Abstract
Core Ideas Returning crop residues increased maize and wheat yields. Returning crop residues increase soil organic carbon in the surface 20 cm. Returning crop residues increase several soil labile organic C fractions. The adoption of wheat straw return including stubbles 25–30 cm in height and maize straw return in combination with sub‐soiling is an optimal straw–return strategies for sustainable crop production. Returning the crop residues has been documented to increase soil carbon storage. However, the impacts of different straw return strategies on soil C fractions and sustainable crop productivity are not fully understood. Here, we investigated the impact of different residue management systems on grain yields, SOC sequestration, and soil C fractions in a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–maize ( Zea mays L.) double cropping system over 6 yr. The straw return strategies included no straw return (CK), conventional wheat straw return (WC), modified wheat straw return (WM), conventional maize straw return (MC), modified maize straw return (MM), conventional straw return for both wheat and maize (WC+MC), and modified straw return for both wheat and maize (WM+MM). The annual average grain yields of maize and wheat when compared to crop residue removal were increased by 32.5 and 50.5% than when the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvested, respectively. Compared to the initial value, the SOC stock increased over a 6 yr by 16.4% period when the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvested. The concentrations of microbial biomass C, very labile C, labile C, KMnO 4 –oxidizable C, and C management index were increased by returning the crop residue. Overall, the results suggested that the integrated and modified return strategy of both wheat and maize straw is an optimal way of sustainable crop production under the intensive wheat–maize double cropping rotation in the North–central Plain of China.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Returning wheat straw and corn stover increased the annual average grain yield of maize by 32.5 compared with crop residue removal.
- Treatment
- the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvestede0
- Outcome
- annual average grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 32.5e0
- Comparator
- crop residue removale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The annual average grain yields of maize and wheat when compared to crop residue removal were increased by 32.5 and 50.5% than when the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvested, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Returning wheat straw and corn stover increased the annual average grain yield of wheat by 50.5% compared with crop residue removal.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvestede0
- Outcome
- annual average grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 50.5%e0
- Comparator
- crop residue removale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The annual average grain yields of maize and wheat when compared to crop residue removal were increased by 32.5 and 50.5% than when the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvested, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon stock increased by 16.4% over 6 years when the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvested.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvestede3
- Outcome
- SOC stocke3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 16.4%e3
- Comparator
- the initial valuee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–maize ( Zea mays L.) double cropping system”
e3“Compared to the initial value, the SOC stock increased over a 6 yr by 16.4% period when the wheat straw and corn stover was not harvested”
Claim · model-written summary
Returning the crop residue increased microbial biomass C, very labile C and labile C in the wheat–maize system.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- returning the crop residuee4
- Outcome
- microbial biomass C, very labile C, labile Ce4
- Direction
- increasede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–maize ( Zea mays L.) double cropping system”
e4“The concentrations of microbial biomass C, very labile C, labile C, KMnO 4 –oxidizable C, and C management index were increased by returning the crop residue”
Claim · model-written summary
Returning the crop residue increased KMnO 4 –oxidizable C and the C management index in the wheat–maize system.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- returning the crop residuee4
- Outcome
- KMnO 4 –oxidizable C, and C management indexe4
- Direction
- increasede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–maize ( Zea mays L.) double cropping system”
e4“The concentrations of microbial biomass C, very labile C, labile C, KMnO 4 –oxidizable C, and C management index were increased by returning the crop residue”
Claim · model-written summary
The integrated and modified return strategy of both wheat and maize straw is an optimal way of sustainable crop production under intensive wheat–maize double cropping.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivum
Zea mayse5 - Outcome
- integrated and modified return strategye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“the integrated and modified return strategy of both wheat and maize straw is an optimal way of sustainable crop production”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 85 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
288 papers more in this group
See all 292 papers →Zea mays subsp. mays · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Triticum aestivum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →organic · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →organic · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 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.