Abstract
Long-term intensive tillage has led to soil environment degradation, reduced fertility, difficulty in increasing maize yield, and low nitrogen (N) use efficiency in the Mollisol region of northeast China. In order to raise maize yield and improve the soil hydrothermal environment, we conducted field experiments to investigate the effects of different tillage practices and straw returning on the soil hydrothermal environment, maize yield, N fertilizer recovery and loss, aiming to increase both the maize yield and N fertilizer recovery rate. Four treatments were established: flat no-tillage with full straw mulching (NM), ridge no-tillage with full straw mulching (RM), rotary tillage with full straw incorporation (RR), and conventional tillage without straw (CK) as the control treatment. The two-year results indicate that both tillage practices and straw returning increased maize yield and the 15N fertilizer recovery rate, accompanied by improvements in the soil water content (SWC) and regulation of soil temperature changes, as compared to the CK treatment. Specifically, the total 15N fertilizer recovery rate of RM was significantly increased by 15.23% and 23.46%, while the 15N fertilizer losses were notably reduced by 14.99% and 25.12%, respectively, compared to the NM and RR treatments. Additionally, the maize yield of RM was significantly increased by 3.10% in 2021 and 1.97% in 2022 compared to RR (P < 0.05), and it increased by 2.06% in 2021 and 0.91% in 2022 compared to NM (P > 0.05). The mean SWC of the 0–100-cm soil layer in RM significantly increased by 7.99% and 5.74% in 2021 and by 8.09%, and 5.50% in 2022 compared to NM and RR treatments during the maize growth seasons. At 60–80 days after sowing (DAS), when the air temperature was higher, the mean soil temperature of RM was significantly lower than that of the NM and RR treatments, by 0.46 ℃ and 0.54 ℃ in 2021 and by 0.31 ℃ and 0.70 ℃ in 2022. However, as the air temperature decreased at 100–140 DAS, the mean soil temperature in RM was significantly increased by 0.69 ℃ and 0.81 ℃ in 2021 and by 0.73 ℃ and 0.94 ℃ in 2022 compared to the NM and RR treatments. Our study indicates that RM treatment is the most suitable tillage practice and straw returning method in the Mollisol region of northeast China.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practices and straw return increased maize yield versus conventional tillage without straw.
- Treatment
- tillage practices and straw returninge0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CK treatmente0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both tillage practices and straw returning increased maize yield and the 15N fertilizer recovery rate, accompanied by improvements in the soil water content (SWC) and regulation of soil temperature changes, as compared to the CK treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practices and straw return increased fertilizer recovery versus CK.
- Treatment
- tillage practices and straw returninge0
- Outcome
- 15N fertilizer recovery ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CK treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both tillage practices and straw returning increased maize yield and the 15N fertilizer recovery rate, accompanied by improvements in the soil water content (SWC) and regulation of soil temperature changes, as compared to the CK treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased total fertilizer recovery by 15.23% relative to NM.
- Treatment
- RMe0
- Outcome
- total 15N fertilizer recovery ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15.23%e0
- Comparator
- NMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the total 15N fertilizer recovery rate of RM was significantly increased by 15.23% and 23.46%, while the 15N fertilizer losses were notably reduced by 14.99% and 25.12%, respectively, compared to the NM and RR treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased total fertilizer recovery by 23.46% relative to RR.
- Treatment
- RMe0
- Outcome
- total 15N fertilizer recovery ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 23.46%e0
- Comparator
- RRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the total 15N fertilizer recovery rate of RM was significantly increased by 15.23% and 23.46%, while the 15N fertilizer losses were notably reduced by 14.99% and 25.12%, respectively, compared to the NM and RR treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RM reduced fertilizer losses by 14.99% versus NM.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“15N fertilizer losses were notably reduced by 14.99% and 25.12%, respectively, compared to the NM and RR treatments”
t0“maize”
e1“recovery rate of RM”
Claim · model-written summary
RM reduced fertilizer losses by 25.12% versus RR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“15N fertilizer losses were notably reduced by 14.99% and 25.12%, respectively, compared to the NM and RR treatments”
t0“maize”
e1“recovery rate of RM”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased maize yield by 3.10% in 2021 versus RR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize yield of RM was significantly increased by 3.10% in 2021 and 1.97% in 2022 compared to RR (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased maize yield by 1.97% in 2022 versus RR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize yield of RM was significantly increased by 3.10% in 2021 and 1.97% in 2022 compared to RR (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased maize yield by 2.06% in 2021 versus NM, without a significant difference.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it increased by 2.06% in 2021 and 0.91% in 2022 compared to NM (P > 0.05)”
e1“the maize yield of RM”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased maize yield by 0.91% in 2022 versus NM, without a significant difference.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it increased by 2.06% in 2021 and 0.91% in 2022 compared to NM (P > 0.05)”
e1“the maize yield of RM”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased soil water content by 7.99% in 2021 versus NM.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean SWC of the 0–100-cm soil layer in RM significantly increased by 7.99% and 5.74% in 2021 and by 8.09%, and 5.50% in 2022 compared to NM and RR treatments during the maize growth seasons.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased soil water content by 5.74% in 2021 versus RR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean SWC of the 0–100-cm soil layer in RM significantly increased by 7.99% and 5.74% in 2021 and by 8.09%, and 5.50% in 2022 compared to NM and RR treatments during the maize growth seasons.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased soil water content by 8.09% in 2022 versus NM.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean SWC of the 0–100-cm soil layer in RM significantly increased by 7.99% and 5.74% in 2021 and by 8.09%, and 5.50% in 2022 compared to NM and RR treatments during the maize growth seasons.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RM increased soil water content by 5.50% in 2022 versus RR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean SWC of the 0–100-cm soil layer in RM significantly increased by 7.99% and 5.74% in 2021 and by 8.09%, and 5.50% in 2022 compared to NM and RR treatments during the maize growth seasons.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60–80 DAS, RM soil temperature was lower than NM and RR in both years.
- Treatment
- RMe0
- Outcome
- mean soil temperaturee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- 60–80 days after sowing (DAS)e0
- Comparator
- NM and RR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At 60–80 days after sowing (DAS), when the air temperature was higher, the mean soil temperature of RM was significantly lower than that of the NM and RR treatments, by 0.46 ℃ and 0.54 ℃ in 2021 and by 0.31 ℃ and 0.70 ℃ in 2022.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 100–140 DAS, RM soil temperature was higher than NM and RR in both years.
- Treatment
- RMe0
- Outcome
- mean soil temperaturee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 100–140 DASe0
- Comparator
- NM and RR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“as the air temperature decreased at 100–140 DAS, the mean soil temperature in RM was significantly increased by 0.69 ℃ and 0.81 ℃ in 2021 and by 0.73 ℃ and 0.94 ℃ in 2022 compared to the NM and RR treatments.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify RM as the most suitable tillage and straw-return method in the Mollisol region of northeast China.
- Outcome
- most suitable tillage practice and straw returning methode0
- Setting
- Mollisol region of northeast Chinae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RM treatment is the most suitable tillage practice and straw returning method in the Mollisol region of northeast China”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.