Abstract
Introduction The new type of synchronized nutrition fertilizers (SNFert) has been popularized and applied in agro-production in northern China. However, the impacts of the SNFert on soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated. Methods To clarify the influences of SNFert on soil properties, sugarcane yield, soil microbial diversity and their interactions, two years of field experiments with four treatments, including CK, non fertilizer; CF, conventional chemical fertilizer; SNF1, 15% less fertilizer applied than CF; SNF2, 25% less than CF, were conducted. Results Results showed that yield, °Brix in the SNFert, even with 15% and 25% less fertilizer input, were no significant differences with those of CF. Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively. In 2020, soil microbial diversity was enriched by SNFert through regulating microbial communities and functions. As a new kind of chemical fertilizer, SNF1 overcame the shortcomings of CF in reducing the soil microbial diversity, that was, there were no statistically differences in microbial alpha diversity indices between SNF1 and CK. The abundance of beneficial functional taxa Chloroflexi , Proteobacteria , Acidobacteriota in bacteria and Mortierellomycota in fungi of SNF1 increased by 12.46%, 15.64%, 47.63% and 164.00%, respectively. The soil carbon and nitrogen cycle was driven by those taxa. The plant-microbe nutritional exchanges were then improved. In mechanism, SNFert not only supplemented nutrients, but also enriched soil microbial diversity by increasing soil pH and decreasing soil salinity and mineral nutrient residues, thereby improving soil properties and increasing sugarcane yield in 2020. Discussion In conclusion, replacing CF with SNFert in sugarcane cultivation is an effective fertilization measure to reduce the dosage of CF, optimize soil agrochemical properties, and increase soil microbial diversity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 17
Claim · model-written summary
SNFert with 15% and 25% less fertilizer input showed no significant difference in sugarcane yield and °Brix from conventional fertilizer.
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e2“yield, °Brix in the SNFert, even with 15% and 25% less fertilizer input, were no significant differences with those of CF”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 increased sugarcane yield by 6.84%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e3“Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 increased sugarcane tiller number by 18.63%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e3“Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 raised soil pH by 0.40 units.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e3“Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 raised soil urease activity by 2.29 times.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e3“Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 reduced soil Nmin by 81.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- SNF1e3
- Outcome
- Nmine3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 81.69%e3
- Qualifier
- 15% lower fertilizer inpute3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e3“Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 reduced soil EC by 77.69%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e3“Specifically, SNF1 increased sugarcane yield and tillers by 6.84% and 18.63%, raised pH and urease by 0.40 units and 2.29 times, reduced Nmin and EC by 81.69% and 77.69% with 15% lower fertilizer input, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SNFert enriched soil microbial diversity in 2020 by regulating microbial communities and functions.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- SNFerte4
- Outcome
- soil microbial diversitye4
- Direction
- enrichede4
- Qualifier
- through regulating microbial communities and functionse4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e4“In 2020, soil microbial diversity was enriched by SNFert through regulating microbial communities and functions”
Claim · model-written summary
SNF1 and the control without fertilizer (CK) showed no statistically significant difference in microbial alpha diversity indices.
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e5“there were no statistically differences in microbial alpha diversity indices between SNF1 and CK”
Claim · model-written summary
The abundance of Chloroflexi increased by 12.46% in SNF1 soil.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- SNF1e6
- Interactor
- ChloroflexiChloroflexotae6other
- Outcome
- abundancee6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Value
- 12.46%e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e6“The abundance of beneficial functional taxa Chloroflexi , Proteobacteria , Acidobacteriota in bacteria and Mortierellomycota in fungi of SNF1 increased by 12.46%, 15.64%, 47.63% and 164.00%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The abundance of Proteobacteria increased by 15.64% in SNF1 soil.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- SNF1e6
- Interactor
- ProteobacteriaPseudomonadotae6other
- Outcome
- abundancee6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Value
- 15.64%e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e6“The abundance of beneficial functional taxa Chloroflexi , Proteobacteria , Acidobacteriota in bacteria and Mortierellomycota in fungi of SNF1 increased by 12.46%, 15.64%, 47.63% and 164.00%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The abundance of Acidobacteriota increased by 47.63% in SNF1 soil.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- SNF1e6
- Interactor
- AcidobacteriotaAcidobacteriotae6other
- Outcome
- abundancee6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Value
- 47.63%e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e6“The abundance of beneficial functional taxa Chloroflexi , Proteobacteria , Acidobacteriota in bacteria and Mortierellomycota in fungi of SNF1 increased by 12.46%, 15.64%, 47.63% and 164.00%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The abundance of Mortierellomycota increased by 164.00% in SNF1 soil.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- SNF1e6
- Interactor
- MortierellomycotaMortierellomycotae6other
- Outcome
- abundancee6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Value
- 164.00%e6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e6“The abundance of beneficial functional taxa Chloroflexi , Proteobacteria , Acidobacteriota in bacteria and Mortierellomycota in fungi of SNF1 increased by 12.46%, 15.64%, 47.63% and 164.00%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The soil carbon and nitrogen cycle was driven by those beneficial taxa.
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e7“The soil carbon and nitrogen cycle was driven by those taxa”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant-microbe nutritional exchanges were improved.
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e1“The plant-microbe nutritional exchanges were then improved”
Claim · model-written summary
SNFert enriched soil microbial diversity by increasing soil pH and decreasing soil salinity.
Verbatim
e0“soil microbial diversity and sugarcane growth have not yet been thoroughly investigated”
e1“SNFert not only supplemented nutrients, but also enriched soil microbial diversity by increasing soil pH and decreasing soil salinity and mineral nutrient residues”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing CF with SNFert in sugarcane cultivation is an effective fertilization measure to reduce the CF dosage.
Verbatim
e1“replacing CF with SNFert in sugarcane cultivation is an effective fertilization measure to reduce the dosage of CF”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: biology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 312 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.