Abstract
In order to investigate the effect of different returning methods of maize straw on the greenhouse gas emissions from the wheat fields, we explored the greenhouse gas CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from the wheat fields using static chamber-gas chromatograph technique from December 2013 to May 2014. The experiments set four treatments including no maize straw returning(CK), direct maize straw returning directly(CS), maize straw-rumen-cattle dung returning(CGS) and maize straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS), and the four treatments were investigated under the same watering and fertilizing conditions. The results showed that the greenhouse gas emissions from the wheat fields all had distinct seasonal variations and the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gas emissions were different. During the maize growing season, the cumulative emissions of both CO2 and N2O were emitted and in the order of CK >CGS >CS >CMS while the cumulative absorptions of CH4 were in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS with the significant difference between different treatments(P<0.05). The global warming potential(GWP) of greenhouse gases in three time periods(20 years, 100 years and 500 years) were all in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS under the different returning methods of maize straw, which indicated that direct straw returning could significantly increase the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field, followed by CGS while the straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS) could decrease the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field. The method of straw-mushroom residue returning should be recommended from the viewpoint of reducing GWP of the greenhouse gas. In all, our study could provide the scientific foundation for the efficiency straw recycle and reducing greenhouse gas emission.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Greenhouse gas emissions from wheat fields varied seasonally.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Outcome
- greenhouse gas emissionse0
- Direction
- distinct seasonal variationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the greenhouse gas emissions from the wheat fields all had distinct seasonal variations and the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gas emissions were different.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative CO2 from wheat fields ranked CK >CGS >CS >CMS across straw treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- CO2e0
- Qualifier
- CK >CGS >CS >CMSe0
- Setting
- wheat fieldse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the maize growing season, the cumulative emissions of both CO2 and N2O were emitted and in the order of CK >CGS >CS >CMS while the cumulative absorptions of CH4 were in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS with the significant difference between different treatments(P<0.05).”
t0“wheat”
e1“The results showed that the greenhouse gas emissions from the wheat fields all had distinct seasonal variations and the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gas emissions were different.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative N2O from wheat fields ranked CK >CGS >CS >CMS across straw treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- N2Oe0
- Qualifier
- CK >CGS >CS >CMSe0
- Setting
- wheat fieldse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the maize growing season, the cumulative emissions of both CO2 and N2O were emitted and in the order of CK >CGS >CS >CMS while the cumulative absorptions of CH4 were in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS with the significant difference between different treatments(P<0.05).”
t0“wheat”
e1“The results showed that the greenhouse gas emissions from the wheat fields all had distinct seasonal variations and the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gas emissions were different.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative CH4 from wheat fields ranked CS >CGS >CK >CMS across straw treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- CH4e0
- Qualifier
- CS >CGS >CK >CMSe0
- Setting
- wheat fieldse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the maize growing season, the cumulative emissions of both CO2 and N2O were emitted and in the order of CK >CGS >CS >CMS while the cumulative absorptions of CH4 were in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS with the significant difference between different treatments(P<0.05).”
t0“wheat”
e1“The results showed that the greenhouse gas emissions from the wheat fields all had distinct seasonal variations and the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gas emissions were different.”
Claim · model-written summary
Global warming potential ranked CS above CGS above CK above CMS at all three time horizons.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- global warming potential(GWP)e0
- Qualifier
- CS >CGS >CK >CMSe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The global warming potential(GWP) of greenhouse gases in three time periods(20 years, 100 years and 500 years) were all in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS under the different returning methods of maize straw, which indicated that direct straw returning could significantly increase the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field, followed by CGS while the straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS) could decrease the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
direct straw returning increased wheat-field greenhouse gas global warming potential.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- direct straw returninge0
- Outcome
- global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat fielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The global warming potential(GWP) of greenhouse gases in three time periods(20 years, 100 years and 500 years) were all in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS under the different returning methods of maize straw, which indicated that direct straw returning could significantly increase the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field, followed by CGS while the straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS) could decrease the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS) decreased wheat-field greenhouse gas global warming potential.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS)e0
- Outcome
- global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat fielde0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The global warming potential(GWP) of greenhouse gases in three time periods(20 years, 100 years and 500 years) were all in the order of CS >CGS >CK >CMS under the different returning methods of maize straw, which indicated that direct straw returning could significantly increase the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field, followed by CGS while the straw-mushroom residue returning(CMS) could decrease the global warming potential of greenhouse gases from the wheat field.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend straw-mushroom residue returning to reduce greenhouse gas global warming potential.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- straw-mushroom residue returninge0
- Qualifier
- reducing GWP of the greenhouse gase0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The method of straw-mushroom residue returning should be recommended from the viewpoint of reducing GWP of the greenhouse gas.”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
organic · environment: emissions · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.