Abstract
Straw return is an effective measure to increase soil sustainability. However, few studies have examined the effects of different straw return methods on soil structure, soil organic carbon content and maize yield or the potential relationships between those variables. Therefore, we developed a field orientation experiment to study the effects of different straw return methods on soil porosity, soil aggregate stability, the soil organic carbon content and maize yield. Four treatments were established: flat no-tillage with full straw mulching (FM), ridge no-tillage with full straw mulching (LM), rotary tillage with full straw incorporation (LX), and conventional tillage without straw (CK) as the control treatment. Compared with those of the CK treatment, the soil porosities (f) in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 6.7%, 8.8% and 7.9%, respectively; the soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD) decreased by 17.3%, 34.3% and 16.9%, respectively. In addition, the FM, LM and LX treatments effectively increased the mean mass diameters (MWDs) of the soil aggregates and the soil organic carbon content. Compared with those in the CK treatment, the three-year average yields in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 5.2%, 7.2% and 4.1%, respectively. Moreover, the f, MWD, soil organic carbon content and corn yield were positively correlated. Our study indicates that the LM treatment was most effective in improving soil structure and increasing soil organic carbon content with corn yield.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
FM increased soil porosity by 6.7% versus CK.
- Treatment
- flat no-tillage with full straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- soil porosities (f)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.7%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the soil porosities (f) in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 6.7%, 8.8% and 7.9%, respectively”
e1“flat no-tillage with full straw mulching (FM)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LM increased soil porosity by 8.8% versus CK.
- Treatment
- ridge no-tillage with full straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- soil porosities (f)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the soil porosities (f) in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 6.7%, 8.8% and 7.9%, respectively”
e1“ridge no-tillage with full straw mulching (LM)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LX increased soil porosity by 7.9% versus CK.
- Treatment
- rotary tillage with full straw incorporatione1
- Outcome
- soil porosities (f)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.9%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the soil porosities (f) in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 6.7%, 8.8% and 7.9%, respectively”
e1“rotary tillage with full straw incorporation (LX)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
FM reduced soil aggregate destruction rate by 17.3%.
- Treatment
- flat no-tillage with full straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 17.3%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD) decreased by 17.3%, 34.3% and 16.9%, respectively”
e1“flat no-tillage with full straw mulching (FM)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LM reduced soil aggregate destruction rate by 34.3%.
- Treatment
- ridge no-tillage with full straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 34.3%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD) decreased by 17.3%, 34.3% and 16.9%, respectively”
e1“ridge no-tillage with full straw mulching (LM)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LX reduced soil aggregate destruction rate by 16.9%.
- Treatment
- rotary tillage with full straw incorporatione1
- Outcome
- soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 16.9%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the soil aggregate destruction rates (PAD) decreased by 17.3%, 34.3% and 16.9%, respectively”
e1“rotary tillage with full straw incorporation (LX)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
FM, LM and LX increased soil aggregate mean mass diameter and soil organic carbon content.
- Treatment
- FM, LM and LX treatmentse0
- Outcome
- mean mass diameters (MWDs) of the soil aggregates and the soil organic carbon contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the FM, LM and LX treatments effectively increased the mean mass diameters (MWDs) of the soil aggregates and the soil organic carbon content.”
e1“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
FM raised three-year average maize yield by 5.2%.
- Treatment
- flat no-tillage with full straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- three-year average yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.2%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the three-year average yields in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 5.2%, 7.2% and 4.1%, respectively”
e1“flat no-tillage with full straw mulching (FM)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LM raised three-year average maize yield by 7.2%.
- Treatment
- ridge no-tillage with full straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- three-year average yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.2%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the three-year average yields in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 5.2%, 7.2% and 4.1%, respectively”
e1“ridge no-tillage with full straw mulching (LM)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LX raised three-year average maize yield by 4.1%.
- Treatment
- rotary tillage with full straw incorporatione1
- Outcome
- three-year average yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.1%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage without strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the three-year average yields in the FM, LM and LX treatments significantly increased by 5.2%, 7.2% and 4.1%, respectively”
e1“rotary tillage with full straw incorporation (LX)”
e2“conventional tillage without straw (CK)”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil porosity, aggregate mean mass diameter, soil organic carbon and corn yield were positively correlated.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the f, MWD, soil organic carbon content and corn yield were positively correlated.”
t0“Maize Yield”
Claim · model-written summary
LM was judged most effective for improving soil structure and carbon while increasing corn yield.
- Treatment
- LM treatmente0
- Outcome
- improving soil structure and increasing soil organic carbon content with corn yielde0
- Direction
- most effectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the LM treatment was most effective in improving soil structure and increasing soil organic carbon content with corn yield.”
t0“Maize Yield”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →organic · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
72 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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
- no effect
- negative
- 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.