Next Article in Journal
Response of Purslane Plants Grown under Salinity Stress and Biostimulant Formulations
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards Sustainable Productivity of Greenhouse Vegetable Soils: Limiting Factors and Mitigation Strategies
Previous Article in Journal
Physiological and Proteomic Analysis of Various Priming on Rice Seed under Chilling Stress
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Critical Role of Soil Ecological Stoichiometric Ratios: How Does Reforestation Improve Soil Nitrogen and Phosphorus Availability?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Selection of Suitable Organic Amendments to Balance Agricultural Economic Benefits and Carbon Sequestration

1
Institute of Farmland Irrigation, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Xinxiang 453002, China
2
Key Laboratory of Crop Water Use and Regulation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Xinxiang 453002, China
3
Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
4
Institute of Western Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changji 831100, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(17), 2428; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172428
Submission received: 15 July 2024 / Revised: 12 August 2024 / Accepted: 29 August 2024 / Published: 30 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Fertility Management for Plant Growth and Development)

Abstract

:
Long-term excessive use of fertilizers and intensive cultivation not only decreases soil organic carbon (SOC) and productivity, but also increases greenhouse gas emissions, which is detrimental to sustainable agricultural development. The purpose of this paper is to identify organic amendments suitable for winter wheat growth in the North China Plain by studying the effects of organic amendments on the economic benefits, carbon emissions, and carbon sequestration for winter wheat fields and to provide a theoretical basis for the wide application of organic amendments in agricultural fields. The two nitrogen rates were N0 (0 kg ha−1) and N240 (240 kg ha−1), and the four organic amendments were straw, manure, mushroom residue (M R), and biochar. The results showed that, compared to N0, N240 significantly increased the yield by 244.1–318.4% and the organic carbon storage by 16.7–30.5%, respectively, but increased the carbon emissions by 29.3–45.5%. In addition, soil carbon stocks increased with all three types of organic amendments compared to the straw amendment, with the biochar treatment being the largest, increasing carbon storage by 13.3–33.6%. In terms of yield and economic benefits, compared to the straw amendment, the manure and biochar amendments increased winter wheat yields by 0.0–1.5% and 4.0–13.3%, respectively, and M R slightly decreased wheat yield; only the economic benefit of the M R amendment was greater than that of the straw amendment, with an increase in economic benefit of 1.3% and 8.2% in the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons, respectively. Furthermore, according to the net ecosystem productivity (NEP), N0 was the source of CO2, while N240 was a sink of CO2. The TOPSIS results showed that N240 with a mushroom residue amendment could be recommended for increasing soil carbon stocks and economic benefits for winter wheat in the NCP and similar regions. Low-cost M R can increase farmer motivation and improve soil organic carbon, making a big step forward in the spread of organic materials on farmland.

1. Introduction

Food security is seriously threatened by the growing global population [1]. It is common practice to use chemical fertilizers to increase crop yields, but excessive application of nitrogen fertilizers leads to soil acidification [2], nitrogen loss [3], and reduces soil organic carbon sequestration [4], which in turn causes huge economic losses [5] and leads to the deterioration of agro-ecosystem health [6]. Therefore, how to effectively reduce economic losses and protect the health of agro-ecosystems is particularly important. As soil organic carbon has multiple functions in regulating the complex network of interactions in the soil, enhancing soil organic carbon is a key strategy for improving soil fertility [7]. Increasing soil organic carbon can improve crop yield by 23%, reduce fertilizer input by 5–7% [8], and reduce atmospheric CO2, and when soil organic carbon reaches the optimal level (12.7–13.4 g kg−1), the yield tends to remain stable [9]. Therefore, it is feasible to increase crop yield, reduce greenhouse effects, and increase soil carbon storage.
Large amounts of crop residue, industrial waste (mushroom residue) and livestock manure are generated globally every year [10,11,12], leading to enormous pressure on the environment. To improve the quality of agricultural soils and the utilization of organic materials and reduce the pressure of organic materials on the environment, the use of organic amendments is strongly recommended by researchers from different countries [13,14,15]. The application of organic amendments (OAs) is important for carbon sequestration and mitigation, but improper application of organic amendments (type and amount) can lead to different responses in the soil [16]. Compared to chemical fertilizers alone, chemical fertilizers with organic amendments increase organic carbon content by 7.6–17.3%, and chemical fertilizers with straw biochar mainly increase easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC), whereas chemical fertilizers with straw or soybean cake mainly increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) [17]. A meta-analysis also showed that organic amendments improved soil organic matter (SOM) by 3.6 units, with compost and biochar providing the greatest improvement in SOM and biosolids contributing the least to SOM [18], and a high N content and low C: N with the continuous application of organic amendments lead to a greater carbon sequestration [19]. Compared to compost, biochar reduced N2O emissions by 55%, and compared to fresh manure and compost, biochar increased organic carbon storage by 63% and 33%, respectively [20]. Meanwhile, Doblas-Rodrigo et al. [21] found that for grassland, only solid slurry fraction and late fermented solid slurry fraction significantly increased organic carbon stocks, and other organic amendments were able to keep soil organic carbon stocks unchanged. And for maize fields, most of the organic amendments decreased soil organic carbon stocks. In addition, some studies have been conducted by national researchers. For example, chemical fertilizer combined with manure significantly increased carbon emissions and had lower organic carbon content, but chemical fertilizer combined with biochar had the highest organic carbon content [22]. In order to obtain a reasonable fertilization regime with organic amendments, Zhang et al. [23] showed that long-term application of straw and manure increased yields by 6.4% and 9.9%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 25.7% and 48.6%, respectively, and combined with the net ecosystem economic prognosis (NEEB), it was found that chemical fertilizers combined with cow manure were more appropriate. Yi et al. [24] concluded that chicken manure combined with biochar can not only increase soil nutrient content and improve soil porosity, but also reduce soil heavy metal concentrations; meanwhile, Xu et al. [7] showed that organic amendments increased organic carbon stocks and crop yield, but the application of excessive organic amendments decreased the efficiency of organic carbon sequestration in infertile sandy soils. All of the above studies indicate that the selection of appropriate organic amendments is critical.
In addition, price is an important limiting factor for the widespread use of organic amendments [25]. Investigations in the Central Highlands of Kenya showed that the highest benefits of animal manure were obtained in Gatanga at USD 440.74, while the highest benefits of animal manure with fertilizer were obtained in Meru South at USD 456.25 [26]. Meanwhile, studies in rural areas of southern Italy showed that economic benefits were guaranteed when the price of vermicompost was below 0.84 EUR/kg [27]. In addition, replacing 15% and 30% of N with organic fertilizers can improve economic efficiency compared to N fertilization alone, but replacing 30% of N with organic fertilizers is a better choice in terms of long-term economic efficiency and ecology [28].
The North China Plain (NCP) is a major grain production area in China, accounting for 70% of the country’s wheat production [29]. The high-intensity rotation pattern of winter wheat and summer maize ensures food security but accelerates soil degradation by relying on better management patterns (water and fertilizer management, pest and disease control, mechanical operations, etc.), resulting in annual carbon losses of up to 77 g m−2 a−1 [30,31,32]. Therefore, it is necessary to take appropriate measures to balance soil quality and farmers’ benefits. However, current researchers have mostly focused on the effects on soil quality of one or two types of organic materials combined with chemical fertilizers, especially in terms of increasing soil organic matter and suppressing greenhouse gas emissions, ignoring the price of organic materials and the burden of labor, which actually has a negative impact on the applicability of organic materials on farmland.
Therefore, the objective of this research paper is to evaluate the effects of organic amendments on winter wheat yield, economic benefits, soil carbon emissions, soil organic carbon stocks (SOCs), and net ecosystem productivity (NEP) of winter wheat in the North China Plain. Then, the organic amendment that is beneficial to the growth of winter wheat in the North China Plain is determined, providing a theoretical basis for a wide application of organic amendments in farmland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

A 2-year field experiment was conducted from October 2021 to June 2023 at the Xinxiang Experimental Station of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (35.15° N, 113.80° E), located in Xinxiang Country, Henan Province, China. The area has a warm –temperate continental monsoon climate, with an average annual temperature of about 14 °C, an average rainfall of 582 mm, and a frost-free period of about 210 days. The soil type of the experimental area is loamy, and the average bulk density is 1.51 g cm−3. The basic chemical properties of the soil are given in Table 1. Rainfall during the two winter wheat seasons was 89 mm and 180 mm, respectively. Air temperature and reference evapotranspiration (ET0) are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment consisted of four organic amendments and two nitrogen levels. The two nitrogen rates were 0 and 240 kg ha−1. Our previous results showed that the nitrogen rate of 240 kg ha−1 was an optimal rate for wheat production in the experimental region [4,33]. The four organic amendments were straw, manure, mushroom residue (M R), and biochar. The two nitrogen rates and the four organic amendments interacted as 8 experimental treatments, and the area of each treatment was 60 m2 with three replications (Figure 2). We measured the nitrogen concentration of maize straw and organic amendments and then obtained the total nitrogen content of the maize straw based on the biomass of the maize straw. The total nitrogen content of the organic amendments applied to the farmland was the same as that of the maize straw. All organic amendments in each plot were applied to the field before wheat sowing. The application of manure, M R, and biochar is shown in Table 2.
This experiment was carried out on the plots of a long-term fertilizer experiment, which was described in detail in [4]. The winter wheat variety was Zhoumai-22, the sowing rate was 225 kg ha−1, and the row spacing was 20 cm. The two winter wheat seasons were from 16 October 2021 to 1 June 2022, and from 24 October 2022 to 3 June 2023. Before sowing, 105 kg ha−1 of K2O and 120 kg ha−1 of P2O5 were applied in each treatment; a total of 50% of urea was applied to the soil as a basal fertilizer before sowing, and 50% urea was applied to the soil before wheat flowering (N240). The N concentration of manure, mushroom residue, and biochar were 1.71%, 9.5%, and 2.8%, respectively.
To ensure the emergence of winter wheat seedlings, an irrigation amount of 18.34 mm was applied with sprinkling irrigation on 1 November 2021 and 28 October 2022. After the winter wheat reviving stage, drip irrigation was used for wheat irrigation.
Drip irrigation consisted of drip line spacing of 60 cm, emitter spacing of 30 cm, and an emitter rate of 2.2 L h−1. Drip irrigation was controlled by the difference between crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and rainfall (P). That is, irrigation was applied when ETc-P = 45 mm [34].

2.3. Measurements

2.3.1. Soil Respiration Rate (R) and Carbon Emission (CE)

After winter wheat sowing, soil collars (polyvinyl chloride tubes with an inner diameter of 20 cm and a height of 10 cm) were driven into the soil to a depth of 5 cm. Soil respiration rates were measured every 3 to 4 days using the LI-8100A automated soil CO2 flux measurement system (LI-COR Inc, Lincoln, NE, USA). In addition, soil respiration rates were measured for three consecutive days after rainfall, irrigation, and fertilizer application.
Soil respiration rate (R) [35] and carbon emission (CE) [36] were calculated with Equations (1) and (2).
R = 10 V P 0 ( 1 W 0 1000 ) C R S ( T 0 + 273.15 ) t
C E = [ ( R N + 1 + R N ) × 0.5 × ( t N + 1 t N ) × 0.1584 × 24 ] × 0.2727 × 10
where R is soil respiration rate, μmol (m2·s)−1; V is the collar volume, cm3; P0 is pressure, kPa; W0 is the initial water vapor molar fraction (mmol mol−1); S is the measured soil area, cm2; T is the initial air temperature, °C; and c t is the initial rate of change in CO2 molar fraction after moisture correction, μmol mol−1.
CE is soil carbon emission, kg C ha−1; N is the sampling frequency; and t is the sampling time.

2.3.2. Wheat Biomass and Grain Yield

The 30 sampled plants were cut from the soil surface, dried uniformly at 75 °C for approximately 4 days, and weighted for calculating the aboveground biomass after the wheat was harvested [37]. At harvest, a harvested area of 1 m2 in each plot was sampled for grain yield measurements. The wheat grain yield was manually threshed, sun-dried, weighed, and converted to a yield with a moisture content of 13%.

2.3.3. Partial Factor Productivity of N (PFPN) and Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency (NAE)

Partial factor productivity of N (PFPN, kg kg−1) and nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE, kg kg−1) were calculated with Equations (3) and (4).
PFPN = YN/N
NAE = YNY0/N
where YN (kg ha−1) is the yield of nitrogen treatment, Y0 (kg ha−1) is the yield of unapplied nitrogen treatment, and N (kg ha−1) is the nitrogen application rate.

2.3.4. Carbon Emission Efficiency (CEE) and Ecosystem Carbon Balance

Carbon emission efficiency was calculated as follows:
CEE = Y/CE
where CEE is the grain yield per 1 kg of carbon released, kg kg−1; Y is the crop grain yield, kg ha−1; and CE is soil carbon emission, kg C ha−1.
Ecosystem carbon balance was assessed by net ecosystem productivity, which was calculated as follows [36]:
NEP = NPP-Rm = Total biomass × 0.4 − Rs × 0.865
where NEP is the net ecosystem productivity (kg C ha−1); NPP is the net primary productivity (kg C ha−1), which is calculated by Total biomass × 0.4 (total biomass is the sum of aboveground biomass and underground biomass; underground biomass is calculated based on 32% of grain biomass) [38]; Rm is the soil microbial heterotrophic respiration (kg C ha−1), which is calculated as Rs × 0.865; and Rs is the cumulative soil respiration (kg C ha−1).

2.3.5. Soil Organic Carbon and the Storage of Organic Carbon

Soil samples were collected at a depth of 0–40 cm using a soil auger (internal diameter 5 cm) from three replicates in each treatment after the winter wheat harvest (June 2022 and 2023). Then, the soil samples were dried, sieved, and weighed. The SOC content of the soil samples was measured using the oil bath–K2Cr2O7 titration method [39].
The stock of soil organic carbon was calculated with Equation (7):
SOCS = SOC × BD × D × 0.1
where SOCS is the SOC stock (mg ha−1), BD is the bulk density (g cm−3), and D is the soil thickness (cm).

2.4. Economic Benefits Analysis

Economic analysis was based on differences in input and output differences. Detailed agronomic management components of both the winter wheat growing season wheat production and input and output prices based on market prices are presented in Table 3. All the prices for the agronomy are shown in Liu et al. [40].

2.5. TOPSIS Model

TOPSIS is a comprehensive evaluation method for multi-objective decision making for a finite number of solutions, which is ranked using ‘positive ideal solutions’ and ‘negative ideal solutions’ of the decision problem [41]. The highest-ranked solution is the optimal solution. The model has the following seven steps.
Step 1: Construct the original matrix.
X = x 11 x 1 n x m 1 x m n m × n
where xij is the Ith evaluation indicator for the Jth evaluation project, and m = 8, n = 7 in the experiment.
Step 2: Normalize the original matrix. We use the polar variation method for normalization, as shown in Equations (10) and (11).
R = r 11 r 1 n r m 1 r m n m × n
r i j = x i j m i n x i j m a x x i j m i n x i j
r i j = m a x x i j x i j m a x x i j m i n x i j
where m a x x i j and m i n x i j are the maximum and minimum values under the same indicator i, and rij is the value of the Jth evaluation project of the Ith indicator after unification.
Step 3: Indicator entropy.
P i j = x i j i = 1 m x i j
e j = 1 ln n ( i = 1 m P i j × ln P i j )
w j = 1 e j j = 1 n ( 1 e j )
where ej is the indicator entropy, and wj is the weight of individual data.
Step 4: Construct the entropy-weight original matrix.
Z = z 11 z 1 n z m 1 z m n m × n
z i j = w j × r i j
Step 5: Determine positive and negative ideal solutions.
Positive ideal solution:
Z + = ( Z 1 + , Z 2 + , , Z n + ) = ( m a x z 11 , z 21 , , z m 1 , m i n z 12 , z 22 , , z n 2 , , m i n z 1 n , z 2 n , , z m n )
Negative ideal solution:
Z = ( Z 1 , Z 2 , , Z n ) = ( m i n z 11 , z 21 , , z m 1 , m a x z 12 , z 22 , , z n 2 , , m a x z 1 n , z 2 n , , z m n )
Step 6: Calculate the Euclidean distance between each scheme and the ideal solution.
D i + = j = 1 n ( z i + z i j ) 2
D i = j = 1 n ( z i z i j ) 2
Step 7: Calculate the relative closeness of each solution.
C i = D i D i + D i +
Finally, arrange the positions based on the C i values and proceed to the next step based on these positions.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Microsoft Office 2021 software was used for data collection and Origin 2023b for graphing. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 26.0, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Data were transformed if a Gaussian distribution was not achieved. Two-factor analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of organic amendment types on winter wheat yield, economic benefits, carbon emissions, organic carbon stock, and NEP under different nitrogen fertilizers rates. The means of the variables were compared using the LSD test (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the TOPSIS model was used for comprehensive evaluation.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Respiration Rate, Soil Carbon Emission (CE) under Different Treatments

The pattern of soil respiration rates in the winter wheat field was more consistent across all treatments during the two growing seasons, with soil respiration rates varying from 0.2 to 7.1 μmol (m2 s)−1 (Figure 3). Soil respiration rates tended to decrease from the sowing to the reviving stage and tended to increase after the reviving stage. Soil respiration rates peaked after irrigation or fertilization. In the 2021–2022 season, the peak of soil respiration rates peaked after the last irrigation event, and heavier rainfall significantly increased soil respiration rates. However, heavier rainfall did not increase the soil respiration rates but suppressed soil respiration rates in the 2022–2023 season. In addition, the application of nitrogen increased soil respiration, and soil respiration rates were highest in the biochar treatment and lowest in the straw treatment under N0 and N240 treatments.
Over the two seasons, soil carbon emissions were ranked as biochar > M R > manure > straw (Figure 4a). Compared to the straw amendment, CE increased significantly by 23.49–29.6%, 14.82–22.87%, and 5.14–11.50% (p < 0.05) for the biochar, mushroom residue, and manure, respectively.
The M R reduced CE by 3.7–9.3% compared to the biochar amendment. Nitrogen rates had a significant effect on CEE (p < 0.05), but the impact of organic amendments (OAs) on CEE was inconsistent between the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season (Figure 4b). The CEE of N240 was the highest in both winter wheat seasons. Compared with N0, the CEE of N240 increased by 159.3% and 173.9%, respectively, indicating that the nitrogen rate could improve CEE. In addition, the CEE of the biochar and M R treatments reduced by 7.9–21.4% and 1.6–33.5%, respectively, compared to the straw amendment.

3.2. SOC Stock and Ecosystem Carbon Balance under Different Treatments

Nitrogen rates and organic amendments had a significant effect on SOCS (p < 0.05) (Figure 5). Under the same organic amendment, the SOCS of N240 was significantly higher than that of N0, with increases ranging from 16.7% to 30.5%, and the average increase was largest in the mushroom residue treatment, with a value of 28.9%, followed by the biochar treatment, with a value of 25.6%, while there was no difference between the straw and manure treatments. SOCS was highest in the N240-biochar treatment, with 60.5 Mg ha−1 and 62.8 Mg ha−1 in the two seasons, and lowest in the N0-straw treatment, with 38.77 Mg ha−1 and 44.11 Mg ha−1. The SOCS of the biochar, M R, and manure treatments were 13.28–33.61%, 6.27–27.61%, and 2.47–19.29% higher than those of the straw treatment, with the maximum measured in N240.
Net primary productivity (NPP) is an important indicator of the carbon sequestration capacity of agricultural land. Nitrogen rates, organic amendments, and the interaction between nitrogen rates and organic amendments had a significant effect on NPP (p < 0.05) (Figure 6a). Over the two seasons, maximum and minimum NPP were measured in the N240-biochar and N0-straw treatments, respectively. At the same nitrogen rate, the biochar, M R, and manure treatments increased NPP by 29.7–30.2%, 13.2–15.5%, and 6.5–7.9%, respectively, compared to the straw treatment. Furthermore, the NPP of N240 increased by 161.3–170.2% and 155.7–182.0% compared with N0, with the biochar treatment having the strongest carbon sequestration capacity in the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons.
NEP is the net photosynthetic productivity of ecosystems, which can be used to access the carbon balance of ecosystems. The NEP values of N0 were negative, with the N0-M R and N0-biochar treatments being the lowest for 2021–2022 and 2022–2023, respectively (Figure 6c). Under the N240 condition, organic amendments significantly affected NEP (p < 0.05). At the nitrogen rate of 240 kg ha−1, the NEP of each organic amendment was positive, indicating that nitrogen application can improve the net productivity of ecosystems. The highest NEP was observed in the N240-biochar treatment, with 3455.3 kg ha−1 and 1822.0 kg ha−1 in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023, respectively. Compared to the N240-straw treatment, the N240-biochar treatment significantly increased NEP by 21.4% and 83.9%, respectively. The N240-M R decreased NEP by 19.9% and 32.7% compared to the N240-biochar treatment. Therefore, unfertilized farmland is a source of atmospheric CO2, fertilized farmland is a sink of atmospheric CO2, and the N240-biochar treatment has the strongest carbon sink effect.

3.3. Yield, Biomass, PFPN, and NAE under Different Treatments

Grain yield and aboveground biomass were higher in the N240-biochar treatment and lowest in the N0-M R treatment. Under N0 and N240 treatments, the biochar and manure treatments increased wheat grain yields by 4.0–13.3% and 0.0–1.5% compared to the straw treatment (Figure 7a). Organic amendments had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on wheat yields in 2021–2022, but were not significant in 2022–2023 (p > 0.05). Nitrogen application significantly (p < 0.05) increased grain yields, with the highest rate of increase in the M R treatment, at 280.83% and 318.37% in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023, respectively, under the same organic amendment; the average rate of increase was lower in the straw and manure treatments, at 250.8% and 251.3%, respectively. Over the two seasons, the interaction of organic amendments and nitrogen treatments (N0 and N240) had no significant effect on grain yield, but had a significant effect on aboveground biomass (Figure 7b).
Partial factor productivity of N (PFPN) and nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE) of winter wheat in the two seasons ranged from 34.59 to 39.97 kg kg−1 and 24.55 to 29.76 kg kg−1, respectively (Figure 7c). The PFPN of the biochar, M R, and manure treatments were 10.5–13.1%, 2.1–8.2%, and 0.3–1.5% higher than the straw treatment, respectively. The NAE of the biochar, M R, and manure treatments was 5.4–12.9%, 6.1–14.3%, and 0.4–1.5% higher than the straw treatment, respectively. Organic amendments significantly affected PFPN (p < 0.05) in 2021–2022, but were not significant in 2022–2023. The trend of NAE was different from PFPN; it was shown that biochar > M R > manure > straw in 2021–2022 and M R > biochar > manure > straw in 2022–2023, but organic amendments had no significant effect on NAE (p > 0.05).

3.4. Economic Benefits

The net profit pattern of winter wheat differed slightly between the two growing seasons (Table 4). The yield of N240 was significantly higher than that of N0 under different nitrogen rates. Under the condition of different organic amendments, the amount and price of manure and biochar are higher, and the amount and price of M R were lower, resulting in the net profit of the manure treatment being much lower than the other treatments, and the net profit of mushroom residue treatment being 1.3–16.1% higher than that of the straw treatment.

3.5. TOPSIS

TOPSIS was used for a comprehensive evaluation. Table 5 shows the distance between the different treatments and the positive and negative ideal scenarios and the closeness between them using the TOPSIS model. According to the final ranking, it can be seen that the N240-biochar or N240-M R ranked first or second in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023, indicating that the N240-mushroom residue treatment was the optimal treatment in this experiment.

4. Discussion

4.1. Soil Carbon Emission under Nitrogen Application and Organic Amendments

Nitrogen fertilizer is an important factor in increasing yields, but long-term overuse of nitrogen fertilizer leads to a decline in soil quality and economic efficiency and increases the soil’s contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gases, which restricts the healthy development of circular sustainable agriculture [5,6]. Organic amendments such as livestock manure, industrial wastes, and straw derivatives have a beneficial effect on soil quality and crop yields, but further research is needed due to differences in the physicochemical properties of organic amendments.
Soil CO2 emissions are strongly linked to temperature, moisture, and organic carbon, and these factors are influenced by the amount of nitrogen fertilizer and organic amendments [42,43,44]. In our research, the carbon emission of the N application treatment was significantly higher than that of the N0 treatment, which is consistent with the findings of Wang et al. [45]. The reason for this may be that a reduced nitrogen fertilizer application affects the crop growth, resulting in leaves not fully covering the soil surface [46], which increases soil evaporation and soil temperature but reduces soil water content, which in turn reduces carbon emissions. In addition, there are several reasons affecting CO2 emissions. First, N fertilization increases plant biomass, which increases soil carbon input and root respiration and stimulates soil CO2 emissions [47,48,49]. In our research, winter wheat biomass had a significant positive correlation (p < 0.05) with CO2 emissions in the two wheat seasons (Figure S1a), indicating that increasing biomass could stimulate CO2 production. Second, N fertilization further affects the rate of CO2 emissions by influencing soil microbial activity and function [50], which in turn affects soil carbon emissions. Nitrogen fertilization promotes microbial growth, enhances metabolic activities, and stimulates soil carbon mineralization [51], resulting in higher soil CO2 emissions.
Organic amendments have different effects on soil CO2 emissions. In this paper, the organic amendments significantly increased soil carbon emissions by 5.1–29.6% compared to straw returning, with higher emissions from mushroom residue and biochar treatments (Figure 4a). This indicates that the application of organic amendments did not suppress soil CO2 emissions. In previous studies, the types and amounts of organic amendments applied had different effects on soil carbon emission [45,52]. For example, both enhancement and suppression of soil CO2 emissions by organic amendments have been reported in different ecosystems, depending on the type and amount of organic matter [15,53]. In general, the addition of organic amendments that affect CO2 emissions is attributed to the input of carbon with plant and organic amendments and carbon losses due to microbial decomposition. Therefore, there are several reasons for increased CO2 emissions from organic amendments. Direct and indirect inputs of carbon from organic matter (by increasing crop biomass, which in turn is returned to the farmland) increase soil organic matter. Studies have shown that there is a strong relationship between soil CO2 emissions and organic matter levels [54]. In this experiment, soil organic carbon was significantly and positively correlated (p < 0.05) with total CO2 emissions (Figure S1b). In addition, CO2 emissions were closely related to microbial diversity and function [45,55]. Previous studies have shown that biochar application increases soil gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and dehydrogenases, leading to faster soil microbial respiration, which in turn increase soil CO2 emissions [56,57]. Zhang et al. [58] demonstrated that straw and manure application increased soil nutrients and stimulated microbial activity, which allows the soil to maintain higher microbial biomass and enzyme activities, thus increasing soil CO2 emissions. This suggests that the application of organic amendments to agricultural soils affect soil microbial and enzyme activities. In this experiment, soil CO2 emissions from the mushroom residue treatment were significantly lower than the biochar treatment (p < 0.05). The reasons may be that although the C: N of the mushroom residue treatment was greater than that of the biochar treatment in this experiment, the amount of biochar applied was much greater than that of the mushroom residue, which disturbed the original carbon and nitrogen balance of the soil, and the unstable components in the biochar increased microbial abundance, leading to a higher mineralization of organic carbon than that of the mushroom residue treatment [59,60].

4.2. SOCs under Nitrogen Application and Organic Amendments

In this study, soils with nitrogen fertilizer application significantly increased soil organic carbon stock by 16.7–30.5% (p < 0.05) (Figure 5), which suggests that nitrogen inputs contribute to soil carbon stock. Previous studies have shown that the amount of nitrogen fertilizer and the way it is added can affect soil organic carbon content [61,62]. For example, N application can cause an increase, decrease, or have no effect on soil organic carbon, which is closely related to the amount and type of N applied and soil type [63,64,65]. In other words, N fertilizer affects the balance between C input and soil C loss and determines soil organic carbon stocks [66]. In general, the effect of N application on soil carbon storage can be attributed to crop biomass and microbial capacity to decompose straw and degrade existing soil carbon sources [46,67]. Therefore, N fertilization can increase carbon storage for the following reasons: N application increases the N concentration in plant tissues to increase chlorophyll content, enhances the activity of photosynthesis-related enzymes in the plant, and thus improves photosynthetic efficiency [68,69]. Furthermore, N application significantly increased aboveground biomass (p < 0.05) (Figure 7b), increased crop leaf area, and improved CO2 assimilation efficiency. On the other hand, microorganisms play an important role in the soil carbon cycle. Under the conditions of soil nutrient deficiency, microorganisms produce enzymes to promote the decomposition of organic matter and maintain their own growth, and they expand energy in the process of producing enzymes, which slows down microbial carbon fixation and leads to organic carbon loss [61,70]. Nitrogen acquisition enzyme activity decreased after N fertilizer application, and there was a negative correlation between N acquisition enzyme activity and organic carbon [61], which is a good indication of the importance of N fertilizer application on soil carbon sequestration. At present, soil organic carbon is not saturated under straw return conditions and soil carbon sequestration is not able to achieve organic carbon enhancement [7]. Application of organic amendments not only provides exogenous carbon, but also increases plant biomass, which in turn increases the input of carbon with crop biomass (Figure 7b). In this research, there was a significant difference in SOCs among different organic amendments, with biochar treatments having the highest SOCs (Figure 5), which is similar to the findings of Cheng et al. (2024) [71]. This can be explained by the fact that the application of biochar reduced carbon cycle enzyme activities [17]. The protection of organic carbon by biochar is related to the presence of its own difficult-to-break down compounds [20]. However, in this research, the enhancement of SOCs by biochar was not as high as previously reported, which may be due to the fact that the amount of biochar applied in this study (1665 kg ha−1 and 3286 kg ha−1) was much lower than that in other studies (10 t ha−1) [17] or that the carbon content of the biochar (260.8 g kg−1) was lower than that in other studies (683.1 g kg−1) [72]. Meanwhile, manure and mushroom residues were also able to increase SOCs compared to straw, and the SOCs of mushroom residue was higher than that of manure, which is similar to Xu et al. (2022) [7]. The difference is that the SOCs in my research is higher than the value of this research, while the percentage of carbon stock enhancement by organic amendments is lower. There may be two reasons for this: firstly, the application of the amount of manure and mushroom residues in our research were much lower than in other studies [7], resulting in a lower carbon sequestration capacity. Secondly, it may be related to soil basal nutrients; when the soil basal nutrient content is low, the soil microbial community function decreases [73] and is unable to metabolize the added carbon, so the organic amendments increase the SOCs to a greater extent.
In addition, it has been shown that SOC and SOCs are correlated with the C: N of organic amendments, i.e., organic amendments with a high C: N have a higher carbon sequestration capacity than those with a low C: N [74]. However, in our research, the SOCs of the organic amendment with high C: N (mushroom residue) was not greater than that of the organic amendment with low C: N (biochar), but it was greater than that of the organic amendment with low C: N (manure). Therefore, we believed that the C: N of organic amendments are not indicative of their carbon sequestration capacity, and that differences in the chemical structure of different organic amendments need to be considered.

4.3. Yield under Nitrogen Application and Organic Amendments

Leaf area index (LAI) and aboveground biomass are key factors in crop growth. Studies have shown that winter wheat yield is closely related to LAI and aboveground biomass [37]. A higher leaf area index is beneficial for generating higher aboveground biomass, thereby increasing winter wheat yield [75]. In our study, LAI and aboveground biomass were significantly greater in the N240 treatment than in the N0 treatment (Table S1, Figure 7b and Figure S2). The yield of N240 was significantly higher than N0 due to higher LAI and aboveground biomass. The yield of the N240 treatment was increased by 243.55–280.83% and 257.14–318.37% compared to N0 during the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 growing seasons, respectively. In addition, the application of soil amendments affected crop growth and yield differently [76,77]. The addition of organic amendments can increase aboveground biomass and crop yield [78], but some researchers have also shown that the application of organic amendments reduced crop yield [79]. In this paper, biochar and mushroom residue treatments had relatively larger yield increases compared to straw treatment under different nitrogen fertilizers (Figure 7a), which may be attributed to the fact that the application of organic amendments improves the soil organic carbon content and stimulates the microbial utilization of soil nitrogen, which in turn promotes the growth of the crop and achieves the effect of a yield increase. In this paper, the increase in PFPN and NAE of both mushroom residue and biochar treatments could explain the efficient utilization of nitrogen in winter wheat.
Secondly, yield components, such as spike number, 1000-grain weight and kernels per spike, play an important role in determining grain yield, which is influenced by growing environment and management practices [80,81]. Previous studies have shown that N fertilizer application modulates yield components [80,82]. In our study, N fertilizer application significantly increased spike number, kernels per spike, and number of effective spikes per plant in winter wheat at harvest (Figure S3a–c), which is in agreement with the results of Lu et al. [80]. Yield increased with the increase of spike number, which was consistent with the results that spike number had a positive effect on yield [83]. Meanwhile, in this paper, nitrogen fertilizer application reduced 1000-grain weight (Figure S3d), but the loss from thousand-grain weight could be compensated by the increase of spike number and kernels per spike (Figure S3a,b). In addition, in this paper, under the same nitrogen fertilizer condition, compared with straw return, organic matter had no significant effect on the spike number of wheat (Figure S3a), but significantly increased the number of kernels per spike and the number of effective spikes per plant of winter wheat. This may be the limiting factor for the significant increase in yield with organic amendments.

4.4. The Balance of Economic and Ecological Benefits under Nitrogen Application and Organic Amendments

In this study, organic amendments increased crop yield, with higher yields under nitrogen application conditions with mushroom residue and biochar treatments (Figure 7a), which is supported by several studies [6,84]. In practice, however, the application of organic amendments on farmland is still limited by the additional economic costs involved [25].
In this study, the main factors affecting economic efficiency were yield, cost of organic amendments, labor costs, and machinery costs. The results of the 2-year experiment showed that under nitrogen fertilizer application conditions, mushroom residue provided the highest economic returns at the lowest cost compared to manure and biochar treatments (Figure 7b and Table 3). Moreover, mechanized application of organic amendments is not widely used [7]. In most cases, organic amendments are still applied manually, with labor costs accounting for 23.3–38.6% of total expenditure (Table 3). Thus, the labor cost of applying organic amendments is a major cost for small-hold farmers. To increase the widespread use of organic amendments on farms, mechanization of organic amendments could be pursued to reduce labor costs, or the use of cheaper organic amendments to reduce costs.
Net ecosystem productivity (NEP) is the difference between the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and the amount of carbon lost through plant and soil respiration [85]. When NEP is positive, it indicates that the ecosystem is a carbon sink, while when NEP is negative, it indicates that the system is a carbon source. Our research showed that organic amendments failed to enhance soil carbon sequestration without nitrogen fertilization, whereas with nitrogen fertilization, all organic amendments were able to enhance CO2 sequestration, and the biochar treatment was significantly higher than the other treatments (p < 0.05). It has been shown that abiotic (nitrogen deposition) and biotic factors (plant height, leaf area, biomass, etc.) are closely related to net primary productivity (NPP) [86]. In this study, there were significant differences in aboveground biomass and grain yield between the organic amendment treatments, and thus in net primary productivity (NPP) between the treatments. In addition, soil heterotrophic respiration (Rm) is another factor affecting NEP, which is strongly influenced by temperature and moisture. When soil moisture is moderate, increased soil temperature increases soil CO2 release; when moisture is deficient or supersaturated, increased soil temperature does not increase soil CO2 emissions [87]. In this study, the highest soil heterotrophic respiration was observed in the biochar treatment, which may be the result of biochar increasing the soil surface temperature and microbial activity, which in turn increases CO2 emissions.
TOPSIS can accurately and effectively evaluate the pros and cons of planning schemes, providing reliable evaluation results [88]. Mehmood et al. [88] selected grain yield, GWPI, WPC, EWPC, and GWP as evaluation indicators, assigned weights based on their importance, and combined them with the TOPSIS method to provide the optimal strategy for increasing yield and reducing emissions in winter wheat. Zhong et al. [88] optimized using one or more objective decision-making methods to achieve the goal of reducing GWP and maintaining relatively high yields. In our research, we used the TOPSIS method and combined multiple indicators (winter wheat growth indicators, organic carbon stocks, carbon emissions, NEP, and related indicators) for effective evaluation, and the final results showed that under nitrogen application conditions, the mushroom residue or biochar amendments can balance economic benefits and soil carbon sequestration capacity.

5. Conclusions

This study was based on a two-year experiment conducted from October 2021 to June 2023 to measure winter wheat yield, biomass, soil carbon emissions, and soil organic carbon stocks and related metrics calculated from these metrics and analyzed using mathematical methods.
Organic amendments improved wheat yield, soil carbon stock, and soil carbon emissions. Meanwhile, net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and net profit was greater in biochar and mushroom residue with N240, respectively, compared with straw returning. The TOPSIS method showed that mushroom residue under nitrogen application conditions was suitable for application to farmland.
In the future, we will continue to analyze the applicability of different organic amendments in the North China Plain from the perspective of soil aggregate stability, soil nutrients, water and nitrogen use efficiency, soil carbon and nitrogen related genes, etc., providing basic support for the large-scale application of organic amendments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants13172428/s1, Figure S1: The relationship of aboveground biomass and soil carbon emission (a) and SOCs and soil carbon emission (b) in 2021–2022 and 2022–2023; Figure S2: Leaf area index (LAI) of winter wheat stages in the 2021–2022 (a) and 2022–2023 (b) growing seasons. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05); Figure S3: 1000-grain weight (a), spike number (b), kernels per spike (c) and spike length (d) on yield components of winter wheat stage in the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 growing seasons. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05); Table S1: Analysis of variance showing the effects of year, nitrogen, organic amendment, and their interaction on leaf area index (LAI) of winter wheat stages in the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 growing seasons.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.G.; methodology, H.C. and J.L.; software, H.C. and X.W.; formal analysis, H.C., X.W. and Y.F.; validation, H.C.; visualization, H.C.; investigation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.C.; writing—review and editing, H.C., J.L., S.M. and Y.G.; funding acquisition, S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFD1900802), the China Agriculture Research System of MOA and MARA (CARS-03-19), the Major Science and Technology Project of Shandong Province (2023TZXD011), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32101856).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jha, R.; Zhang, K.; He, Y.; Mendler-Drienyovszki, N.; Magyar-Tábori, K.; Quinet, M.; Germ, M.; Kreft, I.; Meglič, V.; Ikeda, K.; et al. Global nutritional challenges and opportunities: Buckwheat, a potential bridge between nutrient deficiency and food security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 145, 104365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Darilek, J.L.; Huang, B.; Wang, Z.; Qi, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, W.; Gu, Z.; Shi, X. Changes in soil fertility parameters and the environmental effects in a rapidly developing region of China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sapkota, T.B.; Bijay, S.; Takele, R. Chapter Five—Improving nitrogen use efficiency and reducing nitrogen surplus through best fertilizer nitrogen management in cereal production: The case of India and China. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; Volume 178, pp. 233–294. [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, C.; Wang, G.; Han, Q.; Sun, J.; Ning, H.; Feng, D. Soil moisture and water-nitrogen synergy dominate the change of soil carbon stock in farmland. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 287, 108424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khan, M.S.A.; Abbott, L.K.; Solaiman, Z.M.; Mawson, P.R.; Waite, I.S.; Jenkins, S.N. Complementary effect of zoo compost with mineral nitrogen fertilisation increases wheat yield and nutrition in a low-nutrient soil. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Thakur, B.K.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, A.; Shivani; Singh, K.K.; Pal, P.K. Integration of biochar with nitrogen in acidic soil: A strategy to sequester carbon and improve the yield of stevia via altering soil properties and nutrient recycling. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Xu, C.; Wang, J.; Wu, D.; Li, C.; Wang, L.; Ji, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ai, Y. Optimizing organic amendment applications to enhance carbon sequestration and economic benefits in an infertile sandy soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 303, 114129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oldfield, E.E.; Bradford, M.A.; Wood, S.A. Global meta-analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields. Soil 2019, 5, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ma, Y.; Woolf, D.; Fan, M.; Qiao, L.; Li, R.; Lehmann, J. Global crop production increase by soil organic carbon. Nat. Geosci. 2023, 16, 1159–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ruangjanda, S.; Iwai, C.B.; Greff, B.; Chang, S.W.; Ravindran, B. Valorization of spent mushroom substrate in combination with agro-residues to improve the nutrient and phytohormone contents of vermicompost. Environ. Res. 2022, 214, 113771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fuchs, W.; Wang, X.; Gabauer, W.; Ortner, M.; Li, Z. Tackling ammonia inhibition for efficient biogas production from chicken manure: Status and technical trends in Europe and China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 97, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Patel, M.R.; Panwar, N.L. Biochar from agricultural crop residues: Environmental, production, and life cycle assessment overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2023, 19, 200173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nelissen, V.; Saha, B.K.; Ruysschaert, G.; Boeckx, P. Effect of different biochar and fertilizer types on N2O and NO emissions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 70, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oladele, S.O.; Adetunji, A.T. Agro-residue biochar and N fertilizer addition mitigates CO2-C emission and stabilized soil organic carbon pools in a rain-fed agricultural cropland. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2021, 9, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shaaban, M.; Wu, Y.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Peng, Q.-A.; Lin, S.; Hu, R. Enzyme activities and organic matter mineralization in response to application of gypsum, manure and rice straw in saline and sodic soils. Environ. Res. 2023, 224, 115393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Siedt, M.; Schäffer, A.; Smith, K.E.C.; Nabel, M.; Roß-Nickoll, M.; van Dongen, J.T. 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. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 751, 141607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cheng, Z.; Guo, J.; Jin, W.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Q.; Zha, L.; Zhou, Z.; Meng, Y. Responses of SOC, labile SOC fractions, and amino sugars to different organic amendments in a coastal saline-alkali soil. Soil Tillage. Res. 2024, 239, 106051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Malone, Z.; Berhe, A.A.; Ryals, R. Impacts of organic matter amendments on urban soil carbon and soil quality: A meta-analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2023, 419, 138148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sonsri, K.; Naruse, H.; Watanabe, A. Mechanisms controlling the stabilization of soil organic matter in agricultural soils as amended with contrasting organic amendments: Insights based on physical fractionation coupled with 13C NMR spectroscopy. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 825, 153853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Canatoy, R.C.; Jeong, S.T.; Cho, S.R.; Galgo, S.J.C.; Kim, P.J. Importance of biochar as a key amendment to convert rice paddy into carbon negative. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 873, 162331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Doblas-Rodrigo, Á.; Gallejones, P.; Artetxe, A.; Merino, P. Role of livestock-derived amendments in soil organic carbon stocks in forage crops. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 901, 165931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, Y.; Zhou, X.; Du, C.; Liu, Y.; Xu, X.; Ejaz, I.; Hu, N.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; et al. Trade-off between soil carbon emission and sequestration for winter wheat under reduced irrigation: The role of soil amendments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 352, 108535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, X.; Qian, H.; Hua, K.; Chen, H.; Deng, A.; Song, Z.; Zhang, J.; Raheem, A.; Danso, F.; Wang, D.; et al. Organic amendments increase crop yield while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the perspective of carbon fees in a soybean-wheat system. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 325, 107736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yi, X.; Ji, L.; Hu, Z.; Yang, X.; Li, H.; Jiang, Y.; He, T.; Yang, Y.; Ni, K.; Ruan, J. Organic amendments improved soil quality and reduced ecological risks of heavy metals in a long-term tea plantation field trial on an Alfisol. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Amoah-Antwi, C.; Kwiatkowska-Malina, J.; Thornton, S.F.; Fenton, O.; Malina, G.; Szara, E. Restoration of soil quality using biochar and brown coal waste: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mwaura, G.G.; Kiboi, M.N.; Mugwe, J.N.; Nicolay, G.; Bett, E.K.; Muriuki, A.; Musafiri, C.M.; Ngetich, F.K. Economic evaluation and socioeconomic drivers influencing farmers’ perceptions on benefits of using organic inputs technologies in Upper Eastern Kenya. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Raimondo, M.; Di Rauso Simeone, G.; Coppola, G.P.; Zaccardelli, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Rao, M.A. Economic benefits and soil improvement: Impacts of vermicompost use in spinach production through industrial symbiosis. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhai, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhai, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, M.; Yao, H.; Lv, L.; Shen, H.; Zhang, J.; Yao, Y.; et al. Partial substitution of chemical fertilizer by organic fertilizer benefits grain yield, water use efficiency, and economic return of summer maize. Soil Tillage. Res. 2022, 217, 105287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, J.; Si, Z.; Wu, L.; Chen, J.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. Using stable isotopes to quantify root water uptake under a new planting pattern of high-low seed beds cultivation in winter wheat. Soil Tillage. Res. 2021, 205, 104816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Su, Y.; Yu, M.; Xi, H.; Lv, J.; Ma, Z.; Kou, C.; Shen, A. Soil microbial community shifts with long-term of different straw return in wheat-corn rotation system. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, J.-Y.; Chen, P.; Li, Z.-G.; Li, L.-Y.; Zhang, R.-Q.; Hu, W.; Liu, Y. Soil aggregate-associated organic carbon mineralization and its driving factors in rhizosphere soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 186, 109182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, Q.; Men, X.; Hui, C.; Ge, F.; Ouyang, F. Wheat yield losses from pests and pathogens in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, J.; Wang, G.; Hamani, A.K.M.; Amin, A.S.; Sun, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Gao, Y. Optimization of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application with Climate-Smart Agriculture in the North China Plain. Water 2021, 13, 3415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shen, X.; Wang, G.; Tilahun Zeleke, K.; Si, Z.; Chen, J.; Gao, Y. Crop Water Production Functions for Winter Wheat with Drip Fertigation in the North China Plain. Agronomy 2020, 10, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Herbst, M.; Pohlig, P.; Graf, A.; Weihermüller, L.; Schmidt, M.; Vanderborght, J.; Vereecken, H. Quantification of water stress induced within-field variability of carbon dioxide fluxes in a sugar beet stand. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 297, 108242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lv, D.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Feng, H.; Guo, X.; Li, C. Characteristics of soil CO2 emission and ecosystem carbon balance in wheat-maize rotation field with 4-year consecutive application of two lignite-derived humic acids. Chemosphere 2022, 309, 136654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Si, Z.; Liu, J.; Wu, L.; Li, S.; Wang, G.; Yu, J.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. A high-yield and high-efficiency cultivation pattern of winter wheat in North China Plain: High-low seedbed cultivation. Field Crop. Res. 2023, 300, 109010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cai, Z.C.; Qin, S.W. Dynamics of crop yields and soil organic carbon in a long-term fertilization experiment in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Geoderma 2006, 136, 708–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, Z.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. Long-term effects of plastic mulching on soil structure, organic carbon and yield of rainfed maize. Agri. Water Manag. 2023, 287, 108447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, J.; Si, Z.; Wu, L.; Shen, X.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. High-low seedbed cultivation drives the efficient utilization of key production resources and the improvement of wheat productivity in the North China Plain. Agri. Water Manag. 2023, 285, 108357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rane, N.L.; Achari, A.; Choudhary, S.P.; Mallick, S.K.; Pande, C.B.; Srivastava, A.; Moharir, K.N. A decision framework for potential dam site selection using GIS, MIF and TOPSIS in Ulhas river basin, India. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 423, 138890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Akhtar, K.; Wang, W.; Ren, G.; Khan, A.; Enguang, N.; Khan, A.; Feng, Y.; Yang, G.; Wang, H. Straw mulching with inorganic nitrogen fertilizer reduces soil CO2 and N2O emissions and improves wheat yield. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fagodiya, R.K.; Pathak, H.; Bhatia, A.; Jain, N.; Kumar, A.; Malyan, S.K. Global warming impacts of nitrogen use in agriculture: An assessment for India since 1960. Carbon Manag. 2020, 11, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, L.-J.; You, M.-Y.; Shi, H.-A.; Ding, X.-L.; Qiao, Y.-F.; Han, X.-Z. Soil CO2 emissions from a cultivated Mollisol: Effects of organic amendments, soil temperature, and moisture. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2013, 55, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, L.; Yang, K.; Gao, C.; Zhu, L. Effect and mechanism of biochar on CO2 and N2O emissions under different nitrogen fertilization gradient from an acidic soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Si, Z.; Zain, M.; Mehmood, F.; Wang, G.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. Effects of nitrogen application rate and irrigation regime on growth, yield, and water-nitrogen use efficiency of drip-irrigated winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agri. Water Manag. 2020, 231, 106002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sainju, U.M.; Ghimire, R.; Dangi, S. Soil carbon dioxide and methane emissions and carbon balance with crop rotation and nitrogen fertilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, Z.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, Y. Finding the fertilization optimization to balance grain yield and soil greenhouse gas emissions under water-saving irrigation. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 214, 105167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bicharanloo, B.; Bagheri Shirvan, M.; Keitel, C.; Dijkstra, F.A. Rhizodeposition mediates the effect of nitrogen and phosphorous availability on microbial carbon use efficiency and turnover rate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 142, 107705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, S.; Fang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Li, Y.; Ge, T.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Yu, B.; Song, X.; Chen, J.; et al. Linking soil carbon availability, microbial community composition and enzyme activities to organic carbon mineralization of a bamboo forest soil amended with pyrogenic and fresh organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 801, 149717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sawada, K.; Inagaki, Y.; Toyota, K. Priming effects induced by C and N additions in relation to microbial biomass turnover in Japanese forest soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 162, 103884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Soria, R.; Rodríguez-Berbel, N.; Sánchez-Cañete, E.P.; Villafuerte, A.B.; Ortega, R.; Miralles, I. Organic amendments from recycled waste promote short-term carbon sequestration of restored soils in drylands. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 327, 116873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lin, X.; Wang, N.; Li, F.; Yan, B.; Pan, J.; Jiang, S.; Peng, H.; Chen, A.; Wu, G.; Zhang, J.; et al. Evaluation of the synergistic effects of biochar and biogas residue on CO2 and CH4 emission, functional genes, and enzyme activity during straw composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 360, 127608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sousa-Souto, L.; Santos, D.C.d.J.; Ambrogi, B.G.; Santos, M.J.C.d.; Guerra, M.B.B.; Pereira-Filho, E.R. Increased CO2 emission and organic matter decomposition by leaf-cutting ant nests in a coastal environment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 44, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gao, B.; Li, Y.; Zheng, N.; Liu, C.; Ren, H.; Yao, H. Interactive effects of microplastics, biochar, and earthworms on CO2 and N2O emissions and microbial functional genes in vegetable-growing soil. Environ. Res. 2022, 213, 113728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Guo, J.; Yang, S.; He, Q.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, F.; Zhou, H.; Hou, C.; Du, B.; Jiang, S.; Li, H. Improving benzo(a)pyrene biodegradation in soil with wheat straw-derived biochar amendment: Performance, microbial quantity, CO2 emission, and soil properties. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2021, 156, 105132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ameloot, N.; De Neve, S.; Jegajeevagan, K.; Yildiz, G.; Buchan, D.; Funkuin, Y.N.; Prins, W.; Bouckaert, L.; Sleutel, S. Short-term CO2 and N2O emissions and microbial properties of biochar amended sandy loam soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, X.-b.; Wu, L.-h.; Sun, N.; Ding, X.-s.; Li, J.-w.; Wang, B.-r.; Li, D.-c. Soil CO2 and N2O Emissions in Maize Growing Season Under Different Fertilizer Regimes in an Upland Red Soil Region of South China. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 604–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Frimpong, K.A.; Abban-Baidoo, E.; Marschner, B. Can combined compost and biochar application improve the quality of a highly weathered coastal savanna soil? Heliyon 2021, 7, e07089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Fu, J.; Zhou, X.; He, Y.; Liu, R.; Yao, Y.; Zhou, G.; Chen, H.; Zhou, L.; Fu, Y.; Bai, S.H. Co-application of biochar and organic amendments on soil greenhouse gas emissions: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 897, 166171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Luo, L.; Yu, J.; Zhu, L.; Gikas, P.; He, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Deng, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Zhou, W.; et al. Nitrogen addition may promote soil organic carbon storage and CO2 emission but reduce dissolved organic carbon in Zoige peatland. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 324, 116376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Srivastava, P.; Singh, P.K.; Singh, R.; Bhadouria, R.; Singh, D.K.; Singh, S.; Afreen, T.; Tripathi, S.; Singh, P.; Singh, H.; et al. Relative availability of inorganic N-pools shifts under land use change: An unexplored variable in soil carbon dynamics. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 64, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ren, G.; Zhang, X.; Xin, X.; Yang, W.; Zhu, A.; Yang, J.; Li, M. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen fractions as affected by straw and nitrogen management on the North China Plain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 342, 108248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tang, S.; Liu, T.; Hu, R.; Xu, X.; Wu, Y.; Meng, L.; Hattori, S.; Tawaraya, K.; Cheng, W. Twelve-year conversion of rice paddy to wetland does not alter SOC content but decreases C decomposition and N mineralization in Japan. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 354, 120319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bragazza, L.; Buttler, A.; Habermacher, J.; Brancaleoni, L.; Gerdol, R.; Fritze, H.; Hanajík, P.; Laiho, R.; Johnson, D. High nitrogen deposition alters the decomposition of bog plant litter and reduces carbon accumulation. Glob. Change Biol. 2012, 18, 1163–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, H.Y.; Huang, N.; Zhao, C.M.; Li, J.H. Responses of carbon cycling and soil organic carbon content to nitrogen addition in grasslands globally. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2023, 186, 109164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, J.-f.; Zhong, F.-f. Nitrogen release and re-adsorption dynamics on crop straw residue during straw decomposition in an Alfisol. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moore, C.E.; Meacham-Hensold, K.; Lemonnier, P.; Slattery, R.A.; Benjamin, C.; Bernacchi, C.J.; Lawson, T.; Cavanagh, A.P. The effect of increasing temperature on crop photosynthesis: From enzymes to ecosystems. J. Exp. Bot. 2021, 72, 2822–2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Li, J.; Chen, Y.; Ge, T.; Zhao, M.; Ge, J.; Han, G. Nitrogen fertilization enhances organic carbon accumulation in topsoil mainly by improving photosynthetic C assimilation in a salt marsh. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 351, 119862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Malik, A.A.; Martiny, J.B.H.; Brodie, E.L.; Martiny, A.C.; Treseder, K.K.; Allison, S.D. Defining trait-based microbial strategies with consequences for soil carbon cycling under climate change. ISME J. 2020, 14, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, X.; Zhu, W.; Xu, F.; Du, J.; Tian, X.; Shi, J.; Wei, G. Organic amendments affect soil organic carbon sequestration and fractions in fields with long-term contrasting nitrogen applications. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, H.; Hao, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wang, C.; Liu, M.; Mehmood, I.; Fan, M.; Plante, A.F. Maize straw-based organic amendments and nitrogen fertilizer effects on soil and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen. Geoderma 2024, 443, 116820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kallenbach, C.M.; Frey, S.D.; Grandy, A.S. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhao, H.; Zhang, H.; Shar, A.G.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Chu, S.; Tian, X. Enhancing organic and inorganic carbon sequestration in calcareous soil by the combination of wheat straw and wood ash and/or lime. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xue, Q.; Zhu, Z.; Musick, J.T.; Stewart, B.A.; Dusek, D.A. Physiological mechanisms contributing to the increased water-use efficiency in winter wheat under deficit irrigation. J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 163, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kwoczynski, Z.; Burdová, H.; Al Souki, K.S.; Čmelík, J. Extracted rapeseed meal biochar combined with digestate as a soil amendment: Effect on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) biomass yield and concentration of bioavailable element fraction in the soil. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 329, 113041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Guo, S.; Pan, J.; Zhai, L.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Wu, S.; Wang, H.; Yang, B.; Liu, H.; Lei, B. The reactive nitrogen loss and GHG emissions from a maize system after a long-term livestock manure incorporation in the North China Plain. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Yan, Z.; Zhang, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Liu, B.; Mei, X. Grain yield and water productivity of winter wheat controlled by irrigation regime and manure substitution in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 295, 108731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lu, J.; Hu, T.; Geng, C.; Cui, X.; Fan, J.; Zhang, F. Response of yield, yield components and water-nitrogen use efficiency of winter wheat to different drip fertigation regimes in Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 255, 107034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rieger, S.; Richner, W.; Streit, B.; Frossard, E.; Liedgens, M. Growth, yield, and yield components of winter wheat and the effects of tillage intensity, preceding crops, and N fertilisation. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Koppensteiner, L.J.; Kaul, H.-P.; Piepho, H.-P.; Barta, N.; Euteneuer, P.; Bernas, J.; Klimek-Kopyra, A.; Gronauer, A.; Neugschwandtner, R.W. Yield and yield components of facultative wheat are affected by sowing time, nitrogen fertilization and environment. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 140, 126591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Hu, N.; Li, W.; Qin, W.; Li, J.; Gao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Z.; Yu, K.; et al. Spike growth affects spike fertility through the number of florets with green anthers before floret abortion in wheat. Field Crop. Res. 2021, 260, 108007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gill, J.S.; Sale, P.W.G.; Tang, C. Amelioration of dense sodic subsoil using organic amendments increases wheat yield more than using gypsum in a high rainfall zone of southern Australia. Field Crop. Res. 2008, 107, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhao, J.; Ma, J.; Zhu, Y. Evaluating impacts of climate change on net ecosystem productivity (NEP) of global different forest types based on an individual tree-based model FORCCHN and remote sensing. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2019, 182, 103010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. An, N.; Lu, N.; Wang, M.; Chen, Y.; Wu, F.; Fu, B. Plant size traits are key contributors in the spatial variation of net primary productivity across terrestrial biomes in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 923, 171412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zeeshan, M.; Wenjun, Z.; Chuansheng, W.; Yan, L.; Azeez, P.A.; Qinghai, S.; Yuntong, L.; Yiping, Z.; Zhiyun, L.; Liqing, S. Soil heterotrophic respiration in response to rising temperature and moisture along an altitudinal gradient in a subtropical forest ecosystem, Southwest China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mehmood, F.; Wang, G.; Abubakar, S.A.; Zain, M.; Rahman, S.U.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. Optimizing irrigation management sustained grain yield, crop water productivity, and mitigated greenhouse gas emissions from the winter wheat field in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 290, 108599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhong, Y.; Li, J.; Xiong, H. Effect of deficit irrigation on soil CO2 and N2O emissions and winter wheat yield. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Air temperature and reference evapotranspiration (ET0) during the winter wheat seasons of 2021–2022 (a) and 2022–2023 (b).
Figure 1. Air temperature and reference evapotranspiration (ET0) during the winter wheat seasons of 2021–2022 (a) and 2022–2023 (b).
Plants 13 02428 g001
Figure 2. Experimental treatments and experimental plots. (Note: (a) represents differences among treatments before sowing; (b) represents differences among treatments at the jointing stage.)
Figure 2. Experimental treatments and experimental plots. (Note: (a) represents differences among treatments before sowing; (b) represents differences among treatments at the jointing stage.)
Plants 13 02428 g002
Figure 3. Season variation in soil respiration rates during the winter wheat growing period in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 seasons. (Note: (a) is the soil respiration rate under N0 in 2021–2022 season; (b) is the soil respiration rate under N240 in the 2021–2022 season; (c) is the soil respiration rate under N240 in the 2022–2023 season; and (d) is the soil respiration rate under N240 in the 2022–2023 season).
Figure 3. Season variation in soil respiration rates during the winter wheat growing period in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 seasons. (Note: (a) is the soil respiration rate under N0 in 2021–2022 season; (b) is the soil respiration rate under N240 in the 2021–2022 season; (c) is the soil respiration rate under N240 in the 2022–2023 season; and (d) is the soil respiration rate under N240 in the 2022–2023 season).
Plants 13 02428 g003
Figure 4. Soil carbon emission (a) and CEE (b) under different treatments during the winter wheat growing period in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Soil carbon emission (a) and CEE (b) under different treatments during the winter wheat growing period in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Plants 13 02428 g004
Figure 5. SOC stock under different treatments during the winter wheat maturity period in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. SOC stock under different treatments during the winter wheat maturity period in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Plants 13 02428 g005
Figure 6. Net primary productivity (NPP) (a), soil microbial heterotrophic respiration (Rm) (b), and net ecosystem productivity (NEP) (c) under different treatments. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Net primary productivity (NPP) (a), soil microbial heterotrophic respiration (Rm) (b), and net ecosystem productivity (NEP) (c) under different treatments. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Plants 13 02428 g006
Figure 7. Yield (a), biomass (b), and nitrogen efficiency (PFPN and NAE) (c) under different treatments in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. Yield (a), biomass (b), and nitrogen efficiency (PFPN and NAE) (c) under different treatments in the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season. Different lowercase letters above error bars indicate significant differences among the treatments (p < 0.05).
Plants 13 02428 g007
Table 1. Soil chemical properties of the 0–20 cm layer in the experimental station at the beginning of the experiment.
Table 1. Soil chemical properties of the 0–20 cm layer in the experimental station at the beginning of the experiment.
TreatmentsExchangeable PotassiumAvailable PhosphorusTotal NitrogenSoil Organic Carbon
mg kg−1mg kg−1mg g−1g kg−1
N0287.0723.610.798.89
N240364.7621.111.0411.32
Table 2. The application of organic amendments (OAs) for the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons.
Table 2. The application of organic amendments (OAs) for the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons.
NitrogenOrganic Amendments2021–20222022–2023
N0Manure/(kg ha−1)2453.73797.5
Mushroom residue/(kg ha−1)196.3303.8
Biochar/(kg ha−1)16652576.9
N240Manure/(kg ha−1)4842.45708.5
Mushroom residue/(kg ha−1)387.4456.7
Biochar/(kg ha−1)32863873.7
Table 3. Detailed market price of agricultural inputs and outputs in wheat production.
Table 3. Detailed market price of agricultural inputs and outputs in wheat production.
ComponentsUnitPriceInput Value
CNY Unit−1Unit ha−1
Laborhour20225
Winter seedkg715
N fertilizerkg2.9240
P fertilizerkg1.2120
K fertilizerkg3.8105
Manurekg0.59334.6
Fungi residuekg0.21680.2
Biocharkg0.55700.8
Insecticidekg150.01.1
Herbicideskg550.00.6
Fungicideskg820.01.4
Machinerykg2100.01.0
Grainkg2.9225.0
Note: CNY is Chinese Yuan; the average of price and input values for the 2021–2022 season and 2022–2023 season.
Table 4. The economic benefits of winter wheat under different treatments during the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 growing seasons.
Table 4. The economic benefits of winter wheat under different treatments during the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 growing seasons.
Growing SeasonTreatmentsInput Values of Consumable ItemsOutput Values of Grain Yield/CNY ha−1Output/InputNet Income/CNY ha−1
/CNY ha−1
SeedIrrigationFertilizerLaborPesticideMachineryOrganic AmendmentTotal
2021–2022N0Straw15754871667 4200169720250 11,6517521 0.7 −4130
Manure15754871667 4200169720252454 14,1057522 0.5 −6583
Mushroom residue15754871667 420016972025196 11,8486945 0.6 −4903
Biochar15754871667 4200169720251665 13,3168524 0.6 −4792
N240Straw15754873180 4200169720250 13,16425,902 2.0 12,738
Manure15754873180 4200169720254842 18,00725,980 1.4 7973
Mushroom residue15754873180 420016972025387 13,55226,449 2.0 12,897
Biochar15754873180 4200169720253286 16,45029,285 1.8 12,834
2022–2023N0Straw15754871695 4800169721750 12,4296461 0.5 −5967
Manure15754871695 4800169721753798 16,2266559 0.4−9667
Mushroom residue15754871695 480016972175304 12,7335969 0.5 −6763
Biochar15754871695 4800169721752577 15,0066718 0.5 −8287
N240Straw15754873437 4800169721750 14,17123,085 1.6 8914
Manure15754873437 4800169721755709 19,87923,425 1.2 3546
Mushroom residue15754873437 480016972175457 14,62824,975 1.7 10,347
Biochar15754873437 4800169721753874 18,04524,241 1.3 6196
Table 5. Distance between treatments and positive and negative ideal solutions as well as their closeness in the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons.
Table 5. Distance between treatments and positive and negative ideal solutions as well as their closeness in the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons.
NitrogenOrganic Amendment2021–20222022–2023
D+D−GIRankD+D−GIRank
N0Straw0.1290.0610.32150.1540.0290.1595
Manure0.1470.0370.19980.1690.0150.0818
Fungi residue0.1430.0400.22170.1620.0220.1226
Biochar0.1340.0480.26560.1660.0190.1047
N240Straw0.0420.2020.82720.0310.1540.8353
Manure0.0400.1830.81930.0500.1380.7334
Fungi residue0.0320.2010.86410.0190.1670.8962
Biochar0.0500.2220.81540.0180.1670.9021
Note: The distance between the evaluation object and the positive and negative ideal solutions is represented by D+ and D−. GI is the relative proximity: closer to 1 means that the solution is more ideal, and closer to 0 means that the solution is worse.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cao, H.; Liu, J.; Ma, S.; Wu, X.; Fu, Y.; Gao, Y. Selection of Suitable Organic Amendments to Balance Agricultural Economic Benefits and Carbon Sequestration. Plants 2024, 13, 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172428

AMA Style

Cao H, Liu J, Ma S, Wu X, Fu Y, Gao Y. Selection of Suitable Organic Amendments to Balance Agricultural Economic Benefits and Carbon Sequestration. Plants. 2024; 13(17):2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172428

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cao, Hui, Junming Liu, Shoutian Ma, Xiaolei Wu, Yuanyuan Fu, and Yang Gao. 2024. "Selection of Suitable Organic Amendments to Balance Agricultural Economic Benefits and Carbon Sequestration" Plants 13, no. 17: 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172428

APA Style

Cao, H., Liu, J., Ma, S., Wu, X., Fu, Y., & Gao, Y. (2024). Selection of Suitable Organic Amendments to Balance Agricultural Economic Benefits and Carbon Sequestration. Plants, 13(17), 2428. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172428

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop