Abstract
Tillage and straw incorporation are important agricultural practices that can break plough layer and improve black soil fertility. The effects of tillage and straw incorporation on straw humification coefficient, soil organic carbon (SOC), and maize yield were investigated in a field experiment. Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S) could break plough layer and decrease the bulk density by 5.7%, 3.3% and 5.7% compared with traditional til-lage (TT), subsoil (ST) and traditional tillage combined with straw incorporation (TT+S) in six experimental years, respectively, and the best effects were observed in ST and ST+S treatments in the first expe-rimental year. The rate of straw decomposition was higher in 0-20 cm (72.0%) than in 20-35 cm (59.2%), and the straw humification coefficient in 0-20 cm and 20-35 cm soil la-yers reached the peak in first experimental year with 15.9% and 12.7%, respectively. Compared with initial soil sample, SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of TT, ST and ST+S treatments in 0-20 cm soil layer was decreased in experimental years, but was increased by 2.9% and 12.4% within TT+S, respectively. SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of ST+S in 20-35 cm soil layer was increased by 9.2% and 9.9%, respectively. The effect of field treatments on maize yield showed in a decreasing trend of ST+S>TT+S>ST>TT, effects of tillage and straw incorporation on maize yield could continue 3 and 6 years, respectively, indicating that tillage and straw incorporation had time effect. Therefore, straw incorporated into 20-35 cm soil layer based on tillage was an effective, sustainable agricultural practice of improving black soil quality.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
ST+S decreased bulk density by 5.7% against TT.
- Treatment
- Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)e0
- Outcome
- bulk densitye0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 5.7%e0
- Comparator
- traditional til-lage (TT)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S) could break plough layer and decrease the bulk density by 5.7%, 3.3% and 5.7% compared with traditional til-lage (TT), subsoil (ST) and traditional tillage combined with straw incorporation (TT+S) in six experimental years, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+S decreased bulk density by 3.3% against ST.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decrease the bulk density by 5.7%, 3.3% and 5.7% compared with traditional til-lage (TT), subsoil (ST) and traditional tillage combined with straw incorporation (TT+S)”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+S decreased bulk density by 5.7% against TT+S.
- Outcome
- bulk densitye0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 5.7%e0
- Comparator
- traditional tillage combined with straw incorporation (TT+S)e0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decrease the bulk density by 5.7%, 3.3% and 5.7% compared with traditional til-lage (TT), subsoil (ST) and traditional tillage combined with straw incorporation (TT+S)”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw decomposition was higher at 0–20 cm than at 20–35 cm.
- Outcome
- rate of straw decompositione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 72.0%e0
- Qualifier
- 59.2%e0
- Comparator
- 20-35 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rate of straw decomposition was higher in 0-20 cm (72.0%) than in 20-35 cm (59.2%)”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw humification coefficient at 0–20 cm peaked in the first year at 15.9%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the straw humification coefficient in 0-20 cm and 20-35 cm soil la-yers reached the peak in first experimental year with 15.9% and 12.7%, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw humification coefficient at 20–35 cm peaked in the first year at 12.7%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the straw humification coefficient in 0-20 cm and 20-35 cm soil la-yers reached the peak in first experimental year with 15.9% and 12.7%, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
SOC and LFOC declined under TT, ST and ST+S at 0–20 cm versus initial soil.
- Treatment
- TT, ST and ST+S treatmentse0
- Outcome
- SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- initial soil samplee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with initial soil sample, SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of TT, ST and ST+S treatments in 0-20 cm soil layer was decreased in experimental years”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
SOC rose 2.9% under TT+S at 0–20 cm.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of TT, ST and ST+S treatments in 0-20 cm soil layer was decreased in experimental years, but was increased by 2.9% and 12.4% within TT+S, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
LFOC rose 12.4% under TT+S at 0–20 cm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of TT, ST and ST+S treatments in 0-20 cm soil layer was decreased in experimental years, but was increased by 2.9% and 12.4% within TT+S, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
SOC rose 9.2% under ST+S at 20–35 cm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of ST+S in 20-35 cm soil layer was increased by 9.2% and 9.9%, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
LFOC rose 9.9% under ST+S at 20–35 cm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SOC and light fraction organic carbon (LFOC) of ST+S in 20-35 cm soil layer was increased by 9.2% and 9.9%, respectively”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield ranked ST+S above TT+S, ST and TT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of field treatments on maize yield showed in a decreasing trend of ST+S>TT+S>ST>TT”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage effects on maize yield continued three years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects of tillage and straw incorporation on maize yield could continue 3 and 6 years, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw incorporation effects on maize yield continued six years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects of tillage and straw incorporation on maize yield could continue 3 and 6 years, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend straw incorporation into the 20–35 cm layer with tillage to improve black soil quality.
- Outcome
- straw incorporated into 20-35 cm soil layer based on tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw incorporated into 20-35 cm soil layer based on tillage was an effective, sustainable agricultural practice of improving black soil quality”
t0“maize yield”
e1“Subsoil combined with straw incorporation in 20-35 cm soil layer (ST+S)”
e2“Compared with initial soil sample”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →organic · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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.