Soil Quality and Pomelo Productivity as Affected by Chicken Manure and Cow Dung

Table 5

Impacts of chicken manure and cow dung on soil physicochemical properties in the subsurface layer (mean value: 2018–2020).

Sites	Treatments	pHH2O (1 : 2.5)	EC (mS cm^−1)	SOM (%)	Exchangeable cations (meq 100g^−1)			BD (g cm^−3)	Ntot (g kg^−1)	Pavail (mg kg^−1)
					Ca^2+	K^+	Mg^2+
CT I	Control	4.80^b ± 0.29	0.70 ± 0.05	2.73 ± 0.34	6.37 ± 0.52	0.32 ± 0.13	2.70 ± 1.16	1.31 ± 0.10	1.55 ± 0.16	22.9 ± 3.13
	CM	5.29^a ± 0.30	0.75 ± 0.08	2.79 ± 0.29	7.03 ± 1.81	0.27 ± 0.10	2.78 ± 0.39	1.25 ± 0.10	1.58 ± 0.17	22.5 ± 2.20
	CD	5.17^a ± 0.49	0.76 ± 0.09	2.85 ± 0.84	6.96 ± 1.23	0.34 ± 0.10	2.66 ± 0.70	1.29 ± 0.17	1.67 ± 0.18	23.8 ± 3.18
	Pvalue		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
CT II	Control	4.91 ± 0.24	0.76 ± 0.05	3.72 ± 0.37	6.52 ± 1.88	0.29 ± 0.12	3.36 ± 1.63	1.26 ± 0.17	1.16 ± 0.16	21.6 ± 2.06
	CM	5.15 ± 0.55	0.79 ± 0.10	3.64 ± 0.39	7.23 ± 1.74	0.33 ± 0.14	4.23 ± 1.64	1.27 ± 0.11	1.07 ± 0.17	22.1 ± 2.33
	CD	5.24 ± 0.74	0.82 ± 0.12	3.68 ± 0.48	7.29 ± 0.98	0.29 ± 0.11	4.37 ± 1.39	1.29 ± 0.15	1.23 ± 0.15	22.9 ± 2.80
	Pvalue	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
CT III	Control	5.06^b ± 0.56	0.84 ± 0.13	3.36 ± 0.52	6.72^b ± 0.65	0.21 ± 0.03	2.79^b ± 0.42	1.19 ± 0.11	1.84 ± 0.11	20.4 ± 1.85
	CM	5.51^a ± 0.16	0.79 ± 0.09	3.28 ± 0.23	7.61^a ± 0.71	0.21 ± 0.05	3.42^a ± 0.46	1.21 ± 0.09	1.88 ± 0.13	19.5 ± 2.24
	CD	5.39^a ± 0.21	0.76 ± 0.07	3.44 ± 0.15	7.60^a ± 0.50	0.23 ± 0.08	3.35^a ± 0.25	1.19 ± 0.06	1.92 ± 0.19	18.7 ± 1.80
	Pvalue		ns	ns		ns		ns	ns	ns

The different letters indicate the significant differences among treatments at  < 0.05 (),  < 0.01 (), and  < 0.001 (); ns: not significant; CM: chicken manure applied at 10 mg per year; CD: cow dung applied at 10 mg per year. CT I, CT II, and CT III are the study locations.