Nutrient mode of the soil depending on the destructor Ecostern Classic and the method of the main tillage
Abstract
Purpose. Studying the nutrient regime of the soil depending on the treatment of post-harvest residues of corn and sunflower with the Ecostern Classic biodestructor and the method of soil cultivation in the conditions of the Southern Steppe of Ukraine. Methods. Field and laboratorian trials were carried out with accordance to current requirements and standards of scientific research in agronomy and agriculture. Soil samples were analyzed with accordance to current standards of agrochemical analysis. Results. It was established that, on average, for 2019-2021, after harvesting corn for grain, the soil layer 0-30 cm contained 15.3 mg/kg of soil nitrates, 44.6 mg/kg of soil mobile phosphorus and 308.1 mg/kg of soil of exchangeable potassium, and after harvesting sunflower – 4.8 mg/kg of soil nitrates, 20.6 mg/kg of soil of mobile phosphorus and 124.5 mg/kg of soil of exchangeable potassium. Treatment of the postharvest residues of the studied crops with a biopreparation contributed to an increase in the content of nutrients in the soil. So, on average, over the years of research and according to the methods of soil cultivation, the treatment of post-harvest residues of corn and sunflower with the Ecostern Classic biodestroyer contributed to an increase in the content of nitrates in the soil layer 0-30 cm by 18.7 and 20.8%, mobile phosphorus by 5.3 and 8.7%, and exchangeable potassium – by 5.7 and 9.2%, depending on the studied culture. At the same time, regardless of the studied culture, the higher content of nutrients in the soil is determined in the variant of plowing. Conclusions. Treatment of post-harvest residues of corn and sunflower with Ecostern Classic biodestroyer and plowing improved the nutrient status of the soil. Thus, the content of nitrates in this variant of the experiment, compared to the variant of no-till tillage and treatment of the remains of the studied crops with water, in the soil layer 0-30 cm increased by 27.4% for the treatment of corn residues, by 32.4% for the treatment of sunflower. The content of mobile phosphorus increased by 8.6 and 13.0%, respectively, and exchangeable potassium – by 8.6 and 16.5% respectively.
References
2. Sun M., Xu X., Wang C., Bai Y., Fu C., Zhang L., Fu R., Wang Y. (2020). Environmental burdens of the comprehensive utilization of straw: Wheat straw utilization from a life-cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 259. 120702. doi:10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.120702
3. Björnsson L., Prade T. (2021). Sustainable cereal straw management: use as feedstock for emerging biobased industries or cropland soil incorporation? Waste and Biomass Valorization. 12. P. 5649–5663. doi:10.1007/ s12649-021-01419-9
4. Giuntoli J., Agostini A., Edwards R., Marelli L. (2017). Solid and gaseous bioenergy pathways: input values and GHG Emissions. Calculated according to the methodology set in COM(2016) 767. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2790/98297
5. Valin H., Peters D., Van den Berg M., Frank S., Havlik P., Forsell N., Hamelinck C. (2015). The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU. Ecofys Netherlands B V, Utrecht. 261 p.
6. Токмакова Л. М., Трепач А. О. Мікробіологічна деструкція органічної речовини в агроценозах. Вісник аграрної науки. 2022. №2 (827). С. 19 – 26. doi:10.31073/agrovisnyk202202-03
7. Jacinthe P.A., Lal R., Kimble J.M. (2002). Effects of wheat residue fertilization on accumulation and biochemical attributes of organic carbon in a central ohio luvisol. Soil Sciens. V. 167. I. 11. Р. 750–758.
8. Hossain M. Z., Fragstein P., Niemsdorff P., Heß J. (2017). Effect of different organic wastes on soil properties and plant growth and yield: a review. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica. 48(4). P. 224-237. doi:10.1515/ sab-2017-0030
9. Kõlli R. (2018). Influence of land use change on fabric of humus cover (pro humus form). Applied Soil Ecology. 123. P. 737-739. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.022 10. Нamaiunova V., Hlushko T., Honenko L. (2018). Preservation of soil fertility as basis for improving the efficiency of management in the Southern Steppe of Ukraine. Scientific development and achievements. 4. P. 13–27.
11. Марковська О. Є. Динаміка чисельності мікроорганізмів у темно-каштановому ґрунті за різних систем основного обробітку та удобрення в сівозміні на зрошенні. Agrology. 2018. 1 (3). С. 294–299. doi: 10.32819/2617-6106.2018.13009
12. Gamajunova V., Panfilova A., Kovalenko O., Khonenko L., Baklanova T., Sydiakina O. (2021). Better management of soil fertility in the Southern Steppe Zone of Ukraine. Better Management. Springer Nature Switzerland. P. 163-171. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-68394-8_16
13. Domaratskiy Y., Bazaliy V., Dobrovol’skiy A., Pichura V., Kozlova O. (2022). Influence of eco-safe growth-regulating substances on the phytosanitary state of agrocenoses of wheat varieties of various types of development in non-irrigated conditions of the Steppe Zone. Journal of Ecological Engineering. 23(8). P. 299–308. doi:10.12911/22998993/150865
14. Panfilova A. (2021). Influence of stubble biodestructor on soil microbiological activity and grain yield of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Notulae Scientia Biologicae. 13(4). 11035. doi:10.15835/nsb13411035
15. Dudchenko V., Markovska O., Sydiakina O. (2021). Soybean productivity in rice crop rotation depending on the Impact of biodestructor on post-harvest rice residues. Ecological Engineering & Environmental Technology. 22(6). P. 114-121. doi:10.12912/27197050/141466
16. Фурманець М. Г., Фурманець Ю. С., Фурманець І. Ю. Вплив систем обробітку ґрунту та удобрення на запаси продуктивної вологи під агрофітоценозами у сівозміні. Agrobiology. 2021. 2. doi:10.33245/2310-9270-2021-167-2-176-182
17. Зосимчук М. Альтернативна органіка. Agro Times. 2021. URL: https://agrotimes.ua/article/zagortannyapislyazhnyvnyh- reshtok-kukurudzy-pokrashhuyegrunt/ (дата звернення: 12.12.2022).
18. Małecka, I., Blecharczyk, A., Sawinska, Z., Dobrzeniecki, T. The effect of various long-term tillage systems on soil properties and spring barley yield. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2012. 36, 217–226. doi:10.3906/tar-1104-20.
19. Гангур В. В., Космінський О. О., Лень О. І., Тоцький В. М. Вплив удобрення на продуктивність соняшнику та якість насіння. Вісник Полтавської державної аграрної академії. 2022. №2. С. 50–56. doi:10.31210/visnyk2022.02.05
20. Продуктивність олійних культур за впливу ресурсозберігаючого живлення біопрепаратами в умовах Південного Степу України / В. Гамаюнова та ін. Агрохімічні ресурси та управління біопродуктивністю агроландшафтів : матеріали Міжнар. науково-практ. конф., м. Київ, 23 листоп. 2021 р. – 25 листоп. 2022 р. Київ, 2021. С. 10–18.
21. Ткаліч Ю. Вбиває не соняшник, а безгосподарність. Зерно. 2017. № 3. С. 28–30.
