Placement and Rate of Cricket Frass Regulate Fertility Restoration and Chinese Kale Biomass in Tropical Acidic Sandy Soil
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Soil and Cricket Frass Characteristics
2.2. Experimental Design and Setup
2.3. Plant Growth and Biomass Measurements
2.4. Soil, Frass, and Plant Tissue Analyses
2.5. Data Calculation and Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Soil Physicochemical and Microbiological Properties
3.2. Biomass Yield of Chinese Kale
3.3. Tissue Elemental Contents
3.4. Plant Elemental Uptakes
3.5. Pearson Correlation Among Soil, Structural, and Plant Response Variables
4. Discussion
4.1. Soil Fertility Responded Differently to Incorporated Versus Surface-Applied Methods and Rates of Cricket Frass
4.2. Application Rates and Methods Determine the Growth and Yield of Chinese Kale
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beesigamukama, D.; Tanga, C.M.; Sevgan, S.; Ekesi, S.; Kelemu, S. Waste to value: Global perspective on the impact of entomocomposting on environmental health, greenhouse gas mitigation and soil bioremediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 902, 166067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sriraj, P.; Butnan, S. Detrimental effects of eucalyptus and rice husk biochars on three consecutive corn cropping cycles in a tropical acidic sandy soil. Malay. J. Soil Sci. 2025, 29, 144–156. [Google Scholar]
- Sriraj, P.; Toomsan, B.; Butnan, S. Effects of neem seed extract on nitrate and oxalate contents in amaranth fertilized with mineral fertilizer and cricket frass. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, J.; Hue, N.V.; Ahmad, A.; Kobayashi, K.D. Surface-applied or incorporated biochar and compost combination improves soil fertility, Chinese cabbage and papaya biomass. Biochar 2021, 3, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toonsiri, P.; Klangsinsirikul, S. The effects of rate and timing of cricket frass application on Kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata) production in low-fertility soils. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2025, 21, 1597–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autaiwat, S.; Butnan, S. Nitrogen transformation for varying application rates of incorporated and surfaced placements of cricket faeces in a tropical sandy soil. Trop. Agric. 2024, 101, 497–509. [Google Scholar]
- Butnan, S.; Autaiwat, S.; Sriraj, P. Effects of cricket feces application on soil colloid surface charges and carbon fractions: A nutrient retention improving opportunity in tropical acidic sandy soil. Soil Sci. Annu. 2026, 77, 217311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroetsch, D.; Wang, C. Particle size distribution. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd ed.; Carter, M.R., Gregorich, E.G., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; pp. 713–725. [Google Scholar]
- Wilke, B.M. Determination of chemical and soil properties. In Manual for Soil Analysis—Monitoring and Assessing Soil Bioremediation; Margesin, R., Schinner, F., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 47–95. [Google Scholar]
- Pansu, M.; Gautheyrou, J. Handbook of Soil Analysis: Mineralogical, Organic and Inorganic Methods; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; p. 993. [Google Scholar]
- Coscione, A.R.; de Andrade, J.C.; van Raij, B. Revisiting titration procedures for the determination of exchangeable acidity and exchangeable aluminum in soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 1973–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, V.S.; Stott, D.E.; Diack, M. Assay for fluorescein diacetate hydrolytic activity: Optimization for soil samples. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Spark, D.L., Ed.; SSSA Book Ser. 5; SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 539–579. [Google Scholar]
- Stevenson, F.J. Nitrogen—Inorganic forms. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Spark, D.L., Ed.; SSSA Book Ser. 5; SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 643–698. [Google Scholar]
- Bremner, J.M.; Mulvaney, C.S. Nitrogen—Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Propterties; Spark, D.L., Ed.; SSSA Book Ser. 5; SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 595–624. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, J.B. Laboratory Guide for Conducting Soil Tests and Plant Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001; p. 384. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, R.O. Nitric-perchloric acid wet digestion in an open vessel. In Handbook of Reference Methods for Plant Analysis; Kalra, Y.P., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1988; pp. 57–61. [Google Scholar]
- Horneck, D.A.; Miller, R. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue. In Handbook of Reference Methods for Plant Analysis; Kalra, Y.P., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1998; pp. 75–83. [Google Scholar]
- Bi, Q.-F.; Chen, Q.-H.; Yang, X.-R.; Li, H.; Zheng, B.-X.; Zhou, W.-W.; Liu, X.-X.; Dai, P.-B.; Li, K.-J.; Lin, X.-Y. Effects of combined application of nitrogen fertilizer and biochar on the nitrification and ammonia oxidizers in an intensive vegetable soil. AMB Express 2017, 7, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rengasamy, P.; Marchuk, A. Cation ratio of soil structural stability (CROSS). Soil Res. 2011, 49, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.; Cui, B.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Sun, J.; Niu, W. Effects of manure fertilizer on crop yield and soil properties in China: A meta-analysis. Catena 2020, 193, 104617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchuk, A.; Rengasamy, P.; McNeill, A. Influence of organic matter, clay mineralogy, and pH on the effects of CROSS on soil structure is related to the zeta potential of the dispersed clay. Soil Res. 2013, 51, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slattery, W.J.; Conyers, M.K.; Aitken, R.L. Soil pH, alumunium, manganese and lime requirement. In Soil Analysis: An Interpretation Manual; Peverill, K.I., Sparrow, L.A., Reuter, D.J., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 1999; pp. 103–128. [Google Scholar]
- Bojórquez-Quintal, E.; Escalante-Magaña, C.; Echevarría-Machado, I.; Martínez-Estévez, M. Aluminum, a friend or foe of higher plants in acid soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sumner, M.E.; Noble, A.D. Soil acidification: The world story. In Handbook of Soil Acidity; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 15–42. [Google Scholar]
- Ozlu, E.; Kumar, S. Response of soil organic carbon, pH, electrical conductivity, and water stable aggregates to long-term annual manure and inorganic fertilizer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2018, 82, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weil, R.R.; Brady, N.C. The Nature and Properties of Soils; Pearson Education Limited: New York, NY, USA, 2017; p. 1082. [Google Scholar]
- Li-Xian, Y.; Guo-Liang, L.; Shi-Hua, T.; Gavin, S.; Zhao-Huan, H. Salinity of animal manure and potential risk of secondary soil salinization through successive manure application. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 383, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hue, N. Soil acidity: Development, impacts, and management. In Structure and Functions of Pedosphere; Giri, B., Kapoor, R., Wu, Q.-S., Varma, A., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 103–131. [Google Scholar]
- Sposito, G. The Chemistry of Soils; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; p. 272. [Google Scholar]
- Barrow, N.J.; Hartemink, A.E. The effects of pH on nutrient availability depend on both soils and plants. Plant Soil 2023, 487, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazelton, P.; Murphy, B. Interpreting Soil Test Results: What Do All the Numbers Mean? CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia, 2007; p. 152. [Google Scholar]
- Rongsawat, T.; Peltier, J.-B.; Boyer, J.-C.; Véry, A.-A.; Sentenac, H. Looking for root hairs to overcome poor soils. Trends Plant Sci. 2021, 26, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Pessemier, J.; Moturu, T.R.; Nacry, P.; Ebert, R.; De Gernier, H.; Tillard, P.; Swarup, K.; Wells, D.M.; Haseloff, J.; Murray, S.C.; et al. Root system size and root hair length are key phenes for nitrate acquisition and biomass production across natural variation in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 3569–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Department of Agriculture. Announcement of the Department of Agriculture on Organic Fertilizer Standards B.E. 2548. In Royal Gazette; Series 109d; Royal Gazette: Bangkok, Thailand, 2005; Volume 122, pp. 9–10. [Google Scholar]
- Salachna, P.; Piechocki, R.; Byczyńska, A. Plant growth of curly kale under salinity stress. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 18, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuter, D.J.; Edwards, D.G.; Wilhelm, N.S. Temperate and tropical crops. In Plant Analysis: An Interpretation Manual; Reuter, D., Robinson, J.B., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 1997; pp. 83–278. [Google Scholar]

| Property | Soil | Cricket Frass |
|---|---|---|
| Soil particle distribution | ||
| Sand (%) | 75.3 | – |
| Silt (%) | 21.4 | – |
| Clay (%) | 3.3 | – |
| Soil texture | Loamy sand | – |
| Bulk density (g cm−3) | 1.38 | 0.39 |
| Water-holding capacity (%w w−1) | 31.85 | – |
| pH † | 4.06 | 6.95 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm−1) | 0.151 | 19.6 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg−1) | 2.27 | 73.6 |
| Organic C (g kg−1) | 3.8 | 180.2 |
| C:N ratio | 25.3 | 16.8 |
| Total N (g kg−1) | 0.15 | 10.7 |
| NH4+–N (mg kg−1) | 1.67 | 110.3 |
| NO3+–N (mg kg−1) | 0.55 | 1.1 |
| P (mg kg−1) | 18.8 | 8446 |
| K (mg kg−1) | 31.1 | 12,425 |
| Ca (mg kg−1) | 134 | 3446 |
| Mg (mg kg−1) | 14.8 | 1301 |
| Na (mg kg−1) | 3.81 | 1247 |
| Al (mg kg−1) | 10.65 | nd ‡ |
| Exchangeable acidity (me 100 g−1) | 0.80 | nd |
| (a) | ||||||||||
| Amendment | BD | pH | EC | CEC | OC | TN | NH4+–N | NO3−–N | NAR | P |
| (g cm−3) | (Soil:H2O = 1:1) | (mS cm−1) | (cmolc kg−1) | (g kg−1) | (g kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg N kg−1 Soil Day−1) | (mg kg−1) | |
| Un | 1.52 ± 0.001 bc | 3.89 ± 0.046 d | 0.180 ± 0.014 e | 1.92 ± 0.17 c | 3.85 ± 0.05 d | 0.160 ± 0.009 c | 2.82 ± 0.15 f | 1.35 ± 0.02 c | 0.026 ± 0.003 f | 25.5 ± 1.61 f |
| IncLOW | 1.53 ± 0.009 bc | 4.24 ± 0.029 c | 0.199 ± 0.010 d | 2.25 ± 0.06 b | 4.28 ± 0.10 c | 0.195 ± 0.009 b | 5.44 ± 0.13 de | 1.58 ± 0.06 bc | 0.084 ± 0.003 de | 38.6 ± 0.71 e |
| IncMEDIUM | 1.54 ± 0.014 b | 4.46 ± 0.055 b | 0.233 ± 0.005 c | 2.47 ± 0.16 b | 4.75 ± 0.02 b | 0.226 ± 0.004 a | 10.66 ± 1.57 b | 1.71 ± 0.06 ab | 0.200 ± 0.035 b | 57.4 ± 2.05 c |
| IncHIGH | 1.59 ± 0.010 a | 4.97 ± 0.020 a | 0.256 ± 0.006 b | 2.86 ± 0.015 a | 5.18 ± 0.02 a | 0.235 ± 0.004 a | 16.08 ± 1.08 a | 1.84 ± 0.09 a | 0.320 ± 0.024 a | 84.4 ± 0.93 a |
| SurfLOW | 1.51 ± 0.020 c | 4.27 ± 0.015 c | 0.200 ± 0.008 d | 2.26 ± 0.04 b | 4.28 ± 0.10 c | 0.160 ± 0.009 c | 4.40 ± 0.89 ef | 1.51 ± 0.07 bc | 0.061 ± 0.020 ef | 36.2 ± 1.40 e |
| SurfMEDIUM | 1.52 ± 0.013 bc | 4.48 ± 0.075 b | 0.236 ± 0.007 c | 2.45 ± 0.10 b | 4.82 ± 0.03 b | 0.187 ± 0.005 b | 6.92 ± 0.49 cd | 1.63 ± 0.10 ab | 0.117 ± 0.011 cd | 47.2 ± 0.45 d |
| SurfHIGH | 1.58 ± 0.009 a | 4.91 ± 0.030 a | 0.331 ± 0.005 a | 2.85 ± 0.07 a | 5.25 ± 0.05 a | 0.234 ± 0.006 a | 8.36 ± 0.65 bc | 1.83 ± 0.16 a | 0.149 ± 0.015 bc | 78.0 ± 1.45 b |
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| F-test | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| CV (%) | 0.77 | 0.97 | 3.55 | 4.14 | 1.27 | 3.28 | 10.93 | 5.38 | 13.89 | 2.54 |
| (b) | ||||||||||
| Amendment | K | Ca | Mg | Na | CROSS | Al | Exchangeable acidity | Fluorescein release | ||
| (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (mg kg−1) | (me 100 g−1) | (mg kg−1 soil) | ||||
| Un | 26.7 ± 3.16 d | 141 ± 3.15 c | 15.8 ± 1.36 e | 4.14 ± 0.50 d | 0.090 ± 0.009 d | 8.25 ± 1.45 a | 0.785 ± 0.015 a | 304 ± 8.16 d | ||
| IncLOW | 57.9 ± 3.81 bc | 172 ± 7.70 b | 27.2 ± 0.94 cd | 4.44 ± 0.26 d | 0.145 ± 0.010 bc | 4.35 ± 1.30 b | 0.604 ± 0.016 b | 329 ± 8.70 c | ||
| IncMEDIUM | 59.4 ± 5.38 bc | 190 ± 21.06 b | 33.7 ± 0.94 b | 6.93 ± 0.91 bc | 0.155 ± 0.012 b | 2.85 ± 0.26 bc | 0.606 ± 0.007 b | 385 ± 0.35 a | ||
| IncHIGH | 62.4 ± 5.83 b | 235 ± 4.05 a | 42.3 ± 1.50 a | 7.84 ± 0.60 b | 0.148 ± 0.013 bc | 0.57 ± 0.29 c | 0.509 ± 0.004 d | 401 ± 6.25 a | ||
| SurfLOW | 44.7 ± 1.85 c | 182 ± 9.96 b | 24.2 ± 0.35 d | 5.49 ± 0.48 cd | 0.123 ± 0.006 c | 4.65 ± 1.13 b | 0.631 ± 0.014 b | 305 ± 12.05 d | ||
| SurfMEDIUM | 60.5 ± 1.09 bc | 190 ± 2.26 b | 29.5 ± 1.01 bc | 6.48 ± 0.23 bc | 0.155 ± 0.003 b | 2.25 ± 0.45 bc | 0.618 ± 0.018 b | 355 ± 2.40 b | ||
| SurfHIGH | 130.3 ± 12.04 a | 233 ± 9.10 a | 46.3 ± 3.33 a | 9.64 ± 0.71 a | 0.274 ± 0.015 a | 0.60 ± 0.26 c | 0.568 ± 0.011 c | 363 ± 2.55 b | ||
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| F-test | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ||
| CV (%) | 9.22 | 5.27 | 5.13 | 8.88 | 6.70 | 26.35 | 2.08 | 1.99 | ||
| Amendment | Chlorophyll Content | Biomass (g Plant−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (SPAD Unit) | Shoot DW | Root DW | |
| Un | 46.4 ± 1.64 b | 1.70 ± 0.19 d | 0.16 ± 0.032 c |
| IncLOW | 46.1 ± 3.55 b | 1.76 ± 0.18 d | 0.16 ± 0.027 c |
| IncMEDIUM | 48.8 ± 0.79 b | 2.40 ± 0.21 cd | 0.31 ± 0.085 b |
| IncHIGH | 56.2 ± 0.06 a | 7.16 ± 0.05 a | 0.56 ± 0.015 a |
| SurfLOW | 47.9 ± 0.55 b | 1.98 ± 0.50 d | 0.15 ± 0.015 c |
| SurfMEDIUM | 47.0 ± 2.33 b | 2.96 ± 0.29 c | 0.32 ± 0.015 b |
| SurfHIGH | 55.9 ± 2.60 a | 4.78 ± 0.52 b | 0.54 ± 0.035 a |
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| F-test | *** | *** | *** |
| CV (%) | 4.05 | 9.91 | 12.67 |
| Amendment | N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g kg−1) | (g kg−1) | (g kg−1) | (g kg−1) | (g kg−1) | (g kg−1) | |
| Un | 27.3 ± 2.10 ab | 0.68 ± 0.05 e | 8.3 ± 1.40 d | 6.04 ± 0.31 a | 1.47 ± 0.053 b | 0.137 ± 0.026 e |
| IncLOW | 18.9 ± 1.21 c | 1.29 ± 0.05 d | 16.1 ± 1.72 c | 5.11 ± 0.01 b | 1.44 ± 0.017 b | 0.453 ± 0.088 cd |
| IncMEDIUM | 26.4 ± 3.23 b | 2.76 ± 0.22 b | 21.0 ± 1.34 b | 4.53 ± 0.19 bc | 1.63 ± 0.025 a | 0.667 ± 0.008 b |
| IncHIGH | 31.2 ± 4.55 a | 3.23 ± 0.10 ab | 25.9 ± 0.37 a | 3.82 ± 0.02 d | 1.66 ± 0.070 a | 0.839 ± 0.053 a |
| SurfLOW | 19.6 ± 1.40 c | 1.86 ± 0.19 c | 14.6 ± 0.38 c | 4.78 ± 0.39 b | 1.37 ± 0.050 b | 0.355 ± 0.028 d |
| SurfMEDIUM | 19.1 ± 1.07 c | 2.06 ± 0.14 c | 15.7 ± 1.20 c | 3.53 ± 0.07 d | 1.39 ± 0.069 b | 0.547 ± 0.052 bc |
| SurfHIGH | 26.3 ± 1.17 b | 3.56 ± 0.33 a | 19.9 ± 1.00 b | 4.11 ± 0.20 cd | 1.52 ± 0.070 ab | 0.842 ± 0.077 a |
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| F-test | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| CV (%) | 10.1 | 8.24 | 6.7 | 4.77 | 3.64 | 9.89 |
| Amendment | Plant Elemental Uptake (mg Plant−1) | Relative Change (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | |
| Un | 46.1 ± 2.85 c | 1.14 ± 0.05 e | 14.2 ± 3.71 e | 10.3 ± 1.47 c | 2.48 ± 0.21 c | 0.23 ± 0.03 d | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| IncLOW | 33.3 ± 4.13 c | 2.26 ± 0.20 de | 28.2 ± 2.98 de | 9.0 ± 0.95 c | 2.53 ± 0.29 c | 0.80 ± 0.22 cd | −28 | 98 | 99 | −12 | 2 | 250 |
| IncMEDIUM | 62.9 ± 3.68 c | 6.65 ± 1.06 c | 50.4 ± 6.45 c | 10.9 ± 0.81 c | 3.92 ± 0.38 c | 1.60 ± 0.13 c | 36 | 484 | 256 | 6 | 58 | 599 |
| IncHIGH | 223.1 ± 33.97 a | 23.12 ± 0.65 a | 185.1 ± 3.82 a | 27.3 ± 0.25 a | 11.89 ± 0.58 a | 6.00 ± 0.42 a | 384 | 1930 | 1208 | 166 | 379 | 2519 |
| SurfLOW | 38.8 ± 10.22 c | 3.73 ± 1.22 d | 29.0 ± 7.89 de | 9.4 ± 1.91 c | 2.72 ± 0.69 c | 0.70 ± 0.19 cd | −16 | 227 | 105 | −9 | 10 | 206 |
| SurfMEDIUM | 56.8 ± 8.16 c | 6.10 ± 0.90 c | 46.2 ± 1.80 cd | 10.4 ± 0.81 c | 4.12 ± 0.55 c | 1.62 ± 0.28 c | 23 | 436 | 227 | 2 | 66 | 609 |
| SurfHIGH | 125.7 ± 16.21 b | 16.93 ± 1.07 b | 95.5 ± 14.80 b | 19.6 ± 1.37 b | 7.27 ± 1.13 b | 4.04 ± 0.73 b | 173 | 1386 | 575 | 91 | 193 | 1664 |
| p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| F-test | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| CV (%) | 18.19 | 9.89 | 11.24 | 8.61 | 12.33 | 16.63 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Jumpol, S.; Butnan, S. Placement and Rate of Cricket Frass Regulate Fertility Restoration and Chinese Kale Biomass in Tropical Acidic Sandy Soil. Crops 2026, 6, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops6040064
Jumpol S, Butnan S. Placement and Rate of Cricket Frass Regulate Fertility Restoration and Chinese Kale Biomass in Tropical Acidic Sandy Soil. Crops. 2026; 6(4):64. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops6040064
Chicago/Turabian StyleJumpol, Supada, and Somchai Butnan. 2026. "Placement and Rate of Cricket Frass Regulate Fertility Restoration and Chinese Kale Biomass in Tropical Acidic Sandy Soil" Crops 6, no. 4: 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops6040064
APA StyleJumpol, S., & Butnan, S. (2026). Placement and Rate of Cricket Frass Regulate Fertility Restoration and Chinese Kale Biomass in Tropical Acidic Sandy Soil. Crops, 6(4), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops6040064

