Abstract
Sulfur nutrition is a critical part of proper crop growth and development. In our study, biomass yields (BY) and S uptake were investigated on long-term maize monoculture on haplic luvisol soil during the 23 years of this trial, as well as changes in water extractable (Sw), adsorbed (Sads), mineral (Sav), and pseudo-total S (St) fractions. Treatments used in this study are: (1) Control (Cont); (2) ammonium sulfate (AS); (3) urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN); (4) UAN + phosphorus and potassium (UAN + PK); (5) UAN + phosphorus, magnesium, sulfur (UAN + PMgS); and (6) Fallow. Recently, the Mehlich 3 method started to be used in the Czech Republic to determine content of plant available S. Using this method, it was found that the content of S extracted by Mehlich 3 (SM3) closely correlates to Sav in both topsoil and subsoil (r = 0.958 in 1997 and 0.990 in 2019, both at p < 0.001). We also found that, on average, during the entire experiment, all treatments had increased yields over Cont (135–147%) and increased S uptake (291, 192, 180, and 246% of Cont for AS, UAN, UAN + PK, and UAN + PMgS, respectively). Examining the changes from 1997 to 2019 in topsoil (0–30 cm depth), we discovered a decrease of S content in Sw, Sads, Sav, and St fractions on all treatments to an average of 34.6%, 65.8%, 42.2%, and 78.6% of their initial values. The exception was AS treatment, which doubled its initial content in mineral fractions and maintained the same levels of St, and which we attribute to the very high dose of S on this treatment (142 kg ha−1 year−1). Using the simple balance method, AS and UAN + PMgS treatments lost 142.2 and 95.3 kg S ha−1 year−1 to other sinks, except plant uptake, from the entire soil profile (0–60 cm) during 23 years of experiment. Other treatments also show significant losses with the exception of Fallow. Given these results, it is clear that content of sulfur in soil is generally decreasing and attention should be paid mainly towards minimizing of its losses.
Highlights
Sulfur is a key nutrient in plant nutrition, where it appears in the synthesis of amino acids, glutathione, chlorophyl, and other processes [1], influencing yields, crop quality, harvest quality, and other parameters [2,3].Sulfur deficiencies in plant nutrition in European countries were described by Lehmann et al [4] and Yang et al [5], who mention that, in recent decades, the content of S in soils is being reduced due to desulfurization technologies in industry, the use of high analysis fertilizers with low amounts of S [6], and N only fertilization, which increases yields and creates greater demands for plant available nutrients [7]
In the period 1993–1996, differences were already present between the Cont treatment and ammonium sulfate (AS) and urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) + PMgS treatments, while UAN and UAN + PK were comparable with Cont
We examined the influence of S fertilization and atmospheric depositions on soil and plants in maize monoculture lasting 27 years
Summary
Sulfur deficiencies in plant nutrition in European countries were described by Lehmann et al [4] and Yang et al [5], who mention that, in recent decades, the content of S in soils is being reduced due to desulfurization technologies in industry, the use of high analysis fertilizers with low amounts of S [6], and N only fertilization, which increases yields and creates greater demands for plant available nutrients [7]. The content of total sulfur is divided between organic and inorganic S fractions. The majority of total S is organic bound This fraction can play a role in resupplying mineral sulfates throughout the vegetation [16,17], which is a biologically mediated process [18]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
