## 2 Materials and Methods
### Physicochemical Characterization  
The physicochemical indicators related to soil fertility were determined in triplicate. Soil texture was determined by granulometric analysis, using the hydrometer method established by [PERSON] [16], reported as a fraction in the percentage of sand (SND), clay (CLY) and silt (SIL). The texture diagram proposed by the USDA was used to establish the textural class [17]. The hydrogen potential (pH) was determined according to the methodology of [PERSON] [18]. The electrical conductivity (EC) was determined following the methodology of [PERSON] [19], reported in dS m\({}^{-1}\) using a HANNA HI9811-5 digital conductivity meter (Woonsocket, RI, USA). The WHC was determined by weight difference following the methodology described by [PERSON] [20]. The WHC was calculated by the difference in the weight obtained and the weight of the filter without soil (control without soil), reported as a percentage of moisture. The total organic carbon (TOC) was established according to the methodology used by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21], reported as a percentage. The percentage of organic matter (OM) was obtained with the TOC value multiplied by the Van Bennelen factor (1.724), reported as a percentage [2; 22]. The total nitrogen (TN) was analyzed in two steps including digestion of the sample to convert N to ammonium (N-NH\({}_{4}\)\({}^{+}\)) and subsequent determination of N-NH\({}_{4}\)\({}^{+}\) in the digestate [23] using \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Municipality**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Soil**} & **Type of** & **Fertilization** & **Tillage** & **Yield** & **Localization** \\  & & **Irrigation** & **(NPK)** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Ac\(\alpha\)mbaro} & Ac1 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)05\({}^{\prime}\)13.32\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & Ac2 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 100\({}^{\circ}\)45\({}^{\prime}\)25.62\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & Ac3 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)03\({}^{\prime}\)57.77\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & Ac4 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 100\({}^{\circ}\)45\({}^{\prime}\)20.95\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & & Ac3 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)03\({}^{\prime}\)31.20\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & Ac4 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 100\({}^{\circ}\)48\({}^{\prime}\)07.58\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & & Sa1 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)04\({}^{\prime}\)36.31\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & Salamanca & Sa2 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 10\({}^{\circ}\)00\({}^{\prime}\)26.72\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & Sa6 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)25\({}^{\prime}\)37.58\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & & Sa6 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 10\({}^{\circ}\)05\({}^{\prime}\)91.55\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & & Ir1 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)49\({}^{\prime}\)08.48\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & Ir2 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 10\({}^{\circ}\)23\({}^{\prime}\)02.82\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & Ir3 & Rolled & 240-40-00 & Conventional & 8.5–12.0 t ha\({}^{-1}\) & 20\({}^{\circ}\)50\({}^{\prime}\)21.64\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & & & & & & 10\({}^{\circ}\)22\({}^{\prime}\)10.45\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\  & & & & & & 20\({}^{\circ}\)49\({}^{\prime}\)42.58\({}^{\prime\prime}\) N, \\  & & & & & & 10\({}^{\circ}\)21\({}^{\prime}\)13.54\({}^{\prime\prime}\) W \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Location and agricultural management of sampled soils from the Bajio of Guanajuato.