1 Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is grown across the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Its high yield, broad adaptation, and many uses—food, feed, and industry—make it central to food supply. In many developing regions it also supports household income and national food security (Sobiech et al., 2025). At the same time, intensive and monoculture production puts pressure on soils and nearby ecosystems (Fujisao et al., 2020; Dawar et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

Soil health is the base of sustainable farming. Soils with stable structure, enough organic matter and nutrients, and diverse microbes support plant growth, regulate water and nutrient flows, and buffer stress (Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2024). When soils lose organic matter, nutrients, or structure—and when biodiversity declines—yields fall and greenhouse gas emissions may rise (Fujisao et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2022). Protecting soil health is therefore a core goal for agriculture worldwide (Luo et al., 2024; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

Maize management strongly shapes soil outcomes. Long-term monocropping can reduce soil organic carbon and key nutrients (N, P, K), weaken structure, and lower microbial diversity, which harms yield stability (Fujisao et al., 2020; Dawar et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024). High yields often rely on heavy fertilizer and pesticide inputs, which can add further stress (Zhang et al., 2022a; Afata et al., 2024). In contrast, crop rotation, intercropping, organic amendments, and biostimulants have improved soil properties, microbial activity, and nutrient cycling in many trials (Moreira et al., 2019; Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Luo et al., 2024; Mukhametov et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024).

This study reviews long-term experiments and recent literature to assess how different maize systems—monoculture, rotations, intercropping, and fertilizer regimes—affect soil physical, chemical, and biological traits and yield. It also compares results across climates, terrains, and management styles to identify key drivers of soil health and to provide practical guidance for sustainable maize production in major growing regions.

2 Overview of Maize Cultivation Practices

2.1 History and regional trends of corn production

Maize was domesticated in Central America about 9 000 years ago and is now one of the world’s leading cereal crops. Advances in technology and rising population have expanded its area and boosted yields, making it the most productive cereal globally. The United States, China, and Brazil produce the largest shares (Ranum et al., 2014; Erenstein et al., 2022). In Africa and Latin America, maize remains both a staple food and a key crop for small farmers.

2.2 Common cultivation methods (conventional tillage, conservation agriculture, intercropping, monoculture)

Conventional tillage often involves deep plowing and land preparation, which can improve soil permeability. Long-term high-intensity operations often lead to a reduction in organic matter, damage to soil structure, and exacerbation of erosion problems (Ramadhan, 2021). Conservation tillage reduces soil disturbance through no till or reduced tillage, retention of crop residue cover, and implementation of crop rotation (Ramadhan, 2021; Flynn et al., 2024).

Intercropping corn with leguminous, potato, and forage crops reduces pest and weed pressure (Khongdee et al., 2022). In Southeast Asia and other regions, it plays a role in preventing soil erosion and maintaining soil fertility. Although long-term monoculture of corn is beneficial for mechanization and high yield, it can easily lead to soil degradation and accumulation of pests and diseases (Erenstein et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).

2.3 Fertilization and irrigation management

Corn cultivation relies heavily on chemical fertilizers (especially nitrogen fertilizers) to meet the high nutrient requirements of crops, but excessive fertilization increases costs and can also lead to soil acidification, nutrient leaching, and environmental pollution (Wang et al., 2022; Feng et al., 2023; Sivamurugan et al., 2025). Optimize fertilization strategies, such as deep application of nitrogen fertilizer, staged fertilization, organic-inorganic combination, and precision fertilization based on crop growth status (Zheng et al., 2023; Marbun, 2024; Patel et al., 2024). Global corn cultivation is mainly rain fed, but irrigation is important in arid or semi-arid regions (Sah et al., 2020). Drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation and other efficient irrigation technologies are gradually being promoted to improve water use efficiency and crop stress resistance (Sivamurugan et al., 2025).

2.4 Pesticide and herbicide use in corn system

Common management measures include seed coating, field spraying of insecticides, fungicides, and various herbicides to control major pests and diseases such as corn borer, aphid, leaf spot disease, rust disease, etc. (Erenstein et al., 2022; Terefe et al., 2023). Long term dependence on chemical control can lead to increased drug resistance, damage to non target organisms, and environmental pollution. In some regions, the excessive use of pesticides and herbicides has also led to a decline in soil microbial diversity and weakened ecosystem service functions (Norris et al., 2016).

Integrated pest management (IPM) and biological control are gradually receiving attention. By implementing measures such as reasonable crop rotation, intercropping, selection of disease resistant and insect resistant varieties, optimization of field management, and precise pesticide application, pesticide usage can be effectively reduced and the development of drug resistance can be slowed down (Erenstein et al., 2022; Terefe et al., 2023).

3 Key Indicators of Soil Health

3.1 Physical properties (texture, structure, bulk density, porosity, water holding capacity)

The soil texture (proportion of sand, powder, and clay particles) affects the soil's water retention, aeration, and ease of cultivation. Soil with intact aggregate structure can improve erosion resistance and promote water infiltration; Once the structure is damaged, it is prone to compaction, increased surface runoff, and restricted root growth. Bulk density reflects the compactness of soil, and a high value often indicates that the soil is compacted, which is not conducive to root extension and water vapor flow. Porosity is closely related to aeration and water retention capacity, and higher porosity contributes to microbial activity and root respiration (Es and Karlen, 2019; Lu et al., 2020; Bagnall et al., 2023).

Conservation tillage, planting cover crops, and increasing organic matter input can enhance soil aggregate stability and improve water retention performance (Es and Karlen, 2019; Liptzin et al., 2022; Bagnall et al., 2023). Some soil physical indicators, such as available water capacity (AWC) and water stable aggregates (Agstab), are often used for soil health assessment (Es and Karlen, 2019; Bagnall et al., 2023).

3.2 Chemical properties (pH, organic matter, nutrient content, cation exchange capacity)

The pH value affects the availability of nutrients and microbial activity in soil, and an appropriate pH range is beneficial for crop growth and nutrient absorption. Soil organic matter (SOM) and organic carbon (SOC) provide energy and nutrients for microorganisms and plants, promote aggregate formation, enhance water holding capacity and buffering capacity (Es and Karlen, 2019; Bhaduri et al., 2022; Liptzin et al., 2022; Bagnall et al., 2023). The accumulation of organic matter is closely related to soil management measures, such as reducing tillage, increasing organic inputs, and crop rotation, all of which can enhance SOC levels (Liptzin et al., 2022; Bagnall et al., 2023; Liptzin et al., 2023).

The nutrient content (such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc.) and cation exchange capacity (CEC) reflect the fertility and buffering capacity of soil. The higher the CEC, the stronger the soil's ability to retain and supply nutrients (Sanderman et al., 2020; Bagnall et al., 2023). New chemical indicators such as soil protein, activated carbon, and mineralizable nitrogen can reflect soil nutrient cycling and organic matter dynamics (Bagnall et al., 2023; Liptzin et al., 2023; Naasko et al., 2023).

3.3 Biological properties (microbial biomass, diversity, enzyme activity, earthworm population)

Microbial biomass carbon (MBC), basal respiration rate, and decomposition rate are the most reliable and interpretable biological indicators that can quickly respond to management measures and environmental changes (Doran and Zeiss, 2000; Bhaduri et al., 2022; Liptzin et al., 2022; Semenov et al., 2025). Microbial diversity and community structure reveal the stability and stress resistance of soil ecosystems, although their interpretability and standardization still face challenges (Hermans et al., 2016; Schloter et al., 2017; Semenov et al., 2025).

Enzyme activity (such as β - glucosidase, urease, etc.) reflects the ability of soil organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling (Bhaduri et al., 2022; Liptzin et al., 2022; Semenov et al., 2025). Large soil animals such as earthworms play an important role as "ecological engineers" in improving soil structure, decomposing organic matter, and redistributing nutrients. Their quantity and diversity are used as intuitive biological indicators of soil health (Doran and Zeiss, 2000; Lu et al., 2020).

3.4 Indicators related to long-term sustainability of soil

SOC and organic matter content are core indicators for measuring soil long-term carbon pool and ecosystem stability, directly affecting soil erosion resistance and greenhouse gas emissions (Bagnall et al., 2023; Bhaduri et al., 2022; Liptzin et al., 2022). The physical and chemical indicators such as aggregate stability, water holding capacity, and CEC reflect the buffering capacity and resilience of soil to external disturbances (such as extreme climate and tillage disturbances) (Es and Karlen, 2019; Bagnall et al., 2023). Microbial diversity, enzyme activity, and stability of soil animal communities are key to the long-term health and functional maintenance of soil ecosystems (Doran and Zeiss, 2000; Bhaduri et al., 2022; Semenov et al., 2025).

4 Impact of Maize Cultivation on Soil Physical Properties

4.1 Changes in soil structure caused by cultivation intensity

Traditional deep tillage and frequent plowing can help improve soil looseness and aeration in the short term, but long-term high-intensity tillage often leads to soil aggregate destruction, loose structure, and susceptibility to surface erosion. In special soil types such as soda saline alkali land, the use of deep tillage combined with rotary tillage and no tillage (SRT) can significantly improve the penetration resistance and bulk density of the 0~40 cm soil layer, promote soil structure optimization, and facilitate the development of maize roots and yield increase (Jiang et al., 2025) (Figure 1). Compared with single no tillage or rotary tillage, compound tillage can better balance the stability of soil structure and crop growth needs.

Figure 1 Experimental field preparation, tillage measures, and implementation effects (Adopted from Jiang et al., 2025)

Conservation tillage (such as no tillage and straw mulching) has been widely used in corn producing areas in recent years. Long term no tillage and straw returning not only increase the content and stability of soil aggregates, but also improve the physical structure of soil, which helps to enhance soil erosion resistance and water retention capacity (Wang et al., 2024). Measures such as intercropping and organic mulching can also promote the restoration of soil structure and reduce structural degradation caused by monoculture cultivation.

4.2 Effects on soil bulk density and compaction

Soil bulk density and compactness directly affect root growth and water vapor circulation. High intensity cultivation or long-term monoculture of corn can easily lead to soil compaction, increased bulk density, and thus limit root rooting and water infiltration. Measures such as deep loosening and tillage can effectively reduce soil bulk density, alleviate soil compaction, improve root distribution and crop growth environment (Ramadhan, 2021; Jiang et al., 2025). Under different cultivation methods, the soil bulk density of deep tillage and conventional tillage is significantly lower than that of no tillage and shallow tillage, and deep tillage helps to break the plow layer and improve the overall permeability of the soil (Ramadhan, 2021).

Intercropping and cover crops can help reduce compaction. In subtropical Brazil, maize–ruzigrass intercropping lowered bulk density in the 10~20 cm layer by 10% and increased macroporosity (Secco et al., 2023). Returning straw to the field and applying organic mulch also add organic matter, help form aggregates, and further reduce compaction (Negiş, 2023; Wang et al., 2024).

4.3 Impact on water infiltration and retention capacity

The ability of soil moisture infiltration and retention is an important indicator for measuring its physical health. High intensity cultivation and long-term monoculture of corn often lead to soil structure damage, reduced porosity, and thus affect water infiltration and storage. Research has found that protective tillage measures such as deep tillage combined with rotary tillage and no tillage can significantly improve soil water holding capacity and water use efficiency (Ramadhan, 2021; Wang et al., 2024; Jiang et al., 2025). Under straw mulching and organic mulching conditions, the evaporation of soil surface water decreases and the water retention capacity increases, which is beneficial for crop growth under drought stress (Ramadhan, 2021).

A comparative study between long-term corn planting and grass rotation shows that corn monoculture can reduce soil available water capacity and near saturated hydraulic conductivity, especially in soil types that are susceptible to structural damage (Hu et al., 2022). Adding organic substances such as corn stover or biochar can significantly enhance soil aggregate stability and available water capacity, improve water distribution and drought resistance (Kim et al., 2016; Negiş, 2023).

5 Impact on Soil Chemical Properties

5.1 Nutrient consumption and enrichment (N, P, K, and trace elements)

As a high-yield crop, corn has a great demand for major nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). Long term monoculture of corn can easily lead to soil nutrient consumption and imbalance. Continuous planting of corn can lead to a significant decrease in soil nutrient content such as total carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable potassium, and calcium with increasing planting years, especially in sloping areas and areas lacking fertilization management, where nutrient loss is more severe. Within 30 years, relevant nutrients can drop to about half of their initial values (Fujisao et al., 2020). The planting density and sowing date of corn also affect the distribution and residue of nutrients. An increase in density usually leads to a decrease in grain N, P, and K content, while soil residual N and K fluctuate with planting management (Djaman et al., 2024). Trace elements such as zinc and iron may also be deficient under high-intensity fertilizer and herbicide management, affecting crop quality and soil health (Afata et al., 2024).

To alleviate nutrient consumption, scientific fertilization and crop rotation management have become key. Organic fertilizers, chemical fertilizers, and their combined application can significantly increase soil N, P, K content and crop yield, and the addition of organic fertilizers helps to slow down nutrient release and enhance soil buffering capacity (Mahmood et al., 2017; Adekiya et al., 2024; Jiang et al., 2024). Crop rotation and mulching (such as alfalfa maize rotation) can increase soil organic matter and available nutrient content, promote crop absorption of N, P, and K, enhance nutrient cycling and sustainability of the system (Zhang et al., 2022b; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

5.2 Soil acidification and alkalization trends

In the corn planting system, long-term and large-scale application of chemical nitrogen fertilizers, especially ammonium nitrogen fertilizers, can lead to soil acidification and a decrease in pH value (Neelima et al., 2022; Khavkhun, 2024). The different types and amounts of mineral fertilizers can lead to soil acidification or alkalization. The application of certain fertilizers (such as diammonium phosphate and potassium sulfate) can lower pH, while calcareous fertilizers may increase pH (Khavkhun, 2024). Under the combined application of organic fertilizer and biochar, soil pH usually tends towards neutrality or slightly increases (Wu et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024).

Acidified organic fertilizers like treated cattle slurry reduce nitrogen loss by lowering ammonia release, though their short-term effect on pH is limited and microbial diversity remains stable (Wierzchowski et al., 2021). In some cases, irrigation water or soil parent material may push the system toward alkalinization during long-term maize production.

5.3 Organic matter changes under different corn management systems

Long term monoculture of corn, especially in the absence of organic inputs and sloping environments, leads to a significant decrease in soil organic matter (SOM) content, resulting in soil structure degradation and weakened nutrient supply capacity (Fujisao et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2022). In long-term positioning experiments in Northeast China, Laos and other places, continuous corn planting for 30 years resulted in a decrease of up to 50% in soil total carbon and total nitrogen content, which is closely related to yield decline (Fujisao et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2022). In flat land or fields with good organic management, the decline trend of organic matter is relatively slow, and it can even maintain stability.

Management measures such as organic fertilizer, straw returning, biochar, and crop cover can increase soil organic matter and organic carbon content (Mahmood et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022b; Wu et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024; Xing et al., 2024). The combined application of fertilizers and biochar can increase soil organic carbon and total nitrogen content by more than 20%, and enhance microbial activity (Wu et al., 2023; Xing et al., 2024). The introduction of crop rotation and mulching can accumulate organic matter and cycling nutrients (Zhang et al., 2022b; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

6 Impact on Soil Biological Properties

6.1 Changes in microbial diversity and community structure

Diversified management measures such as intercropping corn and green manure can enhance soil microbial diversity and community complexity, promote the enrichment of beneficial microbial communities (such as root promoting bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi), and inhibit the spread of pathogens (Tao et al., 2017; Ablimit et al., 2022). Physical and chemical factors such as soil pH, nutrient status, and organic matter content can indirectly affect maize yield and soil health by regulating microbial community structure (Tao et al., 2017; Chukwuneme et al., 2021).

The soil microbial diversity and metabolic function of corn fields, which were originally grasslands, were significantly higher than those of corn fields under long-term intensive cultivation, and soil pH was the main factor determining microbial distribution (Chukwuneme et al., 2021). The application of biofertilizers, crop cover, and organic matter during corn cultivation can promote microbial diversity and enrichment of functional groups (Ascari et al., 2019; Ablimit et al., 2022).

6.2 Changes in soil animal abundance (such as nematodes and earthworms)

Corn cultivation also has a significant impact on the abundance and diversity of soil animal communities, especially nematodes and earthworms. Long term monoculture corn cultivation and high-intensity tillage often lead to soil structure damage and organic matter decline, thereby inhibiting the survival and reproduction of large soil animals such as earthworms, reducing soil animal diversity and ecological functions (Furtak et al., 2017; Ablimit et al., 2022). Adopting measures such as conservation tillage, straw returning, and organic fertilizer management can help improve the soil environment, promote the reproduction of earthworms and beneficial nematodes, enhance soil biological activity and nutrient cycling capacity.

The abundance of soil animals is closely related to soil microbial communities and enzyme activity. Large soil animals such as earthworms enhance the physical structure and biological functions of soil by decomposing organic residues, promoting aggregate formation, and microbial reproduction. Under diversified planting and organic management systems, the number and diversity of soil animals have significantly increased, and the stability and stress resistance of soil ecosystems have been enhanced.

6.3 Enzyme activity changes related to nutrient cycling

In the corn planting system, enzyme activity is jointly influenced by management measures, soil physicochemical properties, and microbial community structure. Measures such as intercropping corn with green manure, applying biological fertilizers, and organic matter can significantly enhance the activity of key enzymes such as soil dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase, promote organic matter decomposition and nutrient release, and enhance soil nutrient supply capacity (Furtak et al., 2017; Hafez et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022). Under water stress and salinization conditions, measures such as inoculation with root promoting bacteria (PGPR) and application of nano silicon can also enhance soil enzyme activity and alleviate the negative effects of adversity on soil and crops (Hafez et al., 2021).

6.4 Effects of genetically modified (GM) maize on soil microorganisms

The planting of genetically modified corn has limited impact on soil microbial community structure, and changes in microbial diversity and major functional groups are mainly influenced by soil type, management measures, and environmental factors, rather than the genetically modified traits themselves (Afandor Barajas et al., 2021). In greenhouse and field experiments, there was no significant difference in the impact of genetically modified maize on soil bacterial communities compared to non genetically modified maize. The main changes in microbial diversity and community structure were still dominated by management measures such as tillage, fertilization, and crop rotation.

Applying bio fertilizers and covering crops can significantly enhance soil microbial diversity and functional group richness, improve soil health and crop yield (Ascari et al., 2019; Ablimit et al., 2022). The direct impact of genetically modified corn on soil microorganisms is limited, and the improvement of soil health relies more on scientific management measures and diversified planting systems.

7 Environmental and Management Factors Influencing Impact

7.1 The role of crop rotation and monoculture

Crop rotation, especially with leguminous crops such as velvet beans and soybeans or green manure crops, can effectively improve soil fertility and nutrient content. Mucuna pruriens-Zea mays and Glycine max-Zea mays rotation can increase soil fertility by 10% to 15%, while monoculture maize exhibits lower soil nutrient levels and higher risk of nitrate leaching (Ablimit et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024). Crop rotation improves soil microbial community structure, promotes the enrichment of beneficial microorganisms, and inhibits the spread of pathogens (Ablimit et al., 2022; Araújo et al., 2023).

Crop rotation also enhances soil organic carbon and enzyme activity by increasing crop residue and organic matter input, promoting nutrient cycling and soil structure recovery. Compared with monoculture, soil pH, total nitrogen, and organic matter content were significantly increased under crop rotation system, and soil enzyme activity and microbial biomass were also higher (Ablimit et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

7.2 Effects of fertilizer types (synthetic and organic) and application rates

The widespread use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers has greatly increased maize yields, but long-term intensive application often causes soil acidification, nutrient imbalance, and environmental problems such as nitrate leaching and ammonia volatilization (Bacenetti et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024). Organic fertilizers, including pig manure, biogas residues, and green manure, add organic matter and stimulate microbial activity, which improve soil structure and buffering capacity while reducing environmental stress. Balanced use of organic and inorganic fertilizers, together with straw return, can raise soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and enzyme activity, improve soil pH, and reduce the risk of nitrate loss (Bacenetti et al., 2016; Ablimit et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

Although excessive application of nitrogen fertilizer can increase yield in the short term, it can lead to a decrease in soil microbial diversity and enzyme activity inhibition, increasing environmental burden (Kumar et al., 2022; 2024). Adopting recommended fertilizer application rates (such as 100% or 150% recommended nitrogen fertilizer) combined with no tillage and crop residue cover can improve soil organic carbon, microbial biomass, and enzyme activity while increasing yield (Kumar et al., 2024). The application of biostimulants and microbial fertilizers can enhance crop stress resistance and soil health (Singh et al., 2025; Sobiech et al., 2025).

7.3 Interaction between climate and soil types

There are significant differences in the response of management measures among different climate zones (such as arid, semi-arid, humid) and soil types (such as sandy, loam, clay). The extreme temperature and precipitation fluctuations brought about by climate change directly affect soil moisture, microbial activity, and nutrient cycling (Zhang et al., 2022b; Yang et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2025). Under high temperature or drought conditions, soil organic matter decomposition accelerates, microbial diversity decreases, and soil structure is easily damaged. Measures such as organic coverage, drip irrigation, and stress tolerant varieties need to be taken to alleviate this (Zhang et al., 2022b; Singh et al., 2025).

Sandy soil is more prone to water loss and nutrient loss under drought and high temperatures, while clay is more prone to water accumulation and compaction. Conservation tillage and organic management measures are effective for soil organic carbon and yield in sandy and acidic soils (Baier et al., 2023). The soil organic carbon content is positively correlated with maize yield, but the marginal effect of SOC increase on yield varies under different climates and soil types (Oldfield et al., 2018).

8 Case Study Analysis

8.1 Case 1: high input conventional corn system - impact and lessons learned

The high input conventional corn system is characterized by deep plowing, monoculture, high-dose fertilizers and pesticides, and is widely distributed on large farms in Europe, America, Southeast Asia and other regions. This type of system can achieve high yields in the short term, but it puts multiple pressures on soil health. Long term monoculture and high-intensity tillage lead to a decrease in soil organic matter, destruction of aggregates, increase in bulk density, and decrease in porosity, which in turn affect water retention and root growth (Bruun et al., 2017; Nyéki et al., 2022; Smith and Boardman, 2025). The excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides can also lead to soil acidification, imbalance of trace elements, and decreased microbial diversity, increasing the risk of pests and diseases (Bruun et al., 2017; Afata et al., 2024; Mukhametov et al., 2024). In cases such as Thailand and Hungary, intensive corn cultivation led to a significant decrease in quality indicators such as soil oxidizable carbon (Pox-C), and soil quality was negatively correlated with planting intensity (Bruun et al., 2017; Nyéki et al., 2022).

High input systems are also prone to soil erosion and sediment loss, especially in slopes and areas with concentrated rainfall. The case of East Devon, England, shows that soil compaction and bare land exposure during corn harvesting and planting are very likely to cause muddy water flooding and serious erosion after rainstorm, threatening farmland and surrounding environment (Ruf et al., 2021; Smith and Boardman, 2025) (Figure 2). These issues suggest that relying solely on high input and mechanized conventional corn systems can increase yields in the short term, but in the long run, it will incur the cost of soil degradation and ecological risks, and there is an urgent need for management optimization and sustainable transformation.

Figure 2 Ottery St Mary hailstorm event, 2008 image Thorne Farm Way. (a) Aerial view of Ottery St Mary and surrounding land showing soil erosion and runoff. (b) Muddy runoff from compacted soil in maize stubble. (c) Soil erosion in a winter cereal crop seedbed with compacted soil following maize. (Adopted from Smith and Boardman, 2025)

8.2 Case 2: conservation tillage maize system - impacts and outcomes

Long term field trials in China, the United States, Brazil, and other regions have shown that conservation tillage can significantly enhance soil organic carbon, aggregate stability, and microbial diversity, improve soil structure and water retention capacity (Ablimit et al., 2022; Da Silva et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Flynn et al., 2024). In the intercropping system of green manure maize in northwest China, ten years of conservation tillage increased soil pH, nutrient content, and enzyme activity, reduced pathogen abundance, promoted the enrichment of beneficial microorganisms, and resulted in better soil health and yield than monoculture systems (Ablimit et al., 2022).

Intercropping and covering crops can increase the diversity of soil animals (such as nematodes and earthworms) and microorganisms, enhance the complexity of food webs and nutrient cycling efficiency (Da Silva et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2024). In the tropical regions of Brazil, maize grass rotation and no till management significantly improved soil organic matter and aggregate stability, as well as soil structure and erosion resistance (Da Silva et al., 2022).

8.3 Comparative analysis of cases: soil health indicators

There are significant differences in soil health indicators between high input conventional systems and conservation tillage systems. Under high input conventional systems, soil organic matter, aggregate stability, microbial diversity, and enzyme activity all show a decreasing trend. Soil structure deteriorates, bulk density increases, porosity decreases, water retention capacity weakens, and erosion and nutrient loss are prone to occur (Bruun et al., 2017; Nyéki et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024; Smith and Boardman, 2025). Conservation tillage systems can significantly enhance organic carbon, aggregate stability, and microbial diversity, improve soil structure and water regulation capacity, and reduce erosion risk (Ablimit et al., 2022; Da Silva et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Flynn et al., 2024; Liang et al., 2024).

In terms of biological indicators, soil microorganisms and animal communities under conservation tillage systems are more abundant, food web complexity and ecological functions are stronger, enzyme activity and nutrient cycling efficiency are higher (Ablimit et al., 2022; Da Silva et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2024). Chemical indicators such as pH, nutrient content, and organic matter levels are also superior to high input systems.

9 Synthesis of Findings

9.1 Common trends in different corn planting systems

There are some significant common trends in the impact of corn cultivation on soil health worldwide. The changes in soil health are closely related to management measures, whether in high input conventional systems, crop rotation systems, or conservation tillage systems. Research has generally found that reasonable crop rotation, straw returning, and organic fertilizer input can significantly improve soil organic matter, aggregate stability, microbial diversity, and enzyme activity, thereby improving soil structure, enhancing nutrient supply, and strengthening ecological functions (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2024; Mukhametov et al., 2024). However, long-term monoculture corn cultivation and high-intensity fertilizer application can easily lead to a decrease in soil organic matter, loss of microbial diversity, soil acidification, and structural degradation, increasing the risk of erosion and nutrient loss (Ruf et al., 2021; Wolińska et al., 2022; Mukhametov et al., 2024).

Examples include maize intercropped with green manure in Northwest China and with soybean in Northeast China, where beneficial microbes increased and soil aggregates became stronger (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022). In general, more diverse systems show better soil conditions, while single high-input models carry higher risks of decline.

9.2 Key driving factors for soil health changes in corn cultivation

Crop rotation and intercropping improve soil fertility and structure by increasing organic matter input, promoting microbial diversity and nutrient cycling (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2024; Mukhametov et al., 2024). Organic inputs such as organic fertilizers, straw returning, and biochar can increase soil organic carbon and nutrient content, promote microbial and enzyme activity, and improve soil physicochemical properties (Dawar et al., 2022; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2024).

Although long-term high-intensity fertilizer application can increase yield in the short term, it can easily lead to soil acidification, trace element imbalance, and decreased microbial diversity (Wolińska et al., 2022; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Afata et al., 2024; Mukhametov et al., 2024). The combination of organic-inorganic fertilizers and scientific regulation of fertilizer application can balance yield and soil health (Dawar et al., 2022; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Afata et al., 2024). The regulation of soil microbial community structure, such as the application of rhizosphere bacteria, green manure, and crop cover, can enhance soil health and crop stress resistance (Hafez et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2025).

9.3 Balance between yield optimization and soil protection

In corn production practice, there is a clear trade-off between maximizing yield and soil protection. High input conventional systems achieve short-term high yields through deep cultivation, high-dose fertilizers, and pesticides, but often at the cost of decreased soil organic matter, structural degradation, and loss of microbial diversity, which may lead to long-term yield decline and land degradation (Ruf et al., 2021; Wolińska et al., 2022; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Mukhametov et al., 2024). Although conservation tillage, crop rotation, and organic management systems have limited initial yield increases, they can significantly improve soil health, enhance long-term productivity and stress resistance of the system (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Sankhyan et al., 2023).

Scientific management measures, such as the combination of organic-inorganic fertilizers, crop coverage, and rational rotation, can to some extent balance yield and soil protection, achieving a win-win situation of "high yield and health" (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Mukhametov et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024). But in areas with limited resources and high land pressure, farmers often tend to pursue short-term yields and neglect long-term soil health.

9.4 Long term impacts on agricultural sustainability

Long term single high input systems lead to soil organic matter depletion, structural degradation, loss of microbial diversity, and ecological function decline, posing a threat to food security and the ecological environment (Ruf et al., 2021; Woli ń ska et al., 2022; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Mukhametov et al., 2024). Diversified and eco-friendly management measures, such as crop rotation, intercropping, crop cover, organic inputs, and microbial regulation, can significantly improve soil health, enhance system resilience and ecological service functions (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024).

Long term positioning experiments and multi-point studies have found that soil health indicators (such as organic carbon, aggregate stability, microbial diversity, enzyme activity, etc.) are closely related to crop yield and system sustainability (Zhang et al., 2021; Ablimit et al., 2022; Dawar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Sankhyan et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024). Continuous monitoring and scientific management can not only increase current production, but also ensure the long-term productivity and ecological security of land resources.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mrs. Wang for providing support for this research.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors affirm that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Ablimit R., Li W., Zhang J., Gao H., Zhao Y., Cheng M., Meng X., An L., and Chen, Y., 2022, Altering microbial community for improving soil properties and agricultural sustainability during a 10-year maize-green manure intercropping in Northwest China, Journal of Environmental Management, 321: 115859.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115859

Adekiya A., Ande O., Dahunsi S., Ogunwole J., and Ibab, A., 2024. Impact of bio-digestate and fertilization on the soil chemical properties, growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.), Research on Crops, 33-42.

https://doi.org/10.31830/2348-7542.2024.roc-1039

Afanador-Barajas L., Navarro-Noya Y., Luna-Guido M., and Dendooven L., 2021, Impact of a bacterial consortium on the soil bacterial community structure and maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation, Scientific Reports, 11: 13092.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92517-0

Afata T., Mekonen S., Sogn T., Pandey M., Janka E., and Tucho G., 2024, Examining the effect of agrochemicals on soil microbiological activity, micronutrient availability, and uptake by maize (Zea mays L.) plants, Agronomy, 14(6): 1321.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14061321

Araújo F., Salvador G., Lupatini G., Pereira A., Costa R., De Aviz R., De Alcantara Neto F., Mendes L., and Araújo A., 2023, Exploring the diversity and composition of soil microbial communities in different soybean-maize management systems, Microbiological Research, 274: 127435.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2023.127435

Arunrat N., Sansupa C., Sereenonchai S., and Hatano R., 2023, Stability of soil bacteria in undisturbed soil and continuous maize cultivation in Northern Thailand, Frontiers in Microbiology, 14: 1285445.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1285445

Ascari J., Araújo D., Mendes I., Dallacort R., and Matsumoto L., 2019, Biological fertilizer and cover plants on soil attributes and maize yielD, Revista Caatinga, 32(3): 709-718.

https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252019v32n315rc

Bacenetti J., Lovarelli D., and Fiala M., 2016, Mechanisation of organic fertiliser spreading, choice of fertiliser and crop residue management as solutions for maize environmental impact mitigation, European Journal of Agronomy, 79: 107-118.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2016.05.015

Bagnall D., Rieke E., Morgan C., Liptzin D., Cappellazzi S., and Honeycutt C., 2023, A minimum suite of soil health indicators for North America, Soil Security, 10: 100084.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100084

Baier C., Gross A., Thevs N., and Glaser B., 2023, Effects of agroforestry on grain yield of maize (Zea mays L.)—a global meta-analysis, Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 7: 1167686.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1167686

Bhaduri D., Sihi D., Bhowmik A., Verma B., Munda S., and Dari B., 2022, A review on effective soil health bio-indicators for ecosystem restoration and sustainability, Frontiers in Microbiology, 13: 938481.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.938481

Bruun T., Neergaard A., Burup M., Hepp C., Larsen M., Abel C., Aumtong S., Magid J., and Mertz O., 2017, Intensification of upland agriculture in thailand: development or degradation? Land Degradation & Development, 28: 83-94.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2596

Chukwuneme C., Ayangbenro A., and Babalola O., 2021, Impacts of land-use and management histories of maize fields on the structure, composition, and metabolic potentials of microbial communities, Current Plant Biology, 28: 100228.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2021.100228

Da Silva J., Neto M., Silva G., Borghi E., and Calonego J., 2022, Soil organic matter and aggregate stability in soybean, maize and urochloa production systems in a very clayey soil of the Brazilian savanna, Agronomy, 12(7): 1652.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071652

Dawar K., Khan A., Mian I., Khan B., Ali S., Ahmad S., Szulc P., Fahad S., Datta R., Hatamleh A., Al-Dosary M., and Danish S., 2022, Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the application of vermicompost and biochar, PLoS ONE, 17(5): e0267483.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267483

Djaman K., Djaman D., Puppala N., and Darapuneni M., 2024, Plant nutrient removal and soil residual chemical properties as impacted by maize planting date and density, PLOS ONE, 19(3): e0299193.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299193

Doran J., and Zeiss M., 2000, Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality, Applied Soil Ecology, 15: 3-11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00067-6

Erenstein O., Jaleta M., Sonder K., Mottaleb K., and Prasanna B., 2022, Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications, Food Security, 14: 1295-1319.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7

Es H., and Karlen D., 2019, Reanalysis validates soil health indicator sensitivity and correlation with long-term crop yields, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 83(3): 721-732.

https://doi.org/10.2136/SSSAJ2018.09.0338

Feng P., Wang B., Harrison M., Wang J., Liu K., Huang M., Liu D., Yu Q., and Hu K., 2022, Soil properties resulting in superior maize yields upon climate warming, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 42: 85.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00818-z

Feng X., Sun T., Guo J., Cai H., Qian C., Hao Y., Yu Y., Deng A., Song Z., and Zhang W., 2023, Climate-smart agriculture practice promotes sustainable maize production in northeastern China: higher grain yield while less carbon footprint, Field Crops Research, 302: 109108.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109108

Flynn K., Smith D., Lee T., Laguer-Martinez D., Ma S., and Zhou Y., 2024, Evaluating maize (Zea mays L.) management practices implementing sensitivity analysis of vegetation indices, Soil and Tillage Research, 106266.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2024.106266

Fujisao K., Khanthavong P., Oudthachit S., Matsumoto N., Homma K., Asai H., and Shiraiwa T., 2020, Impacts of the continuous maize cultivation on soil properties in Sainyabuli province, Laos, Scientific Reports, 10: 11231.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67830-9

Furtak K., Gawryjołek K., Gajda A., and Galazka A., 2017, Effects of maize and winter wheat grown under different cultivation techniques on biological activity of soil, Plant Soil and Environment, 63: 449-454.

https://doi.org/10.17221/486/2017-PSE

Hafez E., Osman H., Gowayed S., Okasha S., Omara A., Sami R., El-Monem A., and El-Razek U., 2021, Minimizing the adversely impacts of water deficit and soil salinity on maize growth and productivity in response to the application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and silica nanoparticles, Agronomy, 11: 676.

https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY11040676

Hermans S., Buckley H., Case B., Curran-Cournane F., Taylor M., and Lear G., 2016, Bacteria as emerging indicators of soil condition, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 83: e02826-e02816.

https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02826-16

Hu W., Thomas S., Müller K., Carrick S., Beare M., Langer S., Cummins M., Dando J., Fraser S., Stevenson B., Mudge P., and Baird D., 2022, Maize cropping degrades soil hydraulic properties relative to grazed pasture in two contrasting soils, Geoderma, 421: 115912.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.115912

Jiang L., Ning A., Liu M., Zhu Y., Huang J., Guo Y., Feng W., Fu D., Wang H., and Wang J., 2025, Effects of tillage practices on soil properties and maize yield in different types of soda saline–alkali soils, Agriculture, 15(5): 542.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050542

Jiang M., Dong C., Bian W., Zhang W., and Wang Y., 2024, Effects of different fertilization practices on maize yield, soil nutrients, soil moisture, and water use efficiency in northern China based on a meta-analysis, Scientific Reports, 14: 6480.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57031-z

Khavkhun A., 2024, The impact of mineral fertilisers on the physicochemical properties of soil in maize cultivation, Plant and Soil Science, 15(3): 44-53.

https://doi.org/10.31548/plant3.2024.44

Khongdee N., Tongkoom K., Iamsaard K., Mawan N., Yimyam N., Sanjunthong W., Khongdee P., and Wicharuck S., 2022, Closing yield gap of maize in Southeast Asia by intercropping systems: a review, Australian Journal of Crop Science, 16(11): 1224-1233.

https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.22.16.11.p3733

Kim H., Kim K., Yang J., Ok Y., Owens G., Nehls T., Wessolek G., and Kim K., 2016, Effect of biochar on reclaimed tidal land soil properties and maize (Zea mays L.) response, Chemosphere, 142: 153-159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.041

Kumar A., Bandyopadhyay K., Prasad S., Kumar S., Singh R., Kaur R., and Shrivastava M., 2024, Impacts on various management practices on crops yield and soil biology in maize-wheat cropping system, Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 10(2): 445-454.

https://doi.org/10.9734/ajsspn/2024/v10i2301

Kumar R., Bhardwaj A., Singh L., and Singh G., 2022, Environmental impact assessment of maize production in Northern India, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1084: 012042.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1084/1/012042

Li P., Zhang H., Deng J., Fu L., Chen H., Li C., Xu L., Jiao J., Zhang S., Wang J., Ying D., Li H., and Hu F., 2023, Cover crop by irrigation and fertilization improves soil health and maize yield: establishing a soil health index, Applied Soil Ecology, 182: 104727.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104727

Liang S., Feng C., Li N., Sun Z., Li Y., Zhang X., and Liang W., 2024, Soil biological health assessment based on nematode communities under maize and peanut intercropping, Ecological Processes, 13: 82.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-024-00562-0

Liptzin D., Norris C., Cappellazzi S., Bean G., Cope M., Greub K., Rieke E., Tracy P., Aberle E., Ashworth A., Tavarez O., Bary A., Baumhardt R., Gracia A., Brainard D., Brennan J., Reyes D., Bruhjell D., Carlyle C., Crawford J., Creech C., Culman S., Deen B., Dell C., Derner J., Ducey T., Duiker S., Dyck M., Ellert B., Entz M., Solorio A., Fonte S., Fonteyne S., Fortuna A., Foster J., Fultz L., Gamble A., Geddes C., Griffin-LaHue D., Grove J., Hamilton S., Hao X., Hayden Z., Honsdorf N., Howe J., Ippolito J., Johnson G., Kautz M., Kitchen N., Kurtz K., Larney F., Lewis K., Liebman M., Ramirez A., Machado S., Maharjan B., Gamiño M., May W., McClaran M., McDaniel M., Millar N., Mitchell J., Moore A., Moore P., Gutiérrez M., Nelson K., Omondi E., Osborne S., Alcalá L., Owens P., Pena-Yewtukhiw E., Poffenbarger H., Lira B., Reeve J., Reinbott T., Reiter M., Ritchey E., Roozeboom K., Rui Y., Sadeghpour A., Sainju U., Sanford G., Schillinger W., Schindelbeck R., Schipanski M., Schlegel A., Scow K., Sherrod L., Shober A., Sidhu S., Moya E., St. Luce M., Strock J., Suyker A., Sykes V., Tao H., Campos A., Van Eerd L., Verhulst N., Vyn T., Wang Y., Watts D., Wright D., Zhang T., Morgan C., and Honeycutt C., 2022, An evaluation of carbon indicators of soil health in long-term agricultural experiments, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 172: 108708.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108708

Liptzin D., Rieke E., Cappellazzi S., Bean G., Cope M., Greub K., Norris C., Tracy P., Aberle E., Ashworth A., Tavarez O., Bary A., Baumhardt R., Gracia A., Brainard D., Brennan J., Reyes D., Bruhjell D., Carlyle C., Crawford J., Creech C., Culman S., Deen B., Dell C., Derner J., Ducey T., Duiker S., Dungan R., Dyck M., Ellert B., Entz M., Solorio A., Fonte S., Fonteyne S., Fortuna A., Foster J., Fultz L., Gamble A., Geddes C., Griffin-LaHue D., Grove J., Hamilton S., Hao X., Hayden Z., Honsdorf N., Howe J., Ippolito J., Johnson G., Kautz M., Kitchen N., Kurtz K., Larney F., Lewis K., Liebman M., Ramirez A., Machado S., Maharjan B., Gamiño M., May W., McClaran M., McDaniel M., Millar N., Mitchell J., Moore A., Moore P., Gutiérrez M., Nelson K., Omondi E., Osborne S., Alcalá L., Owens P., Pena-Yewtukhiw E., Poffenbarger H., Lira B., Reeve J., Reinbott T., Reiter M., Ritchey E., Roozeboom K., Rui Y., Sadeghpour A., Sainju U., Sanford G., Schillinger W., Schindelbeck R., Schipanski M., Schlegel A., Scow K., Sherrod L., Shober A., Sidhu S., Moya E., Luce M., Strock J., Suyker A., Sykes V., Tao H., Campos A., Van Eerd L., Van Es H., Verhulst N., Vyn T., Wang Y., Watts D., Wright D., Zhang T., Morgan C., and Honeycutt C., 2023, An evaluation of nitrogen indicators for soil health in long-term agricultural experiments, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 87(4): 868-884.

https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20558

Lu Q., Liu T., Wang N., Zhechao D., Wang K., and Zuo Y., 2020, A review of soil nematodes as biological indicators for the assessment of soil health, Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering, 7(3): 275-281.

https://doi.org/10.15302/j-fase-2020327

Luo B., Zhou J., Yao W., Wang Y., Guillaume T., Yuan M., Han D., Bilyera N., Wang L., Zhao L., Yang Y., Zeng Z., and Zang H., 2024, Maize and soybean rotation benefits soil quality and organic carbon stock, Journal of Environmental Management, 372: 123352.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123352

Mahmood F., Khan I., Ashraf U., Shahzad T., Hussain S., Shahid M., Abid M., and Ullah S., 2017, Effects of organic and inorganic manures on maize and their residual impact on soil physico-chemical properties, Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 17: 22-32.

https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162017005000002

Marbun E., 2024, The growth and production of maize (Zea mays L.) at various distance planting and biofertilization, Jurnal Online Agroekoteknologi, 9(3).

https://doi.org/10.32734/joa.v9i3.8151

Moreira H., Pereira S., Vega A., Castro P., and Marques A., 2019, Synergistic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting bacteria benefit maize growth under increasing soil salinity, Journal of Environmental Management, 257: 109982.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109982

Mukhametov A., Ansabayeva A., Efimov O., and Kamerova A., 2024, Influence of crop rotation, the treatment of crop residues, and the application of nitrogen fertilizers on soil properties and maize yield, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 88(6): 2227-2237.

https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20760

Naasko K., Martin T., Mammana C., Murray J., Mann M., and Sprunger C., 2023, Soil protein: a key indicator of soil health and nitrogen management, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 88(1): 89-108.

https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20600

Neelima S., Babhulakar V., Bhoyar K., Wankhade M., and Shende S., 2022, Impact of nutrient management on soil chemical properties and maize (Zea mays L.) yield, International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 12(12): 1863-1870.

https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2022/v12i121635

Negiş H., 2023, Impacts of maize and sunflower straw implementations on selected physical and mechanical properties of clay soil, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 55: 441-455.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2023.2296537

Norris S., Blackshaw R., Dunn R., Critchley N., Smith K., Williams J., Randall N., and Murray P., 2016, Improving above and below-ground arthropod biodiversity in maize cultivation systems, Applied Soil Ecology, 108: 25-46.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APSOIL.2016.07.015

Nyéki A., Daróczy B., Kerepesi C., Neményi M., and Kovács A., 2022, Spatial variability of soil properties and its effect on maize yields within field—a case study in hungary, Agronomy, 12(2): 395.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020395

Oldfield E., Bradford M., and Wood S., 2018, Global meta-analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields, Soil, 5(1): 15-32.

https://doi.org/10.5194/SOIL-5-15-2019

Patel P., Choudhury S., Gupta S., Das A., Pathak S., Kumar D., and Panda C., 2024, Optimizing input management practices for sustainable maize production, Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 30(8): 305-312.

https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2024/v30i82252

Ramadhan M., 2021, Yield and yield components of maize and soil physical properties as affected by tillage practices and organic mulching, Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 28: 7152-7159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.08.005

Ranum P., Peña-Rosas J., and Garcia-Casal M., 2014, Global maize production, utilization, and consumption, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1312(1): 105-112.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12396

Ruf T., Gilcher M., Udelhoven T., and Emmerling C., 2021, Implications of bioenergy cropping for soil: remote sensing identification of silage maize cultivation and risk assessment concerning soil erosion and compaction, Land: 10(2): 128.

https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND10020128

Sah R., Sah R., Chakraborty M., Prasad K., Pandit M., Tudu V., Chakravarty M., Narayan S., Rana M., and Moharana D., 2020, Impact of water deficit stress in maize: Phenology and yield components, Scientific Reports, 10: 2944.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59689-7

Sanderman J., Savage K., and Dangal S., 2020, Mid‐infrared spectroscopy for prediction of soil health indicators in the United States, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 84: 251-261.

https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20009

Sankhyan N., Sharma N., Sharma R., Anjali, Sharma G., and Thakur A., 2023, Sustainable soil management: Insights from a 47-year maize-wheat cropping system study, Applied Soil Ecology, 195: 105230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2023.105230

Schloter M., Nannipieri P., Sørensen S., and Elsas J., 2017, Microbial indicators for soil quality, Biology and Fertility of Soils, 54: 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1248-3

Secco D., Bassegio D., De Marins A., Chang P., Savioli M., Castro M., Mesa V., Silva É., and Wendt E., 2023, Short-term impacts of different intercropping times of maize and ruzigrass on soil physical properties in subtropical Brazil, Soil and Tillage Research, 234: 105838.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2023.105838

Semenov M., Zhelezova A., Ksenofontova N., Ivanova E., Nikitin D., and Semenov V., 2025, Microbiological indicators for assessing the effects of agricultural practices on soil health: a review, Agronomy, 15(2): 335.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15020335

Singh A., Srivastava A., Johri P., Dwivedi M., Kaushal R., Trivedi M., Upadhyay T., Alabdallah N., Ahmad I., Saeed M., and Lakhanpal S., 2025. Odyssey of environmental and microbial interventions in maize crop improvement. Frontiers in Plant Science, 15: 1428475.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1428475

Sivamurugan A., Surendrakumar A., Bharathi C., Karthikeyan R., Pazhanivelan S., Manivannan V., and Shanmugapriya P., 2025, Growth and yield of irrigated maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by mechanization and nutrient management practices, Plant Science Today, 12(1): 1-6.

https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4777

Smith R., and Boardman J., 2025, Muddy flooding from soil erosion associated with maize cultivation: a case study from East Devon, UK, Soil Use and Management, 41(1): e70038.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.70038

Sobiech Ł., Grzanka M., Idziak R., and Blecharczyk A., 2025, The effect of post-emergence application of biostimulants and soil amendments in maize cultivation on the growth and yield of plants, Plants, 14(9): 1274.

https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14091274

Tao J., Liu X., Liang Y., Niu J., Xiao Y., Gu Y., Ma L., Meng D., Zhang Y., Huang W., Peng D., and Yin H., 2017, Maize growth responses to soil microbes and soil properties after fertilization with different green manures, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 101: 1289-1299.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7938-1

Terefe H., Mengesha G., Yitayih G., and Bogale G., 2023, A large-scale survey reveals agro‐ecological factors influence spatio‐temporal distribution and epidemics of maize leaf blight: implications for prioritizing sustainable management options, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, 2(4): 513-528.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.12070

Wang L., Zechariah E., Fudjoe S., Li L., Xie J., Luo Z., Cai L., Khan S., Xu W., and Chen Y., 2022, Continuous maize cultivation with high nitrogen fertilizers associated with the formation of dried soil layers in the semiarid farmland on the Loess Plateau, Journal of Hydrology, 613: 128324.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128324

Wang Y., Zou L., Lou C., Geng X., Zhang S., Chen X., Zhang Y., Huang D., and Liang A., 2024, No-tillage with straw retention influenced maize root growth morphology by changing soil physical properties and aggregate structure in Northeast China: a ten-year field experiment, Geoderma Regional, 38: e00840.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00840

Wierzchowski P., Dobrzyński J., Mazur K., Kierończyk M., Wardal W., Sakowski T., and Barszczewski J., 2021, Chemical properties and bacterial community reaction to acidified cattle slurry fertilization in soil from maize cultivation, Agronomy, 11(3): 601.

https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY11030601

Wolińska A., Podlewski J., Słomczewski A., Grządziel J., Galazka A., and Kuźniar A., 2022, Fungal indicators of sensitivity and resistance to long-term maize monoculture: a culture-independent approach, Frontiers in Microbiology, 12: 799378.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.799378

Wu J., Jin L., Wang N., Wei D., Pang M., Li D., Wang J., Li Y., Sun X., Wang W., and Wang L., 2023, Effects of combined application of chemical fertilizer and biochar on soil physio-biochemical properties and maize yield, Agriculture, 13(6): 1200.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061200

Wu Z., Xue B., Wang S., Xing X., Nuo M., Meng X., Wu M., Jiang H., Ma H., Yang M., Wei X., Zhao G., and Tian P., 2024, Rice under dry cultivation–maize intercropping improves soil environment and increases total yield by regulating belowground root growth, Plants, 13(21): 2957.

https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13212957

Xing Y., Li Y., Zhang F., and Wang X., 2024, Appropriate application of organic fertilizer can effectively improve soil environment and increase maize yield in loess plateau, Agronomy, 14(5): 993.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14050993

Yang L., Muhammad I., Chi Y., Liu Y., Wang G., Wang Y., and Zhou X., 2022, Straw return and nitrogen fertilization regulate soil greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential in dual maize cropping system, The Science of the Total Environment, 853: 158370.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158370

Yang W., Zhang Q., Cai H., Bai T., and Ren X., 2024, Maize root-soil microbial interactions and their effects on soil health and yield, Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 48(6): 991-1003.

https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-011x.3235

Yang Z., Cao Y., Shi Y., Qin F., Jiang C., and Yang S., 2023, Genetic and molecular exploration of maize environmental stress resilience: towards sustainable agriculture, Molecular Plant, 16(10): 1496-1517.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2023.07.005

Zhang S., Bai J., Zhang G., Xia Z., Wu M., and Lu H., 2022a, Negative effects of soil warming, and adaptive cultivation strategies of maize: a review, The Science of the Total Environment, 862: 160738.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160738

Zhang S., Meng L., Hou J., Liu X., Ogundeji A., Cheng Z., Yin T., Clarke N., Hu B., and Li S., 2021, Maize/soybean intercropping improves stability of soil aggregates driven by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a black soil of northeast China, Plant and Soil, 481: 63-82.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05616-w

Zhang Z., An J., Xiong S., Li X., Xin M., Wang J., Han Y., Wang G., Feng L., Lei Y., Yang B., Xing F., Li Y., and Wang Z., 2022b, Orychophragmus violaceus-maize rotation increases maize productivity by improving soil chemical properties and plant nutrient uptake, Field Crops Research, 279: 108470.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108470

Zheng Y., Yue Y., Li C., Wang Y., Zhang H., Ren H., Gong X., Jiang Y., and Qi H., 2023, Revolutionizing maize crop productivity: the winning combination of zigzag planting and deep nitrogen fertilization for maximum yield through root-shoot ratio management, Agronomy, 13(5): 1307.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051307