Next Article in Journal
Pilot Study to Evaluate Performance of Frost-Yuzu Fruit Trees under Protected Cultivation
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of the Autumn Incorporation of Rice Straw and Application of Lime Nitrogen on Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Rice Growth of a High-Yielding Paddy Field in a Cool-Temperate Region in Japan
Previous Article in Journal
Phenolic Response to Walnut Anthracnose (Ophiognomonia leptostyla) Infection in Different Parts of Juglans regia Husks, Using HPLC-MS/MS
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Paddy-Upland Rotation System on the Net Greenhouse Gas Balance as the Sum of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Soil Carbon Storage: A Case in Western Japan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Study of Chicken Manure and Steel Slag Amelioration to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emission in Rice Cultivation

1
Department of Soil Science and Land Resource, Graduate School, IPB University, Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
2
Department of Soil Science and Land Resource, Faculty of Agriculture, IPB University, Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
3
Department of Agro-Biological Science, Graduate School of Agriculture, Ehime University, 3-5-7, Tarumi, Matsuyama, Ehime 790-8566, Japan
4
Research Group of Bioscience and Chemistry, Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Kita 9 Nishi 9, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8589, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 25 May 2021 / Revised: 4 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 July 2021 / Published: 13 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Rice Farming and Greenhouse Gas Emissions)

Abstract

:
Organic matter, fertilizers, and soil amendments are essential for sustainable agricultural practices to guarantee soil productivity. However, these materials can increase the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CH4 and N2O. Thus, technologies for reducing GHG emissions in concert with the increase in rice production from rice fields are needed. The objectives of this study were to determine the best chicken manure (CM) and steel slag (SS) combination to mitigate CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions in an incubation experiment, to identify the best CM:SS ameliorant mixture to mitigate CH4 and N2O, and to evaluate dry biomass and grain yield in a pot experiment. A randomized block design was established with four treatments, namely conventional (chemical fertilizer only) and three combinations of different ratios of CM and SS (1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2.5), with five replications in a pot experiment. CM:SS (1:2.5) was identified as the best treatment for mitigating CH4, N2O, and CO2 in the incubation experiment. However, CM:SS (1:1.5) was the best CM and SS ameliorant for mitigating CH4 and N2O in the pot experiment. The global warming potential of CH4 and N2O revealed that CM:SS (1:1.5) had the lowest value. None of the combinations of CM and SS significantly increased dry biomass and grain yield.

1. Introduction

Agriculture contributes an estimated 10–12% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly as nitrous oxide (N2O) (46%), followed by methane (CH4) (45%), and carbon dioxide (CO2) (9%) [1]. Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the dominant staple food for more than half of the world’s population, and its production is critical for global food security. Rice cultivation is a significant source of CH4 (a significant GHG) emissions, accounting for 11% of global anthropogenic CH4 emissions. Rice cultivation under submerged conditions enhances CH4 emissions owing to increase soil-reduced conditions conducive to methanogenesis [2]. Agricultural production in the world must continue to meet the basic needs of society. As the population increases, the demand for rice also increases, which encourages intensive and extensive rice cultivation. Attempts to increase rice production have led to an increase in CH4 production. However, efforts are required to reduce CH4 emissions without reducing agricultural crop production.
The application of organic materials, fertilizers, and soil amendments is essential for sustainable agricultural practices to guarantee soil productivity. However, practices can increase GHG emissions, such as CH4 and N2O emissions. Water management in the agricultural sector significantly affects GHG emissions. In submerged rice cultivation, CH4 is formed from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in the rhizosphere of rice in the presence of methanogenic microbes, such as Methanosarcina and Methanobacterium bacteria [3]. The process of methanogenesis occurs optimally when the redox potential (Eh) is below 150 mV, pH ranges from 6 to 8, soil temperature ranges from 30 to 40 °C, and degraded organic materials, such as root exudate and fresh residue, are readily available [4].
In recent years, the application of industrial byproducts (e.g., slags from different metal and process-based industries) as amendments in paddy fields for rice cultivation has become increasingly popular for improving soil quality, enhancing crop productivity, and mitigating GHG emissions [5,6]. Furthermore, iron slag addition has proven to be effective at reducing CH4 emissions from paddy fields [5,7]. Singla and Inubushi [8] also conducted an experiment on steel slag (SS) using two different types of slag fertilizers in paddy soil. The application of SS at a rate of 2 t·ha−1 reduced CH4 emissions by 27.54% compared to the control. Ali et al. [9] used SS at three study sites, namely the Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, and Japan. The addition of SS with urea to the soil was found to reduce N2O in the Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, and Japan by 5.74, 14.18, and 17.65%, respectively, compared to the control (NPK). SS was also found to provide adequate silicate ions necessary for higher crop productivity, especially rice [10].
In this study, we conducted an incubation experiment to determine the best combination of chicken manure (CM) and SS to mitigate CH4 and N2O emissions, as well as a pot experiment to evaluate dry biomass and grain yield.

2. Materials and Methods

This study consists of two parts: an incubation experiment and a pot experiment.

2.1. Incubation Experiment

2.1.1. Experimental Design and Set Up for Gas Analysis

Soil samples were collected from paddy soil at the experimental farm of the Agriculture Faculty, Ehime University (Matsuyama, Japan). The soil sample was collected from 0 to 20 cm depth, air-dried at room temperature, and passed through a 2 mm stainless steel sieve. The soil had the following properties: pH (4.7), total carbon (C, 1.52%), total nitrogen (N, 0.15%), available P2O5 (60 mg·kg−1), and light clay texture (54.7% sand, 17.0% silt, 28.3% clay). CM had the following properties: pH (8.8), total C (29.9%), total N (3.77%), total p (50,400 mg·kg−1), and SS had the following properties: pH (11.5), Fe2O3 (8.5%), SiO2 (34.4%), and CaO (38.8%). Eight treatments with five replicates were used as follows: CM, CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), CM:SS (1:2.5), SO (soil only), SS (1), SS (1.5), and SS (2.5). All treatments were applied to 15 g of dry soil. In the CM treatment, CM was applied at a dose of 250 mg. For CM:SS treatments, CM was applied with the same amount as CM treatment, and SS was applied based on the ratio according to the weight of CM. For the SO and SS treatments, no CM was added. CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), CM:SS (1:2.5), SS (1.0), SS (1.5), and SS (2.5) were applied at 250, 375, 625, 250, 375, and 625 mg, respectively. GHG production from the CM of each CM:SS treatment was also calculated by eliminating the GHG originating from the soil by subtracting the CM:SS treatment from the SS treatment. Before incubation, CM and SS were added to the soil and mixed thoroughly into a 50 mL tube. Deionized water was added to 15 mL (saturated condition) and tightly closed with a rubber stopper consisting of a three-way valve on top of the headspace. Thereafter, the headspace in the tube was replaced with nitrogen gas (N2) for 20 s to maintain anaerobic conditions and then inserted into the incubator at 25 °C under dark conditions.

2.1.2. GHG Measurements

Gas samples were collected and measured after 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 42 days of incubation. Before collecting the gas samples, the tubes were mixed to release gas from the soil to the headspace. Two syringes were used to collect the gas; the first syringe was filled with 20 mL of N2 and the other in an empty condition. A 20 mL volume of N2 gas was injected into the headspace and mixed using another syringe. Thereafter, 20 mL of gas sample was collected from the headspace and injected into a vacuum vial bottle. The concentrations of CH4 and N2O were measured using a gas chromatography instrument equipped with a flame ionization detector and an electron capture detector (GC-14A, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), while CO2 concentrations were measured with a thermal capture detector (GC-8A. Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The following equation was used to calculate the gas fluxes (F) of CH4, N2O, and CO2:
F = ρ × V/M × dC/dt × [273/(273 + T)] × α
where ρ is the density of CH4, N2O, and CO2 at standard temperature and pressure (0.717 g L−1, 1.97 g L−1, and 1.98 g L−1, respectively), V is the volume of the incubation tube (L), M is the mass of soil (g), dC/dt is the slope of the linear regression for gas concentration gradient through time, T is the incubation temperature (°C), and α is the conversion factor of CH4 to C (12/16), N2O to N (28/44), and CO2 to C (12/44). Using the trapezoidal rule, the cumulative CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions were calculated as the sum of the area bounded by the rate.

2.1.3. Soil Analysis for the Incubation Experiment

To investigate the changes in soil chemical properties, we prepared additional incubation tubes for SO, CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), and CM:SS (1:2.5). These tubes were replicated three times and incubated for 40 d in the dark at 25 °C. Soil samples were collected at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 days after incubation (DAI). Soil pH was determined from soil-water suspensions (1:5 v/v) using a pH meter (B-212, HORIBA, Kyoto, Japan). Soil ammonium-N (NH4+-N) and nitrate-N (NO3-N) were extracted with 2 M KCl, and their concentrations were determined by calorimetric methods using the indophenol blue method and the vanadium chloride nitrate reduction method. Ferrous iron (Fe2+) content was determined by the colorimetric method using the phenanthroline method in the extraction by acetic-acid buffer at pH 5.5.

2.2. Pot Experiment

2.2.1. Treatments and Management Practices

The pot experiment was conducted from June to September 2020 in Matsuyama, Ehime Prefecture, Japan. Rice plants (Oryza sativa L. cv. Koshihikari) were used in the experiment. The experiment was arranged in a randomized block design. Four treatments with five replicates were used as follows: conventional (Conv), CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), and CM:SS (1:2.5). In conventional chemical fertilizers, N, P2O5, and K2O concentrations of 14, 14, and 14%, respectively, were applied. In the CM:SS treatments, granulated material of CM and SS mixture in 1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2.5 weight base was applied. Because SS has high pH, the N and C concentrations in the utilized granular materials of 1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2.5 were 1.70, 1.42, and 1.00%, and 16.4, 13.0, and 9.38%, respectively.
Rice was cultivated in 1/5000 as Wagner pots with a size of 0.02 m2. Each pot received 3.5 kg of dry soil, which is a quite low-fertility soil. The soil had the following properties: pH (7.1), total C (0.02%), total N (0.01%), available P2O5 (47 mg kg−1) with sandy loam texture (81.1% sand, 7.1% silt, 11.8% clay). Each chemical fertilizer and granulated material of basal fertilizer was applied and mixed with soil and deionized water on 17 June 2020. The basal N fertilizer application rate was 30 gN m−2 for all treatments. Because the amount of basal N fertilizer application rate was the same in all treatments, the total application rate of granulated materials and C in CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), CM:SS (1:2.5) was 35.29 g m−2, 42.25 g m−2, 60 g m−2 and 5.78 gC m−2, 5.51 gC m−2, and 5.63 gC m−2, respectively. Three rice seedlings were planted per pot. The pots were irrigated daily and kept under anaerobic conditions with deionized water. Supplemental NPK fertilizer was applied 30 days after transplanting (DAT) in CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), and CM:SS (1:2.5) at a rate of 10 gN m−2 because rice growth in these treatments was quite poor. Rice plants and grains were harvested on 19 September.

2.2.2. CH4 and N2O Flux Measurements in the Pot Experiment

Fluxes of CH4 and N2O were measured using the closed-chamber technique. The chamber was made of acrylic equipped with a fan, thermometer, and sample collecting tube. There were two sizes of the chamber: short and tall. The short chamber had a diameter of 16 cm and height of 16 cm and was used for the early growth of paddy from 4 DAT until 21 DAT. The long chamber had a diameter of 16 cm and a height of 85 cm, and was used from 28 DAT until 93 DAT. Gas fluxes were measured weekly from 21 June to 18 September 2020 (1 d before harvest). The collected gas samples were then inserted into vacuum-sealed vial bottles with a butyl rubber stopper. The gas samples were collected at 0, 10, and 20 min from the time the chambers were deployed. Concentrations of CH4 and N2O were analyzed with the same analyzers explained above.
The following equation was used to calculate the gas fluxes (F) of CH4 (mgC m−2 h−1) and N2O (µgN m−2 h−1) according to Toma et al. [11]:
F = ρ × V/A × dC/dt × [273/(273 + T)] × α
where ρ is the density of CH4 and N2O, as described above; V is the volume of the chamber (m3); A is the area of the chamber (m2); dC/dt is the slope of the linear regression for the gas concentration gradient through time, T is the temperature inside the chamber (°C), and α is the conversion factor explained above. Each gas flux was calculated by linear regression, and the cumulative fluxes were determined using the trapezoidal method according to Toma et al. [11]. We converted the pot scale flux to area-scale flux by using the pot’s base area (0.02 m2) and then converted it to hectares (ha).

2.2.3. Global Warming Potential (GWP)

To estimate GWP, CO2 is typically taken as the reference gas, and a change in the emission of CH4 or N2O is converted into “CO2- equivalents”. The GWP for CH4 is 34 (based on a 100-year time horizon and a GWP for CO2 of 1), while that for N2O is 298. The GWP of the combined emissions of CH4 and N2O was calculated using the following equations:
GWPCH4 (kg COeq ha−1) = CH4 flux (kg C ha−1) × 16/12 × 34
GWPN2O (kg COeq ha−1) = N2O flux (kg N ha−1) × 44/28 × 298

2.2.4. Measurement of Plant Growth Parameters

The plant growth parameters measured in the pot experiment were plant height (cm), chlorophyll content, and the number of tillers. These growth parameters were measured weekly in each pot from 7 DAT to 92 DAT. The chlorophyll content was measured using the SPAD 502-Plus chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta, Inc., Osaka, Japan).

2.2.5. Rice Biomass and Grain Yield

The rice plants were harvested and separated into aboveground (AG) and belowground (BG) parts. The AG parts were collected and divided into stems, leaves, and panicles, while the BG parts were comprised of the roots. All samples were oven-dried at 70.0 °C for 24 h, weighed, and the dry biomass was calculated. Grain yield (g pot−1) was obtained by measuring the total weight of the grains per pot. Grain yield was divided into fresh and dry harvest weights (g pot−1).

2.2.6. Ancillary Measurement

Soil water (5 cm depth) was collected weekly using a soil moisture sampler (DIK-301, Daiki Rika Kogyo, Saitama, Japan). The pH, NO3-N, and NH4+-N concentrations were measured in soil water. The soil water collected in the syringe tube was filtered using a syringe filter (<0.2 µm), and the pH, NO3-N, and NH4+-N concentrations were measured using the same method described above.
Soil redox potential (Eh) was measured at 5 cm soil depth with a platinum electrode (EP-201, Fujiwara, Tokyo, Japan) and a portable soil Eh meter (PRN-41, Fujiwara, Tokyo, Japan) and maintained throughout the cultivation period. Two pots for each treatment were analyzed to measure Eh. The first measurement was conducted at 1 DAT (1 day after installation).
During the study period, soil temperatures at a 5 cm depth were measured continuously every 10 min in two pots by thermistors equipped with a data logger (RTR 502, T&D Corporation, Nagano, Japan).

2.2.7. Data Analysis and Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed to determine the effects of the treatments on the experimental parameters. The significance of treatments was tested by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD test at a probability lower than 5% (p < 0.05) was applied for the differences in mean values. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 20 (IBM, New York, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Incubation Experiment

The cumulative CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions are listed in Table 1. The rate of CH4 production was found to significantly decrease with increasing levels of SS amendment in the incubation experiment. The lowest cumulative CH4 emission was shown in CM:SS (1:2.5) (0.01 mgC kg−1 period−1) and was statistically significant with other CM:SS treatments. CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), and CM:SS (1:2.5) reduced CH4 emissions by 18.8%, 28.2%, 56.4%, 98.5%, and 99.7%, respectively, compared to CM. The highest cumulative N2O emission was released by SS (1) (0.1 μgN kg−1 period−1). However, the lowest cumulative N2O emission was released by CM:SS (1:1) (−0.80 μgN kg−1 period−1). The lowest cumulative CO2 emission was released by CM:SS (1:2.5) (−0.01 mgC kg−1 period−1). However, CM:SS (1:1) (4.47 mgC kg−1 period−1) had the highest cumulative CO2, but this was not statistically significant relative to SO, SS (1.5), and SS (2.5).
The GHG production from CM for each treatment is shown in Table 2. The highest CH4 production from CM was shown in CM:SS (1:1) (1.26 mgC kg−1 period−1) but was not statistically significant relative to CM and CM:SS (1:1.5). However, the lowest CH4 production from CM was observed in CM:SS (1:2.5) (−0.06 mgC kg−1 period−1) and was statistically significant relative to the other treatments. The highest N2O production from CM was shown in CM:SS (1:1.5) (0.21 μgN kg−1 period−1); however, this was not statistically significant relative to other treatments. The lowest N2O production from CM was observed in CM:SS (1:1) (−0.91 μgN kg−1 period−1), but this was not statistically significant relative to other treatments. The highest CO2 production from CM was shown in CM:SS (1:1.5) (3.44 mgC kg−1 period−1), but this was not statistically significant relative to other treatments. However, the lowest CO2 production from CM was shown in CM:SS (1:2.5) (0.03 mgC kg−1 period−1) but not statistically significant relative to other treatments.
The variations in CH4, N2O, and CO2 fluxes during the incubation experiment are shown in Figure 1. The fluxes of CH4 were very low in the first seven days of incubation in all treatments, except in CM, but peaked at 14 DAI (Figure 1a). The highest CH4 flux was shown in CM (0.32 mgC kg−1 day−1) at 5 DAI, and the lowest flux was also in CM (−0.02 mgC kg−1 day−1) at 28 DAI. The N2O fluxes fluctuated only in the first week of the incubation experiment in all treatments (Figure 1b). The highest N2O flux was observed in SO (1.63 μgN kg−1 day−1) at 2 DAI, and the lowest was observed in CM:SS (1:1.5) (0.97 μgN kg−1 day−1). The CO2 fluxes increased sharply at 1 DAI in all treatments and then decreased at 2 DAI (Figure 1c). CM treatment increased again at 3 DAI and then declined sharply at 5 DAI. After 5 DAI, all treatments showed the same trend until the end of the incubation experiment.
Variations in soil pH and concentrations of NH4+-N, NO3-N, and Fe2+ are shown in Figure 2. Soil pH was higher in the CM:SS treatments than in the SO treatment throughout the incubation period (Figure 2a). The highest pH value was observed in CM:SS (1:2.5) (8.77) at 5 DAI. However, the lowest pH value was observed in SO (5.53) at 5 DAI. SO had the lowest NH4+-N concentration during the 40 DAI (Figure 2b). The highest NH4+-N concentration was observed in CM:SS (1:1) (290.4 mg kg−1). The concentration of NH4+-N in the CM:SS treatments tended to decrease at the end of the incubation experiment, except in CM:SS (1:2.5). CM:SS (1:2.5) had the lowest NO3-N concentration from 15 to 40 DAI (Figure 2c). The highest NO3-N concentration was observed in CM:SS (1:1) (0.63 mg kg−1) at 40 DAI. The highest Fe2+ concentration was observed in SO at 30 DAI, whereas the lowest was observed in CM:SS (1:2.5) at 5 DAI (Figure 2d). In the SS amendment treatments, Fe2+ concentration was lower than that of SO at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 DAI.

3.2. Pot Experiment

The CH4 and N2O fluxes for all treatments are shown in Figure 3. The CH4 fluxes were low during the initial growth of rice plants but increased significantly at 49 DAT (Figure 3a). CM:SS (1:1) had the highest flux (6918.57 mgC m−2 h−1) at 74 DAT. N2O fluctuated during the rice plant growth period (Figure 3b). The timing of the N2O flux peak also varied widely among the different treatments. Maximum N2O fluxes were detected on 67 DAT in conventional (77.59 µgN m−2 h−1), 53 DAT in CM:SS (1:1) (84.97 µgN m−2 h−1), 74 DAT in CM:SS (1:1.5) (34.68 µgN m−2 h−1), and 39 DAT in CM:SS (1:2.5) (66.35 µgN m−2 h−1).
The cumulative CH4 and N2O emissions are shown in Figure 4. Significant differences were found in the cumulative CH4 emissions among the treatments (Figure 4a). The lowest cumulative CH4 emission was observed in the Conv (27.8 kgC ha−1); however, there was no statistical significance relative to CM:SS (1:1.5) and CM:SS (1:2.5). The highest cumulative CH4 emission was observed in CM:SS (1:1) (66.8 kgC ha−1), but not statistically significant relative to CM:SS (1:2.5). There was a decreasing tendency for cumulative CH4 emissions in CM:SS (1:1.5) and CM:SS (1:2.5), with a decrease of 45.2% and 38.74% compared to the CM:SS (1:1). We observed no significant differences in cumulative N2O emissions between the Conv and CMSS treatments (Figure 4b). CM:SS (1:1.5) (−0.09 kgN ha−1) had the lowest cumulative N2O emissions among all treatments.
The GWP for CH4 and N2O emissions varied considerably with treatment (Table 3). The GWPCH4 was higher than that of GWPN2O in all treatments. When both CH4 and N2O emissions were combined, the overall GWP showed a decreasing trend in CM:SS (1:1.5) and CM:SS (1:2.5) compared to CM:SS (1:1).
Variations in soil temperature, pH, NH4+-N and NO3-N concentrations, and Eh during rice cultivation in the pot experiment are shown in Figure 5. The mean daily temperature during the pot experiment (June–September) was 28.1 °C (Figure 5a). The highest temperature was observed on 9 August (32.2 °C), while the lowest was observed on 18 June (20.2 °C). Soil water pH was higher in all CM:SS treatments than in Conv during the entire experimental period (Figure 5b). The highest pH value was observed in CM:SS (1:2.5) (9.3) at 27 DAT. The lowest pH value was observed for Conv (6.3) at 1 DAT. NH4+-N and NO3-N concentrations in soil water were increased in Conv at 1 DAT but decreased sharply at 7 DAT (Figure 5c,d). Both NH4+-N and NO3-N concentrations in the Conv treatment showed the highest values at 1 DAT. NH4+-N concentration increased rapidly at 34 DAT in all CM:SS treatments after application of supplemental NPK fertilizer but decreased sharply at 43 DAT. However, NO3-N concentrations from all treatments were almost the same, except in Conv. The Eh decreased sharply in all treatments within three weeks after transplanting, except in the Conv treatment (Figure 5e). The Eh in all CM:SS treatments was lower than that in Conv during the experiment. The Eh decreased sharply again at 50 DAT in all CM:SS treatments but decreased gradually and sharply at 57 DAT in the Conv treatment.
Variations in plant height, chlorophyll content, and the number of tillers during rice cultivation in the pot experiment are shown in Figure 6. The plant height ranged from 19.08 to 21.5 cm at 7 DAT. Conv was the highest plant height starting 7 to 92 DAT. All the CM:SS treatments have almost the same plant height from 7 to 92 DAT. Chlorophyll content in Conv was the highest at 20 DAT, then gradually decrease until the end of the experiment. All chlorophyll content in CM:SS treatments started to increase gradually from 20 DAT then increase sharply after the supplementary fertilization at 30 DAT. Chlorophyll content in all CM:SS treatments reached their maximum number at 43 DAT, then gradually decrease until the end of the experiment. The number of tillers in Conv increased sharply from 7 to 43 DAT. All the CM:SS treatments started to increase the number of tillers at 34 DAT. At the end of the experiment, the number of tillers in CM:SS (1:2.5) showed almost the same number as Conv. Generally, throughout the experiment, all the CM:SS treatments had the same trend in plant height, chlorophyll content, and the number of tillers.
The dry biomass and grain yields are listed in Table 4. Conv had the highest biomass and grain weight, and was statistically significant relative to the other treatments. The CM:SS (1:1), CM:SS (1:1.5), and CM:SS (1:2.5) did not maintain the biomass yield in Conv. Although there was no significant difference, all components (dry biomass and grain yield) in the CM:SS treatments increased with the increasing ratio of SS application.

4. Discussion

4.1. GHG Emissions in the Incubation and Pot Experiments

Cumulative CH4 emissions in both the incubation and pot experiments showed that CH4 emissions could be suppressed by a higher rate of SS. Slag-type fertilizers contain high amounts of iron, silica, and calcium. Further, active iron oxide can be used as an oxidizing agent. The iron content of the SS ameliorant has been shown to act as an electron acceptor that decreases methanogenic activity and mitigates CH4 emissions from rice paddies [5]. CH4 production was inhibited by electron acceptors, such as NO3, Fe3+, and SO42−, when added to paddy soils [12]. Beal et al. [13] reported that the presence of ferric ions could support the oxidation of CH4 under anaerobic conditions. An increase in the ferric iron concentration could escalate CH4 oxidation under anaerobic conditions, thereby reducing CH4 flux. In this study, the Fe2+ content in the incubation experiment showed that in the SS amendment treatments, Fe2+ content was reduced compared to that in the SO treatment (Figure 2d). Iron oxide in the SS may have acted as an oxidant and suppressed the reduction of flooded soil.
In the incubation experiment, CM:SS (1:2.5) showed the lowest CH4 emission and was statistically significant relative to other CM:SS treatments and the SO treatment. However, in the pot experiment, CM:SS (1:1.5) showed the lowest CH4 emission among the CM:SS treatments, but no statistical significance was found relative to CM:SS (1:2.5). In the pot experiment, CH4 emissions from CM:SS (1:1.5) were lower than that from the other CM:SS treatments, possibly due to the lower organic C content (5.51 gC m−2) than CM:SS (1:1) (5.78 gC m−2) and CM:SS (1:2.5) (5.63 gC m−2). Organic C can provide C as an energy source for methanogenic bacteria to produce CH4 [14]. Organic C is an important factor affecting CH4 production capacity, and the readily decomposed organic matter in paddy fields increases CH4 emissions under an anaerobic environment [15].
In the CM:SS (1:1) treatment in which SS application was lower than that of the other CM:SS treatments, cumulative CH4 emission was the highest, possibly due to insufficient SS application to suppress CH4 production. This finding is similar to that of Lee et al. [16], who found that iron slag silicate fertilizer failed to effectively suppress CH4 production in soil, which might be due to its electron acceptor activity being insufficient to receive all electrons detached from the reduction process because of the high organic matter content. Conv treatment had the lowest CH4 emissions as it did not contain additional organic matter (only chemical fertilizer). The application of organic matter increases CH4 production in submerged soil conditions because methanogenic bacteria use labile organic C in organic matter as substrates to perform metabolism [17]. According to Wang et al. [6], the optimal pH for CH4 production is approximately neutral. In CM:SS (1:1), the soil water pH ranged from 7.00–7.97, which was lower than that of the other CM:SS treatments.
There were no significant differences in N2O emissions in the incubation and pot experiments between treatments due to the higher variation in N2O flux. However, CM:SS treatments tended to decrease with CM and SS mixture ratio in the pot experiment. The SS amendment increased soil pH in the incubation experiment (Figure 2a) and soil water in the pot experiment (Figure 5b), which may be due to the release of base cations, such as Ca+2. The soil water pH from the CM:SS treatments was higher than seven from 1 to 42 DAI in the incubation experiment. Further, the soil water pH was also the highest from the early until end growth of paddy in the pot experiment indicated that the denitrification process might be suppressed. Noubactep [18] reported that reduced N2O emissions could be caused by an increase in the iron oxide concentration, suppressing microbial activities, including N2O production. In this study, N2O emissions in the incubation and pot experiments were not significantly different based on the application of CM and SS. However, in the pot experiment, CM:SS (1:1.5) treatment had the lowest cumulative emission among all treatments (−0.09 kg N ha−1), but was not statistically significant from the other treatments. Although there was no statistical difference in cumulative N2O emissions, CM:SS (1:1.5) reduced N2O emissions by 142% compared to Conv. As shown in our study, the effects of CM:SS fertilizer on N2O production in paddy soils deserves further investigation.
Our results demonstrate that amending the CM and SS ratio reduces CH4 emissions from rice cultivation. Although the different ratios of CM and SS treatments could not mitigate CH4 emission compared to conventional treatment, in which organic matter was not applied, treatment with higher rate SS, CM:SS (1:1.5), and CM:SS (1:2.5) had lower CH4 emission than CM:SS (1:1). The application of organic matter is important for maintaining soil productivity. The use of the CM and SS mixture in this study is one of the solutions to utilize organic matter instead of chemical fertilizer in rice fields without impacting global warming.

4.2. Plant Growth, Biomass, and Rice Yield

The use of organic and chemical fertilizers by farmers has been reported to increase yield, sustain soil productivity, and improve soil physicochemical properties. Some studies have shown that amending SS has a good impact on plant growth and yield components. Ali et al. [19] reported that SS application increased the grain yield by 17% at a rate of 4 Mg ha−1 compared to the control. Moreover, Susilawati et al. [20] reported that SS application could increase the grain yield by 4.8–5.6% at one of the study sites in Indonesia during the dry and rainy seasons. However, in this study, Conv produced the highest biomass and rice yield among the CM:SS treatments due to the higher rate of chemical fertilizer application (30 g pot−1). CM:SS treatments could not maintain the yield produced using Conv, which might be due to the higher volatilization rates under high soil pH at high temperatures. According to Jones et al. [21], high soil pH and high temperatures might cause higher volatilization rates due to the increasing soil concentrations of ammonia dissolved in soil water and the inability of warm soil water to hold as much ammonia gas. The soil water pH in the CM:SS treatments ranged from 7.0–9.3, indicating a high pH during the pot experiment. Shamsuddin et al. [22] reported that rice roots grow normally in soil when the pH value is approximately 6. The suppression of CM mineralization under alkaline conditions also contributed to the lower yield in the different CM and SS mixtures. In fact, in the incubation experiment, CO2 emissions were low in the treatments with a higher ratio of SS (Table 1), indicating that SS could suppress microbial activity.
Although grain yield in the CM:SS treatments was not statistically significant, CM:SS (1:2.5) had the highest yield among the CM:SS treatments. Under the same N application rate, the yield was found to increase at a higher rate of SS application. SS is mainly composed of CaO and SiO2, which are essential nutrients for paddy fields. SS can increase SiO2 availability and increase rice yield by promoting photosynthesis [23].
The chlorophyll content in CM:SS treatments had a better value than Conv at the end of the experiment. In CM:SS (1:2.5), the number of tillers showed almost the same number with Conv. These indicate that available nutrients were released slowly and steadily from manure decomposition. Moe et al. [24] reported that organic fertilizers release nutrients slowly, thus, rice plants might grow slowly at the early growth stage. Conv had the highest yield because the release of N from chemical fertilizer was faster than that from the CM and SS mixture, thereby allowing plants to uptake the available N faster in Conv. Therefore, it is better to place the CM and a SS mixture into the soil before transplanting.

5. Conclusions

Herein, CM:SS (1:2.5) was identified as the best CM and SS ameliorant for mitigating CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions in the incubation experiment. However, in the pot experiment, CM:SS (1:1.5) was the best ameliorant for mitigating CH4 and N2O relative to CM:SS (1:1) and CM:SS (1:2.5). The total GWP in the pot experiment showed that CM:SS (1:1.5) had the lowest value among the treatments. Further, the CM:SS (1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2.5) treatments did not significantly increase dry biomass and grain yield compared to conventional treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.N., S.A., H.U., and Y.T.; methodology, M.I.F. and Y.T.; formal analysis, M.I.F.; investigation, M.I.F.; resources, Y.T.; data curation, M.I.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I.F.; writing—review and editing, B.N., S.A., H.U., and Y.T.; visualization, M.I.F.; supervision, B.N., S.A., H.U., and Y.T.; project administration, Y.T.; funding acquisition, Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by NIPPON SLAG ASSOCIATION.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We will show our appreciation to Shin Nagai in the Sangyo Shinko Co., Ltd. and Hideki Matsuoka in Asahi Agria Co., Ltd. for providing the materials in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Linquist, B.A.; Anders, M.M.; Adviento-Borbe, M.A.A.; Chaney, R.L.; Nalley, L.L.; da Rosa, E.F.F.; van Kessel, C. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and grain arsenic levels in rice systems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yuan, J.; Yi, X.; Cao, L. Three-source partitioning of methane emissions from paddy soil: Linkage to methanogenic community structure. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Johnson, J.M.F.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Weyers, S.L.; Reicosky, D.C. Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ali, M.A.; Oh, J.H.; Kim, P.J. Evaluation of silicate iron slag amendment on reducing methane emission from flood water rice farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 128, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, W.; Zeng, C.; Sardans, J.; Wang, C.; Zeng, D.; Peñuelas, J. Amendment with industrial and agricultural wastes reduces surface-water nutrient loss and storage of dissolved greenhouse gases in a subtropical paddy field. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 231, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Furukawa, Y.; Inubushi, K. Feasible suppression technique of methane emission from paddy soil by iron amendment. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2002, 64, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Singla, A.; Inubushi, K. Effect of slag-type fertilizers on N2O flux from komatsuna vegetated soil and CH4 flux from paddy vegetated soil. Paddy Water Environ. 2015, 13, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ali, M.A.; Kim, P.J.; Inubushi, K. Mitigating yield-scaled greenhouse gas emissions through combined application of soil amendments: A comparative study between temperate and subtropical rice paddy soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 529, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ma, J.; Nishimura, K.; Takahashi, E. Silicon on the growth of rice plant at different growth stages. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1989, 35, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Toma, Y.; Oomori, S.; Maruyama, A.; Ueno, H.; Nagata, O. Effect of the number of tillages in fallow season and fertilizer type on greenhouse gas emission from a rice (Oryza sativa L.) paddy field in Ehime, southwestern Japan. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2016, 62, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Achtnich, C.; Bak, F.; Conrad, R. Competition for electron donors among nitrate reducers, ferric iron reducers, sulfate reducers, and methanogens in anoxic paddy soil. Bio Fertil Soil 1995, 19, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Beal, E.J.; House, C.H.; Orphan, V.J. Manganese and iron dependent marine methane oxidation. Science 2009, 325, 184–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Khalid, M.S.; Shaaban, M.; Hu, R. N2O, CH4, and CO2 emissions from continuous flooded, wet, and flooded converted to wet soils. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2019, 19, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, K.; Li, F.; Dong, Y. Methane emission related to enzyme activities and organic carbon fractions in paddy soil of south china under different irrigation and nitrogen management. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 1397–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, C.H.; Kim, S.Y.; Villamil, M.B. Different response of silicate fertilizer having electron acceptors on methane emission in rice paddy soil under green manuring. Biol Fertil Soils 2012, 48, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nungkat, P.; Kusuma, Z.; Handayanto, E. Effects of organic matter application on methane emission from paddy fields adopting organic farming system. J. Degrad. Min. LANDS Manag. 2015, 2, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Noubactep, C. On the mechanism of microbe inactivation by metallic iron. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 198, 383–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ali, M.A.; Lee, C.H.; Kim, P.J. Effect of silicate fertilizer on reducing methane emission during rice cultivation. Biol Fertil Soils 2008, 44, 597–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Susilawati, H.L.; Setyanto, P.; Makarim, A.K.; Ito, K.; Inubushi, K.; Susilawati, H.L.; Setyanto, P.; Makarim, A.K.; Ariani, M.; Ito, K.; et al. Effects of steel slag applications on CH4, N2O and the yields of Indonesian rice fields: A case study during two consecutive rice-growing seasons at two sites. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 61, 704–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jones, C.; Brown, B.D.; Engel, B.; Horneck, D.; Olson-Rutz, K. Factors Affecting Nitrogen Fertilizer Volatilization; EB0208; Montana State University: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shamshuddin, J.; Panhwar, Q.A.; Alia, F.J.; Shazana, M.A.R.S.; Radziah, O. Formation and Utilisation of Acid Sulfate Soils in Southeast Asia for Sustainable Rice Cultivation. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2017, 40, 225–246. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang, W.; Sardans, J.; Lai, D.Y.F.; Wang, C.; Zeng, C.; Tong, C.; Liang, Y.; Peñuelas, J. Effects of steel slag application on greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield over multiple growing seasons in a subtropical paddy field in China. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 171, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Moe, K.; Htwe, A.Z.; Thu, T.T.P.; Kajihara, Y.; Yamakawa, T. Effects on NPK status, growth, dry matter and yield of rice (Oryza sativa) by organic fertilizers applied in field condition. Agriculture 2019, 9, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. CH4 (a), N2O (b), and CO2 (c) flux during the incubation experiment. SO: soil only, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. CM:SS is the weight given ratio between chicken manure and steel slag. Error bars represent standard error.
Figure 1. CH4 (a), N2O (b), and CO2 (c) flux during the incubation experiment. SO: soil only, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. CM:SS is the weight given ratio between chicken manure and steel slag. Error bars represent standard error.
Agriculture 11 00661 g001
Figure 2. Soil pH (a), NH4+-N (b), NO3-N (c), and Fe2+ (d) concentrations of soil in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. SO: soil only, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. Error bars represent standard error.
Figure 2. Soil pH (a), NH4+-N (b), NO3-N (c), and Fe2+ (d) concentrations of soil in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. SO: soil only, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. Error bars represent standard error.
Agriculture 11 00661 g002
Figure 3. CH4 flux (a) and N2O flux (b) in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as means. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SF: supplementary fertilization, D: time when the pot was dried. Error bars represent standard error.
Figure 3. CH4 flux (a) and N2O flux (b) in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as means. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SF: supplementary fertilization, D: time when the pot was dried. Error bars represent standard error.
Agriculture 11 00661 g003
Figure 4. Cumulative CH4 (a) and N2O (b) emissions in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. Error bars represent standard error. Different letters among the treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Cumulative CH4 (a) and N2O (b) emissions in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. Error bars represent standard error. Different letters among the treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 11 00661 g004
Figure 5. Soil temperature (a), Soil water pH (b), NH4+-N (c) and NO3-N (d) concentrations, and Eh (e) in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SF: supplementary fertilization, D: the time when the pot was dried. Error bars represent standard error.
Figure 5. Soil temperature (a), Soil water pH (b), NH4+-N (c) and NO3-N (d) concentrations, and Eh (e) in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SF: supplementary fertilization, D: the time when the pot was dried. Error bars represent standard error.
Agriculture 11 00661 g005
Figure 6. Plant height (a), chlorophyll content (b), number of tillers (c) in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SF: supplementary fertilization, D: the time when the pot was dried. Error bars represent standard error.
Figure 6. Plant height (a), chlorophyll content (b), number of tillers (c) in each treatment during the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SF: supplementary fertilization, D: the time when the pot was dried. Error bars represent standard error.
Agriculture 11 00661 g006
Table 1. Cumulative emissions in each treatment during the incubation experiment (Mean ± Standard Error).
Table 1. Cumulative emissions in each treatment during the incubation experiment (Mean ± Standard Error).
TreatmentsCumulative Emissions
CH4
(mgC kg−1 Period−1)
N2O
(μgN kg−1 Period−1)
CO2
(mgC kg−1 Period−1)
CM2.35 ± 0.03 d−0.30 ± 0.10 a3.66 ± 0.96 bc
CM:SS (1:1)1.69 ± 0.07 c−0.81 ± 0.16 a4.47 ± 0.43 c
CM:SS (1:1.5)1.03 ± 0.26 b−0.72 ± 0.82 a3.51 ± 0.35 bc
CM:SS (1:2.5)0.01 ± 0.00 a−0.29 ± 0.08 a−0.01 ± 0.15 a
SO1.38 ± 0.09 bc−0.27 ± 0.24 a2.04 ± 0.73 ab
SS (1)0.43 ± 0.11 a0.10 ± 0.22 a2.70 ± 0.08 bc
SS (1.5)0.03 ± 0.01 a−0.94 ± 0.10 a0.07 ± 0.16 a
SS (2.5)0.07 ± 0.02 a−0.18 ± 0.04 a−0.04 ± 0.02 a
CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag, SO: soil only. CM:SS means the weight ratio given between chicken manure and steel slag. SS (1, 1.5, 2.5) represents the weight ratio given of steel slag without CM. All values are expressed as mean. Different letters within the same column among the treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 2. GHG production from chicken manure in each treatment during the incubation experiment (Mean ± Standard Error).
Table 2. GHG production from chicken manure in each treatment during the incubation experiment (Mean ± Standard Error).
TreatmentsGHG Production from Chicken Manure
CH4
(mgC kg−1 Period−1)
N2O
(μgN kg−1 Period−1)
CO2
(mgC kg−1 Period−1)
CM0.97 ± 0.08 b−0.03 ± 0.25 a1.62 ± 1.50 a
CM:SS (1:1)1.26 ± 0.04 b−0.91 ± 0.51 a1.77 ± 0.67 a
CM:SS (1:1.5)1.00 ± 0.25 b0.21 ± 0.77 a3.44 ± 0.42 a
CM:SS (1:2.5)−0.06 ± 0.02 a−0.11 ± 0.05 a0.03 ± 0.13 a
GHG: Greenhouse Gas, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. CM:SS means the weight ratio given between chicken manure and steel slag. Different letters within the same column among the treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Global warming potential of CH4 (GWPCH4) and N2O (GWPN2O) (kg COeq ha−1) in the pot experiment.
Table 3. Global warming potential of CH4 (GWPCH4) and N2O (GWPN2O) (kg COeq ha−1) in the pot experiment.
Treatments
ConvCM:SS (1:1)CM:SS (1:1.5)CM:SS (1:2.5)
GWPCH41260 a3030 b1660 a1860 ab
GWPN2O97.7 a78.5 a−44.2 a85.5 a
Total1360 a3110 b1620 ab1940 ab
GWPCH4 and GWPN2O represent carbon dioxide equivalent values of cumulative CH4 emission and cumulative N2O emission, respectively. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. Error bars represent standard error. Different letters within the same row among the treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Dry biomass and grain yield after harvest in the pot experiment.
Table 4. Dry biomass and grain yield after harvest in the pot experiment.
TreatmentDry Biomass (g pot−1)Grain (g pot−1)
Above GroundRootFresh Matter Dry Matter
Conv29.0 b4.87 b7.18 b7.04 b
CM:SS (1:1)11.7 a2.13 a3.22 a3.16 a
CM:SS (1:1.5)14.6 a2.81 a3.88 a3.81 a
CM:SS (1:2.5)15.9 a2.84 a4.02 a3.94 a
Biomass and grain yield of rice in each treatment in the pot experiment. All values are expressed as mean. Conv: conventional, CM: chicken manure, SS: steel slag. Error bars represent standard error. Different letters within the same column among the treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fauzan, M.I.; Anwar, S.; Nugroho, B.; Ueno, H.; Toma, Y. The Study of Chicken Manure and Steel Slag Amelioration to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emission in Rice Cultivation. Agriculture 2021, 11, 661. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11070661

AMA Style

Fauzan MI, Anwar S, Nugroho B, Ueno H, Toma Y. The Study of Chicken Manure and Steel Slag Amelioration to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emission in Rice Cultivation. Agriculture. 2021; 11(7):661. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11070661

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fauzan, Muhammad Iqbal, Syaiful Anwar, Budi Nugroho, Hideto Ueno, and Yo Toma. 2021. "The Study of Chicken Manure and Steel Slag Amelioration to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emission in Rice Cultivation" Agriculture 11, no. 7: 661. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11070661

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