Abstract
Straw incorporation into soil contributes significantly to the sustainable development of agriculture. To investigate the impact of tobacco straw returns on a tobacco–rice replanting system, we designed an experiment with two straw return levels and a control group: T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return). Over a three-year field experiment in rice fields in South China, we assessed the effects of tobacco straw return on soil quality, microbial diversity, dry matter accumulation, and yield composition of rice. The results demonstrated that returning tobacco straw to the field effectively enhanced rice yield by positively influencing various soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Compared to those in the CK treatment, as the soil porosity increased from 9.0% to 12.4%, the mean weight diameter of the soil aggregates substantially increased, ranging from 28.7% to 45.2%. There were significant increases in soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and alkaline dissolved nitrogen. Soil sucrase activity increased between 29.8% and 44.9%, and urease activity increased between 4.3% and 62.2% over the three consecutive years of straw return. The diversity index of soil fungi significantly increased. Additionally, rice yield increased markedly, ranging from 1.8% to 5.1%. Overall, the enhancement effect of T1 surpassed that of T2. According to our comprehensive analysis, the incorporation of tobacco straw into the field was found to enhance the physical properties of the soil, elevate soil enzyme activity, and increase the abundance of soil microorganisms. Consequently, this practice led to improved rice yield and a reduction in agricultural waste output. Overall, the return of tobacco straw to the field represents a clean and dependable approach in rice-cultivated tobacco areas to improve soil health and rice productivity.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Tobacco straw return increased rice yield by 1.8% to 5.1%.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- T1 (full return)e1
- Outcome
- rice yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.8% to 5.1%e0
- Comparator
- CK (no straw return)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Additionally, rice yield increased markedly, ranging from 1.8% to 5.1%.”
t0“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil porosity increased from 9.0% to 12.4% under straw return.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- tobacco strawt1
- Outcome
- soil porositye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 9.0% to 12.4%e0
- Comparator
- CK treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to those in the CK treatment, as the soil porosity increased from 9.0% to 12.4%, the mean weight diameter of the soil aggregates substantially increased, ranging from 28.7% to 45.2%.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil aggregate mean weight diameter increased 28.7% to 45.2%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- tobacco strawt1
- Outcome
- mean weight diameter of the soil aggregatese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 28.7% to 45.2%e0
- Comparator
- CK treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to those in the CK treatment, as the soil porosity increased from 9.0% to 12.4%, the mean weight diameter of the soil aggregates substantially increased, ranging from 28.7% to 45.2%.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic matter, total nitrogen and alkaline dissolved nitrogen increased significantly.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- tobacco strawt1
- Outcome
- soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and alkaline dissolved nitrogene0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Comparator
- CK (no straw return)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant increases in soil organic matter, total nitrogen, and alkaline dissolved nitrogen.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil sucrase activity increased by 29.8% to 44.9%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- straw returne0
- Outcome
- Soil sucrase activitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 29.8% and 44.9%e0
- Comparator
- CK (no straw return)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil sucrase activity increased between 29.8% and 44.9%, and urease activity increased between 4.3% and 62.2% over the three consecutive years of straw return.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil urease activity increased by 4.3% to 62.2%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- straw returne0
- Outcome
- urease activitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.3% and 62.2%e0
- Comparator
- CK (no straw return)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil sucrase activity increased between 29.8% and 44.9%, and urease activity increased between 4.3% and 62.2% over the three consecutive years of straw return.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil fungal diversity increased significantly.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- tobacco strawt1
- Outcome
- diversity index of soil fungie0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CK (no straw return)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The diversity index of soil fungi significantly increased.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
Full straw return had a greater overall enhancement effect than root return.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, the enhancement effect of T1 surpassed that of T2.”
t0“Rice Yield”
e1“T1 (full return), T2 (root return), and CK (no straw return)”
t1“Tobacco Straw Return to the Field”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend straw return to improve soil health and rice productivity.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Outcome
- return of tobacco straw to the fielde0
- Setting
- rice-cultivated tobacco arease0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the return of tobacco straw to the field represents a clean and dependable approach in rice-cultivated tobacco areas to improve soil health and rice productivity.”
The same questions in other papers
Nicotiana tabacum · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
organic · soil: biology · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →organic · physiology: enzyme activity · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.