Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Innovation and Firm Performance Driven by FinTech Policies: Moderating Effect of Capital Adequacy Ratio
Previous Article in Journal
The Significant Contribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Nitrogen Heterocycles to Light Absorption in the Winter North China Plain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/su15118570
sustainability-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

Influences of 13 Years New Conservation Management on Labile Soil Organic Carbon and Carbon Sequestration in Aggregates in Northeast China

by
Yang Yang
1,2,
Zhichao Kang
1,2,
Guanghui Xu
1,
Zhengwu Cui
1,2,
Yong Yu
1,
Yang Wang
1,* and
Yongzheng Lu
1,*
1
Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Environment, State Key Laboratory of Black Soils Conservation and Utilization, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8570; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118570
Submission received: 20 April 2023 / Revised: 22 May 2023 / Accepted: 23 May 2023 / Published: 25 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
New conservation management (NCM) for summer maize monocultures might cause changes in the organic carbon composition when compared with conventional tillage (CT). To investigate the difference, the soil organic carbon (SOC) under 13 years of NCM and CT was studied in Northeast China. The NCM involved the use of a 40 cm and 160 cm narrow-wide row (maize was planted in the narrow row in two lines) with straw retained, but with no tillage and change in ridge direction. SOC in different soil aggregate size classes and labile organic carbon fractions at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths were evaluated. The results showed that there was no significant difference in SOC content at a 0–10 cm depth, with values ranging from 19.9 to 21.1 g·kg−1 between two management systems. The contents of microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) were significantly higher in NCM than in CT in the upper 10 cm. Among the labile organic carbon fractions, the light fraction organic C (LFOC) was the most sensitive to management change. The portion of macroaggregates (>0.25 mm) was higher under NCM than under CT and decreased with the increase in soil depth. NCM improved the organic carbon storage in aggregates 1–0.5 mm and reduced the organic carbon storage in microaggregates. It was concluded that NCM would be an effective and useful management choice for the enhancement of soil C sequestration in maize field systems in Northeast China.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Arable land is an essential agricultural resource and basic factor of production [1], which is considered as the “lifeblood” of food production. The safety of these arable resources is vital to the health of the arable land and the security of the country’s food stocks. The Northeast is an important grain production area and largest commodity grain production base in China [2], which plays a vital role in ensuring national food security. The quantity and quality of blank soils in northeast China has gradually decreased [1] owing to intensive human activity [3] and an accelerated urbanization process [3,4,5,6] over the past few years, which affected the comprehensive food production capacity and sustainable agricultural development.
Conventional tillage (CT) management activities, such as crop residue removal and moldboard plowing, have led to the decrease in topsoil depth [7], the degradation of soil quality and the decrease in soil fertility and crop yields in recent years [8]. It is known that soil organic carbon (SOC) is not only a crucial foundation material and indicator of soil fertility [9,10], but also the largest carbon pool in terrestrial ecosystems with a long turnover time. Therefore, to maintain a balance in SOC, storage is essential for agricultural sustainability [11]. The increase in C input and the decrease in SOC loss and decomposition are two effective ways to increase the amount of SOC [12,13]. Therefore, to maintain a balance in SOC, storage is essential for agricultural sustainability [14]. Labile C pools have a high turnover rate and respond to land use changes and soil management, which are identified as important indicators of SOC changes. Microbial biomass C (MBC), easily oxidized C (EOC), water soluble organic C (WSOC) and light fraction organic C (LFOC) have been widely recognized as labile SOC fractions, which indicate and influence the quality and fertility of soil [15]. Besides, soil aggregation plays an important role in SOC stocks and is used as an indicator to evaluate SOC pools in agro-ecosystems [16]. The differences in labile soil organic C fractions, soil aggregate size and organic C in different aggregates resulting from different tillage methods are all key factors in soil C sequestration. Therefore, the implementation of appropriate land tillage management and sustainable use of arable land are prerequisites that contribute to the development of regional and national agricultural development [5].
Many studies have shown that different tillage treatments have a strong effect on SOC stocks, labile organic C, soil aggregation owing to the influence of climate [17,18,19], soil type, residue retention and agricultural tillage [20]. The research on SOC pools and soil aggregate size is of particular importance within the Northeast China agricultural management system [17]. Conventional tillage (CT) farming that had played a dominant role in agriculture in Northeast China was researched for comparison. Herein, the aims of this research are to (1) develop a new conservation management (NCM, fallow rotation with no tillage and crop retention) and evaluate the effect of 13 years (began in 2004 and sampled in 2017) of NCM on soil quality; (2) explore the influence of SOC, labile SOC fractions (MBC, EOC, WSOC and LFOC) in soil by two tillage managements (NCM and CT); (3) explore the effect of NCM on soil aggregates, soil stability and C sequestration in microaggregates and macroaggregates compared to CT; (4) investigate the possible reason why NCM affect the C sequestration in soil macroaggregate. The study will provide a new tillage method, which is beneficial to the development of agriculture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The experiment was based on the agricultural experiment demonstration base (125°33′28″ E, 44°12′21″ N) of Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Dehui City, Jilin Province, Northeast China (Figure 1a). The topography of Dehui is not very undulating, with the southeast being higher than the northwest. The terrain is divided into two categories: denuded and accretionary terrain. The local climate is semi-humid continental monsoon with four distinct seasons, and the mean annual temperature is 4.4 °C and the number of frost-free periods is about 114 days. The mean annual precipitation is 516.4 mm, mainly occurring during the cropping seasons from May to September [21]. The area of Dhui is 3435 km2 and agricultural land is approximately 2146 km2, accounting for 62.5% [1]. The black soil is classified as typical homogeneous humus, haplic phaeozem and Luvic Phaeozem according to the and Chinese Soil Taxonomy, USDA Soil Taxonomy, Food and Agriculture Organization, respectively [1,22]. Before the experiment, the tillage method was conventional tillage with frequent moldboard plowing and continuous maize cropping with residue removal.

2.2. Field Experimental Treatment

The new experiment was initiated in April 2004. Corn was planted under new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) with a completely randomized block design. The total cultivated area was 3600 m2. Each tillage treatment included three replicate plots, and each plot was 30 m × 20 m. Coinciding with the direction of sunlight radiation in summer in Dehui city, the ridge direction was changed from north-south to the south-west 20° to make crops absorb the light abundantly and improve the photosynthetic efficiency effectively. The trail was designed as a 40 and 160 cm narrow-wide row. After the autumn harvest, the corn straw remained at 35 cm of stubble and the remaining straw was placed in the middle of the corn-root stubble in an orderly row of 40 cm in the first year, which did not exceed the stubble height. The planting ridge of the second year and the third year was 26.6 cm on the stubble right side of the first year and the second year, respectively. In the fourth year, the maize was sown as in the first year. Thus, the cycle period of new conservation management was 3 years. NCM consisted of three belts, including the planting belt (PB), the leisure belt (LB) and the mulching belt (MB). Corn was planted in PB in the first year and planted five times over 13 years. Corn was planted in LB in the second year and planted four times over 13 years. Corn was planted in MB in the third year and planted four times over 13 years. The conventional tillage (CT) was the natural ridge direction, including the stubble breaking and ridge forming in spring and crop residues removing from the farmland in autumn.

2.3. Soil Sampling

Soil samples were collected from maize fields treated with treatment CT and three different belts (PB, LB and MB) of NCM after the harvest in October 2017. The sampling points were “S” type distribution, and specifically speaking, 15 soil cores were sampled at three soil depth sections with the sampling of 0~10 cm, 10~20 cm and 20~40 cm, which were combined as a replicate soil sample at three soil depths. Three replicate samples were obtained from each tillage treatment. Each soil sample was brought back to the laboratory after the removal of plant roots and residues and then divided into two parts. One part was air-dried at 45 °C and then sieved by 0.25 mm and 0.149 mm nylon meshes for the analysis of soil total SOC, easily oxidized carbon, water soluble organic carbon and light fraction organic carbon. The other part was kept at 4 °C for the analysis of microbial biomass carbon and soil aggregates.

2.4. Soil Aggregate Size Fractionation

In general, soil aggregates were separated by the wet sieving method [23,24], which is an effective physical technique for evaluating the stability of soil. About 50 g of an air-dried soil sample was taken and placed on the top layer of the automatic vibrating sleeve screen (DIK-2012, Japan) composed of 2-, 1-, 0.5- and 0.25- mm holes, respectively [20,25]. After soaking with distilled water for 5 min at room temperature, the samples were screened at a rate of 30 r·min−1 for 2 min with an upper and lower amplitude of 3 cm. After the screening, the soils on each layer of the screen were washed into the beaker, obtaining aggregates of >2 mm, 2~1 mm and 1~0.5 mm, 0.5~0.25 mm and <0.25 mm, which were dried at 45 °C in an oven overnight and the mass of each particle size aggregate was weighed. Then, the percentage of each soil aggregate and the mean weight diameter (MWD) of the soil aggregate were calculate based on the following equation.
A i = M i M × 100 %
  • Ai: The percentage of each water stable aggregate
  • Mi: The mass of each soil aggregate
  • M: The total mass of soil
MWD = ∑ i = 1 n x i w i ∑ i = 1 n w i
  • n: The number of groups of soil aggregate
  • xi: The average diameter of soil aggregate
  • wi: The mass of soil aggregate

2.5. Soil Analysis

Soil organic carbon: the content of total SOC was determined by the Walkley–Black method [24].
Soil organic carbon fractions: microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was adopted by chloroform fumigation extraction [26,27]. A 50 mL beaker contained a 5 g fresh soil sample and chloroform was put into a vacuum dryer. The bottom was moistened with water and the beaker was added with an appropriate amount of NaOH solution for 24 h. After fumigation, the soil was transferred to a triangular flask, which was oscillated for 30 min (25 °C, 200 r·min−1) with 0.5 mol·L−1 K2SO4 and filtered through a 0.45 μm filter membrane. The concentration of MBC in the extracts was determined by the total organic carbon analyzer immediately (Multi N/C3000, Analytic Jena, Germany). Easily oxidized carbon (EOC) [28]: about 60 g of a 0.25 mm sieve of soil samples in triplicate was oxidized by 25 mL 333 mmol·L−1 KMnO4. The mixture was oscillated at 65 r·min−1 for 1 h and then was centrifuged for 5 min at 2000 r·min−1. The supernatant was diluted and the concentration of EOC was determined by colorimetric analysis at a wavelength of 565 nm with the spectrophotometer. Water soluble organic carbon (WSOC) was determined by a TOC analyzer. A 2.5 g fresh soil sample was shaken with 25 mL distilled water (1:10 w/v) in a centrifuge tube for 1 h, centrifuged at a rate of 8000 r·min−1 for 15 min and filtered through a 0.45 μm filter membrane [29]. Light fraction organic carbon (LFOC): 10 g soil sample in 100 mL centrifuge tube with 50 mL NaI solution was shaken at 200 r·min−1 for 1 h and then centrifuged at 4200 r·min−1 for 10 min [30]. The LFOC floating on the surface of the sodium iodide solution was dumped into a 0.45 μm filter membrane, which was left on the filter. LOCF was washed by 75 mL 0.01 mol·L−1 CaCl2 first and then by at least 200 mL deionized water. At the end, the LFOC was scraped from the filter paper into an evaporating dish and weighed after drying for about 17 h at 70 °C.
The sensitivity index (SI) was computed using the following formula [31].
SI = C 1 − C 0 C 0
  • C1: C fraction in soil with treatment
  • C0: C fraction in soil without any treatment
The organic carbon storage (OCS) was calculated in the following formula [32].
OCS = Mi × Corg i × Bd × H × 10
  • Mi: The percentage of different aggregates size class (%)
  • Corg i: The contents of organic carbon in different aggregates size class (g·kg−1)
  • Bd: The volume weight of soil (g·cm−3)
  • H: The height of soil depth (cm)
The SI was used to compare the magnitude of changes in different labile organic carbon fractions relative to the reference soil (CT).

2.6. Statistical Methods

All statistical analyses were carried out with the program SPSS22.0 for Windows. Differences in soil properties between different depths or different managements were tested by means of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test was performed to determine significant differences among the sites. Statistical significance was accepted when the probability of the result assuming the null hypothesis (p) was less than 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Organic Carbon

The influences of both tillage managements on the content of SOC are shown in Figure 2. At 0–10 cm, the concentration of SOC had no significant differences between two tillage managements (NCM and CT) over the study period (13 years), with values ranging from 19.9 to 21.1 g·kg−1. A similar tendency was found for the 10–20 and 20–40 cm soil depths, with the values ranging from 11.4 to 12.8 g·kg−1 and 8.6 to 10.2 g·kg−1, respectively. Besides, the content of SOC mostly decreased with the increasing soil depth in both tillage systems and high SOC content was found in the surface soil of 0–10 cm (p < 0.05).

3.2. Soil Organic Carbon Fractions

The different tillage treatments significantly affected the labile soil organic C fractions at 0–10 cm and 10–20 cm (Figure 3). With the increase in soil depth, the contents of labile soil organic carbon fractions predominantly decreased, except for WSOC. Besides, the contents of MBC and LFOC in NCM (331.0 and 3749 mg·kg−1) were significantly higher than that in CT (262.3 and 2159 mg·kg−1) at 0–10 cm topsoil, and seldom at depths of 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm. At 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm, there were no significant differences in MBC, EOC and WSOC between two tillage treatments. However, the NCM treatment produced significantly more LFOC than the CT treatment (p < 0.05). In addition, the content of MBC, EOC and LFOC mostly decreased with the soil depth and increased for both tillage systems and high SOC content was found in the surface soil of 0–10 cm.

3.3. Soil Aggregate Distribution, Stabilty and Organic Carbon Storage

The distribution of different aggregate sizes was influenced by the tillage system (Table 1). As shown in Figure 4, the contents of large macroaggregates (>2 mm) were around 2.6% of the soil weight in the NCM treatment and about 1.5% of the CT treatment. The water-stable aggregates were dominated by the microaggregate fractions (<0.25 mm) for different tillage treatments at three different depths. At 0–10 cm, the content of the microaggregate fractions were up to 62.9% in the CT and 50.4% in the NCM (Table 2). However, the changes of soil management seemed to influence the aggregate size distribution only in the topsoil (0–10 cm) since the soil aggregate fractions appeared similar at 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths.
The mean weight diameter (MWD), which is used as an important indicator to evaluate the stability and structure of soil, was shown in Table 3. The MWD in treatment NCM was 0.48, which was significantly higher than that in CT (0.41) at 0–10 cm. However, with the increasing of soil depths (10–20 cm and 20–40 cm), there was no difference in the two tillage methods. The results indicated that the surface soil (0–10 cm) in NCM had higher agglomeration and stability, which was highly resistant to erosion.
The results in Figure 5 showed the influence of the tillage system on aggregate organic C. The contents of SOC in different aggregates decreased as the soil depth increased. There were not significant differences in SOC contents of soil aggregates at different soil depths (p > 0.05). Whether in NCM or CT, aggregate SOC was mainly concentrated in the aggregates of <0.25 mm, and the aggregates of >2 mm had a lower content of SOC. The organic carbon storage in soil aggregates in treatment NCM and CT at different soil depths were shown in Table 4. The soil organic carbon was mainly stored in the aggregates of <0.25 mm. Compared with CT, organic carbon storage of 1–0.5 mm aggregates in NCM was significantly increased by 30.7% at 0–10 cm (p < 0.05). On the contrary, the organic carbon storage of NCM (1346.7 mg·cm−2) was lower than that of treatment CT (1654.3 mg·cm−2) in aggregate size <0.25 mm at 0–10 cm (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

4.1. The Influence of Tillage Management on Soil Organic Carbon and Labile Soil Organic Carbon Fractions

The results demonstrated that NCM caused the increase in SOC in the surface layer of the soil, owing to annual crop residue retention [33]. SOC was mainly concentrated on the soil surface (0–10 cm), and there was a great depth-difference in SOC content under the two tillage managements (p < 0.05), which could be explained by the fact that C inputs from maize roots might increase SOC content, and crop residues were accumulated in the topsoil [34]. This was consistent with the conclusions of Qin [35]. The increase in SOC under NCM resulted from the crop residue, which was retained and returned to the soil [36] However, the SOC content was not different in the 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths between two tillage treatments and had relatively fewer C inputs. Therefore, residues were retained even in deep soil.
Although the labile SOC fractions are a small portion of the SOC, it might influence the changes in SOC due to tillage management [37,38]. It was known that a conservation tillage method, similar to fallow rotation with no tillage and retained crop residues, could increase the content of labile organic C in the surface soil [32], but not in the sub-surface soil. The content of LFOC in treatment NCM was higher than that in the CT treatment at 0–10 cm. The results showed that NCM mainly influenced the surface profile, and the labile organic C fractions were increased under NCM (fallow rotation with straw returned to the field) after 13 years. The first reason for the differences in SOC was the different tillage treatments themselves. No tillage under fallow rotation did not damage the soil aggregates [10,39,40] and decreased the exposure of SOC [7,41], with concomitant retention of labile organic C. Maize straw residue retention was the second significant reason for differences in organic C, because residues were returned to the field in fallow rotation and residues were removed in CT. Crop residues might enter labile organic C pools, providing substrate soil microorganisms, leading to the accumulation of labile organic C [42]. Moreover, the increase in labile organic C fractions contributed to the improvement in soil quality in NCM, which was a crucial factor for the increase in labile organic C when compared with the CT. The magnitude of changes in LFOC between NCM and CT at depth of 0–10 cm was observed and considered to be a more sensitive indicator of the influence of soil management than other labile organic C fractions, which was similar to the conclusions of Janzen, Campbell and Brandt [30].

4.2. The Influence of Tillage Management on Aggregate-Size Distribution, Stabilty and Soil Aggregate Organic Carbon Storage

In general, the aggregate-size distribution is an important index and indicator of soil stability and quality [43], which had an effect on soil nutrient and water movement. NCM reduced the percentage of <0.25 mm aggregates when compared with CT, and there was a corresponding increase in the proportion of macroaggregates (>2 mm and 2–0.25 mm). Micro-aggregates were more stable than macro-aggregates, and more unsusceptible to the disruptive forces of tillage. The reduction of macroaggregates with CT was probably due to the disruption from continuous tillage treatments [12]. NCM had more crop residues in the field than CT did, which probably contributed to the aggregation of agglomerates [44]. Straw residues were possible sources of C for microbial activity, and nucleation centers for aggregation and the incorporation of straw residues (NCM treatment) enhanced the formation of new aggregates in the surface layer. This was supported by the differences in the percentages of macroaggregates between the reduced tillage treatments. The enhancement of microbial activity could form large aggregates because of the residues and the binding of soil particles [45]. NCM significantly increased the value of MWD at topsoil 0–10 cm. This could be explained by the fact that crop residues covered the soil surface and no-tillage reduced the dissociation of soil macroaggregates in NCM, which provide colloids for soil aggregates. Overall, this work confirmed the effectiveness of NCM in physical protection for large aggregates in the surface soil, which improved the stability of the soil structure [46].
The aggregate class of <0.25 mm had higher SOC contents than other size of aggregate fractions, both in treatment NCM and CT at 0–10 cm (Figure 5), highlighting the importance of microaggregates for C sequestration. This might be due to the breakdown of macroaggregates containing more SOC, which led to the increase of SOC contents in the microaggregates. The proportion of aggregate >0.25 mm and organic carbon storage were significantly increased in treatment NCM, which indicated that the NCM had an important effect on the formation of SOC and could enhance the physical protection of SOC by macroaggregates. The straw residues could be the C sources to soil microorganisms, leading to the increase of the relative microorganisms’ activities. Therefore, more cementing materials were produced and secreted by soil microorganisms, which promoted the cementation and aggregation of soil particulate matters.

5. Conclusions

Although there was no significant difference for total SOC content between two tillage managements (NCM and CT) at different soil depths, the contents of labile organic carbon fractions (MBC and LFOC) were significantly higher in NCM than in CT. The labile organic C fractions were important indicators of SOC changes in soil, with LFOC being the most sensitive. Besides, the portions of macroaggregates (>0.25 mm) were all higher under NCM than under CT in the topsoil (0–10 cm) and decreased with the increase in soil depth. Among the two tillage treatments, NCM had the higher MWD at 0–10 cm, which improved the stability of soil structure. Besides, NCM improved the organic carbon storage in aggregate 1–0.5 mm and reduced the organic carbon storage in microaggregate. Therefore, NCM would be an effective and useful management choice for the improvement of soil aggregates and enhancement of soil C sequestration under maize crop systems in Northeast China.

Author Contributions

Data curation, Y.Y. (Yang Yang); Formal analysis, Y.Y. (Yang Yang) and Z.K.; Investigation, Y.Y. (Yang Yang); Resources, Z.K. and G.X.; Investigation, G.X. and Z.C.; Visualization, Z.C.; Supervision, Y.Y. (Yong Yu); Writing—original draft, Y.Y. (Yang Yang); Funding acquisition, Y.W. and Y.L.; Funding acquisition, Y.W. and Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by Natural Science Foundation of Jilin Province, China Grant number [YDZJ202201ZYTS529], Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Grant number [XDA28020102] and National Basic Science and Technology Resources Survey Project, China Grant number [2021FY100402].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the grants from Natural Science Foundation of Jilin Province, China (Grant No. YDZJ202201ZYTS529), Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA28020102) and National Basic Science and Technology Resources Survey Project (Grant No. 2021FY100402).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sun, X.; Xiang, P.; Cong, K. Research on early warning and control measures for arable land resource security. Land Use Policy 2023, 128, 106601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Gregorich, E.G.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Zhang, X.; Guo, Y.; Liang, A.; Fan, R.; Sun, B. No-tillage with continuous maize cropping enhances soil aggregation and organic carbon storage in Northeast China. Geoderma 2018, 330, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, Z. Effects of climate change on paddy expansion and potential adaption strategies for sustainable agriculture development across Northeast China. Appl. Geogr. 2022, 141, 102667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Han, C.; Song, M.; Tang, Q.; Wei, J.; He, X.; Collins, A.L. Post-farming land restoration schemes exhibit higher soil aggregate stability and organic carbon: Evidence in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Catena 2023, 227, 107099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Uisso, A.M.; Tanrıvermiş, H. Driving factors and assessment of changes in the use of arable land in Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2021, 104, 105359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yan, D.; Wu, S.; Tang, Y.; Zhu, J.; Zhou, S.; Xu, Z. Arable land and water footprints for food consumption in China: From the perspective of urban and rural dietary change. Sci Total Env. 2022, 838 Pt 1, 155749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yu, X.; Qu, J.; Hu, S.; Xu, P.; Chen, Z.; Gao, J.; Ma, D. The effect of tillage methods on soil physical properties and maize yield in Eastern Inner Mongolia. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 147, 126852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, S.; Chen, X.; Jia, S.; Liang, A.; Zhang, X.; Yang, X.; Wei, S.; Sun, B.; Huang, D.; Zhou, G. The potential mechanism of long-term conservation tillage effects on maize yield in the black soil of Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 154, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maillard, É.; McConkey, B.G.; Luce, M.S.; Angers, D.A.; Fan, J. Crop rotation, tillage system, and precipitation regime effects on soil carbon stocks over 1 to 30 years in Saskatchewan, Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 177, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yao, Y.; Shen, X.; Wang, L.; Zhao, J.; Gong, L.; Wang, S.; Wu, L.; Li, G.; Xiu, W.; Zhang, G. Effects of tillage management on cbbL-carrying bacteria and soil organic carbon dynamics across aggregate size classes in the farmland of North China Plain. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 150, 110213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Geraei, D.S.; Hojati, S.; Landi, A.; Cano, A.F. Total and labile forms of soil organic carbon as affected by land use change in southwestern Iran. Geoderma Reg. 2016, 7, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Garcia-Franco, N.; Wiesmeier, M.; Colocho Hurtarte, L.C.; Fella, F.; Martínez-Mena, M.; Almagro, M.; Martínez, E.G.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Pruning residues incorporation and reduced tillage improve soil organic matter stabilization and structure of salt-affected soils in a semi-arid Citrus tree orchard. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 213, 105129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K.; Doran, J.W. Aggregation and soil organic matter accumulation in cultivated and native grassland soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1998, 62, 1367–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sun, P.; Liu, H.; Feng, M.B.; Guo, L.; Zhai, Z.C.; Fang, Y.S.; Zhang, X.S.; Sharma, V.K. Nitrogen-sulfur co-doped industrial graphene as an efficient peroxymonosulfate activator: Singlet oxygen-dominated catalytic degradation of organic contaminants. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2019, 251, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ghani, A.; Dexter, M.; Perrott, K.W. Hot-water extractable carbon in soils: A sensitive measurement for determining impacts of fertilisation, grazing and cultivation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 1231–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cates, A.M.; Ruark, M.D.; Hedtcke, J.L.; Posner, J.L. Long-term tillage, rotation and perennialization effects on particulate and aggregate soil organic matter. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lei, W.; Pan, Q.; Teng, P.; Yu, J.; Li, N. How does soil organic matter stabilize with soil and environmental variables along a black soil belt in Northeast China? An explanation using FTIR spectroscopy data. Catena 2023, 228, 107152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhao, Z.; Dong, P.; Fu, B.; Wu, D.; Zhao, Z. Soil organic carbon distribution and factors affecting carbon accumulation in natural and plantation forests in tropical China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 148, 110127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ramírez, P.B.; Calderón, F.J.; Fonte, S.J.; Bonilla, C.A. Environmental controls and long-term changes on carbon stocks under agricultural lands. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 186, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hou, T.; Berry, T.D.; Singh, S.; Hughes, M.N.; Tong, Y.; Thanos Papanicolaou, A.N.; Wacha, K.M.; Wilson, C.G.; Chaubey, I.; Filley, T.R. Control of tillage disturbance on the chemistry and proportion of raindrop-liberated particles from soil aggregates. Geoderma 2018, 330, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xia, C.; Zhang, Y. Comparison of the use of Landsat 8, Sentinel-2, and Gaofen-2 images for mapping soil pH in Dehui, northeastern China. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 70, 101705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, D.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Song, K.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Li, F.; Duan, H. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and analysis of related factors in croplands of the black soil region, Northeast China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nath, A.J.; Lal, R. Effects of Tillage Practices and Land Use Management on Soil Aggregates and Soil Organic Carbon in the North Appalachian Region, USA. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, X.; Shen, S.; Xue, S.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X. Long-term tillage and cropping systems affect soil organic carbon components and mineralization in aggregates in semiarid regions. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 231, 105742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, X.L.; Zhao, Y.Y.; Zhang, X.T.; Shi, X.P.; Shi, X.Y.; Li, F.M. Re-used mulching of plastic film is more profitable and environmentally friendly than new mulching. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 216, 105256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vance, E.D.; Brookes, P.C.; Jenkinson, D.S. Microbial biomass measurements in forest soils: Determination of kC values and tests of hypotheses to explain the failure of the chloroform fumigation-incubation method in acid soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 689–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, X.; Yu, D.; Wang, C.; Pan, Y.; Pan, J.; Shi, X. Variations in cropland soil organic carbon fractions in the black soil region of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 184, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vieira, F.C.B.; Bayer, C.; Zanatta, J.A.; Dieckow, J.; Mielniczuk, J.; He, Z.L. Carbon management index based on physical fractionation of soil organic matter in an Acrisol under long-term no-till cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 96, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jones, D.; Willett, V. Experimental evaluation of methods to quantify dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 991–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Janzen, H.H.; Campbell, C.A.; Brandt, S.A. Light-Fraction Organic Matter in Soils from Long-Term Crop Rotations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1992, 56, 1799–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Banger, K.; Toor, G.S.; Biswas, A.; Sidhu, S.S.; Sudhir, K. Soil organic carbon fractions after 16-years of applications of fertilizers and organic manure in a Typic Rhodalfs in semi-arid tropics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2009, 86, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Liu, J. Impacts of 9 years of a new conservational agricultural management on soil organic carbon fractions. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 143, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wright, A.L.; Hons, F.M.; Matocha, J.E., Jr. Tillage impacts on microbial biomass and soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics of corn and cotton rotations. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2005, 29, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Blancocanqui, H.; Stone, L.R.; Schlegel, A.J.; Lyon, D.J.; Vigil, M.F.; Mikha, M.M.; Stahlman, P.W.; Rice, C.W. No-till induced increase in organic carbon reduces maximum bulk density of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 1871–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Qin, S.; Hu, C.; He, X.; Dong, W.; Cui, J.; Wang, Y. Soil organic carbon, nutrients and relevant enzyme activities in particle-size fractions under conservational versus traditional agricultural management. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2010, 45, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Arshad, M.A.; Schnitzer, M.; Angers, D.A.; Ripmeester, J.A. Effects of till vs no-till on the quality of soil organic-matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1990, 22, 595–599. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mayer, M.; Krause, H.-M.; Fliessbach, A.; Mäder, P.; Steffens, M. Fertilizer quality and labile soil organic matter fractions are vital for organic carbon sequestration in temperate arable soils within a long-term trial in Switzerland. Geoderma 2022, 426, 116080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Steffens, M.; Kölbl, A.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Alteration of soil organic matter pools and aggregation in semi-arid steppe topsoils as driven by organic matter input. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2009, 60, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dossou-Yovo, E.R.; Brüggemann, N.; Ampofo, E.; Igue, A.M.; Jesse, N.; Huat, J.; Agbossou, E.K. Combining no-tillage, rice straw mulch and nitrogen fertilizer application to increase the soil carbon balance of upland rice field in northern Benin. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Feng, X.; Yang, H.; Li, Y.; Yakov, K.; Liu, S.; Li, F.-M. Effects of tillage on soil organic carbon and crop yield under straw return. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 354, 108543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Laudicina, V.A.; Novara, A.; Barbera, V.; Egli, M.; Badalucco, L. Long-Term Tillage and Cropping System Effects on Chemical and Biochemical Characteristics of Soil Organic Matter in a Mediterranean Semiarid Environment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, H.; Hou, R.; Gong, Y.; Li, H.; Fan, M.; Kuzyakov, Y. Effects of 11 years of conservation tillage on soil organic matter fractions in wheat monoculture in Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shrestha, B.M.; Singh, B.R.; Sitaula, B.K.; Lal, R.; Bajracharya, R.M. Soil Aggregate- and Particle-Associated Organic Carbon under Different Land Uses in Nepal. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Polláková, N.; Šimanský, V.; Kravka, M. The influence of soil organic matter fractions on aggregates stabilization in agricultural and forest soils of selected Slovak and Czech hilly lands. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 18, 2790–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jastrow, J.D. Soil aggregate formation and the accrual of particulate and mineral-associated organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Piazza, G.; Pellegrino, E.; Moscatelli, M.C.; Ercoli, L. Long-term conservation tillage and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil aggregate distribution, nutrient stocks and enzymatic activities in bulk soil and occluded microaggregates. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 196, 104482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08570 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Location of sampling site in Dehui City, Changchun City, Jilin Province; (b)the schematic diagram of new conservation management (fallow rotation with residue retention and no tillage).
Figure 1. (a) Location of sampling site in Dehui City, Changchun City, Jilin Province; (b)the schematic diagram of new conservation management (fallow rotation with residue retention and no tillage).
Sustainability 15 08570 g001
Sustainability 15 08570 g002 550
Figure 2. The content of soil organic carbon, affected by new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm. Different capital letters within the same depth meant significant difference among treatments and lowercase letters within the same treatments meant significant difference among depths (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. The content of soil organic carbon, affected by new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm. Different capital letters within the same depth meant significant difference among treatments and lowercase letters within the same treatments meant significant difference among depths (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 15 08570 g002
Sustainability 15 08570 g003 550
Figure 3. Soil organic carbon fractions: (a) microbial biomass carbon, (b) easily oxidized carbon, (c) water soluble organic carbon, (d) light fraction organic carbon, affected by new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm. Different capital letters within the same depth and lowercase letters within the same treatments are significantly different between treatments and depths, respectively (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Soil organic carbon fractions: (a) microbial biomass carbon, (b) easily oxidized carbon, (c) water soluble organic carbon, (d) light fraction organic carbon, affected by new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm. Different capital letters within the same depth and lowercase letters within the same treatments are significantly different between treatments and depths, respectively (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 15 08570 g003
Sustainability 15 08570 g004 550
Figure 4. Water-stable aggregate size distribution in each soil aggregate affected by the new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm.
Figure 4. Water-stable aggregate size distribution in each soil aggregate affected by the new conservation management (NCM) and conventional tillage (CT) at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–40 cm.
Sustainability 15 08570 g004
Sustainability 15 08570 g005 550
Figure 5. Soil organic carbon (SOC) (g·kg−1) of aggregates from the new conservation management (NCM) and the conventional tillage with residue removal (CT) for (a) 0–10 cm, (b) 10–20 cm and (c) 20–40 cm. Different lowercase letters meant significant difference within the same soil aggregates (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Soil organic carbon (SOC) (g·kg−1) of aggregates from the new conservation management (NCM) and the conventional tillage with residue removal (CT) for (a) 0–10 cm, (b) 10–20 cm and (c) 20–40 cm. Different lowercase letters meant significant difference within the same soil aggregates (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 15 08570 g005
Table
Table 1. The contents of each labile soil organic carbon by NCM and CT.
Table 1. The contents of each labile soil organic carbon by NCM and CT.
ManagementMBCEOCWSOCLFOC
(mg·kg−1)(mg·kg−1)(mg·kg−1)(mg·kg−1)
NCM331.01155259.33749
CT262.31083232.52159
NCM: new conservation management; CT: conventional tillage; MBC: microbial biomass carbon; EOC: easily oxidized carbon; WSOC: water soluble organic carbon; LFOC: light fraction organic carbon.
Table
Table 2. The percentage of soil macroaggregate and microaggregate in NCM and CT at different soil depths.
Table 2. The percentage of soil macroaggregate and microaggregate in NCM and CT at different soil depths.
Soil DepthsTreatmentsMacroaggregate (%)Microaggregate (%)
>0.25 mm<0.25 mm
0–10 cmNCM49.6 a50.4 b
CT37.1 b62.9 a
10–20 cmNCM41.2 a58.8 a
CT43.7 a56.3 a
20–40 cmNCM34.2 a65.8 a
CT30.8 a69.2 a
Note: Different lowercase letters meant significant difference within the same soil aggregates among the same soil depths (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. The mean weight diameter in NCM and CT at different soil depths.
Table 3. The mean weight diameter in NCM and CT at different soil depths.
Soil DepthsTreatmentsMWD
0–10 cmNCM0.48 a
CT0.41 b
10–20 cmNCM0.42 a
CT0.43 a
20–40 cmNCM0.40 a
CT0.38 a
Note: Different lowercase letters meant significant difference within different tillage management among the same soil depths (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 4. The organic carbon storage in soil aggregates in treatment NCM and CT at soil depths of 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, and 20–40 cm (mg·cm−2).
Table 4. The organic carbon storage in soil aggregates in treatment NCM and CT at soil depths of 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, and 20–40 cm (mg·cm−2).
Soil DepthsTreatmentsSoil Aggregates
>2 mm2–1 mm1–0.5 mm0.5–0.25 mm<0.25 mm
0–10 cmNCM57.3 ± 1.5 a51.8 ± 1.4 a620.4 ± 78.1 a551.6 ± 66.2 a1346.7 ± 157.9 b
CT32.2 ± 0.4 a29.3 ± 1.1 a474.5 ± 4.7 b402.5 ± 1.8 a1654.3 ± 1.6 a
10–20 cmNCM24.0 ± 3.9 a19.9 ± 5.0 a382.8 ± 14.6 b341.5 ± 13.1 b1209.6 ± 41.6 a
CT38.1 ± 2.2 a34.5 ± 1.3 a516.6 ± 4.1 a438.1 ± 4.9 a1281.1 ± 75.5 a
20–40 cmNCM24.9 ± 6.2 a26.6 ± 4.2 a370.7 ± 55.0 a314.4 ± 46.7 a1471.4 ± 120.6 b
CT30.0 ± 0.8 a26.5 ± 0.2 a430.0 ± 2.0 a364.6 ± 12.8 a1988.6 ± 16.5 a
Note: Different lowercase letters meant significant difference within the same soil aggregates among the same soil depths (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, Y.; Kang, Z.; Xu, G.; Cui, Z.; Yu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lu, Y. Influences of 13 Years New Conservation Management on Labile Soil Organic Carbon and Carbon Sequestration in Aggregates in Northeast China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118570

AMA Style

Yang Y, Kang Z, Xu G, Cui Z, Yu Y, Wang Y, Lu Y. Influences of 13 Years New Conservation Management on Labile Soil Organic Carbon and Carbon Sequestration in Aggregates in Northeast China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):8570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Yang, Zhichao Kang, Guanghui Xu, Zhengwu Cui, Yong Yu, Yang Wang, and Yongzheng Lu. 2023. "Influences of 13 Years New Conservation Management on Labile Soil Organic Carbon and Carbon Sequestration in Aggregates in Northeast China" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118570

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