Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 20;11(8):1242. doi: 10.3390/biology11081242

Table 1.

Comparison of soil physicochemical properties of rice monoculture and rice–fish co-culture fields.

Soil Properties Rice Monoculture Rice–fish
Co-Culture
T Sig.
pH (1:2.5) 4.7 ± 0.3 6.0 ± 0.2 8.031 **
BD (Mg m−3) 1.4 ± 0.02 1.4 ± 0.02 −2.414 *
OM (%) 2.1 ± 0.4 3.4 ± 0.2 6.997 **
SOC (Mg C ha−1) 51.0 ± 9.2 80.9 ± 3.5 13.878 **
TN (%) 0.3 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.2 15.637 **
ECe (dS m1) 1.0 ± 0.4 0.4 ± 0.01 −3.636 **
Avail. P (mg kg−1) 13.6 ± 1.9 20.0 ± 0.9 6.928 **
Avail. K (mg kg−1) 162.8 ± 6.2 170.0 ± 4.1 2.182 NS
Avail. Ca (mg kg−1) 2554.4 ± 85.2 2279.0 ± 90.0 −4.967 **
Avail. Mg (mg kg−1) 225.0 ± 5.6 175.1 ± 3.6 −16.709 **
Sand (%) 17.4 ± 0.9 10.1 ± 0.8 −14.141 **
Silt (%) 42.0 ± 1.3 43.6 ± 1.0 2.123 NS
Clay (%) 40.6 ± 0.9 46.3 ± 0.9 10.486 **
Soil texture Silty Clay Silty Clay - -

*, ** indicate statistically significant with p-value < 0.05 and < 0.01, respectively. NS: No significant, BD = bulk density, OM = organic matter, TN = total nitrogen, ECe = electrical conductivity, CEC = cation exchange capacity, Avail. P = available P, Avail. K = available K, Avail. Ca = available Ca, Avail. Mg = available Mg.