Comparing the effect of manure-extracted humic acid and commercial humic acid on the growth of maize and inorganic P forms in a calcareous soil

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Master's student, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture-, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Due to the lack of suitable water resources and poor soil quality (high salinity, low organic matter, and plant nutrient deficiency), the increase of arable lands in arid and semi-arid regions has faced severe challenges. The use of organic amendments is recognized as a critical strategy for plant production in such soils. Nowadays, humic acid (HA) is known as one of the eco-friendly fertilizers that not only preserves soil quality but also plays a significant role in increasing the production of high-quality agricultural yields. The present study was conducted to extract humic acid from two sources of cattle and sheep manures and compare their effect on maize growth characteristics and inorganic phosphorus (Pi) forms in a calcareous soil compared to the commercial HA.

Materials and Methods: 25 kg of sheep and cattle manure were collected from the farm of Shahid Bahonar University in Kerman and composted separately under controlled conditions for three months. Humic acid was extracted from composted manure using 0.5 N NaOH (1:10 material: extractant) in a dark environment under no oxygen conditions. The extracted HA's chemical and structural features, such as pH, EC, elemental composition, and functional groups, were determined. To investigate the effect of extracted humic acid on the growth of maize and soil inorganic P forms, a completely randomized design with seven treatments, including 0.1 and 0.2% of cattle manure extracted humic acid (CM-HA), 0.1 and 0.2% of sheep manure extracted humic acid (SM-HA), and 0.1% and 0.2% levels of commercial humic acid (HA), and a control treatment was designed in four replicates. The seedlings of maize were planted in treated pots and kept for 70 days under greenhouse-controlled conditions. At harvest time, the fresh and dry weights of the shoot and roots were measured. Soil Pi fractions, including H2O-extractable P, NaHCO3-extractable P, NaOH-extractable P, and HCl-extractable P, were also determined after maize harvesting.

Results: The results showed that commercial humic acid had the highest pH and the lowest EC compared to the extracted acids. In contrast, humic acid extracted from cattle and sheep manure was more acidic than the commercial HA. The results of FTIR indicated the presence of phenolic hydroxyl, carboxyl, and aromatic rings in the extracted and commercial humic acids. The results showed that only 0.1% of commercial humic acid had no significant effect on maize's shoot fresh and dry weight. In contrast, other extracted acids, especially SMHA, significantly increased both growth characteristics of maize. In all treatments, the overall distribution of Pi forms was HCl-P > NaHCO3-P > NaOH-P> H2O-P. The results showed that HA application at the rates of 0.1% and 0.2%, mainly extracted HA from sheep manure, increased the contribution of more labile forms of inorganic phosphorus, including H2O-P and NaHCO3-P in the soil.
Conclusion: Since extracted HA from sheep manure and cattle manure have better quality than commercial HA and more effectively affect the growth of maize and labile forms of Pi, these resources can be used as an alternative for HA extraction and HA-based fertilizer production. In general, 0.2% of extracted humic acid from sheep manure had a more influential role in increasing the labile P forms in the soil and the growth of maize plants compared to other treatments.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.Najafi, N., Ahmadinezhad, R., Aliasgharzad, N., & Oustan, Sh. (2019). Effects of urea integration with manure and two types of compost (municipal waste and sewage sludge) on concentrations of micronutrients and sodium in wheat leaf, stem and seed. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation, 26, 1-27. [In Persian]. doi.org/10.22069/ JWSC.2019.15712.3091.
2.Wiesler, F., Hund-Rinke, K., Gäth, S., George, E., Greef, J. M., Hölzle, L. E., Holz, F., Hülsbergen, K. J., Pfeil, R., Severin, K., Frede, H. G, Blum, B., Schenkel, H., Horst, W., Dittert, K., Ebertseder, T., Osterburg, B., Philipp, W., Pietsch, M., & Nessel, T. (2016). Use of organic fertilizers and organic wastes in agriculture. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 94 (1), 1-14. doi.org/10.12767/buel. v94i1.124.g251.
3.Sarlaki, E., Sokhandan Toomaj, M., Sharif Paghaleh, A., Kianmehr, M., & Nikousefat, O. (2019). Extraction of humic acid from lignite coals using stirred tank reactors (STRs): Assessment of process parameters and final product characterization. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 50, 1111-1125. [In Persian]. doi.org/10.22059/IJSWR. 2018.260201.667947.
4.Yang, X., Kong, Y., Guo, E., Chen, X., & Li, L. (2021). Organic acid regulation of inorganic phosphorus release from Mollisols with different organic matter contents. Soil Use and Management. 38, 576-583. doi.org/10.1111/sum.12710.
5.Gerke, J. (2018). Concepts and misconceptions of humic substances as the stable part of soil organic matter: a review. Agronomy, 8: 76 p. doi.org/10. 3390/agronomy8050076.
6.Rose, M. T., Patti, A. F., Little, K. R., Brown, A. L., Jackson, W. R., & Cavagnaro, T. R. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: Practical implications for agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 124, 37-89. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4.
7.Shahbazi, S., Fateh, E., & Aynehband, A. (2015). Evaluation of the effect of humic acid and vermicompost on yield and yield components of three wheat cultivars in tropical regions. Plant Productions, 38, 99-110. [In Persian]. doi.org/ 10. 22055/ppd.2015.11323.
8.De Melo, B. A. G., Motta, F. L., & Santana, M. H. A. (2016). Humic acids: Structural properties and multiple functionalities for novel technological developments. Materials Science and Engineering, 62, 967-974. doi.org/ 10.1016/j.msec.2015.12.001.
9.Ampong, K., Thilakaranthna, M. S., & Gorim, L. Y. (2022). Understanding the role of humic acids on crop performance and soil health. Frontiers in Agronomy, 4(10), 1-14. doi.org/10.3389/ fagro.2022. 848621.
10.Sible, C. N., Seebauer, J. R., & Below, F. E. (2021). Plant biostimulants: A categorical review, their implications for row crop production, and relation to soil health indicators. Agronomy, 11, 1297 p. doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071297.
11.Zhu, J., Li, M., & Whelan, M. (2018). Phosphorus activators contribute to legacy phosphorus availability in agricultural soils: a review. Science of the Total Environment. 612, 522-537. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.095.
12.Sharma, S., Kumar, V., & Tripathi, R. B. (2011). Isolation of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms (PSMs) from soil. Journal of microbiology and Biotechnology Research, 1, 90-95.
13.Brown, M. E., Hintermann, B., & Higgins, N. (2009). Markets, climate change, and food security in West Africa. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 8016-8020. doi.org/ 10.1021/es901162d.
14.Goldani, M., Rezvani Moghaddam, P., Nasiri mahalati, M., & Kafi, M. (2011). Response of hybrids of maize (Zea may L.) to density in the five phenological stages. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 9, 139-150. [In Persian]. doi.org/10.22067/GSC.V9I2.10985.
15.García, A. C., van Tol de Castro, T. A., Santos, L. A., Tavares, O. C. H., Castro, R. N., Berbara, R. L. L., & García‐Mina, J. M. (2019). Structure–property–function relationship of humic substances in modulating the root growth of plants: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48, 1622-1632. doi.org/10.2134/jeq2019.01.0027.
16.Nardi, S., Ertani, A., & Francioso, O. (2017). Soil-root cross-talking: the role of humic substances. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 180, 5-13. doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201600348.
17.Amir, S., Benlboukht, F., Cancian, N., Winterton, P., & Hafidi, M. (2008). Physico-chemical analysis of tannery solid waste and structural characterization of its isolated humic acids after composting. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 160, 448-455. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.017.
18.Piccolo, A., Nardi, S., & Concheri, G. (1992). Structural characteristics of humic substances as related to nitrate uptake and growth regulation in plant systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24, 373-380. doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(92)90197-6.
19.Hosseini, S., Hejazi-Mehrizi, M., Sarcheshmehpour, M., & Fekri, M. (2022). Comparison of the characteristics and effects of commercial humic acid extracted from cattle and sheep manures on soybean growth. Iranian Journal of Soil Research,
36, 289-304. [In Persian]. doi.org/10. 22092/IJSR.2022.358279.658.
20.Ebrahimi, Z., Sarcheshmehpour, M., & Hejazi Mehrizi, M. (2016). The effects of humic substances and mycorrhiza fungus on Fe and Zn uptake and some soybean growth characteristics under greenhouse conditions. Journal of Soil and Plant Interactions, 10, 7(1), 99-110. [In Persian]. doi.org/10.18869/ acadpub. ejgcst.7.1.99.
21.Fan, H. M., Wang, X. W., Sun, X., Li, Y. Y., Sun, X. Z., & Zheng, C. S. (2014). Effects of humic acid derived from sediments on growth, photosynthesis and chloroplast ultrastructure in chrysanthemum. Scientia Horticulturae, 177, 118-123. doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta. 2014.05.010.
22.Nasiroleslami, E., Mozafari, H., Sadeghi-Shoae, M., Habibi, D., & Sani, B. (2021). Changes in yield, protein, minerals, and fatty acid profile of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under fertilizer management involving application of nitrogen, humic acid, and seaweed extract. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 21, 2642-2651. doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00552-7.
23.Maji, D., Misra, P., Singh, S., & Kalra, A. (2017). Humic acid rich vermicompost promotes plant growth by improving microbial community structure of soil as well as root nodulation and mycorrhizal colonization in the roots of Pisum sativum. Applied Soil Ecology, 110, 97-108. doi.org/10. 1016/j.apsoil.2016.10.008.
24.Arjumend, T., Abbasi, M. K., & Rafique, E. (2015). Effects of lignite-derived Humic acid on some selected soil properties, growth, and nutrient uptake of wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) grown under greenhouse conditions. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 47, 2231-2238.
25.Arancon, N. Q., Edwards, C. A., Lee, S., & Byrne, R. (2006). Effects of humic acids from vermicomposts on plant growth. European Journal of Soil Biology, 42, 65-69. doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejsobi.2006.06.004.
26.Hamad, M. M., & Tantawy, M. F. A. (2018). Effect of different humic acids sources on the plant growth, calcium and iron utilization by sorghum. Egyptian Journal of Soil. Science, 58, 291-307. doi.org/10.21608/EJSS.2018.3559. 1173.
27.Swift, R. S. 1996. Organic matter characterization. p.1018-1020. In: D. L. Sparks et al. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Agron, Part 3: Chemical Methods. American Society. Agronomy. Madison WI, USA. doi.org/10.2136/ sssabookser5.3.c35.
28.Taghipour, M., & Jalali, M. (2013). Effect of low-molecular-weight organic acids on kinetics release and fractionation of phosphorus in some calcareous soils of western Iran. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, 5471-5482. doi.org/ 10.1007/s10661-012-2960-y.
29.Hejazi-Mehrizi, M., Sarcheshmehpour, M., & Ebrahimi, Z. (2015). The effects of some humic substances and vermicompost on phosphorus transformation rate and forms in a calcareous soil. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 15, 249-260. doi.org/10.4067/S0718.95162015005000020.
30.Braos, L. B., Cruz, M. C. P. D., Ferreira, M. E., & Kuhnen, F. (2015). Frações do fósforo orgânico em solo adubado com esterco bovino. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 39, 140-150. doi.org/ 10.1590/01000683rbcs20150137.
31.Tunesi, S., Poggi, V., & Gessa, C. (1999). Phosphate adsorption and precipitation in calcareous soils: the role of calcium ions in solution and carbonate minerals. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystem, 53, 219-227. doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1009709005147.
Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production
Volume 13, Issue 4
January 2024
Pages 115-132

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics