Next Article in Journal
Screening of Pre- and Post-Emergence Herbicides for Weed Control in Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Split Nitrogen Application on the Transport of Residue-Derived Carbon in Different Carbon Pools in Black Soil
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change Scenarios on Maize Yield and Irrigation Water Using the CropSyst Model: An Application in Northern Greece
Previous Article in Special Issue
Potential of Manure and Urea Fertilizer on Maize (Zea mays L.) Productivity and Soil Quality in the Northern Highlands of Tanzania
 
 
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 3
10.3390/agronomy15030639
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

Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substitution for Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Fertility, Yield, and Quality of Muskmelons

by
Zhanlonggang Yu
1,
Bing Guo
1,
Tao Sun
1,
Ran Li
1,
Zichao Zhao
1,2,* and
Li Yao
1,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Nutrient Use and Management, Key Laboratory of Wastes Matrix Utilization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, China
2
Yellow River Delta Modern Agriculture Research Institute, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dongying 257091, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(3), 639; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030639
Submission received: 20 January 2025 / Revised: 27 February 2025 / Accepted: 1 March 2025 / Published: 3 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Organic Amendments in Agricultural Production—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The excessive use of chemical fertilizers has resulted in a decline in soil quality, crop yield, and crop quality. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers is a sustainable practice that can alleviate these issues. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of partial organic substitution on muskmelon yield, quality, soil fertility, and economic benefits remains unclear. We conducted a greenhouse experiment with muskmelon production in Shandong, China, involving five treatments: no fertilization (CK); total chemical fertilizer (CON); only replacing base fertilizer with organic fertilizer (OPT); 15% (OF15) and 30% (OF30) organic substitution of chemical fertilizers based on optimized fertilization. Our results indicated that the partial organic substitution treatments (OF15 and OF30) improved yield by 5.60–11.9% compared to CON. Furthermore, the Vitamin C, soluble protein, and sugar content in muskmelon were higher in the OF15 and OF30 treatments than in the CON. Compared to the CON, organic substitution treatments significantly increased soil organic matter, total N, total K, alkaline-hydrolyzable, available P, and available K. Additionally, the economic benefit analysis revealed that OF15 and OF30 increased net benefits by 5.60–14.9% respectively, compared to CON. Collectively, these findings suggest that partial substitution of mineral fertilizer with organic fertilizer improves muskmelon productivity, enhances soil nutrients, and increases economic benefits.

1. Introduction

Muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) is an economically significant crop on a global scale [1]. In China, Shandong Province has been the leading producer of muskmelon since 2018, with an annual output of 2 million tons, accounting for 15.4% of the country’s total production [2]. To increase profits, farmers have progressively overutilized chemical fertilizers. In recent decades, fertilizers have played a crucial role in global food security by meeting the demands of a growing population [3]. The muskmelon is a nutrient-demanding crop, particularly sensitive to macronutrients, which significantly influence both its yield and quality. However, the prevalent practice of indiscriminate and excessive application of fertilizers has led to a decline in production efficiency, a deterioration in fruit quality, a reduction in fertilizer utilization rates, and an exacerbation of environmental pollution [4]. Therefore, such an unsustainable production practice cannot be considered a viable approach for sustainable agricultural development [5].
Meanwhile, the utilization of organic waste, including livestock manure, municipal sludge, and agricultural by-products, remains a challenging issue [6,7]. Therefore, the aforementioned waste is processed into organic fertilizer and utilized in agricultural production, which not only enhances resource utilization but also reduces the disadvantages of long-term chemical fertilizer application [8,9]. In this context, the combination of inorganic and organic fertilization is emerging as a promising strategy for advancing sustainable agriculture [10,11].
Numerous studies have demonstrated that the integrated application of inorganic and organic fertilizers is an effective method for enhancing crop yields [12,13,14]. Recent research has identified the combination of chemical fertilizers and manure as the optimal approach for improving both crop productivity and carbon storage [15]. Furthermore, another study found that the increase in yield associated with long-term organic fertilizer substitution treatments can be primarily attributed to enhancements in soil nutrients and microbial communities [14]. Additionally, the application of organic fertilizers positively impacts crop quality, resulting in higher accumulations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) in the leaves, sheaths, panicles, and seeds of rice [16]. Compared to conventional inorganic fertilizers, the nutritional composition of fruits is also enhanced through the use of organic fertilizers [17]. Overall, the increases in yield and quality resulting from organic fertilizer application are mainly due to improvements in soil nutrient levels and microbial activity.
The substitution of mineral fertilizers with organic fertilizers positively affects soil physicochemical and biological properties [18,19]. Organic fertilizers, such as compost and manure, are rich in humus, nutrients, and microorganisms [20]. Their application can directly enhance soil organic carbon, improve soil porosity, and increase the availability of nutrients, including available nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK). Consequently, these improvements can lead to increased crop yield and enhanced soil fertility [21,22,23]. Nevertheless, studies have shown that partial substitution with organic fertilizers (75%) and complete substitution (100%) may result in reduced crop yield due to insufficient availability of mineral nitrogen, thereby diminishing net economic benefits [24]. A field experiment involving the application of rabbit manure and vermicompost demonstrated that substituting manure was beneficial for soil microbial activity and soil organic carbon (SOC) content in the sweet corn system [25]. These studies indicate that both the type of organic fertilizer and its substitution ratio play a significant role in determining crop yield and soil fertility. Therefore, selecting appropriate types of organic fertilizers and optimal substitution ratios tailored to specific crops is essential for achieving higher agricultural productivity while maintaining soil fertility [26,27].
Numerous studies have examined the effects of replacing mineral fertilizers with organic fertilizers on grain yield and soil nutrient levels. However, there is a paucity of research regarding the impact of substituting mineral fertilizers with organic fertilizers on the quality and profitability of muskmelon production. This study is based on a field experiment conducted in a typical greenhouse setting, aiming to explore the following topics: (i) the effects of partial organic substitution on muskmelon yield and quality, (ii) the effects of partial organic substitution on soil nutrients, and (iii) the effects of partial organic substitution on economic benefits, so as to provide valuable insights for development nutrient management strategies for greenhouse muskmelon cultivation in the North China region.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Description

The experiment site was located at Yanglu Village (115°68′ E, 36°36′ N), Hedian Town, Shenxian County, Shandong Province. The region is classified as a Dwa climate according to the Köppen climate classification system [28], with an annual average temperature of 13.4 °C, annual average precipitation of 502 mm, an annual sunshine duration of 55.3%, and relative humidity ranging from 80% to 85%. The soil type is fluvo-aquic soils, and with the following initial physical and chemical properties in the 0–30 cm soil layer: pH 7.85, soil organic matter (SOM) 8.92 g kg−1, 65.8 mg AN kg−1, 96.5 mg AP kg−1, and 146 mg AK kg−1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experimental plots were established in July 2018, adopting a randomized block design. Five treatments were set up in the experiment: no fertilization (CK), conventional fertilization (utilizing only chemical fertilizers, CON), optimized fertilization (replacing the base fertilizer with organic fertilizer containing an equivalent amount of N, OPT), organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization (OF15), and organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer (OF30). Each treatment was replicated 3 times for a total of 15 plots. Each plot was 10 m long, and 7.5 m wide, covering an area of 75 m2. Compound fertilizer and organic fertilizer were applied as basal fertilizers once, and water-soluble fertilizer was applied as topdressing 9 times during the period of melon seedling, vine extension, flowering and fruit setting, and fruit enlargement. The basal fertilization was integrated with tillage before planting, and topdressing was applied with irrigation water. The compound fertilizer has an N-P2O5-K2O ratio of 15-15-15, while abundant element water-soluble fertilizer 1 has an N-P2O5-K2O ratio of 20-20-20, and water-soluble fertilizer 2 has an N-P2O5-K2O ratio of 14-6-40. The organic fertilizer utilized in this study was a compost product, composed of bean dregs, and mushroom residue, had a moisture content of 30.0%, an organic matter content of 45.0%, a nitrogen content of 2.64%, a phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) content of 2.98%, and a potassium oxide (K2O) content of 3.28%. This fertilizer was procured from Shandong Yunhanda Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd, located in Jinan, Shandong Province, China. The quantity of organic fertilizer used to replace chemical fertilizer in the OF15 and OF30 treatments was calculated based on the nitrogen and moisture content of the organic fertilizer. The specific amounts of fertilizers for each treatment are detailed in Table 1. The melon variety tested in this study is ’Red King’ (thick-skinned melon).

2.3. Plant and Soil Sampling, and Analyses

During each batch of melon harvest, the fruit yield from each plot was measured, and the final yield was calculated by summing the accumulated values from 2023 or 2024. In the first batch of harvest, 6 melons were randomly selected from each plot for quality-related assessments. The Vitamin C content was determined by titrating the sample extract with a standardized 2,6-dichloroindophenol sodium salt solution (2,6-dichloroindophenol titration method) [29]. The soluble protein content was determined by mixing the sample extract with a 0.010% Coomassie brilliant blue dye solution, and measuring the resulting blue color’s absorbance at 595 nm (Coomassie brilliant blue staining method). The nitrate content was determined by reacting the sample extract with 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid, and quantifying nitrate concentration at 540 nm (3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetric method) [30]. The sugar content of the muskmelon flesh was measured using a refractometer (SW-32D).
Soil samples from the plow layer (0–30 cm) of each plot were collected using a five-point sampling method with a soil auger. These samples were then transported to the laboratory for air-drying and subsequent measurement of relevant indicators. Soil bulk density was measured using the ring knife-drying method, while soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) values were measured using a pH meter (Mettler-Toledo GmbH, Greifensee, Switzerland) and a conductivity meter with a soil-to-water ratio of 1:2.5 and 1:5, respectively. SOM was determined by oxidizing organic carbon with potassium dichromate and sulfuric acid, then titrating the remaining dichromate to estimate the organic content (K2Cr2O7-H2SO4 oxidation method) [31]. The total nitrogen (TN) was determined by digesting the sample with H2SO4 at 380 °C, and titrating to quantify the N content. The total phosphorus (TP) was determined by fusing the sample with alkali and using a molybdenum-antimony reagent to measure phosphorus concentration (alkaline fusion-molybdenum antimony blue colorimetric method). The total potassium (TK) was measured by digesting the sample and measuring potassium concentration through flame emission spectroscopy (flame photometer method) [32,33,34]. Additionally, AN was determined by treating the sample with 1.0 mol L−1 NaOH, which is then absorbed by acid and quantified through titration (diffusion method). AP was determined by extracting the sample with 0.500 mol L−1 NaHCO3 and measuring P concentration through colorimetric analysis (NaHCO3 extraction-molybdenum antimony blue colorimetric method), and AK was determined by extracting the sample with 1.00 mol L−1 NH4OAc and measuring K concentration through flame emission spectroscopy (ammonium acetate extraction flame photometer method) [35,36,37].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The impact of treatment on factors such as yield, soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), quality indicators (such as Vitamin C, soluble protein, sugar, and nitrate), and other soil physicochemical properties (such as TP, TK, AN, AP, and AK) was assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparisons were conducted using the Fisher least significant difference (LSD) test. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). The normality of data distribution and homogeneity of variance were assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test and Levene’s test, respectively. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationships between soil properties and muskmelon yield and quality.

3. Results

3.1. Impact of Partial Organic Substitution on Yield and Quality of Muskmelon

After two years of cultivation, the yields of muskmelon without fertilization (CK) were 9.74 kg ha−1 in 2023 and 21.4 kg ha−1 in 2024, respectively. Compared to CK, OF30 treatment increased the muskmelon yield by 132% and 27.5% in 2023 and 2024 (Figure 1). The highest muskmelon yield was observed in the OF30, with 22.6 kg ha−1 in 2023 and 27.3 kg ha−1 in 2024, representing increases of 9.70% and 11.9%, respectively, compared to CON, though this improvement remained statistically non-significant. The yields for the CON were 20.2 kg ha−1 in 2023 and 24.4 kg ha−1 in 2024, making it the lowest among the treatments, except for the CK. The yields from the OPT and OF15 were slightly higher than those of CON. While the yield in the OF30 was the highest, it did not significantly differ from that of the CON.
The quality of muskmelon was significantly affected by different fertilization treatments (Table 2). In 2023, the OF30, OF15, and OPT treatments exhibited higher levels of Vitamin C (62.8%, 86.8%, and 42.2%, respectively) compared to the CON. However, both OF30 and OF15 treatments resulted in decreases in soluble protein of 13.7% and 20.0%, respectively, compared to CON. Additionally, OF30 and OF15 treatments increased sugar content by 10.1% and 9.40%, respectively, compared to CON treatment. The OF30, OF15, and OPT treatments also recorded 56.0%, 49.0%, and 39.0% lower nitrate levels than CON treatment. In 2024, although the results were not statistically significant (p > 0.05), the OF30 treatment showed numerical increases of 9.50% in soluble sugars and 8.10% in proteins, along with an 11.0% decrease in nitrate levels compared to conventional fertilization.

3.2. Impact of Partial Organic Substitution on Soil Physicochemical Properties

Different fertilization treatments significantly affected the physicochemical properties of the soil (Table 3). The bulk density (ρb) under CON, OPT, OF15, and OF30 treatments were 5.97%, 6.72%, 8.21%, and 9.70% lower, respectively, than those under CK treatment in 2023. In contrast, there was no significant variation in ρb between the treatments. Compared to the CON, the various fertilization methods led to a decrease in ρb in 2023 and 2024. However, no significant differences were observed between the treatments. In 2023, OF15 and OF30 treatments increased the pH by 1.67% and 3.22%, respectively, relative to CON treatment. In comparison to CK, both CON and OF15 treatments led to a significant increase in pH. But no significant differences were found among the fertilization treatments (CON, OPT, OF15, OF30) in 2024. The OF30 treatment significantly enhanced soil organic matter (SOM) by 79.2% in 2023, compared to CON, while the SOM concentration under OF15 was 65.0% higher than that of CON in 2024. CON, OPT, OF15, and OF30 treatments raised TN content by 32.0%, 36.0%, 46.0%, and 50.0% in 2023, respectively, compared to CK. Likewise, both OF15 and OF30 treatments resulted in higher TN contents, with increases of 10.6% and 21.2%, respectively, compared to CON treatment in 2023. While no significant differences in TN content were observed among the fertilization treatments, the CON, OF15, and OF30 treatments significantly increased TN by 32.3%, 44.6%, and 44.6%, respectively, in 2024, compared with the control. Compared to CK, fertilization treatments had higher TP content in 2023 and 2024. The concentration of TK was similar between treatments in 2023. Conversely, OF15 exhibited a 36.4% and 38.7% increase in TK, compared to CK and CON in 2024. In terms of available nutrients, fertilization treatments exhibited a higher AN content than CK in 2023 and 2024. Moreover, OF30, OF15, and OPT treatments resulted in increases of 23.6%, 19.8%, and 7.77% in AN compared to CON in 2023. Additionally, AP was 8.26% higher under OF30 and 15.7% higher under OF15 compared to CON in 2023. While there was no significant change in AP content between fertilization treatments, the CON, OF15, and OF30 treatments elevated the AP by 44.3%, 45.4%, and 58.8% in 2024, in comparison with the control. In both 2023 and 2024, the OPT, OF15, and OF30 treatment significantly increased the content of AK than CON.

3.3. Correlation Between Soil Physicochemical Properties and the Yield and Quality of Muskmelon

A comprehensive correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the relationships between the soil physicochemical properties and the yield and quality of muskmelon (Figure 2). The analysis revealed that muskmelon yield exhibited significant positive correlations with seven soil physicochemical properties, including EC, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, and AK, whereas a significant negative correlation was observed between yield and pH. In the context of muskmelon quality, a similar trend was identified: SOM, TK, AK, and yield were all positively associated with muskmelon quality. Conversely, pH exhibited a significant inverse relationship with quality, as indicated by statistical analysis.

3.4. Impact of Partial Organic Substitution on Economic Benefits of Muskmelon

The results of the economic benefit analysis of the different treatments are shown in Table 4. In 2023, compared to the CON treatment, the OPT, OF15, and OF30 treatments increased the net benefit by 1.85%, 5.60%, and 10.0%, respectively. Similarly, in 2024, OPT, OF15, and OF30 treatments elevated net benefit by 1.69%, 9.61%, and 14.9%, when compared to CON treatment. The results demonstrate that partial substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers at rates of 15% and 30% enhances the net economic benefit of muskmelon production, with the highest net benefit observed at a 30% substitution rate.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Partial Organic Substitution on Muskmelon Productivity, Quality, and Economic Benefits

Maintaining or improving crop productivity is one of the most important objectives for evaluating various management practices [38]. Our results demonstrate that partial organic substitution, specifically the OF30 treatment significantly enhanced muskmelon productivity relative to both CON and CK treatments. These findings are consistent with previous studies [39]. One reason for the increased muskmelon yield can mainly be attributed to the enhancement of nutrient supply and soil properties [40], as indicated by the positive correlations between muskmelon yield and TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, and AK. On the other hand, partial organic substitution may stimulate soil microorganisms, which is beneficial for accelerating nutrient cycling [41,42]. Therefore, the use of organic substitutes for chemical fertilizers can align the nutrient demands of crops with the soil nutrient supply, thereby improving grain yields.
Furthermore, our study indicated an enhancement in muskmelon quality under partial organic substitution, as evidenced by measurements of Vitamin C, soluble protein, and sugar. This finding is consistent with previous studies suggesting that organic substitution can improve grain quality [43,44], particularly concerning certain vitamins and proteins, depending on the high percentage of organic fertilizer used [45]. Meanwhile, muskmelon quality (MQ) exhibited positive correlations with SOM, TK, and AK, which is consistent with studies indicating that partial organic substitution can enhance food quality by increasing soil fertility and nutrient availability [46].
Economic benefits are a crucial objective for assessing sustainable agricultural production systems [47]. In our study, partial organic substitution (OF15 and OF30) increased total income and costs associated with muskmelon production, resulting in average net benefits of 3.01 and 4.96 thousand USD ha−1 compared to CON. This observation aligns with studies suggesting that partial organic substitution may offer more long-term economic benefits [44]. However, a higher organic substitution ratio does not necessarily lead to greater net benefits. While studies have shown that 100% substitution of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers can significantly mitigate the environmental risks associated with chemical fertilizer use, it often results in reduced net economic returns [44,48]. In this study, a 30% substitution ratio was identified as the most economically viable approach. Overall, our findings indicate that the partial organic substitution treatments (OF15 and OF30) not only improved the yield and quality of muskmelon but also increased farmers’ income.

4.2. Effect of Partial Organic Substitution on Soil Fertility

Throughout this study, we observed an increase in SOM, TK, and AK compared to the CON treatment. These results align with previous studies indicating that partial organic substitution enhances soil fertility [24,49,50]. First, organic fertilizers are rich in organic matter and can directly increase SOM and soil nutrients through external organic matter inputs [15,51]. Second, partial organic substitution sustains the availability of nutrients via the gradual release of nutrients from organic fertilizers, thereby reducing soil nutrient losses and improving soil fertility [12,52]. Finally, organic substitution enhances soil microbial growth and activity [14,53], which subsequently promotes manure decomposition and nutrient release [54]. Meanwhile, organic substitution has been recognized as an effective approach to alleviate soil acidification caused by excessive ammonium-based fertilizer application [55], which was consistent with our results, where there was a significant reduction in soil pH following organic fertilizer substitution, especially in 2023. Therefore, the yield enhancement in muskmelon production may be attributed to the improvement in soil nutrient status and reduction in soil acidity levels.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the effects of partial organic substitution on the yield and quality of muskmelon compared to the CON treatment. The increases in muskmelon yield and quality under the OF15 and OF30 treatments were primarily associated with improvements in soil nutrients levels. Furthermore, OF15 and OF30 treatments raised the net benefit by 5.60% and 14.9% compared to CON, respectively. Overall, we recommend that partial organic substitution, particularly at a rate of 30%, is a feasible strategy for enhancing both economic benefits and soil fertility in muskmelon production.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, Z.Y.; Conceptualization, Data curation, B.G.; Conceptualization, Data curation, T.S.; Funding acquisition, Data curation, R.L.; Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Writing—review & editing, Z.Z.; Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key R&D Program of Shandong Province, China (2022TZXD0039), Taishan Scholars Program (no. tsqn202312288), Shandong Province Modern Agricultural Technology System Innovation Team Special Fund (SDAIT-07-07 and SDAIT-30-15) and Technology Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CXGC2024D04 and CXGC2024A06).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, Z.Z.; Zhang, Z.D.; Han, X.Y.; Wu, J.H.; Zhang, L.Z.; Wang, J.R.; Wang-Pruski, G. Specific response mechanism to autotoxicity in melon (Cucumis melo L.) root revealed by physiological analyses combined with transcriptome profiling. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 200, 110779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yu, X.Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Yang, X.L.; Xu, X.; Lin, J.Y.; Bing, H.; Wang, X.J.; Zhao, J.W.; Xiang, W.S. Identification and Pathogenicity of Fungi Associated with Leaf Spot of Muskmelon in Eastern Shandong Province, China. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 872–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhang, X.; Davidson, E.A.; Mauzerall, D.L.; Searchinger, T.D.; Dumas, P.; Shen, Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 2015, 528, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Qian, Z.W.; Chen, H.L.; Liu, M.C. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on aromatic compounds and nutritional quality of melon fruits. Plant Nutr. Fertil. Sci. 2011, 17, 1451–1458. [Google Scholar]
  5. Goucher, L.; Bruce, R.; Cameron, D.D.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Horton, P. The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 17012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Shaji, H.; Chandran, V.; Mathew, L. Chapter 13—Organic fertilizers as a route to controlled release of nutrients. In Controlled Release Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture; Lewu, F.B., Volova, T., Thomas, S., Rakhimol, R.K., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 231–245. [Google Scholar]
  7. Abdel-Shafy, H.I.; Mansour, M.S.M. Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egypt. J. Pet. 2018, 27, 1275–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eyhorn, F.; Muller, A.; Reganold, J.P.; Frison, E.; Herren, H.R.; Luttikholt, L.; Mueller, A.; Sanders, J.; Scialabba, N.E.-H.; Seufert, V.; et al. Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 253–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bouhia, Y.; Hafidi, M.; Ouhdouch, Y.; El Boukhari, M.E.; Mphatso, C.; Zeroual, Y.; Lyamlouli, K. Conversion of waste into organo-mineral fertilizers: Current technological trends and prospects. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio-Technol. 2022, 21, 425–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liang, Q.; Chen, H.; Gong, Y.; Fan, M.; Yang, H.; Lal, R.; Kuzyakov, Y. Effects of 15 years of manure and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic carbon fractions in a wheat-maize system in the North China Plain. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2012, 92, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, F.; Cui, Z.; Chen, X.; Ju, X.; Shen, J.; Chen, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Mi, G.; Fan, M.; et al. Integrated nutrient management for food security and environmental quality in China. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 116, pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, Y.; Hu, Y.; Christie, P.; Zhang, J.; Li, X. Maize yield and soil fertility with combined use of compost and inorganic fertilizers on a calcareous soil on the North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shahid, M.; Nayak, A.K.; Puree, C.; Tripathi, R.; Lal, B.; Gautam, P.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Mohanty, S.; Kumar, A.; Panda, B.B.; et al. Carbon and nitrogen fractions and stocks under 41 years of chemical and organic fertilization in a sub-humid tropical rice soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 170, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, J.; Shu, A.; Song, W.; Shi, W.; Li, M.; Zhang, W.; Li, Z.; Liu, G.; Yuan, F.; Zhang, S.; et al. Long-term organic fertilizer substitution increases rice yield by improving soil properties and regulating soil bacteria. Geoderma 2021, 404, 115287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Song, W.F.; Shu, A.P.; Liu, J.A.; Shi, W.C.; Li, M.C.; Zhang, W.X.; Li, Z.Z.; Liu, G.R.; Yuan, F.S.; Zhang, S.X.; et al. Effects of long-term fertilization with different substitution ratios of organic fertilizer on paddy soil. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moe, K.; Htwe, A.Z.; Thu, T.T.P.; Kajihara, Y.; Yamakawa, T. Effects on NPK Status, Growth, Dry Matter and Yield of Rice (Oryza sativa) by Organic Fertilizers Applied in Field Condition. Agriculture 2019, 9, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Darnaudery, M.; Fournier, P.; LÉChaudel, M. Low-input pineapple crops with high quality fruit: Promising impacts of locally integrated and organic fertilisation compared to chemical fertilisers. Exp. Agric. 2018, 54, 286–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lal, R. Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2009, 60, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rasool, R.; Kukal, S.S.; Hira, G.S. Soil organic carbon and physical properties as affected by long-term application of FYM and inorganic fertilizers in maize–wheat system. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 101, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Niewes, D.; Biegun, M.; Huculak-Maczka, M.; Marecka, K.; Kaniewski, M.; Zielinski, J.; Hoffmann, J. Extraction of humic acid from peat and lignite and the thermal behavior of their mixtures with ammonium nitrate. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2023, 148, 13175–13188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qaswar, M.; Jing, H.; Ahmed, W.; Li, D.; Liu, S.; Lu, Z.; Cai, A.; Liu, L.; Xu, Y.; Gao, J.; et al. Yield sustainability, soil organic carbon sequestration and nutrients balance under long-term combined application of manure and inorganic fertilizers in acidic paddy soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 198, 104569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gravuer, K.; Gennet, S.; Throop, H.L. Organic amendment additions to rangelands: A meta-analysis of multiple ecosystem outcomes. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 1152–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Edmeades, D.C. The long-term effects of manures and fertilisers on soil productivity and quality: A review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2003, 66, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ji, L.F.; Ni, K.; Wu, Z.D.; Zhang, J.W.; Yi, X.Y.; Yang, X.D.; Ling, N.; You, Z.M.; Guo, S.W.; Ruan, J.Y. Effect of organic substitution rates on soil quality and fungal community composition in a tea plantation with long-term fertilization. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lazcano, C.; Gómez-Brandón, M.; Revilla, P.; Domínguez, J. Short-term effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil microbial community structure and function: A field study with sweet corn. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Luan, H.; Gao, W.; Huang, S.; Tang, J.; Li, M.; Zhang, H.; Chen, X. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic amendments affects soil organic carbon composition and stability in a greenhouse vegetable production system. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 191, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sheoran, H.; Kakar, R.; Kumar, N. Impact of organic and conventional farming practices on soil quality: A global review. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 951–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Beck, H.E.; Zimmermann, N.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E.F. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 180214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kostecka, M.; Szot, I.; Czernecki, T.; Szot, P. Vitamin C content of new ecotypes of cornelian cherry (Cornus mas L.) determined by various analytical methods. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2017, 16, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lindsay, H. A colorimetric estimation of reducing sugars in potatoes with 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid. Potato Res. 1973, 16, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A.J.S.s. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Potato Res. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bremner, J.M. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J. Agric. Sci. 1960, 55, 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Zhang, X.; Mao, Q.; Li, X.; You, Y.; Wang, J.; Zheng, M.; Zhang, W.; Lu, X.J.S.B.; et al. Nitrogen addition reduces soil bacterial richness, while phosphorus addition alters community composition in an old-growth N-rich tropical forest in southern China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 127, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stanford, G.; English, L. Use of the flame photometer in rapid soil tests for K and Ca. Agron. J. 1949, 41, 446–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liao, Y.; Min, X.; Yang, Z.; Chai, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y. Physicochemical and biological quality of soil in hexavalent chromium-contaminated soils as affected by chemical and microbial remediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bogunovic, I.; Trevisani, S.; Seput, M.; Juzbasic, D.; Durdevic, B. Short-range and regional spatial variability of soil chemical properties in an agro-ecosystem in eastern Croatia. Catena 2017, 154, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bogunovic, I.; Pereira, P.; Brevik, E.C. Spatial distribution of soil chemical properties in an organic farm in Croatia. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584–585, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gao, H.; Xi, Y.; Wu, X.; Pei, X.; Liang, G.; Bai, J.; Song, X.; Zhang, M.; Liu, X.; Han, Z.; et al. Partial substitution of manure reduces nitrous oxide emission with maintained yield in a winter wheat crop. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tong, B.X.; Hou, Y.; Wang, S.Q.; Ma, W.Q. Partial substitution of urea fertilizers by manure increases crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency of a wheat-maize double cropping system. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2023, 127, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, X.; Fang, Q.; Zhang, T.; Ma, W.; Velthof, G.L.; Hou, Y.; Oenema, O.; Zhang, F. Benefits and trade-offs of replacing synthetic fertilizers by animal manures in crop production in China: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 888–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McGill, W.B.; Cannon, K.R.; Robertson, J.A.; Cook, F.D. Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and water-soluble organic C in Breton L after 50 years of cropping to two rotations. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1986, 66, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Han, S.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Luo, X.; Liu, Y.; Van Nostrand, J.D.; Chen, W.; Zhou, J.; Huang, Q. Soil aggregate size-dependent relationships between microbial functional diversity and multifunctionality. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 154, 108143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wu, G.; Yang, S.; Luan, C.S.; Wu, Q.; Lin, L.L.; Li, X.X.; Che, Z.; Zhou, D.B.; Dong, Z.R.; Song, H. Partial organic substitution for synthetic fertilizer improves soil fertility and crop yields while mitigating N2O emissions in wheat-maize rotation system. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 154, 127077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xu, X.T.; Xiao, C.; Bi, R.Y.; Jiao, Y.; Wang, B.X.; Dong, Y.B.; Xiong, Z.Q. Optimizing organic fertilization towards sustainable vegetable production evaluated by long-term field measurement and multi-level fuzzy comprehensive model. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2024, 368, 109008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, R.R.; Wang, H.Q.; Jiang, G.Y.; Yin, H.J.; Che, Z.Q. Effects of Nitrogen Application Strategy on Nitrogen Enzyme Activities and Protein Content in Spring Wheat Grain. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wu, G.; Huang, H.M.; Jia, B.B.; Hu, L.L.; Luan, C.S.; Wu, Q.; Wang, X.Y.; Li, X.X.; Che, Z.; Dong, Z.R.; et al. Partial organic substitution increases soil quality and crop yields but promotes global warming potential in a wheat-maize rotation system in China. Soil Tillage Res. 2024, 244, 106274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cui, J.; Yan, P.; Wang, X.; Yang, J.; Li, Z.; Yang, X.; Sui, P.; Chen, Y. Integrated assessment of economic and environmental consequences of shifting cropping system from wheat-maize to monocropped maize in the North China Plain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, X.Y.; Li, B.; Chen, L.; Liang, J.Y.; Huang, R.; Tang, X.Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, C.Q. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer over seven years increases yields and restores soil bacterial community diversity in wheat-rice rotation. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 133, 126445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gao, J.C.; Zhang, X.Z.; Luo, J.F.; Zhu, P.; Lindsey, S.; Gao, H.J.; Li, Q.; Peng, C.; Zhang, L.; Xu, L.Y.; et al. Changes in soil fertility under partial organic substitution of chemical fertilizer: A 33-year trial. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 7424–7433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maillard, É.; Angers, D.A. Animal manure application and soil organic carbon stocks: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2014, 20, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lan, X.; Shan, J.; Huang, Y.; Liu, X.; Lv, Z.; Ji, J.; Hou, H.; Xia, W.; Liu, Y. Effects of long-term manure substitution regimes on soil organic carbon composition in a red paddy soil of southern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 221, 105395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, H.; Du, X.; Li, Y.; Han, X.; Li, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, Q.; Liang, W. Organic substitutions improve soil quality and maize yield through increasing soil microbial diversity. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 347, 131323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ding, L.-J.; Su, J.-Q.; Sun, G.-X.; Wu, J.-S.; Wei, W.-X. Increased microbial functional diversity under long-term organic and integrated fertilization in a paddy soil. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 1969–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wang, Y.J.; Guo, J.H.; Vogt, R.D.; Mulder, J.; Wang, J.G.; Zhang, X.S. Soil pH as the chief modifier for regional nitrous oxide emissions: New evidence and implications for global estimates and mitigation. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 24, E617–E626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 15 00639 g001
Figure 1. Yield of muskmelon under different fertilizations in 2023 (a) and 2024 (b). Note: CK, no fertilization; CON, conventional fertilization; OPT, optimized fertilization; OF15, organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization; OF30, organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization. Lowercase letters show significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Yield of muskmelon under different fertilizations in 2023 (a) and 2024 (b). Note: CK, no fertilization; CON, conventional fertilization; OPT, optimized fertilization; OF15, organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization; OF30, organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization. Lowercase letters show significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 15 00639 g001
Agronomy 15 00639 g002
Figure 2. The relationships between soil properties, muskmelon yield, and muskmelon quality. Note: ρb, soil bulk density; EC, electrical conductivity; SOM, soil organic matter; TN, total N; TP, total P; TK, total K; AN, alkaline-hydrolyzable; AP, available P; AK, available K; MY, muskmelon yield; MQ, muskmelon quality. The ellipse size indicates the correlation value, and red and blue colors indicate the negative and positive correlations, respectively. *, **, and *** represent the p values less than 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.
Figure 2. The relationships between soil properties, muskmelon yield, and muskmelon quality. Note: ρb, soil bulk density; EC, electrical conductivity; SOM, soil organic matter; TN, total N; TP, total P; TK, total K; AN, alkaline-hydrolyzable; AP, available P; AK, available K; MY, muskmelon yield; MQ, muskmelon quality. The ellipse size indicates the correlation value, and red and blue colors indicate the negative and positive correlations, respectively. *, **, and *** represent the p values less than 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.
Agronomy 15 00639 g002
Table 1. Fertilizer application amounts for different fertilization treatments.
Table 1. Fertilizer application amounts for different fertilization treatments.
Treatment Basal Fertilizer (kg ha−1)Topdressing Fertilizer (kg ha−1)Total Fertilizer Application (kg ha−1)
Compound FertilizerOrganic FertilizerWater-Soluble Fertilizer 1Water-Soluble Fertilizer 2NP2O5K2O
CK0000000
CON6000900675364310540
OPT04870900675364322561
OF1507100695675364327571
OF3009330540600364338560
Note: CK, no fertilization; CON, conventional fertilization; OPT, optimized fertilization; OF15, organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization; OF30, organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization.
Table 2. Effect of different fertilizations on muskmelon quality.
Table 2. Effect of different fertilizations on muskmelon quality.
YearTreatmentVitamin C (mg 100 g−1)Soluble Protein (g kg−1)Sugar (%)Nitrate
(mg kg−1)
2023CK11.1 ± 0.039 d0.441 ± 0.006 c15.6 ± 0.255 ab42.9 ± 6.90 b
CON12.1 ± 0.402 d0.948 ± 0.091 a15.0 ± 0.749 b51.6 ± 3.82 a
OPT17.3 ± 0.048 c0.853 ± 0.079 ab15.5 ± 0.253 ab31.6± 5.39 c
OF1522.7 ± 1.22 a0.762 ± 0.063 b16.4 ± 0.416 a26.4 ± 1.40 c
OF3019.7 ± 0.397 b0.824 ± 0.022 b16.4 ± 0.751 a24.7 ± 1.88 c
2024CK11.8 ± 2.36 a0.319 ± 0.027 a10.8 ± 0.402 ab72.9 ± 18.4 a
CON11.1 ± 1.16 a0.370 ± 0.043 a11.6 ± 2.95 a93.3 ± 30.4 a
OPT14.3 ± 6.81 a0.307 ± 0.054 a11.0 ± 2.08 a72.5 ± 29.0 a
OF158.67 ± 1.70 a0.313 ± 0.067 a11.6 ± 1.54 a80.4 ± 28.3 a
OF3010.3 ± 3.56 a0.401 ± 0.262 a12.7 ± 0.780 a84.1 ± 12.7 a
Note: CK, no fertilization; CON, conventional fertilization; OPT, optimized fertilization; OF15, organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization; OF30, organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization. Values are means (n = 3) ± standard deviation. Lowercase letters show significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Effects of different fertilization on soil physicochemical properties.
Table 3. Effects of different fertilization on soil physicochemical properties.
YearTreatmentρb (g cm−3)pHSOM (g kg−1)TN (g kg−1)TP (g kg−1)TK (g kg−1)AN (mg kg−1)AP (mg kg−1)AK (mg kg−1)
2023CK1.34 ± 0.022 a7.61 ± 0.021 c8.50 ± 0.187 ab0.503 ± 0.027 d1.43 ± 0.140 b15.0 ± 1.60 a59.3 ± 2.22 d123 ± 2.56 c95.0 ± 10.2 d
CON1.26 ± 0.009 b7.75 ± 0.065 c6.26 ± 0.104 b0.652 ± 0.022 c1.83 ± 0.133 a13.4 ± 1.13 a72.1 ± 2.71 c122 ± 1.92 c135 ± 5.00 c
OPT1.25 ± 0.043 b7.77 ± 0.037 c10.1 ± 1.64 ab0.679 ± 0.019 c1.86 ± 0.018 a13.2 ± 0.253 a77.7 ± 2.24 b124 ± 1.89 c155 ± 18.0 bc
OF151.23 ± 0.041 b7.88 ± 0.014 b10.5 ± 0.082 ab0.733 ± 0.011 b1.75 ± 0.559 a12.4 ± 0.491 a86.4 ± 1.21 a140 ± 5.06 a175 ± 10.0 ab
OF301.21 ± 0.037 b8.00 ± 0.058 a11.2 ± 1.31 a0.801 ± 0.020 a1.48 ± 0.021 a12.7 ± 0.948 a89.1 ± 3.48 a132 ± 2.44 b202 ± 20.2 a
2024CK1.25 ± 0.018 a8.94 ± 0.114 a10.1 ± 1.68 ab0.646 ± 0.009 b1.23 ± 0.051 b8.88 ± 0.339 b53.5 ± 2.39 b57.4 ± 7.26 b140 ± 33.5 c
CON1.21 ± 0.036 a8.59 ± 0.347 b7.41 ± 4.22 b0.864 ± 0.101 a1.56 ± 0.152 a8.73 ± 0.725 b71.7 ± 5.97 a82.7 ± 14.7 a157 ± 16.5 c
OPT1.28 ± 0.027 a8.66 ± 0.093 ab11.1 ± 2.22 ab0.820 ± 0.129 ab1.47 ± 0.109 a8.82 ± 0.654 b69.8 ± 6.93 a75.8 ± 1.62 ab210 ± 2.08 b
OF151.19 ± 0.128 a8.44 ± 0.079 b12.2 ± 1.03 a0.941 ± 0.131 a1.54 ± 0.112 a12.1 ± 1.16 a68.0 ± 3.70 a83.4 ± 1.51 a233 ± 21.1 ab
OF301.21 ± 0.032 a8.40 ± 0.082 b12.0 ± 1.43 ab0.939 ± 0.058 a1.48 ± 0.103 a10.2 ± 0.728 b72.2 ±0.762 a91.1 ± 18.8 a258 ± 35.6 a
Note: CK, no fertilization; CON, conventional fertilization; OPT, optimized fertilization; OF15, organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization; OF30, organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization. Values are means (n = 3) ± standard deviation. Lowercase letters show significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Partial organic substitution on economic benefits of muskmelon (thousand USD ha−1).
Table 4. Partial organic substitution on economic benefits of muskmelon (thousand USD ha−1).
YearTreatmentTotal Income Chemical Fertilizer Organic FertilizerTotal Cost Net Benefit
2023CK26.2//6.5719.6
CON55.04.59/11.243.8
OPT56.34.090.99011.744.6
OF1558.13.471.8211.946.3
OF3060.32.882.6412.148.2
2024CK40.9//6.5734.3
CON48.24.59/11.237.0
OPT49.34.090.99011.737.6
OF1552.43.471.8211.940.6
OF3054.62.882.6412.142.5
Note: CK, no fertilization; CON, conventional fertilization; OPT, optimized fertilization; OF15, organic fertilizer replacing 15% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization; OF30, organic fertilizer replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer based on optimized fertilization. / signifies that there is no expenditure associated with the fertilizer. Values are means (n = 3).
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

Yu, Z.; Guo, B.; Sun, T.; Li, R.; Zhao, Z.; Yao, L. Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substitution for Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Fertility, Yield, and Quality of Muskmelons. Agronomy 2025, 15, 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030639

AMA Style

Yu Z, Guo B, Sun T, Li R, Zhao Z, Yao L. Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substitution for Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Fertility, Yield, and Quality of Muskmelons. Agronomy. 2025; 15(3):639. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030639

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Zhanlonggang, Bing Guo, Tao Sun, Ran Li, Zichao Zhao, and Li Yao. 2025. "Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substitution for Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Fertility, Yield, and Quality of Muskmelons" Agronomy 15, no. 3: 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030639

APA Style

Yu, Z., Guo, B., Sun, T., Li, R., Zhao, Z., & Yao, L. (2025). Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substitution for Mineral Fertilizer on Soil Fertility, Yield, and Quality of Muskmelons. Agronomy, 15(3), 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030639

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