Next Article in Journal
Response to Selection for Drought Tolerance in Algerian Maize Populations for Spanish Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of the Use of Diatomite-Based Mineral Sprinkles on the Content and Immobilization of Cadmium and Zinc from Poultry Litter
Previous Article in Journal
Fly High: Volatile Organic Compounds for the Early Detection of the Seed-Borne Pathogen Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Organic Manure Amendment Fortifies Soil Health by Enriching Beneficial Metabolites and Microorganisms and Suppressing Plant Pathogens
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/agronomy15020498
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Combined Application of Inorganic and Organic Materials over Two Years Improves Soil pH, Slightly Increases Soil Organic Carbon, and Enhances Crop Yields in Severely Acidic Red Soil

by
Xiaolin He
1,†,
Yan Wu
2,†,
Kailou Liu
2,*,
Jianhua Ji
3,
Chunhong Wu
4,
Jiwen Li
4,
Huijie Song
2,
Dandan Hu
2 and
Chunhuo Zhou
1,*
1
College of Land Resources and Environment, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
2
Jiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources, Nanchang 330046, China
3
Institute of Soil Fertilizer and Resource Environment, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang 330200, China
4
State Key Laboratory of Efficient Utilization of Arid and Semi-Arid Arable Land in Northern China, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2025, 15(2), 498; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020498
Submission received: 21 January 2025 / Revised: 14 February 2025 / Accepted: 18 February 2025 / Published: 19 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Circular Economy: Chemical, Microbiological and Environmental Implications of Mineral and Organic Fertilizers Use in Soils)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates the effects of various treatments on soil pH, SOC, and crop yield in red soil with a pH of 4.25 through a two-year field experiment, using a rapeseed and sesame cropping system. The treatments included the control (CK); lime (CaO) (L); fully fermented pig manure (M); a calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (P); lime and fully fermented pig manure (LM); lime and the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (LP); fully fermented pig manure and the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (MP); and lime, fully fermented pig manure, and the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (LMP). Then, the changes in yield, soil pH, and SOC were analyzed. The results showed that, among all treatments, the LMP treatment produced the highest yields for both rapeseed (93.62%) and sesame (45.10%); they increased by 93.62% and 45.10% compared with that for CK. Furthermore, these treatments with lime application increased the soil pH. During the rapeseed season, compared with CK, the soil pH values increased by 0.87, 0.75, 0.90, 1.03, 1.24, 1.18, and 1.45 units in the L, M, P, LM, LP, MP, and LMP treatments, respectively. Moreover, they increased by 0.66, 0.34, 0.51, 0.95, 0.82, 0.72, and 1.03 units, respectively, in the sesame season. Similarly, in terms of yield, the highest pH was observed in the LMP treatment for both the rapeseed and sesame seasons. In contrast to soil pH, the effects of these treatments on SOC were less pronounced. Furthermore, the relationship between soil pH and crop yields was significant (R2, p < 0.05). In addition, fitted equations indicated a higher yield response (5.17%) in rapeseed compared with that in sesame (2.32%), while soil pH increased by 0.1 unit. Therefore, the combined application of lime, composted pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate is an effective strategy to reduce soil acidification and improve crop yield in highly acidified red soils, with the increase in soil pH having a more substantial impact on crop yield than the increase in SOC.

1. Introduction

Soil acidification is the process by which hydrogen ions, either produced within the soil or introduced from external sources, deplete the soil’s acid-buffering capacity. This typically results in a decline in the soil pH and an increase in aluminum ions, which can lead to aluminum toxicity. While natural soil acidification is a slow process, with pH declining by only one unit over 2.29 million years [1], industrial activities since the 18th century, particularly in Europe and the United States, have accelerated this process. Atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition from industrialization have exacerbated soil acidification, causing the base cations to become depleted and leading to soil quality degradation [2].
Nowadays, soil acidification remains a widespread issue, particularly in developing countries such as China. Guo et al. [3] reported the significant acidification of agricultural soils in China from 1980 to 2000, with average soil pH declining by approximately 0.5 units, due to excessive nitrogen fertilizer application. This suggests that, by 2100, continued nitrogen application could lead to a loss of 37% of China’s inorganic carbon stock, with 30 million hectares (37.8%) of farmland potentially devoid of carbonates [4]. Consequently, soil acidification is a critical global issue, especially in agricultural soils.
Lime, due to its high alkalinity, is particularly effective at increasing soil pH in acidic soil and can improve crop yields because it not only promotes the activation of soil nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium by decreasing soil aluminum toxicity but also plays a key role in regulating the effects of nutrient enrichment on the diversity and versatility of soil microbial communities [5]. Furthermore, effective phosphorus fertilization is key in optimizing crop yield while reducing soil acidity [6]. Moreover, many studies have shown that different soil pH levels change the soil extracellular enzyme activity, with increases in Acidobacteria in soils with pH 5 and in actinobacteria in soils with pH 7 [7]. In a study on lime application over 12 years, slight re-acidification persisted in the 0–5 cm surface soil, while aluminum saturation in the 0–10 cm layer remained below 5% [8]. Thus, managing soil acidification is a long-term challenge requiring consistent efforts.
Unlike lime, organic fertilizers do not directly raise the soil pH but could help to mitigate acidification by increasing the soil organic carbon (SOC) and improving the pH-buffering capacity [9]. In acidic red soil, SOC increased from 8 g kg−1 to 16 g kg−1 and soil pH rose by an average of 0.04 units annually after 20 years of organic fertilizer application [9]. Long-term fertilization experiments in the red soil region have demonstrated that the combined application of chemical and organic fertilizers could increase SOC and improve the soil structure [10,11]. As soil pH decreases, the number of acidic cations (such as H+ and Al3+) increases, while the number of exchangeable base cations and the cation exchange capacity (CEC) decrease [12]. However, the application of an organic fertilizer was less effective at controlling acidification compared with the application of a combination of chemical fertilizers and alkaline amendments such as lime [9,13]. The effectiveness of organic fertilizers in alleviating soil acidification depends on the type of organic material and the duration of its application. A four-year field trial showed that green manure, straw, and mushroom composts had minimal effects on soil pH or base cation content [14].
Red soil, the dominant soil type in southern China, is vital for producing rice, subtropical economic trees, oilseeds, tea, fruits, and vegetables, playing an essential role in food security and the supply of agricultural products. However, due to atmospheric deposition, intensive land use, and improper fertilization, soil acidification in this region has accelerated over the past 30 years, with rates thousands of times faster than natural conditions [15]. If unmanaged, this trend will threaten agricultural production and regional ecological stability. Therefore, controlling soil acidification is a pressing issue. Inorganic amendments such as lime can rapidly raise soil pH, though they have little effect on SOC, while organic materials, such as composted pig manure, can substantially increase SOC but have minimal impact on pH. Thus, lime, when combined with organic fertilizers, can rapidly raise the soil pH, and the stabilizing effect of organic fertilizers allows for the elimination of soil acidity with minimal input [16]. However, whether such combinations can simultaneously enhance both soil pH and SOC remains uncertain. Therefore, this study focuses on red soils with a pH of less than 4.5, conducting field experiments with lime, composted pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate to examine the changes in soil pH and SOC over two cropping seasons. This study aims to identify the most effective inorganic–organic combinations and to explore the relationship between soil pH, SOC, and crop yield, providing valuable insights for improving yields in increasingly acidified red soil farmland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Description

This experiment was conducted at a site in Xiaojiang Village, Zhanggong Town, Jinxian County, Jiangxi Province of China (116°10′17.842″ E, 28°21′1.252″ N, Figure 1). The site is located in the central subtropical zone, with an average annual temperature of 18.1 °C; annual precipitation and evaporation of 1537 mm and 1150 mm, respectively; and a frost-free period of approximately 289 days. The red soil was classified as Ferralic Cambisol in World Soil Information (2015) by the FAO, which was derived from Quaternary red clay. Prior to the experiment, the soil had a pH of 4.25 and SOC content of 12.31 g kg−1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment included eight treatments: the control (CK); lime (CaO) (L); fully fermented pig manure (M); a calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (P); lime and fully fermented pig manure (LM); lime and the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (LP); fully fermented pig manure and the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (MP); and lime, fully fermented pig manure, and the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (LMP). Each treatment was repeated in three plots. Because red soil is relatively fragmented and the general field area in South China is small, most areas ranged in size from 300 to 1500 m2. Therefore, considering the experimental representative, one bigger field with an area of 1400 m2 (20 × 70 m) was used in this study; each plot was 40 m2 (5 × 8 m), and the plots were arranged in a randomized block design. The rates for each treatment are detailed in Table 1. Among all treatment, 105 kg hm−2 of nitrogen (N), 90 kg hm−2 of phosphorus (P2O5), and 120 kg hm−2 of potassium (K2O) were applied.. The lime (pH was 11.0, CaO content was 95%) was from Jiangxi Xilefujia powder Co., Ltd. of Nanchang, China. The fully fermented pig manure (pH was 7.3, N, P2O5 and K2O contents were 6.0 g kg−1, 4.5 g kg−1, and 5.0 g kg−1 of dry mass) was from Guoping pig factory of Nanchang, China. To be clear, the pig manure was treated with alkalization by adding materials such as plant ash. The calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer (pH was 7.0, CaO, SiO, MgO and P2O5 contents were 45%, 20%, 12% and 12.5%) was from Jianglin phosphate fertilizer Co., Ltd. of Nanchang, China. In treatments without the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer, diammonium phosphate (pH was 8, N and P2O5 contents were 16% and 45%. Jianglin phosphate fertilizer Co., Ltd., Nanchang, China) was used as the phosphorus source to ensure that the total nitrogen levels matched those provided by urea.
For treatments combining multiple materials, to avoid antagonism and nutrient loss between the materials, lime was applied first, followed by the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer 5–7 h later and the composted pig manure another 5–7 h after that to minimize interference and to maximize efficacy. Each material was applied to the surface manually and then mixed with 0–20 cm of soil by artificially turning the soil. According to local farmer patterns, urea and potassium chloride were applied in two parts—60% as a base fertilizer and 40% as a top-dressing—during the seedling stages of rapeseed and sesame. Because red soil is a potassium-deficient soil, to improve the utilization rate of the potassium fertilizer, farmers generally apply potassium fertilizer twice. When potassium chloride (K2O content was 16%, Sinochem Fertilizer Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) is applied as a top-dressing, it should be spread in the soil between the crop rows as far as possible and caution should be exercised to ensure that it is not spread onto the crop leaves to avoid damage to the leaves from the potassium chloride.
The crop rotation consisted of rapeseed (Gan Youza 906, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang, China) and sesame (Gan Zhi 10, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang, China). Rapeseed was planted on 3 October 2022, and harvested on 25 April 2023. Sesame was sown on 25 May 2023, and harvested on 20 October 2023. The management practices, including pest and disease control and water management, adhered to standard field practices.

2.3. Sample Collection and Measurement

At crop maturity, yields were measured for each plot by harvesting the grain of all plants. Then, the grains from every plot were dried and weighed. Soil samples were collected from three random points within each plot at a 0–20 cm depth for analysis. Three soil samples were thoroughly mixed to produce a single sample to ensure the reproducibility of results. The soil samples were air-dried at room temperature after removing the visible roots, stone fragments, and organic residues, and then, they were naturally air-dried and passed through a 2 mm sieve for the measurement of the soil pH and SOC. Soil pH was measured under the condition in which the soil–water ratio was 1:2.5 using a pH meter (PB-21, Sartorius, Gottingen, Germany) [17], while SOC content was measured using a wet oxidation method with K2Cr2O7 and concentrated H2SO4 [17].

2.4. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). All the data were normally distributed and met the conditions for statistical analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the significant differences in all treatments for the same crop season by SPSS 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A linear regression analysis was employed to evaluate the relationships between soil pH, SOC, and crop relative yield. Considering that absolute yield was easily affected by varieties and climate, this study used relative yield instead of absolute yield, which was the ratio of yield in each plot to the highest yield in all plots, in %. The figures were prepared using Origin 8.5 software (OriginLab Co., Northampton, MA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Inorganic and Organic Material Application on Crop Yield in Red Soil

The combination of inorganic and organic alkaline materials significantly enhanced rapeseed and sesame yields in the red soil region (Figure 2). Among the treatments, the highest rapeseed yields were recorded in the LMP, MP, and LP treatments, with increases of 93.62%, 91.11%, and 76.33%, respectively, compared with the control (CK). In contrast, the LM treatment did not differ significantly from CK. During the sesame season, the LMP, MP, LP, and LM treatments produced the highest yields, with increases of 45.10%, 33.33%, 35.29%, and 34.31%, respectively, compared with CK. For treatments with only lime (L), composted pig manure (M), or a phosphate fertilizer (P), significant yield increases were observed only in the P treatment, which improved rapeseed and sesame yields by 44.83% and 24.51%, respectively. The L and M treatments showed no significant differences from CK during either season.

3.2. Effects of Inorganic and Organic Material Application on Soil pH in Red Soil

Both single and combined application of inorganic and organic materials increased soil pH, with the combined treatments showing a greater effect than single application (Table 2). During the oilseed rape season, the soil pH increased by 0.87, 0.75, 0.90, 1.03, 1.24, 1.18, and 1.45 units under the L, M, P, LM, LP, MP, and LMP treatments, respectively, compared with CK. During the sesame season, the increases in soil pH were 0.66, 0.34, 0.51, 0.95, 0.82, 0.72, and 1.03 units, respectively. Compared with the oilseed rape season, the soil pH during the sesame season decreased across all treatments except CK, with reductions ranging from 0.01 to 0.39 units. The highest soil pH was observed under the LMP treatment during both seasons. During the oilseed rape season, the MP and LP treatments showed no significant difference from the LMP treatment. Similarly, during the sesame season, the LM, LP, L, and MP treatments did not differ significantly from the LMP treatment.

3.3. Effects of Inorganic and Organic Material Application on SOC in Red Soil

Unlike soil pH, the changes in SOC due to inorganic and organic material application were lower (Table 3). During the rapeseed season, SOC content showed slight increases of 2.97% to 9.88% under most treatments compared with that of CK, but the differences were not statistically significant except for the L, P and LP treatments. In contrast, significant SOC increases were observed during the sesame season after organic material application alone or in combination with inorganic materials. SOC content increased by 8.36%, 7.76%, 5.95%, and 8.63% under the M, LM, MP, and LMP treatments, respectively, with the LMP treatment showing the highest increase.

3.4. Correlation Between Soil pH, SOC, and Yield After Inorganic and Organic Material Application in Red Soil

In red soil regions, soil pH exhibited a significant positive correlation with relative crop yield for both rapeseed and sesame after the addition of inorganic and organic materials (p < 0.05), fitting a linear equation (Figure 3, Table 4). Moreover, in Table 4, for every 0.1 unit increase in soil pH, the relative yield of rapeseed increased by 5.17%, while the relative yield of sesame increased by 2.32%. In contrast, SOC did not show a significant correlation with relative yield.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Role of Inorganic and Organic Material Combinations in Enhancing Crop Yields via Soil Acid Reduction and Fertility Improvement in Red Soil

Lime and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizers are key alkaline materials that effectively improve soil acidity and support high crop yields in red soil regions (Figure 2, Table 2). Their primary mechanism lies in increasing alkaline ions, such as calcium and magnesium, to raise the soil pH [18,19]. However, their impact on fertility indicators such as SOC remains limited (Table 3). To simultaneously control soil acidity and enhance fertility, the combined application of lime, calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizers, and organic fertilizers has emerged as an effective strategy.
This study demonstrated that the combination of lime, a calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer, and composted pig manure significantly increased rapeseed and sesame yields by improving both soil pH and SOC (Figure 2, Table 2 and Table 3). Conversely, the individual application of these materials failed to achieve these synergistic benefits. These findings align with those of prior studies [20,21,22], which highlight the added benefits of nutrients such as magnesium and phosphorus provided by the calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer, and organic carbon provided by the composted pig manure. Additionally, these materials promote the activation of soil nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium by improving the soil pH and SOC [23,24]. Improved pH and SOC also indirectly enhance crop root growth by fostering beneficial soil microbial communities, thereby improving nutrient uptake and boosting yields [25,26,27]. In addition, pig manure, are not only a source of soil carbon but also a source of humic compounds and phonolic compounds, which significantly affect the microbiological activity of soils and the availability of nutrients. In addition, they stimulate plant roots to grow more intensively, hence the beneficial effect of organic fertilizers on plant yield [9].
The yield increases were more pronounced during the rapeseed season than during the sesame season (Figure 2), likely due to rapeseed’s greater sensitivity to soil acidification [28]. Sesame, being more tolerant of acidic conditions [29], showed a relatively lower yield response. Therefore, for acidification improvement in red soil, acid control can achieve high yields for rapeseed. However, due to variable initial pH and physicochemical properties of the acid soil [30], the quantity and duration of amendment, as well as crop varieties [23,31], notable differences were seen in the yield increases under the lime, calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer, and composted pig manure treatment compared with other studies. Another concern was the phenomenon of soil re-acidification following lime application [32]. Improper practices, such as mixing lime with organic fertilizers, could diminish the effectiveness of organic inputs. Hence, the frequency and methods of application for lime and other alkaline materials need to be further investigated.

4.2. Soil Acidification and Crop Yield Relationships Under Combined Inorganic and Organic Application

The combined use of lime, a calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer, and composted pig manure effectively reduced soil acidity, improved fertility, and enhanced yields in red soils. Numerous studies confirmed a strong relationship between soil pH, SOC, and crop yields under these improvement measures [33,34,35]. This study similarly found a significant positive correlation between soil pH and relative crop yields for both rapeseed and sesame (Figure 3), consistent with the findings from previous research [35]. The results showed that for every 0.1-unit increase in soil pH, rapeseed yields rose by 5.17%, while sesame yields increased by 2.32% (Table 4).
However, a higher soil pH does not always equate to better yields [36]. Determining the optimal pH range for specific crops in red soil drylands requires further investigation. Differences in yield responses also depend on varying acidification levels and soil pH conditions [36]. Therefore, tailored approaches are necessary to optimize soil pH adjustment strategies for different crop types and soil conditions.
Unlike soil pH, SOC did not show a significant correlation with crop yield in this study, diverging from most findings [37,38]. This discrepancy may stem from the limited increase in SOC observed here, with values ranging from 12.60 to 13.84 g kg−1 during the rapeseed season and from 12.55 to 13.76 g kg−1 during the sesame season. The modest variation in SOC likely obscured its relationship with yields. Furthermore, while soil pH improves rapidly, SOC enhancement in red soils requires longer time frames [37,39]. Thus, the relatively small SOC gains (2.97–9.88%) in this study had a weaker impact on yield compared with those for soil pH changes.

5. Conclusions

In red soil regions, the combined application of inorganic and organic materials, particularly lime, calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer, and composted pig manure, significantly improved the yields for rapeseed and sesame. The highest yield increases of 93.62% and 45.10% for rapeseed and sesame were achieved with this combination. The treatment also elevated soil pH, with increases of 1.45 and 1.03 units during the rapeseed and sesame seasons, respectively. However, the impact on SOC was relatively modest compared with that for soil pH. The linear regression analysis revealed that a 0.1-unit increase in soil pH led to relative yield improvements of 5.17% for rapeseed and 2.32% for sesame.

Author Contributions

X.H.: writing—original draft; Y.W.: writing—original draft and methodology; K.L.: resources, writing—review and editing, and funding acquisition; J.J.: data curation and methodology; C.W.: formal analysis and methodology; J.L.: formal analysis and methodology; H.S.: investigation and methodology; D.H.: investigation and methodology; C.Z.: writing—review and editing, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFD1900205-04) and is part of a project by the Jiangxi Province Key Research and Development Plan to “select the best candidates to undertake key research projects” (20223BBF61020).

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, X.; He, C.; Liu, W.; Liu, W.; Liu, Q.; Bai, W.; Li, L.; Lal, R.; Zhang, H. Responses of Soil pH to No-till and the Factors Affecting It: A Global Meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dalton, R.M.; Miller, J.N.; Greaver, T.; Sabo, R.D.; Austin, K.G.; Phelan, J.N.; Thomas, R.Q.; Clark, C.M. Regional Variation in Growth and Survival Responses to Atmospheric Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition for 140 Tree Species Across the United States. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2024, 7, 1426644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Guo, J.H.; Liu, X.J.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, J.L.; Han, W.X.; Zhang, W.F.; Christie, P.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Vitousek, P.M.; Zhang, F.S. Significant Acidification in Major Chinese Croplands. Science 2010, 327, 1008–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Raza, S.; Miao, N.; Wang, P.; Ju, X.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. Dramatic Loss of Inorganic Carbon by Nitrogen-induced Soil Acidification in Chinese Croplands. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 3738–3751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Barcelos, J.P.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, A.R.; Bargiela, R.; Mariano, E.; Gloyshina, O.V.; Jones, D.L.; Rosolem, C.A. Lime, Gypsum, and Nitrogen as Drivers to Increase the Abundance of Soil Fungi and N-cycling Microorganisms in Integrated Agricultural Systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2024, 202, 105549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Holland, J.E.; White, P.J.; Glendining, M.J.; Goulding, K.W.T.; McGrath, S.P. Yield Responses of Arable Crops to Liming–An Evaluation of Relationships Between Yields and Soil pH From a Long-term Liming Experiment. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 105, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Puissant, J.; Jones, B.; Goodall, T.; Mang, D.; Blaud, A.; Gweon, H.S.; Ashish Malik, A.; Jones, D.L.; Clark, I.M.; Hirsch, P.R.; et al. The pH Optimum of Soil Exoenzymes Adapt to Long term Changes in Soil pH. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2019, 138, 107601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bossolani, J.W.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Mariano, E.; Fonseca, M.; Moretti, L.G.; Momesso, L.; Portugal, J.; Costa, N.R.; Calonego, J.C.; Kuramae, E.E. Long Term Co-application of Lime and Phosphogypsum Increases 15 N Recovery and Reduces 15 N Losses by Modulating Soil Nutrient Availability, Crop Growth and N Cycle Genes. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 149, 126907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sądej, W.; Żołnowski, A.C.; Marczuk, O. Content of Phenolic Compounds in Soils Originating From Two Long-term Fertilization Experiments. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2016, 42, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. 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]
  11. Guo, Z.; Zhang, J.; Fan, J.; Yang, X.; Yi, Y.; Han, X.; Wang, D.; Zhu, P.; Peng, X. Does Animal Manure Application Improve Soil Aggregation? Insights From Nine Long-term Fertilization Experiments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1029–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lotse Tedontsah, V.P.; Mbog, M.B.; Bitom-Mamdem, L.; Ngon Ngon, G.F.; Edzoa, R.C.; Tassongwa, B.; Bitom, D.; Etame, J. Spatial Distribution and Evolution of pH as a Function of Cation Exchange Capacity, Sum of Exchangeable Bases, and Organic Matter and Aluminum in the Soils of Foumban. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2023, 1, 5172804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mustafa, A.; Xu, H.; Shah, S.A.A.; Abrar, M.M.; Maitlo, A.A.; Kubar, K.A.; Saeed, Q.; Kamran, M.; Naveed, M.; Wang, B.; et al. Long-term Fertilization Alters Chemical Composition and Stability of Aggregate-associated Organic Carbon in a Chinese Red Soil: Evidence from aggregate fractionation, C mineralization, and 13 C NMR analyses. J. Soils Sediments 2021, 21, 2483–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mi, W.; Sun, Y.; Xia, S.; Zhao, H.; Mi, W.; Brookes, P.C.; Liu, Y.; Wu, L. Effect of Inorganic Fertilizers with Organic Amendments on Soil Chemical Properties and Rice Yield in a Low-productivity Paddy Soil. Geoderma 2018, 320, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yu, Z.; Chen, H.Y.; Searle, E.B.; Sardans, J.; Ciais, P.; Peñuelas, J.; Huang, Z. Whole Soil Acidification and Base Cation Reduction Across Subtropical China. Geoderma 2020, 361, 114107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Iticha, B.; Mosley, L.M.; Marschner, P. Combining Lime and Organic Amendments Based on Titratable Alkalinity for Efficient Amelioration of Acidic Soils. Soil 2024, 10, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lu, R.K. Soil and Agro-Chemical Analytical Methods; China Agricultural Science and Technology Press: Beijing, China, 1999; pp. 146–195. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cahyono, P.; Loekito, S.; Wiharso, D.; Afand; Rahmat, A.; Nishimura, N.; Noda, K.; Masateru, S. Influence of Liming on Soil Chemical Properties and Plant Growth of Pineapple (Ananas comusus L. Merr.) on Red Acid Soil, Lampung, Indonesia. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2797–2803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Holland, J.E.; White, R.; Haefele, S.M.; Goulding, K.W.T.; McGrath, S.P.; Glendining, M.J. Long-term Effects of Lime and Phosphorus Application on Soil Extractable (Olsen) Phosphorus Differ Between Two Arable UK Soils. Soil Use Manage. 2024, 40, e13160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chalmers, A.G. A Review of Fertilizer, Lime and Organic Manure Use on Farm Crops in Great Britain From 1983 to 1987. Soil Use Manage. 2001, 17, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Whalen, J.K.; Chang, C.; Clayton, G.W. Cattle Manure and Lime Amendments to Improve Crop Production of Acidic Soils in Northern Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2002, 82, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, J.; Yang, X.; Huang, S.; Wu, L.; Cai, Z.; Xu, M. Long-term Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers Increases Crop Yield Sustainability by Improving Soil Fertility in Maize-wheat Croping Systems. J. Integr. Agric. 2025, 24, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haynes, R.J.; Naidu, R. Influence of Lime, Fertilizer and Manure Applications on Soil Organic Matter Content and Soil Physical Conditions: A Review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998, 51, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Islam, M.R.; Talukder, M.M.H.; Hoque, M.A.; Uddin, S.; Hoque, T.S.; Rea, R.S.; Alorabi, M.; Gaber, A.; Kasim, S. Lime and Manure Amendment Improve Soil Fertility, Productivity and Nutrient Uptake of Rice-mustard-rice Cropping Pattern in an Acidic Terrace Soil. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, J.; Cooper, J.M.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhao, B. Soil Microbial Community Structure and Function Are Significantly Affected by Long-term Organic and Mineral Fertilization Regimes in the North China Plain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015, 96, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Das, P.P.; Singh, K.R.; Nagpure, G.; Mansoori, A.; Singh, R.P.; Ghazi, I.A.; Kumar, A.; Singh, J. Plant-soil-microbes: A Tripartite Interaction for Nutrient Acquisition and Better Plant Growth for Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Environ. Res. 2022, 214, 113821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Agegnehu, G.; Nelson, P.N.; Bird, M.I. Crop Yield, Plant Nutrient Uptake and Soil Physicochemical Properties under Organic Soil Amendments and Nitrogen Fertilization on Nitisols. Soil Till. Res. 2016, 160, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ran, W.; Xu, F.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, J.; Sun, M.; Wang, C.; Ding, G. Development of Acid-resistant Seed Pelletization Formula and Its Effects on Improving Rapeseed Growth in Acidic Soil. Plant Soil 2024, 504, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Su, R.; Zhou, R.; Mmadi, M.A.; Li, D.; Qin, L.; Liu, A.; Wang, J.; Gao, Y.; Wei, M.; Shi, L.; et al. Root Diversity in Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.): Insights into the Morphological, Anatomical and Gene Expression Profiles. Planta 2019, 250, 1461–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Daba, N.A.; Li, D.; Huang, J.; Han, T.; Zhang, L.; Ali, S.; Khan, M.N.; Du, J.; Liu, S.; Legesse, T.G.; et al. Long-term Fertilization and Lime-induced Soil pH Changes Affect Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Grain Yields in Acidic Soil under Wheat-maize Rotation. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, H.; Wang, B.; Xu, M. Effects of Inorganic Fertilizer Inputs on Grain Yields and Soil Properties in a Long-term Wheat-corn Cropping System in South China. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2008, 39, 1583–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. de Vargas, J.P.; dos Santos, D.R.; Bastos, M.C.; Schaefer, G.; Parisi, P.B. Application Forms and Types of Soil Acidity Corrective: Changes in Depth Chemical Attributes in Long Term Period Experiment. Soil Till. Res. 2019, 185, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ghimire, R.; Machado, S.; Bista, P. Soil pH, Soil Organic Matter, and Crop Yields in Winter Wheat–summer Fallow Systems. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 706–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chahal, I.; Hooker, D.C.; Deen, B.; Janovicek, K.; Van Eerd, L.L. Long-term Effects of Crop Rotation, Tillage, and Fertilizer Nitrogen on Soil Health Indicators and Crop Productivity in a Temperate Climate. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 213, 105121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Aula, L.; Omara, P.; Dhillon, J.S.; Fornah, A.; Raun, W.R. Influence of Applied Cattle Manure on Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Grain Yield, Soil pH and Soil Organic Carbon. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2056–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Du, L.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, C.; Yang, H.; Zhang, W. Heterogeneous Impact of Soil Acidification on Crop Yield Reduction and Its Regulatory Variables: A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2024, 319, 109643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tong, X.; Xu, M.; Wang, X.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Zhang, W.; Cong, R. Long-term Fertilization Effects on Organic Carbon Fractions in a Red Soil of China. Catena 2014, 113, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Couëdel, A.; Falconnier, G.N.; Adam, M.; Cardinael, R.; Boote, K.; Justes, E.; Smith, W.N.; Whitbread, A.M.; Affholder, F.; Balkovic, J.; et al. Long-term Soil Organic Carbon and Crop Yield Feedbacks Differ Between 16 Soil-crop Models in Sub-Saharan Africa. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 155, 127109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mustafa, A.; Xu, M.; Shah, S.A.A.; Abrar, M.M.; Sun, N.; Wang, B.R.; Cai, Z.J.; Saeed, Q.; Naveed, M.; Mehmood, K.; et al. Soil Aggregation and Soil Aggregate Sstability Regulate Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Storage in a Red Soil of Southern China. J. Environ. Manage. 2020, 270, 110894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00498 g001
Figure 1. The location of the experimental site.
Figure 1. The location of the experimental site.
Agronomy 15 00498 g001
Agronomy 15 00498 g002
Figure 2. Changes in rapeseed and sesame yields with single and combined application of inorganic and organic materials. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same crop season (p < 0.05). CK: control; L: lime; M: fully fermented pig manure; P: calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LM: lime and fully fermented pig manure; LP: lime and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; MP: fully fermented pig manure and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LMP: lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer.
Figure 2. Changes in rapeseed and sesame yields with single and combined application of inorganic and organic materials. Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same crop season (p < 0.05). CK: control; L: lime; M: fully fermented pig manure; P: calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LM: lime and fully fermented pig manure; LP: lime and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; MP: fully fermented pig manure and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LMP: lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer.
Agronomy 15 00498 g002
Agronomy 15 00498 g003
Figure 3. Correlation between relative yield and soil pH and SOC.
Figure 3. Correlation between relative yield and soil pH and SOC.
Agronomy 15 00498 g003
Table 1. Quantities of lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate across all treatments.
Table 1. Quantities of lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate across all treatments.
TreatmentsLime
(kg hm−2)		Fully Fermented Pig Manure
(kg hm−2)		Calcium–Magnesium–Phosphate
(kg hm−2)
CK000
L112500
M015000
P00750
LM112515000
LP11250750
MP01500750
LMP11251500750
Note: CK: control; L: lime; M: fully fermented pig manure; P: calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LM: lime and fully fermented pig manure; LP: lime and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; MP: fully fermented pig manure and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LMP: lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer.
Table 2. Changes in soil pH following the application of inorganic and organic materials, both individually and in combination.
Table 2. Changes in soil pH following the application of inorganic and organic materials, both individually and in combination.
TreatmentsSoil pH
RapeseedSesame
CK4.18 ± 0.10e4.25 ± 0.09d
L5.05 ± 0.10d4.91 ± 0.16abc
M4.93 ± 0.15d4.59 ± 0.35cd
P5.07 ± 0.04cd4.76 ± 0.20bc
LM5.21 ± 0.03bcd5.20 ± 0.51ab
LP5.42 ± 0.11ab5.07 ± 0.08abc
MP5.36 ± 0.14abc4.97 ± 0.10abc
LMP5.63 ± 0.35a5.28 ± 0.09a
Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same crop season (p < 0.05). CK: control; L: lime; M: fully fermented pig manure; P: calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LM: lime and fully fermented pig manure; LP: lime and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; MP: fully fermented pig manure and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LMP: lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer.
Table 3. Changes in SOC following the application of inorganic and organic materials, both individually and in combination.
Table 3. Changes in SOC following the application of inorganic and organic materials, both individually and in combination.
TreatmentsSOC (g kg−1)
RapeseedSesame
CK12.60 ± 1.16a12.67 ± 0.19c
L12.64 ± 1.08a12.55 ± 0.21c
M13.84 ± 0.65a13.73 ± 0.33a
P13.06 ± 1.34a12.90 ± 0.48bc
LM13.82 ± 0.60a13.65 ± 0.39a
LP12.05 ± 0.90a12.75 ± 0.48bc
MP12.97 ± 1.06a13.42 ± 0.27ab
LMP13.37 ± 0.33a13.76 ± 0.40a
Note: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same crop season (p < 0.05). CK: control; L: lime; M: fully fermented pig manure; P: calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LM: lime and fully fermented pig manure; LP: lime and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; MP: fully fermented pig manure and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer; LMP: lime, fully fermented pig manure, and calcium–magnesium–phosphate fertilizer.
Table 4. Fitted equations relating relative yield with soil pH and SOC.
Table 4. Fitted equations relating relative yield with soil pH and SOC.
IndexesCropsInterceptSlopeR2p
Soil pHRapeseed−192.4251.680.80210.0016
Sesame−31.4023.210.75230.0033
SOCRapeseed16.985.15−0.15020.7793
Sesame14.725.00−0.10370.5799
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

He, X.; Wu, Y.; Liu, K.; Ji, J.; Wu, C.; Li, J.; Song, H.; Hu, D.; Zhou, C. The Combined Application of Inorganic and Organic Materials over Two Years Improves Soil pH, Slightly Increases Soil Organic Carbon, and Enhances Crop Yields in Severely Acidic Red Soil. Agronomy 2025, 15, 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020498

AMA Style

He X, Wu Y, Liu K, Ji J, Wu C, Li J, Song H, Hu D, Zhou C. The Combined Application of Inorganic and Organic Materials over Two Years Improves Soil pH, Slightly Increases Soil Organic Carbon, and Enhances Crop Yields in Severely Acidic Red Soil. Agronomy. 2025; 15(2):498. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020498

Chicago/Turabian Style

He, Xiaolin, Yan Wu, Kailou Liu, Jianhua Ji, Chunhong Wu, Jiwen Li, Huijie Song, Dandan Hu, and Chunhuo Zhou. 2025. "The Combined Application of Inorganic and Organic Materials over Two Years Improves Soil pH, Slightly Increases Soil Organic Carbon, and Enhances Crop Yields in Severely Acidic Red Soil" Agronomy 15, no. 2: 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020498

APA Style

He, X., Wu, Y., Liu, K., Ji, J., Wu, C., Li, J., Song, H., Hu, D., & Zhou, C. (2025). The Combined Application of Inorganic and Organic Materials over Two Years Improves Soil pH, Slightly Increases Soil Organic Carbon, and Enhances Crop Yields in Severely Acidic Red Soil. Agronomy, 15(2), 498. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020498

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