The influence of biologization of fertilizer systems on the content and stock of humus in a of typical chernozem light loamy

L. Kucher; S. Vitvitskyi; L. Kava; T. Kucher; Yu. Kravchenko

doi:10.36495/PHSS.2024.70.184-197

L. Kucher National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15, Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7211-693X
S. Vitvitskyi National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15, Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6856-3817
L. Kava National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15, Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5757-6738
T. Kucher National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15, Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine
Yu. Kravchenko National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 15, Heroiv Oborony str., Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4175-9622

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36495/PHSS.2024.70.184-197

Keywords: humus substances, humus reserve, winter wheat, typical chernozem, soil cultivation, yield

Abstract

Goal. To investigate the humus state of typical light loamy chernozem and the yield of winter wheat under the conditions of soil protection technologies.

Methods. The following methods were used: informative and analytical method for collecting materials from literature sources; field research — observation of plants, accounting and harvesting; laboratory, mathematical and statistical methods — processing of results. The research was conducted on typical coarse-dusty light loam black soil in the forest, the crop was winter wheat, Poliska 90 variety. The comparative effectiveness of the technologies was studied: traditional, based on shelf plowing to a depth of 25—27 cm; soil protection, based on shallow flat-cutting to a depth of 10—12 cm. The effect of fertilization systems was studied against the background of these cultivation technologies: 1 — control (no fertilizers); 2 — straw 1.2 t/ha + N₁₂+ N₅₅P₄₅K₄₅; 3 — straw 1.2 t/ha + N₁₂ + N₇₈P₆₈K₆₈; 4 — straw 1.2 t/ha + N₁₂+ green manure + N₅₅P₄₅K₄₅; 5 — straw 1.2 t/ha + N₁₂+ green manure + N₇₈P₆₈K₆₈.

Results. The use of soil protection technology compared to the traditional one did not significantly change the humus content in the arable layer, but affected its redistribution. The highest humus content (3.77%) was recorded in the variant straw 1.2 t/ha + N₁₂+ green manure + N₇₈P₆₈K₆₈ against the background of soil protection technology in the upper soil layer under study. Organic fertilizers increased the content of mobile organic matter in the 0—30 cm layer against the background of plowing by 0.063% relative, and against the background of soil protection technology — by 0.176%. When straw was applied with mineral fertilizers, the content of humic acids in chernozem was typically 0.042—0.052% under conventional technology and 0.055—0.088% under soil protection technology.

Conclusions. In the variant with the introduction of straw 1.2 t/ha + N₁₂ + green manure + N₇₈P₆₈K₆₈, the content of humic acids was 1.5 times higher than in the same variant with the traditional technology. Soil protection technology led to an increase in the yield of winter wheat by 3.5 c/ha compared to the traditional technology.

References

Preston C.M. (1995). Humus Chemistry, Genesis, Composition and Reactions. Soil Science, 159(5), 356. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-199505000-00012

Rustаm А., Nаsimbеk M. (2021). А Nеw Mеthоd Оf Sоil Cоmpаctiоn by thе mеthоd of sоil lооsеning wаvе. The American journal of Engineering and Techonology, 03(02), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/volume03issue02-02

Trokhymenko H., Kibarov O. (2024). Rol fulvovykh ta huminovykh kyslot u protsesakh biodehradatsii zalyshkiv herbitsydiv u hrunti. Materialy Mizhnarodnoi Naukovo-Praktychnoi Konferentsii «Ekolohiia. Liudyna. Suspilstvo», S. 57-59. https://dоi.оrg/10.20535/ehs2710-3315.2023.290912 (in Ukrainian).

Chorna L.V., Hospodarenko H.M. (2003). Ahrofizychni vlastyvosti gruntu, yak faktor formuvannia urozhaiu. Zbirn.nauk. pr. spets. vypusk UDAU. Biolohichni nauky i problemy roslynnytstva. Uman. S. 772-776. (in Ukrainian).

Dijkstra F., Cheng W., Jоhnsоn D. (2006). Plant biоmass influences rhizоsphere priming effects оn sоil оrganic matter decоmpоsitiоn in twо differently managed sоils. Sоil Biоlоgy and Biоchemistry, 38(9), 2519-2526. https://dоi.оrg/10.1016/j.sоilbiо.2006.02.020

Dehodiuk S.E., Litvinova O.A., Bodnar Yu.D. (2016). Vplyv tryvaloho zastosuvannia dobryv u sivozmini na zminy potentsiinoi i efektyvnoi rodiuchosti siroho lisovoho gruntu. Mizhvidomchyi tematychnyi naukovyi zbirnyk «Zemlerobstvo». Kyiv. Vyp. 1. S. 43-48. (in Ukrainian).

Dehodiuk E.H., Bodnar Yu.D., Ihnatenko Yu.O., Pohribnyi I.V. (2018). Optymizatsiia mineralnoho zhyvlennia roslyn u orhanichnomu zemlerobstvi. Poiednannia nauky, osvity praktychnoho vyrobnytstva i spravedlyvoho prodazhu yakisnoi orhanichnoi produktsii. Materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii 26-27 chervnia 2018 r. Kyiv: Edelveis. S. 29-35. (in Ukrainian).

Dehodiuk E.H., Pronenko M.M., Bodnar Yu.D. (2014). Vplyv tryvaloho zastosuvannia dobryv na ahrokhimichni pokaznyky rodiuchosti siroho lisovoho gruntu. Zb. nauk. prats NNTs «Instytut zemlerobstva NAAN». Kyiv: Edelveis. Vyp. 4. S. 12-17. (in Ukrainian).

Bulyhin S.Iu., Tonkha O.L., Vitvitskyi S.V., Kucher L.I., Bulanyi O.V. (2020). Otsinka i upravlinnia yakistiu gruntiv. Navchalnyi posibnyk. Kyiv. 489 s. (in Ukrainian).

Ryzhuk S.M. (2003).Tekhnolohiia vidtvorennia rodiuchosti gruntiv u suchasnykh umovakh. Kyiv - Kharkiv: Drukarnia. № 13. 204 s. (in Ukrainian).

Nosko B.S. (2003). Shliakhy zberezhennia chornozemiv Ukrainy. Visnyk ahrarnoi nauky, (1), 24-27. (in Ukrainian).

Shykula M.K. ta in. (1998).Vidtvorennia rodiuchosti gruntiv u gruntozakhysnomu zemlerobstvi. Kyiv: Oranta. 679 s. (in Ukrainian).

Mallarino A.P., Pecinovsky K.T. (2004). Long-term Phosphorus and Potassium Fertilization Strategies for Corn-Soybean Rotations. Iowa State University, Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.31274/farmprogressreports-180814-563

Mazur H.A. (2008). Vidtvorennia ta rehuliuvannia rodiuchosti lehkykh gruntiv. Kyiv: Ahrarna nauka. 308 s. (in Ukrainian).

Dehtiarov V.V. (2008). Kharakterystyka humusu tsilynnykh i ornykh chornozemiv livoberezhnoho lisostepu i stepu Ukrainy. Visnyk KhNAU. (1), 85-102. (in Ukrainian).

Berg B., McClаugherty C. (2013). Dоes Humus Аccumulаte аnd Where? Whаt Fаctоrs Mаy Іnfluence? Plаnt Lіtter. 215-234. https://dоі.оrg/10.1007/978-3-642-38821-7_11

Tykhonenko D.H. (Ed.) (2009). Praktykum z gruntoznavstva: Navchalnyi posibnyk. 6-te vyd., pererob. I dop. Kharkiv: Maidan. 447 s. (in Ukrainian).

Kucher L.I. (2018). Estimatiоn оf pоtasium reserves in zоnal chernоzemic sоils оf Ukraine’s fоrest-steppe. Pоlish Jоurnal оf Sоil Sciens, 51(1). dоi.оrg/10.17951/pjss.2018.51.1.83

Abad M., Fоrnes F., García D., Cegarra J., Rоig A. (2005). Effects оf humic substances frоm different sоurces оn grоwth and nutrient cоntent оf cucumber plants. Humic Substances in the Aquatic and Terrestrial Envirоnment, 391-396. https://dоi.оrg/10.1007/bfb0010489

Vitvitskyi S.V. (2016). Humifikatsiia roslynnykh reshtok i hnoiu v chornozemakh Lisostepu ta Stepu Ukrainy. Monohrafiia. Kyiv: NUBiP Ukrainy. 287 s. (in Ukrainian).