Biodegradable plastic film mulch increased nitrous oxide emissions in organic leek but decreased emissions in organic cabbages

Biodegradable plastic film mulch increased nitrous oxide emissions in organic leek but decreased emissions in organic cabbages | 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 Biodegradable plastic film mulch increased nitrous oxide emissions in organic leek but decreased emissions in organic cabbages martin Joseph samphire, David L Jones, David R Chadwick This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4710284/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Plastic film mulch (PFM) controls weeds and increases yields, making them attractive to vegetable growers; biodegradable PFMs potentially reduce the harms associated with conventional PFMs. PFMs increase soil biological activity, accelerating the decomposition of soil organic matter and potentially increasing emissions of some greenhouse gases (GHGs). Conversely, they are a barrier to rainfall infiltration and gas exchange, reducing harmful nitrate (NO 3 − ) leaching and ammonia (NH 3 ) volatilisation. The effects of PFMs on the processes resulting in GHG emissions are not well explored outside conventionally grown commodity crops in major growing regions. To address this, we conducted a field plot-scale experiment on an organic vegetable farm in SW Wales (UK). We measured nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and potential NH 3 emission from the soil, growing leeks or cabbages, with or without biodegradable PFM and amended with poultry manure or green-waste compost. Averaged across both crops, yield was 26% higher with PFM; potential NH 3 emissions were 18% lower (43% on a yield-scaled basis) in mulched treatments than unmulched; CH 4 emissions were not significantly affected. Yield-scaled N 2 O emissions were 62% higher in mulched leeks than unmulched but 56% lower in mulched cabbages than unmulched; this coincided with higher soil NO 3 − concentrations in mulched leeks than either unmulched crop or mulched cabbages. Results were not obtained for CO 2 , so partial global warming potential (GWP) and greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) were determined mainly by N 2 O emissions. Thus, biodegradable PFM is potentially useful in reducing harmful gaseous N emissions in organic horticulture. Sustainable plasticulture Organic farming Soil quality PLA Nitrogen dynamics Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 1. Introduction Enhancing crop yield has been the primary imperative of agronomists; however, it is increasingly recognised that this must be balanced against the harms caused to the environment and human health, particularly those associated with nitrogen (N) losses (Fowler et al., 2023). Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in the use of plastic film mulches (PFM) within agricultural production due to their ability to increase crop yields (Nachimuthu et al., 2017 ; Sun et al., 2020 ). These increases have been attributed to increased water and nutrient use efficiency, protection against soil erosion, the suppression of weeds and pests and thermal insulation of the soil (Gao et al., 2019 ; Kasirajan & Ngouajio, 2012a ; Lamont, 2005 ). They can act as a barrier to rainfall infiltration and gas exchange at the soil surface and affect the system's energy balance by regulating radiation, convection, and evaporation, which can influence soil moisture, temperature, and gas exchange. These, in turn, may affect crop growth, soil biological processes and soil carbon (C) and N cycling in numerous ways (Fig. S1 ). However, the legacy of plastic left in the soil at the end of the cropping season and its potential to generate nano- and micro-plastics has led to significant concerns about the sustainability of plastic mulch film use in agriculture (Salama & Geyer, 2023 ; Steinmetz et al., 2016 ). One potential solution to this has been the adoption of biodegradable mulch films, which rapidly biodegrade in the soil at the end of the growing season (Kasirajan & Ngouajio, 2012b ). Recently, mesocosm-based experiments have suggested that biodegradable plastic mulch films may, however, negatively alter soil functioning and N dynamics, while others have shown minimal effect (Brown et al., 2023 ; Rauscher et al., 2023 ; Reay et al., 2023 ). The potential effect of residual micro-plastics is in contrast to the positive impact of using the films as a mulch in field experiments (Lee et al., 2021 ; Samphire et al., 2023 ). The relative importance of positive effects on N cycling and yield and the adverse effects of biodegradable PFM in long-term use are poorly explored. This has led to the call for more research to better understand how PFMs alter soil and plant functioning when used in the field, particularly with biodegradable mulch films (Qi et al., 2020 ; Salama & Geyer, 2023 ; Serrano-Ruiz et al., 2021 ) Most previous studies have indicated that conventional LDPE-based PFMs can reduce NH 3 emissions despite the increases in soil temperature and NH 4 + concentration under the film (Chae et al., 2022 ; Fang et al., 2022 ; Li et al., 2022 ; Mo et al., 2020 ). This has been ascribed to the PFM reducing gas exchange, increasing the partial pressure of NH 3 in the air under the mulch, preventing soil drying and tipping the equilibrium towards the retention of dissolved NH 4 + . In contrast, there is no consensus on the effect of PFM on N 2 O fluxes. Fang et al. ( 2022 ) found that PFM reduced N 2 O emissions, while Nan et al. ( 2016 ) found the opposite effect. Three meta-analyses in China have also reported different results: (i) PFM reduces N 2 O emissions under moderate N fertilisation rates but increases emissions at high N application rates (Mo et al., 2020 ); (ii) PFM use increases N 2 O emissions (Yu et al., 2021 ), but only in paddy fields or with non-biodegradable PFM; or (iii) PFM has no significant effect on N 2 O emissions (Wei et al., 2022 ). The differences in these analyses were probably due to the inclusion of different crops, management practices and climate regimes, but all involved major staple crops under continental conditions. PFM often leads to increased microbial activity and, hence, respiration and breakdown of soil organic matter (SOM). This can lead to increased CO 2 emissions (Li et al., 2022 ) and a net loss of soil C. However, increased crop growth and C returns (e.g., rhizodeposition and crop residues) can mitigate this (Wang et al., 2016 ). A meta-analysis found that although PFM increased CO 2 emissions, it resulted in net C sequestration in dry upland areas (Mo et al., 2020 ). Several studies have also shown that PFM can increase CH 4 emissions which has been attributed to higher soil water contents under the PFM (Cuello et al., 2015 ; Wang H. et al., 2021 ; Yu et al., 2021 ), although occasionally, the opposite trend is found (Nan et al., 2016 ). As the use of PFM usually results in increased crop yields, it is important, however, to yield-scale greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Islam Bhuiyan et al., 2021 ) For example, the higher GHG emissions under PFM management were shown to be lower than the unmulched control when crop yield was taken into account (Li et al., 2022 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). Most previous studies on the effects of biodegradable PFM on GHG emissions have focussed on major commodity crops, conventional farming using mineral fertilisers, and regions with drier or warmer climates. In contrast, there is very little information regarding their performance under organic management regimes, in vegetable crops, or in moist temperate climates, contexts which present particular challenges with yield-scaled environmental impacts from gaseous N emission (Hergoualc’h et al., 2021 ; Skinner et al., 2014 ; Tei et al., 2020 ). However, PFM may play a significant role in these conditions: it may speed up the breakdown of organic matter (Jin et al., 2018 ), reduce the impacts of high rainfall, such as leaching (Quemada & Gabriel, 2016 ) and waterlogging (Snyder et al., 2015 ), and increase nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in vegetable crops, some of which are known to be poor in this respect (Samphire et al., 2023 ). While the effects of PFM on the soil microclimate, crop yield and N availability are relatively well studied, little is known about the effect of biodegradable PFMs on gaseous emissions, particularly with horticultural crops, in wetter climates, and the interaction with organic amendments. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the effect of biodegradable PFM on gaseous N fluxes in field-grown organic vegetables (N efficient cabbages vs. N inefficient leeks) under two contrasting organic fertiliser regimes (poultry manure vs. green waste compost). We hypothesised that (i) PFM would increase crop growth and yield due to more consistent soil moisture availability and higher soil temperature; (ii) PFM would result in higher NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations due to greater rates of SOM turnover and reduced leaching; (iii) the increases in mineral N would result in higher gaseous losses of NH 3 and N 2 O, but (iv) net GHG losses would be lower when expressed on a yield-scaled basis. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Experimental site The experimental field site was at a commercial organic horticultural farm in SW Wales, UK (51°47’N, 4°12’E; 130 m a.s.l.). The soil is classified as a free-draining, silty clay loam textured Eutric Cambisol developed on a carboniferous sandstone and shale parent material (NSRI, 2016). The main soil chemical and physical properties ( n = 5) for the top 10 cm of soil at the start of the experiment are summarised in Table S1 . pH and available P, K, and Mg content were determined by a commercial laboratory (Cawood Scientific Ltd., NRM Laboratories, Berkshire, UK). The mean annual rainfall (1981–2010) is 1380 mm and the annual mean air temperature is 10.4°C (Met Office, 2021 ). During the experimental period (June 1st to Sept. 10th, 2022), daily temperature and precipitation data were measured at a nearby weather station (within 2 km), giving a mean air temp of 16.5°C and total rainfall of 355 mm (The Weather Company, 2022 ). The experimental site has been under commercial organic horticulture since 2010, growing mixed vegetable crops in rotation with green manures. The experimental plot had been planted with a mixed ley of grass, clovers, and herbs in the previous seasons; this was incorporated by plough in January, and the seedbed was prepared by secondary cultivation and rolling to create beds running across the slope. 2.2. Experimental treatments The experiment consisted of two crops, namely leeks ( Allium ampeloprasum L. cv. Jolant) and cabbages ( Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata cv. Stanton). These were chosen to represent typical horticultural crops with contrasting N uptake profiles (D’Haene et al., 2018 ; Everaarts, 1993 ; Karic et al., 2005 ; Thorup-Kristensen and Sorensen, 1999)Cell-grown transplants raised by a commercial nursery (Delfland Nurseries Ltd. Doddington, March, Cambridgeshire, UK) were used. The mulch film was a 15 µm thick, black biodegradable polylactic acid (PLA)- based PFM, Gro-clean Bio-Mulch® (Gromax Industries Ltd., Hadleigh, Suffolk, UK). Two organic fertilisers were used: pelleted sterilised poultry manure (Greenvale Farms limited, Middleton Tyas, North Yorkshire, UK) was spread at a rate of 1 t ha − 1 (total N, 44 kg N ha − 1 ), and municipal green waste and food waste compost (Cwm Environmental Ltd., Nantycaws, Carmarthenshire, UK) at a rate of 25 t ha − 1 (total N, 163 kg N ha − 1 ); the equivalent field spreading rate was 0.8 and 20 t ha − 1 respectively as fertilisers were only applied on the beds and not the wheelings between beds. The nutrient analysis of these amendments is shown in Table S2. 2.3. Experimental design A randomised block design was used with 32 plots and four blocks with all combinations of the three treatments in each block. Beds were created by rolling on 2nd July, and the biodegradable PFM was laid on the plots on 4th July 2022. The main treatments consisted of plots with and without biodegradable PFM. The subplots used two treatments: poultry manure (m) and green waste compost (c). Cabbages were planted at 40 × 40 cm spacing (6.25 plants m − 2 on the bed, 50,000 plants ha − 1 on field scale including wheelings) and leeks at 30 × 30 cm spacing (11.1 plants m − 2 on the bed, 88,000 plants ha − 1 on field scale including wheelings) on 5th July 2022. These planting densities are typical for commercial organically grown cabbages and leeks (Davies & Lennartson, 2005 ). To avoid sampling affecting subsequent results, all measurements were taken at least 20 cm from holes made in the PFM for previous observations. When multiple samples were taken on a single occasion (for soil mineral N analysis), these were taken from a defined area rather than the whole plot. 2.4. Plant measurements During the experiment, rows of plants were harvested, and their fresh weight was determined before oven-drying (80°C, 8 h). The dried samples were ground using a Retsch stainless steel ball mill and then analysed for total C and N using a TruSpec® CN analyser (Leco Corp., St Joseph, MI). Only above-ground parts were analysed; we did not test the N content of the roots, but it is unlikely to be significant for these crops (Huett & Dettmann, 1991 ). The yield was calculated as fresh and dry matter yield per plant and economic yield, which was the weight of the fresh plants trimmed of outer leaves and stems to the standard of the farm on which the experiment was conducted and scaled per hectare. Mid-season measurements were taken from plants adjacent to the gas sampling area, but at harvest, measurements were taken from plants both within and adjacent to this area. 2.5 Soil measurements Soil temperature and volumetric moisture sensors (TDT-SDI-12; Acclima Inc., Meridian, ID) were installed at a depth of 5 cm. One sensor was placed within the gas sampling area and one in an adjacent area of the plot (Fig. S2). Readings were recorded hourly using SDI-12 DataSnap data loggers (Acclima Inc.). Volumetric soil moisture content was converted to gravimetric soil water content and then to Water-Filled Pore Space (WFPS) as follows: WFPS = Ɵ v / Φ (Eq. 1) where Ɵ v is volumetric soil water content, and Φ is total soil porosity. Φ was calculated by: Φ = (1 - Ρ b /Ρ p ) (Eq. 2) where Ρ b is soil bulk density, and Ρ p represents soil particle density (2.47g cm − 3 ) (Sumner, 2000 ) The tea bag method of Keuskamp et al. ( 2013 ) was used to estimate soil biological activity. For this, the mass loss of the relatively easily degraded 'green' tea (C:N of 12) and the more recalcitrant rooibos (‘red’) tea (C:N of 60) were measured to determine the rate of decay k ( the exponential rate of decay calculated from the proportion of mass lost from the ‘red’ tea), and stabilisation factor S (the proportion of the mass of green tea remaining relative to the fraction thought to be degradable estimated from chemical hydrolysis) (Duddigan et al., 2020 ). The equations to calculate k and S are: k = ln(a r / (W (t) – (1-a r ))) / T (Eq. 3) S = (1 - (a g / H g )) (Eq. 4) where a r = the decomposable fraction of red tea assumed to be the same fraction of hydrolysable material as that calculated for green tea so: a r = Hr(a g / H g ) (Eq. 5) where T = length of time buried in days, W (t) = fraction of red tea remaining after burial for time T, a g is the fraction of green tea lost, and Hg and H r are the easily degradable fractions of green and red tea, respectively, determined by hydrolysis (Hr = 0.522, H g = 0.842; (Keuskamp et al., 2013 ) Three pairs of Lipton Green Sencha (‘green’ tea) or Lipton Rooibos and Hibiscus tea bags (‘red’ tea) (Unilever Ltd., London, UK) were buried at a soil depth of 5 cm, spaced 20 cm apart (Fig. S2). These were recovered at the end of the experiment. The mass loss relative to the starting weight was determined after oven-drying the remaining tea in the litter bags at 60ºC until constant weight. To assess soil available NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations, five soil cores (0–10 cm) were taken every 14 days from between the plants in each subplot. After sample homogenisation, 5 g of soil was extracted with 25 ml of 1 M KCl (200 rev min − 1 , 1 h), the extracts filtered, and the filtrate stored at -18°C prior to analysis. Soil moisture was determined by oven drying (105°C, 12 h). NO 3 − and NH 4 + in the KCl extracts were measured colourimetrically using the vanadate methods of Miranda et al. (2001) and the salicylic acid method of Mulvaney (1996), respectively. To avoid damaging the PFM within the gas sampling area, samples were taken from area adjacent areas during the growing season, but at the end of the experiment, samples were taken from both within the gas sampling area and adjacent to it. 2.6. Measurement of gaseous fluxes Measuring gaseous emission through a PFM under field conditions has several challenges. Gases may escape through planting holes or damaged film and by diffusion through the film or from the edge of the bed. Gas may build up in spaces under the film and be concentrated in the soil profile. Any penetration of the film to place a measuring chamber could measure a release of the accumulated gases rather than the steady state flux from the soil. Placing a chamber for a prolonged period may also affect soil conditions (Rochette and Hutchinson, 2005 ). If a hole in the film is made for one set of observations, the conditions may be changed for the following observations. The apparatus for sampling gases is shown in Figure S3. GHG emissions and potential NH 3 emissions were measured using a static chamber method similar to that employed by (Li et al., 2022 ). Before mulch and fertility treatments were applied, a UPVC collar was pushed into the soil so the rim was flush with the soil surface. Adhesive tape was then used to fix the mulch film to the collar. A UPVC sampling chamber (internally 390 mm × 390 mm × 300 mm) was placed on the collar and sealed using wet clay for each sampling occasion. The chambers were removed from the collars after each GHG and potential NH 3 emission measurement to prevent any differences in the microclimate in the area when the chamber was not in use. GHG sampling was conducted at least weekly at first, but after mid-season, the frequency was reduced to approximately every two weeks; in all, there were 11 sampling occasions over the course of the experiment. Unfortunately, the cabbages grew too large for the chambers in August, so the two penultimate observations were for leeks only. The final GHG flux measurements were taken immediately after the crop harvest so all plots could again be sampled, Gas samples were withdrawn through the rubber septum using a 25 ml syringe and injected into pre-evacuated 20 ml vials. GHG flux was calculated from the change in concentration in the headspace gases between initial samples and samples taken after 60 min. Additional samples were taken from one randomly selected chamber on each occasion, at 15, 30, and 45 mins, to check for linearity of change in headspace gas concentrations; these were satisfactory. Samples were analysed on a Perkin Elmer 580 Gas Chromatograph with a TurboMatrix 110 auto sampler (PerkinElmer, CT, USA). Gas samples passed through two Elite-Q mega bore columns via a split injector, with one connected to a 63 Ni electron-capture detector for N 2 O determination and the other connected to a Flame Ionisation Detector for CH 4 and CO 2 determination. Fluxes were estimated using the slope of the linear regression between 0 min and 60 mins, considering the temperature and the ratio between chamber headspace volume and soil surface area. Cumulative GHG fluxes were estimated by linear interpolation between sampling points. Potential ammonia emission was measured using the same chamber on different occasions. A sponge (80 × 80 × 10 mm was soaked with 10 ml of 1 M H 2 SO 4 mixture containing 5% glycol (Shigaki and Dell, 2015 ). This was suspended from the lid of the gas chamber and left in the closed chamber for 4 h. The sponge was kept in a closed vessel before and after collection to avoid absorption of background atmospheric NH 3 . After being returned to the laboratory, the sponges were shaken with 40 ml 1 M KCl for 20 min, and the extract was subsequently stored at -18°C. Subsequently, 10 ml of the extract was placed in a 50 ml polypropylene tube, and an excess of 1 M NaOH was added to promote NH 3 release. The NH 3 released was trapped in 0.015 M H 3 PO 4 over 16 h, and the NH 4 + in the traps was determined colourimetrically using the salicylic acid method of Mulvaney (1996). Yield-scaled emissions were calculated by: E ys = E t /Y ec (Eq. 6) where E ys is the yield-scaled emissions, E t is total emissions, and Y ec is the economic yield. To investigate the effect of PFM on nitrification and denitrification rates, we examined the relationship between soil NO 3 − and NH 4 + concentrations and N 2 O efflux. N 2 O efflux as a proportion of soil NO 3 − and NH 4 + concentration was calculated by: E nn = E n /C n (Eq. 7) where E nn is the N 2 O efflux as a proportion of soil NO 3 − and NH 4 + concentration, E n = N 2 O efflux, and C n is the concentration of either NO 3 − and NH 4 + in the top 10 cm of soil at the nearest sampling period (10 out of 12 of these where within 24 h, the other two within 48 h of N 2 O efflux measurement). As nitrification dominates N 2 O in drier soils, switching to denitrification at between 60 and 70% soil moisture (Wang et al., 2023a ), we also analysed the relationship between soil NO 3 − and NH 4 + concentrations and N 2 O efflux separately for drier and wetter soil conditions. Global Warming Potential (GWP) over a 100-year period was calculated by (Forster et al. 2021 ): GWP = 27 (N 2 O flux) + 273 (CH 4 flux) + CO 2 flux (Eq. 8) and Greenhouse Gas Intensity (GHGI) was calculated by: GHGI = GWP/Y ec (Eq. 9). 2.7. Statistical analysis Data were analysed in R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). Mixed effects modelling was carried out using the Lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015 ). The best-fit model was determined by a comparison of models using the experimental variables (mulch and density or fertility) as fixed effects and the block and bed and where relevant date as random effects in random intercept models; comparisons of log-likelihood were used to determine which models were best, using ANOVA to determine the significance of the differences where necessary. A summary of coefficients and significance levels was extracted with the lmeTest package (Kuznetsova et al., 2017 ). Results are assumed to be significant where p < 0.05. 3. Results 3.1. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on crop yields and N content Fresh and dry matter yield per plant (for both leeks and cabbage) was significantly higher when grown with biodegradable PFM (30% and 26%, respectively; Fig. 1 ). The interaction of PFM with poultry manure fertiliser increased cabbage yield further. The details of the interactions are presented in Table 1 . The economic yield of cabbage was more affected by PFM than leeks (Fig. 1 ). Poultry manure resulted in slightly higher yields when used with PFM and lower without PFM compared to compost in the same combination (Fig. S4); however, this was not statistically significant (Table 1 ). The fresh and dry yield per plant was not significantly different between the GHG monitoring areas and the other areas of the plot. Table 1 Yield characteristics of cabbages and leeks grown with or without biodegradable PFM combined with either poultry manure or green-waste compost. Values represent means ± SEM ( n = 4). Mulch Crop Fertiliser Fresh yield (g plant − 1 ) Dry matter yield (g plant − 1 ) Economic yield a (Mg ha − 1 ) No Mulch Leek Compost 243 ± 12 22.4 ± 2.2 14.4 ± 1.0 Poultry Manure 244 ± 11 24.8 ± 1.0 12.6 ± 0.4 Cabbage Compost 1117 ± 93 137.3 ± 11.5 19.5 ± 2.5 Poultry Manure 925 ± 52 119.1 ± 1.1 16.5 ± 1.5 Biodegradable PFM Leek Compost 314 ± 14 28.5 ± 1.9 17.3 ± 0.9 Poultry Manure 306 ± 22 27.8 ± 2.2 16.8 ± 1.6 Cabbage Compost 1338 ± 79 145.2 ± 5.3 29.4 ± 4.1 Poultry Manure 1482 ± 77 170.0 ± 15.4 31.1 ± 3.8 Statistical analysis Mulch *** * ** Fertiliser ns ns ns Crop b NA NA *** Mulch*Fertiliser ns ns ns Mulch*Crop ns ns * Crop*Fertiliser 0.06 ns ns Mulch*Crop*Fertiliser * * ns ns -not significant, Significant differences: * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.005, *** - p < 0.001. p-value is given for the marginal case. a Economic yield is the yield of the fresh crop, trimmed to the standard of the farm on which the experiment was conducted, including wheelings between beds in the area. b For dry and fresh yield per plant, analysis was carried out on % of crop mean yield of each crop type as crops gave very different yields. Cabbages had significantly higher N content and a lower C: N ratio at harvest; this, combined with higher yield, resulted in N uptake that was three to five times higher than that of leeks (Table 2 ). Biodegradable PFM increased crop N content and reduced the C: N ratio, but the effect was smaller in cabbages than in leeks. The choice of organic amendment did not significantly affect these metrics. Table 2 Crop N content, C/N ratio and N uptake. Values represent means ± SEM ( n = 4). Mulch Crop Fertiliser Crop N content at Harvest (%) Crop C/N ratio at harvest Crop N uptake mid-season (g m − 2 ) Crop N uptake at harvest (g m − 2 ) No Mulch Leek Compost 3.59 ± 0.35 11.75 ± 0.94 0.27 ± 0.03 9.06 ± 1.47 Poultry Manure 3.68 ± 0.41 11.82 ± 0.68 0.21 ± 0.04 10.10 ± 0.44 Cabbage Compost 5.29 ± 0.35 7.61 ± 0.08 3.65 ± 1.08 45.59 ± 4.59 Poultry Manure 4.92 ± 0.23 8.13 ± 0.21 2.45 ± 0.49 36.61 ± 1.24 Biodegradable PFM Leek Compost 4.70 ± 0.41 8.98 ± 0.39 0.45 ± 0.06 14.79 ± 0.63 Poultry Manure 4.72 ± 0.46 8.79 ± 0.19 0.40 ± 0.04 14.59 ± 1.20 Cabbage Compost 5.31 ± 0.22 7.45 ± 0.34 3.45 ± 0.22 48.35 ± 3.44 Poultry Manure 5.43 ± 0.31 7.14 ± 0.14 3.06 ± 0.42 57.56 ± 4.82 Statistical analysis Mulch *** *** Fertiliser ns ns Crop *** *** Mulch*Fertiliser ns ns Mulch*Crop ** *** Crop*Fertiliser ns ns Mulch*Crop*Fertiliser ns ns ns -not significant; Significant differences: * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.005, *** - p < 0.001. 3.2. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil gas fluxes On most occasions, measured fluxes of N 2 O were significantly higher from PFM plots with leeks, but the size of the effect varied (Table 3 , Fig. 2 ). There was a notable emission peak for all treatments three days after the start of the experiment. Over the growing season, PFM resulted in significantly higher cumulative N 2 O emissions than unmulched treatments for leeks; however, for PFM with cabbages, this situation was reversed (Table 3 , Fig. 3 ). Crop type did not affect cumulative N 2 O emissions from the unmulched plots. The organic amendment did not significantly impact N 2 O emissions. Table 3 Cumulative seasonal emissions and yield-scaled emissions of N 2 O, CH 4 and NH 3 from soils with PFM mulch or No mulch combined with a crop of cabbages or leeks and fertilised with poultry manure or green-waste compost. Values represent means ± SEM ( n = 4). Mulch Crop Fertiliser Seasonal N 2 O emission (mg N m − 2 ) Yield-scaled N 2 O emission (kg N Mg − 1 ) Seasonal CH 4 emission (mg m − 2 ) Seasonal GHGI (N 2 O + CH 4 ) (g CO 2 eq m − 2 ) Yield-scaled GHGI (N 2 O + CH 4 ) (kg CO 2 eq Mg − 1 ) Seasonal NH 3 emissions (mg N m − 2 ) Yield-scaled NH 3 emissions (kg N Mg − 1 ) No Mulch Leek Compost 71.5 ± 15.7 0.065 ± 0.017 -75.0 ± 25.0 17.5 ± 4.9 16.0 ± 5.0 336.1 ± 64.8 0.291 ± 0.056 Poultry Manure 77.1 ± 22.6 0.076 ± 0.021 -65.7 ± 23.7 19.3 ± 6.1 19.0 ± 5.7 299.6 ± 58.2 0.299 ± 0.058 Cabbage Compost 53.5 ± 23.5 0.038 ± 0.016 -91.8 ± 16.5 12.2 ± 6.7 8.9 ± 4.3 423.0 ± 38.9 0.282 ± 0.037 Poultry Manure 88.7 ± 15.2 0.070 ± 0.014 -70.2 ± 29.9 22.3 ± 4.0 17.8 ± 3.8 598.4 ± 147.3 0.480 ± 0.126 Biodegradable PFM Leek Compost 149.5 ± 51.9 0.109 ± 0.040 -64.0 ± 31.0 39.1 ± 14.6 28.5 ± 11.2 242.1 ± 86.5 0.178 ± 0.066 Poultry Manure 163.4 ± 30.7 0.121 ± 0.017 -44.8 ± 41.6 43.4 ± 8.7 33.4 ± 5.2 239.6 ± 39.0 0.178 ± 0.022 Cabbage Compost 51.6 ± 18.5 0.023 ± 0.007 -25.1 ± 47.9 13.4 ± 4.7 5.8 ± 1.7 368.3 ± 48.8 0.173 ± 0.044 Poultry Manure 85.8 ± 8.5 0.036 ± 0.006 -80.6 ± 28.2 21.2 ± 2.0 8.9 ± 1.2 546.5 ± 58.6 0.236 ± 0.051 Statistical analysis Mulch ** * ns ** * ** 0.07 Fertiliser ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Crop ns ns ns ns ns ns * Mulch*Fertiliser ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Mulch*Crop * ** ns * ** ns ns Crop*Fertiliser ns ns ns ns ns * * Mulch*Crop*Fertiliser ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns -not significant; Significant differences: * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.005, *** - p < 0.001. On most occasions, the measured daily CH 4 fluxes were very low and not significantly different between treatments. Despite a peak in emissions in the second week of the experiment, the cumulative effect was a net CH 4 consumption. However, there was no significant difference between the treatments (Fig. 4 ). Measured potential NH 3 fluxes were higher overall in the unmulched than in the PFM treatments, but the significance was low ( p = 0.055). Daily NH 3 fluxes were significantly different in the first week and at the end of the experiment but not at other times (Fig. 5 ). This resulted in cumulative seasonal emissions, which were also numerically higher in the unmulched plots, but again with weak significance ( p = 0.07). However, a crop of cabbages and the interaction of cabbages grown with poultry manure fertiliser resulted in higher cumulative emissions. On a yield-scaled basis, PFM led to significantly lower NH 3 emissions (Fig. 6 ). N 2 O emission as a proportion of NO 3 − concentration in the topsoil (0–10 cm) was significantly lower in mulched plots ( p < 0.05); the occasions when there was a significantly higher proportion of emissions in unmulched plots appear to coincide with peaks of %WFPS (Fig. S5). In contrast, N 2 O emission as a proportion of the soil NH 4 + content was significantly higher in mulched plots ( p < 0.05). When WFPS was < 60%, there was a significant positive correlation between N 2 O flux and soil NH 4 + concentration in PFM plots ( p ≤ 0.05) but not unmulched plots, and PFM increased the rate of emission (Fig. S6A); on the other hand, there was no relationship between N 2 O flux and soil NO 3 − (Fig. S7A). In contrast, when WFPS was > 60%, PFM did not significantly affect the relationship between N 2 O flux and soil NH 4 + concentration (Fig. S6B). However, there was a strong positive correlation between N 2 O flux and soil NO 3 − content ( p < 0.05), which was not present in the PFM plots (Fig. S7B). 3.3. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil mineral N dynamics There was an initial peak in soil NH 4 + concentrations in the first 4 weeks, after which the concentrations remained low. This pattern was the same in all treatments, but this initial peak was higher in the poultry manure amended plots (Fig. 7 A&B). Overall, PFM and poultry manure significantly increased soil NH 4 + concentrations. Initially, soil NO 3 − concentrations were also high but decreased after four weeks in all treatments other than PFM with leeks, which had a substantial surplus by harvest of 99 ± 18 mg NO 3 − -N kg − 1 (Fig. 7 C&D). The unmulched plots had the lowest soil NO 3 − concentrations at harvest, averaging 2.4 ± 0.4 mg NO 3 − -N kg − 1 . The soil in mulched cabbage plots (8.2 ± 3 mg NO 3 − -N kg − 1 ) was higher than that in unmulched plots but less than 10% of that of mulched leeks. Table 4 shows the measured N inputs and outputs and the changes in soil mineral N concentration over the course of the experiment: unmulched plots had a reduction in soil mineral N content over the experiment, mulched leeks resulted in an increase, but mulched cabbages resulted in a reduction. Cabbages resulted in significantly higher crop N uptake due to their higher yield and N content; PFM also increased N uptake because of increased yield and N concentration. Table 4 Changes in soil mineral N concentration and known N inputs and outflows. Values represent means ± SEM ( n = 4). Mulch Crop Fertiliser Change in soil mineral N conc. (0–10 cm) (g N m − 2 ) Crop N uptake (g N m − 2 ) Measured losses of N 2 O and NH 3 (g N m − 2 ) Added N in fertiliser (g N m − 2 ) No Mulch Leek Compost -2.56 ± 0.04 9.06 ± 1.47 0.41 ± 0.03 16.5 Poultry Manure -2.77 ± 0.07 10.10 ± 0.44 0.38 ± 0.03 4.4 Cabbage Compost -2.57 ± 0.03 45.59 ± 4.59 0.48 ± 0.02 16.5 Poultry Manure -2.48 ± 0.25 36.61 ± 1.24 0.69 ± 0.07 4.4 Biodegradable PFM Leek Compost 6.17 ± 0.23 14.79 ± 0.63 0.39 ± 0.05 16.5 Poultry Manure 6.39 ± 1.14 14.59 ± 1.20 0.40 ± 0.02 4.4 Cabbage Compost -2.13 ± 1.85 48.35 ± 3.44 0.42 ± 0.03 16.5 Poultry Manure -1.56 ± 0.30 57.56 ± 4.82 0.63 ± 0.03 4.4 3.4. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil biological activity The teabag biodegradation assay showed that biodegradable PFM caused a significantly higher rate of decay, k , and a significantly lower stabilisation index, S (Fig. 8 ). These parameters were not significantly affected by organic amendment or crop type. 3.5. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil microclimate Table S3 shows the mean soil temperature and moisture for mulch and crop treatments over the season, while Figure S8 shows the fluctuation of these parameters plotted alongside air temperature and precipitation. Biodegradable PFM moderated temperature and moisture fluctuations, resulting in lower soil moisture and higher average soil temperature relative to the unmulched soil over the growing period. Cabbages resulted in drier and cooler soil on average than leeks; these differences were larger than those for the mulch treatments. 4. Discussion 4.1. Soil hydrothermal conditions The application of a PFM resulted in relatively small overall changes in soil hydrothermal conditions; however, it was effective in reducing fluctuations in soil moisture and preventing extremes of both soil temperature and moisture. This contrasts with previous studies where black PFMs are often found to raise mean soil temperatures by 2ºC or more (Locher et al., 2005 ; Schonbeck & Evanylo, 1998a ). This is possibly due to less film-soil contact and the insulating effect of air gaps between mulch and soil (Liakatas, 1986; Tarrara, 2000), as well as reduced sunlight hours and, thus, incident UV radiation in the maritime climate. PFM reduces evaporation and rainfall infiltration, reducing the rate of both wetting and drying (Snyder et al., 2015 ; Tarara, 2000 ). The effects of PFM on soil moisture are likely to vary spatially with both depth and distance from the planting holes (Chen et al., 2018 ; Saglam et al., 2017 ). It is likely that at shallower depths, the differences that PFM causes to soil wetting and drying will be more pronounced than those measured in deeper soil layers. The difference in soil moisture between cabbages and leeks was larger than between mulch treatments; we ascribe this to the greater relative leaf area of cabbages, which resulted in shading and increased transpiration. Further, the mulched cabbage plots had fewer planting holes as they were planted less densely than the leeks, and it is possible that the canopy architecture of cabbages directed rainfall away from the planting holes (Chen et al., 2018 ; Haraguchi et al., 2003 ; Li et al., 2005 ). This heterogeneity of soil moisture response to wetting and drying is likely to have influenced the highly moisture-dependent biotic (e.g., plant N uptake, microbial N cycling) and abiotic (e.g., N leaching, NH3 volatilisation) processes in this study. This is supported by Berger et al. ( 2013 ), who observed lower N 2 O emissions in dry soil away from planting holes and higher emissions in the wetter areas around the planting holes, resulting in an insignificant net effect of PFM. 4.2. Crop yield The average economic yield of cabbages was slightly lower than the standard benchmark for UK organic producers but higher than expected for leeks (Lampkin et al., 2017), possibly reflecting the slightly shorter growing period for the cabbages. Economic yield showed bigger differences between the treatments than yields per plant; this probably reflects enhanced maturity of the crops in mulched plots, resulting in lower leaf-to-head or leaf-to-pseudostem ratio, which comprise the marketable product. PFM increased dry matter yield per plant by 26%, which is in the range typically found for horticultural crops grown with PFM for leeks (Benoit & Ceustermans, 2002 ; Golian & Anyszka, 2015 ), cabbages (Ponjičan et al., 2021 ; Trdan et al., 2008 ) and other horticultural crops (Nachimuthu et al., 2017 ; Samphire et al., 2023 ; Wojciechowska et al., 2007 ). The yield differences are often attributed to the effect of PFM on soil temperature or moisture; however, in this experiment, the differences in these are relatively small, suggesting that other factors were more important (e.g., enhanced NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations). In the unmulched plots, there was no significant difference between the effect of organic amendment type on the yield between the two crops; however, the use of PFM and poultry manure caused a significant increase in yield, particularly for leeks (> 48%). This effect was not detected with compost. This is perhaps related to the relative growth rate of the two crops, leeks being slow to establish (Davies & Lennartson, 2005 ) and perhaps unable to take advantage of the initial short-lived higher available N. 4.3. Soil microbial activity The tea bag index results indicate that biodegradable PFM causes significantly higher rates of SOM turnover. This replicates previous findings on the same site (Samphire et al., 2023 ). The size of the effect is large, given the relatively small changes in mean soil moisture and temperature. However, the relative stability of soil moisture may also be a factor affecting SOM turnover. It is commonly observed that PFM increases soil microbial activity with consequent increases in mineralisation and soil DOC (Bandopadhyay et al., 2018 ; Han et al., 2020 ; Kim et al., 2017 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ). This may be relevant to our soil mineral N and N 2 O emissions findings. 4.4. Soil mineral N PFM increased both soil NO 3 − and NH 4 + concentrations. However, we are not able to attribute this to increased mineralisation or N losses (e.g. NO 3 − leaching and gaseous N 2 from denitrification), as these were not measured in this experiment. Overall, the concentrations of soil NH 4 + were low, indicating a high soil nitrification rate, which is commonly found in cultivated soils with high C and N content when temperature and pH are not limiting (Elrys et al., 2021 ). The highest concentrations were found in the initial period following poultry manure amendments, indicating rapid hydrolysis of readily available N compounds such as urea. PFM also had the largest effect at this time, probably partly by reducing N volatilisation losses. Soil NO 3 − concentrations were higher in the first month for all treatments but became very low in the unmulched plots towards the end of the experiment. This pattern was also present in the mulched cabbages but to a lesser extent, although it was still twice that of the unmulched plots by the end of the experiment. Soil NO 3 − concentrations in mulched plots with leeks were several times higher than in other treatments. Crop uptake was the largest measured factor affecting soil mineral N in this experiment; as it significantly exceeds the total N in inputs from the organic amendments, there must have been significant mineralisation of SOM. The soil in the mulched leek plots increased in soil mineral N concentrations; all other treatments resulted in losses. The difference between this and mulched cabbages can be explained by the greater crop N uptake; the difference between this and unmulched leeks is consistent with biodegradable PFM causing increased mineralisation and reducing unmeasured losses. We only measured mineral N content in the top 10 cm of soil, and it is likely that the crops took up N from deeper soil profiles. This may have been a bigger factor in cabbages than leeks as they are significantly deeper-rooting (Thorup-Kristensen and Sorensen, 1999). Nevertheless, as there is no obvious reason to believe that more N was mineralised in the cabbage plots, it looks like there were substantially higher losses in leek plots, particularly those that were unmulched. The small differences in soil temperature and moisture suggest that mineralisation is unlikely to account for the very low NO 3 − concentrations in unmulched plots with both crops. Considering the lower N uptake caused by lower yield, it must be concluded that there were substantially higher losses in unmulched crops. The measured losses of N 2 O and NH 3 cannot explain these losses. Given the high rainfall events at various times in the experiment, it is likely that leaching was responsible for substantial N loss (Chen et al., 2020 ; Schonbeck & Evanylo, 1998b ). Excess soil mineral N in leeks grown with PFM could be lost by leaching or denitrification. Steps could also be taken to mitigate these losses after harvest, such as growing a green manure or incorporating a high C: N ratio organic material (Constantin et al., 2010 ; Kang et al., 2022 ; Xie & Kristensen, 2017 ). However, it is likely that mineral N, equivalent to a significant portion of this, was lost from unmulched leeks through the growing period. This loss cannot be mitigated and is likely to contribute to environmental impacts elsewhere, for example, eutrophication in aquatic environments (Nixon et al., 1996) and N 2 O emissions from aquatic systems (Pätsch & Kühn, 2008), negating the lower on-farm emissions. Thus, the lower on-farm emissions may not represent the overall environmental impact. It should be noted that leeks would often be grown later in an organic horticultural rotation than cabbages when there is lower available N in the soil (Thorup-Kristensen, 1999 ). Other than initially higher soil NH 4 + concentration with poultry manure, there was little difference in soil mineral N concentrations between the two organic amendments despite total N inputs from the compost being nearly four times as much as that from poultry manure. Up to 50% of N from poultry manure is estimated to be available to the crop in the same season, but the N supply from compost is deemed negligible (AHDB, 2021). The total amount of mineral N in the top 10 cm of soil and crop was significantly greater than the total added by either amendment, suggesting that the contribution of N accumulated from the previous ley was an important source. The ploughing-in of a two-year-old grass and red clover ley may have an N fertiliser replacement value of about 100 kg ha − 1 N (Eriksen et al., 2006 ). 4.5. Gaseous emissions 4.5.1. Methane emissions Net CH 4 flux did not appear to be affected by the treatments. In all treatments, there was a small peak in CH 4 fluxes one week after the start of the experiment; however, this was balanced by net consumption at other times. It is likely that our results are due to the relatively small difference in soil hydrothermal conditions between the treatments. Cuello et al. ( 2015 ) found that PFM significantly increased CH 4 production in Chinese maize cultivation, reflecting the higher soil moisture in their study. In that study, PFM increased CH 4 emissions with both NPK fertiliser and a vetch residue amendment (low C: N ratio) and decreased absorption with barley straw (high C: N ratio). However, this effect was larger with a higher C: N ratio amendment (Cuello et al., 2015 ). Our study found no difference between different organic amendments, but this may be because native SOM and inputs from the ley were much larger. Similarly, the crop grown had no significant effect, which is more unexpected given the significant differences this caused to soil moisture. 4.5.2. Carbon dioxide emissions Unfortunately, equipment failure resulted in no CO 2 emissions data from the soil. Hence, we can only provide a partial GHG intensity of production (N 2 O + CH 4 , expressed as CO 2 equivalent). However, soil emissions would reveal little about the net global warming because they miss the effects of changes in crop photosynthesis, return of crop residues and rhizodeposition; future experiments to calculate Net Ecosystem Exchange could quantify these (Oertel et al., 2016 ). 4.5.3. Nitrous oxide emissions N 2 O emissions were increased by PFM when the crop was leeks but decreased when the crop was cabbages. The higher emissions in mulched leeks are likely partly due to higher soil NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations. Soil hydrothermal conditions could also have contributed as the differences between cabbages and leeks were greater than those between mulched and unmulched treatment, particularly later in the growing season. The only research on PFM mulch and N 2 O emissions in a related climate examined the establishment of Miscanthus for biofuel production (Holder et al., 2019 ). They found that PFM caused no significant difference in N 2 O emissions over two years compared to the other establishment methods. PFM resulted in greater soil NO 3 − concentrations and drier soil, and these two factors may have had opposite effects of a similar magnitude, resulting in no significant overall effect on N 2 O fluxes. In our study, the differences in mean soil moisture were minor. Two studies in South Korea (which has a similar but warmer climate) were conducted using organic inputs (Cuello et al., 2015 ; Kim et al., 2017 ). Both found that PFM significantly increased N 2 O emissions and emission factors for organic amendments. These studies found a positive correlation between emissions and soil NO 3 − and soil NH 4 + concentrations. In their experiments, differences in soil mineral N were less significant than ours. However, differences in soil hydrothermal conditions (that were more significant than in our experiment) and significantly higher DOC likely played an important role. We did not measure DOC, although indications of increased SOM breakdown rate from the TBI assay suggested it might also have been greater. However, other studies in less similar conditions have reported different results (Dong et al., 2018 ; Jin et al., 2018 ; Yang et al., 2022 ). Our finding that PFM had a positive interaction with soil NH 4 + concentration at WFPS 60% indicates that PFM positively affects the nitrification rate and the denitrification process when soil moisture conditions are favourable. It is known that nitrification is the dominant process where the average WFPS is 60–70% (Wang et al., 2023b ). Nitrification is favoured by higher temperatures (Sahrawat, 2008). The difference in mean soil temperature in our study was only 0.6°C, but this may be a factor. On the other hand, when the % WFPS suggests that denitrification is dominant, higher emissions from unmulched soils could be due to higher peaks and increased amplitude of the fluctuations in soil moisture during heavy rainfall, reducing saturation and ‘hot moments’ not represented in the averaged figures (Barrat et al., 2021 ; Barrat et al., 2022 ; Dobbie et al., 1999 ; Song et al., 2022 ). Our results tend to confirm the speculation of Berger et al. ( 2013 ) that the rainfall-shedding effect of PFM can reduce N 2 O emissions by reducing micro-sites with conditions that favour denitrification in the covered bed areas. Another study showed that biodegradable PFM increased the abundance and diversity of genes associated with ammonia-oxidising bacteria while simultaneously reducing emissions of N 2 O (Wang, W. et al., 2021 ). As we made no observations to discriminate between these microbial pathways, further research would be needed to confirm this effect. The different organic amendments did not significantly affect N 2 O emissions. This is unsurprising as the effects on mineral N concentration were small and not significant for NO 3 − . Other characteristics of organic fertilisers, such as the C: N ratio, can be significant in determining the N 2 O emission factor (Charles et al., 2017 ). Soil C content and the probable larger contribution to soil mineral N from residues from the ley may have obscured any differences. 4.5.4. Potential ammonia emissions Although we did measure a reduction in potential NH 3 emissions from the PFM treatments, this was not significant, and the reduction was smaller than reported in other studies (Chae et al., 2022 ; Li et al., 2021 ). However, the reduction was more significant when expressed on a yield-scaled basis due to the higher yield. We ascribe the relatively low rates of NH 3 loss to the slightly acidic and relatively moist soil (Whitehead & Raistrick, 1990 ; Hargrove, 1990). Poultry manure was expected to have higher potential NH 3 emissions than compost because it contains ammoniacal compounds, uric acid and urea, which are readily hydrolysed. (Sommer & Hutchings, 2001 ). However, this response was only observed in the plots with cabbages. The reason for this is not apparent. Peaks of emissions occurred in the first few days, during a warm, dry period in mid-July and immediately after harvest in early September. The potential NH 3 emission results should be viewed with some caution. Whilst useful for comparative purposes between treatments, the emissions measured should not be considered absolute fluxes for comparison with other studies that have used flow-through chamber methods, as the lack of air movement would have limited emissions (Wang et al., 2004 ). Also, the extra step in our method for measuring NH 3 emissions may have introduced additional uncertainty. Condensation on the walls of the collection chamber and the crop leaves, caused by high humidity in the closed chamber, may have absorbed ammonia; higher measurements post-harvest could be because the crop leaves were no longer present (Chae et al., 2022 ). 5. Conclusions As we hypothesised, PFM increased crop yield and resulted in higher soil NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations. However, this did not result in higher gaseous losses of NH 3 , and although N 2 O losses were higher in mulched leeks than unmulched, this was not the case in mulched cabbages despite higher soil NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations. Our results also revealed that biodegradable PFM can reduce the emissions of both N 2 O and NH 3 , without a negative impact on CH 4 emissions. N 2 O fluxes were positively related to soil NH 4 + and NO 3 − concentrations, but without knowing the relative contributions of mineralisation and leaching to the differences observed, it is not possible to fully understand the wider environmental impacts of PFM use. These results indicate that the use of PFM to moderate soil moisture fluctuations may be beneficial in reducing GHG emissions in climates with extreme rainfall events that are predicted to become more frequent and widespread with climate change. Developing a static chamber method that allows the chamber to be removed between sampling occasions and allows PFM to shed rainfall away from the mulched area could be an important development. Adopting micrometeorological GHG measurement approaches, e.g. eddy covariance, would allow fluxes to be measured at a larger scale without interfering with the integrity of the mulch film, although measurements from replicated treatments would be limited. PFM may reduce denitrification associated with high rainfall, which is an encouraging observation that deserves further investigation. Declarations Acknowledgements This study was part of a project funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1). Funding This work was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1). Data availability statement The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation. Author contributions MS conceived and designed the study with advice from DLJ and DRC. MS conducted the experiment, data collection, and analysis. MS prepared and wrote the first draft. DLJ and DRC advised and commented on the content, edited, and made corrections. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Conflict of interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Acknowledgements This study was part of a project funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1). Funding This work was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1). Data availability statement The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation. Author contributions MS conceived and designed the study with advice from DLJ and DRC. MS conducted the experiment, data collection, and analysis. MS prepared and wrote the first draft. DLJ and DRC advised and commented on the content, edited, and made corrections. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Conflict of interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. References Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board,. (2021). Nutrient Management Guide (RB209 . Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board,. Bandopadhyay, S., Martin-Closas, L., Pelacho, A. M., & DeBruyn, J. M. (2018). Biodegradable plastic mulch films: Impacts on soil microbial communities and ecosystem functions. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9 , 819. Barrat, H. A., Charteris, A. F., Le Cocq, K., Abadie, M., Clark, I. M., Chadwick, D. R., & Cardenas, L. (2022). N2O hot moments were not driven by changes in nitrogen and carbon substrates or changes in N cycling functional genes. European Journal of Soil Science, 73 (1), e13190. Barrat, H. A., Evans, J., Chadwick, D. R., Clark, I. M., Le Cocq, K., & M Cardenas, L. (2021). The impact of drought and rewetting on N2O emissions from soil in temperate and Mediterranean climates. European Journal of Soil Science, 72 (6), 2504-2516. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1-48. https://10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Benoit, F., & Ceustermans, N. (2002). Effect of coloured mulch on production and thrips control with leek. Plasticulture, , 36-47. Berger, S., Kim, Y., Kettering, J., & Gebauer, G. (2013). Plastic mulching in agriculture—friend or foe of N2O emissions? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 167 , 43-51. Brown, R. W., Chadwick, D. R., Zang, H., Graf, M., Liu, X., Wang, K., Greenfield, L. M., & Jones, D. L. (2023). Bioplastic (PHBV) addition to soil alters microbial community structure and negatively affects plant-microbial metabolic functioning in maize. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 441 , 129959. https://10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129959 Chae, H. G., Song, H. J., Bhuiyan, M. S. I., Kim, P. J., & Lee, J. G. (2022). Unexpected high suppression of ammonia volatilization loss by plastic film mulching in Korean maize cropping system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 335 , 108022. https://10.1016/j.agee.2022.108022 Charles, A., Rochette, P., Whalen, J. K., Angers, D. A., Chantigny, M. H., & Bertrand, N. (2017). Global nitrous oxide emission factors from agricultural soils after addition of organic amendments: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 236 , 88-98. https://10.1016/j.agee.2016.11.021 Chen, B., Liu, E., Mei, X., Yan, C., & Garré, S. (2018). Modelling soil water dynamic in rain-fed spring maize field with plastic mulching https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.12.007 Chen, N., Li, X., Šimůnek, J., Shi, H., Ding, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2020). The effects of biodegradable and plastic film mulching on nitrogen uptake, distribution, and leaching in a drip-irrigated sandy field. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 292 , 106817. https://10.1016/j.agee.2020.106817 Constantin, J., Mary, B., Laurent, F., Aubrion, G., Fontaine, A., Kerveillant, P., & Beaudoin, N. (2010). Effects of catch crops, no till and reduced nitrogen fertilization on nitrogen leaching and balance in three long-term experiments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 135 (4), 268-278. https://10.1016/j.agee.2009.10.005 Cuello, J. P., Hwang, H. Y., Gutierrez, J., Kim, S. Y., & Kim, P. J. (2015). Impact of plastic film mulching on increasing greenhouse gas emissions in temperate upland soil during maize cultivation. Applied Soil Ecology, 91 , 48-57. D’Haene, K., Salomez, J., Verhaeghe, M., Van de Sande, T., De Nies, J., De Neve, S., & Hofman, G. (2018). Can optimum yield and quality of vegetables be reconciled with low residual soil mineral nitrogen at harvest? Scientia Horticulturae, 233 , 78-89. https://10.1016/j.scienta.2018.01.034 Davies, G., & Lennartson, M. (2005). Organic Vegetable Production, A Complete Guide . Crowood Press Ltd. Dobbie, K. E., McTaggart, I. P., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural systems: variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 104 (D21), 26891-26899. Dong, Q., Yang, Y., Yu, K., & Feng, H. (2018). Effects of straw mulching and plastic film mulching on improving soil organic carbon and nitrogen fractions, crop yield and water use efficiency in the Loess Plateau, China. Agricultural Water Management, 201 (C), 133-143. Duddigan, S., Shaw, L. J., Alexander, P. D., & Collins, C. D. (2020). Chemical Underpinning of the Tea Bag Index: An Examination of the Decomposition of Tea Leaves. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2020 , 1-8. https://10.1155/2020/6085180 Elrys, A. S., Wang, J., Metwally, M. A., Cheng, Y., Zhang, J., Cai, Z., Chang, S. X., & Müller, C. (2021). Global gross nitrification rates are dominantly driven by soil carbon‐to‐nitrogen stoichiometry and total nitrogen. Global Change Biology, 27 (24), 6512-6524. Eriksen, J., Pedersen, L., & Jørgensen, J. R. (2006). Nitrate leaching and spring wheat bread making quality following cultivation of grasslands of different composition, age and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 116 , 165-175. Everaarts, A. P. (1993). General and quantitative aspects of nitrogen fertilizer use in the cultivation of Brassica vegetables. Acta Horticulturae, (339), 149-160. https://10.17660/ActaHortic.1993.339.13 Fang, H., Li, Y., Gu, X., Yu, M., Chen, P., Li, Y., & Liu, F. (2022). Optimizing the impact of film mulching pattern and nitrogen application rate on maize production, gaseous N emissions, and utilization of water and nitrogen in northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 261 , 107350. https://10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107350 Forster, P., T. Storelvmo, K. Armour, W. Collins, J.-L. Dufresne, D. Frame, D.J. Lunt, T. Mauritsen, M.D. Palmer, M. Watanabe, M. Wild, and H. Zhang, 2021: The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 923–1054, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.009 Gao, H., Yan, C., Liu, Q., Ding, W., Chen, B., & Li, Z. (2019). Effects of plastic mulching and plastic residue on agricultural production: A meta-analysis. The Science of the Total Environment, 651 , 484-492. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.105 Golian, J., & Anyszka, Z. (2015). Effectiveness of different methods of weed management in chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L.) and transplanted leek (Allium porrum L.). Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 60 (3) Han, Y., Sun, W., Si, P., Lou, C., & Wang, J. (2020). Application of biodegradable plastic mulch improves manure N availability and tomato yield in an organic cropping system. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 44 (8), 1120-1130. https://10.1080/01904167.2020.1845372 Haraguchi, T., Marui, A., Mori, K., & Nakano, Y. (2003). Movement of water collected by vegetables in plastic-mulching field. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture-Kyushu University (Japan). Hargrove, W.L. (1988), Evaluation of Ammonia Volatilization in the Field. Journal of Production Agriculture, 1: 104-111. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1988.0104 Hergoualc’h, K., Mueller, N., Bernoux, M., Kasimir, Ä, van der Weerden, T. J., & Ogle, S. M. (2021). Improved accuracy and reduced uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories by refining the IPCC emission factor for direct N2O emissions from nitrogen inputs to managed soils. Global Change Biology, 27 (24), 6536-6550. Holder, A. J., McCalmont, J. P., Rowe, R., McNamara, N. P., Elias, D., & Donnison, I. S. (2019). Soil N2O emissions with different reduced tillage methods during the establishment of Miscanthus in temperate grassland. GCB Bioenergy, 11 (3), 539-549. Huett, D. O., & Dettmann, E. B. (1991). Nitrogen response surface models of zucchini squash, head lettuce and potato. Plant and Soil, 134 (2), 243-254. Islam Bhuiyan, M. S., Rahman, A., Kim, G. W., Das, S., & Kim, P. J. (2021). Eco-friendly yield-scaled global warming potential assists to determine the right rate of nitrogen in rice system: A systematic literature review. Environmental Pollution, 271 , 116386. https://10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116386 Jin, X., An, T., Gall, A. R., Li, S., Filley, T., & Wang, J. (2018). Enhanced conversion of newly-added maize straw to soil microbial biomass C under plastic film mulching and organic manure management. Geoderma, 313 , 154-162. Kang, L., Chen, S., Liang, B., Qin, W., & Chen, Q. (2022). Catch crop planting and residue incorporation to reduce nitrogen leaching in intensive vegetable greenhouse field. Journal of Environmental Quality, 51 (1), 44-54. https://10.1002/jeq2.20306 Karic, L., Vukasinovic, S., & Znidarcic, D. (2005). Response of leek (Allium porrum L.) to different levels of nitrogen dose under agro-climate conditions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Acta Agric.Slovenica, 85 , 219-226. Kasirajan, S., & Ngouajio, M. (2012a). Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32 (2), 501-529. https://10.1007/s13593-011-0068-3 Kasirajan, S., & Ngouajio, M. (2012b). Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32 (2), 501-529. Keuskamp, J. A., Dingemans, B. J., Lehtinen, T., Sarneel, J. M., & Hefting, M. M. (2013). Tea Bag Index: a novel approach to collect uniform decomposition data across ecosystems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4 (11), 1070-1075. Kim, G. W., Das, S., Hwang, H. Y., & Kim, P. J. (2017). Nitrous oxide emissions from soils amended by cover-crops and under plastic film mulching: Fluxes, emission factors and yield-scaled emissions. Atmospheric Environment (1994), 152 , 377-388. https://10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.007 Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (13), 1-26. https://10.18637/jss.v082.i13 Lamont, W. J., Jr. (2005). Plastics: modifying the microclimate for the production of vegetable crops. HortTechnology (Alexandria, Va.), 15 (3), 477-481. https://10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0477 Lee, J. G., Chae, H. G., Hwang, H. Y., Kim, P. J., & Cho, S. R. (2021). Effect of plastic film mulching on maize productivity and nitrogen use efficiency under organic farming in South Korea. Science of the Total Environment, 787 , 147503. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147503 Lee, J. G., Cho, S. R., Jeong, S. T., Hwang, H. Y., & Kim, P. J. (2019). Different response of plastic film mulching on greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) between chemical and organic fertilization in maize upland soil. Science of the Total Environment, 696 , 133827. Li, H., Wang, L., Peng, Y., Zhang, S., Lv, S., Li, J., Abdo, A. I., Zhou, C., & Wang, L. (2021). Film mulching, residue retention and N fertilization affect ammonia volatilization through soil labile N and C pools. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 308 , 107272. https://10.1016/j.agee.2020.107272 Li, Y., Wang, Q., Wang, W., & Shao, M. (2005). Soil evaporation under perforated plastic mulch. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 16 (3), 445-449. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15943354 Li, Y., Feng, H., Wu, W., Jiang, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., Cheng, H., Li, C., Dong, Q., Siddique, K. H. M., & Chen, J. (2022). Decreased greenhouse gas intensity of winter wheat production under plastic film mulching in semi-arid areas. Agricultural Water Management, 274 , 107941. https://10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107941 Liakatas, A., Clark, J.A. and Monteith, J.L., 1986. Measurements of the heat balance under plastic mulches. Part I. Radiation balance and soil heat flux. Agricultural and forest meteorology , 36 (3), pp.227-239. Locher, J., Ombódi, A., Kassai, T., & Dimeny, J. (2005). Influence of coloured mulches on soil temperature and yield of sweet pepper. Eur.J.Hort.Sci, 70 (3), 135-141. Met Office. (2021, uk climate averages- carmarthen . Met Office. Retrieved 11/11/2021, from https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/gchzjb39w Mo, F., Han, J., Wen, X., Wang, X., Li, P., Vinay, N., Jia, Z., Xiong, Y., & Liao, Y. (2020). Quantifying regional effects of plastic mulch on soil nitrogen pools, cycles, and fluxes in rain-fed agroecosystems of the Loess Plateau. Land Degradation & Development, 31 (13), 1675-1687. https://https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3548 Nachimuthu, G., Halpin, N. V., & Bell, M. J. (2017). Productivity Benefits from Plastic Mulch in Vegetable Production Likely to Limit Adoption of Alternate Practices that Deliver Water Quality Benefits: An On-Farm Case Study. Horticulturae, 3 (3), 42. https://10.3390/horticulturae3030042 Nan, W., Yue, S., Huang, H., Li, S., & Shen, Y. (2016). Effects of plastic film mulching on soil greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) concentration within soil profiles in maize fields on the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 15 (2), 451-464. https://10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61106-6 Oertel, C., Matschullat, J., Zurba, K., Zimmermann, F., & Erasmi, S. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from soils—A review. Geochemistry, 76 (3), 327-352. Ponjičan, O., Kiss, F., Ilin, Ž, Adamović, B., Sabadoš, V., Sedlar, A., & Višacki, V. (2021). Influence of plastic mulch and fertilization on the environmental impact of spring cabbage production. European Journal of Agronomy, 122 , 126170. Qi, R., Jones, D. L., Li, Z., Liu, Q., & Yan, C. (2020). Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical review. Science of the Total Environment, 703 , 134722. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722 Quemada, M., & Gabriel, J. L. (2016). Approaches for increasing nitrogen and water use efficiency simultaneously. Global Food Security, 9 , 29-35. https://10.1016/j.gfs.2016.05.004 Rauscher, A., Meyer, N., Jakobs, A., Bartnick, R., Lueders, T., & Lehndorff, E. (2023). Biodegradable microplastic increases CO2 emission and alters microbial biomass and bacterial community composition in different soil types. Applied Soil Ecology, 182 , 104714. https://10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104714 Reay, M. K., Greenfield, L. M., Graf, M., Lloyd, C. E. M., Evershed, R. P., Chadwick, D. R., & Jones, D. L. (2023). LDPE and biodegradable PLA-PBAT plastics differentially affect plant-soil nitrogen partitioning and dynamics in a Hordeum vulgare mesocosm. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 447 , 130825. https://10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130825 Rochette, P. and Hutchinson, G.L., 2005. Measurement of soil respiration in situ: chamber techniques. Micrometeorology in agricultural systems , 47 , pp.247-286. Saglam, M., Sintim, H. Y., Bary, A. I., Miles, C. A., Ghimire, S., Inglis, D. A., & Flury, M. (2017). Modeling the effect of biodegradable paper and plastic mulch on soil moisture dynamics. Agricultural Water Management, 193 , 240-250. Salama, K., & Geyer, M. (2023). Plastic Mulch Films in Agriculture: Their Use, Environmental Problems, Recycling and Alternatives. Environments (Basel, Switzerland), 10 (10), 179. https://10.3390/environments10100179 Samphire, M., Chadwick, D. R., & Jones, D. L. (2023). Biodegradable plastic mulch films increase yield and promote nitrogen use efficiency in organic horticulture. Frontiers in Agronomy, 5 , 1141608. Schonbeck, M. W., & Evanylo, G. K. (1998a). Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production I. Soil temperature, soil moisture and marketable yield. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 13 (1), 55-81. Schonbeck, M. W., & Evanylo, G. K. (1998b). Effects of Mulches on Soil Properties and Tomato Production II. Plant-Available Nitrogen, Organic Matter Input, and Tilth-Related Properties. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 13 (1), 83-100. https://10.1300/J064v13n01_07 Serrano-Ruiz, H., Martin-Closas, L., & Pelacho, A. M. (2021). Biodegradable plastic mulches: Impact on the agricultural biotic environment. Science of the Total Environment, 750 , 141228. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141228 Shigaki, F. and Dell, C.J. (2015), Comparison of Low-Cost Methods for Measuring Ammonia Volatilization. Agronomy Journal, 107: 1392-1400. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj14.0431 Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Mäder, P., Flieβbach, A., Stolze, M., Ruser, R., & Niggli, U. (2014). Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management — A global meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 468-469 , 553-563. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.098 Snyder, K., Grant, A., Murray, C., & Wolff, B. (2015). The Effects of Plastic Mulch Systems on Soil Temperature and Moisture in Central Ontario. HortTechnology (Alexandria, Va.), 25 (2), 162-170. https://10.21273/HORTTECH.25.2.162 Sommer, S. G., & Hutchings, N. J. (2001). Ammonia emission from field applied manure and its reduction—invited paper. European Journal of Agronomy, 15 (1), 1-15. https://10.1016/S1161-0301(01)00112-5 Song, X., Wei, H., Rees, R. M., & Ju, X. (2022). Soil oxygen depletion and corresponding nitrous oxide production at hot moments in an agricultural soil. Environmental Pollution, 292 , 118345. https://10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118345 Steinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tröger, J., Muñoz, K., Frör, O., & Schaumann, G. E. (2016). Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? Science of the Total Environment, 550 , 690-705. Sumner, M. E. (2000). Handbook of soil science / editor-in-chief, Malcolm E. Sumner . CRC Press. Sun, D., Li, H., Wang, E., He, W., Hao, W., Yan, C., Li, Y., Mei, X., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Z. (2020). An overview of the use of plastic-film mulching in China to increase crop yield and water-use efficiency. National Science Review, 7 (10), 1523-1526. Tarara, J. M. (2000). Microclimate Modification with Plastic Mulch. HortScience, 35 (2), 169-180. https://10.21273/HORTSCI.35.2.169 Tei, F., De Neve, S., de Haan, J., & Kristensen, H. L. (2020). Nitrogen management of vegetable crops. Agricultural Water Management, 240 , 106316. The R Foundation for Statistical Computin. (2020). R version 4.0.3 (2020-10-10) -- "Bunny-Wunnies Freak Out" [computer software] The Weather Company, L. (2022, DAX Weather Sensor Array - ILLANELL6. The Weather Underground. Retrieved `10/12/22, from https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/ILLANELL6 Thorup-Kristensen, K. (1999). An organic vegetable crop rotation aimed at self-sufficiency in nitrogen. Designing and Testing Crop Rotations for Organic Farming, (1), 133-140. Thorup-Kristensen, K., & Sørensen, J. N. (1999). Soil Nitrogen Depletion by Vegetable Crops with Variable Root Growth. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science , 49 (2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064719950135597 Trdan, S., Žnidarčič, D., Kač, M., & Vidrih, M. (2008). Yield of early white cabbage grown under mulch and non-mulch conditions with low populations of onion thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman). International Journal of Pest Management, 54 (4), 309-318. Wang, H., Zheng, J., Fan, J., Zhang, F., & Huang, C. (2021). Grain yield and greenhouse gas emissions from maize and wheat fields under plastic film and straw mulching: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 270 , 108210. Wang, H., Yan, Z., Ju, X., Song, X., Zhang, J., Li, S., & Zhu-Barker, X. (2023a). Quantifying nitrous oxide production rates from nitrification and denitrification under various moisture conditions in agricultural soils: Laboratory study and literature synthesis. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13 , 1110151. Wang, H., Yan, Z., Ju, X., Song, X., Zhang, J., Li, S., & Zhu-Barker, X. (2023b). Quantifying nitrous oxide production rates from nitrification and denitrification under various moisture conditions in agricultural soils: Laboratory study and literature synthesis. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13 , 1110151. Wang, W., Han, L., Zhang, X., & Wei, K. (2021). Plastic film mulching affects N2O emission and ammonia oxidizers in drip irrigated potato soil in northwest China. Science of the Total Environment, 754 , 142113. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142113 Wang, Y. P., Li, X. G., Zhu, J., Fan, C. Y., Kong, X. J., Turner, N. C., Siddique, K. H., & Li, F. (2016). Multi-site assessment of the effects of plastic-film mulch on dryland maize productivity in semiarid areas in China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 220 , 160-169. Wang, Z., Liu, X., Ju, X., Zhang, F., & Malhi, S. S. (2004). Ammonia volatilization loss from surface-broadcast urea: comparison of vented-and closed-chamber methods and loss in winter wheat–summer maize rotation in North China Plain. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35 (19-20), 2917-2939. Wei, H., Zhang, F., Zhang, K., Qin, R., Zhang, W., Sun, G., & Huang, J. (2022). Effects of soil mulching on staple crop yield and greenhouse gas emissions in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 284 , 108566. https://10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108566 Whitehead, D.C. and Raistrick, N. (1990), Ammonia volatilization from five nitrogen compounds used as fertilizers following surface application to soils. Journal of Soil Science, 41: 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1990.tb00074.x Wojciechowska, R., Siwek, P., & Libik, A. (2007). Effect of mulching with various films on the yield quality of butterhead lettuce and celery stalks with special reference to nitrate metabolism. Folia Hort, 19 (1), 37-44. Xie, Y., & Kristensen, H. L. (2017). Intercropping leek (Allium porrum L.) with dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) increases rooted zone and agro-ecosystem retention of nitrogen. European Journal of Agronomy, 82 , 21-32. https://10.1016/j.eja.2016.09.017 Yang, J., Qin, R., Shi, X., Wei, H., Sun, G., Li, F., & Zhang, F. (2022). The effects of plastic film mulching and straw mulching on licorice root yield and soil organic carbon content in a dryland farming. Science of the Total Environment, 826 , 154113. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154113 Yu, Y., Zhang, Y., Xiao, M., Zhao, C., & Yao, H. (2021). A meta-analysis of film mulching cultivation effects on soil organic carbon and soil greenhouse gas fluxes. Catena, 206 , 105483. Zhang, K., Li, Z., Li, Y., Wan, P., Chai, N., Li, M., Wei, H., Kuzyakov, Y., Filimonenko, E., Almwarai Alharbi, S., Li, F., Zhang, W., & Zhang, F. (2023). Contrasting impacts of plastic film mulching and nitrogen fertilization on soil organic matter turnover. Geoderma, 440 , 116714. https://10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116714 Zhang, L., Qin, R., Wei, H., Zhang, K., Yu, C., Li, F., & Zhang, F. (2022). Optimum plastic mulching application to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without compromising on crop yield and farmers' income. Science of the Total Environment, 809 , 151998. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151998 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SuppInfoms.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-4710284","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":333885840,"identity":"00920bbe-372c-4a62-bd70-12ddcbf906a1","order_by":0,"name":"martin Joseph samphire","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bangor University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"martin","middleName":"Joseph","lastName":"samphire","suffix":""},{"id":333885841,"identity":"f7b09b6e-836a-4f30-b080-8fc00286755d","order_by":1,"name":"David L Jones","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bangor University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"L","lastName":"Jones","suffix":""},{"id":333885842,"identity":"ad7fa933-bf48-4cbd-8f61-9f4721a4f57c","order_by":2,"name":"David R Chadwick","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bangor University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"R","lastName":"Chadwick","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-09 08:11:49","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4710284/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4710284/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":61635101,"identity":"4cfbc6dd-9ab0-489b-aa6b-64cd488fcf5d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":222977,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYield characteristics of cabbages (6.25 plants m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e) and leeks (11.1 plants m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e) grown with or without a biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) and with green waste compost (2.5 kg m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e) or pelleted poultry manure (100 g m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e). Panel A shows the total fresh weight of above-ground plant material; B, dry matter content; C, the total fresh weight of above-ground plant material; and D, the total marketable yield when trimmed to the standard of the farm where the experiment was conducted and taking account of planted area and the unplanted area between beds (4:1). Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 8) and dots represent individual data points\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/2e2cd966bca922fa3af503b2.png"},{"id":61635100,"identity":"490af551-bf9f-4f1c-b6f7-ec83a981280e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:23","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":336393,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNitrous oxide flux from soil (across both fertiliser treatments) covered with biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) or un-mulched and with a crop of leeks or cabbages. Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 8). Note: The cabbage treatment was not sampled on the two dates in August\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/c26b836e489af9eee17e6c91.png"},{"id":61635635,"identity":"1e9febd6-8949-4107-b405-d84180e8765c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:55:23","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":262379,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYield-scaled N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions for the growing season for cabbages and leeks with or without a biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) and fertilised with green-waste compost or poultry manure. Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4) and dots represent individual data points\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/06ad7a4bc300cd6e71721ce8.png"},{"id":61635104,"identity":"4f4f6dd3-5f01-463f-8e62-24b9f00f6b9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:23","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":341406,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethane flux from soil covered with biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) or un-mulched and with green waste compost or poultry manure fertiliser. Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en \u003c/em\u003e= 8) (except \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4 for the two occasions in August)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/9320a02337cc9c9ef5aec2c0.png"},{"id":61636258,"identity":"4b578108-134d-44b6-817b-dc1fe0e68ad1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 09:03:23","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":306672,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAmmonia flux from soil covered with biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) or un-mulched. Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en \u003c/em\u003e= 8) (except \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4 for the two occasions in August). Values are a composite across both fertiliser types\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/239aae5362dcec34ec34eb94.png"},{"id":61635106,"identity":"b2e92223-6f0c-46e2-8a9e-736299b52c55","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:23","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":266010,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYield-scaled (potential) NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions for the growing season for cabbages and leeks with or without a biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) and fertilised with green-waste compost or poultry manure. Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en \u003c/em\u003e= 4) and dots represent individual data points\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/b4b1db1a4735eea6e21c2b4a.png"},{"id":61635108,"identity":"d28bfee1-7ef8-4e39-b346-41ff6a3cc32c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:24","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":226990,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSoil concentration of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+ \u003c/sup\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026amp;\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e-\u003c/sup\u003e (\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026amp;\u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003e) in the area adjacent to the collar used to fit the greenhouse gas sampling chamber throughout the experiment, with and without a biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM) and with green waste compost (2.5 kg m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e) or poultry manure (100 g m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003e) (\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026amp;\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e) or a crop of leeks or cabbages (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026amp;\u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003e). Values represent means ± SEM (\u003cem\u003en \u003c/em\u003e= 8)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/2dd2d7f3121bbf24bef7541d.png"},{"id":61635102,"identity":"c8cf995e-89d2-480c-bf1c-226b0174cdfa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:23","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48440,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTea Bag Index (across both fertiliser treatments) in the presence or absence of biodegradable plastic film mulch (PFM): A) early decay rate constant \u003cem\u003ek, \u003c/em\u003eand B) stabilisation index \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003e. The Centre line is the mean value; lower and upper hinges are the first and third quantile; and the whiskers represent 1.5 times the inter-quartile range (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 16)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"fig8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/43d18c345fee41742dfb221a.png"},{"id":75048950,"identity":"ee343c29-39d4-408c-b592-0948815f7a16","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-29 22:46:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3424780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/6fe6f5cd-2cbb-465d-a294-fc577585df11.pdf"},{"id":61635107,"identity":"f0eb9ffe-67d3-4b76-a4d3-3e93e0999b1d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-02 08:47:23","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1275398,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SuppInfoms.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4710284/v1/1d282fb63ed884c9f7ac3f98.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Biodegradable plastic film mulch increased nitrous oxide emissions in organic leek but decreased emissions in organic cabbages","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEnhancing crop yield has been the primary imperative of agronomists; however, it is increasingly recognised that this must be balanced against the harms caused to the environment and human health, particularly those associated with nitrogen (N) losses (Fowler et al., 2023). Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in the use of plastic film mulches (PFM) within agricultural production due to their ability to increase crop yields (Nachimuthu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Sun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These increases have been attributed to increased water and nutrient use efficiency, protection against soil erosion, the suppression of weeds and pests and thermal insulation of the soil (Gao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kasirajan \u0026amp; Ngouajio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012a\u003c/span\u003e; Lamont, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). They can act as a barrier to rainfall infiltration and gas exchange at the soil surface and affect the system's energy balance by regulating radiation, convection, and evaporation, which can influence soil moisture, temperature, and gas exchange. These, in turn, may affect crop growth, soil biological processes and soil carbon (C) and N cycling in numerous ways (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the legacy of plastic left in the soil at the end of the cropping season and its potential to generate nano- and micro-plastics has led to significant concerns about the sustainability of plastic mulch film use in agriculture (Salama \u0026amp; Geyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Steinmetz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). One potential solution to this has been the adoption of biodegradable mulch films, which rapidly biodegrade in the soil at the end of the growing season (Kasirajan \u0026amp; Ngouajio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012b\u003c/span\u003e). Recently, mesocosm-based experiments have suggested that biodegradable plastic mulch films may, however, negatively alter soil functioning and N dynamics, while others have shown minimal effect (Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Rauscher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Reay et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The potential effect of residual micro-plastics is in contrast to the positive impact of using the films as a mulch in field experiments (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Samphire et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The relative importance of positive effects on N cycling and yield and the adverse effects of biodegradable PFM in long-term use are poorly explored. This has led to the call for more research to better understand how PFMs alter soil and plant functioning when used in the field, particularly with biodegradable mulch films (Qi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Salama \u0026amp; Geyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Serrano-Ruiz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost previous studies have indicated that conventional LDPE-based PFMs can reduce NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions despite the increases in soil temperature and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration under the film (Chae et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This has been ascribed to the PFM reducing gas exchange, increasing the partial pressure of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e in the air under the mulch, preventing soil drying and tipping the equilibrium towards the retention of dissolved NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast, there is no consensus on the effect of PFM on N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO fluxes. Fang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) found that PFM reduced N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions, while Nan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found the opposite effect. Three meta-analyses in China have also reported different results: (i) PFM reduces N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions under moderate N fertilisation rates but increases emissions at high N application rates (Mo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e); (ii) PFM use increases N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions (Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), but only in paddy fields or with non-biodegradable PFM; or (iii) PFM has no significant effect on N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions (Wei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The differences in these analyses were probably due to the inclusion of different crops, management practices and climate regimes, but all involved major staple crops under continental conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePFM often leads to increased microbial activity and, hence, respiration and breakdown of soil organic matter (SOM). This can lead to increased CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and a net loss of soil C. However, increased crop growth and C returns (e.g., rhizodeposition and crop residues) can mitigate this (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A meta-analysis found that although PFM increased CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions, it resulted in net C sequestration in dry upland areas (Mo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Several studies have also shown that PFM can increase CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e emissions which has been attributed to higher soil water contents under the PFM (Cuello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Wang H. et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), although occasionally, the opposite trend is found (Nan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). As the use of PFM usually results in increased crop yields, it is important, however, to yield-scale greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Islam Bhuiyan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) For example, the higher GHG emissions under PFM management were shown to be lower than the unmulched control when crop yield was taken into account (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost previous studies on the effects of biodegradable PFM on GHG emissions have focussed on major commodity crops, conventional farming using mineral fertilisers, and regions with drier or warmer climates. In contrast, there is very little information regarding their performance under organic management regimes, in vegetable crops, or in moist temperate climates, contexts which present particular challenges with yield-scaled environmental impacts from gaseous N emission (Hergoualc\u0026rsquo;h et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Skinner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Tei et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, PFM may play a significant role in these conditions: it may speed up the breakdown of organic matter (Jin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), reduce the impacts of high rainfall, such as leaching (Quemada \u0026amp; Gabriel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and waterlogging (Snyder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), and increase nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in vegetable crops, some of which are known to be poor in this respect (Samphire et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). While the effects of PFM on the soil microclimate, crop yield and N availability are relatively well studied, little is known about the effect of biodegradable PFMs on gaseous emissions, particularly with horticultural crops, in wetter climates, and the interaction with organic amendments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address this knowledge gap, we investigated the effect of biodegradable PFM on gaseous N fluxes in field-grown organic vegetables (N efficient cabbages vs. N inefficient leeks) under two contrasting organic fertiliser regimes (poultry manure vs. green waste compost). We hypothesised that (i) PFM would increase crop growth and yield due to more consistent soil moisture availability and higher soil temperature; (ii) PFM would result in higher NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations due to greater rates of SOM turnover and reduced leaching; (iii) the increases in mineral N would result in higher gaseous losses of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO, but (iv) net GHG losses would be lower when expressed on a yield-scaled basis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Experimental site\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental field site was at a commercial organic horticultural farm in SW Wales, UK (51\u0026deg;47\u0026rsquo;N, 4\u0026deg;12\u0026rsquo;E; 130 m a.s.l.). The soil is classified as a free-draining, silty clay loam textured Eutric Cambisol developed on a carboniferous sandstone and shale parent material (NSRI, 2016). The main soil chemical and physical properties (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) for the top 10 cm of soil at the start of the experiment are summarised in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e. pH and available P, K, and Mg content were determined by a commercial laboratory (Cawood Scientific Ltd., NRM Laboratories, Berkshire, UK).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mean annual rainfall (1981\u0026ndash;2010) is 1380 mm and the annual mean air temperature is 10.4\u0026deg;C (Met Office, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). During the experimental period (June 1st to Sept. 10th, 2022), daily temperature and precipitation data were measured at a nearby weather station (within 2 km), giving a mean air temp of 16.5\u0026deg;C and total rainfall of 355 mm (The Weather Company, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental site has been under commercial organic horticulture since 2010, growing mixed vegetable crops in rotation with green manures. The experimental plot had been planted with a mixed ley of grass, clovers, and herbs in the previous seasons; this was incorporated by plough in January, and the seedbed was prepared by secondary cultivation and rolling to create beds running across the slope.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Experimental treatments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment consisted of two crops, namely leeks (\u003cem\u003eAllium ampeloprasum\u003c/em\u003e L. cv. Jolant) and cabbages (\u003cem\u003eBrassica oleracea\u003c/em\u003e L. var. \u003cem\u003ecapitata\u003c/em\u003e cv. Stanton). These were chosen to represent typical horticultural crops with contrasting N uptake profiles (D\u0026rsquo;Haene et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Everaarts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Karic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Thorup-Kristensen and Sorensen, 1999)Cell-grown transplants raised by a commercial nursery (Delfland Nurseries Ltd. Doddington, March, Cambridgeshire, UK) were used. The mulch film was a 15 \u0026micro;m thick, black biodegradable polylactic acid (PLA)- based PFM, Gro-clean Bio-Mulch\u0026reg; (Gromax Industries Ltd., Hadleigh, Suffolk, UK).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo organic fertilisers were used: pelleted sterilised poultry manure (Greenvale Farms limited, Middleton Tyas, North Yorkshire, UK) was spread at a rate of 1 t ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e (total N, 44 kg N ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e), and municipal green waste and food waste compost (Cwm Environmental Ltd., Nantycaws, Carmarthenshire, UK) at a rate of 25 t ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e (total N, 163 kg N ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e); the equivalent field spreading rate was 0.8 and 20 t ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e respectively as fertilisers were only applied on the beds and not the wheelings between beds. The nutrient analysis of these amendments is shown in Table S2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Experimental design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA randomised block design was used with 32 plots and four blocks with all combinations of the three treatments in each block. Beds were created by rolling on 2nd July, and the biodegradable PFM was laid on the plots on 4th July 2022. The main treatments consisted of plots with and without biodegradable PFM. The subplots used two treatments: poultry manure (m) and green waste compost (c). Cabbages were planted at 40 \u0026times; 40 cm spacing (6.25 plants m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e on the bed, 50,000 plants ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e on field scale including wheelings) and leeks at 30 \u0026times; 30 cm spacing (11.1 plants m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e on the bed, 88,000 plants ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e on field scale including wheelings) on 5th July 2022. These planting densities are typical for commercial organically grown cabbages and leeks (Davies \u0026amp; Lennartson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). To avoid sampling affecting subsequent results, all measurements were taken at least 20 cm from holes made in the PFM for previous observations. When multiple samples were taken on a single occasion (for soil mineral N analysis), these were taken from a defined area rather than the whole plot.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Plant measurements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the experiment, rows of plants were harvested, and their fresh weight was determined before oven-drying (80\u0026deg;C, 8 h). The dried samples were ground using a Retsch stainless steel ball mill and then analysed for total C and N using a TruSpec\u0026reg; CN analyser (Leco Corp., St Joseph, MI). Only above-ground parts were analysed; we did not test the N content of the roots, but it is unlikely to be significant for these crops (Huett \u0026amp; Dettmann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). The yield was calculated as fresh and dry matter yield per plant and economic yield, which was the weight of the fresh plants trimmed of outer leaves and stems to the standard of the farm on which the experiment was conducted and scaled per hectare. Mid-season measurements were taken from plants adjacent to the gas sampling area, but at harvest, measurements were taken from plants both within and adjacent to this area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Soil measurements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil temperature and volumetric moisture sensors (TDT-SDI-12; Acclima Inc., Meridian, ID) were installed at a depth of 5 cm. One sensor was placed within the gas sampling area and one in an adjacent area of the plot (Fig. S2). Readings were recorded hourly using SDI-12 DataSnap data loggers (Acclima Inc.). Volumetric soil moisture content was converted to gravimetric soil water content and then to Water-Filled Pore Space (WFPS) as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWFPS = Ɵ\u003csub\u003ev\u003c/sub\u003e / Φ (Eq.\u0026nbsp;1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere Ɵ\u003csub\u003ev\u003c/sub\u003e is volumetric soil water content, and Φ is total soil porosity. Φ was calculated by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eΦ = (1 - Ρ\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e/Ρ\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e) (Eq.\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere Ρ\u003csub\u003eb\u003c/sub\u003e is soil bulk density, and Ρ\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e represents soil particle density (2.47g cm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e) (Sumner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe tea bag method of Keuskamp et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) was used to estimate soil biological activity. For this, the mass loss of the relatively easily degraded 'green' tea (C:N of 12) and the more recalcitrant rooibos (\u0026lsquo;red\u0026rsquo;) tea (C:N of 60) were measured to determine the rate of decay \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e ( the exponential rate of decay calculated from the proportion of mass lost from the \u0026lsquo;red\u0026rsquo; tea), and stabilisation factor \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003e (the proportion of the mass of green tea remaining relative to the fraction thought to be degradable estimated from chemical hydrolysis) (Duddigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The equations to calculate \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e and S are:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;ln(a\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e / (W\u003csub\u003e(t)\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; (1-a\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e))) / T (Eq.\u0026nbsp;3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003e = (1 - (a\u003csub\u003eg\u003c/sub\u003e / H\u003csub\u003eg\u003c/sub\u003e)) (Eq.\u0026nbsp;4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere a\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e = the decomposable fraction of red tea assumed to be the same fraction of hydrolysable material as that calculated for green tea so:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ea\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e = Hr(a\u003csub\u003eg\u003c/sub\u003e / H\u003csub\u003eg\u003c/sub\u003e) (Eq.\u0026nbsp;5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;length of time buried in days, W\u003csub\u003e(t)\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;fraction of red tea remaining after burial for time T, a\u003csub\u003eg\u003c/sub\u003e is the fraction of green tea lost, and Hg and H\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e are the easily degradable fractions of green and red tea, respectively, determined by hydrolysis (Hr\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.522, H\u003csub\u003eg\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.842; (Keuskamp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) Three pairs of Lipton Green Sencha (\u0026lsquo;green\u0026rsquo; tea) or Lipton Rooibos and Hibiscus tea bags (\u0026lsquo;red\u0026rsquo; tea) (Unilever Ltd., London, UK) were buried at a soil depth of 5 cm, spaced 20 cm apart (Fig. S2). These were recovered at the end of the experiment. The mass loss relative to the starting weight was determined after oven-drying the remaining tea in the litter bags at 60\u0026ordm;C until constant weight.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess soil available NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations, five soil cores (0\u0026ndash;10 cm) were taken every 14 days from between the plants in each subplot. After sample homogenisation, 5 g of soil was extracted with 25 ml of 1 M KCl (200 rev min\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e, 1 h), the extracts filtered, and the filtrate stored at -18\u0026deg;C prior to analysis. Soil moisture was determined by oven drying (105\u0026deg;C, 12 h). NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e in the KCl extracts were measured colourimetrically using the vanadate methods of Miranda et al. (2001) and the salicylic acid method of Mulvaney (1996), respectively. To avoid damaging the PFM within the gas sampling area, samples were taken from area adjacent areas during the growing season, but at the end of the experiment, samples were taken from both within the gas sampling area and adjacent to it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6. Measurement of gaseous fluxes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasuring gaseous emission through a PFM under field conditions has several challenges. Gases may escape through planting holes or damaged film and by diffusion through the film or from the edge of the bed. Gas may build up in spaces under the film and be concentrated in the soil profile. Any penetration of the film to place a measuring chamber could measure a release of the accumulated gases rather than the steady state flux from the soil. Placing a chamber for a prolonged period may also affect soil conditions (Rochette and Hutchinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). If a hole in the film is made for one set of observations, the conditions may be changed for the following observations. The apparatus for sampling gases is shown in Figure S3. GHG emissions and potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions were measured using a static chamber method similar to that employed by (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Before mulch and fertility treatments were applied, a UPVC collar was pushed into the soil so the rim was flush with the soil surface. Adhesive tape was then used to fix the mulch film to the collar. A UPVC sampling chamber (internally 390 mm \u0026times; 390 mm \u0026times; 300 mm) was placed on the collar and sealed using wet clay for each sampling occasion. The chambers were removed from the collars after each GHG and potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emission measurement to prevent any differences in the microclimate in the area when the chamber was not in use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHG sampling was conducted at least weekly at first, but after mid-season, the frequency was reduced to approximately every two weeks; in all, there were 11 sampling occasions over the course of the experiment. Unfortunately, the cabbages grew too large for the chambers in August, so the two penultimate observations were for leeks only. The final GHG flux measurements were taken immediately after the crop harvest so all plots could again be sampled,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGas samples were withdrawn through the rubber septum using a 25 ml syringe and injected into pre-evacuated 20 ml vials. GHG flux was calculated from the change in concentration in the headspace gases between initial samples and samples taken after 60 min. Additional samples were taken from one randomly selected chamber on each occasion, at 15, 30, and 45 mins, to check for linearity of change in headspace gas concentrations; these were satisfactory. Samples were analysed on a Perkin Elmer 580 Gas Chromatograph with a TurboMatrix 110 auto sampler (PerkinElmer, CT, USA). Gas samples passed through two Elite-Q mega bore columns via a split injector, with one connected to a \u003csup\u003e63\u003c/sup\u003eNi electron-capture detector for N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO determination and the other connected to a Flame Ionisation Detector for CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e and CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e determination. Fluxes were estimated using the slope of the linear regression between 0 min and 60 mins, considering the temperature and the ratio between chamber headspace volume and soil surface area. Cumulative GHG fluxes were estimated by linear interpolation between sampling points.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotential ammonia emission was measured using the same chamber on different occasions. A sponge (80 \u0026times; 80 \u0026times; 10 mm was soaked with 10 ml of 1 M H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e mixture containing 5% glycol (Shigaki and Dell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This was suspended from the lid of the gas chamber and left in the closed chamber for 4 h. The sponge was kept in a closed vessel before and after collection to avoid absorption of background atmospheric NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e. After being returned to the laboratory, the sponges were shaken with 40 ml 1 M KCl for 20 min, and the extract was subsequently stored at -18\u0026deg;C. Subsequently, 10 ml of the extract was placed in a 50 ml polypropylene tube, and an excess of 1 M NaOH was added to promote NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e release. The NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e released was trapped in 0.015 M H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e over 16 h, and the NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e in the traps was determined colourimetrically using the salicylic acid method of Mulvaney (1996).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield-scaled emissions were calculated by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eE\u003csub\u003eys\u003c/sub\u003e = E\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e/Y\u003csub\u003eec\u003c/sub\u003e (Eq.\u0026nbsp;6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere E\u003csub\u003eys\u003c/sub\u003e is the yield-scaled emissions, E\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e is total emissions, and Y\u003csub\u003eec\u003c/sub\u003e is the economic yield.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo investigate the effect of PFM on nitrification and denitrification rates, we examined the relationship between soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO efflux. N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO efflux as a proportion of soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration was calculated by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eE\u003csub\u003enn\u003c/sub\u003e = E\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e/C\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e (Eq.\u0026nbsp;7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere E\u003csub\u003enn\u003c/sub\u003e is the N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO efflux as a proportion of soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration, E\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e = N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO efflux, and C\u003csub\u003en\u003c/sub\u003e is the concentration of either NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e in the top 10 cm of soil at the nearest sampling period (10 out of 12 of these where within 24 h, the other two within 48 h of N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO efflux measurement).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs nitrification dominates N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO in drier soils, switching to denitrification at between 60 and 70% soil moisture (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e), we also analysed the relationship between soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO efflux separately for drier and wetter soil conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal Warming Potential (GWP) over a 100-year period was calculated by (Forster et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGWP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27 (N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO flux)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;273 (CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e flux)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e flux (Eq.\u0026nbsp;8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eand Greenhouse Gas Intensity (GHGI) was calculated by:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHGI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;GWP/Y\u003csub\u003eec\u003c/sub\u003e (Eq.\u0026nbsp;9).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7. Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analysed in R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). Mixed effects modelling was carried out using the Lme4 package (Bates et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The best-fit model was determined by a comparison of models using the experimental variables (mulch and density or fertility) as fixed effects and the block and bed and where relevant date as random effects in random intercept models; comparisons of log-likelihood were used to determine which models were best, using ANOVA to determine the significance of the differences where necessary. A summary of coefficients and significance levels was extracted with the lmeTest package (Kuznetsova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Results are assumed to be significant where \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on crop yields and N content\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFresh and dry matter yield per plant (for both leeks and cabbage) was significantly higher when grown with biodegradable PFM (30% and 26%, respectively; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The interaction of PFM with poultry manure fertiliser increased cabbage yield further. The details of the interactions are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The economic yield of cabbage was more affected by PFM than leeks (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Poultry manure resulted in slightly higher yields when used with PFM and lower without PFM compared to compost in the same combination (Fig. S4); however, this was not statistically significant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The fresh and dry yield per plant was not significantly different between the GHG monitoring areas and the other areas of the plot.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\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\u003eYield characteristics of cabbages and leeks grown with or without biodegradable PFM combined with either poultry manure or green-waste compost. Values represent means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" 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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFresh yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry matter yield\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic yield\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Mg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Mulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e243\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e244\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1117\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e137.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e925\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e119.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodegradable PFM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e314\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e306\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1338\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e145.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1482\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Crop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Crop*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e -not significant, Significant differences: * - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, ** - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.005, *** - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. p-value is given for the marginal case.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Economic yield is the yield of the fresh crop, trimmed to the standard of the farm on which the experiment was conducted, including wheelings between beds in the area.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e For dry and fresh yield per plant, analysis was carried out on % of crop mean yield of each crop type as crops gave very different yields.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbages had significantly higher N content and a lower C: N ratio at harvest; this, combined with higher yield, resulted in N uptake that was three to five times higher than that of leeks (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Biodegradable PFM increased crop N content and reduced the C: N ratio, but the effect was smaller in cabbages than in leeks. The choice of organic amendment did not significantly affect these metrics.\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\u003eCrop N content, C/N ratio and N uptake. Values represent means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4).\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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" 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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop N content\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eat Harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop C/N ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eat harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop N uptake\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003emid-season\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop N uptake\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eat harvest\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Mulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.27\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.68\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.29\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.92\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodegradable PFM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.14\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Crop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Crop*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e -not significant; Significant differences: * - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, ** - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.005, *** - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil gas fluxes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn most occasions, measured fluxes of N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO were significantly higher from PFM plots with leeks, but the size of the effect varied (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). There was a notable emission peak for all treatments three days after the start of the experiment. Over the growing season, PFM resulted in significantly higher cumulative N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions than unmulched treatments for leeks; however, for PFM with cabbages, this situation was reversed (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Crop type did not affect cumulative N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions from the unmulched plots. The organic amendment did not significantly impact N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCumulative seasonal emissions and yield-scaled emissions of N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO, CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e from soils with PFM mulch or No mulch combined with a crop of cabbages or leeks and fertilised with poultry manure or green-waste compost. Values represent means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4).\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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" 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=\"left\" 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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emission\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(mg N m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield-scaled N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emission\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(kg N Mg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e emission\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(mg m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal GHGI\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e eq m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield-scaled\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHGI\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e eq Mg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(mg N m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield-scaled NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(kg N Mg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Mulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.065\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-75.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e336.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;64.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.291\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;22.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.076\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-65.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e299.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;58.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.299\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.058\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.038\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-91.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;16.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e423.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;38.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.282\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.070\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-70.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;29.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e598.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;147.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.480\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.126\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodegradable PFM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e149.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;51.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.109\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-64.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e242.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;86.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.178\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.066\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e163.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;30.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.121\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-44.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;41.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e239.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;39.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.178\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;18.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.023\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-25.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;47.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e368.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;48.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.173\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.044\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.036\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-80.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e546.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;58.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.236\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.051\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Crop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e**\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch*Crop*Fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e -not significant; Significant differences: * - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, ** - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.005, *** - p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn most occasions, the measured daily CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e fluxes were very low and not significantly different between treatments. Despite a peak in emissions in the second week of the experiment, the cumulative effect was a net CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e consumption. However, there was no significant difference between the treatments (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasured potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e fluxes were higher overall in the unmulched than in the PFM treatments, but the significance was low (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.055). Daily NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e fluxes were significantly different in the first week and at the end of the experiment but not at other times (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). This resulted in cumulative seasonal emissions, which were also numerically higher in the unmulched plots, but again with weak significance (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07). However, a crop of cabbages and the interaction of cabbages grown with poultry manure fertiliser resulted in higher cumulative emissions. On a yield-scaled basis, PFM led to significantly lower NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emission as a proportion of NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentration in the topsoil (0\u0026ndash;10 cm) was significantly lower in mulched plots (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05); the occasions when there was a significantly higher proportion of emissions in unmulched plots appear to coincide with peaks of %WFPS (Fig. S5). In contrast, N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emission as a proportion of the soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e content was significantly higher in mulched plots (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). When WFPS was \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;60%, there was a significant positive correlation between N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO flux and soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration in PFM plots (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05) but not unmulched plots, and PFM increased the rate of emission (Fig. S6A); on the other hand, there was no relationship between N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO flux and soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig. S7A). In contrast, when WFPS was \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;60%, PFM did not significantly affect the relationship between N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO flux and soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration (Fig. S6B). However, there was a strong positive correlation between N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO flux and soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003econtent (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), which was not present in the PFM plots (Fig. S7B).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil mineral N dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was an initial peak in soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations in the first 4 weeks, after which the concentrations remained low. This pattern was the same in all treatments, but this initial peak was higher in the poultry manure amended plots (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eA\u0026amp;B). Overall, PFM and poultry manure significantly increased soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations. Initially, soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations were also high but decreased after four weeks in all treatments other than PFM with leeks, which had a substantial surplus by harvest of 99\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;18 mg NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eC\u0026amp;D). The unmulched plots had the lowest soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations at harvest, averaging 2.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4 mg NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. The soil in mulched cabbage plots (8.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 mg NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) was higher than that in unmulched plots but less than 10% of that of mulched leeks. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows the measured N inputs and outputs and the changes in soil mineral N concentration over the course of the experiment: unmulched plots had a reduction in soil mineral N content over the experiment, mulched leeks resulted in an increase, but mulched cabbages resulted in a reduction. Cabbages resulted in significantly higher crop N uptake due to their higher yield and N content; PFM also increased N uptake because of increased yield and N concentration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChanges in soil mineral N concentration and known N inputs and outflows. Values represent means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SEM (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4).\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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" 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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChange in soil mineral N conc. (0\u0026ndash;10 cm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g N m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrop N uptake\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g N m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasured losses of N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g N m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdded N\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ein fertiliser\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g N m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Mulch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.57\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.48\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodegradable PFM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCabbage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.42\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry Manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil biological activity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe teabag biodegradation assay showed that biodegradable PFM caused a significantly higher rate of decay, \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e, and a significantly lower stabilisation index, \u003cem\u003eS\u003c/em\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). These parameters were not significantly affected by organic amendment or crop type.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Effect of biodegradable mulch film on soil microclimate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable S3 shows the mean soil temperature and moisture for mulch and crop treatments over the season, while Figure S8 shows the fluctuation of these parameters plotted alongside air temperature and precipitation. Biodegradable PFM moderated temperature and moisture fluctuations, resulting in lower soil moisture and higher average soil temperature relative to the unmulched soil over the growing period. Cabbages resulted in drier and cooler soil on average than leeks; these differences were larger than those for the mulch treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Soil hydrothermal conditions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe application of a PFM resulted in relatively small overall changes in soil hydrothermal conditions; however, it was effective in reducing fluctuations in soil moisture and preventing extremes of both soil temperature and moisture. This contrasts with previous studies where black PFMs are often found to raise mean soil temperatures by 2\u0026ordm;C or more (Locher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Schonbeck \u0026amp; Evanylo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998a\u003c/span\u003e). This is possibly due to less film-soil contact and the insulating effect of air gaps between mulch and soil (Liakatas, 1986; Tarrara, 2000), as well as reduced sunlight hours and, thus, incident UV radiation in the maritime climate. PFM reduces evaporation and rainfall infiltration, reducing the rate of both wetting and drying (Snyder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tarara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). The effects of PFM on soil moisture are likely to vary spatially with both depth and distance from the planting holes (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Saglam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It is likely that at shallower depths, the differences that PFM causes to soil wetting and drying will be more pronounced than those measured in deeper soil layers. The difference in soil moisture between cabbages and leeks was larger than between mulch treatments; we ascribe this to the greater relative leaf area of cabbages, which resulted in shading and increased transpiration. Further, the mulched cabbage plots had fewer planting holes as they were planted less densely than the leeks, and it is possible that the canopy architecture of cabbages directed rainfall away from the planting holes (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Haraguchi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). This heterogeneity of soil moisture response to wetting and drying is likely to have influenced the highly moisture-dependent biotic (e.g., plant N uptake, microbial N cycling) and abiotic (e.g., N leaching, NH3 volatilisation) processes in this study. This is supported by Berger et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), who observed lower N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions in dry soil away from planting holes and higher emissions in the wetter areas around the planting holes, resulting in an insignificant net effect of PFM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Crop yield\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average economic yield of cabbages was slightly lower than the standard benchmark for UK organic producers but higher than expected for leeks (Lampkin et al., 2017), possibly reflecting the slightly shorter growing period for the cabbages. Economic yield showed bigger differences between the treatments than yields per plant; this probably reflects enhanced maturity of the crops in mulched plots, resulting in lower leaf-to-head or leaf-to-pseudostem ratio, which comprise the marketable product.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePFM increased dry matter yield per plant by 26%, which is in the range typically found for horticultural crops grown with PFM for leeks (Benoit \u0026amp; Ceustermans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Golian \u0026amp; Anyszka, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), cabbages (Ponjičan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Trdan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) and other horticultural crops (Nachimuthu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Samphire et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wojciechowska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The yield differences are often attributed to the effect of PFM on soil temperature or moisture; however, in this experiment, the differences in these are relatively small, suggesting that other factors were more important (e.g., enhanced NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the unmulched plots, there was no significant difference between the effect of organic amendment type on the yield between the two crops; however, the use of PFM and poultry manure caused a significant increase in yield, particularly for leeks (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;48%). This effect was not detected with compost. This is perhaps related to the relative growth rate of the two crops, leeks being slow to establish (Davies \u0026amp; Lennartson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and perhaps unable to take advantage of the initial short-lived higher available N.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Soil microbial activity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe tea bag index results indicate that biodegradable PFM causes significantly higher rates of SOM turnover. This replicates previous findings on the same site (Samphire et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The size of the effect is large, given the relatively small changes in mean soil moisture and temperature. However, the relative stability of soil moisture may also be a factor affecting SOM turnover. It is commonly observed that PFM increases soil microbial activity with consequent increases in mineralisation and soil DOC (Bandopadhyay et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Han et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This may be relevant to our soil mineral N and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Soil mineral N\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePFM increased both soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations. However, we are not able to attribute this to increased mineralisation or N losses (e.g. NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e leaching and gaseous N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e from denitrification), as these were not measured in this experiment. Overall, the concentrations of soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e were low, indicating a high soil nitrification rate, which is commonly found in cultivated soils with high C and N content when temperature and pH are not limiting (Elrys et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The highest concentrations were found in the initial period following poultry manure amendments, indicating rapid hydrolysis of readily available N compounds such as urea. PFM also had the largest effect at this time, probably partly by reducing N volatilisation losses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations were higher in the first month for all treatments but became very low in the unmulched plots towards the end of the experiment. This pattern was also present in the mulched cabbages but to a lesser extent, although it was still twice that of the unmulched plots by the end of the experiment. Soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations in mulched plots with leeks were several times higher than in other treatments. Crop uptake was the largest measured factor affecting soil mineral N in this experiment; as it significantly exceeds the total N in inputs from the organic amendments, there must have been significant mineralisation of SOM. The soil in the mulched leek plots increased in soil mineral N concentrations; all other treatments resulted in losses. The difference between this and mulched cabbages can be explained by the greater crop N uptake; the difference between this and unmulched leeks is consistent with biodegradable PFM causing increased mineralisation and reducing unmeasured losses. We only measured mineral N content in the top 10 cm of soil, and it is likely that the crops took up N from deeper soil profiles. This may have been a bigger factor in cabbages than leeks as they are significantly deeper-rooting (Thorup-Kristensen and Sorensen, 1999). Nevertheless, as there is no obvious reason to believe that more N was mineralised in the cabbage plots, it looks like there were substantially higher losses in leek plots, particularly those that were unmulched.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe small differences in soil temperature and moisture suggest that mineralisation is unlikely to account for the very low NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations in unmulched plots with both crops. Considering the lower N uptake caused by lower yield, it must be concluded that there were substantially higher losses in unmulched crops. The measured losses of N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e cannot explain these losses. Given the high rainfall events at various times in the experiment, it is likely that leaching was responsible for substantial N loss (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Schonbeck \u0026amp; Evanylo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExcess soil mineral N in leeks grown with PFM could be lost by leaching or denitrification. Steps could also be taken to mitigate these losses after harvest, such as growing a green manure or incorporating a high C: N ratio organic material (Constantin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Kang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Kristensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is likely that mineral N, equivalent to a significant portion of this, was lost from unmulched leeks through the growing period. This loss cannot be mitigated and is likely to contribute to environmental impacts elsewhere, for example, eutrophication in aquatic environments (Nixon et al., 1996) and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions from aquatic systems (P\u0026auml;tsch \u0026amp; K\u0026uuml;hn, 2008), negating the lower on-farm emissions. Thus, the lower on-farm emissions may not represent the overall environmental impact. It should be noted that leeks would often be grown later in an organic horticultural rotation than cabbages when there is lower available N in the soil (Thorup-Kristensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther than initially higher soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration with poultry manure, there was little difference in soil mineral N concentrations between the two organic amendments despite total N inputs from the compost being nearly four times as much as that from poultry manure. Up to 50% of N from poultry manure is estimated to be available to the crop in the same season, but the N supply from compost is deemed negligible (AHDB, 2021). The total amount of mineral N in the top 10 cm of soil and crop was significantly greater than the total added by either amendment, suggesting that the contribution of N accumulated from the previous ley was an important source. The ploughing-in of a two-year-old grass and red clover ley may have an N fertiliser replacement value of about 100 kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e N (Eriksen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Gaseous emissions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5.1. Methane emissions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNet CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e flux did not appear to be affected by the treatments. In all treatments, there was a small peak in CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e fluxes one week after the start of the experiment; however, this was balanced by net consumption at other times. It is likely that our results are due to the relatively small difference in soil hydrothermal conditions between the treatments. Cuello et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) found that PFM significantly increased CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e production in Chinese maize cultivation, reflecting the higher soil moisture in their study. In that study, PFM increased CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e emissions with both NPK fertiliser and a vetch residue amendment (low C: N ratio) and decreased absorption with barley straw (high C: N ratio). However, this effect was larger with a higher C: N ratio amendment (Cuello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Our study found no difference between different organic amendments, but this may be because native SOM and inputs from the ley were much larger. Similarly, the crop grown had no significant effect, which is more unexpected given the significant differences this caused to soil moisture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5.2. Carbon dioxide emissions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnfortunately, equipment failure resulted in no CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions data from the soil. Hence, we can only provide a partial GHG intensity of production (N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, expressed as CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e equivalent). However, soil emissions would reveal little about the net global warming because they miss the effects of changes in crop photosynthesis, return of crop residues and rhizodeposition; future experiments to calculate Net Ecosystem Exchange could quantify these (Oertel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5.3. Nitrous oxide emissions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions were increased by PFM when the crop was leeks but decreased when the crop was cabbages. The higher emissions in mulched leeks are likely partly due to higher soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations. Soil hydrothermal conditions could also have contributed as the differences between cabbages and leeks were greater than those between mulched and unmulched treatment, particularly later in the growing season.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe only research on PFM mulch and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions in a related climate examined the establishment of \u003cem\u003eMiscanthus\u003c/em\u003e for biofuel production (Holder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). They found that PFM caused no significant difference in N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions over two years compared to the other establishment methods. PFM resulted in greater soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations and drier soil, and these two factors may have had opposite effects of a similar magnitude, resulting in no significant overall effect on N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO fluxes. In our study, the differences in mean soil moisture were minor. Two studies in South Korea (which has a similar but warmer climate) were conducted using organic inputs (Cuello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Both found that PFM significantly increased N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions and emission factors for organic amendments. These studies found a positive correlation between emissions and soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e and soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations. In their experiments, differences in soil mineral N were less significant than ours. However, differences in soil hydrothermal conditions (that were more significant than in our experiment) and significantly higher DOC likely played an important role. We did not measure DOC, although indications of increased SOM breakdown rate from the TBI assay suggested it might also have been greater. However, other studies in less similar conditions have reported different results (Dong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Jin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur finding that PFM had a positive interaction with soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e concentration at WFPS\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;60% and a negative interaction with soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentration at WFPS\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;60% indicates that PFM positively affects the nitrification rate and the denitrification process when soil moisture conditions are favourable. It is known that nitrification is the dominant process where the average WFPS is \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;60%, and denitrification is the dominant process where the average WFPS is \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;60\u0026ndash;70% (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e). Nitrification is favoured by higher temperatures (Sahrawat, 2008). The difference in mean soil temperature in our study was only 0.6\u0026deg;C, but this may be a factor. On the other hand, when the % WFPS suggests that denitrification is dominant, higher emissions from unmulched soils could be due to higher peaks and increased amplitude of the fluctuations in soil moisture during heavy rainfall, reducing saturation and \u0026lsquo;hot moments\u0026rsquo; not represented in the averaged figures (Barrat et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Barrat et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Dobbie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Song et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Our results tend to confirm the speculation of Berger et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) that the rainfall-shedding effect of PFM can reduce N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions by reducing micro-sites with conditions that favour denitrification in the covered bed areas. Another study showed that biodegradable PFM increased the abundance and diversity of genes associated with ammonia-oxidising bacteria while simultaneously reducing emissions of N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO (Wang, W. et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). As we made no observations to discriminate between these microbial pathways, further research would be needed to confirm this effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe different organic amendments did not significantly affect N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions. This is unsurprising as the effects on mineral N concentration were small and not significant for NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e. Other characteristics of organic fertilisers, such as the C: N ratio, can be significant in determining the N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emission factor (Charles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Soil C content and the probable larger contribution to soil mineral N from residues from the ley may have obscured any differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5.4. Potential ammonia emissions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough we did measure a reduction in potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions from the PFM treatments, this was not significant, and the reduction was smaller than reported in other studies (Chae et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the reduction was more significant when expressed on a yield-scaled basis due to the higher yield. We ascribe the relatively low rates of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e loss to the slightly acidic and relatively moist soil (Whitehead \u0026amp; Raistrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Hargrove, 1990).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoultry manure was expected to have higher potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions than compost because it contains ammoniacal compounds, uric acid and urea, which are readily hydrolysed. (Sommer \u0026amp; Hutchings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). However, this response was only observed in the plots with cabbages. The reason for this is not apparent. Peaks of emissions occurred in the first few days, during a warm, dry period in mid-July and immediately after harvest in early September. The potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emission results should be viewed with some caution. Whilst useful for comparative purposes between treatments, the emissions measured should not be considered absolute fluxes for comparison with other studies that have used flow-through chamber methods, as the lack of air movement would have limited emissions (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Also, the extra step in our method for measuring NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions may have introduced additional uncertainty. Condensation on the walls of the collection chamber and the crop leaves, caused by high humidity in the closed chamber, may have absorbed ammonia; higher measurements post-harvest could be because the crop leaves were no longer present (Chae et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs we hypothesised, PFM increased crop yield and resulted in higher soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations. However, this did not result in higher gaseous losses of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, and although N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO losses were higher in mulched leeks than unmulched, this was not the case in mulched cabbages despite higher soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations. Our results also revealed that biodegradable PFM can reduce the emissions of both N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, without a negative impact on CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e emissions. N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO fluxes were positively related to soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations, but without knowing the relative contributions of mineralisation and leaching to the differences observed, it is not possible to fully understand the wider environmental impacts of PFM use. These results indicate that the use of PFM to moderate soil moisture fluctuations may be beneficial in reducing GHG emissions in climates with extreme rainfall events that are predicted to become more frequent and widespread with climate change. Developing a static chamber method that allows the chamber to be removed between sampling occasions and allows PFM to shed rainfall away from the mulched area could be an important development. Adopting micrometeorological GHG measurement approaches, e.g. eddy covariance, would allow fluxes to be measured at a larger scale without interfering with the integrity of the mulch film, although measurements from replicated treatments would be limited. PFM may reduce denitrification associated with high rainfall, which is an encouraging observation that deserves further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was part of a project funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMS conceived and designed the study with advice from DLJ and DRC. MS conducted the experiment, data collection, and analysis. MS prepared and wrote the first draft. DLJ and DRC advised and commented on the content, edited, and made corrections. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was part of a project funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Global Challenges Research Fund programme on Reducing the Impacts of Plastic Waste in Developing Countries (NE/V005871/1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMS conceived and designed the study with advice from DLJ and DRC. MS conducted the experiment, data collection, and analysis. MS prepared and wrote the first draft. DLJ and DRC advised and commented on the content, edited, and made corrections. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgriculture and Horticulture Development Board,. (2021). \u003cem\u003eNutrient Management Guide (RB209\u003c/em\u003e. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board,.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBandopadhyay, S., Martin-Closas, L., Pelacho, A. M., \u0026amp; DeBruyn, J. M. (2018). Biodegradable plastic mulch films: Impacts on soil microbial communities and ecosystem functions.\u003cem\u003e Frontiers in Microbiology, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 819.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarrat, H. A., Charteris, A. F., Le Cocq, K., Abadie, M., Clark, I. M., Chadwick, D. R., \u0026amp; Cardenas, L. (2022). N2O hot moments were not driven by changes in nitrogen and carbon substrates or changes in N cycling functional genes.\u003cem\u003e European Journal of Soil Science, 73\u003c/em\u003e(1), e13190.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarrat, H. A., Evans, J., Chadwick, D. R., Clark, I. M., Le Cocq, K., \u0026amp; M Cardenas, L. (2021). The impact of drought and rewetting on N2O emissions from soil in temperate and Mediterranean climates.\u003cem\u003e European Journal of Soil Science, 72\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2504-2516.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBates, D., M\u0026auml;chler, M., Bolker, B., \u0026amp; Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Statistical Software, 67\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-48. https://10.18637/jss.v067.i01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenoit, F., \u0026amp; Ceustermans, N. (2002). Effect of coloured mulch on production and thrips control with leek.\u003cem\u003e Plasticulture, \u003c/em\u003e, 36-47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerger, S., Kim, Y., Kettering, J., \u0026amp; Gebauer, G. (2013). Plastic mulching in agriculture\u0026mdash;friend or foe of N2O emissions?\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 167\u003c/em\u003e, 43-51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, R. W., Chadwick, D. R., Zang, H., Graf, M., Liu, X., Wang, K., Greenfield, L. M., \u0026amp; Jones, D. L. (2023). Bioplastic (PHBV) addition to soil alters microbial community structure and negatively affects plant-microbial metabolic functioning in maize.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Hazardous Materials, 441\u003c/em\u003e, 129959. https://10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129959\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChae, H. G., Song, H. J., Bhuiyan, M. S. I., Kim, P. J., \u0026amp; Lee, J. G. (2022). Unexpected high suppression of ammonia volatilization loss by plastic film mulching in Korean maize cropping system.\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 335\u003c/em\u003e, 108022. https://10.1016/j.agee.2022.108022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharles, A., Rochette, P., Whalen, J. K., Angers, D. A., Chantigny, M. H., \u0026amp; Bertrand, N. (2017). Global nitrous oxide emission factors from agricultural soils after addition of organic amendments: A meta-analysis.\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 236\u003c/em\u003e, 88-98. https://10.1016/j.agee.2016.11.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, B., Liu, E., Mei, X., Yan, C., \u0026amp; Garr\u0026eacute;, S. (2018). \u003cem\u003eModelling soil water dynamic in rain-fed spring maize field with plastic mulching\u003c/em\u003ehttps://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.12.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, N., Li, X., \u0026Scaron;imůnek, J., Shi, H., Ding, Z., \u0026amp; Zhang, Y. (2020). The effects of biodegradable and plastic film mulching on nitrogen uptake, distribution, and leaching in a drip-irrigated sandy field.\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 292\u003c/em\u003e, 106817. https://10.1016/j.agee.2020.106817\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConstantin, J., Mary, B., Laurent, F., Aubrion, G., Fontaine, A., Kerveillant, P., \u0026amp; Beaudoin, N. (2010). Effects of catch crops, no till and reduced nitrogen fertilization on nitrogen leaching and balance in three long-term experiments.\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 135\u003c/em\u003e(4), 268-278. https://10.1016/j.agee.2009.10.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuello, J. P., Hwang, H. Y., Gutierrez, J., Kim, S. Y., \u0026amp; Kim, P. J. (2015). Impact of plastic film mulching on increasing greenhouse gas emissions in temperate upland soil during maize cultivation.\u003cem\u003e Applied Soil Ecology, 91\u003c/em\u003e, 48-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026rsquo;Haene, K., Salomez, J., Verhaeghe, M., Van de Sande, T., De Nies, J., De Neve, S., \u0026amp; Hofman, G. (2018). Can optimum yield and quality of vegetables be reconciled with low residual soil mineral nitrogen at harvest?\u003cem\u003e Scientia Horticulturae, 233\u003c/em\u003e, 78-89. https://10.1016/j.scienta.2018.01.034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavies, G., \u0026amp; Lennartson, M. (2005). \u003cem\u003eOrganic Vegetable Production, A Complete Guide\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/em\u003e. Crowood Press Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDobbie, K. E., McTaggart, I. P., \u0026amp; Smith, K. A. (1999). Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural systems: variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 104\u003c/em\u003e(D21), 26891-26899.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDong, Q., Yang, Y., Yu, K., \u0026amp; Feng, H. (2018). Effects of straw mulching and plastic film mulching on improving soil organic carbon and nitrogen fractions, crop yield and water use efficiency in the Loess Plateau, China.\u003cem\u003e Agricultural Water Management, 201\u003c/em\u003e(C), 133-143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuddigan, S., Shaw, L. J., Alexander, P. D., \u0026amp; Collins, C. D. (2020). Chemical Underpinning of the Tea Bag Index: An Examination of the Decomposition of Tea Leaves.\u003cem\u003e Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2020\u003c/em\u003e, 1-8. https://10.1155/2020/6085180\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElrys, A. S., Wang, J., Metwally, M. A., Cheng, Y., Zhang, J., Cai, Z., Chang, S. X., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, C. (2021). Global gross nitrification rates are dominantly driven by soil carbon‐to‐nitrogen stoichiometry and total nitrogen.\u003cem\u003e Global Change Biology, 27\u003c/em\u003e(24), 6512-6524.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEriksen, J., Pedersen, L., \u0026amp; J\u0026oslash;rgensen, J. R. (2006). Nitrate leaching and spring wheat bread making quality following cultivation of grasslands of different composition, age and management.\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 116\u003c/em\u003e, 165-175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEveraarts, A. P. (1993). General and quantitative aspects of nitrogen fertilizer use in the cultivation of Brassica vegetables.\u003cem\u003e Acta Horticulturae, \u003c/em\u003e(339), 149-160. https://10.17660/ActaHortic.1993.339.13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, H., Li, Y., Gu, X., Yu, M., Chen, P., Li, Y., \u0026amp; Liu, F. (2022). Optimizing the impact of film mulching pattern and nitrogen application rate on maize production, gaseous N emissions, and utilization of water and nitrogen in northwest China.\u003cem\u003e Agricultural Water Management, 261\u003c/em\u003e, 107350. https://10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107350\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForster, P., T. Storelvmo, K. Armour, W. Collins, J.-L. Dufresne, D. Frame, D.J. Lunt, T. Mauritsen, M.D. Palmer, M. Watanabe, M. Wild, and H. Zhang, 2021: The Earth\u0026rsquo;s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. P\u0026eacute;an, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelek\u0026ccedil;i, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 923\u0026ndash;1054, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, H., Yan, C., Liu, Q., Ding, W., Chen, B., \u0026amp; Li, Z. (2019). Effects of plastic mulching and plastic residue on agricultural production: A meta-analysis.\u003cem\u003e The Science of the Total Environment, 651\u003c/em\u003e, 484-492. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.105\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGolian, J., \u0026amp; Anyszka, Z. (2015). Effectiveness of different methods of weed management in chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L.) and transplanted leek (Allium porrum L.).\u003cem\u003e Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 60\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan, Y., Sun, W., Si, P., Lou, C., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2020). Application of biodegradable plastic mulch improves manure N availability and tomato yield in an organic cropping system.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Plant Nutrition, 44\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1120-1130. https://10.1080/01904167.2020.1845372\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaraguchi, T., Marui, A., Mori, K., \u0026amp; Nakano, Y. (2003). Movement of water collected by vegetables in plastic-mulching field.\u003cem\u003e Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture-Kyushu University (Japan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHargrove, W.L. (1988), Evaluation of Ammonia Volatilization in the Field. Journal of Production Agriculture, 1: 104-111. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1988.0104\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHergoualc\u0026rsquo;h, K., Mueller, N., Bernoux, M., Kasimir, \u0026Auml;, van der Weerden, T. J., \u0026amp; Ogle, S. M. (2021). Improved accuracy and reduced uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories by refining the IPCC emission factor for direct N2O emissions from nitrogen inputs to managed soils.\u003cem\u003e Global Change Biology, 27\u003c/em\u003e(24), 6536-6550.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolder, A. J., McCalmont, J. P., Rowe, R., McNamara, N. P., Elias, D., \u0026amp; Donnison, I. S. (2019). Soil N2O emissions with different reduced tillage methods during the establishment of Miscanthus in temperate grassland.\u003cem\u003e GCB Bioenergy, 11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 539-549.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuett, D. O., \u0026amp; Dettmann, E. B. (1991). Nitrogen response surface models of zucchini squash, head lettuce and potato.\u003cem\u003e Plant and Soil, 134\u003c/em\u003e(2), 243-254.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIslam Bhuiyan, M. S., Rahman, A., Kim, G. W., Das, S., \u0026amp; Kim, P. J. (2021). Eco-friendly yield-scaled global warming potential assists to determine the right rate of nitrogen in rice system: A systematic literature review.\u003cem\u003e Environmental Pollution, 271\u003c/em\u003e, 116386. https://10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116386\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, X., An, T., Gall, A. R., Li, S., Filley, T., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2018). Enhanced conversion of newly-added maize straw to soil microbial biomass C under plastic film mulching and organic manure management.\u003cem\u003e Geoderma, 313\u003c/em\u003e, 154-162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKang, L., Chen, S., Liang, B., Qin, W., \u0026amp; Chen, Q. (2022). Catch crop planting and residue incorporation to reduce nitrogen leaching in intensive vegetable greenhouse field.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Environmental Quality, 51\u003c/em\u003e(1), 44-54. https://10.1002/jeq2.20306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaric, L., Vukasinovic, S., \u0026amp; Znidarcic, D. (2005). Response of leek (Allium porrum L.) to different levels of nitrogen dose under agro-climate conditions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.\u003cem\u003e Acta Agric.Slovenica, 85\u003c/em\u003e, 219-226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKasirajan, S., \u0026amp; Ngouajio, M. (2012a). Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review.\u003cem\u003e Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 501-529. https://10.1007/s13593-011-0068-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKasirajan, S., \u0026amp; Ngouajio, M. (2012b). Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review.\u003cem\u003e Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 501-529.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeuskamp, J. A., Dingemans, B. J., Lehtinen, T., Sarneel, J. M., \u0026amp; Hefting, M. M. (2013). Tea Bag Index: a novel approach to collect uniform decomposition data across ecosystems.\u003cem\u003e Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1070-1075.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, G. W., Das, S., Hwang, H. Y., \u0026amp; Kim, P. J. (2017). Nitrous oxide emissions from soils amended by cover-crops and under plastic film mulching: Fluxes, emission factors and yield-scaled emissions.\u003cem\u003e Atmospheric Environment (1994), 152\u003c/em\u003e, 377-388. https://10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., \u0026amp; Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Statistical Software, 82\u003c/em\u003e(13), 1-26. https://10.18637/jss.v082.i13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamont, W. J., Jr. (2005). Plastics: modifying the microclimate for the production of vegetable crops.\u003cem\u003e HortTechnology (Alexandria, Va.), 15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 477-481. https://10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0477\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. G., Chae, H. G., Hwang, H. Y., Kim, P. J., \u0026amp; Cho, S. R. (2021). Effect of plastic film mulching on maize productivity and nitrogen use efficiency under organic farming in South Korea.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 787\u003c/em\u003e, 147503. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147503\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J. G., Cho, S. R., Jeong, S. T., Hwang, H. Y., \u0026amp; Kim, P. J. (2019). Different response of plastic film mulching on greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) between chemical and organic fertilization in maize upland soil.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 696\u003c/em\u003e, 133827.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, H., Wang, L., Peng, Y., Zhang, S., Lv, S., Li, J., Abdo, A. I., Zhou, C., \u0026amp; Wang, L. (2021). Film mulching, residue retention and N fertilization affect ammonia volatilization through soil labile N and C pools.\u003cem\u003e Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 308\u003c/em\u003e, 107272. https://10.1016/j.agee.2020.107272\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Wang, Q., Wang, W., \u0026amp; Shao, M. (2005). Soil evaporation under perforated plastic mulch.\u003cem\u003e The Journal of Applied Ecology, 16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 445-449. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15943354\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Feng, H., Wu, W., Jiang, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., Cheng, H., Li, C., Dong, Q., Siddique, K. H. M., \u0026amp; Chen, J. (2022). Decreased greenhouse gas intensity of winter wheat production under plastic film mulching in semi-arid areas.\u003cem\u003e Agricultural Water Management, 274\u003c/em\u003e, 107941. https://10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107941\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiakatas, A., Clark, J.A. and Monteith, J.L., 1986. Measurements of the heat balance under plastic mulches. Part I. Radiation balance and soil heat flux. \u003cem\u003eAgricultural and forest meteorology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp.227-239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocher, J., Omb\u0026oacute;di, A., Kassai, T., \u0026amp; Dimeny, J. (2005). Influence of coloured mulches on soil temperature and yield of sweet pepper.\u003cem\u003e Eur.J.Hort.Sci, 70\u003c/em\u003e(3), 135-141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMet Office. (2021, \u003cem\u003euk climate averages- carmarthen\u003cbr\u003e. \u003c/em\u003eMet Office. Retrieved 11/11/2021, from https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/gchzjb39w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMo, F., Han, J., Wen, X., Wang, X., Li, P., Vinay, N., Jia, Z., Xiong, Y., \u0026amp; Liao, Y. (2020). Quantifying regional effects of plastic mulch on soil nitrogen pools, cycles, and fluxes in rain-fed agroecosystems of the Loess Plateau.\u003cem\u003e Land Degradation \u0026amp; Development, 31\u003c/em\u003e(13), 1675-1687. https://https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3548\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNachimuthu, G., Halpin, N. V., \u0026amp; Bell, M. J. (2017). Productivity Benefits from Plastic Mulch in Vegetable Production Likely to Limit Adoption of Alternate Practices that Deliver Water Quality Benefits: An On-Farm Case Study.\u003cem\u003e Horticulturae, 3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 42. https://10.3390/horticulturae3030042\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNan, W., Yue, S., Huang, H., Li, S., \u0026amp; Shen, Y. (2016). Effects of plastic film mulching on soil greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) concentration within soil profiles in maize fields on the Loess Plateau, China.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 451-464. https://10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61106-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOertel, C., Matschullat, J., Zurba, K., Zimmermann, F., \u0026amp; Erasmi, S. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from soils\u0026mdash;A review.\u003cem\u003e Geochemistry, 76\u003c/em\u003e(3), 327-352.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePonjičan, O., Kiss, F., Ilin, Ž, Adamović, B., Sabado\u0026scaron;, V., Sedlar, A., \u0026amp; Vi\u0026scaron;acki, V. (2021). Influence of plastic mulch and fertilization on the environmental impact of spring cabbage production.\u003cem\u003e European Journal of Agronomy, 122\u003c/em\u003e, 126170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQi, R., Jones, D. L., Li, Z., Liu, Q., \u0026amp; Yan, C. (2020). Behavior of microplastics and plastic film residues in the soil environment: A critical review.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 703\u003c/em\u003e, 134722. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134722\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuemada, M., \u0026amp; Gabriel, J. L. (2016). Approaches for increasing nitrogen and water use efficiency simultaneously.\u003cem\u003e Global Food Security, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 29-35. https://10.1016/j.gfs.2016.05.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRauscher, A., Meyer, N., Jakobs, A., Bartnick, R., Lueders, T., \u0026amp; Lehndorff, E. (2023). Biodegradable microplastic increases CO2 emission and alters microbial biomass and bacterial community composition in different soil types.\u003cem\u003e Applied Soil Ecology, 182\u003c/em\u003e, 104714. https://10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104714\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReay, M. K., Greenfield, L. M., Graf, M., Lloyd, C. E. M., Evershed, R. P., Chadwick, D. R., \u0026amp; Jones, D. L. (2023). LDPE and biodegradable PLA-PBAT plastics differentially affect plant-soil nitrogen partitioning and dynamics in a Hordeum vulgare mesocosm.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Hazardous Materials, 447\u003c/em\u003e, 130825. https://10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130825\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRochette, P. and Hutchinson, G.L., 2005. Measurement of soil respiration in situ: chamber techniques. \u003cem\u003eMicrometeorology in agricultural systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e, pp.247-286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaglam, M., Sintim, H. Y., Bary, A. I., Miles, C. A., Ghimire, S., Inglis, D. A., \u0026amp; Flury, M. (2017). Modeling the effect of biodegradable paper and plastic mulch on soil moisture dynamics.\u003cem\u003e Agricultural Water Management, 193\u003c/em\u003e, 240-250.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalama, K., \u0026amp; Geyer, M. (2023). Plastic Mulch Films in Agriculture: Their Use, Environmental Problems, Recycling and Alternatives.\u003cem\u003e Environments (Basel, Switzerland), 10\u003c/em\u003e(10), 179. https://10.3390/environments10100179\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamphire, M., Chadwick, D. R., \u0026amp; Jones, D. L. (2023). Biodegradable plastic mulch films increase yield and promote nitrogen use efficiency in organic horticulture.\u003cem\u003e Frontiers in Agronomy, 5\u003c/em\u003e, 1141608.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchonbeck, M. W., \u0026amp; Evanylo, G. K. (1998a). Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production I. Soil temperature, soil moisture and marketable yield.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55-81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchonbeck, M. W., \u0026amp; Evanylo, G. K. (1998b). Effects of Mulches on Soil Properties and Tomato Production II. Plant-Available Nitrogen, Organic Matter Input, and Tilth-Related Properties.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83-100. https://10.1300/J064v13n01_07\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSerrano-Ruiz, H., Martin-Closas, L., \u0026amp; Pelacho, A. M. (2021). Biodegradable plastic mulches: Impact on the agricultural biotic environment.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 750\u003c/em\u003e, 141228. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShigaki, F. and Dell, C.J. (2015), Comparison of Low-Cost Methods for Measuring Ammonia Volatilization. Agronomy Journal, 107: 1392-1400. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2134/agronj14.0431\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkinner, C., Gattinger, A., Muller, A., M\u0026auml;der, P., Flie\u0026beta;bach, A., Stolze, M., Ruser, R., \u0026amp; Niggli, U. (2014). Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management \u0026mdash; A global meta-analysis.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 468-469\u003c/em\u003e, 553-563. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.098\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSnyder, K., Grant, A., Murray, C., \u0026amp; Wolff, B. (2015). The Effects of Plastic Mulch Systems on Soil Temperature and Moisture in Central Ontario.\u003cem\u003e HortTechnology (Alexandria, Va.), 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 162-170. https://10.21273/HORTTECH.25.2.162\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSommer, S. G., \u0026amp; Hutchings, N. J. (2001). Ammonia emission from field applied manure and its reduction\u0026mdash;invited paper.\u003cem\u003e European Journal of Agronomy, 15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-15. https://10.1016/S1161-0301(01)00112-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSong, X., Wei, H., Rees, R. M., \u0026amp; Ju, X. (2022). Soil oxygen depletion and corresponding nitrous oxide production at hot moments in an agricultural soil.\u003cem\u003e Environmental Pollution, 292\u003c/em\u003e, 118345. https://10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118345\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tr\u0026ouml;ger, J., Mu\u0026ntilde;oz, K., Fr\u0026ouml;r, O., \u0026amp; Schaumann, G. E. (2016). Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation?\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 550\u003c/em\u003e, 690-705.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumner, M. E. (2000). \u003cem\u003eHandbook of soil science / editor-in-chief, Malcolm E. Sumner\u003c/em\u003e. CRC Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, D., Li, H., Wang, E., He, W., Hao, W., Yan, C., Li, Y., Mei, X., Zhang, Y., \u0026amp; Sun, Z. (2020). An overview of the use of plastic-film mulching in China to increase crop yield and water-use efficiency.\u003cem\u003e National Science Review, 7\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1523-1526.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTarara, J. M. (2000). Microclimate Modification with Plastic Mulch.\u003cem\u003e HortScience, 35\u003c/em\u003e(2), 169-180. https://10.21273/HORTSCI.35.2.169\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTei, F., De Neve, S., de Haan, J., \u0026amp; Kristensen, H. L. (2020). Nitrogen management of vegetable crops.\u003cem\u003e Agricultural Water Management, 240\u003c/em\u003e, 106316.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe R Foundation for Statistical Computin. (2020). R version 4.0.3 (2020-10-10) -- \u0026quot;Bunny-Wunnies Freak Out\u0026quot; [computer software]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Weather Company, L. (2022, \u003cem\u003eDAX Weather Sensor Array - ILLANELL6. \u003c/em\u003eThe Weather Underground. Retrieved `10/12/22, from https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/ILLANELL6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThorup-Kristensen, K. (1999). An organic vegetable crop rotation aimed at self-sufficiency in nitrogen.\u003cem\u003e Designing and Testing Crop Rotations for Organic Farming, \u003c/em\u003e(1), 133-140.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThorup-Kristensen, K., \u0026amp; S\u0026oslash;rensen, J. N. (1999). Soil Nitrogen Depletion by Vegetable Crops with Variable Root Growth. \u003cem\u003eActa Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B \u0026mdash; Soil \u0026amp; Plant Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(2), 92\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064719950135597\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrdan, S., Žnidarčič, D., Kač, M., \u0026amp; Vidrih, M. (2008). Yield of early white cabbage grown under mulch and non-mulch conditions with low populations of onion thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman).\u003cem\u003e International Journal of Pest Management, 54\u003c/em\u003e(4), 309-318.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, H., Zheng, J., Fan, J., Zhang, F., \u0026amp; Huang, C. (2021). Grain yield and greenhouse gas emissions from maize and wheat fields under plastic film and straw mulching: A meta-analysis.\u003cem\u003e Field Crops Research, 270\u003c/em\u003e, 108210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, H., Yan, Z., Ju, X., Song, X., Zhang, J., Li, S., \u0026amp; Zhu-Barker, X. (2023a). Quantifying nitrous oxide production rates from nitrification and denitrification under various moisture conditions in agricultural soils: Laboratory study and literature synthesis.\u003cem\u003e Frontiers in Microbiology, 13\u003c/em\u003e, 1110151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, H., Yan, Z., Ju, X., Song, X., Zhang, J., Li, S., \u0026amp; Zhu-Barker, X. (2023b). Quantifying nitrous oxide production rates from nitrification and denitrification under various moisture conditions in agricultural soils: Laboratory study and literature synthesis.\u003cem\u003e Frontiers in Microbiology, 13\u003c/em\u003e, 1110151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, W., Han, L., Zhang, X., \u0026amp; Wei, K. (2021). Plastic film mulching affects N2O emission and ammonia oxidizers in drip irrigated potato soil in northwest China.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 754\u003c/em\u003e, 142113. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y. P., Li, X. G., Zhu, J., Fan, C. Y., Kong, X. J., Turner, N. C., Siddique, K. H., \u0026amp; Li, F. (2016). Multi-site assessment of the effects of plastic-film mulch on dryland maize productivity in semiarid areas in China.\u003cem\u003e Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 220\u003c/em\u003e, 160-169.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Z., Liu, X., Ju, X., Zhang, F., \u0026amp; Malhi, S. S. (2004). Ammonia volatilization loss from surface-broadcast urea: comparison of vented-and closed-chamber methods and loss in winter wheat\u0026ndash;summer maize rotation in North China Plain.\u003cem\u003e Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35\u003c/em\u003e(19-20), 2917-2939.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei, H., Zhang, F., Zhang, K., Qin, R., Zhang, W., Sun, G., \u0026amp; Huang, J. (2022). Effects of soil mulching on staple crop yield and greenhouse gas emissions in China: A meta-analysis.\u003cem\u003e Field Crops Research, 284\u003c/em\u003e, 108566. https://10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitehead, D.C. and Raistrick, N. (1990), Ammonia volatilization from five nitrogen compounds used as fertilizers following surface application to soils. Journal of Soil Science, 41: 387-394. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1990.tb00074.x\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWojciechowska, R., Siwek, P., \u0026amp; Libik, A. (2007). Effect of mulching with various films on the yield quality of butterhead lettuce and celery stalks with special reference to nitrate metabolism.\u003cem\u003e Folia Hort, 19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37-44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXie, Y., \u0026amp; Kristensen, H. L. (2017). Intercropping leek (Allium porrum L.) with dyer\u0026rsquo;s woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) increases rooted zone and agro-ecosystem retention of nitrogen.\u003cem\u003e European Journal of Agronomy, 82\u003c/em\u003e, 21-32. https://10.1016/j.eja.2016.09.017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, J., Qin, R., Shi, X., Wei, H., Sun, G., Li, F., \u0026amp; Zhang, F. (2022). The effects of plastic film mulching and straw mulching on licorice root yield and soil organic carbon content in a dryland farming.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 826\u003c/em\u003e, 154113. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, Y., Zhang, Y., Xiao, M., Zhao, C., \u0026amp; Yao, H. (2021). A meta-analysis of film mulching cultivation effects on soil organic carbon and soil greenhouse gas fluxes.\u003cem\u003e Catena, 206\u003c/em\u003e, 105483.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, K., Li, Z., Li, Y., Wan, P., Chai, N., Li, M., Wei, H., Kuzyakov, Y., Filimonenko, E., Almwarai Alharbi, S., Li, F., Zhang, W., \u0026amp; Zhang, F. (2023). Contrasting impacts of plastic film mulching and nitrogen fertilization on soil organic matter turnover.\u003cem\u003e Geoderma, 440\u003c/em\u003e, 116714. https://10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116714\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, L., Qin, R., Wei, H., Zhang, K., Yu, C., Li, F., \u0026amp; Zhang, F. (2022). Optimum plastic mulching application to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without compromising on crop yield and farmers\u0026apos; income.\u003cem\u003e Science of the Total Environment, 809\u003c/em\u003e, 151998. https://10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151998\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Sustainable plasticulture, Organic farming, Soil quality, PLA, Nitrogen dynamics","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4710284/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4710284/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePlastic film mulch (PFM) controls weeds and increases yields, making them attractive to vegetable growers; biodegradable PFMs potentially reduce the harms associated with conventional PFMs. PFMs increase soil biological activity, accelerating the decomposition of soil organic matter and potentially increasing emissions of some greenhouse gases (GHGs). Conversely, they are a barrier to rainfall infiltration and gas exchange, reducing harmful nitrate (NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e) leaching and ammonia (NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e) volatilisation. The effects of PFMs on the processes resulting in GHG emissions are not well explored outside conventionally grown commodity crops in major growing regions. To address this, we conducted a field plot-scale experiment on an organic vegetable farm in SW Wales (UK). We measured nitrous oxide (N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO), methane (CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e), carbon dioxide (CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) and potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emission from the soil, growing leeks or cabbages, with or without biodegradable PFM and amended with poultry manure or green-waste compost. Averaged across both crops, yield was 26% higher with PFM; potential NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e emissions were 18% lower (43% on a yield-scaled basis) in mulched treatments than unmulched; CH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e emissions were not significantly affected. Yield-scaled N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions were 62% higher in mulched leeks than unmulched but 56% lower in mulched cabbages than unmulched; this coincided with higher soil NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e concentrations in mulched leeks than either unmulched crop or mulched cabbages. Results were not obtained for CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, so partial global warming potential (GWP) and greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) were determined mainly by N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions. Thus, biodegradable PFM is potentially useful in reducing harmful gaseous N emissions in organic horticulture.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Biodegradable plastic film mulch increased nitrous oxide emissions in organic leek but decreased emissions in organic cabbages","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-02 08:47:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4710284/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"dffd2b04-28ff-42b0-acc7-5a5cee27fb5b","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 2nd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-01-29T22:38:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-02 08:47:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4710284","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4710284","identity":"rs-4710284","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}