Effects of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system

Zelalem Addis; Tadele Amare; Bitewlgn Kerebih; Anteneh Abewa; Tesfaye Feyisa; Abrham Awoke; Abere Tenagne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306625

. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625

Effects of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system

Zelalem Addis ^1,^*, Tadele Amare ¹, Bitewlgn Kerebih ¹, Anteneh Abewa ¹, Tesfaye Feyisa ², Abrham Awoke ¹, Abere Tenagne ¹

Editor: Ravinder Kumar³

PMCID: PMC11290689 PMID: 39083550

Abstract

Integrated nutrient management and crop rotation are important farming practices, which enhance the nutrient use efficiency of crops and reduce the incidence of diseases and insect pests. The study was carried out to address the gap in using integrated nutrient management in crop rotation systems for soil qualities and crop yield improvement. That was done by adjusting the balance ratio of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizers. The experiment was containing ten levels; Control (0,0), recommended nitrogen, 50% dry-bio slurry, 100% dry-bio slurry, 75% dry-bio slurry, 75% dry-bio slurry+25% recommended nitrogen, 50% dry-bio slurry+50% recommended nitrogen, 25% dry-bio slurry+75% recommended nitrogen, 100% dry-bio slurry + 25% recommended nitrogen and 100% dry-bio slurry + 50% recommended nitrogen that was laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications for three years. The data on soil properties and yield components of potatoes and wheat were collected and analyzed using statistical analysis system software 9.4. An application of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer was significantly affected both crop yield and soil properties in the rotation system. The application of 25% dry bio-slurry with 75% recommended nitrogen gave the highest tuber yield of potato (27.6 tha^-1) as compared to control. Similarly, using 100% and 75% sole dry bio-slurry resulted in the highest grain yield (3.85 tha^-1) and above-ground biomass (9.59 tha^-1) of wheat. The combination of 25% dry bio-slurry with 75% recommended nitrogen scored the highest net benefit (2889.2 US$) with an acceptable marginal return (4463.3%) via by improving crops yield in the system. So, an application of 25% dry bio-slurry with 75% recommended nitrogen could be promoted for yield-soil improvement in the study area and similar agroecology.

1. Introduction

A well-planned cropping system can enhance nutrient use efficiency, reduce the need for inorganic fertilizers and lessen the impact of pests and diseases [1, 2]. Potato and wheat production under a crop rotation system is commonly practiced by farmers in the Amhara region. The system comprises a cradle-to-farm analysis for a 3-years rotation cycle. It allows for mitigating the impact of certain pests and diseases, which significantly affect the yield of the main crop potato. In addition to this, it enables to take full advantage of residual fertility that comes from potato leaves’ entire decomposition in the soil. This rotation system was chosen by many producers and it is considered as the most efficient system from an economic, quality and soil health point of view. Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is the third most important food crop after wheat and rice in the world [3]. In Ethiopia, the area coverage under potato cultivation reaches about 73,677.64 ha and its production was estimated at around.1,044,436.359 tons [4]. The productivity of potato in Ethiopia has reached about 13.9 t ha^-1 [5] which, is relatively low compared to other African countries [6]. Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is also one of the major cereal crops grown in the highlands of Ethiopia and it makes the country regarded as the largest wheat producer in Sub-Saharan Africa [7].

Out of the total grain crop area coverage, wheat ranked 4th after TEF (Eragrostis tef), maize (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) while it is the third in total production after maize and tef [5]. Despite the long history of wheat cultivation and its importance to Ethiopian agriculture, its average yield is also still very low, not exceeding 2.4 t ha^-1 [5]. Which is below the world’s average yield of wheat 3.4 t ha^-1 (6). This phenomenon is common in the Amhara region. Low level of potato-wheat productivity is mainly due to soil fertility degradation, improper fertilization, poor pest management practices, use of the low-quality seed and soil nutrient depletion [8]. Enhancing soil fertility is the first precondition for a practical crop production system; that can be achieved through the application of organic manure (like bio-slurry) and inorganic fertilizers integration for sustainable crop productivity [9, 10]. Different studies also indicated that the judicious application of both organic and inorganic fertilizers is a key solution for crop productivity and soil fertility enhancement. The study conducted by [11] revealed that integrated application of both organic and inorganic source fertilizers significantly improved yield and soil fertility status under the maize-potato cropping system. Another study which was done by [12] indicated that the supplement of tricho compost with chemical fertilizer and vermicompost with chemical fertilizer significantly increased the yield of potato, mung bean and T.aman rice by the scoring of 6.3–33.7%,8.3–33.8% and 2.9–18.3% respectively over sole application treatment. Similarly, the study conducted by [45] also observed that poultry manure bio-slurry, poultry manure, cow dung bio-slurry, and cow dung gave 11.7, 8.9, 5.4, and 3.1%. This makes, a respective increment in total system productivity over sole chemical fertilizer (46% N as urea, 20% P as triple super phosphate, 50% K as muriate of potash and 18% S as gypsum). Bio-slurry obtained after extraction of the energy content of animal manure is an excellent fertilizer, it is rich in major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium) and organic matter which is important for soil fertility and yield of crops [13]. It also improves the physical and biological quality of soil beyond its role in the provision of plant nutrients. In addition, an application of bio-slurry can help in the reduction of dependence on mineral fertilizers [14]. Because nitrogen is the most limiting essential nutrient for the growth and development of crops, both potato and wheat are highly responsive to N fertilization [15]. Furthermore; supplying nitrogen fertilizer plays an important role in the balance between vegetative and reproductive growth of crops [16, 17]. Various studies showed that N fertilizer applications can increase the dry matter protein content of wheat and potato tubers [18]. Moreover, most of the time the available nitrogen concentration in most organic source fertilizers including bio-slurry is high as compared to other major nutrients [13]. Due to this, the application of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer through a nitrogen equivalence balancing ratio is very important. Besides this, neither organic manure nor chemical fertilizer alone can meet the nutrient demand of a given crop and also their negative impact in terms of sustainable crop and soil productivity in different cropping systems [19]. For instance, the continuous addition of chemical fertilizers can cause soil quality deterioration such as increasing soil acidity, loss of organic matter and depletion of nutrients that are not supplied in the fertilizer formulation [20]. On the other hand, organic fertilizers are required in large quantities and their nutrients are released slowly making less efficient on soil properties and crop yields within a short period as compared to inorganic fertilizers [21]. Because of these reasons, the study was conducted to determine the main and residual effects of dry-bio slurry and nitrogen fertilizers on soil and yield of potato and wheat under a crop rotation system at Yilemana Densa District in North Western Amhara Region Ethiopia.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Description of study area

The study was conducted at Yilemana Densa district on a Farmer’s field across three sites for three years (2019–2022) as a potato and wheat rotation system in Amhara Region Ethiopia. Geographically the area lies at 11° 21’ 18’’ to 11° 21’ 22’’ N and 37° 25’ 37’’ to 37° 25’ 43’’ E [Fig 1] with a mean altitude of 2304 m above sea level. It receives a mean annual rainfall of 1421 mm with mean minimum and maximum temperatures of 12.29 and 27.56°C, respectively. The landforms of the area are characterized by undulating to rolling plateaus, scattered moderate hills, dissected side slopes, and river gorges [22]. Based on the District Bureau of Agriculture, the major land use comprises cultivated land (57%), forest and bushes (2%), grazing land (33%), and others (8%). Major crops, grown in the study area are Maize, Tef, wheat, Barley, Potato, and Field pea. Soil types in the area are Nitisols (45%) Vertisols (30%) and Luvisols (25%). This on-farm experiment was conducted on Luvic Nitisols which is the most dominant soil in the study area.

2.2 Experimental procedure

The experiment was contained ten treatments which include control (without nitrogen and dry bio-slurry), recommended nitrogen (138 N), dry-bio slurry 50% equivalence (5.3 tha^-1), dry-bio slurry 100% equivalence (10.6 tha^-1), dry-bio slurry 75% equivalence (7.95 tha^-1), dry-bio slurry 75% equivalence (7.95 tha^-1) + 25% recommended nitrogen (34.5 N), dry-bio slurry 50% equivalence (5.3 tha^-1) + 50% recommended nitrogen (69 N), dry-bio slurry 25% equivalence (2.65 tha^-1) + 75% recommended nitrogen (103.5 N), dry-bio slurry 100% equivalence (10.6 tha^-1)+25% recommended nitrogen (34.5 N) and dry-bio slurry 100% equivalence (10.6 tha^-1) +50% recommended nitrogen (69 N) that were laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. The rates of dry-bio slurry were adjusted based on the potato nitrogen recommended rate 138 kgha^-1 N [23] equivalency corresponding to its nitrogen content. Urea was used as a source of synthetic 138 N whereas, phosphorous (P₂O₅) at the rate of 69 kg ha^-1 was applied in the form of TSP to all plots. The experiment was carried out under rain-fed conditions GUDENIE and TAY varieties were used as test crops for potato and wheat respectively in each rainy season one after the other. The total area of each plot was 4.5 m x 3 m (13.5 m²) having 1 m space between plots and 1.5 m between blocks. Potato was spaced by 0.3 m between plants & 0.75 m between rows and the data were collected from the middle four rows. Whereas; Wheat was planted as a rotating crop in 0.2 m and harvested from middle rows by avoiding four rows as a border.

2.2.1 Dry bio-slurry

It was collected from farmers biogas plants and stored under well-protected shade for better drying and avoiding nutrient loss, especially nitrogen. After drying, we make it fine and break in to small pieces for nice application and soil reaction. After this; During the planting period dry-bio slurry was incorporated into the soil. The representative composite sample was taken from the whole collected dried pit of slurry [Table 1]. For analysis of hydrogen concentration (pH), organic carbon (OC%), cation exchange capacity (CEC), total nitrogen (TN%) and available phosphorus (P) by following laboratory manual procedures [24].

Table 1. Physico-chemical analysis of dry-bio slurry before incorporation in year1and 2 and its average.

Dry bio-slurry	Concentration
Year 1
Dry matter%	11.2
OC%	27.8
TN%	1.2
Av P (mg kg^-1)	112.1
pH (H₂O; 1:2.5)	7.9
C:N ratio	22.9
CEC (cmol kg^-1)	59.8
Year 2
Dry matter%	11.8
OC%	16.3
TN%	1.4
Av P (mg kg^-1)	91.6
pH (H₂O; 1:2.5)	7.7
C:N ratio	11.6
CEC (cmol kg^-1)	67.4
Average result of Year1andYear 2
Dry matter%	11.5
OC%	22.1
TN%	1.3
Av P (mg kg^-1)	101.9
pH (H₂O; 1:2.5)	7.8
C: N ratio	17.3
CEC (cmol kg^-1)	63.6

Open in a new tab

OC% = organic carbon percent, TN% = total nitrogen percent, C: N = carbon to nitrogen ratio, CEC = cation exchange capacity, AvP = available phosphorus, and pH = Power of hydrogen concentration.

2.2.2 Experimental crops

Gudenie variety is used as a test crop for a potato and it was planted as the main crop or precursor crop of wheat. TAY variety of wheat was also planted in the next cropping season after the potato which was used for the determination of dry bio-slurry residual effect in the potato-wheat rotation system. TSP (P₂O₅) was applied during the planting period as basal whereas; Inorganic N from urea was applied in three splits for a potato; One-third third at planting, one-third 30 days after planting, and the remaining one-third at the beginning of the flowering. For wheat recommended NP was applied in all plots except control which only received P₂O₅ to see the residual effect of dry bio-slurry in the next crop and nitrogen was supplied, in two splits.

2.3 Data collection, preparation, and analysis

2.3.1 Soil sampling and analysis of before planting

Before planting, representative soil samples were collected from 0–20 cm depth in the sites via a random sampling method from 10 spots using an auger. All samples were mixed to form one composite sample. The sample was grounded by using a mortar and passed through a 2 mm sieve for analysis of soil texture, CEC, pH, and available P whereas, a 0.5 mm sieve was used for determining the organic carbon (OC) and total N. While, bulk density was determined by the core sampling method.

2.3.2 Soil sampling and analysis after harvesting of potato and wheat

The major chemical properties of soil such as OC, pH, CEC, total N and available P were analyzed following the compiled laboratory manual [24]. Soil pH was measured in water with a ratio of 1:2.5 using a glass electrode pH meter. The soil OC content was determined following the wet digestion method as outlined by Walkley and Black which involves the digestion of soil OC with potassium dichromate (K₂Cr₂O₇) in a sulfuric acid solution. Available phosphorus (AvP) was determined by the Olsen extracting method. The total N content in the soil samples was determined following the Kjeldahl method. CEC was also, determined by extracting the soil samples with ammonium acetate (1NNH₄OAc) followed by repeated washing with ethanol (96%) to remove the excess ammonium ions in the soil solution. Percolating the NH4⁺ saturated soil with sodium chloride would displace the ammonium ions adsorbed in the soil and the ammonium liberated from the distillation was titrated using 0.1N NaOH.

2.3.3 Crop data collection

Plant height for both potato and wheat were measured at the maturity stage by taking five randomly selected plants from the ground to the top apex and averaging for a single reading. Similarly, the spike length of wheat was measured at the maturity stage by taking five randomly selected plants from starting point of the spike grain to the end of the spike grain and averaging for a single reading. The number of plants per hill (stem number per hill) was recorded by counting the stems that were directly sourced from the original seed tuber of five hills of potato at the 70% maturity stage.

The number of tubers per plant was also taken at the maturity stage by counting potato tubers from five randomly selected plants in the middle four rows of experimental plots (7.2 m²) and averaged for a single reading. Similarly, a counted thousand seed weights of wheat were measured using a sensitive balance in each treatment harvestable plot area (11.7 m²). The total tuber yield of potato was measured by using a balance during the harvesting period of time from the middle four rows (7.2 m²) for total weight reading. Grain yield and above-ground biomass of wheat were measured by using hanging scales at maturity stage from the net harvestable plot area (11.7 m²).

2.4 Economic analysis

The economic analysis was performed to make rational choices among the applied variables in the production of a potato. The partial budget and marginal rate of return (MRR) were used for evaluating the change in farming methods that affect partially rather than the whole farm practice and also concerned with a planning tool to estimate the profit change within a farm [25]. This was computed by adjusting the yield downward by 10% and multiplying it with the local field price (6 Ethiopian Birr or 0.12 US$ per kg of a potato). Dominance analysis was done by listing treatments in increasing order of cost and that have net benefit less than or equal to treatments with the lower costs that vary is dominated [25].

2.5 Statistical analysis

All collected data were subjected to analysis of variance through the general linear model (GLM) a procedure by using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software program version 9.4 (SAS Institute, 2014). List significant difference (LSD) at 0.05 probability level was employed to differentiate treatment means t [26].

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Soil chemical properties before planting and after harvesting of potato

The results of soil chemical properties before and after harvest from all experimental site were displayed in Tables 2–4. Before planting the soil was acidic in reaction with a pH (H₂O 1:2.5) value of 5.1 Y1S1 (year one site one) and 5.2 Y2S1 (year two site one), even if, it was within the range of soil pH for potato production [27] (Table 2). The total N, available P, OC, C: N ratio and CEC of the soil Y1S1 and Y2S1 before planting were 0.16&0.16%, 6.9&6.3 mg kg^-1, 1.4 &1.5%, 11.1&9.3 and 33.9&30.3 cmol (+) kg^-1, respectively (Table 2). The total N content of the soil was within the range of medium according to [27] who classified the range of total N < 0.1, 0.1–0.15, 0.15–0.25 and > 0.25% as very low, low, medium and high, respectively. [28] also, classified the range of soil available P content was like this < 5 as very low, 5–15 as low, 15–25 as medium and > 25 mg kg^-1 as high. Hence, the available P of the soil before planting lies under the low range. According to [29] the soil OC content ranges were rated 1–2, 2–4, and 4–6% as low, medium and high, respectively. Similarly, cation exchange capacity (CEC) was also rated with the ranges of 5–15, 15–25 and 25–40 cmol kg^-1 as low, medium and high, respectively [29].

Table 2. Initial soil properties of the experimental sites.

Texture SCL	Years	Initial soil properties across sites and years
Sandy = 56% Clay = 32% Loam = 12%	Years	BD	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
	2019–20 (Y1S1	1.22	5.1	0.16	6.9	33.9	8.8	1.4
	2020–21 (Y2S1)	1.33	5.2	0.16	6.3	30.3	9.3	1.5
	2020–21 (Y2S2)	1.26	5.5	0.17	6.8	33.9	11.8	2.0

Open in a new tab

NB: SCL = sandy clay loam; BD = bulk density; Y1S1 = year one site one, Y2S1 = year two site one and Y2S2 = year two site two.

Table 4. The residual effect of dry bio-slurry on soil chemical properties after wheat harvesting in the potato-wheat cropping system.

2020–21 (Y1S1)
Treatment	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
Control (0,0)	5.40	0.174bcd	8.97	21.39	9.68	1.69
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	5.40	0.196a	10.12	21.69	10.01	1.95
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.40	0.197a	9.25	26.13	9.64	1.88
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	5.38	0.168d	11.04	23.51	11.81	1.98
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	5.40	0.192ab	9.34	25.60	9.42	1.82
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.42	0.172cd	9.07	24.51	11.98	2.06
50% DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.36	0.188abc	10.06	22.09	9.61	1.80
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	5.35	0.202a	10.08	25.11	10.14	2.04
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.31	0.194ab	10.46	21.81	11.01	2.13
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.37	0.205a	10/76	23.78	9.35	1.89
LSD	NS	0.020	NS	NS	NS	NS
CV%	1.3	6.2	12.7	11.9	14.8	13.3
2021–22 (Y2S1)
Treatment	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
Control (0,0)	5.61	0.178	10.15	27.70d	7.61d	1.36b
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	5.53	0.179	10.22	30.52bc	10.31abc	1.85a
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.69	0.180	11.56	34.67a	12.25abc	2.20a
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	5.67	0.160	9.85	31.77bc	12.42ab	1.98a
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	5.64	0.194	9.85	31.09bc	9.74cd	1.88a
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.70	0.178	11.76	29.56cd	10.79abc	1.90a
50% DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.62	0.167	10.69	30.63bc	11.38abc	1.90a
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	5.54	0.186	9.59	30.37bc	10.00bcd	1.86a
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.58	0.172	9.88	31.99bc	12.82a	2.20a
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.44	0.185	10.19	32.91ab	11.78abc	2.17a
LSD	NS	NS	NS	2.60	2.61	0.41
CV%	2.0	6.7	14.4	4.8	14.1	12.6
2021–22 (Y2S2)
Treatment	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
Control (0,0)	5.51	0.176de	10.03	29.43c	12.03	2.12
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	5.65	0.190bcd	8.76	30.69bc	12.19	2.29
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.62	0.186bcde	13.49	35.92 a	12.78	2.38
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	5.62	0.209ab	14.08	33.68ab	11.63	2.43
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	5.76	0.178cde	11.74	34.47a	13.41	2.39
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.68	0.207ab	12.93	34.81a	12.29	2.54
50% DBS+50%N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.57	0.202abc	13.08	35.88a	11.47	2.30
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	5.59	0.164e	11.07	33.27ab	13.52	2.19
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.66	0.223a	11.51	36.06a	10.09	2.24
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.66	0.207ab	11.21	35.95a	11.75	2.42
LSD	NS	0.025	NS	3.78	NS	NS
CV%	2.3	7.6	17.8	6.5	10.5	7.3

Open in a new tab

Means followed by the same letter (s) within the column are not significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05). RNP = percent of recommended nitrogen and phosphorus, DBS = dry bio-slurry, pH = power of hydrogen concentration, TN% = total nitrogen percent, AvP = available phosphorus, OC% = organic carbon percent, C: N ratio = carbon to nitrogen ratio, CEC = cation exchange capacity, OM% = organic matter percent, Y1S1 = year one site one, Y2S1 = year two site one and Y2S2 = year two site two.

Based on these ratings OC (1.4, 1.5 &2.0%) and CEC (33.9, 30.3&30.9 cmol kg^-1) before planting of the experimental fields (Y1S1, Y2S1 and Y2S2) were in the low and high ranges, respectively. Generally, the nutrient contents of the study site Y2S1 are not good in terms of the availability of major plant nutrients besides its nice CEC. On the other hand, on Y2S2 pre—planting values of pH, TN, AvP, OC, C: N and CEC were 5.5, 0.17%, 6.8 ppm, 2.4%, 14.1 and 33.9 respectively. Based on [27] rating the pH value was under moderate while total nitrogen was medium. Similarly, according to [28] available P was low while OC and CEC were medium and high respectively [29]. Y2S2 rather than the two sites (Y1S1 and Y2S1) had a good soil fertility status based on its soil chemical properties. However, the acidity of soil Y1S1 and Y2S2 may be causing the sorption of available P. Thus, the application of OM-like bio-slurry is very essential to neutralize soil solution for the availability of nutrients. On the other hand, after harvest, all soil chemical properties except soil pH (on Y2S2) were not affected by the application of dry bio-slurry with N equivalence rates (Table 3).

Table 3. Main effects of dry bio slurry with nitrogen on soil chemical properties after harvest of potato.

2019–20 (Y1S1)
Treatment	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
Control (0,0)	5.13	0.12	9.3	29.1	11.6	1.4
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	5.11	0.12	7.8	29.9	11.61	1.3
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.19	0.13	8.8	29.6	11.59	1.4
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	5.18	0.13	9.6	29.7	11.58	1.5
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	5.19	0.13	10.2	29.1	11.62	1.5
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.22	0.16	10.1	28.3	11.57	1.9
50% DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.10	0.15	9.1	28.7	11.59	1.7
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	5.18	0.15	7.5	29.2	11.61	1.7
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.12	0.13	12.3	28.3	11.62	1.5
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.15	0.13	11.2	27.6	11.60	1.5
LSD	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
CV%	1.2	14.3	22.43	3.3	0.21	14.19
2020–21 (Y2S1)
Treatment	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
Control (0,0)	5.2	0.15	4.4	27.3	11.59	1.7
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	5.3	0.16	4.3	27.7	11.59	1.8
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.3	0.14	6.5	30.8	11.61	1.7
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	5.4	0.15	6.2	27.4	11.60	1.8
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	5.4	0.15	5.8	28.6	11.58	1.7
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.3	0.14	5.4	24.4	11.63	1.7
50% DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.3	0.14	4.5	26.7	11.61	1.6
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	5.2	0.14	4.6	27.5	11.59	1.7
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.4	0.17	4.4	28.4	11.59	1.9
100% DBS+50%N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.4	0.16	4.4	28.5	11.61	1.9
LSD	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
CV%	2.12	13.5	21.6	9.0	0.17	13.5
2020–21 (Y2S2)
Treatment	pH	TN%	Av P (ppm)	CEC (cmol kg^-1)	C: N	OC%
Control (0,0)	5.3^cd	0.17	12.2	30.6	12.10	2.1
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	5.4b^cd	0.17	7.1	31.9	11.60	1.9
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.5^abc	0.18	11.5	30.4	11.60	2.0
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	5.6^ab	0.18	9.5	32.1	12.62	2.3
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	5.6^ab	0.17	13.2	32.1	12.00	2.0
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.5^abc	0.18	13.3	33.5	11.60	2.1
50% DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.5^abcd	0.17	13.1	32.6	12.01	2.1
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	5.3^d	0.16	9.5	30.9	11.60	1.9
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	5.6^a	0.18	11.6	31.8	11.80	2.1
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	5.4^bcd	0.17	15.3	33.4	11.60	2.1
LSD	2.3	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
CV%	0.22	9.9	29.1	6.1	5.9	13.8

Open in a new tab

Means followed by the same letter (s) within the column are not significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05). control = is no nitrogen and dry bio slurry, RNP = percent of recommended nitrogen and phosphorus, DBS = dry bio-slurry, pH = power of hydrogen concentration, TN% = total nitrogen percent, AvP = available phosphorus, OC% = organic carbon percent, C: N ratio = carbon to nitrogen ratio, CEC = cation exchange capacity, OM% = organic matter percent, Y1S1 = year one site one, Y2S1 = year two site one and Y2S2 = year two site two.

The non-significant effects of the applied treatments on the rest soil properties might be the slow release of nutrients from the dry bio-slurry that was applied during the experimentation period to the soil solution. However, applied dry bio-slurry and N rates had a significant (P < 0.05) effect on soil pH at site two in 2020–21 as compared to the control (Table 2). Numerically the highest soil pH was obtained by the application of 100% dry bio-slurry and 100% dry bio-slurry +25% RN as compared to the control (Table 3). The increment of soil pH in treated plots may be related to the releasing of basic cations from dry bio-slurry into soil solution that makes for the substitution of acid cations. These results agreed with the investigation of [30] which reported that the combined application of compost with inorganic NPSB on maize increased the soil pH content after harvest as compared to the control.

3.2 Residual effect of dry bio-slurry on soil chemical properties after harvesting of wheat

The residual effect of dry bio-slurry on selected soil chemical properties was significantly explained at (p < 0.05) across sites and years in Table 4. Related to this an addition of 100% (10.6tha^-1) dry bio-slurry with 50% RN (69 kg N) was given the highest TN% (0.205 and 0.223) on Y1S1 and Y2S2 respectively than control. This might be due to the gradual release of dry bios-slurry nitrogen into soil solution beyond its chelating capacity. The finding lined with [31] found that an application of dry bio-slurry with inorganic fertilizers gives the maximum value of total nitrogen than control. Similarly, the study conducted by [32] also indicated that an application of 70cm³ scored the highest (1.36%) total nitrogen as compared to control which was given 0.07%.

On the other hand, OC, C: N and CEC were significantly affected at Y2S1 (Table 4), While; in Y2S2 only CEC is significant at (p < 0.05) Table 4. Based on this; numerically the highest value of CEC (34.6), C: N (12.82) & OC% (2.20) was observed by application of 50% dry bio-slurry (DBS) and 100% dry bio-slurry (DBS) with 25% RN as compared to control on Y2S1.On Y2S2 the maximum value of CEC (cmolkg^-1) 36.06 was obtained in plots that receive 100% DBS with 25%N than control. This might be the positive effect of applied DBS on the improvement of organic matter and soil holding capacity of positive cations on its exchangeable site. The finding agreed with [33] who revealed that an application of 41.3 m^-3 liquid bio-slurry with 20.5 kg ha^-1 N significantly increased soil organic carbon than untreated plots. The study conducted by [34] also indicated that an application of 10 tha^-1 compost with 50% N kg ha^-1 significantly increased OC% by scoring the maximum value of 0.67 than the control treatment. Organic amendments significantly enhanced SOC and they have had a considerable effect on soil microbes’ abundance and nutrient availability and uptake this may alter the C: N ratio of the soil. However, the addition of external organic matter with a low C: N ratio may induce the mineralization of OM. This makes nitrogen trapped by organic matter; a phenomenon known as the priming effect [35]. The application of the 50% DBS and 100% DBS with 25% N gives the highest CEC (34.67 & 36.06) at Y2S1 and Y2S2 respectively as compared to the control (Table 4). Such increment in CEC might be due to the application of DBS on soil, which makes the colloidal site of the soil negatively charged for storing of basic cations. The finding agreed with [36] who reported that the use of organic farmyard manure (FYM) and inorganic fertilizers significantly increased CEC over the control.

3.3 Effects of dry bio slurry and nitrogen on yield and yield components of potato and wheat

3.3.1 Plant height and number of Stem per hill of potato

Integration of dry bio slurry with nitrogen (N) significantly (P < 0.05) affects plant height (Table 5). Numerically, the highest values of plant height (52.1 and 48.8 cm) were achieved with the addition of recommended nitrogen (RN) and 25% DBS with 75% N respectively as compared to the control (Table 5). Increasing plant height in response to DBS with N fertilizer may be due to the improvement of physico—chemical properties of the soil in terms of water absorption for nutrient utilization of the plant. Moreover, DBS may deliver balanced micro and macronutrients as well as it enhance the availability of plant nutrients, which would help to speed up the metabolic activity of microorganisms and promote plant growth. The result agreed with the findings of [37] who observed the longer plants when potatoes were applied with farmyard manure (13.5 tha^-1) and NPS (245.1 kgha^-1).lt is also harmonized with the findings of [38] who recorded the maximum plant height of french bean from the application of 120 kg N ha^-1 while, the minimum value was obtained from the control treatment. Another study that was conducted by [39] also, reflected that the highest value of mung bean plant height (78.08 cm) was recorded from the treatment which received 20:50 NP kg ha^-1 with inoculation of Rhizobium as compared to the lowest value of 68 cm on the control treatment. On the other hand, a combined analysis of variance revealed that DBS with N fertilizers had no significant effects on the stem numbers of potato per hill (Table 5). This might be the parameter favored for genetic makeup, physiological age and tuber seed size rather than a nutrient supplement. This finding lined with the study of [40] who observed that the shoot number of potatoes is mostly determined by the genetic makeup, the physiological age, and the size of potato seed tubers rather than mineral nutrients added in the form of fertilizer.

Table 5. Main and residual effects of dry bio-slurry with equivalence N on growth parameters of potato and wheat.

Treatments	Main effect of DBS on Potato		Residual effect DBS on Wheat
Treatments	PH (cm)	NSPH	PH (cm)	SL (cm)
Control (0,0)	29.4^de	3.3	68.2d	6.7d
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	52.1^a	4.8	89.1c	8.5c
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	28.2^e	4.4	92.3ab	8.7bc
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	30.4^de	4.4	93.2a	9.3a
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	36.6^cd	4.5	93.0ab	9.0abc
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	41.9^bc	4.6	92.1abc	9.0abc
50% DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	42.7^bc	3.7	90.2bc	8.9abc
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	48.8^ab	4.0	90.2bc	8.7bc
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	44.0^bc	4.3	92.1ab	9.0abc
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	47.1^ab	4.2	90.6abc	9.1ab
LSD	7.9	NS	3.0	0.5
CV%	20.9	30.1	3.6	6.6

Open in a new tab

Means followed by the same letter (s) within the column are not significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05). DBS = dry bio slurry, N = nitrogen, PH = plant height, NSPH = number of stems per hill, SL = spike length.

3.3.2 Plant height and spike length of wheat

Over the years residual analysis of dry-bio slurry on wheat indicated that it significantly affected both plant height and spike length at (P < 0.05) in (Table 5). The highest values of plant height and spike length (93.2 and 9.3 cm) were achieved by the application of 100% DBS as compared to untreated plots (Table 5). This might be from the positive effect of DBS for delivering balanced micro and macronutrients by enhancing the availability of plant nutrients via improved soil properties. The result agreed with the findings of [41] who observed that the longer plants in plots that received 75% cow dung with 25% vermicompost than untreated plots. lt is also harmonized with the findings of [42] who recorded that the maximum plant height (101.5 cm) value of Boro rice from the application of 5 tha^-1 trichocompost as compared to the control that was scored the minimum value (78.6 cm). Similarly, the result of spike length also much to the study of [43] who said that an application of 15 tha^-1 biogas slurry gives the highest spike length of wheat than the checked treatment or control.

3.3.3 Number of tubers per plant and total tuber yield of potato

The combined analysis of results across years and sites indicated that the yield and yield component of potato significantly differed at (P < 0.05) by the effects of DBS and RN (Table 6). The application of 75% N with 25% DBS gives the highest fresh total tuber yield (27.6 tha^-1) while the lowest fresh tuber yield (8.6 tha^-1) was observed at control. This might be due to the releasement of nitrogen (N) from dry bio-slurry (DBS) and Urea to soil solution that makes for plant better growth and development. Moreover, it could be due to the addition of both macro and micronutrients from the dry bio-slurry (DBS) by improving soil pH, organic carbon, total nitrogen phosphorus and cation exchange capacity. This study is in line with the findings of [13] who revealed that the supplying of recommended inorganic fertilizer (100kg DAP, 50kg Urea and 50kg Murate potash per hectare) with 8 tha^-1 bio-slurry gives a maximum (266.7 tha^-1) yield of cabbage as compared to the lowest (160 tha^-1) from the control treatment. It gives about 66.7% yield increment due to the combination of both bio-slurry and recommended fertilizers over control. On the other hand, the study done by [44] indicated that the lowest value of fresh shoot biomass and marketable yield of potato tuber was achieved from control while the highest values were obtained in plots that treated combined application of farmyard manure and recommended nitrogen and phosphorus.

Table 6. Response of potato and wheat yield parameters for dry bio slurry and equivalence nitrogen as a main and residual effect.

Treatments	Main effect of DBS on Potato		Residual effect DBS on Wheat
Treatments	NTPP	TYD t ha^-1	GY (t ha^-1)	BY (tha^-1)	1000 SW(g)
Control (0,0)	4.2^e	8.6^d	1.23d	3.11d	30.1
RN (138 N kgha^-1)	10.9^a	26.2^ab	3.17c	7.9c	32.4
50% DBS (5.3 tha^-1)	5.0^de	12.0^cd	3.33bc	8.37bc	32.8
100% DBS (10.6 tha^-1)	6.4^cd	13.4^c	3.85a	9.52ab	33.6
75% DBS (7.95 tha^-1)	7.3^bc	14.9^c	3.83a	9.59a	33.9
75% DBS+25% N (7.95 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	6.5^bcd	23.0^b	3.47abc	9.08ab	33.2
50%DBS+50% N (5.3 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	6.4^cd	24.6^ab	3.47abc	8.53abc	32.1
25% DBS+75% N (2.65 tha^-1+103.5 N kgha^-1)	6.8^bc	27.6^a	3.28bc	8.43abc	32.6
100% DBS+25% N (10.6 tha^-1+34.5 N kgha^-1)	7.0^bc	25.2^ab	3.70ab	9.56a	33.0
100% DBS+50% N (10.6 tha^-1+69 N kgha^-1)	8.1^b	26.8^a	3.59abc	9.06abc	32.4
LSD	1.7	3.7	0.5	1.2	NS
CV%	25.6	19.4	15.6	14.8	10.1

Open in a new tab

Means followed by the same letter (s) within the column are not significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05). DBS = dry bio slurry, N = nitrogen, PH = plant height, NTPP = number of tubers per plant, TYD, = total tuber yield, GY = grain yield, BY = above ground biomass and SW = seed weight.

Similarly, a number of tubers per plant (NTPP) was significantly affected at (P < 0.05) by the application of DBS with equivalence nitrogen. The Maximum value of NTPP was observed through the application of the recommended NP as compared to control treatment (Table 6). Even if the maximum value occurs at the recommended NP, the combination of both dry bio slurry and nitrogen treatment also gives a better yield advantage than the control. This might be due to; the harmonization of organic and inorganic fertilizers for the uptake and assimilation of nutrients to potato tubers by increasing the availability of native soil nutrients through higher biological activities. The result coincides with the study of [45] who observed that an application of organic and inorganic fertilizers increased the number of tubers per plant in treated plots than control or untreated plots. Another study done by [31] showed that an application of dry bio-slurry with recommended nitrogen and phosphorus can increase the number of fruits per plant of tomato up to 40 to 73% than the control.

3.3.4 Grain yield and aboveground biomass of wheat

Yield and above ground biomass of wheat were significantly affected at (P < 0.05) in (Table 6) by the residual effect of dry bio-slurry. The application of 100% DBS gives the highest grain yield (3.85 tha^-1) as compared to control. Similarly, the addition of 75% DBS gives the highest above ground biomass of wheat (9.59 tha^-1) compared to the control (Table 6). Releasing N from dry bio-slurry (DBS) to soil solution may contribute to the plants better growth and development. Moreover, it could be due to the addition of both macro and micronutrients from the dry bio-slurry into the soil solution (rhizosphere) by increasing the availability of native soil nutrients. The result coincides with the findings of [43] who reported that the supplement of 10 and 15 tha^-1 of bio-slurry significantly increased the grain yield of wheat as compared to the control. Similarly, a study conducted by [46] revealed that the application of both biogas slurry and chemical fertilizer at 50% has a good strategy for sustainable crop yield production and soil health improvement. Similarly, the study conducted by [47] also showed that an addition of 100% dry bio-slurry significantly increased the stover and stalk yield of maize by 45.5 and 42.2% respectively to control treatment via improving soil biological activities.

3.4 Economic analysis

Net benefits were done by calculating a current fertilizer (Urea) cost of 0.27 US$ kg^-1, the cost of DBS kg^-1 was 0.004 US$, the field price of a potato was 0.12 US$ kg^-1 and the cost of labor per man day in the area was 1.4 US$. The marginal rate of return of 100% was used to determine the acceptability of treatments. The economic analysis indicated that most treatments give a higher net benefit than the control (Table 7). The addition of 25% DBS with 75% RN gave 2889.2 US$ net benefit with a 4463.3% marginal rate of return. This replied that for every 1 US$ invested for 25% DBS with 75% RN in the field, farmers can obtain additional 44.633 US$ [25]. Undominated treatment rates could be acceptable for potato producers in the study area except for the dominated treatments Therefore, the most economical rate for producers with low cost and higher benefits was 25% DBS with 75% RN.

Table 7. Partial budget and marginal analysis of potato as affected by the application of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen at Yilemana Densa District.

Treatments (RN +DBS kgha^-1)	10% Adjusted tuber Yield t ha^-1	Total variable Cost US$ha^-1	Net Benefits US$ ha^-1	MRR%
Control	7.74	0	928.8	-
50% DBS	10.8	35.2	1260.8	943.2
75% DBS	13.41	52.8	1556.4	1679.6
100% DBS	12.06	70.4	1376.8	D
50% DBS+50% N	22.14	84.5	2572.3	3204.7
25% DBS+75% N	24.84	91.6	2889.2	4463.3
100% DBS+25% N	22.68	95.1	2626.5	D
RNP	23.58	98.7	2730.9	D
100% DBS + 50% N	24.12	119.7	2774.7	D
75% DBS + 25% N	20.7	217.5	2266.5	D

Open in a new tab

RNP = percent of recommended nitrogen and phosphorus in kg per hectare, DBS = dry bio-slurry in kilogram per hectare, MRR = marginal rate of return; D = is dominated treatments

4. Conclusion and recommendation

The main and residual effects of dry bio-slurry had a considerable impact on a potato and wheat yield and yield components. In comparison to the control, both crops’ productivity increased with the substitution of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen. So, use of 25% dry bio-slurry (DBS) with 75% recommended nitrogen (RN) could be promoted for the production of potatoes and wheat in the study area. For the future, similar studies should be done across locations and crops, in permanent plots for sustainable crop production and soil health enhancement.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Adet Agricultural research center for its administrative and budget support.

Data Availability

all nessary dats avilable in the manuscript

Funding Statement

The research supported by budget by Amhara Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) and the funder hand no role in data collection and designs and none of the authors had not receive salary from the funder.

References

1.Brankatschk G, Finkbeiner M. Modeling crop rotation in agricultural LCAs—challenges and potential solutions. Agric.Syst.2015;138,6676. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.05.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Nemecek T., Hayer F., Bonnin E., Carrou´ee B., Schneider A., Vivier C. Designing eco-efficient crop rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. Eur. J. Agron.2015; 65, 40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Birch PRJ, Bryan G, Fenton B, Gilroy EM, Hein I and Jones JT. Crops that feed the world 8: potato: are the trends of increased global production sustainable? Food Secur.2012;4(4):477–508. doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0220-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4.CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Agricultural sample survey 2019/20 (2012 E.C) volume I. Report on area and production of major crops meher season crops for private peasant holdings. 2020; CSA, Addis Ababa. [Google Scholar]
5.CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Agricultural sample survey: Area and production of major crops. 2021; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
6.FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization corporate statistical database of the United Nations. 2021; Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC
7.Efrem B, Hirut K, Getachew B. Durum wheat in Ethiopia: an old crop in an ancient land. 2000; Addis Ababa: Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research. [Google Scholar]
8.Chanie C., Teshome T., Temesgen T., & Berihun B. Characterization of potato production, marketing, and utilization in North Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry.2017;9(3), 17–25. doi: 10.5897/JHF [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Shankarappa TH. Gurumurthy SB, Patil SV and Lokesh MS. (2012). Influence of phosphorus enriched biogas spent slurry (BSS) on growth and yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Journal of Plant Science.2012; 7: 253–258 [Google Scholar]
10.Khan SA, Malav LC, Kumar S, Malav MK and Gupta N Resource utilization of biogas slurry for better yield and nutritional quality of baby corn. Advances in Environmental and Agricultural Science.2015;382–394. [Google Scholar]
11.Samadhiya Nitesh, Singh SP, Goyal Girish, Murlidhar J Sadawarti, Sharma SK and Tripathi LK. Evaluation of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients in maize (Zea mays L.): Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cropping system. The Pharma Innovation Journal.2021;10(7):1360–1365. [Google Scholar]
12.Bilkis S., Islam M. R.*, Jahiruddin M., Rahman M. M. and Hoque T.S. Residual effects of different manures and fertilizers applied to preceding potato crop on succeeding mung bean (vigna radiate l.) crop in potato-mung bean-rice cropping pattern. SAARC J. Agri.2018;16(2):167–179. [Google Scholar]
13.Yalemtsehay D and Fisseha I. Comparative study on the effect of applying biogas slurry and inorganic fertilizer on soil properties, growth and yield of White Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. alba). Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2016;6(19). [Google Scholar]
14.Karki KB. Estimation of plant nutrient loss from biogas slurry. Biogas Support Programme.1997; [Google Scholar]
15.Errebhi M., Rosen C.J., Gupta S.C. and Birong D.E. 1998. Potato Yield Response and Nitrate Leaching as Influenced by Nitrogen Management. Agron. J. 1998; 90:10–15. [Google Scholar]
16.Alva A. 2004. Potato nitrogen management. J. Veg. Crop Prod.2004; 10: 97–130. [Google Scholar]
17.White P.J., Wheatley R.E., Hammond J.P. and Zhang K. Minerals, soils and roots. In: Vreugdenhil D (ed) Potato biology and biotechnology, advances and perspectives. Elsevier, Amsterdam.2007; pp: 739–752. [Google Scholar]
18.Zelalem A., Tekalign T. and Nigussie D. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to different rates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on vertisols at DebreBerhan, in the central highlands of Ethiopia. African journal of plant science.2009;3: 16–24. [Google Scholar]
19.Rhaman M.S., Kibria M.G., Hossain M., and Hoque M.A. Effects of organic manure and bio-slurries with chemical fertilizers on growth and yield of rice (cv. BRRI dhan28). Int. J. Expt. Agric.2016;6 (3): 36–42 [Google Scholar]
20.Liu E., Yan C., Mei X., He W., Bing S.H., Ding L. Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China. Geoderma. 2010;158, 173–180 [Google Scholar]
21.Efthimiadou A, Bilalis D, Karkanis A and Froud W.B. Combined Organic and Inorganic Fertilization Enhances Soil Quality and Increased Yield, Photosynthesis and Sustainability of Sweet Maize Crop. AJCS.2010; 4(9):722–729. [Google Scholar]
22.Eyasu E. Soils of the Ethiopian highlands: Geomorphology and Properties. CASCAPE Project, ALTERA, Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR), the Netherlands.2016; p. 385 [Google Scholar]
23.Amare Tadele, Bazie Zerfu, Alemu Erkihun, Alemayehu Beamlaku, Tenagne Abere, Kerebh Bitewlgn, et al. Yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) increased by more than two-folds through nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in the highlands of North-Western Ethiopia. Journal of Heliyon.2022;8(11111). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Sahlemedihn S and Taye B. Procedures for soil and plant analysis.2000; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
25.CIMMYT. From Agronomic Data to Farmer’s Recommendation: an Economic Training Manual. 1988; Revised Edition. Mexico, D.F.
26.Gomez K.A and Gomez A.A. Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. International Congress Series.1984; 1291: 42–52. [Google Scholar]
27.Tekalign T. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis. Working Document No. 13. 1991; International Livestock Research Center for Africa, Addis Ababa. [Google Scholar]
28.Olsen S.R, Cole C.V, Watanabe F.S and Dean L.A. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium carbonate. USDA Circular.1954;939: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
29.Landon J.R. Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. New York;1991.
30.Workineh E,Yihenew G, Eyasu E and, Matebe D. Integrated fertilizer application improves soil properties and maize (Zea mays L.) yield on Nitisols in Northwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Helyion.2021;7–e06074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Geremew B, Girma A and Birhanu B. Effects of dry bioslurry and chemical fertilizers on tomato growth performance, fruit yield, and soil properties under irrigated conditions in Southern Ethiopia.African Journal of Research.2019; 14(33), pp. 1685–1692. [Google Scholar]
32.Tsegaye T, Tewodros A and Hussien M.2018. Combined Application of Bioslurry and Inorganic Fertilizers on Quality Traits of Cabbage and Soil Properties. Asian Journal of Biological Sciences.2018;11 (1): 24–32 [Google Scholar]
33.Zelalem A, Tarekegn & Hussien M.2020. Effect of liquid bio-slurry and nitrogen rates on soil physico-chemical properties and quality of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) at Hawassa Southern Ethiopia.Journal of plant interaction.2020;15 (1):207–212. [Google Scholar]
34.Sandeep S & Salwinder S.D. Effect of Sewage Sludge and Rice Straw Compost on Yield, Micronutrient Availability and Soil Quality under Rice–Wheat System. Journal Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis.2019; doi: 10.1080/00103624.2019.1648489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Shahzad K., Khan A., Smith J.U., Saeed M., Khan S.A. and Khan S.M. Residual effects of different tillage systems, bio slurry and poultry manure on soil properties and subsequent wheat productivity under humid subtropical conditions of Pakistan. International journal Biosci.2015; 6(11): 99–108. [Google Scholar]
36.Tamado T, Mitiku W. 2017. Effect of combined application of organic and mineral nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on soil physico-chemical properties and grain yield of food Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in Kaffa Zone, South-western Ethiopia. MEJS.2017; 9(2):242–261. [Google Scholar]
37.Melkamu A, Minwyelet J, Tadele Y & Masho A.2020. Integrated application of compound NPS fertilizer and farmyard manure for economical production [Google Scholar]
38.Moniruzzaman M, Halim G.M.A and Firoz Z A. Performances of the French bean as influenced by plant density and nitrogen application. Bangladesh. JAR.2009;34(1): 105–111. [Google Scholar]
39.Muhammad U.C, Muhammad U.H, Imran K. Effect of different nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer levels in combination with nitrogen and phosphorus solubilizing inoculants on the growth and yield of mung bean. PJLSS. 207;15(1): 31–36. [Google Scholar]
40.De La I., Guillen I. A., & Del Moral L. F. G. Yield development in potatoes as influenced by cultivar and the timing and level of nitrogen fertilization. American Potato Journal,1994; 71, 165–173. doi: 10.1007/BF02849051 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
41.Balasubramanian A, Stalin P., Saravanaperumal M. and Vinoth kumar S.R. Residual effect of Integrated Nutrient Management practices on growth and yield of rice fallow blackgram (Vigna mugno L.). Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research,2016; 3(5): 2349–5162. [Google Scholar]
42.Bilkis S, M. R., Jahiruddin M., Rahaman M.M. Integrated Use Of Manure And Fertilizers Increases Rice Yield, Nutrient Uptake And Soil Fertility In The Boro-Fallow-T.Aman Rice Cropping Pattern. SAARC J. Agri,2017; 15(2): 147–161. [Google Scholar]
43.Pandey B.P, Khatri N., Yadav M., Pant K. R., Poudel R. P., and Khan A. H. Effect of Digestate /Biogas Slurry In Wheat Under Rice–Wheat Cropping System. Journal of Agriculture and Forestry University.2020;4: 67–75. [Google Scholar]
44.Tsegaye G,Birhanu B, S B & Berga L.2020. Integrated Application of Organic and Blended Mineral Fertilizers Improves Potato Productivity and Income for Smallholder Farmers in Acidic Soils. Journal of fertilizer and pesticides.2020;8(3),2471–2728. [Google Scholar]
45.Haque M.A, Jahiruddin M., Islam M. S., Rahman M. M., Saleque M. A. Effect of Bio slurry on the Yield of Wheat and Rice in the Wheat–Rice Cropping System. Journal of Agric Res.2018. 7(4):432–442. [Google Scholar]
46.Shahid M., Shukla A. K., Bhattacharyya P., Tripathi R., Mohanty S., Kumar A., et al. Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) balance under long-term application of fertilizer and manure in a tropical rice–rice system. Journal of Soils and Sediments.2016; 16 (3):737–47. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Mercy K, Esther M, James N, Kevin K, Mailu Stephen, Njeru Peterson, et al. 2022. Integrated effect of liquid bio slurry and inorganic fertilizer on selected soil chemical properties, maize (Zea mays) growth, yield and grain quality. African Journal of Crop Science, 2022;10 (5): 001–016. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r001

Decision Letter 0

Ravinder Kumar

9 May 2023

PONE-D-23-10312Main and residual effect of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer application on soil properties and crop production under Potato-wheat cropping systemPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musse,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review report

Manuscript number: PONE-D-23-10312

Title: Main and residual effect of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer application on soil properties and crop production under Potato-wheat cropping system

General comment

Integrated application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is an important soil amendment strategy that improves the sustainability of crop production including potato and wheat. Potato and wheat are produced by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia where enhancing their productivity contributes a lot for the livelihood improvement and ensuring food security in the country. In this regard, this research work may have significant contribution.

However, the manuscript is not well structured and lacks justification and objectives. The methodology is not well described and the results are not well presented and discussed. The authors are advised to make use of Microsoft grammar and spelling check. Comments to the individual section of the manuscript are presented below.

Title: It is suggested to rephrase as “Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system

Abstract

• It is recommended to include problem statement and objective of the study at the beginning of the abstract.

• The conclusion should be changed after correcting the MRR analysis in the results and discussion.

Introduction

• The authors should justify why intergraded application of organic and inorganic fertilizer is better than the solo application of the fertilizers.

• Previous research experiences in the integrated application of fertilizers should be reviewed.

• Most of the information/references are very old and the authors should change them with recent references

• There are sentences that are difficult to understand and unfinished, which should be revised

• A lot of grammatical and typographical errors that should be revised

• For more information please refer the commented document

Methodology

This part of the manuscript should be given due attention and requires rigorous revision. Description of the study area, the production system and data collection methods implemented (growth and yield) should be clearly described so that it is understandable and could be repeated by other person (for more information, please refer the attached document).

Results and discussion

The way results are presented is not attractive for the reader. It is suggested to present first the results and then forward why it could be and then compare the results with others.

Results should be presented in the past tense form.

Although no description of site 1 and site 2 in the methodology, results of site 1 and site 2 (soil sample results) are presented, which are confusing.

The economic analysis should be done once again as the MRR of 50%DBS+50%N (8461.1%) is not correct. Accordingly, the conclusion and recommendation part should be revised based on the corrected MRR value.

For more information, refer commented document

Conclusion and recommendation

It should be revised after the revision of the MRR values.

References

The way reference listed should be uniform and meet the guideline of the journal.

Reviewer #2: I must appreciate authors for nice work in which they have tried to understand supplementation of N with DBS on the performance of Potato-wheat cropping system and soil quality. The study has been conducted by following established procedures and methods and is scientifically sound. The data recorded and presented in the MS are also in order. I have thoroughly gone through the MS and realized that there is still scope to further improve its quality, presentation and content. According some suggestions/comments have been tendered on the MS itself. These comments are easy to understand and self explanatory. In addition to these comments, some specific comments are as under. Authors are advised to revise the MS by duly incorporating all the suggestions/comments.

1. English language polishing is highly needed to bring the information of the MS in presentable form.

2. Authors are advised to include more yield attributes of both the crops for better and clear understanding of treatment effects on test crops.

In addition to the above, it is recommended to include system equivalent yield as study has been attempted in system mode.

3. Include recent and updated works to support findings. Authors are also advised to cross check the work cited in text and presented in the reference section and vice versa.

Reviewer #3: The research holds importance in the area where its being conducted. Although the program is well planned but it needs to be re written. The introduction is very weak, does not fully justify the topic. It needs to be revised keeping in view all the important parameters in the title. The results too are poorly written and discussed with most of the incomplete sentences.

the abstract also needs to be rewritten.

Reviewer #4: Starting from the topic need major and careful modifications. The abstract does not contain the mail elements and it is poor. The result section is not properly interpreted. conclusion and recommendation section are poor. Majority of the references are very old.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sushil Kumar

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Commented manuscript PONE-D-23-10312.docx

pone.0306625.s001.docx^{(101.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312.docx

pone.0306625.s002.docx^{(14KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_reviewer.pdf

pone.0306625.s003.pdf^{(950.8KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

23 Jun 2023

Reviewer 1

.title: It is suggested to rephrase as “Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system

� We have are adjust the title based on reviewer “Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system

Abstract

• It is recommended to include problem statement and objective of the study at the beginning of the abstract.

• The conclusion should be changed after correcting the MRR analysis in the results and discussion.

� Here we also incorporate statement of the problem at the begging of abstract

� we have tried to check MRR by back tracing of the data its correct but our recommendation and conclusion adjusted from 50%RN+ 50DBS to 25%DBS +75%RN

Introduction

• The authors should justify why intergraded application of organic and inorganic fertilizer is better than the solo application of the fertilizers.

� Accepted and incorporated in main document (manuscript)

• Previous research experiences in the integrated application of fertilizers should be reviewed.

� Accepted and incorporated in main document (manuscript)

• Most of the information/references are very old and the authors should change them with recent references

� in case of reference we have tried to explorer recent works and adjust it based on the comment

• There are sentences that are difficult to understand and unfinished, which should be revised

� Accepted and revised in main document (manuscript)

• A lot of grammatical and typographical errors that should be revised we also tried adjust the language errors

For more information please refer the commented document

Methodology

� Accepted and incorporated as per the comment in main document (manuscript)

Results and discussion

The way results are presented is not attractive for the reader. It is suggested to present first the results and then forward why it could be and then compare the results with others.

Results should be presented in the past tense form.

Although no description of site 1 and site 2 in the methodology, results of site 1 and site 2 (soil sample results) are presented, which are confusing.

For more information, refer commented document

Conclusion and recommendation

It should be revised after the revision of the MRR values.

� All the comments are pertinent, and incorporated in main document (manuscript)

References

The way reference listed should be uniform and meet the guideline of the journal.

� Based on journal guide line we adjust it

Reviewer #2:

I must appreciate authors for nice work in which they have tried to understand supplementation of N with DBS on the performance of Potato-wheat cropping system and soil quality. The study has been conducted by following established procedures and methods and is scientifically sound. The data recorded and presented in the MS are also in order. I havethoroughly gone through the MS and realized that there is still scope to further improve its quality, presentation and content. According some suggestions/comments have been tendered on the MS itself. These comments are easy to understand and self explanatory. In addition to these comments, some specific comments are as under. Authors are advised to revise the MS by duly incorporating all the suggestions/comments.

1. English language polishing is highly needed to bring the information of the MS in presentable form.

� Accepted and corrected in the main document

2. Authors are advised to include more yield attributes of both the crops for better and clear understanding of treatment effects on test crops.

In addition to the above, it is recommended to include system equivalent yield as study has been attempted in system mode.

� Not applicable for rotation system

3. Include recent and updated works to support findings. Authors are also advised to cross check the work cited in text and presented in the reference section and vice versa.

� Accepted and incorporated

Reviewer #3:

The research holds importance in the area where its being conducted. Although the program is well planned but it needs to be re written. The introduction is very weak, does not fully justify the topic. It needs to be revised keeping in view all the important parameters in the title. The results too are poorly written and discussed with most of the incomplete sentences.

the abstract also needs to be rewritten..

� All are accepted and incorporated in the main document

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose.docx

pone.0306625.s004.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r003

Decision Letter 1

Ravinder Kumar

10 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-10312R1Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping systemPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musse,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Although most of the comments are addressed, there are still issues to be corrected or revised. The MRR analysis should be done once again which will probably have influences on the conclusion and recommendations of the study. Moreover there are a lot of grammatical and editorial errors that should be corrected. For more detail please refer the commented document.

Reviewer #2: Although authors have took reasonable time and efforts to improve the content and quality of the manuscript by duly incorporating the reviewers comments/suggestions but still so many comments are either not attended properly or superficially considered. The logical flow and presentation of the data in the results and discussion section are still not in order. The clarity in materials and methods are still missing. Many of the suggestions just for example language polishing are not properly addressed. It is recommended and advised not to accept the manuscript in present form. Authors may advised and asked to do more sincere efforts in improving fluency, content, quality and interpretation of the results in logical and scientific manner.

Reviewer #3: Although all the comments raised by the reviewers have been addressed by the authors but still the manuscript has lots of typographical and grammatical mistakes. The authors need to critically go through the manuscript before its final submission.

Reviewer #4: It is better to modify the topic as follow: Effects of dry-bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizers on potato and wheat yields under Potato-wheat cropping system, Northwest Ethiopia

� Language and coherence of sentences are poor and fragmented. So, the language should be written clearly and precisely by language experts.

� I found a lot of errors about spacing, grammar, punctuation and others under the whole section of the paper. So, it needs a revision.

� There are tables without any caption, for instance, the caption for table 5 is missing.

� The discussion is also poor.

� The conclusion and recommendation part are shallow and poor.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R1.pdf

pone.0306625.s005.pdf^{(2.2MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R1_reviewer.pdf

pone.0306625.s006.pdf^{(2.3MB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

13 Jan 2024

I have tried to Adress all comments and suggestion that given by you

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose.docx

pone.0306625.s007.docx^{(20.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r005

Decision Letter 2

Ravinder Kumar

7 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-10312R2Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping systemPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musse,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comment:

The authors are again requested to kindly address the concern of all previous reviewers. In revised version also two reviewers have raised the issues, and I am also of the same opinion to give another chance to authors to revise the manuscript so that revised manuscript can be considered for publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Review report

Manuscript number: PONE-D-23-10312R2

Title: Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system

General comment

Although some of them are addressed, the majority of the comments raised in the previous version are not well addressed in the revised document. As some of senior researchers are involved in the study, they have to have a look on the document for its improvement.

Some of major issues that require due attentions of the authors:

• The title shall be revised by considering the replacement/substitution of chemical N with DBS

• Statement of the problem in the abstract requires more articulation,

• Please review previous research findings/practices that showed the improvement of growth and yield of crops and soil properties through application of organic and inorganic fertilizers (only general principles are reviewed).

• Correct the net plot area and MRR, which create deviations in the collected data and conclusion and recommendation

• The recommendation in the abstract and in conclusion is different. Please revise and make a similar recommendation in both sections of the manuscript.

• Revise grammatical and editorial errors throughout the document

• For more information, please refer the commented document

Reviewer #4: Comments

The title should be clear and short.

Suggested title: Effects of dry bioslurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yields of potato and wheat under short term crop rotation system

The abstract lacks short background of the problem.

The result section in the abstract is not well written. Better to summarize the key results only.

There are too long sentences in the paper (see the first four lines of the abstract, description of study area), difficult to realize the concept.

The language is generally poor. It should be further improved by subject experts.

There are editorial errors like spacing (2.2.2Gudenie potato variety, 2.2.3TAY variety of Wheat), spelling (List significant difference (LSD).

SAS software version 9.4 is not available during 2002. You have cited the correct releasing year.

In table 2, describe the clay, sand and silt contents and remove repeated rows containing names of soil properties.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revised PONE-D-23-10312R2.docx

pone.0306625.s008.docx^{(106.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

27 Mar 2024

Response for reviewer 1

I. We have been adjusting the title based on reviewer 4 suggestion “Effects of dry bio slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yields of potato and wheat under short term crop rotation system by considering the comment of reviewer 1

II. Here we are done the re -articulation of for statement of the problem in the abstract part based on the reviewer comment

III. Based on the comment we in corporate the previous findings that deals the integration effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth and soil properties

IV. Here we correct both MRR and net plot area-based reviewer comment

V. We have been making it similar in both parts of the manuscript for recommendation

VI. Here we want to appreciate all of the reviewers including reviewer1 for their effort as manuscript be well edited by language writing. by fully considering and give attention for there frequent comment we have correct and check it by fluent speaker and language skilled persons in addition to our correction effort .so the manuscript well edited and corrected in terms of language

Response for reviewer 4

I. We have been adjusting the title based on reviewer suggestion “Effects of dry bio slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yields of potato and wheat under short term crop rotation system

II. we incorporate the background of the problem in abstract part based on this comment (reviewer 4).

III. we are correct it in both parts by summarize.

IV. we make clear and short in most lines and sentences in the manuscript.

V. Here we want to appreciate all of the reviewers including reviewer4 for their effort as manuscript be well edited by language writing. by fully considering and give attention for their frequent comment we have correct and check it by fluent speaker and language skilled persons in addition to our correction effort .so the manuscript well edited and corrected in terms of language.

VI. We correct it by 2014.

VIII. we also correct it based on the comment

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose best.docx

pone.0306625.s009.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r007

Decision Letter 3

Ravinder Kumar

30 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-10312R3Effects of dry-bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yield of potato and wheat under short term crop rotationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musse,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The authors have made efforts to address the comments given. But there are still comments that require the authors to amend in order to further improve the manuscript.

Comments:

Suggested title: Effects of dry bioslurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under

rotation cropping system

The abstract is not clear and precise. Please rewrite this?

The language is also still poor such as grammar, punctuations (line 79: (13) Due), spacing (line 27: 3.85tha-1).

Line 14 and 106: The experiment was contain ten levels of treatments Control ---?

Line 21-22: the results were indicated that; an application of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer was ---?

Line 14-21: Write full description of all abbreviations mentioned first in the text: DBS, RN, RCBD, ANOVA, SAS

Most sentences are too long and difficult to understand for readers (Line 9-12, 93-96). So, make the sentences short and clear.

Words found in the title cannot be a keyword like dry bio-slurry, potato, wheat.

Line 96: Location of the study area (110 21' 22'' N and 370 25' 43'' E), is not correct. It is a point, not a polygon?

Amend citations based on the journal guidelines.

Line 93-94: three sites (Y1S1, Y2S1and Y2S2), this not clearly described whether 2 or 3?

Conclusion part is poor. So, rewrite this properly.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R3.pdf

pone.0306625.s010.pdf^{(2.2MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312R3.docx

pone.0306625.s011.docx^{(13.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3

29 May 2024

Dear respected reviewers we really happy and thanks for your hard work and effort to correct this manuscript with your constructive comments. Please respected reviewers as you know this manuscript take long time, so please help us publish on time as much as possible

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers m.docx

pone.0306625.s012.docx^{(22.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r009

Decision Letter 4

Ravinder Kumar

11 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-10312R4Effects of dry-bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yield of potato and wheat under short term crop rotationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Musse,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors did not still address the MRR calculation correctly. Although the grammar, sentence construction and typographical errors are improved, there are still issues to be addressed in this regard. I still request the authors as well as the editors to take care of grammar and typographical errors.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R4_reviewer.pdf

pone.0306625.s013.pdf^{(2.7MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312R4.docx

pone.0306625.s014.docx^{(13.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 31;19(7):e0306625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r010

Author response to Decision Letter 4

17 Jun 2024

dear respected editorials we have adjust all necessary comments please procced it for publication

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers J.docx

pone.0306625.s015.docx^{(21KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r011

Decision Letter 5

Ravinder Kumar

21 Jun 2024

Effects of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system

PONE-D-23-10312R5

Dear Dr. Musse,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r012

Acceptance letter

Ravinder Kumar

26 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-10312R5

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Addis,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ravinder Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: Commented manuscript PONE-D-23-10312.docx

pone.0306625.s001.docx^{(101.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312.docx

pone.0306625.s002.docx^{(14KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_reviewer.pdf

pone.0306625.s003.pdf^{(950.8KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose.docx

pone.0306625.s004.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R1.pdf

pone.0306625.s005.pdf^{(2.2MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R1_reviewer.pdf

pone.0306625.s006.pdf^{(2.3MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose.docx

pone.0306625.s007.docx^{(20.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revised PONE-D-23-10312R2.docx

pone.0306625.s008.docx^{(106.7KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose best.docx

pone.0306625.s009.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R3.pdf

pone.0306625.s010.pdf^{(2.2MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312R3.docx

pone.0306625.s011.docx^{(13.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers m.docx

pone.0306625.s012.docx^{(22.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R4_reviewer.pdf

pone.0306625.s013.pdf^{(2.7MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312R4.docx

pone.0306625.s014.docx^{(13.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers J.docx

pone.0306625.s015.docx^{(21KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

all nessary dats avilable in the manuscript

[pone.0306625.ref001] 1.Brankatschk G, Finkbeiner M. Modeling crop rotation in agricultural LCAs—challenges and potential solutions. Agric.Syst.2015;138,6676. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.05.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref002] 2.Nemecek T., Hayer F., Bonnin E., Carrou´ee B., Schneider A., Vivier C. Designing eco-efficient crop rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. Eur. J. Agron.2015; 65, 40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref003] 3.Birch PRJ, Bryan G, Fenton B, Gilroy EM, Hein I and Jones JT. Crops that feed the world 8: potato: are the trends of increased global production sustainable? Food Secur.2012;4(4):477–508. doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0220-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref004] 4.CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Agricultural sample survey 2019/20 (2012 E.C) volume I. Report on area and production of major crops meher season crops for private peasant holdings. 2020; CSA, Addis Ababa. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref005] 5.CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Agricultural sample survey: Area and production of major crops. 2021; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

[pone.0306625.ref006] 6.FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization corporate statistical database of the United Nations. 2021; Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

[pone.0306625.ref007] 7.Efrem B, Hirut K, Getachew B. Durum wheat in Ethiopia: an old crop in an ancient land. 2000; Addis Ababa: Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref008] 8.Chanie C., Teshome T., Temesgen T., & Berihun B. Characterization of potato production, marketing, and utilization in North Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry.2017;9(3), 17–25. doi: 10.5897/JHF [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref009] 9.Shankarappa TH. Gurumurthy SB, Patil SV and Lokesh MS. (2012). Influence of phosphorus enriched biogas spent slurry (BSS) on growth and yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Journal of Plant Science.2012; 7: 253–258 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref010] 10.Khan SA, Malav LC, Kumar S, Malav MK and Gupta N Resource utilization of biogas slurry for better yield and nutritional quality of baby corn. Advances in Environmental and Agricultural Science.2015;382–394. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref011] 11.Samadhiya Nitesh, Singh SP, Goyal Girish, Murlidhar J Sadawarti, Sharma SK and Tripathi LK. Evaluation of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients in maize (Zea mays L.): Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cropping system. The Pharma Innovation Journal.2021;10(7):1360–1365. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref012] 12.Bilkis S., Islam M. R.*, Jahiruddin M., Rahman M. M. and Hoque T.S. Residual effects of different manures and fertilizers applied to preceding potato crop on succeeding mung bean (vigna radiate l.) crop in potato-mung bean-rice cropping pattern. SAARC J. Agri.2018;16(2):167–179. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref013] 13.Yalemtsehay D and Fisseha I. Comparative study on the effect of applying biogas slurry and inorganic fertilizer on soil properties, growth and yield of White Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. alba). Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2016;6(19). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref014] 14.Karki KB. Estimation of plant nutrient loss from biogas slurry. Biogas Support Programme.1997; [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref015] 15.Errebhi M., Rosen C.J., Gupta S.C. and Birong D.E. 1998. Potato Yield Response and Nitrate Leaching as Influenced by Nitrogen Management. Agron. J. 1998; 90:10–15. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref016] 16.Alva A. 2004. Potato nitrogen management. J. Veg. Crop Prod.2004; 10: 97–130. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref017] 17.White P.J., Wheatley R.E., Hammond J.P. and Zhang K. Minerals, soils and roots. In: Vreugdenhil D (ed) Potato biology and biotechnology, advances and perspectives. Elsevier, Amsterdam.2007; pp: 739–752. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref018] 18.Zelalem A., Tekalign T. and Nigussie D. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to different rates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on vertisols at DebreBerhan, in the central highlands of Ethiopia. African journal of plant science.2009;3: 16–24. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref019] 19.Rhaman M.S., Kibria M.G., Hossain M., and Hoque M.A. Effects of organic manure and bio-slurries with chemical fertilizers on growth and yield of rice (cv. BRRI dhan28). Int. J. Expt. Agric.2016;6 (3): 36–42 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref020] 20.Liu E., Yan C., Mei X., He W., Bing S.H., Ding L. Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China. Geoderma. 2010;158, 173–180 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref021] 21.Efthimiadou A, Bilalis D, Karkanis A and Froud W.B. Combined Organic and Inorganic Fertilization Enhances Soil Quality and Increased Yield, Photosynthesis and Sustainability of Sweet Maize Crop. AJCS.2010; 4(9):722–729. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref022] 22.Eyasu E. Soils of the Ethiopian highlands: Geomorphology and Properties. CASCAPE Project, ALTERA, Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR), the Netherlands.2016; p. 385 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref023] 23.Amare Tadele, Bazie Zerfu, Alemu Erkihun, Alemayehu Beamlaku, Tenagne Abere, Kerebh Bitewlgn, et al. Yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) increased by more than two-folds through nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in the highlands of North-Western Ethiopia. Journal of Heliyon.2022;8(11111). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref024] 24.Sahlemedihn S and Taye B. Procedures for soil and plant analysis.2000; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

[pone.0306625.ref025] 25.CIMMYT. From Agronomic Data to Farmer’s Recommendation: an Economic Training Manual. 1988; Revised Edition. Mexico, D.F.

[pone.0306625.ref026] 26.Gomez K.A and Gomez A.A. Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. International Congress Series.1984; 1291: 42–52. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref027] 27.Tekalign T. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis. Working Document No. 13. 1991; International Livestock Research Center for Africa, Addis Ababa. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref028] 28.Olsen S.R, Cole C.V, Watanabe F.S and Dean L.A. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium carbonate. USDA Circular.1954;939: 1–19. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref029] 29.Landon J.R. Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. New York;1991.

[pone.0306625.ref030] 30.Workineh E,Yihenew G, Eyasu E and, Matebe D. Integrated fertilizer application improves soil properties and maize (Zea mays L.) yield on Nitisols in Northwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Helyion.2021;7–e06074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref031] 31.Geremew B, Girma A and Birhanu B. Effects of dry bioslurry and chemical fertilizers on tomato growth performance, fruit yield, and soil properties under irrigated conditions in Southern Ethiopia.African Journal of Research.2019; 14(33), pp. 1685–1692. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref032] 32.Tsegaye T, Tewodros A and Hussien M.2018. Combined Application of Bioslurry and Inorganic Fertilizers on Quality Traits of Cabbage and Soil Properties. Asian Journal of Biological Sciences.2018;11 (1): 24–32 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref033] 33.Zelalem A, Tarekegn & Hussien M.2020. Effect of liquid bio-slurry and nitrogen rates on soil physico-chemical properties and quality of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) at Hawassa Southern Ethiopia.Journal of plant interaction.2020;15 (1):207–212. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref034] 34.Sandeep S & Salwinder S.D. Effect of Sewage Sludge and Rice Straw Compost on Yield, Micronutrient Availability and Soil Quality under Rice–Wheat System. Journal Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis.2019; doi: 10.1080/00103624.2019.1648489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref035] 35.Shahzad K., Khan A., Smith J.U., Saeed M., Khan S.A. and Khan S.M. Residual effects of different tillage systems, bio slurry and poultry manure on soil properties and subsequent wheat productivity under humid subtropical conditions of Pakistan. International journal Biosci.2015; 6(11): 99–108. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref036] 36.Tamado T, Mitiku W. 2017. Effect of combined application of organic and mineral nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on soil physico-chemical properties and grain yield of food Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in Kaffa Zone, South-western Ethiopia. MEJS.2017; 9(2):242–261. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref037] 37.Melkamu A, Minwyelet J, Tadele Y & Masho A.2020. Integrated application of compound NPS fertilizer and farmyard manure for economical production [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref038] 38.Moniruzzaman M, Halim G.M.A and Firoz Z A. Performances of the French bean as influenced by plant density and nitrogen application. Bangladesh. JAR.2009;34(1): 105–111. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref039] 39.Muhammad U.C, Muhammad U.H, Imran K. Effect of different nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer levels in combination with nitrogen and phosphorus solubilizing inoculants on the growth and yield of mung bean. PJLSS. 207;15(1): 31–36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref040] 40.De La I., Guillen I. A., & Del Moral L. F. G. Yield development in potatoes as influenced by cultivar and the timing and level of nitrogen fertilization. American Potato Journal,1994; 71, 165–173. doi: 10.1007/BF02849051 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref041] 41.Balasubramanian A, Stalin P., Saravanaperumal M. and Vinoth kumar S.R. Residual effect of Integrated Nutrient Management practices on growth and yield of rice fallow blackgram (Vigna mugno L.). Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research,2016; 3(5): 2349–5162. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref042] 42.Bilkis S, M. R., Jahiruddin M., Rahaman M.M. Integrated Use Of Manure And Fertilizers Increases Rice Yield, Nutrient Uptake And Soil Fertility In The Boro-Fallow-T.Aman Rice Cropping Pattern. SAARC J. Agri,2017; 15(2): 147–161. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref043] 43.Pandey B.P, Khatri N., Yadav M., Pant K. R., Poudel R. P., and Khan A. H. Effect of Digestate /Biogas Slurry In Wheat Under Rice–Wheat Cropping System. Journal of Agriculture and Forestry University.2020;4: 67–75. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref044] 44.Tsegaye G,Birhanu B, S B & Berga L.2020. Integrated Application of Organic and Blended Mineral Fertilizers Improves Potato Productivity and Income for Smallholder Farmers in Acidic Soils. Journal of fertilizer and pesticides.2020;8(3),2471–2728. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref045] 45.Haque M.A, Jahiruddin M., Islam M. S., Rahman M. M., Saleque M. A. Effect of Bio slurry on the Yield of Wheat and Rice in the Wheat–Rice Cropping System. Journal of Agric Res.2018. 7(4):432–442. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref046] 46.Shahid M., Shukla A. K., Bhattacharyya P., Tripathi R., Mohanty S., Kumar A., et al. Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) balance under long-term application of fertilizer and manure in a tropical rice–rice system. Journal of Soils and Sediments.2016; 16 (3):737–47. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0306625.ref047] 47.Mercy K, Esther M, James N, Kevin K, Mailu Stephen, Njeru Peterson, et al. 2022. Integrated effect of liquid bio slurry and inorganic fertilizer on selected soil chemical properties, maize (Zea mays) growth, yield and grain quality. African Journal of Crop Science, 2022;10 (5): 001–016. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Effects of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system

Zelalem Addis

Tadele Amare

Bitewlgn Kerebih

Anteneh Abewa

Tesfaye Feyisa

Abrham Awoke

Abere Tenagne

Roles

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Material and methods

2.1 Description of study area

Fig 1. Study area map.

2.2 Experimental procedure

2.2.1 Dry bio-slurry

Table 1. Physico-chemical analysis of dry-bio slurry before incorporation in year1and 2 and its average.

2.2.2 Experimental crops

2.3 Data collection, preparation, and analysis

2.3.1 Soil sampling and analysis of before planting

2.3.2 Soil sampling and analysis after harvesting of potato and wheat

2.3.3 Crop data collection

2.4 Economic analysis

2.5 Statistical analysis

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Soil chemical properties before planting and after harvesting of potato

Table 2. Initial soil properties of the experimental sites.

Table 4. The residual effect of dry bio-slurry on soil chemical properties after wheat harvesting in the potato-wheat cropping system.

Table 3. Main effects of dry bio slurry with nitrogen on soil chemical properties after harvest of potato.

3.2 Residual effect of dry bio-slurry on soil chemical properties after harvesting of wheat

3.3 Effects of dry bio slurry and nitrogen on yield and yield components of potato and wheat

3.3.1 Plant height and number of Stem per hill of potato

Table 5. Main and residual effects of dry bio-slurry with equivalence N on growth parameters of potato and wheat.

3.3.2 Plant height and spike length of wheat

3.3.3 Number of tubers per plant and total tuber yield of potato

Table 6. Response of potato and wheat yield parameters for dry bio slurry and equivalence nitrogen as a main and residual effect.

3.3.4 Grain yield and aboveground biomass of wheat

3.4 Economic analysis

Table 7. Partial budget and marginal analysis of potato as affected by the application of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen at Yilemana Densa District.

4. Conclusion and recommendation

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 3

Decision Letter 4

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 4

Decision Letter 5

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Acceptance letter

Ravinder Kumar

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases