Response Characteristics of Potassium Availability in Red Soil with Different Parental Materials to Different Fertilization Practices

Response Characteristics of Potassium Availability in Red Soil with Different Parental Materials to Different Fertilization Practices | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Response Characteristics of Potassium Availability in Red Soil with Different Parental Materials to Different Fertilization Practices Shujun Liu, Yazhen Li, Dandan Hu, Tianfu Han, Jing Huang, Hao Li, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5001014/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 3 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background and aims: Red soil is one of the main soil types in southern China, but potassium (K) availability varies greatly among red soils developed from different parental materials. The objective was to provide precise guidance for efficiently utilizing potassium resources in red soil regions. Methods This study selected red soils developed from three different parental materials, which include quaternary red clay (QRC), granite (GRA), and purple sand shale (PSS) in red soil regions. A pot experiment was conducted with varying practices of fertilization, including straw mulching (S), nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application (NPK), nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application with straw mulching (S + NPK), livestock manure application with straw mulching (S + M), and no fertilizer application (CK). Then, crop biomass, K uptake, exchangeable K (EK)and non-exchangeable K (NEK) were analyzed, meanwhile, the correlation between soil EK, NEK and crop K uptake were discussed. Results The results showed that compared to CK, S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments significantly increased maize biomass and K uptake on red soils developed from QRC, GRA, and PSS, with increases ranging from 27.55–412.76% and 28.74–340.00%, respectively. Compared to CK, the different fertilization practices resulted in increases of 25.00–119.05% and 4.76–104.20% in exchangeable K (EK)and non-exchangeable K (NEK), respectively. However, there were differences among different parental materials. Both QRC and PSS showed a significant trend of higher EK content in the S + NPK treatment, while on GRA, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments all showed a significant trend of higher EK content. Further research revealed a significant positive correlation between EK, NEK, and crop K uptake on red soils developed from GRA and PSS. In contrast, no significant relationship was observed on red soils developed from QRC. Conclusion s On red soils developed from different parental materials, the effectiveness of fertilization practices such as straw mulching, chemical fertilizer, and organic manure varied greatly in increasing maize biomass, K uptake, EK, and NEK. Additionally, the soil K fertility level of different parental materials significantly influenced the quantitative relationship between EK, NEK, and crop K uptake. Soil parental materials maize pot experiment soil-available potassium crop potassium uptake Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Red soil is predominantly found in tropical and subtropical regions, covering a vast area of approximately 64 million square kilometers, which accounts for 45.2% of the global land area (Durn et al., 2023 ). China is one of the major countries with extensive distribution of red soil, with a total area of 2.18 million square kilometers, equivalent to 21.8% of its total land area. In China, the cultivated area within the red soil regions spans approximately 28 million hectares, representing around 28% of the country's total cultivated land area. However, these red soil areas face challenges, including strong acidity, heavy clay texture, low organic matter content, poor nutrient retention, and limited water-holding capacity (Liang et al. 2010 ; Zhao 1995 ; Osei 1995 ). These factors collectively contribute to lower crop productivity in red soil regions. Moreover, in recent years, improper land use has further decreased the fertility of red soil (Cai et al. 2014 ; Römheld et al. 2010), severely limiting the potential for increased food production in this region. In the hilly regions of southern China, the primary parent materials for red soil formation include Quaternary red clay (QRC), granite (GRA), and purple sandstone (PSS) (Zhang et al. 2011 ; Zhang et al. 2009 ). Consequently, the characteristics of red soil vary depending on the parent material. Numerous studies have indicated that red soils developed from QRC are generally characterized by increased acidification and lower potassium e (K) content (Wolde et al. 2016; Guo et al. 2010 ). In comparison, red soils derived from GRA and PSS exhibit significantly higher pH values (Fujii et al. 2011 ) and higher levels of exchangeable K (EK) (Zhang et al. 2011 ). Therefore, it is crucial to implement targeted soil improvement measures based on the specific parent materials. K is one of the three essential elements for plant growth and development, playing a crucial role in crop quality (Wang et al. 2017). However, as K fertilizers primarily come from non-renewable resources such as potash minerals (Römheld et al. 2010), efficient application of K fertilizer tailored to the K content of the soil becomes critical to alleviate the shortage of K fertilizer resources. The EK and non-exchangeable K (NEK) levels in the soil are essential indicators of soil K availability and significantly impact plant K uptake (Zhang et al. 2010 ; Singh et al. 2018 ). Numerous studies have shown that K application significantly increases EK content in the soil, particularly in soils with low K availability (Shahrokh et al. 2019 ; Scherer et al. 2013). Additionally, higher levels of applied K increase the proportion of EK and NEK in the total K content of the soil (Guan et al. 2014; Liao et al. 2009 ). Adequate levels of EK in the soil are essential to ensure proper K uptake by crops (Singh et al. 2018 ). Liu et al. found that without K fertilizer application, the EK content gradually decreases, and there is also a declining trend in NEK content in soil subjected to long-term plant uptake (Zhang et al. 2014 ). However, external K fertilizer application can increase the range of EK in the soil, although the effectiveness varies among different fertilization practices. Compared to chemical fertilizer treatments, combining organic and inorganic fertilizers or straw incorporation can further enhance the EK and NEK levels in the soil. Studies have shown that in the absence of K fertilizer, the application of manure promotes an increase in EK content but fails to maintain NEK content. In contrast, the combined application of chemical potassium fertilizer and manure effectively sustains soil K fertility (Suo et al. 2001 ; Das et al. 2019 ). Compared to straw incorporation, adding organic fertilizers significantly enhances the content of EK in the soil. However, the patterns of changes in EK and NEK under different fertilization practices on different parent materials still need to be clarified. Therefore, in this study, we selected three typical parent materials, namely QRC, GRA, and PSS, in a red soil area (Jiangxi Province, China). Pot experiments were conducted with treatments including straw incorporation, application of nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer (NPK), combined application of NPK chemical fertilizer and straw incorporation, application of livestock and poultry manure, and no fertilizer application. The aim was to investigate the effects of different fertilization practices on crop biomass, K uptake, EK, and NEK in the soils derived from three parent materials. Furthermore, the study aimed to explore the relationship between soil K fertility and crop K uptake, providing technical support for precise guidance on K fertilizer allocation and efficient utilization in red soils with different parent materials. Materials and Methods Experimental Site Overview The experimental site was located in Zhanggong Town, Jinxian County, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, China (28°21'6.08" N, 116°10'21.66" E). The average annual temperature of this region is 17.8°C, with an annual rainfall of 1255 mm. Approximately 70–80% of the rainfall occurs between April and October. The cumulative temperature above 10°C is 5648°C, and the frost-free period lasts for 293 days. The average annual total radiation is 108.66 kcal/cm 2 , with an average annual evaporation of 1470 mm and 1610 hours of sunshine. The parent materials of the tested soils were QRC, GRA, and PSS. Those soil samples were collected in 20th November of 2021 from Jinxian county, Yanshan county and Chongyi county in Jiangxi province. The soil was sampled in 0-20cm depth. They were classified as red soil in the Chinese soil classification or as a typical Plinthosol in soil taxonomy by FAO. The basic physicochemical properties of the soils before the experiment are shown in Table 1 . Table 1 Initial chemical properties of soils developed on granite, quaternary red earth, and purple sandy shale at the beginning of the experiment. Parent material pH OM Total N Total P Total K Available N Available P Available K (g/kg) (mg/kg) QRC 5.65 5.6 0.50 0.27 15.7 46.6 3.3 38.0 GRA 6.84 2.8 0.12 0.13 46.6 39.1 2.8 43.5 PSS 8.86 3.9 0.38 0.53 28.9 25.6 5.5 124.0 Note: QRC, Quaternary red clay. GRA, granite, PSS, purple sand shale. OM, organic matter, N, nitrogen, P, phosphorus, K, potassium. Experimental Design A randomized complete block design using two factors was employed in the experiment which was conducted in a greenhouse. Three soil substrates were selected, and each substrate had five fertilizer treatments as follows: (1) No fertilizer application (CK); (2) Straw return without fertilizer application (S); (3) NPK fertilizer application (N 75 kg/ha, P 2 O 5 75 kg/ha, K 2 O 75 kg/ha, NPK); (4) NPK fertilizer application with straw return (the amount of rice straw was 4500 kg/ha from nearby rice field. N 75 kg/ha, P 2 O 5 75 kg/ha, K 2 O 75 kg/ha, S + NPK); (5) Organic fertilizer application with straw return (22500 kg/ha well-rotted pig manure, S + M). The rice straw had 353.4 g/kg organic carbon, 10.8 g/kg N, 8.1 g/kg P and 18.6 K. The well-rotted pig manure had a moisture content of 65% and organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and K contents of 340 g/kg, 28.3 g/kg, 10.3 g/kg, and 9.8 g/kg, respectively. All N, P, K fertilizers were applied as basal fertilizers at the beginning of the experiment. Each treatment was conducted with five replicates, each consisting of a 3 kg soil sample. The experimental pots were 25 cm high and 30 cm in diameter. The amount of fertilizer applied in the pots was calculated based on the field application rate. The Zhengdan 958 maize variety was used in the experiment, with one seed sown per pot. Due to limited soil availability, the maize growth period in this experiment was 40 days. Sowing was conducted on July 20, 2022, and the harvest was conducted on August 30, 2022. Parameters and Analytical Methods Each pot was harvested separately at the time of maize harvest, and the maize biomass was determined. The K content in the digestion solution was determined using flame photometry after digestion with H 2 SO 4 -H 2 O 2 (Lu. 2000). After the maize harvest, soil samples were collected, air- dried for analysis. The contents of EK and NEK in the soil were determined. The EK was extracted using 1 mol/L NH 4 OAC, while the NEK was extracted using the 1 mol/L HNO 3 boiling method. The K content in the extraction solution was determined using flame photometry (Lu. 2000). Data Analysis Data analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0 software, and multiple comparisons were conducted using the LSD method. All figures were created using Origin 8.5. The relationship between EK, NEK, and K uptake by crops was fitted using a linear equation. Results Effect of different fertilization treatments on maize biomass under three soil substrates Significant variations in the effect of fertilization treatments on maize biomass were observed among different soil substrates (Fig. 1 ). In the red soils developed on QRC and PSS, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments resulted in significantly higher maize biomass compared to the CK treatment. However, in the red soil developed on GRA, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments showed substantially higher maize biomass compared to the CK treatment. In contrast, the S treatment did not show any significant difference. Additionally, except for the S + M treatment, the maize biomass in the red soil developed on PSS was significantly higher than that in the QRC and GRA soils across all fertilization treatments. Compared to the CK treatment, the red soil developed on QRC showed an increase in maize biomass of 68.34%, 72.86%, 74.37%, and 88.44% for the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments, respectively, with the S + M treatment producing the highest maize biomass. In the red soil developed on PSS, the percentage increase in maize biomass for the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments was 32.65%, 59.18%, 130.61%, and 27.55%, respectively. Unlike the QRC, the red soil developed on PSS showed the highest maize biomass for the S + NPK treatment, followed by NPK, while S and S + M treatments did not show a significant difference. In the red soil developed on GRA, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments resulted in an increase in maize biomass by 359.57%, 412.76%, and 404.25%, respectively, compared to the CK treatment, with no significant difference observed among the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments. Effects of different fertilization treatments on K uptake in maize under three parent materials Similar to the biomass results, the impact of fertilization treatments on K uptake in maize exhibited significant variations across different parent materials (Fig. 2 ). In red soils developed from QRC and PSS, the treatments of S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M had significantly higher K uptake in maize compared to the CK treatment. In red soil developed from GRA, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments had significantly higher K uptake in maize compared to the CK treatment. In contrast, the S treatment did not elicit any significant difference. Additionally, except for the S and S + M treatments, the red soil developed from PSS consistently showed significantly higher K uptake in maize than QRC and GRA under all fertilization treatments. Compared to the CK treatment, in red soil developed from the QRC, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments increased K uptake in maize by 41.38%, 28.74%, 185.06%, and 64.37%, respectively. The S + NPK treatment exhibited the highest K uptake in maize, followed by the S + M treatment, then the S and NPK treatments. In red soil developed from PSS, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments showed K uptake by maize increases of 64.00%, 308.00%, 340.00%, and 104.00%, respectively. Unlike in QRC, the red soil developed from PSS demonstrated that the S + NPK and NPK treatments resulted in the highest K uptake in maize, with no significant difference between them. The next highest was the S + M treatment, followed by the NPK treatment. In red soil developed from GRA, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments increased K uptake in maize by 115.79%, 140.35%, and 222.81% compared to the CK treatment, respectively. Among them, the S + M treatment exhibited the highest K uptake by maize, followed by the S + NPK and NPK treatments, with no significant difference between the S + NPK and NPK treatments. Effects of different fertilization practices on soil-EK under three parent materials Fertilization practices significantly altered soil EK content in different parent materials (Fig. 3 ). In red soils developed from QRC and PSS, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments resulted in significantly higher EK content compared to the CK treatment. At the same time, there was no significant difference between S and CK. In contrast, in red soils developed from GRA, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments exhibited significantly higher soil EK content than the CK treatment. Furthermore, except for the S + NPK treatment, under each fertilization treatment, the red soil developed from PSS had significantly lower EK content compared to the QRC and GRA, with most treatments showing significantly higher soil EK content in QRC compared to GRA. Compared to the CK treatment, in red soils developed from QRC, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments increased soil EK by 53.85%, 96.15%, and 78.21%, respectively, with the S + NPK treatment resulting in the highest soil EK content, followed by S + M, and then NPK treatment. In red soils developed from PSS, the increases in the soil EK content for NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments were 68.25%, 119.05%, and 46.03%, respectively. Among these, the S + NPK treatment had the highest soil EK content, followed by NPK and the S + M treatment. In red soils developed from GRA, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments increased soil EK content by 25.00%, 65.28%, 69.44%, and 66.67%, respectively, compared to the CK treatment. Among these, the S + NPK, NPK, and S + M treatments exhibited the highest soil EK content, with no significant difference among the three treatments, followed by the S treatment. Effects of different fertilization practices on soil NEK under three parent materials Different fertilization practices also significantly impacted soil NEK content under different parent materials (Fig. 4 ). Red soils developed from QRC, granite, and PSS all showed significantly higher soil NEK content in the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments than CK treatment. Additionally, the NEK content under different fertilization treatments generally followed the GRA > PSS > QRC. Compared to the CK treatment, in red soils developed from QRC, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments increased soil NEK content by 4.76%, 19.58%, 41.27%, and 48.68%, respectively, with the S + M treatment resulting in the highest soil NEK content. In red soils developed from GRA, the increases in soil NEK content for the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments were 26.70%, 27.755%, 42.41%, and 42.41%, respectively. Among these, the S + NPK and S + M treatments had the highest soil NEK content, followed by the NPK and S treatments. In red soils developed from PSS, the S, NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments increased soil NEK content by 15.97%, 74.79%, 104.20%, and 47.90%, respectively, compared to the CK treatment, with the S + NPK treatment exhibiting the highest increase. The relationship between soil EK, NEK, and crop K uptake under three parent materials On red soils developed from GRA and PSS, there was a significant positive correlation between soil EK (within the range of 40–110 mg/kg) and NEK (400–1300 mg/kg) with crop K uptake (Fig. 5 ), which could be fitted using a linear equation. However, in soils developed from QRC, there was no significant positive correlation observed between soil EK (70–160 mg/kg), NEK (300–500 mg/kg), and crop K uptake. Further analysis of the slope of the linear equation (Table 2 ) revealed that on red soils developed from GRA and PSS, a 1 mg/kg increase in the soil EK resulted in a respective increase of 0.82 mg/pot and 2.22 mg/pot in crop K uptake. Similarly, a 1 mg/kg increase in NEK led to a respective increase of 0.12 mg/pot and 0.28 mg/pot in crop K uptake. This indicates that on PSS, the magnitude of improvement in crop K uptake is significantly higher with an increase in soil EK and NEK compared to GRA. Table 2 Fitted equations between K uptake and soil EK and NEK contents under three parent materials Parent material EK NEK Linear equation R 2 p Linear equation R 2 p QRC y = 0.15x + 40.56 0.0356 0.4216 y = 0.08x + 26.99 0.0730 0.3347 GRA y = 0.82x-32.11 0.7030 0.0480 y = 0.12x-81.21 0.9140 0.0071 PSS y = 2.22x-53.45 0.8751 0.0125 y = 0.28x-88.15 0.9472 0.0034 Note: QRC, Quaternary red clay. GRA, granite, PSS, purple sand shale. EK, exchangeable potassium. NEK, non-exchangeable potassium. Discussion Effect of parent materials and fertilization practices on maize biomass and K uptake While there are significant differences in K content among different parent materials (Zhu et al. 1994), fertilization practices such as straw, chemical fertilizers, and organic manure significantly enhanced maize biomass and K uptake in red soils developed from QRC, GRA, and PSS, which is consistent with previous studies (Liu et al. 2020 ; Li et al. 2022 ). However, due to variations in maize varieties, experimental duration, and fertilizer application rates, the magnitude of improvement in maize biomass and K uptake differed significantly in this study compared to other research findings (Han et al. 2017 ). Further analysis revealed that in red soils developed from GRA, there was no significant difference in maize biomass and K uptake between the S-treated and CK-treated groups. This may be attributed to the significantly lower organic matter content in red soils developed from GRA, which might hinder the storage and conversion of straw carbon, resulting in generally lower maize biomass and K uptake in the S-treated group. Soil physical and chemical properties were direct reasons for the effects of parent materials. There were big differences of soil pH among three soils in Table 1 . So, significant differences were observed in maize biomass and K uptake across different fertilization treatments in red soils developed from different parent materials. In red soils formed by QRC and PSS, the S + NPK treatment exhibited the highest K uptake in maize. In contrast, the S + M treatment had the highest K uptake in red soils developed from GRA. This variation is mainly related to the K content of different parent materials (Akbas et al. 2017 ). Additionally, differences in soil pH and organic matter content, which vary among different parent materials, were crucial for maize K uptake (Wolde et al. 2016). Simulation experiments conducted on red soils developed from QRC have demonstrated that raising soil pH and organic matter levels can significantly promote crop K uptake (Chen et al. 2009 ). Furthermore, studies have suggested that the significant differences in soil biological pores and physical structures among different parent materials significantly impact maize root systems, thereby leading to variations in K uptake (Jung et al. 2009 ; Zhao et al. 2016 ). However, specific reasons for these differences require further analysis. Effect of parent materials and fertilization practices on soil EK and NEK contents The impact of fertilization practices on soil EK and NEK contents varies significantly among red soils developed from different parent materials (Liu et al. 2019 ). Under the same fertilization practices, except for the S + NPK treatment, all other treatments showed a QRC > GRA > PSS trend in terms of soil EK. However, for NEK, the trend was GRA > PSS > QRC. This discrepancy is mainly related to the morphological transformation of soil EK and NEK (Wang et al. 2011 ; Han et al. 2019 ). Previous research has found a close relationship between soil EK and NEK, which can be fitted using linear equations (Li et al. 2011). Fertilization practices significantly enhance EK and NEK levels in red soils. In this study, the magnitude of improvement in EK and NEK due to different fertilization practices varied depending on the parent materials. Both QRC and PSS exhibited a significant increase in EK with the S + NPK treatment, which is consistent with numerous research findings, suggesting that straw combined with chemical fertilizers is a primary measure to improve EK levels in soil (Zhao et al. 2014 ). However, the NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments significantly increased GRA soils. This may be because the higher NEK content in GRA can continuously transform into EK, thereby reducing or masking the differences between different treatments (Cai et al. 2019 ). In contrast to EK content, NEK showed the highest values in the S + M treatment in QRC, NPK and S + M treatments in GRA, and S + NPK treatment in PSS. This discrepancy can be attributed to the different transformation rates between EK and NEK in soils developed from different parent materials (Tan et al. 2017 ; Zhao et al. 2017 ). Additionally, the variations in K-containing minerals in different parent materials and the microbial regulation of K release through K-dissolving bacteria and other microorganisms under different fertilization practices may further affect the levels of EK and NEK (Zhang et al. 2014 ). However, the specific mechanisms still require further investigation. Regulation of crop K uptake by soil EK and NEK on different parent materials Long-term field experiments have proven that increasing soil EK content significantly promotes crop K uptake (Singh et al. 2018 ). However, this study found significant differences in the relationship between soil EK content and crop K uptake among red soils developed from different parent materials. Both soil EK and NEK showed a significant positive correlation with crop K uptake in red soils developed from GRA and PSS. On the other hand, no significant relationship was observed in red soils developed from QRC, primarily due to the range of soil EK and NEK content (Zhu et al. 1994). In GRA and PSS soils, EK content was generally low (40–110 mg/kg), while NEK content was high (400–1300 mg/kg). In contrast, QRC soils exhibited noticeably higher EK content (70–160 mg/kg) but lower NEK content (300–500 mg/kg). This suggests that increasing EK does not significantly enhance crop K uptake when EK content is high. Conversely, for NEK, when the content is low, it cannot be directly utilized by plants, and increasing NEK through external fertilization measures does not enhance crop K uptake (Liao et al. 2009 ). Therefore, precise regulation of soil EK and NEK content can enhance crop K uptake on different parent materials (Ghosh et al. 2001; Askegaard et al. 2003 ; Li et al. 2017 ). However, due to significant variations in crop K uptake among different crops and differences in soil EK and NEK content even within the same parent material due to different utilization practices, the relationship between soil EK and NEK content and crop K uptake still requires further verification. Conclusion In red soils developed from QRC and PSS, the S + NPK treatment showed the highest maize K uptake. In contrast, the S + M treatment exhibited the highest K uptake in red soils developed from GRA. The NPK, S + NPK, and S + M treatments demonstrated significantly higher soil EK content. In red soils developed from GRA and PSS, there is a positive correlation between soil EK and NEK contents and crop K uptake. However, in red soils developed from QRC, the high content of EK (70–160 mg/kg) and lower content of NEK (300–500 mg/kg) showed no significant relationship with crop K uptake. Abbreviations K potassium QRC quaternary red clay GRA granite PSS purple sand shale EK exchangeable K NEK non-exchangeable K Declarations Acknowledgements: Not applicable. Authors' contributions : Conceptualization and writing—original draft preparation, L.S.J., L.Y.Z., and L.H.; methodology, L.Y.Z., L.H., and H.T.F.; formal analysis, L.H., and H.T.F.; writing—review and editing, L.Y.Z., and L.K.L.; funding acquisition, L.S.J., H.T.F. and L.K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, China (No.20224BAB203033), the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42367051, 42207398), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (No. 2023JJ40653, 2024JJ7621). It also a part of the project named by Jiangxi Province key research and development plan “select the best candidates to undertake key research projects” "cultivated land acidification prevention and control and fertilizer cultivation collaborative key technology research and demonstration (20223BBF61020). Availability of data and materials: The data sets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: All authors state that there is no conflict in their contribution or in the order of authorship of the manuscript. Authors' information: 1 Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China. 2 Jiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources, Nanchang, Jiangxi 331717, China. 3 School of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan 450001, China. 4 Henan Xinlianxin Chemical Industry Group Co. Ltd. Xinxiang, Henan, 453799, China. References Akbas F, Gunal H, Acir N (2017) Spatial variability of soil potassium and its relationship to land use and parent material. Soil Water Res 12(4):202–211. https://dx.doi.org/10.17221/32/2016-SWR Askegaard M, Eriksen J, Olesen JE (2003) Exchangeable potassium and potassium balances in organic crop rotations on a coarse sand. Soil Use Manag 19:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2003.tb00287.x Cai AD, Xu MG, Wang BR, Zhang WJ, Liang GP, Hou EQ, Luo YQ (2019) Manure acts as a better fertilizer for increasing crop yields than synthetic fertilizer does by improving soil fertility. Soil Tillage Res 189:168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.12.022 Cai ZJ, Wang BR, Xu MG, Zhang HM, Zhang L, Gao SD (2014) Nitrification and acidification from urea application in red soil (Ferralic Cambisol) after different long-term fertilization treatments. J Soils Sediments 14(9):1526–1536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0906-4 Chen ZJ, Wang YQ, Zhou JB, Liu XJ, Zhou B (2009) Quantity and intensity of potassium and its exchange relationship with calcium in sunlight greenhouse soils. J Plant Nutr Fer 15(5):1078–1084.(in Chinese) Das D, Dwivedi B S, Datta SP, Datta SC, Meena MC, Agarwal BK, Shahi DK, Singh M, Chakraborty D, Jaggi S (2019) Potassium supplying capacity of a red soil from eastern India after forty-two years of continuous cropping and fertilization. Geoderma 341:76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.041 Durn G, Perković I, Razum I, Ottner F, Škapin SD, Faivre S, Rubinić VA (2023) A tropical soil (Lixisol) identified in the northernmost part of the Mediterranean (Istria, Croatia). Catena 228, 107144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107144 Fujii K, Hartono A, Funakawa S, Uemura M, Sukartiningsih, Kosaki T (2011) Acidification of tropical forest soils derived from serpentine and sedimentary rocks in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Geoderma 160(3–4): 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.09.027 Ghosh BN, Singh RD. (2001) Potassium release characteristics of some soils of Uttar Pradesh hills varying in altitude and their relationship with forms of soil K and clay mineralogy. Geoderma 104:135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00078-7 Guan Y, Yu W T, Li J D (2004) Effects of long-term fertilization on soil nutrient pool. Chin J Ecol 23(6):131–137.(in Chinese) Guo J, Liu X, Zhang Y, Shen J, Han W, ZhangW, Christie P, Goulding KWT, Vitousek PM, Zhang F (2010) Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands, Science 327(5968):1008–1010. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.118257 Han TF, Wang BR, Zhang HM, Huang J, Li DC, Cai ZJ, Liu KL, Cai AD, Xu MG (2017) Effect of long-term fertilization and residual effect of liming on potassium in rhizosphere of maize relative to growth stage of the crop. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 54(6):1497–1507. (in Chinese) Han TF, Cai AD, Liu KL. Huang J, Wang BR, Li DC, Qaswar M, Feng G, Zhang HM (2019) The links between potassium availability and soil exchangeable calcium, magnesium, and aluminum are mediated by lime in acidic soil. J Soils Sediments 19(3):1382–1392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2145-6 Jung JY, Shin R, Schachtman DP (2009) Ethylene mediates response and tolerance to potassium deprivation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 21(2):607–621. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.108.063099 Liang Y, Li D, Lu X, Yang X, Pan XZ, Mu H, Shi DM, Zhang B (2010) Soil erosion changes over the past five decades in the red soil region of southern China. J Mt Sci 7(1):92–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-010-1052-0 Liao YL, Zheng SX, Lu YH, Xie J, Nie J, Xiang YW (2009) Effects of long-term K fertilization on rice yield and soil K status in reddish paddy soil. J Plant Nutr Fer 15(6): 1372–1379.(in Chinese) Liu RL, Jin JY, Wu RG, Liang MZ (2000) Study on the characteristics of potassium cycling in different soil-crop systems in northern China. J Plant Nutr Fer 6(2): 123–132. (in Chinese) Liu KL, Han, TF, Huang J, Huang QH, Li DM, Hu ZH, Yu XC, Qaswar M, Waqas A, Hu HW, Zhang HM (2019) Response of soil aggregate associated potassium to long-term fertilization in red soil. Geoderma 352:160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.007 Liu KL, Huang J, Ye HC, Han M, Han TF, Song HJ, Hu ZH, Hu DD, Li DM, Yu XC, Huang QH, Li WJ, Chen G J (2020) Effects of long-term potassium fertilization on potassium uptake utilization and soil potassium balance in double maize cropping system. J Plant Nutr Fer 26(12): 2235–2245.(in Chinese) Li H, Liu KL, Wan GY, Yu XC, Ye HC, Song HJ, Hu DD, Hu HW (2022) Effects of long-term positioning fertilization on the contents of organic carbon and potassium in maize rhizosphere soil aggregate and their relationship. Chin J Soil Sci 2022, 53(2):438–444.(in Chinese) Li T, Wang HY, Chen XQ, Zhou JM (2017) Soil reserves of potassium: release and availability to lolium perenne in relation to clay minerals in six cropland soils from Eastern China. Land Degrad Dev 28:1696–1703. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2701 Lu RK (2000) Analytical methods for soil and agro-chemistry. Beijing. (in Chinese) Osei BA (1995) Effects of different lime application rates and time on some chemical properties of an acid soil in Ghana. Soil Use Manag 11(1):25–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1995.tb00491.x Römheld V, Kirkby EA (2010) Research on potassium in agriculture: needs and prospects. Plant Soil 335(1–2):155–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0520-1 Scherer H W, Goldbach H E, Clemens J (2003) Potassium dynamics in the soil and yield formation in a long-term field experiment. Plant Soil Environ 64:531–535. https://doi.org/10.17221/4189-PSE Shahrokh V, Khademi H, Faz Cano A, Acosta JA (2019) Different forms of soil potassium and clay mineralogy as influenced by the lemon tree rhizospheric environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019,16(8):3979–3988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1805-9 Singh VK, Dwivedi BS, Singh Y, Singh SK, Mishra RP, Shukla AK, Rathore SS, Shekhawat K, Majumdar K, Jat ML (2018) Effect of tillage and crop establishment, residue management and K fertilization on yield, K use efficiency and apparent K balance under rice-maize system in north-western India. Field Crops Res 224:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.04.012 Suo D R, Hou G P, Wang P, et al. Effects of consecutive position fertilization with dung on soil potassium content. J Gansu Agricul Univ 2001, 36(4):457–460.(in Chinese) Tan DS, Liu ZH, Jiang LH, Luo JF, Li J (2017) Long-term potash application and wheat straw return reduced soil potassium fixation and affected crop yields in North China. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 108(2):121–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9843-0 Wang HY, Shen QH, Zhou JM, Wang J, Du CW, Chen XQ (2011) Plants use alternative strategies to utilize nonexchangeable potassium in minerals. Plant Soil 343(1–2):209–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0726-x Wang Y, Wu WH (2017) Regulation of potassium transport and signaling in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 39:123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2017.06.006 Wolde Z (2016) A Review on Evaluation of soil potassium status and crop response to potassium fertilization. J Environ Earth Sci 8(6):38–44. Zhang C, Kong F (2014) Isolation and identification of potassium-solubilizing bacteria from tobacco rhizospheric soil and their effect on tobacco plants. Appl.Soil Ecol 82:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.05.002 Zhang HM, Xu MG, Zhang WJ, He XH (2009) Factors affecting potassium fixation in seven soils under 15-year long-term fertilization. Chin Sci Bull 54(10):1773–1780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-009-0164-9 Zhang HM, Xu MG, Zhu P, Peng C (2010) Effect of 15-year-long fertilization on potassium quantity/intensity relationships in black soil in northeastern China. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 42(11):1289–1297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.571739 Zhang HM, Yang XY, He XH, Xu MG, Huang SM, Liu H, Wang BR (2011) Effect of long-term potassium fertilization on crop yield and potassium efficiency and balance under wheat-maize rotation in China. Pedosphere 21(2):154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60113-6 Zhang SQ, Yang L, Huang SM, Lou YL, Nie SW, Guo DD, Shin I (2014) Relationship between the available potassium content and the input level of potassium in tidal soil under long-term fertilization. J Plant Nutr Fer 20(3):773–777.(in Chinese) Zhao J, Chen S, Hu R, Li Y (2017) Aggregate stability and size distribution of red soils under different land uses integrally regulated by soil organic matter, and iron and aluminum oxides. Soil Tillage Res 167:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.11.007 Zhao QG. Degradation of red soil in China. Soils 1995, 27(6): 281–285. (in Chinese) Zhao S, He P, Qiu S, Jia L, Liu M, Jin J, Johnston AM (2014) Long-term effects of potassium fertilization and straw return on soil potassium levels and crop yields in north-central China. Field Crops Res 169: 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.09.017 Zhao XH, Yu HQ, Wen J, Wang XG, Du Q, Wang J, Wang Q (2016) Response of root morphology, physiology and endogenous hormones in maize (Zea mays L.) to potassium deficiency. J Integr Agric 15(4):785–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61246-1 Zhu YG, Luo JX (1994) Potassium status and contents of K-bearing minerals of some soils in Southern China. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 1994, 31(4): 430–438.(in Chinese) Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editor assigned by journal 06 Sep, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Sep, 2024 First submitted to journal 30 Aug, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5001014","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":350620505,"identity":"f91f453f-73ee-4edb-9966-d1a5aea90784","order_by":0,"name":"Shujun Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shujun","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":350620506,"identity":"69882b73-2532-4d59-8a18-5e859830dda3","order_by":1,"name":"Yazhen Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yazhen","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":350620507,"identity":"8d2661f8-e762-4393-b42d-831d4d0e93cb","order_by":2,"name":"Dandan Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dandan","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""},{"id":350620508,"identity":"4aad8e3c-6be0-49b5-9421-1ec3a1b864a0","order_by":3,"name":"Tianfu Han","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zhengzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tianfu","middleName":"","lastName":"Han","suffix":""},{"id":350620509,"identity":"7e00e958-78b1-40e5-8bea-e94089c8714d","order_by":4,"name":"Jing Huang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jing","middleName":"","lastName":"Huang","suffix":""},{"id":350620510,"identity":"bd346a69-bd7c-4e78-81db-9c01c97ecdf7","order_by":5,"name":"Hao Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Henan Xinlianxin Chemical Industry Group Co. Ltd. Xinxiang","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hao","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":350620511,"identity":"28eb8c55-98d7-4a6f-a91c-715eff83fea8","order_by":6,"name":"kailou liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"kailou","middleName":"","lastName":"liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-30 04:09:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5001014/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5001014/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":66164427,"identity":"cecc6354-05e5-490c-8cf6-cdd66b76e77c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-08 09:43:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":129403,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMaize biomass in response to different fertilization treatments across three parent materials. K, potassium. CK, no fertilizer application, S, straw mulching, NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application, S+NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application with straw mulching, S+M, livestock manure application with straw mulching. Lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between treatments within the same parent material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5001014/v1/a58361ab356294502b7f87c2.png"},{"id":66164428,"identity":"80e5b267-3d3d-4332-a391-b36bb3051fa2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-08 09:43:01","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":135348,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eK uptake in maize under different fertilization treatments across three parent materials. K, potassium. CK, no fertilizer application, S, straw mulching, NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application, S+NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application with straw mulching, S+M, livestock manure application with straw mulching. Lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between treatments within the same parent material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5001014/v1/73fb4dd4a90e475980091170.png"},{"id":66164430,"identity":"04a54315-632d-4bcb-bb06-48e88742e7c7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-08 09:43:02","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":136972,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe effects of various fertilization treatments on soil EK content under three different parent materials. EK, exchangeable potassium. CK, no fertilizer application, S, straw mulching, NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application, S+NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application with straw mulching, S+M, livestock manure application with straw mulching. Lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between treatments within the same parent material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5001014/v1/bf3adcdd44edcc75b89128bc.png"},{"id":66164429,"identity":"78cd400d-5692-4ff5-aa03-3b77a12e2130","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-08 09:43:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140122,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe impact of various fertilization treatments on soil NEK content under three different parent materials. NEK, non-exchangeable potassium. CK, no fertilizer application, S, straw mulching, NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application, S+NPK, nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application with straw mulching, S+M, livestock manure application with straw mulching. Lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between treatments within the same parent material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5001014/v1/da4916ead4b605586b6b261e.png"},{"id":66164703,"identity":"14b35730-ac11-45b9-a5e9-57d7bf4cb4fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-08 09:51:02","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":141084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between K uptake and soil EK and NEK Contents under three parent materials. K, potassium, EK, exchangeable potassium. NEK, non-exchangeable potassium. Lowercase letters indicate no significant difference between treatments within the same parent material.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5001014/v1/8d42ea78354ab153454981c4.png"},{"id":66164707,"identity":"f51e467e-34b3-45b8-857e-cf7be9b8652c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-08 09:51:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1364475,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5001014/v1/84258b81-24d2-4886-9c7f-e57389a7e5ef.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Response Characteristics of Potassium Availability in Red Soil with Different Parental Materials to Different Fertilization Practices","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRed soil is predominantly found in tropical and subtropical regions, covering a vast area of approximately 64\u0026nbsp;million square kilometers, which accounts for 45.2% of the global land area (Durn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). China is one of the major countries with extensive distribution of red soil, with a total area of 2.18\u0026nbsp;million square kilometers, equivalent to 21.8% of its total land area. In China, the cultivated area within the red soil regions spans approximately 28\u0026nbsp;million hectares, representing around 28% of the country's total cultivated land area. However, these red soil areas face challenges, including strong acidity, heavy clay texture, low organic matter content, poor nutrient retention, and limited water-holding capacity (Liang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Osei \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). These factors collectively contribute to lower crop productivity in red soil regions. Moreover, in recent years, improper land use has further decreased the fertility of red soil (Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; R\u0026ouml;mheld et al. 2010), severely limiting the potential for increased food production in this region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the hilly regions of southern China, the primary parent materials for red soil formation include Quaternary red clay (QRC), granite (GRA), and purple sandstone (PSS) (Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, the characteristics of red soil vary depending on the parent material. Numerous studies have indicated that red soils developed from QRC are generally characterized by increased acidification and lower potassium e (K) content (Wolde et al. 2016; Guo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). In comparison, red soils derived from GRA and PSS exhibit significantly higher pH values (Fujii et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and higher levels of exchangeable K (EK) (Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it is crucial to implement targeted soil improvement measures based on the specific parent materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eK is one of the three essential elements for plant growth and development, playing a crucial role in crop quality (Wang et al. 2017). However, as K fertilizers primarily come from non-renewable resources such as potash minerals (R\u0026ouml;mheld et al. 2010), efficient application of K fertilizer tailored to the K content of the soil becomes critical to alleviate the shortage of K fertilizer resources. The EK and non-exchangeable K (NEK) levels in the soil are essential indicators of soil K availability and significantly impact plant K uptake (Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Singh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Numerous studies have shown that K application significantly increases EK content in the soil, particularly in soils with low K availability (Shahrokh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Scherer et al. 2013). Additionally, higher levels of applied K increase the proportion of EK and NEK in the total K content of the soil (Guan et al. 2014; Liao et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Adequate levels of EK in the soil are essential to ensure proper K uptake by crops (Singh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Liu et al. found that without K fertilizer application, the EK content gradually decreases, and there is also a declining trend in NEK content in soil subjected to long-term plant uptake (Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, external K fertilizer application can increase the range of EK in the soil, although the effectiveness varies among different fertilization practices. Compared to chemical fertilizer treatments, combining organic and inorganic fertilizers or straw incorporation can further enhance the EK and NEK levels in the soil. Studies have shown that in the absence of K fertilizer, the application of manure promotes an increase in EK content but fails to maintain NEK content. In contrast, the combined application of chemical potassium fertilizer and manure effectively sustains soil K fertility (Suo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Das et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Compared to straw incorporation, adding organic fertilizers significantly enhances the content of EK in the soil. However, the patterns of changes in EK and NEK under different fertilization practices on different parent materials still need to be clarified. Therefore, in this study, we selected three typical parent materials, namely QRC, GRA, and PSS, in a red soil area (Jiangxi Province, China). Pot experiments were conducted with treatments including straw incorporation, application of nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer (NPK), combined application of NPK chemical fertilizer and straw incorporation, application of livestock and poultry manure, and no fertilizer application. The aim was to investigate the effects of different fertilization practices on crop biomass, K uptake, EK, and NEK in the soils derived from three parent materials. Furthermore, the study aimed to explore the relationship between soil K fertility and crop K uptake, providing technical support for precise guidance on K fertilizer allocation and efficient utilization in red soils with different parent materials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eExperimental Site Overview\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental site was located in Zhanggong Town, Jinxian County, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, China (28\u0026deg;21'6.08\" N, 116\u0026deg;10'21.66\" E). The average annual temperature of this region is 17.8\u0026deg;C, with an annual rainfall of 1255 mm. Approximately 70\u0026ndash;80% of the rainfall occurs between April and October. The cumulative temperature above 10\u0026deg;C is 5648\u0026deg;C, and the frost-free period lasts for 293 days. The average annual total radiation is 108.66 kcal/cm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, with an average annual evaporation of 1470 mm and 1610 hours of sunshine. The parent materials of the tested soils were QRC, GRA, and PSS. Those soil samples were collected in 20th November of 2021 from Jinxian county, Yanshan county and Chongyi county in Jiangxi province. The soil was sampled in 0-20cm depth. They were classified as red soil in the Chinese soil classification or as a typical Plinthosol in soil taxonomy by FAO. The basic physicochemical properties of the soils before the experiment are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitial chemical properties of soils developed on granite, quaternary red earth, and purple sandy shale at the beginning of the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent material\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal P\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal K\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailable N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailable P\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailable K\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQRC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePSS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e124.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003eNote: QRC, Quaternary red clay. GRA, granite, PSS, purple sand shale. OM, organic matter, N, nitrogen, P, phosphorus, K, potassium.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperimental Design\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA randomized complete block design using two factors was employed in the experiment which was conducted in a greenhouse. Three soil substrates were selected, and each substrate had five fertilizer treatments as follows: (1) No fertilizer application (CK); (2) Straw return without fertilizer application (S); (3) NPK fertilizer application (N 75 kg/ha, P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e 75 kg/ha, K\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO 75 kg/ha, NPK); (4) NPK fertilizer application with straw return (the amount of rice straw was 4500 kg/ha from nearby rice field. N 75 kg/ha, P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e 75 kg/ha, K\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO 75 kg/ha, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK); (5) Organic fertilizer application with straw return (22500 kg/ha well-rotted pig manure, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M). The rice straw had 353.4 g/kg organic carbon, 10.8 g/kg N, 8.1 g/kg P and 18.6 K. The well-rotted pig manure had a moisture content of 65% and organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and K contents of 340 g/kg, 28.3 g/kg, 10.3 g/kg, and 9.8 g/kg, respectively. All N, P, K fertilizers were applied as basal fertilizers at the beginning of the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach treatment was conducted with five replicates, each consisting of a 3 kg soil sample. The experimental pots were 25 cm high and 30 cm in diameter. The amount of fertilizer applied in the pots was calculated based on the field application rate. The Zhengdan 958 maize variety was used in the experiment, with one seed sown per pot. Due to limited soil availability, the maize growth period in this experiment was 40 days. Sowing was conducted on July 20, 2022, and the harvest was conducted on August 30, 2022.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameters and Analytical Methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach pot was harvested separately at the time of maize harvest, and the maize biomass was determined. The K content in the digestion solution was determined using flame photometry after digestion with H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e-H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (Lu. 2000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the maize harvest, soil samples were collected, air- dried for analysis. The contents of EK and NEK in the soil were determined. The EK was extracted using 1 mol/L NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003eOAC, while the NEK was extracted using the 1 mol/L HNO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e boiling method. The K content in the extraction solution was determined using flame photometry (Lu. 2000).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData analysis was performed using SPSS 20.0 software, and multiple comparisons were conducted using the LSD method. All figures were created using Origin 8.5. The relationship between EK, NEK, and K uptake by crops was fitted using a linear equation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of different fertilization treatments on maize biomass under three soil substrates\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificant variations in the effect of fertilization treatments on maize biomass were observed among different soil substrates (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In the red soils developed on QRC and PSS, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments resulted in significantly higher maize biomass compared to the CK treatment. However, in the red soil developed on GRA, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments showed substantially higher maize biomass compared to the CK treatment. In contrast, the S treatment did not show any significant difference. Additionally, except for the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment, the maize biomass in the red soil developed on PSS was significantly higher than that in the QRC and GRA soils across all fertilization treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to the CK treatment, the red soil developed on QRC showed an increase in maize biomass of 68.34%, 72.86%, 74.37%, and 88.44% for the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments, respectively, with the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment producing the highest maize biomass. In the red soil developed on PSS, the percentage increase in maize biomass for the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments was 32.65%, 59.18%, 130.61%, and 27.55%, respectively. Unlike the QRC, the red soil developed on PSS showed the highest maize biomass for the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment, followed by NPK, while S and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments did not show a significant difference. In the red soil developed on GRA, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments resulted in an increase in maize biomass by 359.57%, 412.76%, and 404.25%, respectively, compared to the CK treatment, with no significant difference observed among the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffects of different fertilization treatments on K uptake in maize under three parent materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilar to the biomass results, the impact of fertilization treatments on K uptake in maize exhibited significant variations across different parent materials (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In red soils developed from QRC and PSS, the treatments of S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M had significantly higher K uptake in maize compared to the CK treatment. In red soil developed from GRA, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments had significantly higher K uptake in maize compared to the CK treatment. In contrast, the S treatment did not elicit any significant difference. Additionally, except for the S and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments, the red soil developed from PSS consistently showed significantly higher K uptake in maize than QRC and GRA under all fertilization treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to the CK treatment, in red soil developed from the QRC, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments increased K uptake in maize by 41.38%, 28.74%, 185.06%, and 64.37%, respectively. The S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment exhibited the highest K uptake in maize, followed by the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment, then the S and NPK treatments. In red soil developed from PSS, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments showed K uptake by maize increases of 64.00%, 308.00%, 340.00%, and 104.00%, respectively. Unlike in QRC, the red soil developed from PSS demonstrated that the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK and NPK treatments resulted in the highest K uptake in maize, with no significant difference between them. The next highest was the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment, followed by the NPK treatment. In red soil developed from GRA, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments increased K uptake in maize by 115.79%, 140.35%, and 222.81% compared to the CK treatment, respectively. Among them, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment exhibited the highest K uptake by maize, followed by the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK and NPK treatments, with no significant difference between the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK and NPK treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffects of different fertilization practices on soil-EK under three parent materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilization practices significantly altered soil EK content in different parent materials (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In red soils developed from QRC and PSS, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments resulted in significantly higher EK content compared to the CK treatment. At the same time, there was no significant difference between S and CK. In contrast, in red soils developed from GRA, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments exhibited significantly higher soil EK content than the CK treatment. Furthermore, except for the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment, under each fertilization treatment, the red soil developed from PSS had significantly lower EK content compared to the QRC and GRA, with most treatments showing significantly higher soil EK content in QRC compared to GRA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to the CK treatment, in red soils developed from QRC, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments increased soil EK by 53.85%, 96.15%, and 78.21%, respectively, with the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment resulting in the highest soil EK content, followed by S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M, and then NPK treatment. In red soils developed from PSS, the increases in the soil EK content for NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments were 68.25%, 119.05%, and 46.03%, respectively. Among these, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment had the highest soil EK content, followed by NPK and the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment. In red soils developed from GRA, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments increased soil EK content by 25.00%, 65.28%, 69.44%, and 66.67%, respectively, compared to the CK treatment. Among these, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments exhibited the highest soil EK content, with no significant difference among the three treatments, followed by the S treatment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffects of different fertilization practices on soil NEK under three parent materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifferent fertilization practices also significantly impacted soil NEK content under different parent materials (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Red soils developed from QRC, granite, and PSS all showed significantly higher soil NEK content in the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments than CK treatment. Additionally, the NEK content under different fertilization treatments generally followed the GRA\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;PSS\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;QRC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to the CK treatment, in red soils developed from QRC, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments increased soil NEK content by 4.76%, 19.58%, 41.27%, and 48.68%, respectively, with the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment resulting in the highest soil NEK content. In red soils developed from GRA, the increases in soil NEK content for the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments were 26.70%, 27.755%, 42.41%, and 42.41%, respectively. Among these, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments had the highest soil NEK content, followed by the NPK and S treatments. In red soils developed from PSS, the S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments increased soil NEK content by 15.97%, 74.79%, 104.20%, and 47.90%, respectively, compared to the CK treatment, with the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment exhibiting the highest increase.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between soil EK, NEK, and crop K uptake under three parent materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn red soils developed from GRA and PSS, there was a significant positive correlation between soil EK (within the range of 40\u0026ndash;110 mg/kg) and NEK (400\u0026ndash;1300 mg/kg) with crop K uptake (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), which could be fitted using a linear equation. However, in soils developed from QRC, there was no significant positive correlation observed between soil EK (70\u0026ndash;160 mg/kg), NEK (300\u0026ndash;500 mg/kg), and crop K uptake.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther analysis of the slope of the linear equation (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that on red soils developed from GRA and PSS, a 1 mg/kg increase in the soil EK resulted in a respective increase of 0.82 mg/pot and 2.22 mg/pot in crop K uptake. Similarly, a 1 mg/kg increase in NEK led to a respective increase of 0.12 mg/pot and 0.28 mg/pot in crop K uptake. This indicates that on PSS, the magnitude of improvement in crop K uptake is significantly higher with an increase in soil EK and NEK compared to GRA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFitted equations between K uptake and soil EK and NEK contents under three parent materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent material\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNEK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear equation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear equation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQRC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15x\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;40.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0356\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4216\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08x\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;26.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0730\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3347\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.82x-32.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0480\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12x-81.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePSS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.22x-53.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8751\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0125\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ey\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.28x-88.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9472\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote: QRC, Quaternary red clay. GRA, granite, PSS, purple sand shale. EK, exchangeable potassium. NEK, non-exchangeable potassium.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of parent materials and fertilization practices on maize biomass and K uptake\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile there are significant differences in K content among different parent materials (Zhu et al. 1994), fertilization practices such as straw, chemical fertilizers, and organic manure significantly enhanced maize biomass and K uptake in red soils developed from QRC, GRA, and PSS, which is consistent with previous studies (Liu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, due to variations in maize varieties, experimental duration, and fertilizer application rates, the magnitude of improvement in maize biomass and K uptake differed significantly in this study compared to other research findings (Han et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Further analysis revealed that in red soils developed from GRA, there was no significant difference in maize biomass and K uptake between the S-treated and CK-treated groups. This may be attributed to the significantly lower organic matter content in red soils developed from GRA, which might hinder the storage and conversion of straw carbon, resulting in generally lower maize biomass and K uptake in the S-treated group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil physical and chemical properties were direct reasons for the effects of parent materials. There were big differences of soil pH among three soils in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. So, significant differences were observed in maize biomass and K uptake across different fertilization treatments in red soils developed from different parent materials. In red soils formed by QRC and PSS, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment exhibited the highest K uptake in maize. In contrast, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment had the highest K uptake in red soils developed from GRA. This variation is mainly related to the K content of different parent materials (Akbas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, differences in soil pH and organic matter content, which vary among different parent materials, were crucial for maize K uptake (Wolde et al. 2016). Simulation experiments conducted on red soils developed from QRC have demonstrated that raising soil pH and organic matter levels can significantly promote crop K uptake (Chen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, studies have suggested that the significant differences in soil biological pores and physical structures among different parent materials significantly impact maize root systems, thereby leading to variations in K uptake (Jung et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, specific reasons for these differences require further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffect of parent materials and fertilization practices on soil EK and NEK contents\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe impact of fertilization practices on soil EK and NEK contents varies significantly among red soils developed from different parent materials (Liu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Under the same fertilization practices, except for the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment, all other treatments showed a QRC\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;GRA\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;PSS trend in terms of soil EK. However, for NEK, the trend was GRA\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;PSS\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;QRC. This discrepancy is mainly related to the morphological transformation of soil EK and NEK (Wang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Han et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Previous research has found a close relationship between soil EK and NEK, which can be fitted using linear equations (Li et al. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilization practices significantly enhance EK and NEK levels in red soils. In this study, the magnitude of improvement in EK and NEK due to different fertilization practices varied depending on the parent materials. Both QRC and PSS exhibited a significant increase in EK with the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment, which is consistent with numerous research findings, suggesting that straw combined with chemical fertilizers is a primary measure to improve EK levels in soil (Zhao et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments significantly increased GRA soils. This may be because the higher NEK content in GRA can continuously transform into EK, thereby reducing or masking the differences between different treatments (Cai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast to EK content, NEK showed the highest values in the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment in QRC, NPK and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments in GRA, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment in PSS. This discrepancy can be attributed to the different transformation rates between EK and NEK in soils developed from different parent materials (Tan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the variations in K-containing minerals in different parent materials and the microbial regulation of K release through K-dissolving bacteria and other microorganisms under different fertilization practices may further affect the levels of EK and NEK (Zhang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, the specific mechanisms still require further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation of crop K uptake by soil EK and NEK on different parent materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLong-term field experiments have proven that increasing soil EK content significantly promotes crop K uptake (Singh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, this study found significant differences in the relationship between soil EK content and crop K uptake among red soils developed from different parent materials. Both soil EK and NEK showed a significant positive correlation with crop K uptake in red soils developed from GRA and PSS. On the other hand, no significant relationship was observed in red soils developed from QRC, primarily due to the range of soil EK and NEK content (Zhu et al. 1994). In GRA and PSS soils, EK content was generally low (40\u0026ndash;110 mg/kg), while NEK content was high (400\u0026ndash;1300 mg/kg). In contrast, QRC soils exhibited noticeably higher EK content (70\u0026ndash;160 mg/kg) but lower NEK content (300\u0026ndash;500 mg/kg). This suggests that increasing EK does not significantly enhance crop K uptake when EK content is high. Conversely, for NEK, when the content is low, it cannot be directly utilized by plants, and increasing NEK through external fertilization measures does not enhance crop K uptake (Liao et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, precise regulation of soil EK and NEK content can enhance crop K uptake on different parent materials (Ghosh et al. 2001; Askegaard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). However, due to significant variations in crop K uptake among different crops and differences in soil EK and NEK content even within the same parent material due to different utilization practices, the relationship between soil EK and NEK content and crop K uptake still requires further verification.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn red soils developed from QRC and PSS, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment showed the highest maize K uptake. In contrast, the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatment exhibited the highest K uptake in red soils developed from GRA. The NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments demonstrated significantly higher soil EK content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn red soils developed from GRA and PSS, there is a positive correlation between soil EK and NEK contents and crop K uptake. However, in red soils developed from QRC, the high content of EK (70\u0026ndash;160 mg/kg) and lower content of NEK (300\u0026ndash;500 mg/kg) showed no significant relationship with crop K uptake.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eK potassium\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQRC quaternary red clay\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGRA granite\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePSS purple sand shale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEK exchangeable K\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNEK non-exchangeable K\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualization and writing\u0026mdash;original draft preparation, L.S.J., \u0026nbsp;L.Y.Z., and L.H.; methodology, L.Y.Z., L.H., and H.T.F.; formal analysis, L.H., and H.T.F.; writing\u0026mdash;review and editing, L.Y.Z., and L.K.L.; funding acquisition, L.S.J., H.T.F. and L.K.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research was financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, China (No.20224BAB203033), the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42367051, 42207398), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (No. 2023JJ40653, 2024JJ7621). It also a part of the project named by Jiangxi Province key research and development plan \u0026ldquo;select the best candidates to undertake key research projects\u0026rdquo; \u0026quot;cultivated land acidification prevention and control and fertilizer cultivation collaborative key technology research and demonstration (20223BBF61020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe data sets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll authors state that there is no conflict in their contribution or in the order of authorship of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; information:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eInstitute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China. \u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003eJiangxi Institute of Red Soil and Germplasm Resources, Nanchang, Jiangxi 331717, China. \u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003eSchool of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan 450001, China. \u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003eHenan Xinlianxin Chemical Industry Group Co. Ltd. Xinxiang, Henan, 453799, China.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkbas F, Gunal H, Acir N (2017) Spatial variability of soil potassium and its relationship to land use and parent material. Soil Water Res 12(4):202\u0026ndash;211. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.17221/32/2016-SWR\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17221/32/2016-SWR\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAskegaard M, Eriksen J, Olesen JE (2003) Exchangeable potassium and potassium balances in organic crop rotations on a coarse sand. Soil Use Manag 19:96\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2003.tb00287.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1475-2743.2003.tb00287.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai AD, Xu MG, Wang BR, Zhang WJ, Liang GP, Hou EQ, Luo YQ (2019) Manure acts as a better fertilizer for increasing crop yields than synthetic fertilizer does by improving soil fertility. Soil Tillage Res 189:168\u0026ndash;175. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.12.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.still.2018.12.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai ZJ, Wang BR, Xu MG, Zhang HM, Zhang L, Gao SD (2014) Nitrification and acidification from urea application in red soil (Ferralic Cambisol) after different long-term fertilization treatments. J Soils Sediments 14(9):1526\u0026ndash;1536. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0906-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11368-014-0906-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen ZJ, Wang YQ, Zhou JB, Liu XJ, Zhou B (2009) Quantity and intensity of potassium and its exchange relationship with calcium in sunlight greenhouse soils. J Plant Nutr Fer 15(5):1078\u0026ndash;1084.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDas D, Dwivedi B S, Datta SP, Datta SC, Meena MC, Agarwal BK, Shahi DK, Singh M, Chakraborty D, Jaggi S (2019) Potassium supplying capacity of a red soil from eastern India after forty-two years of continuous cropping and fertilization. Geoderma 341:76\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurn G, Perković I, Razum I, Ottner F, Škapin SD, Faivre S, Rubinić VA (2023) A tropical soil (Lixisol) identified in the northernmost part of the Mediterranean (Istria, Croatia). Catena 228, 107144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107144\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.catena.2023.107144\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFujii K, Hartono A, Funakawa S, Uemura M, Sukartiningsih, Kosaki T (2011) Acidification of tropical forest soils derived from serpentine and sedimentary rocks in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Geoderma 160(3\u0026ndash;4): 311\u0026ndash;323. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.09.027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.09.027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhosh BN, Singh RD. (2001) Potassium release characteristics of some soils of Uttar Pradesh hills varying in altitude and their relationship with forms of soil K and clay mineralogy. Geoderma 104:135\u0026ndash;144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00078-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00078-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuan Y, Yu W T, Li J D (2004) Effects of long-term fertilization on soil nutrient pool. Chin J Ecol 23(6):131\u0026ndash;137.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo J, Liu X, Zhang Y, Shen J, Han W, ZhangW, Christie P, Goulding KWT, Vitousek PM, Zhang F (2010) Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands, Science 327(5968):1008\u0026ndash;1010. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.118257\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.118257\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHan TF, Wang BR, Zhang HM, Huang J, Li DC, Cai ZJ, Liu KL, Cai AD, Xu MG (2017) Effect of long-term fertilization and residual effect of liming on potassium in rhizosphere of maize relative to growth stage of the crop. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 54(6):1497\u0026ndash;1507. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHan TF, Cai AD, Liu KL. Huang J, Wang BR, Li DC, Qaswar M, Feng G, Zhang HM (2019) The links between potassium availability and soil exchangeable calcium, magnesium, and aluminum are mediated by lime in acidic soil. J Soils Sediments 19(3):1382\u0026ndash;1392. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2145-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11368-018-2145-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJung JY, Shin R, Schachtman DP (2009) Ethylene mediates response and tolerance to potassium deprivation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 21(2):607\u0026ndash;621. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.108.063099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1105/tpc.108.063099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang Y, Li D, Lu X, Yang X, Pan XZ, Mu H, Shi DM, Zhang B (2010) Soil erosion changes over the past five decades in the red soil region of southern China. J Mt Sci 7(1):92\u0026ndash;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-010-1052-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11629-010-1052-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiao YL, Zheng SX, Lu YH, Xie J, Nie J, Xiang YW (2009) Effects of long-term K fertilization on rice yield and soil K status in reddish paddy soil. J Plant Nutr Fer 15(6): 1372\u0026ndash;1379.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu RL, Jin JY, Wu RG, Liang MZ (2000) Study on the characteristics of potassium cycling in different soil-crop systems in northern China. J Plant Nutr Fer 6(2): 123\u0026ndash;132. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu KL, Han, TF, Huang J, Huang QH, Li DM, Hu ZH, Yu XC, Qaswar M, Waqas A, Hu HW, Zhang HM (2019) Response of soil aggregate associated potassium to long-term fertilization in red soil. Geoderma 352:160\u0026ndash;170. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu KL, Huang J, Ye HC, Han M, Han TF, Song HJ, Hu ZH, Hu DD, Li DM, Yu XC, Huang QH, Li WJ, Chen G J (2020) Effects of long-term potassium fertilization on potassium uptake utilization and soil potassium balance in double maize cropping system. J Plant Nutr Fer 26(12): 2235\u0026ndash;2245.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi H, Liu KL, Wan GY, Yu XC, Ye HC, Song HJ, Hu DD, Hu HW (2022) Effects of long-term positioning fertilization on the contents of organic carbon and potassium in maize rhizosphere soil aggregate and their relationship. Chin J Soil Sci 2022, 53(2):438\u0026ndash;444.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi T, Wang HY, Chen XQ, Zhou JM (2017) Soil reserves of potassium: release and availability to lolium perenne in relation to clay minerals in six cropland soils from Eastern China. Land Degrad Dev 28:1696\u0026ndash;1703. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2701\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ldr.2701\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLu RK (2000) Analytical methods for soil and agro-chemistry. Beijing. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsei BA (1995) Effects of different lime application rates and time on some chemical properties of an acid soil in Ghana. Soil Use Manag 11(1):25\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1995.tb00491.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1475-2743.1995.tb00491.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR\u0026ouml;mheld V, Kirkby EA (2010) Research on potassium in agriculture: needs and prospects. Plant Soil 335(1\u0026ndash;2):155\u0026ndash;180. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0520-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11104-010-0520-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScherer H W, Goldbach H E, Clemens J (2003) Potassium dynamics in the soil and yield formation in a long-term field experiment. Plant Soil Environ 64:531\u0026ndash;535. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17221/4189-PSE\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17221/4189-PSE\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShahrokh V, Khademi H, Faz Cano A, Acosta JA (2019) Different forms of soil potassium and clay mineralogy as influenced by the lemon tree rhizospheric environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019,16(8):3979\u0026ndash;3988. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1805-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13762-018-1805-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh VK, Dwivedi BS, Singh Y, Singh SK, Mishra RP, Shukla AK, Rathore SS, Shekhawat K, Majumdar K, Jat ML (2018) Effect of tillage and crop establishment, residue management and K fertilization on yield, K use efficiency and apparent K balance under rice-maize system in north-western India. Field Crops Res 224:1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.04.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.fcr.2018.04.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuo D R, Hou G P, Wang P, et al. Effects of consecutive position fertilization with dung on soil potassium content. J Gansu Agricul Univ 2001, 36(4):457\u0026ndash;460.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan DS, Liu ZH, Jiang LH, Luo JF, Li J (2017) Long-term potash application and wheat straw return reduced soil potassium fixation and affected crop yields in North China. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 108(2):121\u0026ndash;133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9843-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10705-017-9843-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang HY, Shen QH, Zhou JM, Wang J, Du CW, Chen XQ (2011) Plants use alternative strategies to utilize nonexchangeable potassium in minerals. Plant Soil 343(1\u0026ndash;2):209\u0026ndash;220. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0726-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11104-011-0726-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Y, Wu WH (2017) Regulation of potassium transport and signaling in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 39:123\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2017.06.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.pbi.2017.06.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolde Z (2016) A Review on Evaluation of soil potassium status and crop response to potassium fertilization. J Environ Earth Sci 8(6):38\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang C, Kong F (2014) Isolation and identification of potassium-solubilizing bacteria from tobacco rhizospheric soil and their effect on tobacco plants. Appl.Soil Ecol 82:18\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.05.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.05.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang HM, Xu MG, Zhang WJ, He XH (2009) Factors affecting potassium fixation in seven soils under 15-year long-term fertilization. Chin Sci Bull 54(10):1773\u0026ndash;1780. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-009-0164-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11434-009-0164-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang HM, Xu MG, Zhu P, Peng C (2010) Effect of 15-year-long fertilization on potassium quantity/intensity relationships in black soil in northeastern China. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 42(11):1289\u0026ndash;1297. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.571739\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00103624.2011.571739\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang HM, Yang XY, He XH, Xu MG, Huang SM, Liu H, Wang BR (2011) Effect of long-term potassium fertilization on crop yield and potassium efficiency and balance under wheat-maize rotation in China. Pedosphere 21(2):154\u0026ndash;163. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60113-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60113-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang SQ, Yang L, Huang SM, Lou YL, Nie SW, Guo DD, Shin I (2014) Relationship between the available potassium content and the input level of potassium in tidal soil under long-term fertilization. J Plant Nutr Fer 20(3):773\u0026ndash;777.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao J, Chen S, Hu R, Li Y (2017) Aggregate stability and size distribution of red soils under different land uses integrally regulated by soil organic matter, and iron and aluminum oxides. Soil Tillage Res 167:73\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.11.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.still.2016.11.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao QG. Degradation of red soil in China. Soils 1995, 27(6): 281\u0026ndash;285. (in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao S, He P, Qiu S, Jia L, Liu M, Jin J, Johnston AM (2014) Long-term effects of potassium fertilization and straw return on soil potassium levels and crop yields in north-central China. Field Crops Res 169: 116\u0026ndash;122. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.09.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.fcr.2014.09.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao XH, Yu HQ, Wen J, Wang XG, Du Q, Wang J, Wang Q (2016) Response of root morphology, physiology and endogenous hormones in maize (Zea mays L.) to potassium deficiency. J Integr Agric 15(4):785\u0026ndash;794. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61246-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61246-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu YG, Luo JX (1994) Potassium status and contents of K-bearing minerals of some soils in Southern China. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 1994, 31(4): 430\u0026ndash;438.(in Chinese)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"chemical-and-biological-technologies-in-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture](https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/)","snPcode":"40538","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40538/3","title":"Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture","twitterHandle":"@SpringerPlants","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Soil parental materials, maize, pot experiment, soil-available potassium, crop potassium uptake","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5001014/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5001014/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground and aims:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRed soil is one of the main soil types in southern China, but potassium (K) availability varies greatly among red soils developed from different parental materials. The objective was to provide precise guidance for efficiently utilizing potassium resources in red soil regions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study selected red soils developed from three different parental materials, which include quaternary red clay (QRC), granite (GRA), and purple sand shale (PSS) in red soil regions. A pot experiment was conducted with varying practices of fertilization, including straw mulching (S), nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application (NPK), nitrogen-phosphorus-K fertilizer application with straw mulching (S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK), livestock manure application with straw mulching (S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M), and no fertilizer application (CK). Then, crop biomass, K uptake, exchangeable K (EK)and non-exchangeable K (NEK) were analyzed, meanwhile, the correlation between soil EK, NEK and crop K uptake were discussed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results showed that compared to CK, S, NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments significantly increased maize biomass and K uptake on red soils developed from QRC, GRA, and PSS, with increases ranging from 27.55\u0026ndash;412.76% and 28.74\u0026ndash;340.00%, respectively. Compared to CK, the different fertilization practices resulted in increases of 25.00\u0026ndash;119.05% and 4.76\u0026ndash;104.20% in exchangeable K (EK)and non-exchangeable K (NEK), respectively. However, there were differences among different parental materials. Both QRC and PSS showed a significant trend of higher EK content in the S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK treatment, while on GRA, the NPK, S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;NPK, and S\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;M treatments all showed a significant trend of higher EK content. Further research revealed a significant positive correlation between EK, NEK, and crop K uptake on red soils developed from GRA and PSS. In contrast, no significant relationship was observed on red soils developed from QRC.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003es On red soils developed from different parental materials, the effectiveness of fertilization practices such as straw mulching, chemical fertilizer, and organic manure varied greatly in increasing maize biomass, K uptake, EK, and NEK. Additionally, the soil K fertility level of different parental materials significantly influenced the quantitative relationship between EK, NEK, and crop K uptake.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Response Characteristics of Potassium Availability in Red Soil with Different Parental Materials to Different Fertilization Practices","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-10-08 09:42:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5001014/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-09-06T17:18:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-09-05T13:04:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture","date":"2024-08-30T04:07:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"chemical-and-biological-technologies-in-agriculture","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture](https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/)","snPcode":"40538","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40538/3","title":"Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture","twitterHandle":"@SpringerPlants","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3a1b2012-fe21-4476-a935-f20cab1e4779","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 8th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-08T09:42:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-10-08 09:42:57","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5001014","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5001014","identity":"rs-5001014","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}