## 3 Results
### Effects of Treatments on Crop Agronomic Attributes  
The spring wheat agronomic traits were significantly (\(p<0.05\)) influenced by tillage strategies and N fertilization methods, as shown in Table 6. The plant height, grain number per spike, 1000-grain weight, and biomass in the four NT, NTN, NTM, and NTNM treatments were higher than four CT, CTN, CTM, and CTNM treatments. The NTNM treatment had, significantly (\(p<0.05\)), the highest of all noted agronomic traits, whilst CT treatment had the lowest spring wheat agronomic attributes. The highest grain yield of spring wheat, 1843.88 kg/ha, was recorded in NTNM treatment. Compared with CT, CTN, CTNM, NT, NTN, and NTM treatments, the NTNM treatment noticeably increased grain yield by 29.03%, 21.96%, 19.66%, 13.64%, 11.81%, 8.26%, and 5.70%, respectively.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Item** & **SOC** & **TN** & **TP** & **NO3\({}^{-}\)-N** & **NH4\({}^{+}\)-N** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Tillage practice} & df & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\  & F & 10.132 & 18.019 & 0.053 & 10.653 & 14.734 \\  & Sig & \textless{}0.01 & \textless{}0.01 & 0.819 & \textless{}0.01 & \textless{}0.01 \\  & df & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ Fertilization method & F & 2.044 & 3.184 & 0.518 & 18.509 & 6.564 \\  & Sig & 0.112 & \textless{}0.01 & 0.671 & \textless{}0.01 & \textless{}0.01 \\  & df & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ Tillage practice + fertilization method & F & 0.121 & 0.156 & 0.898 & 4.997 & 1.516 \\  & Sig & 0.947 & \textless{}0.01 & 0.445 & 0.015 & 0.103 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Sig \(<0.01\) indicates highly significant effect. SOC: soil organic carbon, TN: total nitrogen, TP: total phosphorous, NO3\({}^{-}\)-N: nitrate nitrogen and NH4\({}^{+}\)-N: ammonium nitrogen.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Two-way factor ANOVA of (SOC, TN, TP, NO3\({}^{-}\)-N, and NH4\({}^{+}\)-N) under different treatments.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **C/N** & **C/P** & **N/P** \\ \hline CT & 8.93 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 14.36 \(\pm\) 1.36 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 1.62 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\ CTN & 8.50 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 14.59 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\ CTM & 7.69 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 13.26 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\ CTNM & 7.02 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 15.04 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.14 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ NT & 6.95 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 14.36 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.07 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ NTN & 6.81 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 15.73 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.31 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ NTMN & 6.65 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 15.25 \(\pm\) 0.61 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ NTNM & 6.28 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 15.90 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Different capital letters indicate significant differences between different treatments (\(p<0.05\); Duncan’s test). CT: conventional tillage, CTN: conventional tillage with inorganic N fertilizer, CTM: conventional tillage with organic N fertilizer, CTNM: conventional tillage with combined application of organic and inorganic N fertilizer, NT: no-tillage, NTN: no-tillage with inorganic N fertilizer, NTM: no-tillage with organic N fertilizer, NTNM: no-tillage with combined application of organic and inorganic N fertilizer.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Soil stoichiometric ratios under different treatments at 0–10 cm soil depth.  
Two factor ANOVA (Table 7) showed that the tillage measures, fertilization methods, and their interaction had a significant impact on the yield of spring wheat (\(p<0.01\)).  
Two factor ANOVA (Table 7) showed that the tillage measures, fertilization methods, and their interaction had a significant impact on the yield of spring wheat (\(p<0.05\); [PERSON]'s test).