Next Article in Journal
Agricultural Waste Recycling Optimization of Family Farms Based on Environmental Management Accounting in Rural China
Previous Article in Journal
Inequalities in the Exercise and Continuity in Building Engineering in Spain. Factor Analysis Including Gender Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/su13105508
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Maize Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Performance and Soil Physicochemical Characteristics in Northwest China

by
Dominic Kwadwo Anning
1,2,
Huizhen Qiu
1,2,*,
Chunhong Zhang
1,2,
Philip Ghanney
1,2,
Yujiao Zhang
1,2 and
Yajun Guo
1,2
1
College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
2
Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Aridland Crop Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(10), 5508; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105508
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Revised: 6 May 2021 / Accepted: 10 May 2021 / Published: 14 May 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The average yield of fresh potato tubers per hectare is relatively low in China, partly due to poor nutrient management. Chronic inorganic N enrichment leads to soil acidification, which deteriorates soil fertility. Straw residues are removed from the field or burnt during land preparation, resulting in nutrient depletion and air pollution. However, these residues can be returned to the soil to improve its fertility. Therefore, a two–year experiment was conducted in an existing field with five years of different inorganic nitrogen (N) rate to determine the effects of straw return and N rate on potato growth, tuber yield, and quality, profit margin, and soil physicochemical properties. The experiment consisted of four N rates: 0 (control, CK), 75 (low N rate, LN), 150 (medium N rate, MN), and 300 (high N rate, HN) kg N ha−1 with and without straw (9 t ha−1) return. The results showed that straw with N enrichment improved soil fertility, which increased tuber yield and quality. Compared to the control, MN + straw treatment stimulated economic tuber yield (34.73% and 38.34%), profit margin (55.51% and 63.03%), and protein content (20.04% and 25.46%) in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Nitrogen enrichment after straw return is a sustainable practice for stimulating potato tuber yield, profit margin, and improving soil fertility to promote sustainable agriculture development.

1. Introduction

Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is an important food crop in the world with a production of approximately 371 million tons on about 18 million hectares in 2019 [1]. Potato tubers contain high levels of starch and antioxidants, such as amino acids, essential minerals, polyphenols, and vitamins B3, B6, and C [2]. China, the world’s largest potato producer, produced about 92 million tons in 2019, accounting for about 25% of global production [1]. Potato is the most important tuber crop, which is usually grown in the semi–arid region in northwest China, accounting for about 36% of the total potato area [3]. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture [4], 60% of the total potato production in China is directly consumed as food; 10% is processed into food; 12% is used as seed; 5% is used as feed; and the remaining 13% is storage losses. Compared to other potato producing countries, such as the United States of America and New Zealand, the yield of fresh potato tubers per hectare in China is relatively low. China’s average fresh potato tuber yield per hectare in 2019 was 62.84% and 62.44% lower than the average fresh potato tuber yield per hectare in the United States of America and New Zealand, respectively [1], partly due to poor nutrient management [5,6], drought [7,8], and disease and pest infestation [9,10]. Generally, soils in potato-growing areas, especially Northwest China, are low in nitrogen and, as a result, excessive inorganic N fertilizers are used to increase potato yield and tuber quality. China is the largest consumer of nitrogen fertilizer, accounting for about 30% of the total global consumption [11]. However, 52% of the total N fertilizer applied is lost due to volatilization, leaching and surface runoff; only 35% is utilized by crops, while 13% is due to soil residues and calculation errors [12]. Nitrogen losses cause groundwater contamination, eutrophication of surface waters and greenhouse effect [13,14]. Moreover, long–term inorganic N enrichment leads to soil acidification [15,16,17,18], which deteriorates soil fertility.
One of the most cost–effective and sustainable ways to improve soil fertility is to add straw residues to the soil [19,20]. Decomposition of straw residues after returning to the soil improves soil physical properties [21,22,23], biological properties [14,24,25] and chemical properties [20,26,27], which improves soil fertility. These soil properties decrease when straw residues are removed from the field or burnt; thus, decreasing the biological fertility and resilience of the soil, resulting in low crop productivity [28]. In China, about 700 million tons of straw residues are produced annually [29], with an increase of 4% in recent decades [30]. Straw residues contain nutrients such as nitrogen (0.65–1.82%), phosphorus (0.08–0.196%), and potassium (1.02–1.94%) [28]. However, these nutrients are not readily accessible to plants due to microbial immobilization and mineralization processes [19,21,31]. Microbial N immobilization is controlled by straw chemical properties [32,33], nutrient availability [31,32], and soil type [34]. Low quality straw residues have high C:N ratio and lignin content, whereas high quality straw has low C:N ratio and lignin content; high quality straw decomposes faster than the low quality straw [19,31,32]. Maize straw has a high C:N ratio; therefore, it requires inorganic N fertilization to meet microbial N requirements and facilitate decomposition [21]. We therefore hypothesized that returning maize straw to soils with different N concentrations or adding different inorganic N rates after straw return will influence decomposition and mineralization dynamics, which in turn will affect potato growth and yield. Returning straw to the soil has different effects on crop yield depending on the type of crop grown [34]. The effects of straw return on cereal crops such as maize, rice and wheat have been extensively studied [27,35,36,37]; however, the effects on tuber crops such as potato are elusive. Therefore, this study was to investigate the effects of straw return and different inorganic N rates on potato growth, tuber yield and quality, profit margin, and soil physicochemical properties. The study was guided by the following research questions:
  • How nitrogen enrichment after straw return affects potato growth, tuber yield, and tuber quality;
  • How straw return and N enrichment improve soil physicochemical properties.
By answering these questions, we aim to gain a better understanding of the effects of N enrichment after straw return on potato performance and soil physicochemical properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Location and Design

A 17-month experiment was conducted from May 2018 to October 2019 on an existing five-year field trial with different nitrogen enrichment established in 2013 at Xiangquan (35°27’ N, 104°30’ E) in Dingxi, Northwest China. The study area has an annual sunshine duration of 2438 h, an uneven rainfall distribution of 400 mm, an average temperature of 6.9 °C and a frost-free period of 140 days [38]. The soil type at the site is a loess soil with a sandy clay texture. The basic physicochemical properties of the soil before straw return in 2018 are presented in Table 1. The study had four inorganic N (urea) rates, namely: control (CK, 0 kg Nha−1), low N rate, (LN, 75 kg Nha−1), medium N rate (MN, 150 kg Nha−1), and high N rate, (HN, 300 kg Nha−1). The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replicates. Each experimental plot was divided into two equal parts and one part was incorporated with maize straw (9 t ha−1) at a depth of 0–20 cm, while the other part received no straw application. Thus, making an eight-treatment experiment, namely: CK, CK + S, LN, LN + S, MN, MN + S, HN, and HN + S. The maize straw was obtained from a local maize field (after harvest) at Xiangquan in Dingxi, Gansu province of China. The chemical properties of the maize straw is showed in Table 2. Maize straw was incorporated into the soil three times, namely (i) during land preparation (April 2018); (ii) after potato harvest (October 2018); and (iii) during land preparation of the second season (April 2019). Each experimental plot received the same amount of phosphorus (225 kg ha−1) and potassium (292.5 kg ha−1).

2.2. Land Preparation and Crop Establishment

The field was ploughed after vegetation clearance and the experimental plots (9 m × 7.2 m) were measured. Six ridges (60 cm wide and 20 cm high) were constructed in each experimental plot and covered with a black film mulch to suppress weed growth, promote root growth and conserve soil moisture. Two certified seeds (Qingshu 9 cultivar) obtained from Dingxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Dingxi, Gansu province of China, were sown at a depth of 15 cm per hill and two rows were planted per ridge. There was a spacing of 25 cm between plants and 50 cm between rows, resulting in a plant population of 66,717 per hectare. In the 2018 season, potatoes were planted on May 11 and harvested on October 13, while in the 2019 season, planting and harvesting occurred on May 14 and October 9, respectively. All agronomic practices were carried out according to local conventional management measures.

2.3. Data Collection

2.3.1. Growth Parameters

Photosynthetically active radiation and leaf area index and were recorded using Accupar LP-80 ceptometer (Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, USA). Leaf chlorophyll content was measured using SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan). The meter was used to clip the upper, middle and lower portion of five new fully expanded leaves per hill and their average was recorded. Plant dry matter accumulation was determined by randomly uprooting plants from six hills using a shovel from each experimental plot, excluding the border rows, and then divided into three parts namely; roots, tubers, and shoot (stem and leaves). The organs were washed with clean water and then kept in an oven at a temperature of 80 °C to a constant weight. Total plant dry matter was determined as the sum of tuber, root and shoot dry matter accumulations. Crop growth rate (g m−2 day−1) was determined as the ratio of the difference between shoot dry matter at the seedling stage and flowering stage to the time intervals between the two stages.
Crop Growth Rate (g m−2 day−1) = shoot dry matter at the seedling stage − shoot dry matter at flowering stage/time intervals between seedling stage and flowering stage

2.3.2. Yield Parameters

Tubers from six hills, excluding the border rows, were randomly selected after harvest and used to determine yield components, such as tuber number, distribution of tuber size in weight, specific gravity, and harvest index. Tuber number per hill was obtained by manually counting all the tubers from the six hills and their average was recorded in grams per hill. Tuber size distribution in weight was taken by grouping all the tubers per hill into small, medium and large sizes in weight. Tubers that weighed between 25–38 g, 39–75 g, and above 75 g were classified as small, medium and large tuber sizes, respectively [39]. Harvest index was recorded as the ratio of tuber biomass to total plant biomass. Economic tuber yield was measured by weighing tubers from the net plot harvested area that were greater or equal to 39 g, free from disease and insect attack, and expressed as tons per hectare. Biological tuber yield was obtained by weighing all the tubers from the net plot harvested area, including tubers less than 39 g, diseased and deformed tubers, and expressed as tons per hectare. Profit margin was computed as the difference between cultivation cost and gross income per treatment. Cultivation cost is the sum of the cost of potato seeds, plastic film mulch, fertilizer, and labor per hectare. Gross income was calculated by extrapolating the price of potato per kilogram to a hectare.

2.3.3. Tuber Quality Parameters

Specific gravity of potato tubers was computed using the weight in air and weight in water method [40]. Briefly, 5 kg of tubers were put in a mesh bag and first weighed in air and then weighed in water. The tuber specific gravity was calculated by the formula below;
Specific gravity (g cm−3) = Weight in air/Weight in air − Weight in water
Tuber starch content was determined using the gravity method whereas the percentage of tuber protein content was determined according to AOAC [41].

2.3.4. Soil Sampling and Analysis

Soil samples were collected after the 2019 harvest at five different sampling points at a depth of 0–20 cm in each experimental plot. The samples were then bulked to form a composite sample. The composite samples were air dried for 10 days after removing plant debris, stones, animals, and visually detectable fauna and then sieved through 1 mm and 0.15 mm meshes before soil chemical analysis. Soil pH was measured in a 1:2.5 water suspension using a portable pH meter with a glass electrode (Shanghai Precision and Scientific Instrument Company Limited, China). Total soil nitrogen concentration was determined using an Elemental Analyzer (vario MACRO cube, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Germany). Soil organic carbon was determined using the potassium dichromate digestion method [42]. The bulk density of the soil was calculated as the ratio of oven-dry soil weight to soil volume. The total porosity of the soil was calculated by subtracting the ratio of bulk density to particle density from 1 and expressed as a percentage [43].
Soil total porosity (%) = 1− soil bulk density/soil particle density x 100

2.4. Statistical Data Analysis

Data collected were analyzed using SPSS software version 21 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). Treatment means were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference (LSD) test at the 5% probability level was used to compare the means. Figures were drawn using GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) whereas tables were drawn with Microsoft Office Word version 365 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, U.S).

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Potato Growth and Development

Potato growth and development were significantly affected by nitrogen rate with and without straw return in the 2018 and 2019 seasons (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). At the same N rate, treatments without straw produced better vegetative growth than treatments with straw in 2018; however, the opposite trend was observed in the 2019 season. Potato dry matter accumulation (DM) at harvest varied significantly by N treatments with and without straw in both seasons (Figure 1a–h). Accumulation of potato DM increased with an increase in N enrichment rate. The root DM ranged from 28.2 to 40.7 g m−2 in 2018 and 26.6 to 41.0 g m−2 in 2019, while tuber DM ranged from 251.6 to 380.8 g m−2 and 250.5 to 389.5 g m−2, in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. The shoot and total plant DM ranged from 51.9 to 142.1 g m−2 and 343.4 to 550.6 g m−2, respectively in 2018, while in 2019 the shoot DM ranged from 50.9 to 152.0 g m−2 and total plant DM ranged from 328.0 to 570.3 g m−2. Plants from MN + S treatment produced statistically similar root, tuber, shoot, and total plant DM values as plants from HN + S treatment in both seasons. Compared with the control, plants from MN + S treatment stimulated root DM (27.39% and 33.50%), tuber DM (31.54% and 35.69%), shoot DM (58.30% and 63.85%), and total plant DM (37.63% and 42.49%) in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Root DM was 4.96% higher in the 2018 season under the control than under the CK + S treatment; however, the latter produced 5.34% higher root dry matter in the 2019 season compared to the former.
Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and leaf chlorophyll content (CC) were significantly affected at flowering stage by N rate with and without straw in both seasons (Figure 2). An increase in N rate stimulated PAR and CC of leaves. The PAR ranged from 14.2 to 18.40 µmol m−2 s−1 in 2018 and 15.87 to 20.37 µmol m−2 s−1 in 2019 (Figure 2a,b). Plants from the MN + S treatment produced statistically similar PAR to plants from the HN treatment with and without straw; whereas, the CK with and without straw treatments produced the lowest PAR in both seasons. Photosynthetically active radiation was 18.60% and 19.11% higher under MN + S compared to the CK in the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. Leaf CC ranged from 34.5 to 46.9 in 2018; while it ranged from 35.4 to 51.6 in 2019 (Figure 2c,d). Similarly, leaf CC under the MN + S treatment was statistically similar to the HN + S treatment in both seasons. Compared to the control, the MN + S treatment increased leaf CC by 19.41% in 2018 and 28.13% in 2019.
Leaf area index (LAI) at flowering stage and crop growth rate (CGR) were significantly affected by N rate with and without straw in both seasons. The LAI ranged from 2.05 to 3.33 in 2018 and 2.00 to 3.29 in 2019 (Figure 3a,b). Plants from MN and HN treatments with and without straw produced statistically similar LAI in both seasons. Leaf area index was 29.34% and 35.56% higher under MN + S treatment than the control in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. However, the plants from the control produced significantly more LAI (13.85%) than the plants from the CK + S treatment in 2018. The CGR ranged from 1.62 to 3.44 g m−2 day−1 in 2018 and 1.69 to 3.59 g m−2 day−1 in 2019 (Figure 3c,d). Similarly, CGR was statistically at par among the MN and HN treatments with and without straw, whereas the control with and without straw return had the lowest CGR in both seasons. Compared to the control, MN + S treatment stimulated CGR by 41.88% in 2018 season and 50.32% in 2019 season.

3.2. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Potato Tuber Yield and Yield Components

Tuber size distribution was significantly varied by nitrogen rate and straw return in the 2018 and 2019 seasons (Table 3). The distribution of tuber size by weight increased with increasing N rate. Small, medium and large tuber sizes in weight ranged from 14.4 to 25.0 g hill−1, 102.7 to 131.7 g hill−1, and 129.7 to 247.4 g hill−1 in 2018, respectively. After the 2019 harvest, small tuber size in weight ranged from 13.6 to 30.0 g hill−1, medium tuber size ranged from 92.9 to 130.5 g hill−1, and large tuber size ranged from 141.5 to 259.5 g hill−1. Plants from MN + S treatment produced statistically similar tuber size distributions to plants from the HN with and without straw in both seasons; while the control with and without straw recorded significantly the lowest tuber size distribution in weight. Compared to the control, the MN + S treatment stimulated medium and large tuber size in weight by 18.10% and 41.67% in 2018 and 27.82% and 45.47% in 2019, respectively. The number of tubers per hill was significantly affected by the treatments in both seasons. The number of tubers per hill ranged from 7 to 9 in 2018 and 7 to 10 in 2019 (Table 4). Plants from the MN + S treatment produced the highest number of tubers per hill, while the control with and without straw significantly produced the lowest number of tubers per hill in both seasons. Tuber number per hill was 22.22% and 30.00% higher under MN + S treatment than control in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively.
Nitrogen rate with and without straw return had a significant effect on biological and economic tuber yield in both seasons (Table 4). At the same N rate, plants without straw treatments produced higher tuber yield than plants with straw treatments in 2018; however, the opposite trend was observed in the 2019 season. Biological tuber yield ranged from 19.03 to 28.66 t ha−1 in 2018 and 19.44 to 29.77 t ha−1 in 2019; while economic tuber yield ranged from 14.07 to 23.37 t ha−1 and 15.97 to 25.90 t ha−1 in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. Plants from the MN + S treatment produced the optimum biological and economic tuber yield in both seasons, while the control with and without straw return had statistically the lowest tuber yield in both seasons. Biological tuber yield was 29.76% and 34.70% higher under MN + S treatment than the control in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. Moreover, plants from MN + S treatment increased economic tuber yield by 34.73% in 2018 and 38.34% in 2019 compared to the control. Harvest index varied significantly by the treatments in both seasons (Table 5). An increase in N rate lowered the harvest index of potato. The harvest index ranged from 0.45 to 0.54 in 2018 and 0.46 to 0.54 in 2019. Plants from the control increased the harvest index of potato by 16.67% and 14.81% in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively, compared to plants from the HN treatment.

3.3. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Profit Margin, Benefit Cost Ratio and Potato Tuber Quality

Profit margin ranged from USD 1839.44 to USD 5111.15 in 2018 and USD 2030.29 to USD 5491.72 in the 2019 season (Table 5). Plants from the control increased the profit margin by 19.10% compared to plants from the CK + S treatment in 2018, but plants from the latter treatment stimulated the profit margin by 7.26% compared to the control in 2019. The profit margin was 55.51% and 63.03% under the MN + S treatment in the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively, compared to the control. The benefit: cost ratio (B:C) ranged from 1.39 to 2.08 in 2018 and 1.44 to 2.16 in the 2019 season (Table 5). Similarly, B:C ratio increased by 28.37% and 33.33% in plants from MN + S treatment compared to the control in 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. Nitrogen rate with and without straw did not significantly affect specific gravity and starch content of potato tubers in both seasons (Table 6). However, protein content of tubers varied significantly by the treatments in both seasons (Table 6). It ranged from 8.28% to 12.24% in 2018 and 8.11% to 12.73% in 2019. Protein content was significantly stimulated with increasing N rate. Compared to the control, HN + S treatment increased protein content by 30.23% in 2018 and 36.29% in the 2019 season.

3.4. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Soil Physicochemical Properties after 2019 Harvest

Nitrogen rate with and without straw return significantly affected soil physicochemical properties after harvest of 2019 season (Table 7). Soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen concentrations varied significantly among the treatments. The SOC content ranged from 9.87 to 11.98 g kg−1, while total N ranged from 1.25 to 1.65 g kg−1. Soil organic carbon content was significantly higher in treatments with straw than in treatments without straw. There was no significant difference between HN +S and MN + S treatments in terms of SOC and total N; however, MN + S treatment increased SOC by 17.41% and total N by 19.87% compared to the control. Straw return significantly affected soil bulk density and porosity, whilst nitrogen rate significantly reduced soil pH. Soil bulk density, porosity and pH ranged from 1.316 to 1.344 g cm−3, 49.06 to 50.34%, and 8.04 to 8.14, respectively. Both soil pH and bulk density decreased with increasing N rate. In contrast to soil pH and bulk density, increasing N rate increased soil porosity. Treatments with straw had statistically similar soil porosity and bulk density values. Compared to the control, the MN + S treatment decreased soil pH (1.11%) and bulk density (1.56%); however, it increased soil porosity by 2.10%.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Growth and Development of Potato

Nitrogen enrichment enhances the growth and development of potato plants [44,45,46]. In this study, N enrichment with and without straw return significantly increased the vegetative growth of potato in both seasons. This may be due to the additional nitrogen from the fertilizer and the nutrients released from the maize straw after decomposition to the native nutrients in the soil. At the same N rate, plants without straw produced better vegetative growth than plants with straw in the first season; however, an opposite trend was observed in the second season; probably due to slow mineralization and immobilization of nutrients during the first season of straw return. Soil microbes immobilize plant nutrients during the initial stages of decomposition of plant residues [31], which hinders plant growth and development during these stages. The maize straw had a C:N ratio above 46 (Table 2), and when such organic material is returned to the soil, microbes use the available N in the soil as an energy source (immobilization) to decompose the organic material, which impairs N availability [19,47,48]. Low quality plant residues (C:N ratio <24) have a slow rate of mineralization, which in turn hinders the availability of plant nutrients in the initial stages of decomposition [19,49,50]. However, the addition of inorganic N after straw return increased the available N content in the soil, which hindered N immobilization during decomposition and consequently facilitated mineralization of nutrients from straw [24]. This could explain why the plants without straw showed better vegetative growth in the first season than those with straw at the lower N rate (0 and 75 kg ha−1). Nitrogen enrichment after straw return facilitates decomposition rate [51]. Plants from HN + S treatment produced the best vegetative growth, probably due to their high leaf CC, PAR, and LAI, which might have increased the production of assimilate for growth and development of potato. This finding concurs with Wen et al. [52] who noted that leaf area index correlates with photosynthetic capacity, thereby increasing vegetative growth of plants.

4.2. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Potato Tuber Yield and Yield Components

Nitrogen enrichment has a positive and significant effect on the yield and yield components of potato [52,53]. However, excessive N fertilization reduces the yield of potato tubers [53,54] and pollutes the environment [55]. Therefore, the application of optimum N fertilization rate stimulates tuber yield and profit margin of potato. In this study, plants from the N fertilized treatments with and without straw produced significantly higher potato tuber yield and yield parameters than plants from the control. This may be attributed to higher accumulation of roots and shoot dry matter compared to the control and therefore may have affected source capacity and consequently increased tuber yield. Nitrogen enrichment promotes potato source capacity, which stimulates tuber yield [45,56]. Our results also showed that excessive N fertilization (HN) increased tuber yield compared to the LN and control, but caused a reduction in tuber yield compared to the MN treatment. Thus, excessive N fertilization increases tuber yield but does not necessarily result in optimum potato production. This result is in agreement with previous studies [54,57,58,59,60]; however, our results do not agree with those of Kumar et al. [44] who observed optimum tuber yield at the highest N rate (360 kg ha−1). The discrepancy between the previous study and the present study may be attributed to the nutrient status of the soils used. The plants from the MN + S treatment produced the best tuber yield; partly due to their high tuber number and large tuber size in weight (Table 3 and Table 4). In addition, the MN + S treatment improved soil physicochemical properties (Table 7), which increased nutrient availability and consequently stimulated tuber yield. Harvest index decreased with an increase in N rate, probably due to the high vegetative growth of the N fertilized plants. Moreover, N enrichment delayed the maturity (senescence) of potato plants [53,61,62], which might have decreased the harvest index of fertilized plants.

4.3. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Tuber Quality and Profit Margin of Potato

Nitrogen enrichment influences specific gravity, starch content and protein content of potato [57,63,64]. A tuber with low specific gravity has a dark frying color and low chip yield, and consequently requires more time and oil for processing, whereas tubers with high specific gravity are prone to increased bruising [65]. In this study, N enrichment with and without straw return had no significant effect on potato specific gravity and starch content, which is consistent with previous studies [54,66]. Mosley and Chase [65] and Love et al. [67] documented that potato specific gravity is mainly controlled by the genetic makeup of the cultivar. However, increasing N enrichment rate with and without straw slightly decreased the specific gravity and protein content of potato tuber. Lin et al. [63] and Ahmed et al. [57] found a decrease in specific gravity and starch content of potato tubers with an increase in N rate, probably due to the high carbon requirement of N assimilation. Protein content of tubers increased with an increase in N enrichment rate with and without straw; this result is consistent with previous studies [59,64,68].
The profit margin increased with increasing N enrichment rate with and without straw up to a point (150 kg N ha−1) and then decreased beyond this point; this result supports those reported by Sriom et al. [60], Love et al. [69] and Nurmanov et al. [70]. The profit margin of potato increases with increasing N rate up to a point (100 kg N ha−1) and then decreases beyond this point [69]. The MN + S treatment recorded the highest profit margin and B:C ratio, probably due to its high economic tuber yield (Table 4), which increased the net returns. This could explain why the control with and without straw return had the lowest profit margin and B:C ratio.

4.4. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate on Soil Physicochemical Properties

Straw return and nitrogen enrichment play a significant role in improving the physicochemical properties of soils [22,51,71,72]. In this study, nitrogen treatments with straw significantly increased soil organic carbon content and porosity, whilst decreased bulk density compared to treatments without straw at the same N rate. This result is in agreement with previous studies, which indicated that straw return reduced soil bulk density [73,74], and increased soil porosity [75,76] and organic carbon content [51,77,78]. Treatments with straw may reduce soil erosion partly due to their low soil bulk density and high porosity [79]. In addition, straw return increased SOC and total N content (Table 7), which in turn increased aggregate stability by promoting interparticle cohesion, soil aggregation and the ability of the soil to resist erosion [80]. Kavian et al. [80] found that soil erosion was positively and significantly correlated with both SOC and total N content. Nitrogen enrichment also improved soil chemical properties by increasing soil total N content and lowering soil pH; this result is in agreement with previous studies [81,82,83]. Soil pH decreased with increasing N rate, which was partly due to the production and release of hydrogen ions into the soil solution during nitrification [84]. In addition, Lu et al. [85] pointed out that N enrichment increases the leaching of basic cations, such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ into the charge balance of the soil solution, thereby lowering the soil pH. A similar observation has been reported in previous studies [81,82,83]. Nitrogen treatments after maize straw return improved the soil fertility compared to the control with and without straw return. This can be attributed to the rapid mineralization of the nutrients from the straw due to the additional inorganic N fertilizer applied to the soil native N. Tejada and Benítez [24] documented that returning of crushed maize straw resulted in N immobilization, while the addition of inorganic N resulted in net mineralization. Soil nitrogen availability plays a major role in the decomposition of organic matter, such as plant residues. Soil N concentration affects the C:N ratio of the soil, which regulates the balance between immobilization and mineralization of nutrients [24]. Nitrogen enrichment after straw return facilitates decomposition rate [51]. Moreover, Prescott [32] reported that N enrichment stimulates the decomposition of plant residues with low lignin content (<12%), while it slows decomposition of residues with high lignin content (>18%). The lignin content of the maize straw used in the present study was less than 11.2% (Table 2); this may explain why N enrichment after straw return enhanced the decomposition and mineralization of nutrients from the straw, thereby improving soil fertility.

5. Conclusions

Straw return and nitrogen enrichment improved soil physicochemical properties by increasing soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, and soil porosity, and by lowering pH and bulk density of the alkaline soil. As a result, potato growth, tuber yield, tuber quality, and profit margin were significantly stimulated by N enrichment with straw return. Excessive N enrichment (300 kg ha−1) increases tuber yield of potatoes, but does not necessarily result in optimum potato production. Nitrogen enrichment after straw return facilitates the rate of decomposition and mineralization of nutrients from the straw, which improves soil fertility. The results of the study indicated that nitrogen enrichment after maize straw return is an effective and sustainable practice for stimulating potato tuber yield and quality, profit margin, as well as improving soil fertility to promote sustainable agriculture development. Straw return has been associated with increased CO2 emission; however, this study did not examine the effect of different N fertilization rates on CO2 emission after straw return. In addition, straw decomposition dynamics and N immobilization rate were not determined in our study; however, measuring these parameters will lead to a better understanding of the positive effect of N enrichment after straw return on potato performance and soil physicochemical properties. Therefore, future studies should focus on how different N fertilization rates affect straw decomposition, N immobilization rate, CO2 emission, and N use efficiency of potato.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Q. and C.Z.; methodology, H.Q. and D.K.A.; software, D.K.A.; validation, H.Q., D.K.A., and C.Z.; formal analysis, D.K.A. and P.G.; investigation, D.K.A., Y.Z., and Y.G.; resources, H.Q.; data curation, D.K.A., Y.Z., and P.G.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K.A.; writing—review and editing, H.Q. and D.K.A.; visualization, D.K.A.; supervision, H.Q. and C.Z.; project administration, H.Q.; funding acquisition, H.Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Key Basic Research Program of China, grant number No.2015CB150501.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Professor Shen Qirong for his contributions and support towards this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Food Agriculture Organization. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  2. Van Dingenen, J.; Hanzalova, K.; Abd Allah Salem, M.; Abel, C.; Seibert, T.; Giavalisco, P.; Wahl, V. Limited nitrogen availability has cultivar–dependent effects on potato tuber yield and tuber quality traits. Food Chem. 2019, 288, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Q.; Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y. Mulching improves yield and water–use efficiency of potato cropping in China: A meta–analysis. Field Crops Res. 2018, 221, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. United States Department of Agriculture. China: Potato and Potato Products Annual; Report Number CH2020–0149; United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 1–8.
  5. Alva, A.; Fan, M.; Qing, C.; Rosen, C.; Ren, H. Improving nutrient–use efficiency in Chinese potato production: Experiences from the United States. J. Crop Improv. 2011, 25, 46–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, C.; Zang, H.; Liu, J.; Shi, X.; Li, S.; Chen, F.; Chu, Q. Optimum nitrogen rate to maintain sustainable potato production and improve nitrogen use efficiency at a regional scale in China. A meta–analysis. Agron. Sust. Dev. 2020, 40, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Y.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, R.; Wang, C.; Meng, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, S.; Yang, Y.; Han, B.; et al. Mechanisms and early warning of drought disasters: Experimental drought meteorology research over China. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2019, 100, 673–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shi, S.; Fan, M.; Iwama, K.; Li, F.; Zhang, Z.; Jia, L. Physiological basis of drought tolerance in potato grown under long–term water deficiency. Inter. J. Plant Product. 2015, 9, 305–320. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kankam, F.; Qiu, H.; Pu, L.; Long, H.; Zhang, C.; He, J.; Zhang, H. Isolation, purification and characterization of phytotoxins produced by Rhizoctonia solani AG–3, the cause agent of potato stem canker. Amer. J. Potato Res. 2016, 93, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hermansen, A.; Lu, D.; Forbes, G. Potato production in China and Norway: Similarities, differences and future challenges. Potato Res. 2012, 55, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shi, Y.L.; Cui, S.H.; Ju, X.T.; Cai, Z.C.; Zhu, Y.G. Impacts of reactive nitrogen on climate change in China. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Zhu, Z.L. Research on soil nitrogen in China. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2008, 45, 778–783. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhu, B.; Zhou, M.H.; Zhu, F.H.; Wang, T. Measurement and simulation of nitrogen leaching loss in hillslope cropland of purple soil. Chin. J. Eco–Agric. 2013, 21, 102–109. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhao, S.; Qiu, S.; Xu, X.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Zhang, S.; He, P. Change in straw decomposition rate and soil microbial community composition after straw addition in different long–term fertilization soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 138, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cakmak, D.; Saljnikov, E.; Perovic, N.; Jaramaz, D.; Mrvic, V. Effect of long–term nitrogen fertilization on main soil chemical properties in Cambisol. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 August 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Schroder, J.L.; Zhang, H.; Girma, K.; Raun, W.R.; Penn, C.J.; Payton, M.E. Soil acidification from long–term use of nitrogen fertilizers on winter wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 957–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tian, D.; Niu, S. A global analysis of soil acidification caused by nitrogen addition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 024019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Du, Y.; Wang, T.; Wang, C.; Anane, P.S.; Liu, S.; Paz–Ferreiro, J. Nitrogen fertilizer is a key factor affecting the soil chemical and microbial communities in a Mollisol. Can. J. Microbiol. 2019, 65, 510–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, B.; Liu, E.; Tian, Q.; Yan, C.; Zhang, Y. Soil nitrogen dynamics and crop residues. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Liu, M.; Zhang, A.; Jiang, W.; Chen, X.; Jin, R.; Zhao, P.; Tang, Z. Effects of wheat straw incorporation and nitrogen application on sweetpotato yield and quality and soil fertility. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 66, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rengel, Z. The role of crop residues in improving soil fertility. In Nutrient Cycling in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 183–214. [Google Scholar]
  22. Villamil, M.B.; Little, J.; Nafziger, E.D. Corn residue, tillage, and nitrogen rate effects on soil properties. Soil Till. Res. 2015, 151, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Latifmanesh, H.; Deng, A.; Li, L.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Bao, X. How incorporation depth of corn straw affects straw decomposition rate and C & N release in the wheat–corn cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 300, 107000. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tejada, M.; Benítez, C. Effects of crushed maize straw residues on soil biological properties and soil restoration. Land Degrad. Dev. 2014, 25, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhao, S.; Li, K.; Zhou, W.; Qiu, S.; Huang, S.; He, P. Changes in soil microbial community, enzyme activities and organic matter fractions under long–term straw return in north–central China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 216, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, P.; Chen, X.; Wei, T.; Yang, Z.; Jia, Z.; Yang, B.; Han, Q.; Ren, X. Effects of straw incorporation on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and crop yield in a semiarid region of China. Soil Till. Res. 2016, 160, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, L.; Wang, J.; Pang, H.C.; Zhang, J.T.; Guo, J.J.; Dong, G.H.; Cong, P.; Planning, R.; Shandong, D. Effects of pelletized straw on soil nutrient properties in relation to crop yield. Soil Use Manag. 2018, 34, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yin, H.; Zhao, W.; Li, T.; Cheng, X.; Liu, Q. Balancing straw returning and chemical fertilizers in China: Role of straw nutrient resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 81, 2695–2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gu, Y.F.; Zhang, T.; Che, H.; Lu, X.X.; Du, Y.Q. Influence of returning corn straw to soil on soil nematode communities in winter wheat. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hong, J.L.; Ren, L.J.; Hong, J.M.; Xu, C.Q. Environmental impact assessment of corn straw utilization in China. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 112, 1700–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Berg, B.; McClaugherty, C. Plant Litter: Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon Sequestration, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; p. 315. [Google Scholar]
  32. Prescott, C.E. Decomposition and mineralization of nutrients from litter and humus. In Nutrient Acquisition by Plants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 15–41. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen, F.-S.; Wang, G.G.; Fang, X.-M.; Wan, S.-Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, C. Nitrogen deposition effect on forest litter decomposition is interactively regulated by endogenous litter quality and exogenous resource supply. Plant Soil 2019, 437, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pituello, C.; Polese, R.; Morari, F.; Berti, A. Outcomes from a long–term study on crop residue effects on plant yield and nitrogen use efficiency in contrasting soils. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kong, L. Maize residues, soil quality, and wheat growth in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 405–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Lv, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhu, P. Straw return with reduced nitrogen fertilizer maintained maize high yield in Northeast China. Agronomy 2019, 9, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Jin, Z.; Shah, T.; Zhang, L.; Liu, H.; Peng, S.; Nie, L. Effect of straw returning on soil organic carbon in rice–wheat rotation system: A review. Food Energy Sec. 2019, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Dong, X.; Zhang, J.; Qiu, H.; Zhang, H.; Luo, C.; Deng, D.; Shen, Q.; Jia, Z. Chronic nitrogen fertilization modulates competitive interactions among microbial ammonia oxidizers in a loess soil. Pedosphere 2019, 29, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lung’aho, C.; Lemaga, B.; Nyongesa, M.; Gildermacher, P.; Kinyale, P.; Demo, P.; Kabira, J. Commercial seed potato production in eastern and central Africa. Kenya Agric. Inst. 2007, 140. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kleinkopf, G.E.; Westermann, D.T.; Wille, M.J.; Kleinschmidt, G.D. Specific gravity of Russet Burbank potatoes. Am. Potato J. 1987, 64, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; Horwitz, W., Latimer, G., Eds.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 13th ed.; Prentice–hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002; p. 960. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kumar, P.; Pandey, S.K.; Singh, B.P.; Singh, S.V.; Kumar, D. Effect of nitrogen rate on growth, yield, economics and crisps quality of Indian potato processing cultivars. Potato Res. 2007, 50, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zewide, I.; Mohammed, A.; Tulu, S. Effect of different rates of nitrogen and phosphorus on yield and yield components of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) at Masha District, Southwestern Ethiopia. Int. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 7, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Milagres, C.D.C.; Fontes, P.C.R.; Silva, J.M.D. Potato Tuber Yield and Plant Morphological Descriptors as Affected by Nitrogen Application. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 1897–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bonanomi, G.; Sarker, T.C.; Zotti, M.; Cesarano, G.; Allevato, E.; Mazzoleni, S. Predicting nitrogen mineralization from organic amendments: Beyond C/N ratio by 13 C–CPMAS NMR approach. Plant Soil 2019, 441, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pei, G.; Liu, J.; Peng, B.; Gao, D.; Wang, C.; Dai, W.; Jiang, P.; Bai, E. Nitrogen, lignin, C/N as important regulators of gross nitrogen release and immobilization during litter decomposition in a temperate forest ecosystem. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2019, 440, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Manzoni, S.; Jackson, R.B.; Trofymow, J.A.; Porporato, A. The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science 2008, 321, 684–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Gentile, R.; Vanlauwe, B.; Van Kessel, C.; Six, J. Managing N avail– ability and losses by combining fertilizer–N with different quality residues in Kenya. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 131, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mühlbachová, G.; Růžek, P.; Kusá, H.; Vavera, R.; Káš, M. Winter wheat straw decomposition under different nitrogen fertilizers. Agriculture 2021, 11, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wen, G.; Cambouris, A.N.; Bertrand, A.; Ziadi, N.; Li, H.; Khelifi, M. Nitrogen fertilization effects on the leaf chemical concentrations in Russet Burbank potato. Field Crops Res. 2019, 232, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Muleta, H.D.; Aga, M.C. Role of Nitrogen on Potato Production: A Review. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 7, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ayyub, C.M.; Wasim Haidar, M.; Zulfiqar, F.; Abideen, Z.; Wright, S.R. Potato tuber yield and quality in response to different nitrogen fertilizer application rates under two split doses in an irrigated sandy loam soil. J. Plant Nutri. 2019, 42, 1850–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yu, C.; Huang, X.; Chen, H.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Wright, J.S.; Hall, J.W.; Gong, P.; Ni, S.; Qiao, S.; Huang, G. Managing nitrogen to restore water quality in China. Nature 2019, 567, 516–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Li, W.; Xiong, B.; Wang, S.; Deng, X.; Yin, L.; Li, H. Regulation effects of water and nitrogen on the source–sink relationship in potato during the tuber bulking stage. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Ahmed, A.; Abd El–baky, M.H.; Ghoname, A.A.; Riad, G.S.; El–Abd, S.O. Potato Tuber Quality as Affected by Nitrogen Form and Rate. Middle East. Russ. J. Plant Sci. Biotech. 2009, 3, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ruza, A.; Skrabule, I.; Vaivode, A. Influence of nitrogen on potato productivity and nutrient use efficiency. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B. Nat. Exact, Appl. Sci. 2013, 67, 247–253. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang, K.; Wang, F.; Shock, C.C.; Kang, S.; Huo, Z.; Song, N.; Ma, D. Potato performance as influenced by the proportion of wetted soil volume and nitrogen under drip irrigation with plastic mulch. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 179, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sriom, M.D.; Mishra, D.P.; Rajbhar, P.; Singh, D.; Singh, R.K.; Mishra, S.K. Effect of different levels of nitrogen on growth and yield in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) CV. Kufri Khyati. Int. J. Cur. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1456–1460. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zelalem, A.; Tekalign, T.; Nigussie, D. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to different rates of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on vertisols at Debre Berhan, in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2009, 3, 16–24. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bewket, B. Review on nitrogen: Forms, functions and effects on potato growth performance. World Sci. News 2018, 101, 44–54. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lin, S.; Sattelmacher, B.; Kutzmutz, E.; Mühling, K.H.; Dittert, K. Influence of nitrogen nutrition on tuber quality of potato with special reference to the pathway of nitrate transport into tubers. J. Plant Nutr. 2004, 27, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gao, X.; Li, C.; Zhang, M.; Wang, R.; Chen, B. Controlled release urea improved the nitrogen use efficiency, yield and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) on silt loamy soil. Field Crops Res. 2015, 181, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mosley, A.R.; Chase, R.W. Selecting cultivars and obtaining healthy seed lots. In Potato Health Management; Rowe, R.C., Ed.; APS Press: St Paul, MN, USA, 1993; pp. 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rens, L.R.; Zotarelli, L.; Cantliffe, D.J.; Stoffella, P.J.; Gergela, D.; Burhans, D. Rate and timing of nitrogen fertilizer application on potato “FL1867” part II: Marketable yield and tuber quality. Field Crops Res. 2015, 183, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Love, S.L.; Novy, R.; Corsini, D.L.; Bain, P. Variety selection and management. In Potato Production Systems; Stark, J.C., Love, S.L., Eds.; University of Idaho Extension: Moscow, Russia, 2003; pp. 21–47. [Google Scholar]
  68. Asefi, M.; Khoramivafa, M.; Ismaili, A.; Saeidi, M. Effect of urea fertilizer and poultry manure on nitrate reductase activity of potato and some tuber composition. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Rep. 2019, 6, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Love, S.L.; Stark, J.C.; Salaiz, T. Response of four potato cultivars to rate and timing of nitrogen fertilizer. Am. J. Potato Res. 2005, 82, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nurmanov, Y.T.; Chernenok, V.G.; Kuzdanova, R.S. Potato in response to nitrogen nutrition regime and nitrogen fertilization. Field Crops Res. 2019, 231, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lu, C.; Ma, J.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Shi, Y.; Huang, B. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and maize straw incorporation on NH4+–15N and NO3––15N accumulation in black soil of northeast China among three consecutive cropping cycles. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutri. 2010, 10, 444–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Akhtar, K.; Wang, W.; Khan, A.; Ren, G.; Zaheer, S.; Sial, T.A.; Feng, Y.; Yang, G. Straw mulching with fertilizer nitrogen: An approach for improving crop yield, soil nutrients and enzyme activities. Soil Use Manag. 2019, 35, 526–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wei, C.; Gao, M.; Shao, J.; Xie, D.; Pan, G. Soil aggregate and its response to land management practices. China Particuol. 2006, 4, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, P.; Wei, T.; Li, Y.; Wang, K.; Jia, Z.; Han, Q.; Ren, X. Effects of straw incorporation on the stratification of the soil organic C, total N and C:N ratio in a semiarid region of China. Soil Till. Res. 2015, 153, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pagliai, M.; Vignozzi, N.; Pellegrini, S. Soil structure and the effect of management practices. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 79, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mulumba, L.N.; Lal, R. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties. Soil Till. Res. 2008, 98, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zhang, P.; Wei, T.; Jia, Z.; Han, Q.; Ren, X.; Li, Y. Effects of straw incorporation on soil organic matter and soil water–stable aggregates content in semiarid regions of Northwest China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, N.; Li, Y.; Cong, P.; Wang, J.; Guo, W.; Pang, H.; Zhang, L. Depth of straw incorporation significantly alters crop yield, soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in the North China Plain. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 205, 104772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Farizi, F.; Susanto, S.; Suryatmojo, H.; Tando, P. Assessment of soil erosion and landslides susceptibility based on hydrophysic soil properties in Karangkobar catchment, Banjarnegara, Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Agricultural and Biosystem Engineering, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, 6–8 August 2019; 2019; p. 012021. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kavian, A.; Azmoodeh, A.; Solaimani, K. Deforestation effects on soil properties, runoff and erosion in northern Iran. Arab. J. Geosci. 2014, 7, 1941–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Aula, L.; Macnack, N.; Omara, P.; Mullock, J.; Raun, W. Effect of Fertilizer Nitrogen (N) on Soil Organic Carbon, Total N, and Soil pH in Long–Term Continuous Winter Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jia, X.; Zhong, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhu, G.; Shangguan, Z.; Yan, W. Effects of nitrogen enrichment on soil microbial characteristics: From biomass to enzyme activities. Geoderma 2020, 366, 114256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yuan, X.; Niu, D.; Weber–Grullon, L.; Fu, H. Nitrogen deposition enhances plant–microbe interactions in a semiarid grassland: The role of soil physicochemical properties. Geoderma 2020, 373, 114446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Geisseler, D.; Scow, K.M. Long–term effects of mineral fertilizers on soil microorganisms–A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 75, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lu, X.; Vitousek, P.M.; Mao, Q.; Gilliam, F.S.; Luo, Y.; Zhou, G.; Zouf, X.; Baig, E.; Scanlonh, T.M.; Hou, E.; et al. Plant acclimation to long–term high nitrogen deposition in an N–rich tropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 5187–5192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 05508 g001 550
Figure 1. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rate on plant dry matter. (a); root dry matter in 2018 (b); root dry matter in 2019 (c); shoot dry matter in 2018 (d); shoot dry matter in 2019 (e); tuber dry matter in 2018 (f); tuber dry matter in 2019 (g); total plant dry matter in 2018 (h); total plant dry matter in 2019. Bars with the same letter within a chart are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. Bars represent ± standard error of means with four replications.
Figure 1. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rate on plant dry matter. (a); root dry matter in 2018 (b); root dry matter in 2019 (c); shoot dry matter in 2018 (d); shoot dry matter in 2019 (e); tuber dry matter in 2018 (f); tuber dry matter in 2019 (g); total plant dry matter in 2018 (h); total plant dry matter in 2019. Bars with the same letter within a chart are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. Bars represent ± standard error of means with four replications.
Sustainability 13 05508 g001
Sustainability 13 05508 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rate on photosynthetically active radiation and leaf chlorophyll content. (a); photosynthetically active radiation in 2018 (b); photosynthetically active radiation in 2019 (c); leaf chlorophyll content in 2018 (d) leaf chlorophyll content in 2019. Bars with the same letter within a chart are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. Bars represent ± standard error of means with four replications.
Figure 2. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rate on photosynthetically active radiation and leaf chlorophyll content. (a); photosynthetically active radiation in 2018 (b); photosynthetically active radiation in 2019 (c); leaf chlorophyll content in 2018 (d) leaf chlorophyll content in 2019. Bars with the same letter within a chart are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. Bars represent ± standard error of means with four replications.
Sustainability 13 05508 g002
Sustainability 13 05508 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rate on leaf area index and crop growth rate. (a); leaf area index in 2018 (b); leaf area index in 2019 (c); crop growth rate in 2018 (d); crop growth rate in 2019. Bars with the same letter within a chart are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. Bars represent ± standard error of means with four replications.
Figure 3. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rate on leaf area index and crop growth rate. (a); leaf area index in 2018 (b); leaf area index in 2019 (c); crop growth rate in 2018 (d); crop growth rate in 2019. Bars with the same letter within a chart are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. Bars represent ± standard error of means with four replications.
Sustainability 13 05508 g003
Table
Table 1. Soil physicochemical properties before straw return in 2018.
Table 1. Soil physicochemical properties before straw return in 2018.
Treatment Bulk Density
(g cm−3)		Total Nitrogen
(g kg−1)		Organic Carbon (g kg−1)C:NpHAvail P (mg kg−1)Avail K
(mg kg−1)
CK1.351.269.867.838.1429.70116.00
LN1.351.349.877.378.1329.20110.00
MN1.341.459.986.888.1028.30112.00
HN1.341.479.956.778.0827.90111.00
C:N, carbon to nitrogen ratio; pH, soil reaction in water (1:2.5); Avail P, available phosphorus; Avail K, available potassium. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw.
Table
Table 2. Chemical properties of maize straw in 2018 and 2019.
Table 2. Chemical properties of maize straw in 2018 and 2019.
YearOrganic Carbon
(g kg−1)		Total Nitrogen (g kg−1)Total Phosphorus
(g kg−1)		Total Potassium
(g kg−1)		Lignin
(%)		C/NLignin/N
2018423.79.11.218.211.146.61.2
2019410.17.91.417.810.851.91.4
Table
Table 3. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rates on tuber size distribution of potato in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Table 3. Effects of straw return and nitrogen rates on tuber size distribution of potato in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
TreatmentSmall Tuber Size (g hill−1)Medium Tuber Size (g hill−1)Large Tuber Size (g hill−1)
201820192018201920182019
CK14.4 ± 1.15 b18.6 ± 0.69 cd102.7 ± 4.83 c92.9 ± 6.94 c144.3 ± 8.30 d141.5 ± 9.78 c
CK + S16.4 ± 0.35 b13.6 ± 1.29 d105.5 ± 5.64 bc109.8 ± 4.20 bc129.7 ± 8.49 d144.8 ± 7.83 c
LN23.3 ± 1.68 a27.7 ± 1.05 a123.8 ± 5.52 abc124.4 ± 7.61 a182.6 ± 7.34 b180.7 ± 9.93 b
LN + S21.5 ± 1.76 a25.8 ± 1.40 b136.5 ± 7.47 a117.7 ± 4.79 ab153.1 ± 9.79 c199.2 ± 8.61 b
MN25.0 ± 1.23 a21.9 ± 1.45 bc114.6 ± 5.89 abc122.6 ± 6.75 a243.5 ± 8.96 a251.5 ± 6.58 a
MN + S23.3 ± 1.63 a18.6 ± 1.25 cd125.4 ± 6.74 ab128.7 ± 6.85 a247.4 ± 8.56 a259.5 ± 9.59 a
HN23.8 ± 1.18 a30.0 ± 1.28 a126.7 ± 7.79 ab123.9 ± 9.96 a223.4 ± 8.88 a236.8 ± 8.57 a
HN + S22.6 ± 1.21 a29.8 ± 1.85 a131.7 ± 6.06 a130.5 ± 7.44 a231.1 ± 7.74 a240.9 ± 9.43 a
Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw return; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw return; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw return; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw return. The ± means standard error of means at four replications.
Table
Table 4. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on tuber number per hill, biological tuber yield and economic tuber yield of potato in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Table 4. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on tuber number per hill, biological tuber yield and economic tuber yield of potato in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
TreatmentTuber Number Hill−1Biological Tuber Yield (t ha−1)Economic Tuber Yield (t ha−1)
201820192018201920182019
CK7 ± 0.81 b7 ± 0.50 c20.13 ± 0.81 c19.44 ± 1.93 c15.24 ± 1.07 c15.97 ± 1.42 e
CK + S7 ± 1.36 b8 ± 0.62 bc19.03 ± 1.36 c20.05 ± 0.92 c14.07 ± 0.79 c16.65 ± 1.21 de
LN8 ± 1.05 ab8 ± 0.60 bc23.61 ± 1.05 b24.49 ± 1.35 b19.27 ± 1.07 b20.36 ± 1.41 cde
LN + S7 ± 0.80 b9 ± 0.67 ab22.98 ± 0.80 b25.52 ± 1.11 ab18.82 ± 0.93 b21.14 ± 1.30 bcd
MN9 ± 1.06 a9 ± 0.76 ab28.30 ± 1.06 a28.99 ± 1.31 a23.13 ± 1.01 a24.29 ± 1.97 abc
MN + S9 ± 1.17 a10 ± 0.60 a28.66 ± 1.17 a29.77 ± 1.71 a23.35 ± 0.90 a25.90 ± 0.93 a
HN8 ± 1.18 ab9 ± 0.74 ab27.32 ± 1.18 a27.78 ± 1.28 ab22.62 ± 0.98 a24.07 ± 2.07 abc
HN + S8 ± 1.15 ab10 ± 0.85 a28.48 ± 1.15 a29.26 ± 1.45 a23.37 ± 0.92 a25.37 ± 1.23 ab
Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. The ± means standard error of means at four replications.
Table
Table 5. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on harvest index, profit margin and benefit–cost ratio of potato for 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Table 5. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on harvest index, profit margin and benefit–cost ratio of potato for 2018 and 2019 seasons.
TreatmentHarvest IndexProfit Margin (USD)Benefit Cost Ratio
201820192018201920182019
CK0.54 ± 0.004 a0.54 ± 0.007 a2273.722030.291.491.44
CK + S0.53 ± 0.005 a0.53 ± 0.015 a1839.442189.151.391.47
LN0.52 ± 0.014 a0.52 ± 0.015 a3445.443747.151.751.81
LN + S0.52 ± 0.012 a0.52 ± 0.006 a3172.294043.151.671.86
MN0.49 ± 0.004 b0.47 ± 0.008 b5032.015268.582.082.13
MN + S0.48 ± 0.003 bc0.47 ± 0.016 b5111.155491.722.082.16
HN0.45 ± 0.005 d0.46 ± 0.004 b4653.154810.861.992.02
HN + S0.46 ± 0.001 cd0.47 ± 0.008 b4993.725261.152.052.10
Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. The ± means standard error of means at four replications.
Table
Table 6. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on specific gravity, starch content, and protein content of potato for 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Table 6. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on specific gravity, starch content, and protein content of potato for 2018 and 2019 seasons.
TreatmentSpecific Gravity (g cm−3)Starch Content (%)Protein Content (%)
201820192018201820182019
CK1.100 ± 0.001 a1.091 ± 0.007 a18.1 ± 0.56 a15.7 ± 1.44 a8.54 ± 0.25 c8.11 ± 0.13 d
CK + S1.100 ± 0.003 a1.091 ± 0.010 a18.1 ± 0.77 a15.7 ± 1.36 a8.28 ± 0.22 c8.76 ± 0.16 cd
LN1.097 ± 0.002 a1.089 ± 0.013 a17.3 ± 0.80 a15.3 ± 1.67 a9.07 ± 0.46 c9.62 ± 0.31 bc
LN + S1.097 ± 0.004 a1.089 ± 0.012 a17.3 ± 1.04 a15.3 ± 1.00 a8.70 ± 0.38 c9.71 ± 0.32 bc
MN1.095 ± 0.002 a1.086 ± 0.007 a16.8 ± 0.56 a14.5 ± 0.52 a10.58 ± 0.35 b10.81 ± 0.72 b
MN + S1.095 ± 0.002 a1.086 ± 0.003 a16.8 ± 0.49 a14.5 ± 0.91 a10.68 ± 0.35 b10.88 ± 0.55 b
HN1.091 ± 0.001 a1.083 ± 0.008 a15.7 ± 0.43 a13.7 ± 0.61 a12.11 ± 0.40 a12.35 ± 0.26 a
HN + S1.091 ± 0.002 a1.083 ± 0.006 a15.7 ± 0.70 a13.7 ± 1.21 a12.24 ± 0.16 a12.73 ± 0.47 a
Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. The ± means standard error of means at four replications.
Table
Table 7. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on soil physicochemical properties after 2019 harvest.
Table 7. Effects of nitrogen rates and straw return on soil physicochemical properties after 2019 harvest.
TreatmentSOC (g kg−1)Total Nitrogen (g kg−1)Porosity (%)Soil pH Bulk Density (g cm−3)
CK9.87 ± 0.58 b1.25 ± 0.018 e49.06 ± 0.13 c8.14 ± 0.2 a1.343 ± 0.003 a
CK + S11.72 ± 0.65 a1.28 ± 0.027 e50.15 ± 0.05 a8.13 ± 0.01 a1.321 ± 0.001 c
LN9.90 ± 0.44 b1.37 ± 0.007 d49.28 ± 0.18 c8.12 ± 0.02 ab1.344 ± 0.005 a
LN + S11.86 ± 0.57 a1.40 ± 0.019 d50.03 ± 0.12 ab8.10 ± 0.01 ab1.323 ± 0.003 bc
MN10.05 ± 1.34 b1.52 ± 0.024 c49.29 ± 0.12 c8.08 ± 0.02 bc1.344 ± 0.003 a
MN + S11.95 ± 0.63 a1.56 ± 0.029 bc50.11 ± 0.23 a8.05 ± 0.04 c1.322 ± 0.006 c
HN10.03 ± 0.50 b1.63 ± 0.025 ab49.36 ± 0.19 bc8.05 ± 0.14 c1.342 ± 0.005 ab
HN + S11.98 ± 0.60 a1.65 ± 0.020 a50.34 ± 0.21 a8.04 ± 0.02 c1.316 ± 0.006 c
Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different from each other at 5% probability level. SOC, soil organic matter. CK, no N enrichment; CK + S, no N enrichment with straw; LN, 75 kg Nha−1; LN + S, 75 kg Nha−1 with straw; MN, 150 kg Nha−1; MN + S, 150 kg Nha−1 with straw; HN, 300 kg Nha−1; HN + S, 300 kg Nha−1 with straw. The ± means standard error of means at four replications.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Anning, D.K.; Qiu, H.; Zhang, C.; Ghanney, P.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y. Maize Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Performance and Soil Physicochemical Characteristics in Northwest China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105508

AMA Style

Anning DK, Qiu H, Zhang C, Ghanney P, Zhang Y, Guo Y. Maize Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Performance and Soil Physicochemical Characteristics in Northwest China. Sustainability. 2021; 13(10):5508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105508

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anning, Dominic Kwadwo, Huizhen Qiu, Chunhong Zhang, Philip Ghanney, Yujiao Zhang, and Yajun Guo. 2021. "Maize Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Performance and Soil Physicochemical Characteristics in Northwest China" Sustainability 13, no. 10: 5508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105508

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop