Abstract
Basic soil productivity (BSP) is the productive capacity of farmland soils with their own physical and chemical properties during a specific crop season under local field management. Improving BSP as an effective way to increase or maintain crop yield, and researching its changes and potential driving factors under long-term fertilization are crucial for ensuring high and stable crop yields. In this study, the yields of BSP were simulated using the decision support system for agrotechnology transfer (DSSAT) crop model based on three long-term experiments, and its changing characteristics and driving factors were investigated under various fertilization treatments in wheat–maize rotation systems during 1991–2019. Five treatments were included: (1) unfertilized control (CK); (2) balanced mineral fertilization (NPK); (3) NPK plus manure (NPKM); (4) high dose of NPK plus manure (1.5NPKM); and (5) NPK plus crop straw (NPKS). This study found that the BSP of wheat and maize exhibited a fluctuating increase or stable change trend under four fertilization treatments at the Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ) sites, while a fluctuating reduction trend was observed at the Qiyang (QY) site. Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites. The BSP of both maize and wheat under NPKM and 1.5NPKM was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under NPK or NPKS, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between NPK and NPKS at the QY site. The contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP) of maize and wheat at the YL (41.5–60.7% and 53.0–64.3%) and ZZ sites (44.4–59.2% and 56.8–66.7%) were overall higher than that at the QY site (25.8–37.6% and 48.3–60.1%). In most cases, the difference in CBSP among different fertilization treatments was consistent with that in BSP. Moreover, a significant positive correlation was recorded between BSP and soil pH (r = 0.73, p < 0.01; r = 0.87, p < 0.01), TN (r = 0.56, p < 0.01; r = 0.62, p < 0.01) and TK content (r = 0.49, p < 0.01; r = 0.58, p < 0.01) in maize and wheat. Soil pH significantly correlated positively with the BSP of maize (R2 = 0.54, p < 0.001) and wheat (R2 = 0.49, p < 0.001) at the QY site, but negative correlation (R2 = 0.20, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.30, p < 0.001) was only found in maize at the YL and ZZ sites. The BSP of maize and wheat showed a significant negative linear correlation with MAP (R2 = 0.49–0.67, p < 0.001) and MAT (R2 = 0.36–0.62, p < 0.001). Random forests (RF) and variance partitioning analysis (VPA) revealed that soil properties and its interaction with the climate showed a higher explanation rate for BSP, indicating that these factors are the key drivers of BSP change. Overall, chemical fertilizers combined with manure can effectively increase BSP, while the effects of fertilizer combined with straw on BSP vary by region. The changes in BSP in wheat–maize cropping were mainly driven by both the soil and its interactions with the climate.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
BSP for wheat showed a fluctuating increase or stable change trend at Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ).
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- four fertilization treatmentse0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- fluctuating increase or stable changee0
- Setting
- Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study found that the BSP of wheat and maize exhibited a fluctuating increase or stable change trend under four fertilization treatments at the Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ) sites, while a fluctuating reduction trend was observed at the Qiyang (QY) site.”
Claim · model-written summary
BSP for maize showed a fluctuating increase or stable change trend at Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ).
- Treatment
- four fertilization treatmentse0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- fluctuating increase or stable changee0
- Setting
- Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study found that the BSP of wheat and maize exhibited a fluctuating increase or stable change trend under four fertilization treatments at the Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ) sites, while a fluctuating reduction trend was observed at the Qiyang (QY) site.”
Claim · model-written summary
BSP for wheat showed a fluctuating reduction trend at Qiyang (QY).
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- four fertilization treatmentse0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- fluctuating reductione0
- Setting
- Qiyang (QY)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study found that the BSP of wheat and maize exhibited a fluctuating increase or stable change trend under four fertilization treatments at the Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ) sites, while a fluctuating reduction trend was observed at the Qiyang (QY) site.”
Claim · model-written summary
BSP for maize showed a fluctuating reduction trend at Qiyang (QY).
- Treatment
- four fertilization treatmentse0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- fluctuating reductione0
- Setting
- Qiyang (QY)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study found that the BSP of wheat and maize exhibited a fluctuating increase or stable change trend under four fertilization treatments at the Yangling (YL) and Zhengzhou (ZZ) sites, while a fluctuating reduction trend was observed at the Qiyang (QY) site.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPKM improved wheat BSP versus CK at YL and ZZ.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NPKMe0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- CKe0
- Setting
- YL and ZZ sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPKM improved maize BSP versus CK at YL and ZZ.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
1.5NPKM improved wheat BSP versus CK at YL and ZZ.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- 1.5NPKMe0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- CKe0
- Setting
- YL and ZZ sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
1.5NPKM improved maize BSP versus CK at YL and ZZ.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPKS improved wheat BSP versus CK at YL and ZZ.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NPKSe0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- CKe0
- Setting
- YL and ZZ sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPKS improved maize BSP versus CK at YL and ZZ.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CK, NPKM, 1.5NPKM and NPKS significantly (p < 0.05) improved the BSP of wheat and maize at the YL and ZZ sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPKM produced higher maize BSP than NPK or NPKS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The BSP of both maize and wheat under NPKM and 1.5NPKM was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under NPK or NPKS, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between NPK and NPKS at the QY site.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPKM produced higher wheat BSP than NPK or NPKS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The BSP of both maize and wheat under NPKM and 1.5NPKM was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under NPK or NPKS, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between NPK and NPKS at the QY site.”
Claim · model-written summary
1.5NPKM produced higher maize BSP than NPK or NPKS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The BSP of both maize and wheat under NPKM and 1.5NPKM was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under NPK or NPKS, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between NPK and NPKS at the QY site.”
Claim · model-written summary
1.5NPKM produced higher wheat BSP than NPK or NPKS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The BSP of both maize and wheat under NPKM and 1.5NPKM was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under NPK or NPKS, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between NPK and NPKS at the QY site.”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK and NPKS did not differ significantly in BSP at QY.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivum
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- NPKe0
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Direction
- no statistically significant differencee0
- Comparator
- NPKSe0
- Setting
- QY sitee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The BSP of both maize and wheat under NPKM and 1.5NPKM was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that under NPK or NPKS, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between NPK and NPKS at the QY site.”
Claim · model-written summary
maize CBSP was higher at YL than QY.
- Outcome
- contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 41.5–60.7%e0
- Comparator
- QY sitee0
- Setting
- YLe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP) of maize and wheat at the YL (41.5–60.7% and 53.0–64.3%) and ZZ sites (44.4–59.2% and 56.8–66.7%) were overall higher than that at the QY site (25.8–37.6% and 48.3–60.1%).”
Claim · model-written summary
wheat CBSP was higher at YL than QY.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 53.0–64.3%e0
- Comparator
- QY sitee0
- Setting
- YLe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP) of maize and wheat at the YL (41.5–60.7% and 53.0–64.3%) and ZZ sites (44.4–59.2% and 56.8–66.7%) were overall higher than that at the QY site (25.8–37.6% and 48.3–60.1%).”
Claim · model-written summary
maize CBSP was higher at ZZ than QY.
- Outcome
- contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 44.4–59.2%e0
- Comparator
- QY sitee0
- Setting
- ZZe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP) of maize and wheat at the YL (41.5–60.7% and 53.0–64.3%) and ZZ sites (44.4–59.2% and 56.8–66.7%) were overall higher than that at the QY site (25.8–37.6% and 48.3–60.1%).”
Claim · model-written summary
wheat CBSP was higher at ZZ than QY.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 56.8–66.7%e0
- Comparator
- QY sitee0
- Setting
- ZZe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The contribution rates of basic soil productivity (CBSP) of maize and wheat at the YL (41.5–60.7% and 53.0–64.3%) and ZZ sites (44.4–59.2% and 56.8–66.7%) were overall higher than that at the QY site (25.8–37.6% and 48.3–60.1%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil properties and their interactions with climate explained BSP variation.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- BSPe0
- Qualifier
- soil properties and its interaction with the climatee0
Not reportedSettingDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Random forests (RF) and variance partitioning analysis (VPA) revealed that soil properties and its interaction with the climate showed a higher explanation rate for BSP, indicating that these factors are the key drivers of BSP change.”
e1“wheat–maize rotation systems”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- no effect
3,434 papers more in this group
See all 3,438 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.