Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Available sulfur release and sulfur uptake as influenced by animal manures and wood ash under maize-grown soils

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sulfur (S) availability and release are important parameters in managing soil S status for optimum crop performance. Experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of cattle manure (CM), CM and wood ash (CM + WA), poultry manure (PM), PM + WA, and WA on S release and uptake in maize. The incubation and greenhouse experiments were arranged in a completely randomized design. The field experiment was in a randomized complete block design. Soils were collected from different agro-ecological zones. Animal manure and WA were applied at 45 kg S ha−1 and 5 t ha−1, respectively. Samples were analyzed for S release at 4-week interval, and S uptake and dry matter weights were determined after harvest. Data were subjected to regression (R2) analysis and ANOVA at p ≤ 0.05. Results revealed amendments significantly increased soil S over the control in order of PM > CM > PM + WA > CM + WA > WA and S release was maximum at 4th week by 27.8, 20.7, and 91.1% in incubation, greenhouse, and under field conditions, respectively. PM recorded the most consistent S release in incubation and greenhouse, and the magnitude of S release on the field was higher in CM + WA by 108%. The R2 between S release and time among treatments ranged from 0.5576 to 0.9999. S uptake in shoot and grain was 60 and 90% higher in PM- and PM + WA-amended plots, respectively, than the control. The study concluded that the application of manure at 45 kg S ha−1 with or without wood ash improved the release rate of S above the critical limit for optimum maize performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azam F (2002) Added nitrogen interaction in the soil-plant system – a review. Pak J Agron 1:54–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azeez JO, Bankole GO, Omonigho J (2023) Vertical and lateral movements of nitrate, phosphate and sulphate in soils around manure dumpsites and the potential environmental implications. Environ Monit Assess 195(7):907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bankole GO, Sakariyawo OS, Odelana TB, Aghorunse AC, Adejuyigbe CO, Azeez JO (2022) Sulfur fractions, distribution and sorption characteristics in some soils of Ogun state, southwestern Nigeria. Comm Soil Sci Plant Analy 53(15):1887–1902. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2022.2069798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyoucos GN (1951) A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soil. J Agron 43:434–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total and available forms of phosphorus in soils. J Soil Sci 59:38–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremner JM (1960) Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J Agric Sci 55:11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carciochi WD, Salvagiotti F, Pagani A, Calvo NIR, Eyherabide M, Rozas HRS, Ciampitti IA (2020) Nitrogen and sulfur interaction on nutrient use efciencies and diagnostic tools in maize. Eur J Agron 116:126045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpinelli S, da Fonseca AF, Weirich Neto PH, Dias SH, Pontes LD (2020) Spatial and temporal distribution of cattle dung and nutrient cycling in integrated crop–livestock systems. Agro 10(5):672

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesnin L, Yien CH (1951) Turbidimetric determination of available sulphates. Proc Soil Science America Proceedings 15:149–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David B, Darry M, Roger P, Duncan S (2017) Introduction to genstat for windows, 19th edn. VSN International, 2 Amberside, Wood Lane, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP2 4TP, UK

  • Dwivedi SK, Singh RS, Dwivedi KN (2002) Effect of sulphur and zinc nutrition on yield and quality of maize in typic Ustochrept soil of Kanpur. J Ind Soc Soil Sci 50(1):70–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen J (2005) Gross sulphur mineralisation-immobilisation turnover in soil amended with plant residues. Soil Bio Biochem 37:2216–2224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans B, William B, Glenn B (2011) Addition of pulp mill ash raises pH, modifies physical properties and alters young tomato plant growth and mineral nutrition in a peat-based substrate. J Plant Nutri 34(12):1894–1903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förster S, Welp G, Scherer HW (2012) Sulfur specification in bulk soil as influenced by long-term application of mineral and organic fertilizers. Plant Soil Environ 58:316–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis practice hall of Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey, USA

  • Jalali M, Mahdvi S, Ranjbar F (2014) Nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur mineralization as affected by soil depth in rangeland ecosystems. Environ Earth Sci 72:1775–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaira YP, Maynard DG (1991) Method manual for forest soil and plant analysis for Can., Northwest Reg., North. For. Cent., Edmonton, Alberta. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-319

  • Kopriva S, Malagoli M, Takahashi H (2019) Sulfur nutrition: impacts on plant development, metabolism, and stress responses. J Exp Bot 70:4069–4073. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar U, Cheng M, Islam MJ, Maniruzzaman M, Nasreen SS, Haque ME, Jahangir MMR (2022) Long-term conservation agriculture increases sulfur pools in soils together with increased soil organic carbon compared to conventional practices. Soil Till Res 223:105474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumari K, Shambhavi S, Mandal J, Bihari B, Kumar S, Kumar A, Kumar K. (2023) Sulphur forms and maize yield under long term tillage practices and cropping systems. Cer Res Comm 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-023-00350-0

  • McLean EO (1982) Soil pH and lime Requirement. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 2, chemical and microbiological properties, Agronomy Monograph Number 9, Soil Sci Soc Ame, Madison, pp 199–224

  • Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, (2nd edn.) Agronomy Series No. 9, ASA,SSSA, Madison

  • Nzigueba G, Smolders E, Merckx R (2006) Sulphur immobilization and availability in soils assessed using isotope dilution. Soil Bio Biochem 37:635–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olatunji O, Ayuba SA (2011) Effects of combined applications of poultry manure and NPK 20:10:10 fertilizer on soil chemical properties and yield of maize. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conf. of the Soil Sci. Soc. of Nigeria on the Theme: Soil Resources Management, Global Climate Change and food Security. Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria

  • Pandian PS (2010) Releasing pattern of sulphur and native phosphorous in major soil series in Madurai district. Madras Agric J 97:125–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Parakhia DV, Parmar KB, Vekaria LC, Bunsa PB, Donga SJ (2016) Effect of various sulphur levels on dry matter, yield and yield attributes of soybean [Glycine max (L.) varieties]. Ecoscan. 10(1&2):51–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Parashar A, Tripathi L (2020) Efect of phosphorus and sulphur on the growth and yield of black gram (Vigna mungo L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem 9:2585–2588

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel VK, Singh VK, Jendre A (2023) Role of secondary nutrient “sulphur” in oilseed crops. Int Year Millets 2023:27

    Google Scholar 

  • Phogat M, Rai AP, Kumar S, Angmo P (2021) Effect of phosphorus and sulphur application on their dynamics and nodulation in soil under black gram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] crop. Legu Res: An Inter J 44:315–321. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poonia KL (2000) Effect of planting geometry, nitrogen and sulfur on growth and yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). J Ecol-Physiol 3:59–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu S, McComb AJ, Bell RW (2008) Ratios of C, N and P in soil water direct microbial immobilisation-mineralization and N availability in nutrient amended sandy soils in southwestern Australia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roshini S, Jegadeeswari D, Chitdeshwari T, Sankari A (2021) Effect of different sulphur sources on sulphur fractionation in a red sandy loam soil. Inter J Plant Soil Sci 33(22):87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer HW (2009) Sulfur in soils. J Plant Nutri Soil Sci 172:326–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sipai AH, Jat JR, Rathore BS (2016) Effect of phosphorus, sulphur and biofertilizer on growth, yield and nodulation in mungbean on loamy sand soils of Kutch. Scitechnol J 51(1):51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon D, Lehmann J, Kinyangi J, Pell A, Thies J, Riha S, Ngoze S, Amelung W, Du Preez C, Machado S, Ellert B, Janzen H (2009) Antropogenic and climate influences on biogeochemical dynamics and molecular-level speciation of soil sulfur. Ecol Appl 19:989–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutar RK, Pujar AM, Kumar BA, Hebsur NS (2017) Sulphur nutrition in maize - a critical review. Inter J Pure Appl Biosci 5:1582–1596. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.6092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari KN, Gupta BR (2006) Sulphur for sustainable high yield agriculture in Uttar Pradesh Indian. J Fert 2:37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari DK, Chaturvedi DP, Singh T, Kumar T, Prachi AY (2022) Effect of nitrogen and sulphur levels on growth, yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.). Pharma Innov J 11:418–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams CH, Steinbergs A (1959) Soil sulphur fractions as chemical indices o f available sulphur in some Australian soils. Austr J Agri Res 10:340–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao R, Bai J, Gao H, Huang L, Deng W (2012) Spatial distribution of phosphorus in marsh soils of a typical land/inland water ecotone along a hydrological gradient. Catena 98:96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenda T, Liu S, Dong A, Duan H (2021) Revisiting sulphur—the once neglected nutrient: it’s roles in plant growth, metabolism, stress tolerance and crop production. Agric 11:626. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture1107062

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the staff of Soils of Forest Island in Africa (SOFIIA) Laboratory for the research facilities. The authors are sincerely grateful to the staff of Centre for Agricultural Development and Sustainable Environment (CEADESE) Greenhouse for the pot experiment. The authors appreciated the Directorate of University Farms (DUFARMS), Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta, for the permission to collect cattle and poultry manures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil Science and Land Management, Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State, Abeokuta, Nigeria

    Bankole Ganiyu Olawale, Odelana Toyin Blessing, Aghorunse Adeoba Courage & Azeez Jamiu Oladipupo

Authors
  1. Bankole Ganiyu Olawale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Odelana Toyin Blessing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aghorunse Adeoba Courage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Azeez Jamiu Oladipupo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Bankole Ganiyu Olawale initiated the research, collected and analyzed data, and wrote the original draft. Dr. Odelana Toyin and Dr. Aghorunse Adeoba assisted in proofreading and editing the manuscript. Prof. Jamiu Azeez supervised the research and reviewed the manuscript before submission. All authors have read and approved the final and revised version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bankole Ganiyu Olawale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Haroun Chenchouni

Highlights

• Influence of cattle or poultry manures with or without wood ash on sulfur release was studied.

• Effects of manures and wood ash on sulfur uptake and dry matter yield were estimated.

• Application of wood ash decreased S availability and invariably lowered S uptake in maize.

• Application of cattle or poultry manures with or without wood ash ensured consistent supply of S above the critical limits.

• Dry matter weight and S uptake in shoot and grains were higher in cattle manure-amended soil.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olawale, B.G., Blessing, O.T., Courage, A.A. et al. Available sulfur release and sulfur uptake as influenced by animal manures and wood ash under maize-grown soils. Arab J Geosci 16, 563 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11683-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11683-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation