and the variability of its conditions. The results of the present study have demonstrated a positive effect of subsurface application of compound mineral fertilizer on the soil biochemical parameters in reduced tillage. This may be a recommendation for the subsurface use of multicomponent mineral fertilizers in sustainable agriculture. However, a full objective characterization of the soil environment processes induced by in-depth application of mineral fertilizer in reduced tillage requires long-term monitoring.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy11112213/s1. Table S1. Chemical plant protection during the growing seasons.

Author Contributions

B.F., P.K., P.G. and S.A. conceptualized the research; P.K. and P.G. designed the research and performed the experiments; B.F., P.K., S.A., P.G. and M.J.-S. analyzed the data; B.F., P.K. and S.A. wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in this article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to give a special thanks to W. Gryn, who made it possible to conduct the field experiment.

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. United Nations. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  2. Lahmar, R. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: Lessons of the KASSA project. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wauters, E.; Bielders, C.; Poesen, J.; Govers, G.; Mathijs, E. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lal, R. Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 28, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fonteyne, S.; Martinez Gamiño, M.A.; Saldivia Tejeda, A.; Verhulst, N. Conservation Agriculture Improves Long-term Yield and Soil Quality in Irrigated Maize-oats Rotation. Agronomy 2019, 9, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Kraska, P.; Andruszczak, S.; Gierasimiuk, P.; Rusecki, H. The Effect of Subsurface Placement of Mineral Fertilizer on Some Soil Properties under Reduced Tillage Soybean Cultivation. Agronomy 2021, 11, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nouri, A.; Lee, J.; Yin, X.; Tyler, D.D.; Jagadamma, S.; Arelli, P. Soil physical properties and soybean yield as influenced by long-term tillage systems and cover cropping in the Midsouth USA. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Harasim, E.; Antonkiewicz, J.; Kwiatkowski, C.A. The effects of catch crops and tillage systems on selected physical properties and enzymatic activity of loess soil in a spring wheat monoculture. Agronomy 2020, 10, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. González-Sánchez, E.; Ordóñez-Fernández, R.; Carbonell-Bojollo, R.; Veroz-González, O.; Gil-Ribes, J. Meta-analysis on atmospheric carbon capture in Spain through the use of conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 122, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Haddaway, N.R.; Hedlund, K.; Jackson, L.E.; Kätterer, T.; Lugato, E.; Thomsen, I.K.; Jørgensen, H.B.; Isberg, P.E. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2017, 6, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Van den Putte, A.; Govers, G.; Diels, J.; Langhans, C.; Clymans, W.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Merckx, R.; Raes, D. Soil functioning and conservation tillage in the Belgian Loam Belt. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 103, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Messiga, A.J.; Ziadi, N.; Grant, C.; Morel, C.; Tremblay, G.; Lamarre, G.; Parent, L.E. Long term impact of tillage practices and biennial P and N fertilization on maize and soybean yields and soil P status. Field Crops Res. 2012, 133, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bian, D.; Jia, G.; Cai, L.; Ma, Z.; Eneji, A.E.; Cui, Y. Effects of tillage practices on root characteristics and root lodging resistance of maize. Field Crops Res. 2016, 185, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alam, M.K.; Bell, R.W.; Salahin, N.; Pathan, S.; Mondol, A.T.M.A.I.; Alam, M.J.; Rashid, M.H.; Paul, P.L.C.; Hossain, M.I.; Shil, N.C. Banding of Fertilizer Improves Phosphorus Acquisition and Yield of Zero Tillage Maize by Concentrating Phosphorus in Surface Soil. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Fageria, N.K. The Role of Plant Roots in Crop Production, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kelley, K.W.; Sweeney, D.W. Placement of preplant liquid nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer and nitrogen rate affects no-till wheat following different summer crops. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nkebiwe, P.M.; Weinmann, M.; Bar-Tal, A.; Muller, T. Fertilizer placement to improve crop nutrient acquisition and yield: A review and meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2016, 196, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fernández, F.G.; Schaefer, D. Assessment of Soil Phosphorus and Potassium following Real Time Kinematic-Guided Broadcast and Deep-Band Placement in Strip-Till and No-Till. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2012, 76, 1090–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Parry, M.L.; Rosenzweig, C.; Iglesias, A.; Livermore, M.; Fischer, G. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 2004, 14, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rodgers, H.R.; Norton, J.B.; van Diepen, L.T.A. Effects of Semiarid Wheat Agriculture Management Practices on Soil Microbial Properties: A Review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nannipieri, P.; Giagnoni, L.; Landi, L.; Renella, G. Role of phosphatase enzymes in soil. Soil Biol. 2011, 26, 215–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bielińska, E.J.; Mocek-Płóciniak, A. Impact of the tillage system on the soil enzymatic activity. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2012, 38, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kwiatkowski, C.A.; Harasim, E.; Feledyn-Szewczyk, B.; Antonkiewicz, J. Enzymatic Activity of Loess Soil in Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Agriculture 2020, 10, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Shukla, G.; Varma, A. (Eds.) Soil Enzymology. In Soil Biology; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2011; Volume 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gianfreda, L.; Rao, M.A. (Eds.) Enzymes in Agricultural Sciences; OMICS International: Hyderabad, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dick, W.A.; Cheng, L.; Wang, P. Soil acid alkaline phosphatase activity as pH adjustment indicators. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 1915–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Melero, S.; Panettieri, M.; Madejón, E.; Gómez Macpherson, H.; Moreno, F.; Murillo, J.M. Implementation of chiseling and mouldboard ploughing in soil after 8 years of no-till management in SW, Spain: Effect on soil quality. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 112, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Qin, S.; He, X.; Hu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, W. Response of soil chemical and microbial indicators to conservational tillage versus traditional tillage in the North China Plain. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2010, 46, 243–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Gascó, G.; Gutiérrez, B.; Méndez, A. Soil biochemical activities and the geometric mean of enzyme activities after application of sewage sludge and sewage sludge biochar to soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2012, 48, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Majchrzak, L.; Sawinska, Z.; Natywa, M.; Skrzypczak, G.; Głowicka-Wołoszyn, R. Impact of different tillage systems on soil dehydrogenase activity and spring wheat infection. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2016, 18, 1871–1881. [Google Scholar]
  31. Adetunji, A.T.; Lewu, F.B.; Mulidzi, R.; Ncube, B. The biological activities of β-glucosidase, phosphatase and urease as soil quality indicators: A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 17, 794–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. IUSS Working Group WRB. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. In World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Volume 106. [Google Scholar]
  33. European Commission. Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species, 28th ed.; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Descriptive List of Agricultural Plant Varieties 2020, Maize; Central Research Centre for Cultivar Testing: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2020; p. 58. ISSN 1641-7003.
  35. Stachowski, P. Assessment of meteorological droughts on the postmining areas in the Konin Region. Środkowo-Pomorskie Towarzystwo Naukowe Ochrony Środowiska. Rocz. Ochr. Środowiska 2010, 12, 587–606. [Google Scholar]
  36. Futa, B.; Oleszczuk, P.; Andruszczak, S.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E.; Kraska, P. Effect of natural aging of biochar on soil enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties in long-term field experiment. Agronomy 2020, 10, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. International Organization for Standardization. Soil Quality. Sampling; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  38. International Organization for Standardization. Soil Quality. Determination of pH; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. International Organization for Standardization. Soil Quality. Determination of Organic Carbon by Sulfochromic Oxidation; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  40. International Organization for Standardization. Soil Quality. Determination of Total Nitrogen Content by Dry Combustion; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  41. Polish Committee for Standardization. Polish Standard: The Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of the Soil—Determination of the Content of Assailable Phosphorus in Mineral Soils; Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schinner, F.; Ohlinger, R.; Kandeler, E.; Margesin, R. Methods in Soil Biology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dick, R.P. Methods of Soil Enzymology. In SSSA Book Series 9; Soil Science Society of America Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  44. Stavi, I.; Bel, G.; Zaady, E. Soil functions and ecosystem services in conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Gajda, A.; Czyż, E.; Ukalska-Jaruga, A. Comparison of the Effects of Different Crop Production Systems on Soil Physico-Chemical Properties and Microbial Activity under Winter Wheat. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mallarino, A.P.; Borges, R. Phosphorus and Potassium Distribution in Soil Following Long-Term Deep-Band Fertilization in Different Tillage Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 702–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fan, M.; Shen, J.; Yuan, L.; Jiang, R.; Chen, X.; Davies, W.J.; Zhang, F. Improving crop productivity and resource use efficiency to ensure food security and environmental quality in China. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yin, X.; Vyn, T.J. Residual effects of potassium placement and tillage systems for corn on subsequent no-till soybean. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 1112–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Rychel, K.; Meurer, K.H.E.; Börjesson, G.; Strömgren, M.; Getahun, G.T.; Kirchmann, H.; Kätterer, T. Deep N fertilizer placement mitigated N2O emissions in a Swedish field trial with cereals. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020, 118, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hasan, S.L.; Islam, M.R.; Sumon, M.H.; Huda, A. Deep placement of N fertilizers influences N use efficiency and yield of BRRI dhan29 under flooded condition. Asian J. Med. Biol. Res. 2016, 2, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barbieri, P.A.; Sainz Rozas, H.R.; Covacevich, F.; Echeverría, H.E. Phosphorus placement effects on phosphorous recovery efficiency and grain yield of wheat under no-tillage in the humid pampas of Argentina. Int. J. Agron. 2014, 2014, 507105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hansel, F.D.; Amado, T.J.C.; Ruiz Diaz, D.A.; Rosso, L.H.M.; Nicoloso, F.T.; Schorr, M. Phosphorus Fertilizer Placement and Tillage Affect Soybean Root Growth and Drought Tolerance. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 2936–2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Limousin, G.; Tessier, D. Effect of no-tillage on chemical gradients and topsoil acidification. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 92, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lilienfein, J.; Wilcke, W.; Vilela, L.; Lima, S.D.; Thomas, R.; Zech, W. Effect of no-tillage and conventional tillage systems on the chemical composition of soil. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. 2000, 163, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Miao, X.Y.; Stewart, B.A.; Zhang, F.S. Long-term experiments for sustainable nutrient management in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Hinsinger, P.; Plassard, C.; Tang, C.; Jaillard, B. Origins of root-mediated pH changes in the rhizosphere and their responses to environmental constraints: A review. Plant Soil 2003, 248, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Burns, R.G.; De Forest, J.L.; Marxsen, J.; Sinsabaugh, R.L.; Stromberger, M.E.; Wallenstein, M.D.; Weintraubg, M.N.; Zoppinih, A. Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 58, 216–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Acosta-Martínez, V.; Bell, C.W.; Morris, B.E.L.; Zak, J.; Allen, V.G. Long-term soil microbial community and enzyme activity responses to an integrated cropping-livestock system in a semi-arid region. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 137, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gajda, A.M.; Przewłoka, B.; Gawryjołek, K. Changes in soil quality associated with tillage system applied. Int. Agrophys. 2013, 27, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Saikia, R.; Sharma, S. Soil enzyme activity as affected by tillage and residue management. Practices under diverse cropping systems. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 1211–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sawicka, B.; Krochmal-Marczak, B.; Pszczółkowski, P.; Bielińska, E.J.; Wójcikowska-Kapusta, A.; Barbaś, P.; Skiba, D. Effect of Differentiated Nitrogen Fertilization on the Enzymatic Activity of the Soil for Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L. [Lam.]) Cultivation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Futa, B.; Tajchman, K.; Steiner-Bogdaszewska, Ż.; Drozd, L.; Gruszecki, T.M. Preliminary Results of Effect of Rotational Grazing of Farmed Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) on the Biochemical Status of Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Csitari, G.; Hoffmann, S. Comparative study on soil biological parameters at a long-term field experiment. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2005, 51, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bielińska, E.J.; Mocek, A.; Paul-Lis, M. Impact of tillage system cultivation on enzymatic activity of typologically diverse soils. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2008, 53, 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dahm, H. Generic composition and physiological and cultural properties of heterotrophic bacteria isolated from soil, rhizosphere and mycorrhizosphere of pine (Pinus silvestris L.). Acta Microbiol. Pol. 1984, 33, 147–156. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bielińska, E.J.; Futa, B.; Chmielewski, S.; Patkowski, K.; Gruszecki, T. Quantification of biodiversity related to the active protection of grassland habitats in the eastern Lublin region of Poland based on the activity of soil enzymes. Pol. J. Soil Sci. 2017, 50, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Błońska, E.; Lasota, J.; Zwydak, M. The relationship between soil properties, enzyme activity and land use. Leśne Prace Badaw. For. Res. Pap. 2017, 78, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gałązka, A.; Gawryjołek, K.; Perzyński, A.; Gałązka, R.; Księżak, J. Changes in Enzymatic Activities and Microbial Communities in Soil under Long-Term Maize Monoculture and Crop Rotation. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2017, 26, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Włodarczyk, T.; Stępniewski, W.; Brzezińska, M. Dehydrogenase activity, redox potential, and emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide from Cambisols under flooding conditions. Biol. Fert. Soils 2002, 36, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Piazza, G.; Pellegrino, E.; Moscatelli, M.C.; Ercoli, L. Long-term conservation tillage and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil aggregate distribution, nutrient stocks and enzymatic activities in bulk soil and occluded microaggregates. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 196, 104482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gajda, A.M.; Czyż, E.A.; Dexter, A.R.; Furtak, K.M.; Grządziel, J.; Stanek-Tarkowska, J. Effects of different soil management practices on soil properties and microbial diversity. Int. Agrophys. 2018, 32, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Niewiadomska, A.; Majchrzak, L.; Borowiak, K.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Waraczewska, Z.; Budka, A.; Gaj, R. The influence of tillage and cover cropping on soil microbial parameters and spring wheat physiology. Agronomy 2020, 10, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Woźniak, A. Chemical Properties and Enzyme Activity of Soil as Affected by Tillage System and Previous Crop. Agriculture 2019, 9, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nannipieri, P.; Ascher, J.; Ceccherini, M.T.; Landi, L.; Pietramellara, G.; Renella, G. Microbial diversity and soil functions. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2003, 54, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nahas, E. Microrganismos do solo produtores de fosfatases em diferentes sistemas agrícolas. Bragantia 2002, 61, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Acosta-Martinez, V.; Cano, A.; Johnson, J. Simultaneous determination of the activity of many soil enzymes for biogeochemical indicators of soil health. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 126, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Natywa, M.; Sawicka, A.; Wolna-Murawka, A. Microbial and enzymatic activity in the soil under maize crop in relation to differentiated nitrogen fertilisation. Water Environ. Rural Areas 2010, 10, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  78. Carbrera, M.L.; Kissel, D.L.; Bock, B.R. Urea hydrolysis in soil. Effect of urea concentration and soil pH. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 23, 1121–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Caldwell, B.A. Enzyme activities as a component of soil biodiversity: A review. Pedobiologia 2005, 49, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mathew, R.P.; Feng, Y.; Githinji, L.; Ankumah, R.; Balkcom, K.S. Impact of No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage Systems on Soil Microbial Communities. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 2012, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Vetanovetz, R.; Peterson, J. Effect of carbon source and nitrogen on urease activity in a sphagnum peat medium. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1992, 23, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ma, Q.; Rengel, Z.; Rose, T. The effectiveness of deep placement of fertilisers is determined by crop species and edaphic conditions in Mediterranean-type environments: A review. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2009, 47, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yuan, M.; Fernández, F.G.; Pittelkow, C.M.; Greer, K.D.; Schaefer, D. Soil and crop response to phosphorus and potassium management under conservation tillage. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 2302–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 02213 g001 550
Figure 1. Rainfall and air temperature as compared to the long-term mean figures (1974–2010) according to the Meteorological Station at Bezek.
Figure 1. Rainfall and air temperature as compared to the long-term mean figures (1974–2010) according to the Meteorological Station at Bezek.
Agronomy 11 02213 g001
Table
Table 1. Machinery and tools for tillage, pre-sowing fertilization and sowing of soybean, winter wheat and maize.
Table 1. Machinery and tools for tillage, pre-sowing fertilization and sowing of soybean, winter wheat and maize.
MFAMachinery and Tools Used
SAfter harvesting the pre-crop:TERRADISC 6001 T (6 m) (Pöttinger, Austria) + John Deere 8230 (USA)
Pre-winter cultivation (does not apply winter wheat):TERRADISC 6001 T (6 m) + John Deere 8230
Preparing the field for sowing (does not apply to maize):tiller SYNKRO 5030 K (5 m) (Pöttinger, Austria) + Case Magnum 280 (Case IH, USA)
Mineral fertilization:ZA TS 4200 (Amazone, Germany) + John Deere 8230
Sowing (does not apply to maize):tillage and sowing unit TERRASEM C6 (6 m) (Pöttinger, Austria) + John Deere 8230
Pre-sowing and sowing (does not apply to soybean and winter wheat):generator of our own design STRIPTILL + seeder Gaspardo Manta (Maschio Gaspardo, Italy) + Case Magnum 280
Sub-SAfter harvesting the pre-crop:TERRADISC 6001 T (6 m) + John Deere 8230
Pre-winter cultivation (does not apply winter wheat):TERRADISC 6001 T (6 m)+ John Deere 8230
Pre-sowing and sowing (does not apply to soybean and winter wheat):tiller Pöttinger SYNKRO 5030 K (5 m)+ Case Magnum 280
Sowing (does not apply to maize):tillage and sowing unit TERRASEM C6 (6 m) + John Deere 8230
Pre-sowing and sowing (does not apply to soybean and winter wheat):generator of our own design STRIPTILL + seeder Gaspardo Manta + Case Magnum 280
Table
Table 2. Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficients (k) during the growing seasons in the years of the experiment (2015–2017) according to the Meteorological Station at Bezek [6]. The Roman numerals from III to X represent the following months of the growing season: from March to October.
Table 2. Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficients (k) during the growing seasons in the years of the experiment (2015–2017) according to the Meteorological Station at Bezek [6]. The Roman numerals from III to X represent the following months of the growing season: from March to October.
IIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXX
2015k = 2.73
very humid		k = 1.47 optimal k= 4.75
extremely humid		k = 0.30
extremely dry		k = 0.70
very dry 		k = 0.10 extremely dryk = 1.90 rather humidk = 2.14
Humid
2016k = 4.49
extremely humid		k = 2.40 humidk = 1.23 rather dryk = 1.23
rather dry		k = 2.20 humidk = 0.94
dry		k = 0.24 extremely dryk = 5.89 extremely humid
2017k = 1.79
rather humid		k = 2.66
very humid		k = 1.67
rather humid		k = 0.50
very dry		k = 1.66 rather humidk = 0.65
very dry		k = 2.50
very humid		k = 3.97
extremely humid
Table
Table 3. Determination of the activity of soil enzymes.
Table 3. Determination of the activity of soil enzymes.
EnzymesECAcronymSubstrate NameProduct NameUnit Name
DehydrogensesEC 1.1ADh2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC)triphenyl formazane (TPF)mg TPF kg−1 DM 24 h−1
UreaseEC 3.5.1.5AUureaN-NH4+mg N-NH4+ kg−1 DM h−1
Alkaline PhosphataseEC 3.1.3.1APhalp-nitrophenyl phosphate disodiump-nitrophenol (PNP)mmol PNP kg−1 DM h−1
Acid PhosphataseEC 3.1.3.2APhac
Table
Table 4. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the chemical properties of soil in soybean plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
Table 4. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the chemical properties of soil in soybean plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
TreatmetFertilizer Dose (FD)pHKClTOCTNP
S F855.34 a14.42 a1.30 a17.88 a
F1705.40 b14.36 a1.28 a19.47 b
Sub-SF855.27 c14.57 a1.39 a19.26 c
F1705.37 d15.73 a1.43 a20.83 d
LSD0.050.005n.sn.s0.399
Mean for MFAS5.37 a14.39 a1.29 a18.68 a
Sub-S5.32 b15.15 a1.41 a20.05 b
LSD0.050.004n.sn.s0.728
Mean for FDF855.31 a14.50 a1.35 a18.57 a
F1705.39 b15.05 a1.36 a20.15 b
LSD0.050.004n.sn.s0.728
Years (Y) *20155.27 a11.83 a1.21 a17.76 a
20165.42 b13.65 b1.25 b19.31 b
20175.31 c18.71 c1.58 c21.03 c
LSD0.050.0112.9780.0490.407
* Regardless of the method of application and dose of fertilizer; S—Surface fertilizer application, Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer in a dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer in a dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; TOC—total organic carbon in g·kg−1; TN—total nitrogen in g·kg−1; P—available phosphorus in mg·kg−1; LSD0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05; n.s—not significant; different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil enzymatic activity of soybean plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
Table 5. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil enzymatic activity of soybean plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
TreatmetFertilizer Dose (FD)ADhAUAPhalAPhac
SF8511.45 a14.11 a50.96 a70.67 a
F1707.51 b13.83 b69.89 b98.50 b
Sub-SF8511.60 c14.17 c55.27 c128.74 c
F1709.19 d12.54 d65.57 d138.89 d
LSD0.052.0160.2392.2024.237
Mean for MFAS9.48 a13.97 a60.43 a86.84 a
Sub-S10.40 a13.36 b60.42 a133.82 b
LSD0.05n.s0.261n.s6.734
Mean for FDF8511.53 a14.14 a53.12 a99.71 a
F1708.35 b13.19 b67.73 b118.70 b
LSD0.051.4820.2614.2526.734
Years (Y) *201512.15 a13.85 a82.58 a94.80 a
20166.55 b15.06 b32.38 b98.23 b
201711.11 c12.08 c66.31 c134.57 c
LSD0.051.5800.1881.7263.321
* Regardless of the method of application and dose of fertilizer; S—Surface fertilizer application. Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer in a dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer in a dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; ADh—dehydrogenases in mg TPF kg−1·24 h−1; AU—urease in mg N-NH4+ kg−1·h−1; APhal and APhac—alkaline phosphatase and acid phosphatase in mmol PNP kg−1·h−1; LSD0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05; n.s—not significant; different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the chemical properties of soil in winter wheat plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
Table 6. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the chemical properties of soil in winter wheat plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
TreatmetFertilizer Dose (FD)pHKClTOCTNP
S F855.47 a12.22 a1.02 a22.04 a
F1705.32 b12.71 a1.04 a26.12 b
Sub-SF855.40 c13.08 a1.14 a30.23 c
F1705.29 d12.60 a1.09 a33.95 d
LSD0.050.009n.sn.s1.047
Mean for MFAS5.40 a12.47 a1.03 a24.08 a
Sub-S5.35 b12.84 a1.12 a32.09 b
LSD0.050.018n.sn.s2.536
Mean for FDF855.44 a12.65 a1.08 a26.14 a
F1705.31 b12.66 a1.07 a30.04 b
LSD0.050.018n.sn.s2.536
Years (Y) *20155.28 a11.22 a0.98 a21.54 a
20165.35 b12.48 b1.05 b27.82 b
20175.47 c14.36 c1.19 c34.91 c
LSD0.050.0061.660.0090.723
* Regardless of the method of application and dose of fertilizer; S—Surface fertilizer application, Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer in a dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer in a dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; TOC—total organic carbon in g·kg−1; TN—total nitrogen in g·kg−1; P—available phosphorus in mg·kg−1; LSD0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05; n.s—not significant; different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 7. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil enzymatic activity of winter wheat plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
Table 7. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil enzymatic activity of winter wheat plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
TreatmetFertilizer Dose (FD)ADhAUAPhalAPhac
SF853.08 a15.62 a57.14 a105.74 a
F17010.91 b18.47 b101.83 b86.48 b
Sub-SF856.98 c16.19 c67.60 c103.23 c
F17010.16 d16.49 d69.59 d103.04 d
LSD0.051.0270.3131.7305.249
Mean for MFAS7.00 a17.05 a79.49 a96.11 a
Sub-S8.95 b16.34 b68.60 b103.14 b
LSD0.051.0041.5294.3783.244
Mean for FDF855.03 a15.91 a62.37 a104.49 a
F17010.54 b17.48 b85.71 b94.76 b
LSD0.051.0041.5294.3783.244
Years (Y) *20156.97 a13.69 a65.71 a59.09 a
20165.66 b15.47 b45.69 b101.29 b
201710.72 c20.92 c110.73 c138.49 c
LSD0.050.8050.2461.3564.114
* Regardless of the method of application and dose of fertilizer; S—Surface fertilizer application. Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer in a dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer in a dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; ADh—dehydrogenases in mg TPF kg−1·24 h−1; AU—urease in mg N-NH4+ kg−1·h−1; APhal and APhac—alkaline phosphatase and acid phosphatase in mmol PNP kg−1·h−1; LSD0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05; different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 8. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the chemical properties of soil in maize plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
Table 8. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the chemical properties of soil in maize plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
TreatmetFertilizer Dose (FD)pHKClTOCTNP
S F855.51 a11.80 a1.09 a17.91 a
F1705.45 b11.71 a1.10 a18.83 b
Sub-SF855.40 c12.02 a1.18 a17.32 c
F1705.32 d11.91 a1.18 a18.08 c
LSD0.050.006n.sn.s0.146
Mean for MFAS5.48 a11.76 a1.10 a18.37 a
Sub-S5.43 b11.97 a1.18 a18.08 b
LSD0.050.008n.sn.s0.063
Mean for FDF855.46 a11.91 a1.14 a17.62 a
F1705.39 b11.81 a1.14 a18.46 b
LSD0.050.008nsns0.063
Years (Y) *20155.27 a10.14 a0.97 a17.60 a
20165.38 b12.12 b1.18 b17.48 b
20175.62 c13.47 c1.26 c19.03 c
LSD0.050.0041.0860.0720.215
* Regardless of the method of application and dose of fertilizer; S—Surface fertilizer application, Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer in a dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer in a dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; TOC—total organic carbon in g·kg−1; TN—total nitrogen in g·kg−1; P—available phosphorus in mg·kg−1; LSD0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05; n.s—not significant; different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 9. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil enzymatic activity of maize plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
Table 9. Effect of the interaction of the experimental factors on the soil enzymatic activity of maize plots (average values from 2015 to 2017).
TreatmetFertilizer Dose (FD)ADhAUAPhalAPhac
SF859.36 a15.82 a70.89 a102.30 a
F17013.42 b19.64 b100.01 b77.79 b
Sub-SF8510.01 c17.05 c67.68 c145.96 c
F17010.59 d16.56 d70.17 d134.11 d
LSD0.050.6210.3421.8994.769
Mean for MFAS11.39 a17.73 a85.45 a90.05 a
Sub-S10.30 b16.81 b68.93 b140.04 b
LSD0.050.0730.4820.9723.670
Mean for FDF859.69 a16.44 a69.29 a124.13 a
F17012.01 b18.10 b85.09 b105.95 b
LSD0.050.0730.4820.9723.670
Years (Y) *20158.68 a14.70 a57.58 a106.98 a
20164.18 b17.48 b36.45 b101.95 b
201719.68 c19.63 c137.57 c136.19 c
LSD0.050.4870.2681.4883.738
* Regardless of the method of application and dose of fertilizer; S—Surface fertilizer application. Sub-S—Subsurface fertilizer application; F85—fertilizer in a dose 85 kg NPKS∙ha−1; F170—fertilizer in a dose 170 kg NPKS∙ha−1; ADh—dehydrogenases in mg TPF kg−1·24 h−1; AU—urease in mg N-NH4+ kg−1·h−1; APhal and APhac—alkaline phosphatase and acid phosphatase in mmol PNP kg−1·h−1; LSD0.05—the lowest significant difference at p = 0.05; different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 10. Correlation coefficients between the activity of the examined enzymes and pHKCl and the content of organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and available phosphorus (P) form (n = 36).
Table 10. Correlation coefficients between the activity of the examined enzymes and pHKCl and the content of organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and available phosphorus (P) form (n = 36).
EnzymespHKClTOCTNP
Dehydrogenasesn.s.0.649 *0.691 *0.571 *
Ureasen.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Alkaline phosphatasesn.s.0.734 **0.696 **0.685 *
Acid phosphatases0.751 *0.718 **0.729 **0.597 **
** significant at α = 0.0001; * significant at α = 0.001; n.s = not significant at p > 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Futa, B.; Kraska, P.; Andruszczak, S.; Gierasimiuk, P.; Jaroszuk-Sierocińska, M. Impact of Subsurface Application of Compound Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Enzymatic Activity under Reduced Tillage. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112213

AMA Style

Futa B, Kraska P, Andruszczak S, Gierasimiuk P, Jaroszuk-Sierocińska M. Impact of Subsurface Application of Compound Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Enzymatic Activity under Reduced Tillage. Agronomy. 2021; 11(11):2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Futa, Barbara, Piotr Kraska, Sylwia Andruszczak, Paweł Gierasimiuk, and Monika Jaroszuk-Sierocińska. 2021. "Impact of Subsurface Application of Compound Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Enzymatic Activity under Reduced Tillage" Agronomy 11, no. 11: 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112213

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