THE EFFECT OF HUMIC PREPARATIONS ON CROP YIELDS AND QUALITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract

The study aimed to perform a systematic study and meta-analysis of national and foreign data (687 data points in total) on the effect of humic preparations (HPs) on crop yields. Specific objectives included evaluating the efficiency range of HPs (yield increase as a percentage of the control) accounting for statistical uncertainty estimated via absolute median deviation, and assessing the influence of HPs characteristics, crop types, and soil properties on this metric. HPs efficiency varied from –59% to +540% (mean 18%) and followed a non-normal distribution. The median efficiency was 12 %, with lower and upper quartiles at 5% and 21%, respectively, and uncertainty of 99 %. Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that soil granulometric composition and HPs enrichment with trace elements did not significantly affect efficiency of HPs. Key influencing factors included: cation salts of humate in HPs (Na salts were the least effective); HPs application method (combined soil and foliar application was most effective); soil acidity and humus content (higher efficiency at pH > 6.6 and humus content < 1%). Plants in the aster family showed the greatest responsiveness to HPs, while legumes and nightshades exhibited significantly lower efficiency. Under nitrogen deficiency, HPs efficiency rose to 22%, and most studies reported increased nitrogen and/or protein content in crop products. These findings suggest that HPs primarily enhance field yields by improving plant nitrogen assimilation. The results indicate that promising future research should evaluate HPs effectiveness against reduced nitrogen fertilizer rates. Given rising fertilizer costs, even modest effects could prove economically viable. Further field studies should optimize HPs use conditions and methods, prioritizing identification of factors driving efficiency uncertainty — preliminarily, application method and soil conditions (pH, humus content, and available nitrogen).

References

1. Брюс П., Брюс Э. Практическая статистика для специалистов Data Science: Пер. с англ. // СПб., 2018. 304 с. 2. Гуминовые удобрения. Теория и практика их применения: сб. статей (Ч. 1). Харьков, 1957. 376 с. 3. Кизюля М.М., Калинов А.Г., Шаповалов В.Ф. и др. Агроэкологическая оценка применения минеральных удобрений и гуминового препарата при возделывании ярового ячменя на радиоактивно загрязненной почве // Вестн. Курской гос. с.-х. акад. 2019. № 7. С. 51–57. http://doi.org/10.18551/issn1997-0749.2019-07 4. Корсаков К.В., Пронько В.В., Пронько Н.А. и др. Продуктивность свеклы столовой при внесении гуминовых препаратов и хелатных удобрений на орошаемых каштановых почвах Саратовского Заволжья // Аграрный научный журнал. 2019. № 5. С. 25–29. https://doi.org/10.28983/asj.y2019i5pp25-29 5. Лиштван И.И., Наумова Г.В., Пироговская Г.В. и др. Регулятор роста растений Бурогумин и агрохимическая эффективность его применения при возделывании картофеля // Природопользование. 2013. № 23. С. 187–192. 6. Мамеев В.В., Дронов А.В., Ториков В.Е. и др. Влияние некорневой подкормки органоминерального комплекса Гумитон на продуктивность кукурузы на зерно // Вестн. Брянской гос. с.-х. акад. 2021. № 3(85). С. 8–14. https://doi.org/10.52691/2500-2651-2021-85-3-8-14 7. Можарова И.П., Коршунов А.А., Вознесенская Т.Ю. Влияние полифункциональных удобрений с включением гуминовых веществ, аминокислот, макро- и микроэлементов на урожайность и качество яровой и озимой пшеницы // Агрохим. вестн. 2018. № 6. С. 39–43. https://doi.org/10.24411/0235-2516-2018-10058 8. Налиухин А.Н., Власова О.А., Белозеров Д.А. и др. Последействие биомодифицированных органоминеральных удобрений на агродерново-подзолистой почве // Молочнохозяйственный вестн. 2020. № 38. С. 66–79. https://doi.org/10.52231/2225-4269_2023_1_63 9. Нечаев Л.А., Путинцев А.Ф., Зотиков В.И. и др. Влияние применения гумата калия на продуктивность пивоваренного ячменя // Достижения науки и техники АПК. 2014. № 6. С. 33–35. 10. Оленин О.А., Зудилин С.Н. Полифункциональные биопрепараты для органического земледелия на основе переработки органических отходов и сырья // Нива Поволжья. 2020. № 4. С. 36–42. https://doi.org/10.36461/NP.2020.57.4.011 11. Пронько Н.А., Корсаков К.В., Пронько В.В. и др. Применение хелатных удобрений на орошаемых овощных культурах в Саратовском Заволжье // Аграрный научный журнал. 2021. № 5. С. 41–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.28983/asj.y2021i5pp41-45. https://doi.org/10.28983/asj.y2021i5pp41-45 12. РМГ 43-2001. Применение «Руководства по определению неопределенности измерений» // Стандартинформ. 2005. 24 с. 13. Соколов Г.А., Рак М.В., Гаврильчик Н.С. и др. Агроэнергетическая эффективность некорневых подкормок сельскохозяйственных культур жидкими микроэлементными удобрениями с гуминовыми веществами «Элегум» // Природопользование. 2010. № 18. С. 170–176. 14. Соколов А.А., Лупова Е.И., Мазиров М.А. и др. Влияние органоминерального удобрения на продуктивность ярового рапса в условиях Рязанской области // Владимирский земледелец. 2020. № 1. С. 29–33. http://doi.org/10.24411/2225-2584-2020-10106 15. Сулейменов Б.У., Сейтменбетова А.Т. Влияние гуминового удобрения «биоэкогум» на биохимические показатели качества зерна озимой пшеницы // Почвоведение и агрохимия. 2021. № 1. С. 64–73. 16. Тиранова Л.В., Тиранов А.Б., Григорьев А.В. Ресурсосберегающая технология возделывания картофеля на дерново-подзолистой почве в условиях Новгородской области // Аграрная Россия. 2019. № 3. С. 3–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.30906/1999-5636-2019-3-3-6 17. Христева Л.А. Действие физиологически активных гуминовых кислот на растения при неблагоприятных внешних условиях // Гуминовые удобрения: теория и практика их применения. Днепропетровск, 1973. Т. 4. С.15–23. 18. Якименко О.С. Применение гуминовых продуктов в РФ: результаты полевых опытов (обзор литературы) (Электронный ресурс) // Электронный журнал Живые и биокосные системы. 2016. № 18. URL: http://www.jbks.ru/archive/issue-18/article-4 (дата обращения: 15.07.2025). 19. Abd Elhady A., Fergany M.A., Eltemsah M.E. Influence of integration between mineral nitrogen and humic acid fertilizers on productivity and nitrogen partitioning dynamic in maize plants // Egypt. J. Agron. 2017. 39(2). P. 195–202. http://doi.org/10.21608/agro.2017.1168.1064 20. Abd El-Rheem K.M., Afifi A.A., Youssef R.A. Effect of humic acid isolated by IHSS-N2/Mn method and P fertilization on yield of pepper plants // Life Science J. 2012. 9(2). P. 356–362. 21. Abdelaal K.A., Hafez Y.M., El-Afry M.M. et al. Effect of some osmoregulators on photosynthesis, lipid peroxidation, antioxidative capacity, and productivity of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) under water deficit stress // Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018. 25. P. 30199–30211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3023-x 22. Abdo A.I., Elrys A.S., Abdel-Fattah M.K. et al. Mitigating nitrate accumulation in potato tubers under optimum nitrogen fertilization with K-humate and calcium chloride // J. Clean. Prod. 2020. 259, 121108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121108 23. Aghhavani Shajari M., Rezvani Moghaddam P., Ghorbani R. et al. Increasing saffron (Crocus sativus L.) corm size through the mycorrhizal inoculation, humic acid application and irrigation managements // J. Plant Nutrition. 2018. 41(8). P. 1047–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1433835 24. Ahmad I., Usman Saquib R., Qasim M. et al. Humic acid and cultivar effects on growth, yield, vase life, and corm characteristics of gladiolus // Chilean J. Agricult. Res. 2013. 73(4). P. 339–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392013000400002 25. Ampong K., Thilakaranthna M.S., Gorim L.Y. Understanding the role of humic acids on crop performance and soil health // Frontiers in Agronomy. 2022. 4. 848621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.848621 26. Bakhashwain A.A., Daur I., Abohassan R.A. et al. Response of genetically divergent pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) varieties to different organo-mineral fertility management // Pak. J. Bot. 2013. 45(5). P. 1657–1661. 27. Belal E.E., El Sowfy D.M., Rady M.M. Integrative soil application of humic acid and sulfur improves saline calcareous soil properties and barley plant performance // Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019. 50(15). P. 1919–1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1648497 28. Bettoni M.M., Mogor Á.F., Pauletti V. et al. Nutritional quality and yield of onion as affected by different application methods and doses of humic substances // J. Food Compos. Anal. 2016. 51. P. 37–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.06.008 29. Brazil R. Illuminating 'the ugly side of science': fresh incentives for reporting negative results (Электронный ресурс) // Nature. 2024 May 8. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01389-7 (дата обращения: 16.07.2025). 30. Buczko U., van Laak M., Eichler-Löbermann B. et al. Re-evaluation of the yield response to phosphorus fertilization based on meta-analyses of long-term field experiments // Ambio. 2018. 47. P. 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0971-1 31. Burdick E.M. Commercial humates for agriculture and the fertilizer industry // Econom. Botany. 1965. 19(2). P. 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02862826 32. Cieschi M.T., Caballero-Molada M., Menéndez N. et al. Long-term effect of a leonardite iron humate improving Fe nutrition as revealed in silico, in vivo, and in field experiments // J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017. 65. P. 6554–6563. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01804 33. Daur I. Effect of humic acid on growth, protein and mineral composition of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) r. br.) fodder // Pak. J. Bot. 2014. 46(2). P. 505–509 34. De’ath G., Fabricius K.E. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis // Ecology. 2000. 81. P. 3178–3192. https://doi.org/10.2307/177409 35. El-Kholy A.S.M., Aly R.M.A., El-Bana A.Y.A. et al. Yield of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) as influenced by planting density, humic acid rate and phosphorus fertilization level under drip irrigation system in sandy soils // Zagazig J. Agric. Res. 2019. 46(6A). P. 1785–1795. https://doi.org/10.21608/zjar.2019.51869 36. Evenson R.E., Gollin D. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000 // Science. 2003. 300(5620). P. 758–762. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.107871 37. Gao C., El-Sawah A.M., Ali D.F.I. et al. The integration of bio and organic fertilizers improve plant growth, grain yield, quality and metabolism of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) // Agronomy. 2020. 10(3). 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030319 38. Gonet S.S., Dziamski A., Gonet E. Application of humus preparations from oxyhumolite in crop production // Environ. International. 1996. 22(5). P. 559–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(96)00043-8. 39. Hameed A., Fatma S., Wattoo J.I. et al. Accumulative effects of humic acid and multinutrient foliar fertilizers on the vegetative and reproductive attributes of citrus (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin) // J. Plant Nutr. 2018. 41(19). P. 2495–2506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1510506 40. Hartz T.K., Bottoms T.G. Humic substances generally ineffective in improving vegetable crop nutrient uptake or productivity // HortScience. 2010. 45(6). P. 906–910. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.45.6.906 41. Ibraheem F.F., Allel W.B., Hussien J.M. Effect of soil mulching, organic and inorganic fertilizer on growth and yield of summer squash // Int. J. Agricult. Statical Scencei, 2019. 15(2). P. 677–685. 42. Idrees M., Anjum M.A., Mirza J.I. Potassium humate and NPK application rates influence yield and economic performance of potato crops grown in clayey loam soils // Soil Environ. 2018. 37(1). 53–61. https://doi.org/10.25252/SE/18/51384 43. Islam M.U., Guo Z., Jiang F. et al. Does straw return increase crop yield in the wheat-maize cropping system in China? A meta-analysis // Field Crops Res. 2022. 279. 108447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108447 44. Izhar Shafi M., Adnan M., Fahad S. et al. Application of single superphosphate with humic acid improves the growth, yield and phosphorus uptake of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in calcareous soil // Agronomy. 2020. 10(9). 1224. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091224 45. Kandil E.E., Abdelsalam N.R., Mansour M.A. et al. Potentials of organic manure and potassium forms on maize (Zea mays L.) growth and production // Sci. Rep. 2020. 10(1). 8752. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65749-9 46. Karčauskienė D., Repšienė R., Ambrazaitienė D. et al. A complex assessment of mineral fertilizers with humic substances in an agroecosystem of acid soil // Zemdirbyste-Agric. 2019. 106(4). P. 307–314. https://doi.org/10.13080/z-a.2019.106.039 47. Khan S.A., Khan S.U., Qayyum A. et al. Integration of humic acid with nitrogen wields an auxiliary impact on physiological traits, growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) varieties // Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019. 17(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1703_67836799 48. Khazaie H.R., EyshiRezaie E., Bannayan M. Application times and concentration of humic acid impact on aboveground biomass and oil production of hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) // Medic. Plants Res. 2011. 5(20). P. 5148–5154. 49. Khodadadi S., Chegini M.A., Soltani A. et al. Influence of foliar-applied humic acid and some key growth regulators on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) under drought stress: Antioxidant defense system, photosynthetic characteristics and sugar yield // Sugar Tech. 2020. 22(5). P. 765–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00839-6 50. Kukhar E., Yermagambet B.T., Kassenova Z.M. et al. Impact of humic acid on growth, development and productivity of corn hybrid under conditions of northern Kazakhstan // News Acad. Sci. Rep. Kazakhstan. 2020. 4. P. 14–21. https://doi.org/10.32014/2020.2518-1491.59 51. Li C., Camac J., Robinson A., Kompas T. Predicting changes in agricultural yields under climate change scenarios and their implications for global food security // Scientific Reports. 2025. 15(1). 2858. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87047-y. 52. Lumactud R.A., Gorim L.Y., Thilakarathna M.S. Impacts of humic-based products on the microbial community structure and functions toward sustainable agriculture // Frontiers Sustain. Food Systems. 2022. 6. 977121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.977121 53. Lyons G., Genc Y. Commercial humates in agriculture: Real substance or smoke and mirrors? // Agronomy. 2016. 6(4). 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6040050 54. Maffia A., Oliva M., Marra F. et al. Humic substances: bridging ecology and agriculture for a greener future // Agronomy. 2025. 15(2). 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020410/ 55. Mahoney K.J., McCreary C., Depuydt D. et al. Fulvic and humic acid fertilizers are ineffective in dry bean // Canadian J. Plant Sci. 2017. 97(2). P. 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2016-0143 56. Marinković J., Bjelić D., Tintor B. et al. Effects of soybean co-inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in field trial // Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2018. 23(2). 13401–13408. 57. Mi J., Liu J., Zhang L. et al. Effects of humic acid on millet growth and soil water preservation under millet production with rainfed sandy soil in a semi-arid region // In: International Conference on Logistics Engineering, Management and Computer Science (LEMCS 2015). Atlantis Press, Shenyang, China. P. 1733–1739. https://doi.org/10.2991/lemcs-15.2015.352 58. Neunhäuserer C., Berreck M., Insam H. Remediation of soils contaminated with molybdenum using soil amendments and phytoremediation // Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2001. 128. P. 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010306220173 59. Nong X., Zhang C., Chen H. et al. Remediation of Cd, Pb and as co-contaminated paddy soil by applying different amendments // Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2020. 105. P. 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-020-02940-8 60. Oikawa S., Matsui Y., Oguro et al. Species-specific nitrogen resorption proficiency in legumes and nonlegumes // J. Plant Res. 2020. 133. P. 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-020-01211-1 61. Olk D.C., Dinnes D.L., Rene Scoresby J. et al. Humic products in agriculture: potential benefits and research challenges – a review // J. Soils Sediments. 2018. 18. P. 2881–2891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-1916-4 62. Pačuta V., Rašovský M., Michalska-Klimczak B. et al. Grain yield and quality traits of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) treated with seaweed-and humic acid-based biostimulants // Agronomy. 2021. 11(7). 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071270 63. Parvan L., Dumitru M., Sirbu C. et al. Fertilizer with humic substances // Romanian Agricult. Res. 2013. 30. P. 205–212. 64. Popescu G.C., Popescu M. Yield, berry quality and physiological response of grapevine to foliar humic acid application // Bragantia. 2018. 77. P. 273–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.2017030 65. Rady M.M., Abd El-Mageed T.A., Abdurrahman H.A. et al. Humic acid application improves field performance of cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) under saline conditions // JAPS: J. Animal Plant Sci. 2016. 26(2). P. 483–493. 66. Rathor P., Gorim L.Y., Thilakarathna M.S. Plant physiological and molecular responses triggered by humic based biostimulants – A way forward to sustainable agriculture // Plant Soil. 2023. 492. P. 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06156-7 67. Rose M.T., Patti A.F., Little K.R. et al. A meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: practical implications for agriculture // Adv. Agronomy. 2014. 124. P. 37–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4 68. Rosolem C.A., Almeida D.S., Rocha K.F. et al. Potassium fertilisation with humic acid coated KCl in a sandy clay loam tropical soil // Soil Res. 2017. 56(3). P. 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR17214 69. Saaseea K.G., Al-a'amry N.J.K. Effect of foliar application with calcium, magnesium and fertilizing with humic acid on growth, yield, and storage ability of potato tubers // Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2018. 49(5). P. 298–919. https://doi.org/10.36103/ijas.v49i5.52 70. Selim E.M., Ali Mosa A. Fertigation of humic substances improves yield and quality of broccoli and nutrient retention in a sandy soil // J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012. 175(2). P. 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100062 71. Selladurai R., Purakayastha T.J. Effect of humic acid multinutrient fertilizers on yield and nutrient use efficiency of potato // J. Plant Nutrition. 2016. 39(7). P. 949–956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2015.1109106 72. Shen C., Ding Y., Lei X. et al. Effects of foliar potassium fertilization on fruit growth rate, potassium accumulation, yield, and quality of ‘Kousui’japanese pear // Horttechnol. 2016. 26(3). P. 270–277. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.26.3.270 73. Shen F., Qin Y., Wang R. et al. Comparative genomics reveals a unique nitrogen-carbon balance system in Asteraceae // Nat. Commun. 2023. 14. 4334. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40002-9 74. Shen H., Shen J.Z., Li Y. et al. Promotion of lateral root growth and leaf quality of flue-cured tobacco by the combined application of humic acids and NPK chemical fertilizers // Exp. Agric. 2016a. 53(1). P. 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479716000065 75. Shi H., Xingguo M. Interpreting spatial heterogeneity of crop yield with a process model and remote sensing // Ecological modelling. 2011. 222(14). P. 2530–2541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.11.011 76. Sun L., Ma Y., Liu Y. et al. The combined effects of nitrogen fertilizer, humic acid, and gypsum on yield-scaled greenhouse gas emissions from a coastal saline rice field // Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019. 26. P. 19502–19511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05363-z 77. Swain D.K., Bhaskar B.C., Krishnan P. et al. Variation in yield, N uptake and N use efficiency of medium and late duration rice varieties // J. Agricult. Sci. 2006. 144(1). P. 69–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859605005745 78. Szczepanek M., Wilczewski E. Maize response to soil-applied humic substances and foliar fertilization with potassium // JAPS: J. Animal Plant Sci. 2016. 26(5). P. 1298–1303. 79. Tadayyon A., Beheshti S., Pessarakli M. Effects of sprayed humic acid, iron, and zinc on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of niger plant (Guizotia abyssinica L.) // J. Plant Nutr. 2017. 40(11). P. 1644–1650. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2016.1270321 80. Trevisan R.G., Bullock D.S., Martin N.F. Spatial variability of crop responses to agronomic inputs in on-farm precision experimentation // Precision Agriculture. 2021. 22(2). P. 342–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09720-8 81. Verlinden G., Coussens T., De Vliegher A. et al. Effect of humic substances on nutrient uptake by herbage and on production and nutritive value of herbage from sown grass pastures // Grass Forage Sci. 2010. 65(1). P. 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.2009.00726.x 82. Zaferanchi S., Zehtab Salmasi S., Salehi-Lisar S.Y. et al. Bio-inoculants and organics influence on mineral nutrition and productivity in Calendula officinalis L. // J. Med. Plants By-Products. 2020. 9(1). P. 43–50. 83. Zhao J., Chen J., Beillouin D. et al. Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers // Nature Comm. 2022. 13(1). 4926. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32464-0