Next Article in Journal
May the Inclusion of a Legume Crop Change Weed Composition in Cereal Fields? Example of Sainfoin in Aragon (Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing Spatial and Temporal Variability for Some Edaphic Characteristics of Mediterranean Rainfed and Irrigated Soils
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 9
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy9030133
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Full Straw Incorporation on Soil Fertility and Crop Yield in Rice-Wheat Rotation for Silty Clay Loamy Cropland

by
Xinlin Zhao
1,2,
Guoyin Yuan
1,2,
Huoyan Wang
1,*,
Dianjun Lu
1,
Xiaoqin Chen
1 and
Jianmin Zhou
1
1
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2019, 9(3), 133; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy9030133
Submission received: 11 January 2019 / Revised: 27 February 2019 / Accepted: 4 March 2019 / Published: 12 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This 2-year field experiment investigated the effects of full straw incorporation on soil fertility and crop yield in a rice-wheat (Oryza sativa L.–Triticum aestivum L.) rotation on sandy, loamy soil. Two treatments were tested: (i) straw removal (CK) and (ii) straw incorporation (STR). The STR significantly increased the wheat yield by an average of 58% compared with CK; however, no significant difference was found in the rice yield. Soil available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the 0–20 cm soil layer increased by more than 15% with STR compared to CK. The soil cation exchange capacity and organic carbon in the 0–20 cm soil layer increased by 8% and 22%, for STR compared to CK, respectively. Straw incorporation significantly elevated the soil saturated water content but decreased the soil bulk density compared with CK. Soil aggregates >2 mm were significantly increased after straw return. STR also notably increased the soil urease, invertase, and catalase activities in the 0–15 cm soil layer by 11.4%, 41.0%, and 12.9%, respectively, and the soil microbial carbon and nitrogen contents in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 59% and 54%. Therefore, full straw incorporation could significantly improve soil fertility and maintain crop yields for the study area.

1. Introduction

The world population is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 [1], which means greater future demand for grain production. However, the limited arable land and stagnant crop yields have made the task more challenging [2]. Consequently, intensive farming systems with short fallow periods and high fertilizer inputs have been used to achieve higher crop yields. Unfortunately, this farming pattern has led to marked pollution [3,4,5] and soil degradation [2,6]. As a result, maintaining and improving the fertility of arable land is vital for future agriculture.
Many measures have been taken to improve soil fertility and productivity. The most effective measure is increasing the organic input, such as with the application of organic manure or compost [7,8] and straw incorporation [9,10]. Crop straw, an easy-to-get, nutrient-rich resource, has great value for improving soil fertility [10,11]. Many studies have reported that crop straw is rich in nutrients and organic materials, can be treated as a natural organic fertilizer, and used as an alternative to chemical fertilizers [12,13,14]. Therefore straw incorporation seems promising to maintain and restore soil fertility. However, up to now, the use of straw incorporation to increase crop yield is still a matter of debate since studies in different climates and soil types have led to inconclusive results [15].
It has been reported that straw incorporation has significant beneficial effects on crop yields and soil properties. For instance, straw incorporation can increase crop yields [16,17], soil organic matter [10,17,18,19], and other soil nutrients [10,18,20]. Straw return can also improve soil physical properties, such as by increasing hydraulic conductivity, decreasing bulk density, and enhancing aggregate formation [16,21,22,23]. In addition, the positive effects of straw incorporation on soil microorganisms have also been reported [8,10,24,25]. Nevertheless, there were also researchers who found that straw incorporation did not notably affect [26] or even decrease the crop yield [27].
Sufficient soil organic matter (SOM) and soil nutrients, such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), are key to high crop production, and they are good indicators of soil fertility [28]. Soil microbes are also important indicators of soil fertility, as they play vital roles in soil nutrient cycling [10]. Besides, soil physical properties, such as porosity, bulk density [29], hydraulic conductivity, and aggregation [30] can markedly affect soil fertility and crop yield. Based on these soil fertility indicators, it becomes easier to evaluate the soil fertility.
The studies cited above have investigated the effects of straw incorporation on soil properties and crop yields. However, in those studies, only some of the crop straw or one kind of crop straw in the rotation was returned to the field. Moreover, most of the studies mainly focused on the effects of straw incorporation on one or two respects of soil properties rather than on chemical, biochemical, and physical properties together. The Yangtze River Delta, where rice-wheat rotation is the prevailing crop system, is one of the main grain-producing areas in China and produces many forms of crop residue every year. However, straw burning and littering still occur, leading to nutrient waste and pollution. Consequently, it is vital to investigate the influence of full straw incorporation on crop yield and soil fertility in this area. We hypothesized that full straw incorporation would (i) maintain and increase crop yields, (ii) improve the physicochemical properties of soil, and (iii) increase soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

A 2-year field experiment was conducted over 4 growing seasons from 2014 to 2016 in Jiangyan County, Jiangsu Province, China (32°26′ N, 120°06′ E). The district is located in the Yangtze River Delta and has a subtropical monsoon climate. The perennial mean temperature is 14.5 °C, and the mean precipitation is 992 mm, with a frost-free period of 215 days. Figure 1 shows the monthly average rainfall and temperature during the study period.
The soil at the study site was classified as aquic haplocryalfs [31] with a silty clay loam texture (sand 9.90%, slit 59.3%, clay 30.8%) and a pH of 7.21. In the 0–15-cm soil layer, the available N, P, and K were 13.3, 33.9, and 55.4 mg kg−1, while the total N, P, K, and organic matter were 0.818, 1.07, 13.8, and 12.4 g kg−1, respectively. The rice-wheat rotation had been the main cropping mode for many years, and the crop straw, especially for rice straw, was always removed before the next crop.

2.2. Experiment Design

A randomized block design with four replicates was used. Each plot was 4 m wide and 5 m long. The treatments were (i) straw removal (CK) and (ii) straw incorporation (STR).
The fertilizers used in this study were urea (N, 46%) and superphosphate (P2O5, 12%), and the fertilization rates were 210 kg N ha−1 and 135 kg P2O5 ha−1, respectively, for each growing season. For N fertilizer, 40% of the urea was broadcast by hand before sowing or transplanting as base fertilizer; another 30% was broadcast at tillering, and the remaining 30% was broadcast at the jointing stage. By contrast, P fertilizer was broadcast only as base fertilizer. Before fertilization and mixing the soil after harvest each season, the crop straw in the plot was chopped into 5 cm pieces using a fodder chopper and spread evenly over the plot. Then, the straw pieces were mixed with the top 20 cm of the soil in the plot with a micro-tilling machine. Finally, the fertilizers were applied and mixed evenly with the top 20 cm of soil. During the experiment, the amount of crop straw and nutrients returned into the field by straw incorporation is shown in Table 1.
The crop rotation comprised winter wheat (cv. Yangmai 16, Triticum aestivum L.) and rice (cv. Wuyunjing 24 (2015) and 3 (2016), Oryza sativa L.). Wheat was sown on 2 November and 11 November in 2014 and 2015, respectively, at a seed rate of 188 kg ha−1; rice was transplanted on 20 June and 15 June in 2015 and 2016, respectively, with a line spacing of 25 cm and a row spacing of 13 cm. No artificial irrigation was supplied during the wheat season, whereas the field was irrigated for the rice season. Manual weeding and herbicide application were performed throughout the experiment. Pesticides were used to control pests during the period of crop growth.

2.3. Sampling and Measurement

Plant samples were collected 1 week before each crop harvest, but the soil samples were only collected at the time of rice harvest in 2016. The plant sample was divided into grain and straw. The grain was oven-dried and weighed to evaluate crop yield. Topsoil (0–20 cm) was sampled to assess changes in the soil aggregates and soil enzyme activities. Soil samples from 0–30 cm were collected at 10 cm intervals to determine changes in the nutrient content. Soil samples for measuring the soil bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and soil hydraulic properties were collected with steel cutting rings with a volume of 100 cm3.
The soil N, P, K, cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, soil water content, and soil bulk density were determined using standard methods [32]. The soil organic carbon (SOC) was determined following the procedure described by Yeomans and Bremner [33]. The microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and nitrogen (MBN) were determined using the fumigation-extraction method [34]. The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with the double-cutting rings method. Briefly, the soil sample collected with the cutting ring was left in the ring, and then an empty ring was fixed above the first ring. Next, a double layer of gauze was bound to the lower ring to stabilize the soil. This soil was put in a funnel, and the top ring was filled with water. After the water-leaching rate from the funnel stabilized, the leachate volume was measured 3 times every 30 minutes. Then, the saturated hydraulic conductivity was calculated as the average leachate volume per minute. The soil urease activity was analyzed based on the method of Dick [35], the soil invertase activity as described by Frankeberger and Johanson [36], and the soil catalase activity using the method of Johnson and Temple [37]. The units of soil urease activity were (NH4-N mg/(g/2h/37)), i.e., the amount of ammonium nitrogen that urease can produce in 2 hours at 37 °C; the units of soil invertase activity were (glucose mg/(g/24h/37)), i.e., the amount of glucose that invertase can produce in 24 hours at 37 °C; and the units of soil catalase activity were (H2O2 mg(g/h)), i.e., the amount of H2O2 that catalase can decompose in 1 hour.
The soil water-stable aggregates were analyzed using a modified version of the method in Zhang et al. [38] by placing a soil sample on a stack of sieves (2, 0.25, and 0.053 mm) fitted to a soil aggregate analyzer (QD24–DIK–2001, Daiki Rika Kogyo Co., Ltd., Saitama, Japan). The proportions of aggregates that measured >2, 2–0.25, 0.25–0.053, and <0.053 mm were calculated as the ratio of sample weight to aggregate weight in the corresponding sieve.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data gained from the experiment were analyzed with Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS 22.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Mean values of the variables for each treatment were compared using Duncan’s test at the 5% level.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Nutrients and CEC

Straw incorporation (STR) notably affected the soil nutrients and CEC as shown in Figure 2. STR significantly increased the soil available N, P, and K, and total N and P at soil depths of 0–20 cm by averages of 64%, 28%, 64%, 24%, and 16%, respectively. However, the soil total K content did not differ between the two treatments. At soil depths of 20–30 cm, the soil available P content under the CK treatment was significantly higher than that under the STR treatment. STR also markedly increased the soil CEC, by an average of 8%, and SOC, by an average of 22%, at soil depths of 0–20 cm. However, no significant difference in soil C/N was found among the different treatments. The soil nutrients and CEC decreased notably with increasing soil depth.

3.2. Soil Physical Properties

The soil physical properties were significantly affected by straw management, as shown in Table 2. The soil water content measured at the end of the experiment markedly increased by 19%, with STR compared with CK. The saturated soil water content also notably increased by 6.3%, with STR compared with CK. STR significantly decreased the soil bulk density by 6.0%, compared with CK. Nevertheless, the saturated hydraulic conductivity did not differ between the two treatments.
Straw management significantly influenced soil aggregate fractions, as shown in Figure 3. The proportion of soil aggregates >2 mm (A1) notably increased by 26%, with STR compared with CK. Conversely, STR markedly decreased the proportion of soil aggregates, <2 mm and >0.25 mm (A2), by 29%. However, no significant difference was seen in the proportion of soil aggregates <0.25 mm and >0.053 mm (A3) or <0.053 mm (A4) between two treatments. Soil aggregates >0.053 mm were the predominant component of the soil, with aggregates <0.053 mm accounting only for a minor proportion of the soil.
STR significantly increased the total SOC and total N contents of soil aggregates regardless of the aggregate size. The magnitudes of the soil total SOC contents for aggregates were in the order A2 > A1 > A4 > A3 for CK and A1 > A2 > A4 > A3 for STR. A similar trend was found in the soil total N content. The C/N (ratio of total SOC to total N) of the aggregates at different sizes for each treatment did not differ significantly, but the C/N of CK averaged 13% higher than that of STR.

3.3. Soil Enzymes Activities and Soil Microbial Biomass of Carbon and Nitrogen

Straw management significantly affected soil enzyme activities, as shown in Figure 4. The urease, invertase, and catalase activities under the CK treatment were 42.1 mg NH4-N/(g/2h/37 °C), 22.2 mg glucose/(g/24h/37 °C), and 6.61 mg H2O2/(g/min), respectively, whereas the activities of these three enzymes under the STR treatment were 46.9 μg NH4-N /(g/2h/37 °C), 31.3 mg glucose/(g/24h/37 °C), and 7.46 mg H2O2/(g/min). STR notably increased the soil urease, invertase, and catalase activities, by 11.4%, 41.0%, and 12.9%, respectively, compared with CK.
As the soil depth increased, the MBC and MBN both declined significantly, as shown in Figure 5. STR markedly increased the MBC and MBN contents, by 21.5% and 40.4% at soil depths of 0–10 cm, respectively, and by 96.5% and 68.5% at soil depths of 10–20 cm, respectively, compared with CK. However, the MBC and MBN contents at soil depths of 20–30 mm did not differ between the two treatments.

3.4. Crop Yield

Crop straw management significantly affected the yields of both wheat and rice, as shown in Figure 6. STR significantly increased the wheat yield, by 44% and 71% in 2014 and 2015, respectively. However, the wheat yields tended to decrease for both treatments as time passed. For the same treatment, the wheat yields in 2014 decreased by 21% and 6.8% compared with those in 2015.
STR also increased the rice yield compared with the CK treatment, although the difference was not significant. Different rice cultivars have different yield potentials; the yield of Wuyunjing 24 (2014) was much higher than that of Wuyunjing 3 (2015).

4. Discussion

4.1. The Effects of Straw Incorporation on Soil Physicochemical Properties

Fertile soils support biological productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health [39]. However, intensive cropping, imbalanced fertilization, poor water management, and frequent plowing have led to a serious decline in soil fertility, which threatens crop productivity.
Crop straw contains many nutrients that are essential for plant growth [40,41]. Consequently, the nutrients that are removed by plants can be replenished by STR (see Table 1). In this study, the soil available N, P, and K, soil total N, and P increased significantly at soil depths of 0–20 cm as a result of returning straw, as shown in Figure 2. This concurs with findings reported by Zhang et al. [10] and Wang et al. [17]. However, the available P with STR was notably lower than that with CK at soil depths of 20–30 cm; perhaps because the straw was mostly incorporated into the topsoil at depths to 20 cm, which kept the P from leaching. For soil total K, there was no significant difference between the two treatments or among the three soil depths; Gami et al. [20] drew a similar conclusion for a long-term rice-wheat experiment. After straw incorporation for two years, the soil CEC was increased compared with CK at soil depths of 0–20 cm, which means that the soil can preserve more cation nutrients; this differs from previous findings [42]. Generally, the increase of SOC takes a long time [43,44]; however, similar to the above nutrients, the SOC was also significantly increased by STR in this two-year experiment. This increase of SOC was probably related to the wetter climatic conditions, the rice-wheat cropping system and the higher N fertilizer input which enhanced the crop residue decomposition.
In a rice-wheat cropping system without straw incorporation, puddling the soil to grow rice would increase the soil bulk density and reduce the percent water-stable aggregates [45]. Due to its low bulk density and ability to increase soil aggregate stability, organic matter results in a lower soil bulk density and soil compactibility [46], higher soil porosity and infiltration rate [47], and increased soil water content at field capacity [48]. In this study, with the crop residues returned to the field, the soil bulk density was significantly reduced, whereas the saturated soil water content and soil water content at harvest time were notably increased. However, the saturated hydraulic conductivity did not differ between the two treatments, perhaps because the soil was sandy loamy, which has a high indigenous saturated hydraulic conductivity. The percent of water-stable aggregates >0.25 mm was increased significantly under STR compared with CK; Singh et al. [22] obtained similar results. And these relatively rapid improvements of soil physical properties can also be owed to the special climate and cropping system.

4.2. The Effects of Straw Incorporation on Soil Biochemistry

Microbial biomass is a more sensitive index for evaluating soil fertility than is any other nutrient element content. Microbial biomass C and N are the most common indices for determining microbial biomass. Organic matter can provide substantial nutrients for microorganism growth and reproduction. In our study, straw incorporation significantly increased MBC and MBN, as shown in Figure 5, in agreement with Liu et al. [8] and Ocio et al. [49].
Soil enzymes are mainly derived from soil microorganisms, plant roots, and even soil fauna [50], and they are very sensitive to soil changes. They are suitable for use as soil fertility indices [51]. Our results showed that straw incorporation significantly improved the urease, invertase, and catalase activities, as shown in Figure 4, in agreement with Dick et al. [10] and Zhang et al. [52], but counter to Wu et al. [25], who found that the urease activity was reduced compared with CK.

4.3. The Effects of Straw Incorporation on Crop Yields

The positive effects of STR on crop yield is still a matter of debate since studies in different climates and soil types have led to inconclusive results [15]. For the present study, results showed that with crop straw returned into the field, the yields of wheat and rice for the same year were significantly increased compared with CK treatment, as found in many other studies [10,17,53]. The reasons for the increased yield are likely multifactorial. Firstly, straw incorporation can return a large part of the nutrients that had been removed by the aboveground parts of plants [13,52]; secondly, crop straw contains considerable organic matter, which, when blended into the soil, improves the soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, contributing to increased yield [10,22]. However, there were also researchers who found that STR did not notably affect [26] or decreased the crop yield [27]. It is believed that STR could result in significant nitrogen immobilization and, consequently, result in lower yields [21]. The reasons why the results shown in this study differed from previous studies might be: On the one hand, the wetter climate, as shown in Figure 1, and the rice-wheat cropping system in the present study can provide better conditions for straw decomposition and nutrient releasing, and consequently reduce the disadvantages of STR; on the other hand, the higher N fertilizer application in the present study could avoid the inorganic N deficiency resulted from N immobilization [54].
The results also showed a decreased yield between years for wheat with both treatments. Considering the very low initial soil available potassium and the fact that no potassium fertilizer was applied during the experiment, potassium deficiency may have caused the yield decrease [55]. Although the rice yield decreased markedly in the second year compared with the first, the same conclusion cannot be drawn because different rice cultivars were grown. In addition, wheat is more susceptible to K deficiency than rice because rice can get potassium from irrigation water [56] and soil potassium is always more available under waterlogging.

5. Conclusions

The effects of straw incorporation vary with soil types, climatic conditions, field management, and cropping system. Thus, in the present study, full straw incorporation could have a significant, positive effect on soil fertility and crop yield in the rice-wheat rotation despite the experiment lasting only two years. Under the conditions of the present study, full straw incorporation markedly increased the soil N, P, K, SOC, and cation exchange capacity compared with the control. It notably improved the soil physical properties, such as by decreasing the soil bulk density and increasing the soil water-holding ability. Thirdly, straw incorporation significantly increased the soil microbial biomass and soil enzyme activities. Finally, straw incorporation maintained and increased the crop yield. Therefore, full straw incorporation is an effective way to improve soil fertility and to deal with large amounts of straw for the study area.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z. and H.W.; funding acquisition, H.W., D.L., X.C., and J.Z.; Investigation, X.Z. and G.Y.; writing—original draft, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, H.W.

Acknowledgments

This research was jointly supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0200108, 2018YFD0200505), Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest (201203013), and National Basic Research Program of China (2013CB127401).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UN, Department of Economics and Social Affairs. World Population Projected to Reach 9.7 Billion by 2050. 2015. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html (accessed on 11 January 2019).
  2. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Ju, X.T.; Xing, G.X.; Chen, X.P.; Zhang, S.L.; Zhang, L.J.; Liu, X.J.; Cui, Z.L.; Yin, B.; Christie, P.; Zhu, Z.L.; et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 3041–3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Zhu, Z.; Chen, D. Nitrogen fertilizer use in China–Contributions to food production, impacts on the environment and best management strategies. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2002, 63, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cassman, K.G. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: Yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 5952–5959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Guo, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, J.; Han, W.; Zhang, W.; Christie, P.; Goulding, K.; Vitousek, P.; Zhang, F. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science 2010, 327, 1008–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xin, X.; Qin, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, A.; Yang, W.; Zhang, X. Yield, phosphorus use efficiency and balance response to substituting long-term chemical fertilizer use with organic manure in a wheat-maize system. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 208, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, E.; Yan, C.; Mei, X.; He, W.; Bing, S.H.; Ding, L.; Liu, Q.; Liu, S.; Fan, T. Long-term effect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological properties in northwest China. Geoderma 2010, 158, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wei, T.; Zhang, P.; Wang, K.; Ding, R.; Yang, B.; Nie, J.; Jia, Z.; Han, Q. Effects of wheat straw incorporation on the availability of soil nutrients and enzyme activities in semiarid areas. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zhang, P.; Chen, X.; Wei, T.; Yang, Z.; Jia, Z.; Yang, B.; Han, Q.; Ren, X. Effects of straw incorporation on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and crop yield in a semiarid region of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 160, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tan, D.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, L.; Luo, J.; Li, J. Long-term potash application and wheat straw return reduced soil potassium fixation and affected crop yields in North China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tan, D.; Jin, J.; Huang, S.; Li, S.; He, P. Effect of long-term application of K fertilizer and wheat straw to soil on crop yield and soil K under different planting systems. Agric. Sci. China 2007, 6, 200–207. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bakht, J.; Shafi, M.; Jan, M.T.; Shah, Z. Influence of crop residue management, cropping system and N fertilizer on soil N and C dynamics and sustainable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, W.; Sardans, J.; Wang, C.; Pan, T.; Zeng, C.; Lai, D.; Bartrons, M.; Peñuelas, J. Straw Application Strategy to Optimize Nutrient Release in a Southeastern China Rice Cropland. Agronomy 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pituello, C.; Polese, R.; Morari, F.; Berti, A. Outcomes from a long-term study on crop residue effects on plant yield and nitrogen use efficiency in contrasting soils. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yang, H.S.; Xu, M.M.; Koide, R.T.; Liu, Q.; Dai, Y.J.; Liu, L.; Bian, X.M. Effects of ditch-buried straw return on water percolation, nitrogen leaching and crop yields in a rice-wheat rotation system. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, X.H.; Yang, H.S.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.S.; Chen, W.P.; Wu, J.; Zhu, L.Q.; Bian, X.M. Effects of ditch-buried straw return on soil organic carbon and rice yields in a rice-wheat rotation system. Catena 2015, 127, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, G.; Guo, X.; Sun, Z.; Li, T. The Effects of Rice Straw and Biochar Applications on the Microbial Community in a Soil with a History of Continuous Tomato Planting History. Agronomy 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhu, L.Q.; Hu, N.J.; Yang, M.F.; Zhan, X.H.; Zhang, Z.W. Effects of Different Tillage and Straw Return on Soil Organic Carbon in a Rice-Wheat Rotation System. PLoS ONE 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Gami, S.K.; Ladha, J.K.; Pathak, H.; Shah, M.P.; Pasuquin, E.; Pandey, S.P.; Hobbs, P.R.; Joshy, D.; Mishra, R. Long-term changes in yield and soil fertility in a twenty-year rice-wheat experiment in Nepal. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2001, 34, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mandal, K.G.; Misra, A.K.; Hati, K.M.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Ghosh, P.K.; Mohanty, M. Rice residue-management options and effects on soil properties and crop productivity. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2004, 2, 224–231. [Google Scholar]
  22. Singh, G.; Jalota, S.K.; Singh, Y. Manuring and residue management effects on physical properties of a soil under the rice–wheat system in Punjab, India. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 94, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sodhi, G.P.S.; Beri, V.; Benbi, D.K. Soil aggregation and distribution of carbon and nitrogen in different fractions under long-term application of compost in rice–wheat system. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jin, K.; Sleutel, S.; Buchan, D.; De Neve, S.; Cai, D.X.; Gabriels, D.; Jin, J.Y. Changes of soil enzyme activities under different tillage practices in the Chinese Loess Plateau. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wu, F.; Jia, Z.; Wang, S.; Chang, S.X.; Startsev, A. Contrasting effects of wheat straw and its biochar on greenhouse gas emissions and enzyme activities in a Chernozemic soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2012, 49, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brennan, J.; Hackett, R.; McCabe, T.; Grant, J.; Fortune, R.A.; Forristal, P.D. The effect of tillage system and residue management on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in winter wheat in a cool Atlantic climate. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 54, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Christian, D.G.; Bacon, E.T.G.; Brockie, D.; Glen, D.; Gutteridge, R.J.; Jenkyn, J.F. Interactions of straw disposal methods and direct drilling or cultivations on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown on a clay soil. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1999, 73, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karami, A.; Homaee, M.; Afzalinia, S.; Ruhipour, H.; Basirat, S. Organic resource management: Impacts on soil aggregate stability and other soil physico-chemical properties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 148, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Getahun, G.T.; Kätterer, T.; Munkholm, L.J.; Parvage, M.M.; Keller, T.; Rychel, K.; Kirchmann, H. Short-term effects of loosening and incorporation of straw slurry into the upper subsoil on soil physical properties and crop yield. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 184, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, Z.; Chen, X.; Jing, Y.; Li, Q.; Zhang, J.; Huang, Q. Effects of biochar amendment on rapeseed and sweet potato yields and water stable aggregate in upland red soil. Catena 2014, 123, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th ed.; USDA-NRCS Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lu, R. Analytical Methods of Soil Agrochemistry; China Agriculture Science and Technique Press: Beijing, China, 1999; pp. 85–96. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  33. Yeomans, J.C.; Bremner, J.M. A rapid and precise method for routine determination of organic carbon in soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1988, 19, 1467–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sparling, G.; West, A. Modifications to the flmigation-extraction technique to permit simultaneous extraction and estimation of soil microbial c and n. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1988, 19, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dick, R.P. Methods of Soil Enzymology; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Frankeberger, W.; Johanson, J. Method of measuring invertase activity in soils. Plant Soil 1983, 74, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Johnson, J.L.; Temple, K.L. Some variables affecting the measurement of “catalase activity” in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1964, 28, 207–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, P.; Wei, T.; Jia, Z.; Han, Q.; Ren, X. Soil aggregate and crop yield changes with different rates of straw incorporation in semiarid areas of northwest China. Geoderma 2014, 230, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Doran, J.; Coleman, D.; Bezdicek, D.; Stewart, B. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment; Special Publication SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, J. Effect of application methods of organic fertilizer on growth, soil chemical properties and microbial densities in organic bulb onion production. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Saroa, G.S.; Lal, R. Soil restorative effects of mulching on aggregation and carbon sequestration in a Miamian soil in central Ohio. Land Degrad. Dev. 2003, 14, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, X.; Wang, J.W.; Wang, S.Q.; Xing, G.X. Successive straw biochar application as a strategy to sequester carbon and improve fertility: A pot experiment with two rice/wheat rotations in paddy soil. Plant Soil 2014, 378, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Powlson, D.S.; Glendining, M.J.; Coleman, K.; Whitmore, A.P. Implications for Soil Properties of Removing Cereal Straw: Results from Long-Term Studies. Agron. J. 2011, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 401–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Meelu, O.P.; Beri, V.; Sharma, K.N.; Jalota, S.K.; Sandhu, B.S. Influence of Paddy and Corn in Different Rotations on Wheat Yield, Nutrient Removal and Soil Properties. Plant Soil 1979, 51, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dexter, A. Advances in characterization of soil structure. Soil Tillage Res. 1988, 11, 199–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ekwue, E. Effect of organic and fertiliser treatments on soil physical properties and erodibility. Soil Tillage Res. 1992, 22, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khaleel, R.; Reddy, K.; Overcash, M. Changes in soil physical properties due to organic waste applications: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 1981, 10, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ocio, J.A.; Brookes, P.C.; Jenkinson, D.S. Field Incorporation of Straw and Its Effects on Soil Microbial Biomass and Soil Inorganic-N. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1991, 23, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kiss, S.; Drăgan-Bularda, M.; Rădulescu, D. Biological significance of enzymes accumulated in soil. Adv. Agron. 1975, 27, 25–87. [Google Scholar]
  51. Trasar-Cepeda, C.; Leiros, M.; Seoane, S.; Gil-Sotres, F. Limitations of soil enzymes as indicators of soil pollution. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 1867–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dick, R.; Rasmussen, P.; Kerle, E. Influence of long-term residue management on soil enzyme activities in relation to soil chemical properties of a wheat-fallow system. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1988, 6, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Malhi, S.S.; Nyborg, M.; Solberg, E.D.; Dyck, M.F.; Puurveen, D. Improving crop yield and N uptake with long-term straw retention in two contrasting soil types. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 124, 378–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mahapatra, B.S.; Sharma, G.L.; Singh, N. Integrated management of straw and urea nitrogen in lowland rice under a rice-wheat rotation. J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Regmi, A.; Ladha, J.; Pasuquin, E.; Pathak, H.; Hobbs, P.; Shrestha, L.; Gharti, D.; Duveiller, E. The role of potassium in sustaining yields in a long-term rice-wheat experiment in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of Nepal. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 36, 240–247. [Google Scholar]
  56. De Datta, S.; Mikkelsen, D. Potassium nutrition of rice. In Potassium in Agriculture; Munson, R.D., Ed.; ASA, CSSA, SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1985; pp. 665–699. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 09 00133 g001 550
Figure 1. The monthly average rainfall and temperature from 2014 to 2016.
Figure 1. The monthly average rainfall and temperature from 2014 to 2016.
Agronomy 09 00133 g001
Agronomy 09 00133 g002 550
Figure 2. The nutrient status of the soil samples collected in October 2016 as affected by straw incorporation (STR) and straw removal (CK). Different letters above columns for the same soil depth indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. The nutrient status of the soil samples collected in October 2016 as affected by straw incorporation (STR) and straw removal (CK). Different letters above columns for the same soil depth indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 09 00133 g002
Agronomy 09 00133 g003 550
Figure 3. Soil aggregates and their C and N contents as affected by straw management. Different uppercase letters above columns for the same treatment indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05); different lowercase letters above columns for the same aggregate size between treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Soil aggregates and their C and N contents as affected by straw management. Different uppercase letters above columns for the same treatment indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05); different lowercase letters above columns for the same aggregate size between treatments indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 09 00133 g003
Agronomy 09 00133 g004 550
Figure 4. The soil urease (NH4-N mg/(g/2h/37)), invertase (glucose mg/(g/24h/37)), and catalase (H2O2 mg(g/h)) activities were affected by straw incorporation (STR) and straw removal (CK). Different letters above columns for the same soil enzyme indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. The soil urease (NH4-N mg/(g/2h/37)), invertase (glucose mg/(g/24h/37)), and catalase (H2O2 mg(g/h)) activities were affected by straw incorporation (STR) and straw removal (CK). Different letters above columns for the same soil enzyme indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 09 00133 g004
Agronomy 09 00133 g005 550
Figure 5. The soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and nitrogen (MBN) were affected by straw incorporation (STR), straw removal (CK), and soil depth. Different uppercase letters above the columns for MBC or MBN for the same soil depth indicate a significant difference between treatments (p < 0.05); different lowercase letters above the columns for MBC or MBN for the same treatment indicate a significant difference between different soil depths (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. The soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and nitrogen (MBN) were affected by straw incorporation (STR), straw removal (CK), and soil depth. Different uppercase letters above the columns for MBC or MBN for the same soil depth indicate a significant difference between treatments (p < 0.05); different lowercase letters above the columns for MBC or MBN for the same treatment indicate a significant difference between different soil depths (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 09 00133 g005
Agronomy 09 00133 g006 550
Figure 6. Crop yields were affected by the straw incorporation (STR) and control (CK) treatments. Different uppercase letters above columns for the same treatment and crop indicate a significant difference between harvesting years (p < 0.05); different lowercase letters above columns for the same crop and year indicate a significant difference between treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Crop yields were affected by the straw incorporation (STR) and control (CK) treatments. Different uppercase letters above columns for the same treatment and crop indicate a significant difference between harvesting years (p < 0.05); different lowercase letters above columns for the same crop and year indicate a significant difference between treatments (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 09 00133 g006
Table
Table 1. The amount of crop straw and nutrients that was returned into the field by straw incorporation.
Table 1. The amount of crop straw and nutrients that was returned into the field by straw incorporation.
CropYearStraw Yield
Mg/ha		N Content
mg/g		P Content
mg/g		Cd Content
%
Rice20159.00a5.831.6139.6
20169.998.311.7036.9
Wheat20154.885.210.7843.5
20163.534.900.9744.4
Total input 27.4b178c38.7c10.9b
Note: a means an estimated amount of rice straw according to the rice grain yield achieved by the farmer in 2015; b means the unit is Mg/ha and c means the unit is kg/ha; d means carbon.
Table
Table 2. Soil physical properties with the two treatments following the experiment.
Table 2. Soil physical properties with the two treatments following the experiment.
TreatmentSoil Water Content
(%)		Saturated Soil Water Content (%)Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)Bulk Density
(g/cm)
CK9.70 b38.1 b0.27 a1.33 a
STR11.5 a40.5 a0.29 a1.25 b
Note: Different letters in the same column indicate a significant difference between treatments (p < 0.05).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, X.; Yuan, G.; Wang, H.; Lu, D.; Chen, X.; Zhou, J. Effects of Full Straw Incorporation on Soil Fertility and Crop Yield in Rice-Wheat Rotation for Silty Clay Loamy Cropland. Agronomy 2019, 9, 133. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy9030133

AMA Style

Zhao X, Yuan G, Wang H, Lu D, Chen X, Zhou J. Effects of Full Straw Incorporation on Soil Fertility and Crop Yield in Rice-Wheat Rotation for Silty Clay Loamy Cropland. Agronomy. 2019; 9(3):133. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy9030133

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Xinlin, Guoyin Yuan, Huoyan Wang, Dianjun Lu, Xiaoqin Chen, and Jianmin Zhou. 2019. "Effects of Full Straw Incorporation on Soil Fertility and Crop Yield in Rice-Wheat Rotation for Silty Clay Loamy Cropland" Agronomy 9, no. 3: 133. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy9030133

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop