Abstract
Exploring suitable maize straw-return measures is essential for the new double-cropping system of maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation in the middle reaches of Yangtze River in China, which can increase crop yield by improving soil quality. In this study, four straw-return measures were evaluated by investigating the soil bulk density (BD), organic matter (OM), microbial community, and nutrients from 2016 to 2018. The four straw-return treatments were as follows: (1) no straw-return (CK), (2) only rice straw incorporated into the field (M0Ri), (3) both maize and rice straw incorporated to field (MiRi), and (4) maize straw mulched and rice straw incorporated into the field (MmRi). Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments. In addition, MmRi and MiRi increased annual yield by 9.1% and 15.2% in 2017 and 11.7% and 12.9% compared to CK in 2018, respectively. MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi. We concluded that MmRi is the best measure to implement for straw-return in maize–rice rotation systems.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return changed soil microbial community composition relative to no straw return.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- soil microbial community compositione1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) by 3.6% versus CK.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- soil total organic carbon (TOC)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 3.6%e1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return increased dissolved organic carbon (DOC) by 63.4% versus CK.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- dissolved organic carbon (DOC)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 63.4%e1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return increased microbial biomass carbon (MBC) by 38.8% versus CK.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- microbial biomass carbon (MBC)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 38.8%e1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return increased mineralized nitrogen (Nmin) by 12.4% versus CK.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- mineralized nitrogen (Nmin)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 12.4%e1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return increased available phosphorus (P) by 39.7% versus CK.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- available phosphorus (P)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 39.7%e1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-season straw return increased exchangeable potassium (K) by 21.6% versus CK.
- Treatment
- two-season crop straw-return treatmentse1
- Outcome
- exchangeable potassium (K)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 21.6%e1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e1“Compared to CK, two-season crop straw-return treatments changed soil microbial community composition, and increased soil total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), mineralized nitrogen (Nmin), available phosphorus (P) and exchangeable potassium (K) in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 3.6%, 63.4%, 38.8%, 12.4%, 39.7%, and 21.6%, respectively, averaged across MmRi and MiRi treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi increased annual yield by 9.1% in 2017 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e2“MmRi and MiRi increased annual yield by 9.1% and 15.2% in 2017 and 11.7% and 12.9% compared to CK in 2018, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
MiRi increased annual yield by 15.2% in 2017 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e2“MmRi and MiRi increased annual yield by 9.1% and 15.2% in 2017 and 11.7% and 12.9% compared to CK in 2018, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi increased annual yield by 11.7% in 2018 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e2“MmRi and MiRi increased annual yield by 9.1% and 15.2% in 2017 and 11.7% and 12.9% compared to CK in 2018, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
MiRi increased annual yield by 12.9% in 2018 versus CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e2“MmRi and MiRi increased annual yield by 9.1% and 15.2% in 2017 and 11.7% and 12.9% compared to CK in 2018, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for soil microbial community.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for enzyme activities.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for DOC.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for MBC.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for Nmin.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for available P.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
MmRi was superior to MiRi for exchangeable K.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e3“MmRi exhibited superiority in the soil microbial community, enzyme activities, DOC, MBC, Nmin, available P, and exchangeable K in contrast to MiRi.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend MmRi for straw return in maize–rice rotation.
- Outcome
- MmRi is the best measure to implement for straw-returne4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)–rice (Oryza sativa L.) rotation”
e4“We concluded that MmRi is the best measure to implement for straw-return in maize–rice rotation systems.”
The same questions in other papers
Oryza sativa · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →organic · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →organic · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
72 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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.