Soil microbial characteristics and yield response to partial substitution of chemical fertilizer with organic amendments in greenhouse vegetable production
Open accessAbstract
Greenhouse vegetable production has been characterized by high agricultural inputs, high temperatures, and high cropping indexes. As an intensive form of agriculture, nutrient cycling induced by microbial activities in the greenhouses is relatively different from open fields in the same region. However, the responses of soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and nitrogen (MBN), enzyme activities, microbial community composition, and yield to organic amendment are not well understood. Therefore, a 5-year greenhouse tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.)-cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) rotation experiment was conducted. The field experiment comprised 5 treatments: 4/4CN (CN, nitrogen in chemical fertilizer), 3/4CN+1/4MN (MN, nitrogen in pig manure), 2/4CN+2/4MN, 2/4CN+1/4 MN+1/4 SN (SN, nitrogen in corn straw) and 2/4CN+2/4SN. The amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P2O5), and potassium (K2O) were equal in the five treatments. Starting with the fourth growing season, the optimal yield was obtained from soil treated with straw. MBC, MBN, phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) profiles, and enzyme activities were significantly changed by 5 years of substitution with organic amendments. Redundancy analysis showed that MBC accounts for 89.5 and 52.3% of the total enzyme activity and total community variability, respectively. The activities of phosphomonoesterase, N-acetyl-glucosaminidase, and urease, and the relative abundances of fungi, actinomycetes, and Gram-negative bacteria were significantly and positively related to vegetable yields. Considering the effects of organic amendments on soil microbial characteristics and vegetable yield, 2/4CN+1/4MN+1/4SN can improve soil quality and maintain sustainable high yield in greenhouse vegetable production.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a five-year greenhouse experiment, replacing half of chemical fertilizer N with pig manure or corn straw increased microbial biomass C and N compared to chemical fertilizer alone, with straw causing the strongest increase.
“when half of the nitrogen input from chemical fertilizer was replaced by pig manure or corn straw in a fiveyear greenhouse experiment, both organic amendments increased the microbial biomass C and N compared to chemical fertilizer alone.The straw amendments led to the strongest increase.”
From Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides (2021) · cites this paper as Rong et al., 2018
In the same experiment, eight out of nine investigated microbial enzyme activities showed a similar increase.
“A similar effect was observed for eight out of nine investigated microbial enzyme activities (Rong et al., 2018).”
From Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides (2021) · cites this paper as Rong et al., 2018
Cites
Agegnehu, G., Bass, A. M., Nelson, P. N., & Bird, M. I. (2016) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.054 · Cited by 909 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Siedt, M., Schäffer, A., Smith, K. E. C., Nabel, M., Roß-Nickoll, M., & van Dongen, J. T. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141607 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Bolan, N., Sarkar, B., Vithanage, M., Singh, G., Tsang, D. C. W., Mukhopadhyay, R., Ramadass, K., Vinu, A., Sun, Y., Ramanayaka, S., et al. (2021) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106600 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
- Authors
- RONG, Q.-L., LI, R.-N., HUANG, S.-W., TANG, J.-W., ZHANG, Y.-C., & WANG, L.-Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Integrative Agriculture
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1432-1444
- ISSN
- 2095-3119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2808609033
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Integrative Agriculture (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Key Technology Research and Development Program of Shandong
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (CARS-23, 2016YFD0201001)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Plant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
- Keywords
- soil microbial biomass carbon, soil microbial biomass nitrogen, soil enzyme activity, soil microbial community composition, phospholipid fatty acid profiles, organic amendments, pig manure, corn stover, greenhouse vegetable production, vegetable yield, urease, phosphomonoesterase, N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase, fungi, actinomycetes, Gram-negative bacteria
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review