Effects of Straw Return Rate on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Yield in Paddy Fields
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site and Soil Sampling
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Soil Physicochemical Properties
- Soil bulk density
- Soil organic carbon
- Available phosphorus
- Available potassium
- Total nitrogen
- pH
- Rice Yield
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. The Impact of Straw Return Quantity on Soil Physicochemical Properties
3.2. The Impacts of Different Levels of Straw Return on Soil Organic Carbon Storage
3.3. The Correlation between Crop Yield and Soil Physicochemical Properties
3.4. The Primary Regulatory Factors of Crop Yield
Correlation Analysis of Soil Physicochemical Properties and Yield
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, J.H.; Gong, Y.Z.; Wang, S.Q.; Guan, B.Z.; Balkovic, J.; Kraxner, F. To burn or retain crop residues on croplands? An integrated analysis of crop residue management in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, W.M.; Liu, Y.E.; Liu, G.Z.; Xie, R.Z.; Ming, B.; Yang, Y.S.; Guo, X.X.; Wang, K.R.; Xue, J.; Wang, Y.H.; et al. Estimation of maize straw production and appropriate straw return rate in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 328, 107865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban Cordeiro, E.; Arenas-Calle, L.; Woolf, D.; Sherpa, S.; Poonia, S.; Kritee, K.; Dubey, R.; Choudhary, A.; Kumar, V.; McDonald, A. The fate of rice crop residues and context-dependent greenhouse gas emissions: Model-based insights from Eastern India. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 435, 140240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.-D.; He, C.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Liu, B.-Y.; Li, S.-S.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.-L. Responses of greenhouse gas emissions to residue returning in China’s croplands and influential factors: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, R.; Qian, R.; Naseer, M.A.; Han, F.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z.; Chen, X.; Ren, X. Integrated straw-derived biochar utilization to increase net ecosystem carbon budget and economic benefit and reduce the environmental footprint. Field Crops Res. 2024, 307, 109247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McBratney, A.; Field, D.J.; Koch, A. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 2014, 213, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Yang, Y.; Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; He, H.; Zhang, X.; Sun, S. Enhancing sustainable agriculture in china: A meta-analysis of the impact of straw and manure on crop yield and soil fertility. Agriculture 2024, 14, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, F.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Qi, Z.; Li, T.; Du, S.; Li, A.; Liu, J. No-tillage with straw mulching increased maize yield and nitrogen fertilizer recovery rate in northeast China. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 292, 108687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenka, S.; Choudhary, R.; Lenka, N.K.; Saha, J.K.; Amat, D.; Patra, A.K.; Gami, V.; Singh, D. Nutrient management drives the direction and magnitude of nitrous oxide flux in crop residue-returned soil under different soil moisture. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 857233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Lu, M.; Cui, J.; Li, B.; Fang, C.M. Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 1366–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, L.; Zhang, B.; Liu, G.; Li, Z.; Liu, Y.; Ye, C.; Yu, X.; Lai, T.; Zhang, J.; Yin, J.; et al. Long-term effects of organic amendments on the rice yields for double rice cropping systems in subtropical China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 534–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, T.T.; Yang, N.; Lu, C.; Qin, X.L.; Siddique, K.H.M. Soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available nutrients, and yield under different straw returning methods. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 214, 105171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondal, S.; Mishra, J.S.; Poonia, S.P.; Kumar, R.; Dubey, R.; Kumar, S.; Verma, M.; Rao, K.K.; Ahmed, A.; Dwivedi, S.; et al. Can yield, soil C and aggregation be improved under long-term conservation agriculture in the eastern Indo-Gangetic plain of India? Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 72, 1742–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Cui, S.; Zhang, Q. Trade-off between soil pH, bulk density and other soil physical properties under global no-tillage agriculture. Geoderma 2020, 361, 114099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.Y.; Jia, J.X.; Xiong, Z.Q.; Khalil, M.A.K.; Xing, G.X. Water regime–nitrogen fertilizer–straw incorporation interaction: Field study on nitrous oxide emissions from a rice agroecosystem in Nanjing, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulibaly, S.S.; Toure, M.; Kouame, A.E.; Kambou, I.C.; Soro, S.Y.; Yeo, K.I.; Kone, S. Incorporation of crop residues into soil: A practice to improve soil chemical properties. Agric. Sci. 2020, 11, 1186–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, B.; Chen, L.; Huang, H.; Qu, P.; Wei, Z. Impacts of crop residues on soil health: A review. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 2021, 33, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, B.; Huang, L.; Li, X.; Lu, J.; Gao, R.; Kamran, M. Straw residue incorporation and potassium fertilization enhances soil aggregate stability by altering soil content of iron oxide and organic carbon in a rice–rape cropping system. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 2567–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, J.N.; Shi, Y.; Yu, Z.W. Subsoiling improves soil physical and microbial properties, and increases yield of winter wheat in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 187, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.J.; Jia, Z.K.; Liang, L.Y.; Zhao, Y.F.; Yang, B.P.; Ding, R.X.; Wang, J.P.; Nie, J.F. Changes in soil characteristics and maize yield under straw returning system in dryland farming. Field Crops Res. 2018, 218, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamada, M.S.; Yin, Y.N.; Chen, H.G.; Ma, Z.H. The escalating threat of Rhizoctonia cerealis, the causal agent of sharp eyespot in wheat. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 1411–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, P.; Mao, P.; Li, H.; Wang, Z.; Luo, M. Effects of straw returning on the occurrence degree of summer maize pests. J. Henan Agric. Univ. 2014, 48, 334–338, 347. [Google Scholar]
- Mohidem, N.A.; Hashim, N.; Shamsudin, R.; Man, H.C. Rice for Food Security: Revisiting Its Production, Diversity, Rice Milling Process and Nutrient Content. Agriculture 2022, 12, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, Q.Y.; Yang, X.X.; Gao, C.M.; Wu, P.P.; Liu, J.J.; Xu, Y.C.; Shen, Q.R.; Zou, J.W.; Guo, S.W. Net annual global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity in Chinese double rice-cropping systems: A 3-year field measurement in long-term fertilizer experiments. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 2196–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Global spread of Conservation Agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 76, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, L.; Van Ranst, E. Production scenarios and the effect of soil degradation on long-term food security in China. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horne, G.; Barrow, C.; Brandt, M.; Frouz, J.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Nyssen, J.; Ojeda, G.; Wong, V. Land Degradation & Development: A new and bright future. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2775–2777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Li, H.Y.; Yu, H.M.; Li, W.F.; Ye, Y.C.; Biswas, A. Drivers of spatio-temporal changes in paddy soil pH in Jiangxi Province, China from 1980 to 2010. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubar, K.A.; Huang, L.; Lu, J.W.; Li, X.K.; Xue, B.; Yin, Z.Y. Integrative effects of no-tillage and straw returning on soil organic carbon and water stable aggregation under rice-rape rotation. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 78, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bierke, A.; Kaiser, K.; Guggenberger, G. Crop residue management effects on organic matter in paddy soils—The lignin component. Geoderma 2008, 146, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Xu, A.; Zhang, R.; Ji, H. Review of Soil Classification and Revision of China Soil Classification System. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2014, 47, 3214–3230. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, J.F.; Pu, C.; Liu, S.L.; Chen, Z.D.; Chen, F.; Xiao, X.P.; Lal, R.; Zhang, H.L. Effects of tillage systems on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in a double paddy cropping system in Southern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 153, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Q.; Zhang, W.; Ma, L.; Ren, T.; Zhang, A.; Li, G.; Hu, Z.; Du, Z. Estimation of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen storages under conservation tillage as influenced by sampling depths and calculation methods. Chin. J. Agrometeorol. 2021, 42, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, A.M.; Miller, R.O. Development of a North American proficiency testing program for soil and plant analysis. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 1685–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellert, B.H.; Bettany, J.R. Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1995, 75, 529–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Q.G.; Yang, Y.C.; Yu, K.; Feng, H. Effects of straw mulching and plastic film mulching on improving soil organic carbon and nitrogen fractions, crop yield and water use efficiency in the Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 201, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stursová, M.; Baldrian, P. Effects of soil properties and management on the activity of soil organic matter transforming enzymes and the quantification of soil-bound and free activity. Plant Soil 2011, 338, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, W.; Shi, X.; Yu, D.; Wang, K.; Wang, H. Estimation of Soil organic carbon storage based on 1:1m soil database of China—A case in Northeast China. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2004, 24, 568–572. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, L.; Li, Y.; Jiang, T. Research progress on soil carbon pool and recycle mechanism. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2012, 40, 81–85. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, L.P.; Ma, H.; Zhao, Q.L.; Zhang, S.R.; Wei, W.L.; Ding, X.D. Changes in soil bacterial community and enzyme activity under five years straw returning in paddy soil. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2020, 100, 103215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontaine, S.; Bardoux, G.; Abbadie, L.; Mariotti, A. Carbon input to soil may decrease soil carbon content. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.Z.; Lin, X.L.; Tian, L.; Wang, X.G.; Ji, L.; Jin, F.; Tian, C.J. Effects of short-term rice straw return on the soil microbial community. Agriculture 2021, 11, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, M.G.; Yu, R.; Sun, X.F.; Liu, H.; Boren, W.; Li, J.M. Effects of long-term fertilization on labile organic matter and carbon management index (CMI) of the typical soils of China. Plant Nutr. Fertitizer Sci. 2006, 12, 459–465. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, N.J.; Wang, B.J.; Gu, Z.H.; Tao, B.R.; Zhang, Z.W.; Hu, S.J.; Zhu, L.Q.; Meng, Y.L. Effects of different straw returning modes on greenhouse gas emissions and crop yields in a rice-wheat rotation system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 223, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Qi, J.Y.; Zhang, X.Z.; Li, S.S.; Virk, A.L.; Zhao, X.; Xiao, X.P.; Zhang, H.L. Effects of tillage and residue management on soil aggregates and associated carbon storage in a double paddy cropping system. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, Z.Q.; Li, C.F.; Li, J.J.; Ding, Z.S.; Xu, J.; Sun, X.F.; Zhou, P.L.; Zhao, M. Tillage and straw mulching impacts on grain yield and water use efficiency of spring maize in Northern Huang-Huai-Hai Valley. Crop J. 2015, 3, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, N.; Ning, T.; Wang, B.; Zhao, H.; Li, Z. Effects of different tillage and straw systems on soil water-stable aggregate distribution and stability in the North China Plain. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 7116–7124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.R.; Schaeffer, S.; Sun, Z.H.; Zhang, J.M.; An, T.T.; Wang, J.K. Carbon stabilization in aggregate fractions responds to straw input levels under varied soil fertility levels. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 199, 104593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.-J.; Wang, S.-J.; Tian, C.-J.; Luo, S.-S. Effects of maize straw and its biochar on the dissolved organic matter characteristics of black soil in northeastern China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 35, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, Q.Y.; Wu, L.F.; Ouyang, Z.; Li, B.B.; Xu, Y.Y.; Wu, S.S.; Gregorich, E.G. Priming effect of maize residue and urea N on soil organic matter changes with time. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 100, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferlian, O.; Thakur, M.P.; González, A.C.; San Emeterio, L.M.; Marr, S.; Rocha, B.D.; Eisenhauer, N. Soil chemistry turned upside down: A meta-analysis of invasive earthworm effects on soil chemical properties. Ecology 2020, 101, e02936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, W.; Qaswar, M.; Jing, H.; Wenjun, D.; Geng, S.; Kailou, L.; Ying, M.; Ao, T.; Mei, S.; Chao, L.; et al. Tillage practices improve rice yield and soil phosphorus fractions in two typical paddy soils. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qadir, M.; Schubert, S. Degradation processes and nutrient constraints in sodic soils. Land Degrad. Dev. 2002, 13, 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, K.N.; Jha, M.K.; Jeong, J.; Gassman, P.W.; Reyes, M.R.; Doro, L.; Tran, D.Q.; Hok, L. Evaluation of long-term soc and crop productivity within conservation systems using GFDL CM2.1 and EPIC. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Nayak, A.K.; Sharma, S.; Senapati, A.; Mitra, D.; Mohanty, B.; Prabhukarthikeyan, S.R.; Sabarinathan, K.G.; Mani, I.; Garhwal, R.S.; et al. Rice straw recycling: A sustainable approach for ensuring environmental quality and economic security. Pedosphere 2023, 33, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, B.; Shan, Y.H.; Johnson-Beebout, S.E.; Singh, Y.; Buresh, R.J. Crop residue management for lowland rice-based cropping systems in Asia. Adv. Agron. 2008, 98, 117–199. [Google Scholar]
Soil Properties | |
---|---|
Bulk density (g cm−3) | 1.21 |
Available phosphorus (mg kg−1) | 4.38 |
Available potassium (mg kg−1) | 97.1 |
Total nitrogen (g kg−1) | 1.29 |
pH | 6.3 |
SOC (g kg−1) | 20.2 |
Early Rice | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TN (g kg−1) | P (mg kg−1) | K (mg kg−1) | SOC (g kg−1) | pH | BD (g cm−3) | ||
0–5 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.32 b | 1.12 a | 130.52 a | 30.52 b | 5.52 b | 0.89 a |
2/3RTS | 0.35 a | 1.21 a | 110.85 a | 35.88 a | 5.86 a | 0.78 a | |
RTS | 0.30 b | 0.54 a | 122.73 a | 31.46 b | 5.45 b | 0.74 a | |
T | N.S. | N.S. | *** | * | ** | N.S. | |
H | N.S. | N.S. | *** | * | N.S. | N.S. | |
T × H | N.S. | N.S. | ** | * | N.S. | N.S. | |
5–10 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.31 a | 0.62 ab | 100.86 a | 29.91 c | 5.51 a | 1.05 a |
2/3RTS | 0.34 a | 0.64 a | 111.62 a | 35.98 a | 5.64 a | 0.94 a | |
RTS | 0.26 b | 0.44 b | 111.39 a | 32.55 b | 5.44 a | 0.87 a | |
T | *** | N.S. | N.S. | * | N.S. | N.S. | |
H | N.S. | N.S. | ** | * | *** | N.S. | |
T × H | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | *** | * | N.S. | |
10–20 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.21 b | 0.40 b | 95.71 a | 20.53 b | 5.69 a | 1.10 a |
2/3RTS | 0.26 a | 0.49 a | 107.34 a | 27.50 a | 5.82 a | 1.32 a | |
RTS | 0.15 c | 0.23 c | 115.51 a | 15.62 c | 5.79 a | 1.32 a | |
T | *** | *** | N.S. | ** | N.S. | * | |
H | N.S. | * | N.S. | N.S. | 0.013 * | N.S. | |
T × H | * | ** | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | |
20–30 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.10 a | 0.17 a | 100.49 a | 9.13 a | 6.72 a | 1.38 b |
2/3RTS | 0.11 a | 0.09 b | 91.68 a | 9.73 a | 6.35 b | 1.50 a | |
RTS | 0.11 a | 0.11 b | 91.37 a | 7.81 a | 6.24 b | 1.47 ab | |
T | N.S. | *** | N.S. | N.S. | * | ** | |
H | * | N.S. | * | * | * | N.S. | |
T × H | N.S. | *** | N.S. | * | * | N.S. | |
30–50 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.10 a | 0.15 a | 88.35 a | 7.28 ab | 6.86 a | 1.57 a |
2/3RTS | 0.10 a | 0.13 a | 89.97 a | 9.25 a | 6.52 b | 1.51 a | |
RTS | 0.06 b | 0.15 a | 100.11 a | 5.48 b | 6.40 b | 1.56 a | |
T | ** | N.S. | N.S. | * | ** | N.S. | |
H | ** | * | * | ** | ** | N.S. | |
T × H | ** | N.S. | * | * | N.S. | N.S. |
Late Rice | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TN (g kg−1) | P (mg kg−1) | K (mg kg−1) | SOC (g kg−1) | pH | BD (g cm−3) | ||
0–5 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.32 a | 0.68 a | 191.59 a | 34.76 a | 5.57 b | 0.80 a |
2/3RTS | 0.33 a | 0.76 a | 181.45 b | 34.09 a | 5.88 a | 0.76 a | |
RTS | 0.32 a | 0.74 a | 135.89 c | 34.29 a | 5.81 a | 0.82 a | |
T | N.S. | N.S. | *** | * | ** | N.S. | |
H | N.S. | N.S. | *** | * | N.S. | N.S. | |
T × H | N.S. | N.S. | ** | * | N.S. | N.S. | |
5–10 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.32 a | 0.52 a | 146.12 a | 34.54 a | 5.74 a | 0.91 a |
2/3RTS | 0.32 a | 0.50 a | 136.30 a | 33.20 a | 5.60 a | 0.82 a | |
RTS | 0.22 b | 0.46 a | 130.64 a | 35.27 a | 5.74 a | 0.89 a | |
T | *** | N.S. | N.S. | * | N.S. | N.S. | |
H | N.S. | N.S. | ** | * | *** | N.S. | |
T × H | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | *** | * | N.S. | |
10–20 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.25 a | 0.26 b | 116.30 a | 18.57 a | 6.01 a | 1.13 b |
2/3RTS | 0.22 b | 0.40 a | 121.74 a | 22.98 a | 5.79 a | 1.26 ab | |
RTS | 0.16 c | 0.28 a | 112.14 a | 16.96 a | 6.17 a | 1.30 a | |
T | *** | *** | N.S. | ** | N.S. | * | |
H | N.S. | * | N.S. | N.S. | 0.013 * | N.S. | |
T × H | ** | ** | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | |
20–30 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.09 a | 0.13 b | 115.28 a | 7.16 ab | 6.63 a | 1.43 a |
2/3RTS | 0.07 b | 0.10 b | 97.78 b | 6.43 b | 6.56 a | 1.52 a | |
RTS | 0.08 ab | 0.17 a | 105.31 ab | 8.62 a | 6.63 a | 1.44 a | |
T | N.S. | *** | N.S. | N.S. | ** | ** | |
H | * | N.S. | * | * | * | N.S. | |
T × H | N.S. | *** | N.S. | * | * | N.S. | |
30–50 cm | 1/3RTS | 0.07 a | 0.11 b | 114.26 a | 5.13 b | 7.01 a | 1.51 a |
2/3RTS | 0.07 a | 0.12 ab | 105.69 ab | 6.32 a | 6.76 a | 1.57 a | |
RTS | 0.07 a | 0.13 a | 96.69 b | 6.23 a | 6.80 a | 1.54 a | |
T | ** | N.S. | N.S. | * | ** | N.S. | |
H | ** | * | * | ** | ** | N.S. | |
T × H | ** | N.S. | * | * | N.S. | N.S. |
TN Storage | P Storage | K Storage | SOC Storage | pH | Bulk Density | Yield | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TN storage | - | 0.710 ** | 0.499 ** | 0.682 ** | 0.096 | 0.450 ** | −0.188 |
P storage | 0.710 ** | - | 0.312 | 0.526 ** | −0.018 | 0.365 * | −0.352 * |
K storage | 0.499 ** | 0.312 | - | 0.266 | 0.434 ** | 0.694 ** | 0.245 |
SOC storage | 0.682 ** | 0.526 ** | 0.266 | - | −0.17 | 0.407 * | −0.043 |
pH | 0.096 | −0.018 | 0.434 ** | −0.17 | - | 0.277 | 0.338 * |
Bulk density | 0.450 ** | 0.365 * | 0.694 ** | 0.407 * | 0.277 | - | −0.184 |
Yield | −0.188 | −0.352 * | 0.245 | −0.043 | 0.338 * | −0.184 | - |
TN Storage | P Storage | K Storage | SOC Storage | pH | Bulk Density | Yield | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TN storage | - | 0.674 ** | −0.234 | 0.766 ** | 0.013 | 0.181 | −0.390 |
P storage | 0.674 ** | - | 0.540 ** | 0.540 ** | 0.168 | 0.154 | −0.421 * |
K storage | −0.234 | 0.018 | - | −0.356 * | 0.462 ** | −0.389 * | 0.302 |
SOC storage | 0.766 ** | 0.540 ** | −0.356 * | - | −0.227 | 0.218 | −0.22 |
pH | 0.013 | −0.168 | 0.462 ** | −0.227 | - | 0.113 * | 0.346 * |
Bulk density | 0.181 | 0.153 | 0.389 * | 0.218 | 0.113 | - | −0.12 |
Yield | −0.390 * | −0.421 * | 0.302 | −0.22 | 0.346 * | −0.120 | - |
Components | Eigenvalues | Contribution Ratio % | Cumulative Contribution Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
y1 | 3.035 | 43.361 | 43.361 |
y2 | 1.742 | 24.883 | 68.245 |
y3 | 0.891 | 12.736 | 80.98 |
y4 | 0.621 | 8.867 | 89.847 |
y5 | 0.368 | 5.251 | 95.099 |
y6 | 0.251 | 3.591 | 98.689 |
y7 | 0.092 | 1.311 | 100 |
Components | Eigenvalues | Contribution Ratio % | Cumulative Contribution Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
y1 | 2.732 | 39.029 | 39.029 |
y2 | 1.759 | 25.129 | 64.159 |
y3 | 0.976 | 13.938 | 78.097 |
y4 | 0.786 | 11.232 | 89.329 |
y5 | 0.405 | 5.782 | 95.111 |
y6 | 0.229 | 3.264 | 98.375 |
y7 | 0.114 | 1.625 | 100 |
0–20 cm Soil Layer | Components | 0–50 cm Soil Layer | Components | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
TN storage | 0.878 | −0.151 | TN storage | 0.883 | 0.21 |
P storage | 0.768 | −0.351 | P storage | 0.848 | 0.034 |
Bulk density | 0.761 | 0.231 | Bulk density | 0.749 | 0.404 |
SOC storage | 0.724 | −0.281 | SOC storage | −0.627 | 0.202 |
K storage | 0.707 | 0.566 | K storage | −0.419 | 0.771 |
pH | 0.198 | 0.796 | pH | −0.256 | 0.735 |
Yield | −0.18 | 0.713 | Yield | 0.198 | 0.613 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Che, Y.; Zhang, B.; Liu, B.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H. Effects of Straw Return Rate on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Yield in Paddy Fields. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081668
Che Y, Zhang B, Liu B, Wang J, Zhang H. Effects of Straw Return Rate on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Yield in Paddy Fields. Agronomy. 2024; 14(8):1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081668
Chicago/Turabian StyleChe, Yuxuan, Boyuan Zhang, Boyu Liu, Jiacheng Wang, and Hailin Zhang. 2024. "Effects of Straw Return Rate on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Yield in Paddy Fields" Agronomy 14, no. 8: 1668. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081668