1. Introduction
In agricultural modernization, the imbalance of nutrient input and output in many water bodies has resulted in the eutrophication of water and the outbreak of cyanobacteria bloom, which has become one of the most challenging environmental problems at present [1]. These nutrients may originate from both point pollution sources, such as industrial wastewater and municipal sewage, and non-point sources, such as agricultural runoffs [2]. In recent years, with the continuous improvement of supervision and law enforcement, non-point source pollution has gradually replaced the key position of point source pollution, becoming another focus of water pollution control. Among many non-point sources, agricultural non-point source pollution has attracted wider attention due to its strong concealment, wide coverage, and great difficulty in control [3]. According to the results of the Second National Census of Pollution Sources Bulletin jointly issued in June 2020, total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) discharged by agricultural sources are 1,414,900 and 212,000 t, respectively, accounting for 46.52% and 67.22% of the total emissions of surface water pollutants (TN and TP) in China, respectively, which has far exceeded the discharge volume of industrial and domestic sources and become the top of all pollution sources. Among them, the planting industry emits 719,500 t of TN and 76,200 t of TP, accounting for 50.85% and 35.94% of agricultural non-point sources (AGNPS), respectively. The excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides during agricultural production is the main cause of this result [4].
The above problems are very prominent in China’s Chaohu Lake basin (CHLB). The Chaohu Lake is the fifth largest freshwater lake in China, with a water area of about 770 km2 [5]. After the 1980s, as China’s growing population led to conflicts between population and land, farmers began to build fields around lakes and reclaim wetlands. Moreover, the extensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in production increased the runoff loss of soil and nutrients, coupled with the discharge of urban sewage into surrounding areas, causing Chaohu lake to suffer a significant amount of N and P pollution [6]. Eutrophication and cyanobacterial blooms have become the main environmental problem in Chaohu Lake [7]. There are some methods to control cyanobacterial blooms, such as the physical method (direct salvage method), the chemical method (hydrogen peroxide method) [8], and the biological method (polyculture patterns) [9]. The direct salvage method is an effective emergency control method to deal with cyanobacterial blooms. Due to cyanobacterial microcystins, if these salvaged cyanobacteria are not treated properly and in a timely fashion, they easily cause secondary pollution. However, the rich nutrients in cyanobacteria have the potential to become a fertilizer resource. Currently, treatment methods commonly include aerobic compost and anaerobic fermentation [10].
Aerobic co-composting is an aerobic, high-temperature, microbial-mediated solid-state fermentation process of different mixtures. Co-composting not only simultaneously disposes of several organic wastes but can also enhance compost quality by comprehensively using diversified waste properties [11]. Compared to anaerobic fermentation, the high-temperature phase of aerobic composting helps eliminate pathogens, pests, and weed seeds, making the resulting compost safer and without biogas slurry [12]. However, numerous studies have shown that nitrogen losses are heavy via NH3 during the heating and high-temperature stages in aerobic composting [13,14]. For example, Jiang et al. (2011) studied animal manure composting and found that 9.6~46% of the initial nitrogen content was lost as NH3 [15]. Eklind et al. (2000) found lost nitrogen content of about 50%~60% during urban sludge composting treatment [16]. For the above reasons, the current common methods to control NH3 emissions can be divided into three categories: Physical methods mainly include (1) adding materials with physical adsorption properties, such as zeolite [17], biochar [18], and wood vinegar [19], (2) adjusting the properties of the compost material itself, such as reducing the pH by pickling the composting material [20], and (3) improving compost processing conditions, such as implementing suitable temperature control, ventilation, and humidification [21]. Chemical methods mainly change the essential properties of compost materials or react with NH3 by adding chemicals, such as calcium superphosphate, aluminum sulfate, and calcium chloride [22]. Bio-methods mainly include increasing exogenous microorganisms to improve nitrogen consumption rates during composting and reduce NH3 emissions while fixing more nitrogen [23]. Among them, the precipitation of struvite MgNH4PO4·6H2O method (MAP) was previously widely used in the recycling and reuse of P and N in wastewater treatment. Jeong et al. (2001) first applied MAP to aerobic composting, providing a new idea for N loss control during composting [24]. Lee et al. (2009) precipitated NH3 released from composting as crystalline magnesium phosphate by adding MgCl2 and orthophosphate, effectively reducing the volatilization of nitrogen. In addition, the resulting compost product is an excellent organic and inorganic compound slow-release fertilizer with a high fertilizer effect [25]. Many studies have confirmed that MAP has positive effects on reducing NH3 emissions during the composting of food waste [26], poultry [25], and pig manure [27]. Biochar is environmentally friendly and has good stability and high porosity [28]. Not only does biochar performs well in soil-improvement applications, but it also holds promising prospects in composting [29]. Biochar adds compost as a beneficial amendment to increase organic degradation rates [30] and reduce greenhouse gas emissions losses [31]. Wang et al. (2018) showed that adding the biochar compound zeolite and wood vinegar has a positive role in controlling the greenhouse gas and NH3 emissions produced by the compost while also improving the composting quality [19]. The increases in temperature, pH, aeration, and organic mineralization during composting may lead to increased NH3 emissions. However, biochar relies on its pores or surface adsorption of NH3 and NH4+ to reduce the NH3 release and increase the fixation rate of nitrogen [32]. Steiner et al. (2010) reported that in poultry litter composting containing 20% (w/w) biochar, NH3 concentrations in emissions decreased by 64%, and there was a 52% reduction in total nitrogen loss [33]. Research by Dias et al. (2010) showed that acid treatment on the biochar surface could capture the NH4+, thus preventing the volatilization of NH3 during aerobic composting [34]. Furthermore, biochar-treated composting has more enzyme activity, so the soluble organic carbon produced by cellulose decomposition may be combined with microbial utilization of NH4+, thus ultimately reducing the emission of NH3 [32].
Amending a light-textured low-fertile soil with co-composted biochar significantly enhanced plant growth parameters and improved soil characteristics. Fetjah et al. (2022) showed that co-compost with biochar had led to increased biomass production of seashore paspalum by improving plant water status, photosynthesis, and chlorophyll pigment [35]. Farid et al. (2022) reported that co-composted biochar significantly increased seed vigor index, dry weight, total chlorophyll content, root, and stem length of zucchini, and exhibited higher residual organic C than conventional composts [36].
However, most of the research has focused on the mechanism of biochar materials to reduce composting nitrogen loss, with few large-scale open-air farmland experiments and comprehensive evaluations of soil, runoff, and maize. Due to the complexity and uncertainty of the experimental field, it is necessary to study the comprehensive evaluation of new cyanobacteria organic fertilizer products. Maize (Zea mays L.) is cultivated worldwide as food, feed, or raw materials for the alcohol industry. In the hilly areas of CHLB, maize planting is popular as well. However, because of the heavy rain and extensive water networks in this region, a significant amount of N and P is lost by runoff from agroecosystems to water systems, resulting in decreasing nutrient-use efficiency and water eutrophication. The objective of this study was to (i) to investigate the nitrogen fixation effect of the optimal rate of biochar application in cyanobacteria co-composting and (ii) investigate the effects of biochar and bio-organic fertilizer on farmland soil improvement, improving maize quality, and reducing field nutrient loss. Based on previous experiments, we preferred Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 to compound biochar. Additionally, three fertilizer measures were designed to study the influence of organic fertilizer on farmland runoff water quality and maize yield and quality. This research will provide parameter support for the engineering application of cyanobacteria co-composting and provide useful and valuable information guidelines for soil improvement, farmland runoff purification, and maize yield and quality in similar areas. Cyanobacterial biochar mixed composting technology can be used for large-scale treatment of lake cyanobacteria in the future, and its products have the potential to replace traditional chemical fertilizers as organic fertilizers in sustainable agriculture to achieve sustainable development between agriculture and the environment.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Materials
The cyanobacteria for the experiment were salvaged from Chaohu Lake. The spent mushrooms were provided by Heifei Lixin Seed Factory(Hefei, China). The rice hulls were from Zipeng Town Rice Factory (Hefei, China) and the biochar was provided by Anhui Yongfeng Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (Hefei, China). The basic physical and chemical properties of the above materials are shown in Table 1. Effective Microorganisms (EM) bacteria strains were purchased from Zhengzhou Nongshengle Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Hefei, China). The maize (Zea mays L.) varieties in the planting experiment were provided by Fengle Seed Industry Co., Ltd. (Hefei, China).
In addition, Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 added in the composting process were at chemical purities. The chemical fertilizer included urea (including 46% N) as a nitrogen source, calcium superphosphate (including 46% P2O5) as a phosphorus source, and potassium chloride (including 60% K2O) as a potassium source.
2.2. Indoor Experimental Design
Composting experiments were mixed with cyanobacteria, spent mushrooms, and rice hulls, with a wet weight ratio of 2:2:1 and each having a composting mass of 1250 kg. To accelerate the composting process, EM of 1% total raw materials mass was added, which was a mixture of microbial inoculum of more than 80 microorganisms from 10 genera, including photosynthetic bacteria, lactic acid bacteria, yeast, and actinomycetes [37]. The initial moisture content of the raw materials was about 55%, and the initial C/N was about 22.89 [38].
The existing results show that adding Mg/P salts during composting is equal to 15% of the initial nitrogen content (in mol), which is conducive to the formation of struvite crystallization [39,40]. Thus, the amount of Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 in the study was in this proportion. Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 were dissolved in water and mixed to compost material.
To compare the effects of different proportions of biochar on the control of nitrogen loss in cyanobacteria aerobic composting, five treatments were prepared: CK: Compost material (cyanobacteria, spent mushroom and rice hulls), B0:Mg(OH)2 + KH2PO4 + compost material, B5:5% (w/w) biochar + B0, B10:10%(w/w) biochar + B0, B15:15%(w/w) biochar + B0, B20:20% (w/w) biochar + B0. Biochar was mixed directly into the raw materials [19]. All test treatments were naturally stacked in the plastic film shed, and all stacks size were fixed as long × wide × high =1.5 × 1.5 × 0.8 m. Composting cycle was set to 42 d and overturned at 10, 20, 30 d, and 40 d, respectively. All the experiments were conducted in triplicate.
2.3. Outdoor Field Setting
As shown in Figure 1, The experimental farmland study area was located at Zipeng town, an ecological park in the Chaohu area of Hefei city, Anhui, China (116°57′25″ E, 31°44′43″ N, Figure 1). This area has a subtropical monsoon climate. The annual sunshine and precipitation are 2000 h and 964 mm, respectively, and the average temperature is 15 to 16 °C. The soil type used for the experiments was acid purple soil based on the soil classification system of China in 1992. The soil contains medium potassium and low levels of organic matter and nutrient content. The area is located in the Jianghuai watershed, with large terrain and a distinct rainy season. About 70% of the precipitation is concentrated in June, July, and August, which means frequent heavy rain in the rainy season in the basin and often significant surface runoff. The agricultural area is mainly seedlings and grain crops planting. Due to the influence of traditional business methods, the local people apply many chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural production, resulting in a declining soil quality of cultivated land, gradual deterioration of the runoff water quality, and a reduction in the utilization rate of fertilizer.
The planting experiment was designed in a field with a size of 5 × 5 m. It was necessary to vertically insert tiles with a size of 80 × 80 cm around the field, and the vertical burial depth of the tiles was at least 40 cm. We covered the exposed tiles with plastic cloth from top to bottom and buried the excess plastic cloth on both sides of the tiles in the soil. A hole with a diameter of 5 cm was left on the tile downhill of the field, and the runoff from the hole was collected in a 50 L bucket through PVC pipes. In total, three treatments were set up in the experimental field: ① CF: Chemical fertilizer, ② OF: Organic fertilizer, ③ C0: No fertilizer. Each treatment was repeated twice. Maize was sown in early May and harvested in early October 2020. Chemical fertilizer and organic fertilizer were applied as base fertilizers and mixed with soil before planting. The following standard dosages were used for each treatment: N was 241 kg/hm2, P2O5 was 150 kg/hm2, and K2O was 150 kg/hm2. Compound chemical fertilizer was directly mixed according to this standard amount, and organic fertilizer was converted according to this standard amount. Insufficient nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were supplemented with urea, single superphosphate, and potassium chloride, respectively. The row spacing × plant spacing of maize planting was 50 × 35 cm.
2.4. Sample Collection and Monitoring
2.4.1. Sample Collection
The composting sample was collected on days 0, 5, 10, 16, 22, 32, and 42 and fully mixed with about 200 g of material from the upper, middle, and bottom parts of the pile [41]. The sample was divided into two parts. One part was stored in a 4 °C refrigerator as fresh sample, which was used to determine the pH value, ammonium nitrogen (NH4+−N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3−−N), seed germination index (GI), microcystins (MC), and other indexes. The other part was air-dried, ground, and screened for the determination of organic matter (OM), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total potassium (TK), and other indexes.
NH3 samples were collected by ventilation [41], which used a sampler made of PC plastic pipe with an internal diameter of 16 and 15 cm high. A total of 15 mL phosphate glycerin solution was sprayed evenly into the sampler. The upper sponge was placed on the top of the pipe to isolate the external gas interference. Additionally, the lower sponge was 5 cm from the bottom surface. The device was placed at the sampling point for about 1 h to collect NH3 and set 3 sampling points evenly for each test treatment.
The composting temperature was measured at 9:30 a.m. and 17:30 p.m. by infrared temperature detector, and pH, OM, NH4+−N, NO3−−N, TN, TP, and TK were measured by oven, potential, potassium dichromate, UV spectrophotometry, KelNitrogen, molybdenum, antimony, and flame atomic spectrophotometry, respectively [14].
Before sowing and after harvest, field soil samples were collected using five-point mixed sampling method to determine soil OM, TN, TP, TK, and other indexes in each community [13].
After the maturity of maize, five plants were randomly collected to measure plant height (cm), quality per plant (g), leaf area (cm2), ear length (cm), ear diameter (cm), number of grains per spike (grain), and 100-grain weight (g) from each block on 7 October. Additionally, the cobs and straws were hand-harvested separately. Grain was placed in the sun for 1 month, adjusted to seed moisture content less than 10%, and then weighted to determine the maize yield. The grain and straw samples were dried in an oven at 80 °C to a constant weight and ground to powder to measure the TN and TP content [41].
The volume of the water in the runoff collection bucket was recorded after each rainfall, and 500 mL water samples were taken to analyze TN, TP, TK, NH4+−N, NO3−−N, and other indicators.
2.4.2. Monitoring Methods
Composting temperature measurement was taken daily at 9:30 a.m. and 17:30 p.m. at three points along the length of the middle of composting mixtures using infrared temperature detector. After the soil, maize, and water samples were collected, they were taken to the laboratory for measurement. In the water samples, the TN content was determined using a standard alkaline potassium persulfate digestion-UV spectrophotometric method [42], and the TP content was determined using an ammonium molybdate spectrophotometric method [43]. In the soil and maize samples, the TN was digested and measured using the Kjeldahl method [44], and the TP was digested with H2SO4-HClO4 and measured using the molybdenum blue colorimetric method [45]. The soil OM was measured using the potassium dichromate volumetric method [45]. The suspended solids (SS) were measured using the centrifugal-filter paper filtration method [45].
We took maize seed samples to determine crude fat, soluble protein, and coarse starch. The crude fat and coarse starch contents were determined in the grains according to the method of [46]. Soluble protein contents were measured in the grains according to the method portrayed by Bradford [47].
GI (%) = 100 (mean number of germinated seeds per dish × mean root length per dish)/(mean number of germinated seeds in the control × average root length of the control) [41].
NH3 emission flux measurement method: Remove bottom sponge of sampler, soak in 1 mol·L−1 potassium chloride solution, then oscillation for 1 h to determine ammonia nitrogen concentration in infiltration solution by distillation nitrogen method for 1 h, and ammonia nitrogen concentration in potassium chloride solution soaked in 1 mol/L of ammonia nitrogen (mg/L) by distillation nitrogen method. The emission flux and cumulative emission of NH3 were calculated according to the literature [14].
A total of 5 g fresh sample was taken accurately and extracted with 5% acetic acid and supplemented by ultrasonic oscillation. Crude extract was purified with C18-SPE column and 80% methanol aqueous solution. Extraction liquid was dried in a 65 °C vacuum rotator with a fixed capacity with 1 mL methanol solution for HPLC analysis after 0.22 μm filter membrane. HPLC test conditions were that the flow phase consists of A acetonitrile and B pure water (containing 0.08% trifluoroacetic acid), with a detection flow velocity of 1.0 mL/min, sample intake of 20 μL, column temperature of 35 °C, and the detection wavelength of 238 nm [48].
Analysis of struvite (MgNH4PO4·6H2O) composition in compost samples was conducted using X-ray Diffraction Instrument [49].
2.5. Data Processing and Analysis
According to the nitrogen balance principle, before and after the first sampling:
W0 × (1 − Mw0) × N0 = (W1 + W1′) × (1 − Mw 1) × N1 + N1 loss
Before and after the second sampling:
W1 × (1 − Mw1) × N1 = (W2 + W2’) × (1 − Mw2) × N2 + N2 loss
Therefore, there is a nitrogen loss at each sampling interval. Nitrogen balance before and after the n sampling:
Wn−1 × (1 − Mw n−1) × Nn−1 = (Wn + Wn’) × (1 − Mw n) × Nn + Nn loss
The total nitrogen loss:
NT loss = N1 loss + N2 loss +…+ Nn−1 loss
Nitrogen loss rate (RN-loss):
RN-loss = NT loss/N0 × 100%
NH3-N loss rate (RAN-loss):
RAN-loss = NAT loss/N0 × 100%
Nitrogen fixation rate (RNF)
RNF = (RN-loss CK − RN-loss T)/RN-loss CK × 100%
where n is the number of samples, W0 is the total weight of composting raw material (fresh weight) at the beginning of composting (kg), Mw0 is the composting sample water content at the beginning of composting (%), Wn is the composting weight (fresh weight) after each sample sampling (kg), Wn’ is the composting sample weight (fresh weight) (kg), Mwn is the water content of each compost sample (%), and Nn is the total nitrogen content of each sample (g/kg) [38].N (or P and K) uptake of maize = grain yield × N (or P and K) content of grain + straw yield × N (or P and K) content of straw content.
N (or P and K) source agronomic coefficient = [The N (or P and K) content of soil and N (or P and K) uptake of maize in OF treatment]/[The N (or P and K) content of soil and N (or P and K) uptake of maize in CF treatment].
2.6. Statistical Analysis
Test data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and Origin 2018 software for basic analysis and drawing. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to determine whether the properties differed among the treatments. When ANOVAs were significant, significant difference was detected through LSD-t. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 22.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Effect of Maturity Indexes in the Composting Process
During the experiment, compost mixtures followed the three typical phases of composting [48]: Mesophilic, thermophilic, and curing. At the beginning of composting, the initial temperature of each treatment was 19.5 °C, close to the environment temperature (ET) of 20 °C, which increased rapidly (Figure 2a). Additionally, the highest temperature of B0, B5, B10, B15, B20, and CK in the process of composting reached 60.5, 60.9, 62.1, 63.5, 61.2 °C, and 61.5 °C, respectively. The high-temperature stage (>50 °C) lasted for 12 to 15 days, sufficient for the composting product to meet the hygiene requirements. In the middle of composting, the temperature subsequently increased slightly, mainly due to the homogenization of the organic composition and increased microbial activity, causing the secondary fermentation of the mixtures [30]. The addition of biochar extended the thermophilic phases of each treatment by 1 to 3 d with the CK and B0. This may be due to a higher density substrate accelerating the composting process: The biochar amendment fills the stack’s pore space, thus reducing the heat loss due to increased air space [11].
As shown in Figure 2b, the pH values of each treatment gradually increased and reached the peak along with the composting process in 1–5 days, then gradually decreased and finally stabilized. At the initial stage of composting, with the rise in temperature, the materials with high nitrogen content were mineralized dramatically. Additionally, a large amount of NH4+-N was produced in this mineralization reaction, which promoted the increase in the pH value of the reactor. In the high-temperature stage, the pH value of the reactor decreased gradually due to the release of a large amount of NH3. In the thermophilic stages, ammonification began to weaken, and the accumulation of H+ from nitrification and organic acids from the degradation of organic matter further reduced the pH value to a constant level in the ripening stage until the end of the test [40]. Figure 2b shows that the amendment of Mg2+/P salts can significantly reduce pH (p < 0.05), while the increase of biochar can increase pH, which was consistent with the effect of Wang et al.’s (2018) study on biochar, zeolite, and wood vinegar co-composting [19]. The pH values at the end of each test treatment were all within 7.5~8.5, presenting weak alkalinity, which met the standards of composting ripening in China.
As shown in Figure 2c, the OM content in all treatments decreased gradually with time. After composting, the OM content of B0, B5, B10, B15, B20, and CK treatments were 475.24, 508.65, 514.98, 518.43, 522.87 g/kg, and 268.43 g/kg, respectively. Compared with the initial stage, it decreased by 23.12%,18.18%, 17.02%, 16.85%, 16.54%, and 25.47%, respectively. The results showed that the degradation rate of OM in CK was significantly higher than that in other treatments (p < 0.05). Moreover, the degradation rate of OM decreased with biochar supplementation. The main reason for this was that it was difficult to degrade biochar when composting, and the amendment of biochar increased the content of OM in each treatment [50]. Overall, the degradation rate of OM for 0–16 days was significantly higher than that for 16–42 days. This was mainly because the microbial metabolism at the early stage of composting increased with the increase in temperature, and the decomposed OM was simple in structure and easy to degrade. In the later stage of composting, the microbial activity decreased with the decrease in temperature, and the OM that was difficult to decompose, such as lignin, became the main carbon source, so the degradation rate decreased gradually [51].
GI lower than 50% means high phytotoxicity occurs, between 50% and 80% moderated phytotoxicity and higher than 80% means the no- phytotoxic occurrence, while the products with a GI higher than 100% have phytonutrient or phytostimulant effects [52]. According to Figure 2d, the initial GI of each treatment was lower than 50%, indicating that the composting material had high plant toxicity, which also meant that there was a certain risk of using cyanobacteria directly as fertilizer without treatment. From 0 to 5 days at the beginning of composting, the GI of each treatment had little change compared with the initial stage, which was mainly attributed to the inhibition of seed germination by the production of volatile fatty acids and high concentration of NH4+ in the early stage of composting [53]. Thereafter, as the composting continued, these substances were continuously degraded or transformed, and the GI in all treatments gradually increased. When GI reached over 80%, compost was considered mature and no longer phytotoxic [38]. After composting, GI in all the treatments exceeded this limit, which indicated that each treatment reached complete decomposing. Among them, the amendment of Mg2+/PO43− salt (B0) and biochar (B5-B20) helped to increase GI, mainly due to the biochar adsorption of ammonia and the formation of struvite (MgNH4PO4·6H2O). This was similar to the results of Jiang et al.’s [40] study on struvite crystallization and Li et al.’s (2015) study on composting pig manure with biochar [54].
3.2. Nitrogen Loss and Fixation
3.2.1. The Emission of NH3
NH3 emission is the main vehicle for nitrogen loss during composting [55]. It not only reduces the fertilizer of compost products but also causes environmental pollution problems [56]. As shown in Figure 3a, the NH3 emission trends for each treatment were almost the same, with an upward trend and peaking. Large amounts of NH3 emissions in each treatment were mainly concentrated within 0–20 d of composting, and almost no NH3 emission was detected after that, which was consistent with Chan’s research results [17]. However, the emission rate of treatments B0-B20 was lower than CK. The maximum daily emission of NH3 in CK appeared on day 5, reaching 324.68 g/d. The peak values of B0, B5, B10, B15, and B20 treatments were 103.02, 74.25, 71.50, 59.00 g/d, and 60.75 g/d on days 9, 9, 8, 7, and 8 d, respectively. Compared with CK, it decreased by 68.27%, 77.13%, 77.98%, 81.83%, and 81.29%. This indicated that the amendment of Mg2+, PO43−, and biochar could effectively delay ammonia emissions and reduce its emission rate, reducing cumulative emissions, while the higher the rate of biochar application, the lower the ammonia emission rate. Fang et al. (1999) and Liang et al. (2018) found that about 40~80% of nitrogen is lost from NH3 emissions at the high-temperature stage [57,58]. The factors affecting the volatile rate of NH3 during composting mainly include temperature, pH, water content, particle size, mixing flip frequency, ventilation rate, and nutrients [39,59].
As shown in Figure 3b, the cumulative NH3 emissions tended to stabilize after 20 d. Throughout the fermentation process, the CK treatment discharged NH3 1832.61 g, which was the highest, compared with the B0, B5, B10, B15, and B20 treatments of 990.53, 668.25, 603.00, 628.13 g, and 660.75 g. Among them, B10 has the lowest cumulative NH3 emission and decreased by 45.95%, 63.54%, 67.10%, 65.72%, and 63.94% compared with the CK, respectively. This may be due to proper amounts of biochar amendment to improve the reactor porosity and increase the reactor oxygen concentration, creating a good living environment for nitrification bacteria, which helped convert NH4+ into nitrates, thus reducing the loss of nitrogen [50]. At the same time, biochar provided a good protective space and essential nutrient elements for nitrification bacteria in the thermophilic stage, improved the reactor environment, and ensured compost quality [51]. Therefore, the amendment of biochar reduces NH3 production and emission, and effectively reduces nitrogen loss.
3.2.2. Changes in the Nitrogen Forms and TN Content
The changes in NH4+−N content in all the treatments presented a similar trend, rising first and slowly reducing to stabilize (Figure 4a). When the heap was saturated, the NH4+−N was continuously transformed to the NH3 direction at high temperature and high pH values, a large number of NH3 escaped from the heap, and the NH4+−N content began to decrease. With the continuous decrease in temperature, the activities of nitrifying bacteria and other thermophilic bacteria gradually became vigorous. Through a series of biochemical reactions, such as nitrification, NH4+−N was transformed into NO3−−N or organic nitrogen, and the content of NH4+−N tended to gradually become stable [30]. After the beginning of the test (0–5 d), with the temperature rise, the ammonifier gradually became the dominant population, and OM, under the action of ammonifier continuous decomposing, produced a large number of NH4+−N and increased the NH4+−N content to the peak [14]. After composting, NH4+−N content in CK was 3.14 g/kg, which decreased by 40.19% compared with the initial content. However, the contents in B0, B5, B10, B15, and B20 treatments were 4.43, 4.89, 5.35, 5.49 g/kg, and 5.12 g/kg, which increased by 23.40%, 56.73%, 58.28%, 52.08%, and 54.22%, respectively. The results showed that the amendment had a good effect on nitrogen fixation in different degrees. The increase in NH4+−N content in all treatments was significantly higher than the CK. This was attributed to the nitrogen-fixing effect of struvite crystals and the good adsorption capacity of biochar, which fixed a large amount of NH4+−N. Additionally, the strong adsorption capacity and good pore structure of biochar could adsorb NH4+−N, thus reducing the conversion rate of NH4+−N to NH3 [29].
As shown in Figure 4b, during days 0 to 5 of the composting stage, NO3−−N content in all treatments showed a slow increase, mainly because the high temperature and high NH4+-N content inhibited the activities of the nitrifier [60]. Within 10 to 16 days, with the decrease in temperature and the release of a large amount of NH3, the content of NO3--N in all treatments showed a sharp increase. This was mainly due to the enhanced nitrifier activity that transforms the reactor-free NH4+−N into NO3−−N, so its content increases. Then, the NO3−−N content stabilized, and after composting, the B0, B5, B10, B15, B20, and CK treatments were 556, 583, 595, 606, 577 mg/kg, and 600 mg/kg and increased 247.50%, 257.67%, 271.88%, 274.07%, 277.07%, 277.12%, and 268.10% relative to the initial content. The increase in NO3−−N content of B10, B15, and B20 was higher than CK and increased with a greater rate of biochar application. The results indicated that the amendment of a certain rate of biochar application was beneficial to the fixation of NO3−−N in the composting process.
As shown in Figure 4c, the TN content in each treatment showed a slightly decreasing trend during days 0–5 at the beginning of composting, which was mainly due to the emission wherein NH3 began to be released with the decomposition of organic matter, resulting in different degrees of nitrogen loss in each treatment. During days 5 to 15 of composting, although NH3 emission was significant, the TN content still gradually increased, which was consistent with the research results of Luo et al. and Nasini et al. [61,62]. This was mainly due to the degradation rate of carbon-containing organic matter being higher than the emission rate of NH3. As the organic compounds degraded, the heap mass was constantly lost, increasing the TN concentration. After composting, the TN content in CK was 21.53 g/kg, up 26.87% compared to the initial content. Meanwhile, in B0, B5, B10, B15, and B20 treatments, it was 26.02, 29.74, 32.69, 31.87 g/kg, and 30.55 g/kg, up 54.42%, 76.39%, 92.18%, 90.04%, and 80.45%, compared to the initial content, respectively. Comparing the increased range of TN content between treatments showed that the B10 treatment was the best for reducing nitrogen loss. It can be seen in Figure 4a–c that the main forms of nitrogen-containing substances in the composting process are organic nitrogen (51.68 to 81.6%) and inorganic nitrogen in the form of ammonia nitrogen (16.37 to 47.07%).
3.2.3. Nitrogen Loss and Fixation Rates
According to the principle of material conservation and nitrogen balance, the nitrogen loss rate and fixed rate in different treatments of cyanobacteria compost are calculated in Table 2. We can see that NH3 emission was the main vehicle of nitrogen loss, accounting for 75.04 to 89.35%, which was consistent with previous studies [16,57,58]. This showed that inhibiting NH3 release during composting was an important means of controlling nitrogen loss in compost. With the amendment of Mg/P salts and biochar (B), nitrogen loss decreased by 41.35 to 61.54%. This comparison shows that the amendment of 10% biochar had the best effect on reducing reactor nitrogen loss.
3.3. Evaluation of Safety and Fertilizer Efficiency of Compost Products
3.3.1. Degradation Effect of Microcystins
The most common and potently toxic microcystins are the microcystin variant with arginine (MC-RR) and the microcystin variant with leucine (MC-LR). Microcystins are harmful to the liver of humans and animals, but they can be degraded by acids, permanganate, H2O2, ozone, ultrasonic irradiation, ultraviolet light, and microorganisms [63,64]. This experiment focused on the content and degradation rate of MC-RR and MC-LR in samples before and after composting.
As shown in Table 3, the degradation rate of MC-RR and MC-LR in the test process could reach 97.39 to 100%, which indicates that the high-temperature aerobic composting process was conducive to the degradation of MC. After composting, the degradation trend of MC content in each test treatment was consistent with the research results of Tang et al. (2021) and Han et al. (2019). In general, B10 treatment had the best comprehensive degradation effect on MC and effectively reduced the safety risk of cyanobacteria composting [41,65].
3.3.2. Effectiveness Evaluation of the Fertilizer
The National Standard for Organic Fertilizer of China (NY 525-2012) stipulates the technical indicators of organic fertilizer, in which the content of organic matter (based on drying) is ≧45%, and the amount of total nutrient (N + P2O5 + K2O) content (TNC) (based on drying) is ≧5%. The fertilizer effectiveness of composting products is shown in Table 4. After composting, the OM content of each treatment was 46.28 to 52.29%, including the highest OM content of B20 (52.29%), mainly because the increase in biochar improved the carbon content and thus improved the total organic matter content. The TNC for all composting experiments ranged from 6.53% to 12.23%, which met the requirements of the NY 525-2012 standard. The TNC of B10 treatment reached the highest at 12.23%. Overall, the combined amendment of 10% biochar and Mg(OH)2/KH2PO4 can achieve better comprehensive benefits in cyanobacteria composting.
3.4. Effects of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil and Runoff of a Maize Field
3.4.1. Effects of Different Fertilization Treatments on Soil Nutrient Fixation
Three different fertilization treatments were applied to maize field experiments in Zipeng, as shown in Table 5. The compost products of the B10 treatment were the same as the organic fertilizer. The relevant indexes of soil nutrients in the pre-planting period (PCK) were equivalent to the background values of soil nutrients in the maize field. After planting the maize, the soil nutrient content in the two treatments of CF and OF increased to varying degrees, except for the C0 treatment, which decreased slightly compared with the PCK. Under different fertilization measures, the OF treatment had the highest fixation rate of TN, TP, TK, and SOM, which was 18.62%, 11.76%, 19.10%, and 9.45%, respectively. The C0 treatment had the lowest fixation rate of TN, TP, TK, and SOM, which was −9.66%, −45.59%, −2.11%, and −2.14%, respectively. This was mainly due to the output of soil nutrients to crops under C0 treatment, resulting in a decrease in their content. At the same time, CF and OF treatments were supplemented by external fertilization. Compared with CF treatment, the SOM, TN, TP, and TK contents of OF treatment increased by 7.24%, 7.5%, 1.33%, and 14.72%, respectively. Among them, the SOM, TN, and TK contents were much more affected by fertilization treatments than TP. The soil nutrient contents of CF and OF treatments were significantly different from those of C0 treatments (p < 0.05). The results show that the effect of organic fertilizer on soil nutrient improvement was better than that of compound chemical fertilizer, mainly due to the affinity between organic fertilizer and soil, and the nutrients were easily stored in the soil and released slowly. Additionally, compound chemical fertilizer will weaken the soil hardening and water and fertilizer holding capacity, resulting in nutrient volatilization and loss [66].
3.4.2. Effect of Different Fertilization Treatment on the Total Nutrient Loss of Runoff in a Maize Field
According to Table 6, the total nutrient loss of CF and OF treatment were significantly higher than that of C0 by 144.29% and 62.86%, respectively. The TN loss was recorded as the highest in CF, and it was 144.29% and 49.82% higher than C0 and OF, whereas the TP loss was recorded as the highest in OF, and it was 1.89% and 4.52% higher than CF and C0, respectively. The TK loss was recorded as the highest in CF. That of CF and OF treatments compared with C0 increased by 1019.67% and 765.03%, respectively. This suggested that one of the most important sources of nutrient loss in the maize field was fertilization. At the same time, applying organic fertilizer could reduce TN and TK loss to a certain extent but would increase the TP loss. This is because the N and K in the chemical fertilizer were soluble and easily lost due to the influence of surface runoff, while the application of organic fertilizer increased the formation of soil aggregates and improved the effectiveness of soil, water, and fertilizer conservation [67]. However, the P as the form of soluble phosphate exists in chemical fertilizers, which easily reacts with cations (e.g., Fe3+, Al3+, and Ca2+) in the soil to form phosphate precipitation and become fixed. Wang et al. (2001) reported that the main form of P in runoff water is granular P [68]. At the same time, the P in organic fertilizers is mostly granular P, which is not easily fixed by soil and is relatively easily lost with runoff [69]. Previous studies showed that biochar amendment and organic manure fertilizer improved soils’ water-holding capacity [56,58]. Additionally, the increased soil water-holding capacity could decrease the amount of runoff water, which is beneficial for reducing N and P losses by runoff. Therefore, the comprehensive application of 10% biochar combined with the amendment of organic fertilizer in agriculture was an effective pattern for purifying water bodies and increasing nutrient retention in soils. This was consistent with the findings of Zhang et al. [67] in which soil alkaline hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium contents were significantly increased by biochar amendment, but there was no significant impact on the soil’s available P.
In terms of N loss in different forms, NH4+-N loss of C0, CF, and OF treatments accounted for 11.99%, 9.34%, and 10.33% of TN loss, respectively. The NO3−-N loss accounted for 41.59%, 53.13%, and 48.10%, respectively. The results indicated that the NO3−-N loss accounted for the main portion of N loss in the runoff of the maize field, which was much higher than that of NH4+-N. This was consistent with the previous research results of Sneh Goyal et al. [70]. On the one hand, the microorganisms in the soil convert NH4+-N to NO3−-N, which increases the NO3−-N content in runoff. On the other hand, because the charge of NO3−-N is consistent with soil particles, they easily repulsed each other and were easily washed away by surface runoff. Adding co-compost during maize cultivation could help reduce levels of soil erosion and nutrient runoff, resulting in a lower need for chemical fertilizer and water irrigation through improved water and nutrient retention, with increased maize productivity as a result [71].
3.5. Effects of Different Fertilization Treatments on the Growth and Quality of Maize
3.5.1. Effects on the Maize Growth Index
As can be seen from Table 7, compared with C0 treatment, CF and OF treatment showed significant differences in plant height, weight per plant, panicle length, panicle diameter, grain number per panicle, 100-grain weight, and other growth indicators (p < 0.05), but there were no significant differences in leaf area (p > 0.05). Compared with the C0 treatment, the maize plant height of CF and OF treatments increased by 11.33% and 10.97%, respectively. It reached 154.3 cm in CF treatment, which was the best among the three treatments. Compared with CF treatment, it was reduced by 0.3% in OF treatment. Compared with the C0 treatment, the maize weight per plant of CF and OF treatments increased by 26.46% and 23.51%, respectively. Among them, the CF treatment showed the best performance, which reached 763.2 g. The weight per plant of OF treatment was 2.33% less than that of CF treatment. Compared with the C0 treatment, the maize leaf area of CF and OF treatments increased by 3.84% and 4.39%, respectively. It was 535.1 cm2 in OF treatment, which was the best among the three treatments. Compared with CF treatment, the maize leaf area increased by 0.53% in OF treatment. Compared with the C0 treatment, the maize ear length of CF and OF treatments increased by 16.79% and 18.32%, respectively. It was 15.5 cm in OF treatment, which was the best among the three treatments. Compared with CF treatment, it increased by 1.31% in OF treatment. Compared with the C0 treatment, the maize ear diameter of CF and OF treatments increased by 12.5% and 10.71%, respectively. It reached 6.3 cm in CF treatment, which was the best among the three treatments. Compared with CF treatment, it was reduced by 1.59% in OF treatment. Compared with the C0 treatment, the CF and OF treatments increased the number of maize kernels per year by 11.09% and 13.04%, respectively. Among them, it was 342.4 in OF treatment, which was the best among the three treatments. Compared with CF treatment, it increased by 1.75% in OF treatment. Compared with the C0 treatment, the CF and OF treatments increased the weight of 100-grains by 6.56% and 8.49%, respectively. Among them, it was 28.1 g in OF treatment, which was the best among the three treatments. Compared with CF treatment, it increased by 1.81% in OF treatment. In general, CF and OF treatments have different improvements in growth indexes compared with CK. CF and OF treatment had advantages in different growth indicators, but there is no significant difference between the two treatment treatments. Gao et al. (2020) found that organic fertilizer could improve the growth of maize and morpho-physiological parameters when studying bio-organic fertilizer, which was mainly attributed to bio-organic fertilization causing an obvious increase in the microbial activity by enhancing acid phosphatase and dehydrogenase enzymes, bacterial count, and mycorrhizal colonization levels in maize rhizosphere compared with chemical fertilization [72].
3.5.2. Effects on the Nutrient Content of Maize Grain and Straw
As shown in Table 8, the N, P, and K contents in maize kernels of CF and OF treatments were significantly improved compared with the C0 treatment. The N, P, and K contents of CF treatment compared with C0 increased by 41.92%, 51.44%, and 92.86%, respectively. Compared with CK, they increased by 48.93%, 55.77%, and 112.99% in OF treatment, respectively. According to the increase in each nutrient, the K content in maize kernels was greatly affected by fertilization. Compared with CF treatment, the contents of N, P, and K in OF treatment increased by 4.94%, 2.86%, and 10.44%, respectively, indicating that organic fertilizer was more beneficial to the absorption of nutrients in maize grains to a certain extent.
The nutrient contents of N, P, and K in maize stalks under CF and OF treatments were significantly improved compared with CK. Compared with CK, the contents of N, P, and K in CF treatment increased by 34.47%, 6.50%, and 18.34%, respectively. Compared with CK treatment, the contents of N, P, and K in OF increased by 68.58%, 2.44%, and 40.04%, respectively. The results showed that the N and K contents of corn stover were significantly affected by fertilization, but the P content was less affected by fertilization. The contents of N and K in OF treatment were significantly higher than those in CF, but there was no significant difference in P content between the two treatments. Compared with CF treatment, the contents of N and K in OF treatment were increased by 25.37% and 18.33%, respectively, while the contents of P were decreased by 3.82%, indicating that the application of organic fertilizer was more beneficial to the absorption of N and K nutrients in corn stover. When Gao et al. (2020) studied the mechanism of bio-organic fertilizer’s promotion of crop growth, they found that bio-organic fertilizer could significantly improve the activity of maize rhizosphere microorganisms and indole acetic acid [72]. Moreover, the bio-organic fertilizer enhanced the activity of maize rhizosphere acid phosphatase and dehydrogenase enzymes.
The N, P, or K agronomic coefficients of organic fertilizer were calculated based on the weight of organic fertilizer on crop N, P, or K element absorption and the promotion effect of the soil fertilizer at the same N, P, or K application level. This index combines crop absorption and soil fertilizer level, reflecting the comprehensive benefit of organic fertilizer on the soil-crop system. The N, P, and K source agronomic coefficient of cyanobacteria organic fertilizer was 1.424, 1.001, and 1.16, respectively, which shows that the N fertilizer effect of OF was better than the CF, and P /K fertilizer effect was comparable to that of CF. In this study, the P agronomic coefficients (1.001) of the bio-organic fertilizer (1.001) were similar to the P agronomic coefficients of pig manure calculated by Hao et al. (2018) after an 8-year corn-soybean rotation production in calcareous soils of Canada, including liquid pig manure, solid pig manure, and complex fermented pig manure [73]. The P agronomic coefficients of manure were 0.99, 1.08, and 0.87, respectively, with an average of 0.98.
3.5.3. Effects on the Yield and Quality of Maize
As seen in Table 9, the maize yield of CF and OF treatments increased by 67.33% and 61.26%, respectively, compared with CK, showing significant differences, which indicated that the fertilization treatment had a significant effect on the maize yield’s increase. Compared with CF treatment, the yield of maize of OF decreased by 3.62%, but there was no significant difference between the two treatments (p > 0.05), indicating that the application of compound fertilizer was better than organic fertilizer in increasing maize yield to some extent. This was consistent with the findings of Gil et al.’s (2020) study, wherein the maize yields in soils amended with high-quality organic matter, except manure, were equal to or smaller than those of solely mineral fertilizer [74]. Additionally, Zhang et al. (2021) found that biochar and organic fertilizer had a long-term effect on maize yield [67].
The contents of crude fat, crude protein, and crude starch of maize kernels under CF and OF treatments were higher than those under CK and showed significant differences. Compared with CK treatment, in CF, they increased by 10.72%, 36.69%, and 14.02%, respectively. Compared with CK treatment, in OF treatment, they increased by 15.59%, 48.10%, and 17.06%, respectively. The results showed that the content of crude protein was much more affected by fertilization than that of crude fat and crude starch. Compared with CF treatment, the contents of crude fat, crude protein, and crude starch in OF treatment increased by 4.40%, 8.34%, and 2.66%, respectively, indicating that applying organic fertilizer was more beneficial to the improvement of maize quality to a certain extent. When Gao et al. [72] studied bio-organic fertilizer, they also found that it could improve the contents of starch, protein, and amino acid in maize kernels. Additionally, they found that the mechanism of their results was the enhancement of α-amylase and gibberellins activities, as well as decreased abscisic acid levels in the maize kernels compared to the chemical fertilizers.
4. Conclusions
The combined amendment of 10% biochar and 15% Mg(OH)2/KH2PO4 solved the problem of nitrogen loss and the risk of microcystin pollution in the co-composting of cyanobacteria. The nitrogen fixation rate was 61.54%. The degradation rates of Mc-rr and Mc-lr were 100% and 98.25%, respectively, and the content of N + P2O5 + K2O was 12.23%. In addition, the results of field experiments showed that applying this organic fertilizer could improve soil nutrients and maize quality. The increase in the rate of soil TN fixation was as follows: OF (18.62%) > CF (10.34%) > C0 (−9.66%). Compared with CF treatment, soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and total potassium (TK) contents in OF treatment increased by 7.24%, 7.5%, 1.33%, and 14.72%, respectively. Compared with the application of CF, the loss of TN and TK in farmland runoff could be reduced by 33.33% and 22.74%, respectively. Moreover, OF treatment was more conducive to the absorption of nutrients by maize kernels and stalks. The TN and TK of maize stalks increased by 25.37% and 18.33% compared with CF treatment, and the TN, TP, and TK contents in maize kernels increased by 4.94%, 2.86%, and 10.44% compared with CF, respectively. Although the maize yield in the OF treatment was slightly lower than the CF (with a 3.63% reduction), OF treatment improved maize quality, increasing the crude fat, crude protein, and crude starch content by 4.40%, 8.34%, and 2.66% compared with the CF treatment, respectively. The N, P, and K source agronomic coefficient of cyanobacteria organic fertilizer was 1.424, 1.001, and 1.16, respectively, which shows that the N/K fertilizer effect of OF was better than CF, and P fertilizer effect was comparable to that of CF. Thus, these research results have improved the information and data on the value of cyanobacteria organic waste and the circular economy solutions of organic fertilizers suitable for the production of agroecosystems. Therefore, cyanobacterial co-composting has the potential to replace conventional chemical fertilizers, providing better ideas for the engineering application of cyanobacterial composting.
Conceptualization, B.S., Z.Y., Y.L. (Yonghui Li), S.T. and Y.L. (Yucheng Li); Data curation, B.S. and Z.Y.; Formal analysis, Y.L. (Yonghui Li); Methodology, B.S., Z.Y. and S.T.; Writing—original draft, B.S., Z.Y. and Y.L. (Yonghui Li); Writing—review & editing, X.P., X.Z. and W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors would like to thank Yonghui Li, Xuesheng Zhang, Xiaoxue Pan and Yucheng Li for assistance with review, improvement of the writing and helpful comments.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Changes in temperature (a), pH (b), organic matter content (c), GI (d) in different treatments of cyanobacteria composting.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Changes in daily levels (a) and accumulation (b) of NH3 emission during composting of cyanobacteria in different treatments.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Changes in NH4+-N (a), NO3−−N (b), and TN (c) contents during composting of cyanobacteria in different treatments.
Basic characteristics of composting materials.
| Material | Moisture Content (%) | pH | Organic Matter (DM) |
Total Nitrogen (DM) (g·kg−1) | Total Phosphorus (DM) (g·kg−1) | Total Potassium (DM) (g·kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyanobacteria | 90.23 ± 0.158 | 8.35 ± 0.025 | 634 ± 4.041 | 73.32 ± 0.038 | 13.80 ± 0.015 | 10.53 ± 0.02 |
| Spent mushroom | 15.68 ± 0.784 | 7.58 ± 0.015 | 655 ± 2.52 | 16.50 ± 0.015 | 12.26 ± 0.035 | 8.45 ± 0.025 |
| Rice hulls | 12.83 ± 0.041 | 7.73 ± 0.021 | 552 ± 3.21 | 5.25 ± 0.025 | 3.42 ± 0.026 | 2.68 ± 0.021 |
| Biochar | 7.22 ± 0.19 | 10.65 ± 0.03 | 64.98 ± 1.14 | 5.65 ± 0.68 | 4.23 ± 0.41 | 70.89 ± 4.72 |
DM means dry matter. All the measured data are shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD). N = 3.
Efficiency of nitrogen-loss and inhibiting nitrogen-loss during composting of cyanobacteria in different treatments.
| Treatments | RAN-−loss (%) | RN−loss (%) | RAN−loss/RN−loss (%) | RNF (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 12.92 | 14.46 | 89.35 | — |
| B0 | 6.98 | 8.48 | 82.31 | 41.35 |
| B5 | 4.71 | 6.23 | 75.60 | 56.91 |
| B10 | 4.25 | 5.56 | 76.44 | 61.54 |
| B15 | 4.42 | 5.89 | 75.04 | 59.26 |
| B20 | 4.65 | 6.11 | 76.10 | 57.74 |
Nitrogen loss of all treatments was compared with the initial TN.
Changes in microcystin content during composting of cyanobacteria in different treatments.
| Treatments | MC-RR (μg·kg−1) | MC-LR (μg·kg−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 d | 42 d | Degradation Rate (%) | 0 d | 42 d | Degradation Rate (%) | |
| CK | 330.65 | 5.46 | 98.35 | 235.56 | 6.14 | 97.39 |
| B0 | 325.46 | ND | 100 | 226.74 | 4.39 | 98.06 |
| B5 | 327.64 | 4.65 | 98.58 | 235.18 | 4.97 | 97.89 |
| B10 | 330.38 | ND | 100 | 231.64 | 4.05 | 98.25 |
| B15 | 342.54 | 3.85 | 98.88 | 238.27 | 4.53 | 98.10 |
| B20 | 336.95 | 5.83 | 98.27 | 244.45 | 5.24 | 97.85 |
ND means not detected.
Fertilizer efficiency of cyanobacteria composting products in different treatments.
| Treatments | OM (%) | TN (%) | TP (%) | TK (%) | TNC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 46.28 | 2.15 | 1.39 | 1.00 | 6.53 |
| B0 | 47.52 | 2.60 | 2.08 | 1.89 | 9.64 |
| B5 | 50.87 | 2.97 | 2.47 | 2.13 | 11.19 |
| B10 | 51.50 | 3.27 | 2.69 | 2.34 | 12.23 |
| B15 | 51.84 | 3.19 | 2.55 | 2.25 | 11.74 |
| B20 | 52.29 | 3.06 | 2.29 | 1.95 | 10.65 |
Effects on nutrients in the soil of maize fields in different fertilization treatments.
| Period | Treatments | SOM (g·kg−1) | TN (g·kg−1) | TP (g·kg−1) | TK (g·kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-planting | PCK | 24.75 ± 0.23 c | 1.45 ± 0.03 | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 17.54 ± 0.05 |
| C0 | 24.22 ± 0.16 d | 1.31 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.02 | 17.17 ± 0.08 | |
| Late harvest | CF | 25.26 ± 0.20 b | 1.60 ± 0.02 | 0.75 ± 0.03 | 18.21 ± 0.07 |
| OF | 27.09 ± 0.12 a | 1.72 ± 0.05 | 0.76 ± 0.02 | 20.89 ± 0.11 |
Different superscript letters after data in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Data are shown as mean ± SD, n = 3 in all cases.
Effects on the total nutrient loss of runoff from maize field in different fertilization treatments.
| Treatments | TN (kg·hm−2) | NH4+−N (kg·hm−2) | NO3−-−N (kg·hm−2) | TP (kg·hm−2) | TK (kg·hm−2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C0 | 5.17 ± 0.32 c | 0.62 ± 0.02 | 2.15 ± 0.15 | 2.54 ± 0.03 | 1.83 ± 0.02 |
| CF | 12.63 ± 0.15 a | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 6.71 ± 0.07 | 13.75 ± 0.01 | 20.49 ± 0.05 |
| OF | 8.42 ± 0.07 b | 0.87 ± 0.03 | 4.05 ± 0.05 | 14.01 ± 0.02 | 15.83 ± 0.11 |
Different superscript letters after data in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Data are shown as mean ± SD, n = 3 in all cases.
Effects of maize growth indicators in different fertilization treatments.
| Treatments | Plant Height (cm) | Quality per Plant (g) | Leaf Area (cm2) | Ear Length (cm) | Ear Diameter (cm) | Kernel Numbers per Ear | 100-Grains Weight (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 138.6 ± 7.0 a | 603.5 ± 15.7 a | 512.6 ± 44.1 a | 13.1 ± 0.8 a | 5.6 ± 0.3 a | 302.9 ± 17.8 a | 25.9 ± 0.7 a |
| CF | 154.3 ± 4.5 b | 763.2 ± 16.5 c | 532.3 ± 54.3 b | 15.3 ± 1.3 b | 6.3 ± 0.1 b | 336.5 ± 6.1 b | 27.6 ± 0.7 b |
| OF | 153.8 ± 4.4 b | 745.4 ± 12.8 b | 535.1 ± 53.0 b | 15.5 ± 0.6 b | 6.2 ± 0.4 b | 342.4 ± 4.7 c | 28.1 ± 0.8c |
Different superscript letters after data in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Data are shown as mean ± SD, n = 3 in all cases.
Effects on the nutrient content of maize kernels and maize stalks in different fertilization treatments.
| Part | Treatments | Nitrogen Content (g·kg−1) | Phosphorus Content (g·kg−1) | Potassium Content (g·kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| maize kernels | CK | 8.85 ± 0.83 a | 2.08 ± 0.89 a | 1.54 ± 0.31 a |
| CF | 12.56 ± 0.69 b | 3.15 ± 0.36 b | 2.97 ± 0.25 b | |
| OF | 13.18 ± 0.71 c | 3.24 ± 0.31 c | 3.28 ± 0.40 c | |
| maize stalks | CK | 8.53 ± 0.56 a | 1.23 ± 0.04 a | 9.54 ± 0.84 a |
| CF | 11.47 ± 0.49 b | 1.31 ± 0.21 c | 11.29 ± 0.92 b | |
| OF | 14.38 ± 0.51 c | 1.26 ± 0.15 b | 13.36 ± 0.95 c |
Different superscript letters after data in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Data are shown as mean ± SD, n = 3 in all cases.
Effects on yield and quality of maize in different fertilization treatments.
| Treatments | Yield (kg·ha−1) | Crude Fat Content (%) | Crude Protein Content (%) | Crude Starch Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 3487.94 ± 123.25 a | 5.13 ± 0.32 a | 6.05 ± 0.45 a | 75.37 ± 10.52 a |
| CF | 5836.23 ± 78.94 c | 5.68 ± 0.19 b | 8.27 ± 0.63 b | 85.94 ± 14.85 b |
| OF | 5624.77 ± 95.33 b | 5.93 ± 0.27 c | 8.96 ± 0.39 c | 88.23 ± 7.97 c |
Different superscript letters after data in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Data are shown as mean ± SD, n = 3 in all cases.
References
1. Xue, L.H.; Hou, P.F.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Shen, M.X.; Liu, F.X.; Yang, L.Z. Application of systematic strategy for agricultural non-point source pollution control in Yangtze River basin, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.; 2020; 304, 107148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107148]
2. Rissman, A.R.; Carpenter, S.R. Progress on nonpoint pollution: Barriers & opportunities. Daedalus; 2015; 144, pp. 35-47.
3. Zhang, L.P. Non-Point Source Pollution Control Effect Based on Comprehensive Management of Small Watershed. Appl. Mech. Mater.; 2013; 340, pp. 957-960. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.340.957]
4. Spiertz, J. Nitrogen, sustainable agriculture and food security. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.; 2010; 30, pp. 43-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008064]
5. Zhang, Z.M.; Gao, J.Y.; Gao, Y.N. The influences of land use changes on the value of ecosystem services in Chaohu Lake Basin, China. Environ. Earth Sci.; 2015; 74, pp. 385-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4045-z]
6. Yu, Q.B.; Wang, F.; Yan, W.J.; Zhang, F.S.; Lv, S.C.; Li, Y.Q. Carbon and Nitrogen Burial and Response to Climate Change and Anthropogenic Disturbance in Chaohu Lake, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2018; 15, 2734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122734]
7. Shang, G.P.; Shang, J.C. Spatial and temporal variations of eutrophication in Western Chaohu Lake, China. Environ. Monit. Assess.; 2007; 130, pp. 99-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9381-8]
8. Chen, C.; Wang, Y.Y.; Chen, K.N.; Shi, X.L.; Yang, G. Using hydrogen peroxide to control cyanobacterial blooms: A mesocosm study focused on the effects of algal density in Lake Chaohu, China. Environ. Pollut.; 2020; 10, pp. 272-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115923]
9. Tang, Y.T.; Zhao, L.J.; Cheng, Y.X.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Y.F. Control of cyanobacterial blooms in different polyculture patterns of filter feeders and effects of these patterns on water quality and microbial community in aquacultural ponds. Aquaculture; 2021; 5, pp. 736913-736923. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736913]
10. Sanchez, O.J.; Ospina, D.A.; Montoya, S. Compost supplementation with nutrients and microorganisms in composting process. Waste Manag.; 2017; 69, pp. 136-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.012]
11. Zhang, L.; Sun, X.Y. Changes in physical, chemical, and microbiological properties during the two-stage co-composting of green waste with spent mushroom compost and biochar. Bioresour. Technol.; 2014; 171, pp. 274-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.08.079] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25203237]
12. Neklyudov, A.D.; Fedotov, G.N.; Ivankin, A.N. Intensification of composting processes by aerobic microorganisms: A review. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol.; 2008; 44, pp. 6-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S000368380801002X]
13. Yang, F.; Li, G.X.; Shi, H.; Wang, Y.M. Effects of phosphogypsum and superphosphate on compost maturity and gaseous emissions during kitchen waste composting. Waste Manag.; 2015; 36, pp. 70-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.012]
14. Fukumoto, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Kuroda, K.; Waki, M.; Yasuda, T. Effects of struvite formation and nitratation promotion on nitrogenous emissions such as NH3, N2O and NO during swine manure composting. Bioresour. Technol.; 2011; 102, pp. 1468-1474. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.089] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20952186]
15. Jiang, T.; Schuchardt, F.; Li, G.X.; Guo, R.; Zhao, Y.Q. Effect of C/N ratio, aeration rate and moisture content on ammonia and greenhouse gas emission during the composting. J. Environ. Sci.; 2011; 23, pp. 1754-1760. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60591-8]
16. Eklind, Y.; Kirchmann, H. Composting and storage of organic household waste with different litter amendments. II: Nitrogen turnover and losses. Bioresour. Technol.; 2000; 74, pp. 125-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00005-5]
17. Chan, M.T.; Selvam, A.; Wong, J.W.C. Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ‘struvite’ food waste composting by zeolite amendment. Bioresour. Technol.; 2016; 200, pp. 838-844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.093]
18. Zhai, W.W.; Guo, T.; Yang, S.; Williamson, G.; Zaffar, H.M.; Tang, X.J.; Wu, W.M.; Lena, Q.M.; Xu, J.M. Increase in arsenic methylation and volatilization during manure composting with biochar amendment in an aeration bioreactor. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2021; 411, pp. 123-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125123]
19. Wang, Q.; Awasthi, M.K.; Ren, X.; Zhao, J.C.; Li, R.H.; Wang, Z.; Wang, M.J.; Chen, H.Y.; Zhang, Z.Q. Combining biochar, zeolite and wood vinegar for composting of pig manure: The effect on greenhouse gas emission and nitrogen conservation. Waste Manag.; 2018; 74, pp. 221-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.015]
20. Stevens, R.J.; Laughlin, R.J.; Frost, J.P. Effect of acidification with sulphuric acid on the volatilization of ammonia from cow and pig slurries. J. Agric. Sci.; 1989; 113, pp. 389-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600070106]
21. Li, Q.; Wang, X.C.; Zhang, H.H.; Shi, H.L.; Hu, T.; Ngo, H.H. Characteristics of nitrogen transformation and microbial community in an aerobic composting reactor under two typical temperatures. Bioresour. Technol.; 2013; 137, pp. 270-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.092] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23587829]
22. Hu, T.J.; Zeng, G.M.; Huang, D.L.; Yu, H.Y.; Jiang, X.Y.; Dai, F.; Huang, G.H. Use of potassium dihydrogen phosphate and sawdust as adsorbents of ammoniacal nitrogen in aerobic composting process. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2007; 141, pp. 736-744. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.07.027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16949746]
23. Kuroda, K.; Hanajima, D.; Fukumoto, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Kawamoto, S.; Shima, J.; Haga, K. Isolation of thermophilic ammonium-tolerant bacterium and its application to reduce ammonia emission during composting of animal wastes. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem.; 2004; 68, pp. 286-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1271/bbb.68.286] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14981289]
24. Jeong, Y.K.; Kim, J.S. A new method for conservation of nitrogen in aerobic composting processes. Bioresour. Technol.; 2001; 79, pp. 129-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00062-1]
25. Lee, J.E.; Rahman, M.M.; Ra, C.S. Dose effects of Mg and PO4 sources on the composting of swine manure. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2009; 169, pp. 801-807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.04.026] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19427122]
26. Wang, X.; Selvam, A.; Chan, M.; Wong, J.W.C. Nitrogen conservation and acidity control during food wastes composting through struvite formation. Bioresour. Technol.; 2013; 147, pp. 17-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.060]
27. Zhang, W.; Lau, A. Reducing ammonia emission from poultry manure composting via struvite formation. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.; 2007; 82, pp. 598-602. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1701]
28. Pandian, K.; Subramaniayan, P.; Gnasekaran, P.; Chitraputhirapillai, S. Effect of Biochar Amendment on Soil Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties and Groundnut Yield in Rainfed Alfisol of Semi-Arid Tropics. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.; 2016; 62, pp. 1293-1310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2016.1139086]
29. Zhang, J.N.; Lv, F.; Luo, C.H.; Shao, L.M.; He, P.J. Humification characterization of biochar and its potential as a composting amendment. J. Environ. Sci.; 2014; 26, pp. 390-397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60421-0]
30. Zhang, J.N.; Chen, G.F.; Sun, H.F.; Zhou, S.; Zou, G.Y. Straw biochar hastens organic matter degradation and produces nutrient-rich compost. Bioresour. Technol.; 2016; 200, pp. 876-883. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.016]
31. Awasthi, M.K.; Wang, M.J.; Chen, H.Y.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, J.C.; Ren, X.N.; Li, D.S.; Awasthi, S.K.; Shen, F.; Li, R.H. et al. Heterogeneity of biochar amendment to improve the carbon and nitrogen sequestration through reduce the greenhouse gases emissions during sewage sludge composting. Bioresour. Technol.; 2016; 224, pp. 428-438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.014] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27843087]
32. Agyarko-Mintah, E.; Cowie, A.; Zwieten, L.V.Z.; Singh, B.P.; Smillie, R.; Harden, S.; Fornasier, F. Biochar lowers ammonia emission and improves nitrogen retention in poultry litter composting. Waste Manag.; 2017; 61, pp. 129-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.009]
33. Steiner, C.; Das, K.C.; Melear, N.; Lakly, D. Reducing nitrogen loss during poultry litter composting using biochar. J. Environ. Qual.; 2010; 39, pp. 1236-1242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0337] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20830911]
34. Dias, B.O.; Silva, C.A.; Higashikawa, F.S.; Roig, A.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A. Use of biochar as bulking agent for the composting of poultry manure: Effect on organic matter degradation and humification. Bioresour. Technol.; 2010; 101, pp. 1239-1246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.024] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19796932]
35. Fetjah, D.; Ainlhout, L.F.Z.; Idardare, Z.; Ihssane, B.; Bouqbis, L. Effect of Banana-Waste Biochar and Compost Mixtures on Growth Responses and Physiological Traits of Seashore Paspalum Subjected to Six Different Water Conditions. Sustainability.; 2022; 14, 1541.
36. Ihab, M.F.; Hanan, S.S.; Mohamed, H.H.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Safaa, A.M.; Mona, T.; Hassan, H.A.; Xing, Y.; Vasileios, A.; Jörg, R. et al. Co-composted biochar derived from rice straw and sugarcane bagasse improved soil properties, carbon balance, and zucchini growth in a sandy soil: A trial for enhancing the health of low fertile arid soils. Chemosphere; 2022; 292, 133389.
37. Rastogi, M.; Nandal, M.; Khosla, B. Microbes as vital additives for solid waste composting. Heliyon; 2020; 6, 03343.
38. Huang, G.F.; Wong, J.W.C.; Wu, Q.T.; Nagar, B.B. Effect of C/N on composting of pig manure with sawdust. Waste Manag.; 2004; 24, pp. 805-813.
39. Ren, Y. Dewatering and Aerobic Composting of Cyanobacteria from the Taihu Lacke. Master’s Thesis; The Nanjing Agricultural University: Nanjing, China, 2010.
40. Jiang, T.; Ma, X.; Yang, J.; Tang, Q.; Yi, Z.G.; Chen, M.X.; Li, G.X. Effect of different struvite crystallization methods on gaseous emission and the comprehensive comparison during the composting. Bioresour. Technol.; 2016; 217, pp. 219-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.046]
41. Tang, S.Z.; Zhao, X.H.; Si, X.X.; Wang, S.Y.; Li, S.S.; Zhang, X.S.; Li, Y.C. Effects of different combinations of magnesium(Mg)and phosphorus(P) salts on nitrogen loss during cyanobacteria composting. J. Agro-Environ. Sci.; 2021; 40, pp. 428-435.
42. Ministry of Environmental Protection. Water Quality-Determination of Total Nitrogen-Alkaline Potassium Persulfate Digestion-UV Spectrophotometric Method (GB 11894–1989); Ministry of Environmental Protection: Beijing, China, 1989.
43. Ministry of Environmental Protection. Water Quality-Determination of Total Phosphorus-Ammonium Molybdate Spectrophotometric Method (GB 11893–1989); Ministry of Environmental Protection: Beijing, China, 1989.
44. Bremner, J.M.; Tabatabai, M.A. Use of an ammonia electrode for determination of ammonium in Kjeldahl analysis of soils. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. Soil; 1972; 3, pp. 159-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103627209366361]
45. Bao, S.D. Soil and Agro-Chemistry Analysis; 3rd ed. China Agricultural Press: Beijing, China, 2000.
46. Zhu, L.; Cao, D.; Hu, Q.; Guan, Y.; Hu, W.; Nawaz, A.; Hu, J. Physiological changes and sHSPs genes relative transcription in relation to the acquisition of seed germination during maturation of hybrid rice seed. Sci. Food Agric.; 2015; 96, pp. 1764-1771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7283] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26031390]
47. Bradford, N.M. Rapid and sensitive method for quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem.; 1976; 72, pp. 248-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3]
48. World Health Organization. Cyanobacterial toxins: Microcystin-LR in drinking-water. Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; 2nd ed. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
49. Bernal, M.P.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Moral, R. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. A review. Bioresour. Technol.; 2009; 100, pp. 5444-5453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027]
50. Jindo, K.; Suto, K.; Matsumoto, K.; García, C.; Sonoki, T.; Sanchez-Monedero, M. Chemical and biochemical characterisation of biochar-blended composts prepared from poultry manure. Bioresour. Technol.; 2012; 110, pp. 396-404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.120]
51. Liu, W.; Wang, S.T.; Zhang, J.; Xu, T. Biochar influences the microbial community structure during tomato stalk composting with chicken manure. Bioresour. Technol.; 2014; 154, pp. 148-154.
52. Bona, D.; Scrinzi, D.; Tonon, G.; Ventura, M.; Nardin, T.; Zottele, F.; Andreis, D.; Andreottola, G.; Fiori, L.; Silvestri, S. Hydrochar and hydrochar co-compost from OFMSW digestate for soil application: 2. agro-environmental properties. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 312, 114894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114894]
53. Guo, R.; Li, G.; Tao, J.; Schuchardt, F.; Chen, T.B.; Zhao, Y.Q.; Shen, Y.J. Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content on the stability and maturity of compost. Bioresour. Technol.; 2012; 112, pp. 171-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.099]
54. Li, R.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, G.; Li, Z.; Wang, L.; Zheng, J. Nutrient transformation during aerobic composting of pig manure with biochar prepared at different temperatures. Environ. Technol.; 2015; 36, pp. 815-826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.963692]
55. Khan, N.; Clark, I.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Shea, S.; Meier, S.; Bolan, N. Maturity indices in co-composting of chicken manure and sawdust with biochar. Bioresour. Technol.; 2014; 168, pp. 245-251. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.123]
56. Wang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K.; Jiang, Y.; Li, R.; Ren, X.; Zhao, J.; Shen, F.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Z. Evaluation of medical stone amendment for the reduction of nitrogen loss and bioavailability of heavy metals during pig manure composting. Bioresour. Technol.; 2016; 220, pp. 297-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.08.081] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27589824]
57. Fang, M.; Wong, J.W.C.; Ma, K.K.; Wong, M.H. Co-composting of sewage sludge and coal fly ash: Nutrient transformations. Bioresour. Technol.; 1999; 67, pp. 19-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00095-4]
58. Liang, J.; Shen, Y.; Shou, Z.; Yuan, H.P.; Dai, X.H.; Zhu, N.W. Nitrogen loss reduction by adding KH2PO4-K2HPO4 buffer solution during composting of sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol.; 2018; 264, pp. 116-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.065] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29800771]
59. Jeong, Y.K.; Hwang, S.J. Optimum doses of Mg and P salts for precipitating ammonia into struvite crystals in aerobic composting. Bioresour. Technol.; 2005; 96, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.028]
60. Silva, C.C.; Guido, M.L.; Ceballos, J.M.; Marsch, R.; Dendooven, L. Production of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide in alkaline saline soil of Texcoco at different water contents amended with urea: A laboratory study. Soil Biol. Biochem.; 2008; 40, pp. 1813-1822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.03.004]
61. Luo, Y.; Li, G.; Luo, W.; Schuchardt, F.; Jiang, T.; Xu, D. Effect of phosphogypsum and dicyandiamide as additives on NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions during composting. J. Environ. Sci.; 2013; 25, pp. 1338-1345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60126-0]
62. Nasini, L.; De Luca, G.; Ricci, A.; Ortolani, F.; Caselli, A.; Massaccesi, L.; Regni, L.; Gigliotti, G.; Proietti, P. Gas emissions during olive mill waste composting under static pile conditions. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad.; 2016; 107, pp. 70-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.11.001]
63. Sharma, V.K.; Triantis, T.M.; Antoniou, M.G.; He, X.; Pelaez, M.; Han, C.; Song, W.; O’Shea, K.E.; Armah, A.; Kaloudis, T. Destruction of microcystins by conventional and advanced oxidation processes: A review. Sep. Purif. Technol.; 2012; 91, pp. 3-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2012.02.018]
64. Maghsoudi, E.; Fortin, N.; Greer, C.; Duy, S.V.; Fayad, P.; Sauvé, S.; Prévost, M.; Dorner, S. Biodegradation of multiple microcystins and cylindrospermopsin in clarifier sludge and a drinking water source: Effects of particulate attached bacteria and phycocyanin. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2015; 120, pp. 409-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.06.001]
65. Han, S.Q.; Li, J.L.; Zhou, Q.; Liu, G.F.; Wang, T. Harmless disposal and resource utilization of wastes from the lake in China: Dewatering, composting and safety evaluation of fertilizer. Algal Res.; 2019; 43, 101623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2019.101623]
66. Huo, J.Y.; Liu, C.J.; Yu, X.X.; Chen, L.H.; Zheng, W.G.; Yang, Y.H.; Yin, C.W. Direct and indirect effects of rainfall and vegetation coverage on runoff, soil loss, and nutrient loss in a semi-humid climate. Hydrol. Process.; 2020; 35, e13985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13985]
67. Zhang, Y.P.; Yan, J.; Rong, X.M.; Han, Y.L.; Yang, Z.Y.; Hou, K.; Zhao, H.; Hu, W. Responses of maize yield, nitrogen and phosphorus runoff losses and soil properties to biochar and organic fertilizer application in a light-loamy fluvo-aquic soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.; 2021; 314, e107433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107433]
68. Wang, K.; Zhang, Z.J.; Zhu, Y.M.; Wang, G.H.; Shi, D.C.; Christie, P. Surface water phosphorus dynamics in rice fields receiving fertilizer and manure phosphorus. Chemosphere; 2001; 42, pp. 209-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(00)00127-2]
69. Sharpley, A.N.; Withers, P.J.A. The environmentally- sound management of agricultural phosphorus. Fertil. Res.; 1994; 39, pp. 133-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00750912]
70. Goyal, S.; Chander, K.; Mundra, M.C.; Kapoor, K.K. Influence of inorganic fertilizers and organic amendments on soil organic matter and soil microbial properties under tropical conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils; 1999; 29, pp. 196-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003740050544]
71. Thi, T.K.H.; Van, T.T.; Thanh, H.L.; Nguyen, N.K.Q.; Tran, C.S.; Nguyen, P.T.; Vo, T.D.H.; Thai, V.N.; Bui, X.T. Compost to improve sustainable soil cultivation and crop productivity. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng.; 2022; 6, 100211.
72. Gao, C.H.; El-Sawah, A.M.; Ali, D.F.I.; Hamoud, Y.A.; Shaghaleh, H.; Sheteiwy, M.S. The Integration of Bio and Organic Fertilizers Improve Plant Growth, Grain Yield, Quality and Metabolism of Hybrid Maize (Zea mays L.). Agronomy; 2020; 10, 319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030319]
73. Hao, X.J.; Zhang, T.Q.; Wang, Y.T.; Tan, C.S.; Qi, Z.M.; Welacky, T.; Hong, J.P. Soil test phosphorus and phosphorus availability of swine manures with long-term application. Agronomy; 2018; 10, pp. 1943-1950. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.07.0412]
74. Gil, G.; Dries, R.; Pieter, P.; Johan, S.; Roel, M.; Bernard, V. Combining organic and mineral fertilizers as a climate-smart integrated soil fertility management practice in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0239552.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.