The combined effects of maize straw mulch and no-tillage on grain yield and water and nitrogen use efficiency of dry-land winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Yang, Hongnan; Ge, Wu; Mo, Piao; Chen, Songhe; Wang, Siyu; Xiao, Yun; ang, Hongli; Wen, Tao; Guo, Xiang; Fan, Guoquan

doi:10.1016/j.still.2019.104485

Cited by 89 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…N, P) via improvement in soil water utilization, and promote the absorption of elements (e.g. N, P) by crops and the microbial community [64]. In addition, the magnitude of increasing in crop yield under crop residue return was larger when the pH value �6.5, which indicated that crop residue return might be benefit for the improvement of the acid soil.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 97%

“…These results are consistent with those of Chakraborty et al [71], who showed that crop residue return enhanced wheat WUE in India by 13%-25% compared to no-straw treatment. Similarly, crop residue return was reported to conserve soil moisture and reduce the daily variation in soil temperature [64,72], which ultimately increase WUE. Crop residue return can improve WUE by enhancing crop yield, conserving soil water storage, and reducing soil water losses during the whole growth period under normal soil water and even slight drought conditions; however, it can also reduce WUE, mainly by reducing crop yields due to competition with microorganisms for soil water under drought conditions [73,74].…”

Section: Wue and Its Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficiency

Lü

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After harvesting agricultural crops, the residue can be returned to the soil as mulch. This study performed a meta-analysis of previous research to investigate the effects of crop residue return and other factors on crop yields and water use efficiency (WUE). Overall, the results show that crop residue return increases crop yields by 5.0% relative to crops grown without it. The greatest increases in yield for crops grown with returned residue were associated with average annual temperatures < 10˚C (yield increase = 7.6%), rainfall � 800 mm (9.5%), plowing depth � 20 cm (6.5%), corn crops (8.0%), growth of a single crop per year (10.1%), no irrigation (11.9%), nitrogen (N), and potassium (K) fertilization (20.0%), and low nitrogen application rates of 0-100 kg N ha-1 (10.8%). The effects of crop residue return on crop yields were found to vary according to the following soil properties: organic matter content � 15 g kg-1 (yield increase = 9.4%), available nitrogen content � 100 mg kg-1 (10.3%), and pH � 6.5 (11.2%). The greatest magnitudes of increase in WUE associated with crop residue return were associated with corn (yield increase = 13.7%), medium nitrogen content (100-150 kg ha-1 ; 23.3%), high soil organic matter (� 15 g kg-1 ; 25.5%) and low air temperatures (< 10˚C; 19.9%). In addition, our results suggest that crop residue return might be most effective in increasing crop yields and WUE in corn crops, crops with a tillage depth � 20 cm, crops grown with moderate nitrogen fertilization (0-150 kg ha-1), growth of a single crop per year, high soil organic matter content (� 15 g kg-1), and cold conditions (< 10˚C). Overall, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that crop residue return can increase crop yields and WUE, with the relationship being mainly affected by climatic conditions, plowing depth, fertilization management, crop types, and soil properties.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Wue and Its Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficiency

Lü

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When wheat is used for forage, it can be harvested at any time without influencing the early rice planting, but there is very little information available on no-tillage planting techniques for forage wheat in winter fallow paddy fields. Most of the existing literature is focused on growing wheat for grain in arid areas using no-tillage techniques ( Lampurlanés et al, 2016 ; Yang et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of no-tillage sowing on soil properties and forage wheat and Italian ryegrass yields in winter fallow paddy fields

Tang

Tian

et al. 2021

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In South China, it is common practice for the late rice (Oryza sativa) that is planted during the summer in the paddy fields after harvest to be used for fallowing or to plant winter forage crops. The land is ploughed before early rice planting. Both forage wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) have relatively high nutritional value, and planting them in winter fallow paddy fields could potentially address food shortages and provide quality forage for livestock. In this study, we examined the effects of no-tillage sowing 5 days before rice harvest (NB5), no-tillage sowing 1 day after rice harvest (NA1), and conventional tillage sowing (CK) 1 day after rice harvest on forage wheat and Italian ryegrass soil properties, dry matter (DM), and crude protein (CP) yields. Soil and plant samples were collected after three months of crop growth. The results showed that the NB5 and NA1 soil bulk density (0-20 cm soil layer) tended to increase when compared to that of the CK field. The NA1 treatment increased the total soil nitrogen and organic matter content. The enzyme activities and total soil porosity in the no-tillage forage wheat and Italian ryegrass fields tended to decrease, while the no-tillage water content and soil capillary porosity tended to increase when compared to that of the CK field. Overall, planting year significantly influenced soil chemical properties (except for total nitrogen) and enzyme activity, but crop type had no significant effect on soil physical-chemical properties (except for capillary moisture capacity) and enzyme activity. Sowing methods had no significant effects on the crop DM and CP yields. The DM yield was affected by the interaction between planting year and sowing methods, or between sowing methods and crop type. No-tillage also increased the number of species and aboveground weed biomass. We concluded that the best sowing method for forage wheat and Italian ryegrass in winter fallow paddy fields was no-tillage sowing following rice harvest.

show abstract

“…Once adopting the subsoiling, the surface evapotranspiration will be exacerbated in fields, which inhibits maize growth. In contrast, adopting crop residue return with intact stubble in fields can retain better moisture, beneficial to subsequent crop growth (Yang et al., 2020). Hence, adopting appropriate integrated crop residue and subsoiling management strategies may improve the growth microenvironment of crops, and thus facilitate crop growth and maintain/enhance the agricultural sustainably in the intensive wheat–maize double‐cropping system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated crop residue and subsoiling management strategies influence soil quality and agricultural sustainability

Shi

Tian

2021

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid expansion of commercial‐scale cellulosic industries raises the prospect of widespread crop residue harvest. However, the effects of integrated crop residue and tillage management strategies on agricultural sustainability are not fully understood. Here, we investigated the effects of different integrated crop residue and tillage management strategies on crop productivity, economic profit, soil quality, and agricultural sustainability in an intensive wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–maize (Zea mays L.) double‐cropping system over 7 yr. The treatments included residue return of both crops (WrMr), wheat residue return with harvesting maize residue (WrMh), wheat residue return with stubble at a height of 30∼40 cm and harvesting maize residue (WsMh), maize residue return with harvesting wheat residue (WhMr), maize residue return with subsoiling and harvesting wheat residue (WhMs), and residue harvest of both crops (WhMh). The annual average grain yields of wheat and maize increased by 17.6∼36.1% and 9.9∼22.8% under integrated strategies relative to those in WhMh. Compared with the WhMh, the WsMh and WhMs increased the economic profit (EP) by 9.5 and 6.1%, respectively. The integrated strategies significantly improved the chemical, biological, and physical properties of soil, resulting in higher sustainability indices (SIs) relative to the WhMh. The SIs were 1.59 and 1.33 in WrMr and WhMs, respectively, higher than the lowest value when a sustained system needed. Therefore, the adoption of maize residue return with subsoiling and harvesting wheat residue can maintain agricultural sustainability in the wheat–maize double cropping system under commercial‐scale cellulosic industries’ expansion in the north‐central plain of China.

show abstract

The combined effects of maize straw mulch and no-tillage on grain yield and water and nitrogen use efficiency of dry-land winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Cited by 89 publications

References 56 publications

A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficiency

A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficiency

Effects of no-tillage sowing on soil properties and forage wheat and Italian ryegrass yields in winter fallow paddy fields

Integrated crop residue and subsoiling management strategies influence soil quality and agricultural sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About