Abstract
Abstract Despite conservation tillage being a promising strategy to mitigate soil degradation, the intricate role of microbial communities in shaping soil quality over long‐term tillage remains poorly understood. The study aimed to investigate the microbial mechanisms governing the soil quality index (SQI) and maize yield under different tillage practices spanning 13 years, including no‐till without straw retention (NT0), no‐till with straw retention (NTSR), plough tillage with straw retention (PTSR), and rotary tillage with straw retention (RTSR). The findings revealed that NTSR improved the SQI index by 22.4% and 11.3% higher than PTSR and RTSR, respectively, within the 0–10 cm soil layer. This improvement was correlated with an increase in maize yield ( R 2 = 0.39, p < 0.05). PERMANOVA analysis confirmed that both soil depth and tillage practices significantly impacted the composition of microbial communities ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, conservation tillage, compared to PTSR and RTSR, increased the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis by 78.6%–460.3% but decreased the saprophytic fungal abundance by 27.5%–28.3%. Soil quality was notably influenced by the interaction between bacterial and fungal communities. The presence of bacterial‐dominated Module 2 was associated with decreased soil quality in the 0–10 cm soil depth ( r = −0.47, p < 0.01). This study emphasizes the pivotal role of microbial diversity and dominant taxa in driving soil quality after long‐term conservation tillage practices. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for establishing farmland management to achieve agricultural and ecological sustainability in the face of climate change and soil degradation challenges.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with straw retention increased the soil quality index by 22.4% versus plough tillage with straw retention.
- Treatment
- NTSRe0
- Outcome
- SQI indexe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 22.4%e0
- Qualifier
- 0–10 cm soil layere0
- Comparator
- PTSRe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTSR improved the SQI index by 22.4% and 11.3% higher than PTSR and RTSR, respectively, within the 0–10 cm soil layer”
e1“maize yield under different tillage practices spanning 13 years, including no‐till without straw retention (NT0), no‐till with straw retention (NTSR), plough tillage with straw retention (PTSR), and rotary tillage with straw retention (RTSR)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with straw retention increased the soil quality index by 11.3% versus rotary tillage with straw retention.
- Treatment
- NTSRe0
- Outcome
- SQI indexe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11.3%e0
- Qualifier
- 0–10 cm soil layere0
- Comparator
- RTSRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTSR improved the SQI index by 22.4% and 11.3% higher than PTSR and RTSR, respectively, within the 0–10 cm soil layer”
e1“maize yield under different tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil quality improvement correlated with maize yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This improvement was correlated with an increase in maize yield ( R 2 = 0.39, p < 0.05)”
e1“NTSR improved the SQI index”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil depth and tillage significantly affected microbial community composition.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both soil depth and tillage practices significantly impacted the composition of microbial communities ( p < 0.05)”
e1“maize yield under different tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage increased arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis abundance by 78.6%–460.3% versus plough and rotary tillage with straw retention.
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee0
- Interactor
- arbuscular mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosise0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 78.6%–460.3%e0
- Comparator
- PTSR and RTSRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conservation tillage, compared to PTSR and RTSR, increased the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis by 78.6%–460.3%”
e1“maize yield under different tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage decreased saprophytic fungal abundance by 27.5%–28.3% versus plough and rotary tillage with straw retention.
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee0
- Outcome
- saprophytic fungal abundancee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 27.5%–28.3%e0
- Comparator
- PTSR and RTSRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conservation tillage, compared to PTSR and RTSR, increased the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis by 78.6%–460.3% but decreased the saprophytic fungal abundance by 27.5%–28.3%”
e1“maize yield under different tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial-dominated Module 2 was associated with lower soil quality in the 0–10 cm layer.
- Outcome
- soil qualitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- r = −0.47e0
- Qualifier
- bacterial‐dominated Module 2e0
- Setting
- 0–10 cm soil depthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bacterial‐dominated Module 2 was associated with decreased soil quality in the 0–10 cm soil depth ( r = −0.47, p < 0.01)”
e1“maize yield under different tillage practices”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 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.