Next Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Water Quality in Major Rivers of Türkiye Using Hydrochemical and Pollution Indices
Previous Article in Journal
Comprehensive Study on the Electrical Characteristics and Full-Spectrum Tracing of Water Sources in Water-Rich Coal Mines
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil and Water Management: Practices to Mitigate Nutrient Losses in Agricultural Watersheds
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 16
Issue 18
10.3390/w16182675
water-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

The Quantification of the Ecosystem Services of Forming Ridges in No-Tillage Farming in the Purple Soil Region of China: A Meta-Analysis

by
Lizhi Jia
Lhasa Plateau Ecosystem Research Station, Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Water 2024, 16(18), 2675; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182675
Submission received: 7 August 2024 / Revised: 16 September 2024 / Accepted: 18 September 2024 / Published: 20 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil and Water Management: Practices to Mitigate Nutrient Losses in Agricultural Watersheds, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Forming ridges in no-tillage farming (FRNF) is an important conservation tillage practice in the purple soil region of China. Whether FRNF will enhance ecosystem services remains unclear. There is a lack of a systematic quantitative research about the effect of FRNF on ecosystem services. We collected 611 data entries from 21 previous publications to quantitatively evaluate the effects of FRNF on runoff and sediment loss, soil physicochemical properties and biomass. The results showed that compared with conventional tillage, (1) FRNF reduced runoff and sediment loss by 49% and 73%, respectively, due to the blocking effect of the ridge-ditch structure; (2) FRNF increased the concentrations of soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium by 15%, 14%, 30%, 58% and 17%, respectively; (3) FRNF decreased soil bulk density on the ridges by 11% and increased soil moisture content in the furrows by 28%, while it had insignificant effects on soil bulk density in the furrows and soil moisture content on the ridges; and (4) FRNF increased aboveground and belowground biomass (maize, oilseed rape, potato, sweet potato and wheat) by 23% and 63%, respectively. Overall, these results highlighted the importance of FRNF in regulating soil erosion, physicochemical properties and biomasses in the purple soil region of China. The implementation of FRNF in this region could significantly improve the ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Agro-ecosystems are the basis for the survival and development of human society, accounting for about 40% of the earth’s land area and having a profound impact on the sustainable development of mankind [1,2]. Agro-ecosystems provide land and water re-sources for grain production, which leads to the loss of ecosystem services [3]. Agro-ecosystems are degrading at an unprecedented rate due to the unsustainable ways in which humans utilize the ecosystem service functions [4]. The degradation of agricultural land has not only weakened the ability of agro-ecosystems to provide service functions but also caused a series of ecological and environmental issues [5]. Therefore, the sustainable utilization of agro-ecosystems requires urgent attention. Against this background, the practice of “nature-based solutions” is recommended as an alternative to traditional agriculture [6,7].
As semi-natural and semi-man-made ecosystems, agro-ecosystems provide services that are closely related to human beings, the most important of which are the agricultural products and services they provide [8]. Agro-ecosystems provide the basic material conditions for our survival and development; they also have an environmental service, a tourism service function, and a cultural, educational and aesthetic function. Thus, maintaining the security of ecosystem services is important for the sustainability of agro-ecosystems.
Some soil and water conservation measures, such as conservation tillage, high standard farmland, straw mulch and terracing, have been shown to provide beneficial ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes [9,10,11]. After the construction of high-standard farmland, the ecosystem service value of farmland has been significantly improved [12,13]. In China, terracing practices reduced runoff and sediment yield by about 48.9% and 53.0%, respectively, and increased soil organic carbon sequestration by approximately 32.4% [14,15,16]. Global meta-analyses demonstrated that no-tillage farming played an integral role in attenuating soil erosion [17,18], increasing crop yield [19,20], reducing N2O emissions, changing soil physical properties and increasing earthworm abundance and biomass [21,22,23].
The farmland in the hilly area of the central Sichuan Basin is mainly distributed on steep slopes, with the characteristics of small plots and discontinuous fragments [24,25,26]. These sloping farmlands are generally far away from farmyards and main roads, with poor irrigation conditions and the inconvenient transportation of fertilizers. Soil water content easily synchronizes with atmospheric precipitation, resulting in frequent water shortages in sloping farmland due to the dry climate. According to the soil classification principles of World Reference Base for Soil Resources, the soils in this area are the Cambisols, which are characterized by incomplete maturity [27]. The formation of purple soils is a continuous cycle of weathering and erosion. Purple soil is a mixture of purple soil particles and purple parent-rock debris. Purple soil belongs to the subclass of Stony Primordial soils in the class of Primordial soils, characterized by rapid soil formation and slow developmental processes. Purple soils are typical rocky soils, which are shallowly developed and contain more than 10 percent of unweathered stony particles. Severe soil erosion leads to nutrients loss and crop yield reduction in slope farmland [28,29]. The conversion of slope farmland to terraced fields was the main way to solve these problems, but after the implementation of the “family-contract responsibility system” in rural areas, this was difficult to implement due to the dispersion of labor and funds. To resolve this dilemma, local researchers proposed a new conservation tillage method: forming ridges in no-tillage farming (FRNF) [30]. This conservation tillage method is unique to the purple soil region of China and has never been applied in other regions. The implementation of FRNF included the following steps: (1) form ridges (100 cm wide and 30 cm high) and dig furrows (100 cm wide) along the contour line to establish a grid-like geomorphologic pattern of ridge-and-furrow; (2) set a trapezoidal soil block about 10–20 cm high every 5 m in furrows; (3) implement no-tillage farming and leave residues on the ridges in summer and minimal tillage in autumn, then implement deep tillage in the furrows; (4) apply organic fertilizer and strengthen fertilization while building ridges and deep ploughing; and (5) plant dwarf plants on the ridges and high-barrel-resistant plants in the furrows (Figure 1) [30].
FRNF forms two micro-ecosystems with significantly different soil physicochemical properties on the ridges and in the furrows. The layout of crops should consider the coordination between the ridges and furrows, including the utilization efficiency of light energy, soil nutrition and moisture. Then local farmers can choose different vegetation according to crop adaptability and market demand to form different three-dimensional planting systems. After 5–7 years of FRNF, the positions of the ridges and furrows are exchanged to achieve deep cultivation on the whole slope. The core of this conservation tillage method is to thicken the purple soil layers, especially the eluvial horizon [31,32]. Therefore, there is a necessity to evaluate the effects of FRNF on enhancing ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems.
The most important factor in evaluating whether a new tillage method is acceptable to farmers is crop yield [33]. Therefore, we chose the aboveground and underground biomass of crops as indicators of ecosystem services. The crop yields on the ridges and in the furrows may be quite different [30]. Crop yields on the ridges were higher than conventional tillage due to the ripe and fertile soil, while the remove of fertile soil in the furrows lead to a short-term reduction in crop yields. The crop yields were mainly influenced by soil physicochemical properties. In addition, FRNF also provides other ecosystem services such as soil retention, water conservation, SOC accumulation and soil quality improvement [34,35]. In our study, runoff and sediment yield, soil organic carbon, soil nutrient concentration, soil bulk density, soil moisture content, and the aboveground and underground biomass of crops were chosen as main ecosystem services. Although research on the ecosystem services of FRNF have been reported, a comprehensive quantitative analysis of these ecosystem services is still lacking. On this basis, we compiled field data from the published literature and explored the ecosystem services (runoff and sediment yield, soil organic carbon, soil nutrient concentration, soil bulk density, soil moisture content, and the aboveground and underground biomass of crops) that FRNF could enhance compared with conventional tillage. This can provide a reference for managers to utilize slope farmland in the hilly area of central Sichuan Basin.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

Published papers about FRNF were selected from both international journals (from Science Direct and Web of Science) and Chinese journals (from the Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases). In order to include as many published papers as possible, the following research terms were used: “forming ridges in no-tillage farming” and “runoff” or “sediment yield” or “soil nutrient” or “soil bulk density” or “soil moisture content” or “biomass” and “purple soil” and “China”. Research was collected from peer-reviewed journals, books, project reports, PhD theses and conference papers to reduce publication bias. Articles were selected using the following criteria: (1) FRNF was reported as a response variable and traditional tillage was a control; (2) the data were obtained under field conditions rather than laboratory experiments; (3) at least one ecosystem service was included (soil property improvement); (4) the number of repetitions were reported; and (5) similar conditions were exposed for both FRNF and traditional tillage lands. In this case, any differences in the ecosystem services (runoff and sediment yield, soil organic carbon and nutrient concentration, soil bulk density, soil moisture content, and the aboveground and underground biomass of crops) between FRNF and traditional tillage were caused by different tillage methods (Figure 2). Finally, all available data about ecosystem services provided by FRNF were included in our database. The data displayed in text, table and appendices of the publications can be extracted directly. The data presented in the figure were extracted using GetData Graph Digitizer 2.25.
In total, 611 data entries (178 runoff and sediment yield data entries, 229 soil organic carbon and nutrient data entries, 68 soil bulk density and moisture data entries and 136 biomass data entries) from 21 articles were retained and mainly distributed in the purple soil region of China (Figure 2 and Figure 3 and Supplementary Materials). The final database extracted from published papers included the following information: (1) study site and relevant information (name and coordinates); (2) crop type (maize, oilseed rape, potato, sweet potato and wheat); (3) tillage methods (FRNF or conventional tillage); and (4) the ecological parameter for FRNF and traditional tillage. The collected data sets were considered sufficiently representative and rich for meta-analysis. The final database comprised a total of 178 runoff and sediment, 229 soil organic carbon and nutrient, 68 soil bulk density and moisture, and 136 biomass data entries (Figure 2). The implementation times of FRNF for the total 611 data entries, all for short-term tillage, were 2–6 years (Supplementary Materials). The width of the ridges and furrows is the same in all published papers—100 cm. Therefore, the effect of implementation times on the ecosystem services of FRNF was not considered. The soil depths of 229 soil organic carbon and nutrient entries and 68 soil bulk density and moisture data entries are 0–20 cm, 0–15 cm, 0–25 cm and 0–30 cm, respectively (Supplementary Materials). In general, the effects of FRNF on soil properties are mainly concentrated in the topsoil layer in our study.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

To better quantify the ecosystem services provided by FRNF compared with traditional agricultural, a key indicator (δ), defined as the ratio of different ecosystem services under FRNF and traditional tillage, was introduced to our study [14,36]. The ecosystem services under traditional tillage were considered as the control. The formula used to calculate the effect of FRNF for each ecosystem service was as following:
δ E S = P c P t
where δES represents the efficiency of FRNF in providing a certain ecosystem service, Pc is a measured ecological parameter under FRNF, and Pt is the same parameter under traditional tillage. Ecological parameters included the following: (a) runoff and sediment loss, (b) soil organic carbon and nutrient concentration: soil organic carbon (SOC), soil total nitrogen (TN), soil available nitrogen (AN), soil total phosphorus (TP), soil available phosphorus (AP), soil total potassium (TK) and soil available potassium (AK), (c) soil bulk density and soil moisture content, and (d) aboveground and belowground biomass.
If δES > 1, it means that FRNF can lead to an increase in the intensity of a given ecological parameter compared with conventional tillage. If δES < 1, it means that FRNF can lead to a reduction in the intensity of a given ecological parameter compared with conventional tillage [11]. The MetaWin 2.1 (UK) software was used for generating the bias-corrected 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals. Statistical analyses were conducted using the software program SPSS 20.0 (New York, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Effects of FRNF on Runoff and Sediment Yield Loss

Our results showed that the reduction of runoff by FRNF ranged from 2% to 92%, with an average of 49% (δrunoff = 0.51; n = 108), and the reduction of sediment yield by FRNF ranged from 34% to 99%, with an average of 73% (δsediment = 0.27; n = 70), compared with conventional tillage (Figure 4 and Table 1).

3.2. Effects of FRNF on Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Concentration

After the implementation of FRNF, SOC concentration in the topsoil layer increased significantly compared with conventional tillage (15%, n = 48, p < 0.05) (Table 2). A substantial increment (24%, n = 28, p < 0.05) of SOC concentration was found on the ridges after the implementation of FRNF compared with that under conventional tillage, while no significant differences (3.7%, n = 20, p = 0.216) were found in the furrows (Figure 5a). Likewise, a significant increase in topsoil TN (14%, n = 45, p < 0.05) and AN (30%, n = 34, p < 0.05) concentrations were found under FRNF compared with those under conventional tillage (Table 2). Under FRNF, topsoil TN concentrations increased significantly both on the ridges and in the furrows (17%, n = 25, p < 0.05; 9%, n = 20, p < 0.05, respectively), while the topsoil AN concentration increased significantly only on the ridges (40%, n = 19, p < 0.05) (Figure 5b,c). For topsoil TP concentrations, no significant differences were found both on the ridges and in the furrows between conditions under FRNF and conventional tillage (Figure 5d), while topsoil AP concentrations increased significantly both on the ridges (49%, n = 17, p < 0.05) and in the furrows (68%, n = 15, p < 0.05) (Figure 5e). No significant differences were found between conditions under FRNF and conventional tillage for topsoil TK and AK in the furrows (Table 2 and Figure 5f,g). Compared with conventional tillage, topsoil TK concentrations on the ridges increased by 25% after the implementation of FRNF (Table 2 and Figure 5g).

3.3. Effects of FRNFon Soil Bulk Density and Soil Moisture Content

Overall, topsoil bulk density decreased by 7% (n = 45, p < 0.05) under FRNF compared with that under conventional tillage. Meanwhile, topsoil bulk density decreased significantly only on the ridges (−11%, n = 25, p < 0.05) (Table 3 and Figure 6a). A substantial increase (10%, n = 23, p < 0.05) in topsoil moisture content was observed under FRNF compared with conventional tillage. The effects of FRNF on topsoil moisture content were different on the ridges compared to in the furrows. After the implementation of FRNF, there was no significant increase in topsoil moisture content on the ridges (n = 9, p = 0.28). In the furrows, topsoil moisture content increased significantly (27.6%, n = 14, p < 0.05) under FRNF compared with that under conventional tillage (Figure 6b).

3.4. Effects of FRNF on Aboveground and Underground Biomass

Table 4 demonstrates that FRNF increased biomass significantly (27%, n = 136, p < 0.05). The increments of aboveground biomass from FRNF ranged from −19% to 129%, with an average of 23% (δaboveground biomass = 1.23; n = 119), and the increments of belowground biomass from FRNF ranged from 6% to 204%, with an average of 63% (δbelowground biomass = 1.63; n = 17), compared with those under conventional tillage (Figure 7 and Table 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. FRNF Reduced Runoff and Sediment Yield Loss

FRNF is a unique conservation tillage method in the purple soil region of southwest China. Further, it has been proven to be the suitable tillage method for this region. FRNF is not only more effective in reducing runoff and sediment yield than other conservation tillage methods but also provides a wide range of ecosystem services (improvement of soil properties, increase in soil moisture content and increase in crop yield) [37]. Overall, FRNF is a composite conservation tillage method, which is a combination of contour tillage and no tillage with mulch [38]. The mechanism of FRNF in reducing water erosion includes the change of microtopography and the improvement of soil properties [39]. Thus, FRNF is superior to both contour tillage and no tillage in reducing runoff and sediment yield [37]. The spatial distribution and combination of ridges and furrows can increase surface roughness and enable hilly croplands to withstand heavy rain. Under heavy rain conditions, the ridges formed by FRNF may not be easily washed away, thereby blocking more runoff and retaining more soil than other conservation tillage methods. The morphologies of the ridges from FRNF are similar to those from contour tillage, while the ridges from FRNF are more stable and denser than those from contour tillage [40]. The presence of ridges blocks surface runoff and dissipates the energy of the runoff. Most of the rainfall is trapped in the furrows and then infiltrates into the soil, not only replenishing ground water but also accelerating soil formation from the parent material. The implementation of no tillage and straw mulch on the ridges can protect soil aggregates from raindrops, thereby reducing splash erosion [41]. Meanwhile, long-term no tillage increased SOC content and reduced the soil erodibility factor [42]. Therefore, FRNF has a positive effect on mitigating soil and water loss during rainfall events.

4.2. FRNF Increased Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Concentration

Implementing no tillage in the ridge-and-furrow system of FRNF increases the concentrations of SOC, TN, AN, AP and AK on the ridges (Figure 5 and Table 2) [43,44,45]. No tillage can promote the accumulation of plant root residues and application of organic fertilizers to the soil [46]. Most soil nutrients are added to the soil in the form of roots and fallen leaves, which are the main inputs to the soil nutrient pools [47]. Additionally, FRNF plays a crucial role in preventing nutrient loss. The loss of various nutrients dissolved in runoff and the loss by leaching are important means of nutrients loss. As FRNF can significantly reduce runoff compared with conventional tillage, it may also reduce the loss of nutrients, thus increasing the storage of soil organic carbon and nutrients [48]. The mulching effect of straw insulates the ground soil, thus stabilizing the surface temperature, promoting microbial activity and the pedogenesis of parent rock. The concentrations of TN, TP, TK and AK in furrows were insignificantly different between FRNF and conventional tillage. This is mainly ascribed to the fact that the soil in the furrows is mainly composed of parent-rock debris broken by tillage, with low maturity and a low nutrient concentration [26]. Thus, FRNF exhibited different effects on soil organic carbon and nutrient concentrations on the ridges compared to in the furrows.

4.3. FRNF Improved Soil Bulk Density and Soil Moisture Content

Similar to other conservation tillage methods, the disturbance of FRNF alters soil physical properties, including decreasing soil bulk density and increasing soil porosity and water-stable aggregate [44,49] (Table 3). During the construction of the ridge, topsoil was dug out and piled on the ridge. Organic fertilizers were also applied on the ridges to reduce the soil bulk density on the ridges. The topsoil in the furrows was moved to the ridges, leaving the subsurface soil and parent material. Thus, the soil bulk density in the furrows did not change significantly after the implementation of FRNF. The number of earthworms increased significantly by increasing SOC in the topsoil layer through no tillage on the ridges. Gradually, the blocky structure of the tilled soil is replaced by a good agglomerate structure. After 10 years, the soil properties will have fundamentally changed, with the help of increasing SOC and active earthworms, resulting in a thicker, more-stable tillage layer [50].
As noted above, FRNF significantly reduces the runoff, which enhances the infiltration of runoff and increases soil moisture supply. Meanwhile, straw mulch can reduce soil moisture evaporation and improve soil moisture retention [51,52]. However, the ridge morphology of FRNF is similar to that of contour tillage, increasing the area of soil–air contact on the ridges. Topsoil on the ridges is more likely to form a dry layer. Therefore, the implementation of FRNF did not increase soil moisture content on the ridges (Figure 6b). The ridges and the earth ties can form a series of micro-catchment basins in the furrows [53]. Runoff intercepted by the ridges is mainly trapped in the furrows, resulting in increased soil water content in the furrows. In addition, the structure of ridges and furrows increases the surface roughness and reduces wind speed, thereby reducing the water evaporation from the furrows. In conclusion, FRNF plays an important role in improving soil structure and moisture condition.

4.4. FRNF Increased Aboveground and Underground Biomass

An active soil layer is the main growing area for crop roots, and increasing the active soil layer is an important feature of FRNF. In contrast, severe soil erosion results in shallow soil layers under conventional tillage. The structure of FRNF creates an aerobic local environment on the ridges and an anaerobic local environment in the furrows. It has been demonstrated that FRNF can significantly increase the thickness of the soil layer, thereby promoting the growth of crops [54]. In the furrows, parent material is easily exposed under deep tillage. After several ridge and furrow exchanges, the active soil layer reaches about 30 cm, and the active root layer of crops reaches 50 cm. A loose soil layer helps crop roots extend deeper [55]. The use of organic fertilizers will also increase during the implementation of FRNF, which will boost crop yields, including aboveground and belowground biomass (Figure 7 and Table 4). In practice, some crops with short stalks that are resistant to staining, such as wheat, potatoes and sweet potatoes, are planted on ridges, while crops with high stalks and preferring more water and fertilizers, such as corn and vegetables, are planted in furrows. High-stalk crops planted in the furrows can resist the damage from wind by utilizing the shading effect of ridges. This kind of three-dimensional agriculture—growing different plants on the ridges and in the furrows—not only makes full use of light-energy resources but also facilitates field management. The ridge-and-furrow system can effectively resist flood and drought disasters and ensure stable increases in crop yields [56,57]. When drought occurs, wind speeds are reduced due to the blocking effect of the ridges, and the shading effect of the ridges also reduces the direct sunlight into the furrows and the evaporation of soil moisture in the furrows. In this way, the symptoms, such as the yellowing of stems and leaves caused by water deficiency, will be alleviated, and yield will increase. When floods occur, the convex-ridges structure and the depressed-furrows structure increase the soil–air contact area. Especially at the outer edge of the ridges, the evaporation of soil moisture can effectively mitigate damage to crop roots from the anoxic environment caused by floods.

5. Conclusions

The results of the meta-analysis showed that forming ridges in no-tillage farming could significantly enhance multi-ecosystem services, including water erosion control, increasing soil organic carbon and nutrient concentration, improving soil bulk density and soil moisture content, and increasing of crop biomass. The concentrations of soil organic carbon, soil total nitrogen, available nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium under forming ridges in no-tillage farming were significantly higher than those under conventional tillage, while no significant differences were found for soil total phosphorus and total potassium between FRNF and conventional tillage. After implementing forming ridges in no-tillage farming, the changes of soil nutrient concentrations exhibited obvious differences between the ridges and the furrows. Forming ridges in no-tillage farming resulted in a significant decrease in soil bulk density on the ridges, while no significant change in the furrows was observed. The implementation of forming ridges in no-tillage farming had significantly positive effects on soil moisture content in the furrows, while it had no significant effect on soil moisture content on the ridges. Both aboveground and belowground biomass increased on hilly croplands under forming ridges in no-tillage farming compared with those under conventional tillage. Meanwhile, the effect of forming ridges in no-tillage farming, considering years of implementation, on ecosystem services should be further studied in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w16182675/s1. References [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42301113), Key R&D Program of Tibet Autonomous Region (XZ202401ZY0089).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Xiaoying Zhou for her assistance with drawing the figures.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Power, A.G. Ecosystem Services and Agriculture: Tradeoffs and Synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cao, S.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Z.; Liu, X. Net Value of Farmland Ecosystem Services in China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2291–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.C.; Der Ploeg, S.V.; Anderson, S.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kong, X.; Jin, D.; Tai, X.; Yu, C.; Duan, G.; Yan, X.; Pan, J.; Song, J.; Deng, Y. Bioremediation of Dibutyl Phthalate in a Simulated Agricultural Ecosystem by Gordonia sp. Strain qh-11 and the Microbial Ecological Effects in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 667, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sub-Global Assessment Selection Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Sub-Global Component: Purpose, Structure and Protocols. 2001. Available online: http://www.millenniumassessment.org (accessed on 1 January 2005).
  6. Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The Superior Effect of Nature-based Solutions in Land Management for Enhancing Ecosystem Services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tarolli, P.; Straffelini, E. Agriculture in Hilly and Mountainous Landscapes: Threats, Monitoring and Sustainable Management. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fu, B.; Wang, S.; Su, C.; Forsius, M. Linking Ecosystem Processes and Ecosystem Services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Novara, A.; Gristina, L.; Guaitoli, F.; Santoro, A.; Cerdà, A. Managing Soil Nitrate with Cover Crops and Buffer Strips in Sicilian Vineyards. Solid Earth 2013, 4, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vancampenhout, K.; Nyssen, J.; Gebremichael, D.; Deckers, J.; Poesen, J.; Haile, M.; Moeyersons, J. Stone Bunds for Soil Conservation in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands: Impacts on Soil Fertility and Crop Yield. Soil Till. Res. 2006, 90, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Daryanto, S.; Fu, B.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.; Zhao, W. Quantitative Synthesis on the Ecosystem Services of Cover Crops. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018, 185, 357–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tang, X.M.; Pan, Y.C.; Cheng, J.N.; Ren, Y.M. Impact of High-standard Prime Farmland Construction on Ecosystem Service Value in Beijing. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 8009–8015. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhong, L.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Ying, L. Effects of Agricultural Land Consolidation on Ecosystem Services: Trade-offs and Synergies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, D.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D. Effects of Terracing Practices on Water Erosion Control in China: A Meta-analysis. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2017, 173, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, D.; Wei, W.; Daryanto, S.; Tarolli, P. Does Terracing Enhance Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration? A national-scale Data Analysis in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chen, D.; Wei, W.; Chen, L. Effects of Terracing on Soil Properties in Three Key Mountainous Regions of China. Geogr. Sustain. 2021, 2, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Shi, Q.; Pan, X.; Huang, S. No-tillage Controls on Runoff: A meta-analysis. Soil Till. Res. 2015, 153, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mhazo, N.; Chivenge, P.; Chaplot, V. Tillage Impact on Soil Erosion by Water: Discrepancies Due to Climate and Soil Characteristics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pittelkow, C.M.; Linquist, B.A.; Lundy, M.E.; Liang, X.; Van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Natasja Van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; Van Kessel, C. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 183, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liang, X.; Zhang, H.; He, M.; Yuan, J.; Xu, L.; Tian, G. No-tillage Effects on Grain Yield, N Use Efficiency, and Nutrient Runoff Losses in Paddy Fields. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 21451–21459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Briones, M.J.I.; Schmidt, O. Conventional Tillage Decreases the Abundance and Biomass of Earthworms and Alters their Community Structure in a Global Meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 4396–4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Y.; Zhou, L.; Chang, S.C.; Cui, S.; Jagadamma, S.; Zhang, Q.; Cai, Y. Residue retention promotes soil carbon accumulation in minimum tillage systems: Implications for conservation agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Li, Y.; Zhou, L.; 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]
  24. Zhang, J.H.; Frielinghaus, M.; Tian, G.; Lobb, D.A. Ridge and Contour Tillage Effects on Soil Erosion from Steep Hillslope in the Sichuan Basin, China. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004, 59, 277–284. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang, J.H.; Su, Z.A.; Nie, X.J. An Investigation of Soil Translocation and Erosion by Conservation Hoeing Tillage on Steep Lands Using a Magnetic Tracer. Soil Till. Res. 2009, 105, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jia, L.Z.; Zhang, J.H.; Zhang, Z.H.; Wang, Y. Assessment of Gravelly Soil Redistribution Caused by a Two-tooth Harrow in Mountainous Landscapes of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, China. Soil Till. Res. 2017, 168, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Deckers, J.A.; Nachtergaele, F.O.; Spaargaren, O. Anticipated Developments of the World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In Soil Classification; Esworan, H., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 245–256. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gao, X.; Xie, Y.; Liu, G.; Liu, B.; Duan, X. Effects of Soil Erosion on Soybean Yield as Estimated by Simulating Gradually Eroded Soil Profiles. Soil Till. Res. 2015, 145, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lin, H.; Xie, Y.; Liu, G.; Zhai, J.; Li, S. Soybean and Maize Simulation under Different Degrees of Soil Erosion. Field Crops Res. 2019, 230, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, T.Y.; Chen, S.; Luo, Z.P.; Huang, Z.Q.; Zhang, X.W. A New Method of Cropping in Hill-land Seasonal Non-tillage on Collected Soil Ridge Cropping Method. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 1988, 4, 44–49, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  31. Alletto, L.; Coquet, Y.; Justes, E. Effects of Tillage and Fallow Period Management on Soil Physical Behaviour and Maize Development. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 102, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, J.H.; Li, F.C. Soil Redistribution and Organic Carbon Accumulation Under Long-term (29 years) Upslope Tillage Systems. Soil Use Manag. 2013, 29, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tonitto, C.; David, M.; Drinkwater, L. Replacing Bare Fallows with Cover Crops in Fertilizer-intensive Cropping Systems: A Meta-analysis of Crop Yield and N Dynamics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, S.; Liu, G.C.; Zhang, X.W. A Review Upon the Importance and Effect of Piling Soil to Ridge with Non-tillage for Agro-ecosystem in Central Hilly Area of Sichuan Basin. J. Mt. Sci. 2001, S1, 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, G.C.; Gao, M.R.; Zhang, J.H.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.W. Soil Erosion Characteristics of Slope Land under Alternative Tillage Systems in Central Hilly Area of Sichuan, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2001, 19, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wei, W.; Chen, D.; Wang, L.; Daryanto, S.; Chen, L.; Yu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Sun, G.; Feng, T. Global Synthesis of the Classifications, Distributions, Benefits and Issues of Terracing. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 159, 388–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Utzig, D.L.; Minella, J.P.; Schneider, F.J.; Londero, A.L.; Dambroz, A.B.; Barros, C.A.; Tiecher, T.; Kaiser, D.R. Nutrient Transport in Surface Runoff and Sediment Yield on Macroplots and Zero-order Catchments under No-tillage. Catena 2023, 231, 107333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jia, L.; Zhao, W.; Zhai, R.; Liu, Y.; Kang, M.; Zhang, X. Regional Differences in the Soil and Water Conservation Efficiency of Conservation Tillage in China. Catena 2019, 175, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, L.X.; Zhu, Z.J. Soil and Water Conservation, 2nd ed.; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2004; pp. 240–274. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fernández-Raga, M.; Palencia, C.; Keesstra, S.; Jordán, A.; Fraile, R.; Angulo-Martínez, M.; Cerdà, A. Splash Erosion: A Review with Unanswered Questions. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2017, 171, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ruiz Sinoga, J.D.; Gabarrón Galeote, M.A.; Martínez Murillo, J.F.; Garcia Marín, R. Vegetation Strategies for Soil Water Consumption along a Pluviometric Gradient in Southern Spain. Catena 2011, 84, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhao, W.; Wei, H.; Jia, L.; Daryanto, S.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y. Soil Erodibility and its Influencing Factors on the Loess Plateau of China: A Case Study in the Ansai Watershed. Solid Earth 2018, 9, 1507–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leggett, M.; Diaz-Zorita, M.; Koivunen, M.; Bowman, R.; Pesek, R.; Stevenson, C.; Leister, T. Soybean Response to Inoculation with Bradyrhizobium Japonicum in the United States and Argentina. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1031–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bossolani, J.W.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Merloti, L.F.; Moretti, L.G.; Costa, N.R.; Tsai, S.M.; Kuramae, E.E. Long-term Lime and Gypsum Amendment Increase Nitrogen Fixation and Decrease Nitrification and Denitrification Gene Abundances in the Rhizosphere and Soil in a Tropical No-till Intercropping System. Geoderma 2020, 375, 114476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P. No-till is challenged: Complementary Management is Crucial to Improve its Environmental Benefits under a Changing Climate. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. De Oliveira Ferreira, A.; De Moraes Sá, J.C.; Lal, R.; Barth, G.; Inagaki, T.M.; Gonçalves, D.P.; Briedis, C.; Tomaz, A.R.; Da Silva, W.R. Why no-till system sequesters more carbon and is more resilient and productive with contrasting fertilization regimes in a highly weathered soil? Soil Till. Res. 2024, 244, 106179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, Y.M.; Duan, Y.; Wang, G.L.; Wang, A.Q.; Zhang, D.M. Straw Alters the Soil Organic Carbon Composition and Microbial Community under Different Tillage Practices in a Meadow Soil in Northeast China. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 208, 104879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kätterer, T.; Bolinder, M.A.; Andrén, O.; Kirchmann, H.; Menichetti, L. Roots Contribute More to Refractory Soil Organic Matter than Above-ground Crop Residues, as Revealed by a Long-term Field Experiment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Valkama, E.; Lemola, R.; Kankanen, H.; Turtola, E. Meta-analysis of the Effects of Undersown Catch Crops on Nitrogen Leaching Loss and Grain Yields in the Nordic Countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 203, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Topa, D.; Cara, I.G.; Jitreanu, G. Long Term Impact of Different Tillage Systems on Carbon Pools and Stocks, Soil Bulk Density, Aggregation and Nutrients: A Field Meta-analysis. Catena 2021, 199, 105102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhu, X.; Hu, Y.; Wang, W.; Wu, D. Earthworms Promote the Accumulation of Maize Root-derived Carbon in a Black Soil of Northeast China, Especially in Soil from Long-term No-till. Geoderma 2019, 340, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhao, H.; Liu, G.; Dou, Y.; Yang, H.; Wang, T.; Wang, Z.; Malhi, S.; Khan, A.A. Plastic mulch increases dryland wheat yield and water-use productivity, while straw mulch increases soil water storage. J. Integr. Agric. 2024, 9, 3174–3185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ndlangamandla, M.T.; Ndlela, Z.P.; Manyatsi, A.M. Mulching and Tied Ridges as a Moisture Conservation Strategy to Improve the Yield of Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor) in Semi-arid Parts of Swaziland. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Res. 2016, 2, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  54. Biazin, B.; Stroosnijder, L. To Tie or not to Tie Ridges for Water Conservation in Rift Valley Drylands of Ethiopia. Soil Till. Res. 2012, 124, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Atkinson, J.A.; Hawkesford, M.J.; Whalley, W.R.; Zhou, H.; Mooney, S.J. Soil strength influences wheat root interactions with soil macropores. Plant Cell Environ. 2020, 43, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zhu, B.; Chen, S.; You, X.; Peng, K.; Zhang, X.W. Soil Fertility Restoration on Degraded Upland of Purple Soil. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2002, 39, 743–749, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  57. Mak-Mensah, E.; Obour, P.B.; Wang, Q. Influence of Tied-Ridge-Furrow with Inorganic Fertilizer on Grain Yield across Semiarid Regions of Asia and Africa: A Meta-analysis. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, S.; Li, T.Y.; Zhang, X.W. Preliminary report on energy flow analysis of plant-free state engineering of collecting soil to form ridges with no-tillage. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 1989, 6, 241–251, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  59. Wu, R.J.; Zhang, X.W. Optimized structure of collecting soil to form ridges with no-tillage furrow crops. Sichuan Agric. Sci. Technol. 1989, 4, 7–8, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  60. Wu, R.J. Effect of Effect of poly-soil no-till on wheat growth on wheat growth. Agric. Mod. Res. 1990, 11, 54–55, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  61. Gao, F.H.; Zhang, X.W. The solution of food ration for migrants in the Three Gorges Project reservoir area is explored. Yangtze River 1990, 21, 44–47, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  62. Guo, Y.M. Soil erosion characteristics and construction of soil and water conservation protection system in the Sichuan Basin. China Soil Water Conserv. 1992, 5, 5–9, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhu, B. Effect of tillage system on nutrient cycling in purple soils. J. Mt. Sci. 1996, 14, 51–54, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  64. Chai, Z.X. Stereoscopic agriculture and soil and water conservation. Agric. Zoning 1996, 56–59, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang, G.X. A preliminary investigation on the effectiveness of collecting soil to form ridges with no-tillage in mountainous areas of Shuangfeng County. Mod. Agric. Technol. 2008, 6, 153–154. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ai, Y.W.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X.W.; Xu, P. Effect of deep N fertilizer application depth on N uptake and utilization in wheat. Acta Cardiol. Sin. 1997, 34, 146–151, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  67. Ma, Z.Q.; Li, T.Y.; Zhang, X.W. Study on fertilization of calcareous purple soil in high terrace dryland. J. Resour. Dev. Conserv. 1990, 6, 195–200. [Google Scholar]
  68. Li, M.W. Experimental demonstration effect of collecting soil to form ridges with no-tillage on dryland. Hubei Agric. Sci. 1993, 1, 12–14, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  69. Xia, S.H. Collecting soil to form ridges with no-tillage to maintain soil and water. Soil Agrochem. Bull. 1998, 13, 70–71, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  70. Li, R.P. Discussion on integrated supporting technology of water-saving agriculture in purple soil and dryland. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2001, 29, 43–45, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  71. Ou, S. Soil Erosion and Countermeasures in Sloping Farmland in Hilly Area of Central Sichuan Basin. Master’s Thesis, Sichuan Agricultural University, Yaan, China, 2010. (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  72. Liu, G.C.; Luo, Z.P.; Zhang, X.W. Soil erosion and its p value determination in hilly area of central Sichuan Basin. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1993, 7, 40–44, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  73. Chen, K.L.; Zhu, X.D.; Zhu, B.; Li, Q.Z.; Wang, X.H.; Cai, B.C. Characteristics of non-point source nitrogen output and pollution load from dry slopes in the purple soil region of central Sichuan. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2006, 20, 54–58, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  74. Gao, M.R.; Liu, G.C.; Zhu, B. Preliminary analysis of flow production processes in different tillage systems in purple soil hilly areas of Sichuan. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 14, 118–121, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  75. Chen, S.; Li, T.Y.; Zhang, X.W. Rediscussing the mid-layer fertilization of collecting soil to form ridges with no-tillage. Mt. Res. 1996, 14, 55–58, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
Water 16 02675 g001
Figure 1. The implementation of forming ridges in no-tillage farming (FRNF) on slope ((A) slope farmland before the implementation of forming ridges in no-tillage farming, (B) grid-like geomorphologic pattern of ridge-and-furrow; (C) plant dwarf plants on the ridges and high-barrel-resistant plants in the furrows).
Figure 1. The implementation of forming ridges in no-tillage farming (FRNF) on slope ((A) slope farmland before the implementation of forming ridges in no-tillage farming, (B) grid-like geomorphologic pattern of ridge-and-furrow; (C) plant dwarf plants on the ridges and high-barrel-resistant plants in the furrows).
Water 16 02675 g001
Water 16 02675 g002
Figure 2. Flow chart of this study.
Figure 2. Flow chart of this study.
Water 16 02675 g002
Water 16 02675 g003
Figure 3. Geographic distribution of the studies included in our systematic review.
Figure 3. Geographic distribution of the studies included in our systematic review.
Water 16 02675 g003
Water 16 02675 g004
Figure 4. Key indicators (δ) for (a) runoff and (b) sediments yield losses (the colored dots mean the value of δrunoff or δsediment, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 4. Key indicators (δ) for (a) runoff and (b) sediments yield losses (the colored dots mean the value of δrunoff or δsediment, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Water 16 02675 g004
Water 16 02675 g005
Figure 5. Key indicators (δ) for (a) SOC, (b) TN, (c) AN, (d) TP, (e) AP, (f) TK and (g) AK (the colored dots mean the value of δSOC, δTN, δAN, δTP, δAP, δTK, δAK, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 5. Key indicators (δ) for (a) SOC, (b) TN, (c) AN, (d) TP, (e) AP, (f) TK and (g) AK (the colored dots mean the value of δSOC, δTN, δAN, δTP, δAP, δTK, δAK, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Water 16 02675 g005
Water 16 02675 g006
Figure 6. Key indicators (δ) for (a) soil bulk density and (b) soil moisture content (the colored dots mean the value of δSoil Bulk Density and δSoil Moisture Content, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 6. Key indicators (δ) for (a) soil bulk density and (b) soil moisture content (the colored dots mean the value of δSoil Bulk Density and δSoil Moisture Content, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Water 16 02675 g006
Water 16 02675 g007
Figure 7. Key indicators (δ) for aboveground and belowground biomass (the colored dots mean the value of δaboveground biomass and δbelowground biomass, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 7. Key indicators (δ) for aboveground and belowground biomass (the colored dots mean the value of δaboveground biomass and δbelowground biomass, the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals).
Water 16 02675 g007
Table 1. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on runoff and sediments.
Table 1. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on runoff and sediments.
Runoff or SedimentMean Value δSD δMax δMin δMedian δNo. of Sample (n)
Runoff0.510.210.980.080.44108
Sediment0.270.160.660.0040.2670
Table 2. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on soil organic carbon and nutrient concentration.
Table 2. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on soil organic carbon and nutrient concentration.
Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient ConcentrationMean Value δSD δMax δMin δMedian δNo. of Sample (n)
Soil organic carbon (SOC)1.150.241.730.371.1048
Soil total nitrogen (TN)1.140.141.530.861.1245
Soil available nitrogen (AN)1.300.422.110.341.3234
Soil total phosphorus (TP)0.940.131.100.720.9712
Soil available phosphorus (AP)1.580.693.900.401.5232
Soil total potassium (TK)0.980.241.450.401.0416
Soil available potassium (AK)1.170.332.90.721.1042
Table 3. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on soil bulk density and soil moisture content.
Table 3. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on soil bulk density and soil moisture content.
Soil Physical PropertiesMean Value δSD δMax δMin δMedian δNo. of Sample (n)
Soil bulk density0.930.081.090.760.9345
Soil moisture content1.100.181.500.871.1423
Table 4. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on aboveground and belowground biomass.
Table 4. Key indicator (δ) for the effect of FRNF on aboveground and belowground biomass.
BiomassMean Value δSD δMax δMin δMedian δNo. of Sample (n)
Aboveground biomass1.230.252.290.810.93119
Belowground biomass1.630.573.041.061.1417
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

Jia, L. The Quantification of the Ecosystem Services of Forming Ridges in No-Tillage Farming in the Purple Soil Region of China: A Meta-Analysis. Water 2024, 16, 2675. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182675

AMA Style

Jia L. The Quantification of the Ecosystem Services of Forming Ridges in No-Tillage Farming in the Purple Soil Region of China: A Meta-Analysis. Water. 2024; 16(18):2675. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182675

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Lizhi. 2024. "The Quantification of the Ecosystem Services of Forming Ridges in No-Tillage Farming in the Purple Soil Region of China: A Meta-Analysis" Water 16, no. 18: 2675. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16182675

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