Next Article in Journal
An Extended Investigation of High-Level Natural Radioactivity and Geochemistry of Neoproterozoic Dokhan Volcanics: A Case Study of Wadi Gebeiy, Southwestern Sinai, Egypt
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Mine Water Dispatching Mode Based on Maximization of Reuse Rate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159290
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

Impact of Tillage and Straw Treatment Methods on Rice Growth and Yields in a Rice–Ratoon Rice Cropping System

by
Shengchun Li
,
Yilin Zhang
,
Lihao Guo
and
Xiaofang Li
*
College of Agriculture, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9290; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159290
Submission received: 10 June 2022 / Revised: 5 July 2022 / Accepted: 8 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rice–ratoon rice cropping system has the advantages of saving labor and imparting economic benefits. Optimizing tillage and straw management is beneficial for improving ratoon rice growth and yield. In this study, field experiments were conducted to examine the effects of four tillage and straw managements on the growth and yield of a rice–ratoon rice cropping system in central China in 2020 to 2021. The managements included no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil’s surface (NT+S), plow tillage with residue retention (CT+S), no-till with residues removed (NT-S), and plow tillage with residues removed (CT-S). Compared to NT, CT significantly increased yield by 33.70% and 29.12% in the main and ratoon seasons, respectively. Compared to straw removal, straw returning significantly increased yield by 13.37% and 27.29% in the main and ratoon seasons, respectively. In general, both CT and straw returning improved root function (root activity and root dry weight) and photosynthetic capacity (leaf area index, net photosynthetic rate, and leaf chlorophyll content). CT combined with straw returning was able to achieve the highest annual rice yield.

1. Introduction

Rice is the staple food crop for more than 3 billion people in the world and the most important food crop in China [1]. Due to rapid increases in the global population and climate change, there will be huge impacts on crop production that may threaten food security [2,3]. By 2030, China will need to increase rice production by about 20% to meet domestic demand [4]. Although rice yield has increased year by year in recent years, with the development of society and economic progress, rice production is facing difficulties such as a shortage of rural labor and low economic return [5]. Ratoon rice is a rice planting mode that utilizes the regenerative ability of rice to enable dormant buds to survive on the rice stubble after the main harvest germinates and grows into ears through reasonable cultivation and management measures [6]. Ratoon rice can be used to increase annual yield, improve farmers’ farming efficiency, relieve agricultural busyness, and reduce labor intensity; therefore, it has been widely planted [7]. Especially in areas where the annual accumulation of temperature is much greater than that of single-cropping rice but not enough to meet the needs of double-cropping rice, planting ratoon rice is a viable way to increase the total rice yield [4]. The growth and yield of ratoon rice are affected by cultivation measures such as fertilizer and tillage [8,9]. Optimizing cultivation measures and increasing the yield of ratoon rice is of significance for the development of the ratoon rice industry and the guarantee of food security.
Tillage is an important agronomic measure in the rice production process [10]. The application of conventional tillage (CT) in world agriculture has a long history and a wide range, with significant contributions to the development of agricultural production [11,12]. Tillage changes soil water, nutrient, air, and temperature status, which in turn affects soil enzyme activity and microbial community structure [13,14]. The physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil are closely related to crop production and yield [15]. However, frequent and high-intensity tillage strongly disturbs the soil, destroys soil macroaggregates, promotes the oxidation of soil organic matter, reduces soil biodiversity, accelerates soil erosion, and eventually leads to soil degradation and crop yield decreases [16,17]. No-tillage (NT) is a farming method that is environmentally friendly and less damaging to the soil structure [18]. NT has been reported to increase soil organic matter content and enzyme and microbial activity, as well as increase crop yield [19,20]. However, the previously reported effects of NT on rice yield have been inconsistent. Two meta-analyses showed that NT had no significant effect on rice yield [21] and reduced rice yield by 3.83% [22]. There have been few reports on the effects of NT on the growth and yield of ratoon rice.
Crop straw is rich in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, as well as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other nutrients necessary for crop growth, and it is a valuable biological resource [23]. Straw returning is one of the important ways to increase soil organic carbon in farmland, which can improve the physical and chemical properties of farmland soil, improve soil quality and nutrient recycling efficiency, and increase crop yield [24,25]. Returning straw to the field also avoids the waste of resources and environmental pollution caused by straw burning [26]. Previous studies have shown different effects of straw returning on rice yield, mainly due to differences in climatic factors and soil physicochemical properties because the rate of straw decomposition is determined by hydrothermal conditions and soil physicochemical properties [27]. Water management [28], fertilizer management [27], farming methods [19], and the amount of straw returning to the field [29] also affect the effect of straw returning on rice yield. A recent review suggested that annual application rates of 1500–4500 and 2250–6750 kg ha−1 of rice and wheat straws, respectively, along with little or no tillage at a soil water content of between 15 and 22.5%, could increase soil organic C and promote high annual yields in a rice–wheat rotation system [30]. However, research on the effect of straw returning combined with tillage on rice yield is lacking, especially for ratoon rice. The ratoon season harvest does not require the re-cultivation of seedlings, so the field management of the ratoon rice model is different from the two- or three-cropping rotation model [31].
In this study, the effects of different tillage and straw returning methods on rice root function, photosynthesis capacity, and grain yield in a rice–ratoon rice cropping system were investigated for the first time.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Description

Experiments were conducted from 2016 to 2021 in the Yangtze University farm (N 30°23′46.68″, E 112°29′7.71″), Jingzhou City, Hubei Province, China. The experimental site belongs to the northern subtropical agricultural climate zone. The annual average temperature, accumulated temperature ≥10 °C, annual average precipitation, and annual average sunshine time are 16.5 °C, 5094.9–5204.3 °C, 1095 mm, and 1718 h, respectively. The soil in this site is a silty clay loam with 24% sand (2.00–0.02 mm), 40% silt (0.02–0.002 mm), and 36% clay (<0.002 mm). Each kilogram of the soil at pH 5.83 contains 29.25 g of organic matter, 232.14 g of available N, 10.92 g of available P, and 115.23 mg of available K. The crop-planting model of the experimental site is a main season of rice and a ratoon season of rice, followed by a fallow period in winter. The tested rice variety was Fengliangyuo2, which has a strong ratoon ability and high yield, and the whole growth period of planting as main-season rice and ratoon-season rice was 213 days. Weather data for rice growing seasons in 2020 and 2021 are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The long-term field experiment included four tillage and straw management treatments: (1) no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface (NT+S), (2) plow tillage with residue retention (CT+S), (3) no-till with residues removed (NT-S), and (4) plow tillage with residues removed (CT-S). After rice harvesting (main season and ratoon season), crop residues were either manually removed from the field (NT-S and CT-S) or cut to a length of 5–10 cm prior to the implementation of other treatments (NT+S and CT+S); while the roots were kept in the soil, residues infiltrated into the soil layer of 15 ± 10 cm with tillage (CT+S). CT refers to a process of ploughing tillage (25 cm) one time and rotary tillage (15 cm) two times 2–3 days before rice planting. All treatments were allocated in a randomized block design with three replicates; each plot had a size of 100 m2 (10 × 10 m). Rice was sown on 24 March and manually transplanted on 21 April. The row spacing was 16 × 30 cm2, with two seedlings per hill. Main-season rice (from 24 March to 13 August) was harvested around 13 August, leaving 30 cm rice stubs for the growth of ratoon rice (from 13 August to 1 November). Ratoon rice was harvested around 1 November. A compound fertilizer (N-P2O5-K2O = 22-9-15) at 400 kg·ha−1 was applied as the base fertilizer before transplanting the early rice (15 April). Urea (46% N) was applied at 50, 100, and 100 kg·ha−1 on 1 May, 3 July, and 18 August, respectively. KCl (63% K2O) was applied at 60 kg·ha−1 on both 3 July and 18 August. Weeds, pests, and diseases were intensively controlled to avoid loss of grain yield.

2.3. Sampling and Data Collection

2.3.1. Yield and Yield Components

Grain yields and panicle density (effective number of panicles per square meter) were measured at maturity by taking 5 m2 plant samples at the center of each plot in 2020 and 2021. The filled grains in each 5 m2 plant sample were separated from the straws. The filled grains were oven-dried at 70 °C to a stable weight and weighed, and the grain yield was calculated at 14% moisture content. Plant samples (5 hill) adjacent to the harvest area were taken for the detection of yield components (spikelets per panicle, grain filling rate, and 1000-grain weight).

2.3.2. Root Function

Five hill rice samples per each plot were selected to measure the root dry weight and root activity at mid-tillering, with heading in main-season rice and ratoon rice in 2020 and 2021, respectively. For each root sampling, a cube of soil (25 cm in length × 16 cm in width × 20 cm in depth) around each individual hill was removed using a sampling core. Such a cube contained about 95% of total root biomass [32]. Plants of five hills from each plot formed a sample at each measurement. The roots in each cube of soil were carefully rinsed with a hydropneumatic elutriation device (Gillison’s Variety Fabrications, Benzonia, MI, USA). Portions of each root sample were used for the measurement of root activity, while the other root samples were oven-dried at 70 °C to stable weights and weighed. Root activity was determined by measuring the oxidation of alpha-naphthylamine (α-NA) [33]. One gram of fresh roots was transferred into a 150 mL flask containing 50 mL of 20 ppm α-NA. The flasks were incubated for 2 h at room temperature in an end-over-end shaker. Then, the aliquots were filtered, 2 mL of aliquot was mixed with 1 mL of 1.18 mmol−1 NaNO and 1 mL of sulfanilic acid, and the resulting color was measured with a spectrophotometer.

2.3.3. Photosynthetic Properties

Five hills of rice in each plot were selected to measure the leaf area index (LAI), net photosynthetic rate (Pn), and total chlorophyll content at mid-tillering, heading in main-season rice, and heading in ratoon rice in 2020 and 2021. The LAI of the top fully expanded leaves of the main-stem was calculated as the measured leaf area divided by the ground surface area [34]. The Pn of the top fully expanded leaves of the main stem was determined by a gas exchange analyzer (Li-6400, Li-COR Inc., NE, USA) between 9:30 and 11:00 am when the photosynthetic active radiation above the canopy was 1200 mmol m−2·s−1. After the determination of the LAI and Pn, the measured leaves were cut, frozen immediately in liquid nitrogen, and stored at −80 °C until use. The total chlorophyll content was extracted with about 0.2 g of fresh leaf disks and 25 mL of an alcohol and acetone mixture (v:v = 1:1) for 24 h in the dark at room temperature. The absorbance of the extract was measured at 663, 645, and 470 nm using a UV–VIS spectrophotometer (UV-2600, Shimadzu, Japan) to estimate the total chlorophyll content according to a previously reported method [35].

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All experimental data were collected in 2020 and 2021 and are expressed as the mean ± standard error (SE) of three replicates. The normal distribution and homogeneity variance of data were tested using Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s test on SPSS 21.0 (v20.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), respectively. A multi-factor analysis of variance was used to reveal the effects of year, tillage, and straw management, as well as interactions among them. Differences in rice indicators among 4 tillage and straw managements were compared with a one-way analysis of variance. Significant differences in rice indicators among 4 tillage and straw managements were analyzed with Duncan’s multiple range tests. For statistical analysis, two significance levels were set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. Figures were drawn in Origin9.1.

3. Results

3.1. Root Activity and Root Dry Weight

The root activity at mid-tillering in the main season and the root dry weight at mid-tillering in the ratoon season in 2020 were 6.25% and 4.48% less than those in 2021 (p < 0.05), respectively (Figure 2). Compared to NT, CT significantly increased root activity at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 28.38%, 35.17%, and 27.29%, respectively, and increased root dry weight at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 29.33%, 23.59%, and 18.49%, respectively. Compared to straw removal, straw returning significantly increased root activity at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 17.64%, 13.00%, and 21.42%, respectively, and increased root dry weight at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 15.42%, 15.62%, and 7.63%, respectively.

3.2. Leaf Area Index, Net Photosynthetic Rate, and Chlorophyll Content

Compared to NT, CT significantly increased the LAI at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 21.36%, 12.78%, and 17.96%, respectively; increased the Pn at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 4.54%, 5.33%, and 5.61%, respectively; and increased the chlorophyll content at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 9.77%, 4.12%, and 10.19%, respectively (Figure 3). Compared to straw removal, straw returning significantly increased the LAI at mid-tillering in the main season, at heading in the main season, and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 11.34%, 5.61%, and 19.92%, respectively; increased the Pn at heading in the main season and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 4.32% and 4.85%, respectively; and increased the chlorophyll content at mid-tillering in the main season and at mid-tillering in the ratoon season by 5.33% and 4.97%, respectively.

3.3. Main-Season Rice Yield and Yield Composition

There was a significant difference in the grain filling rate between the two years. The grain filling rate in 2020 was 4.42% lower than that in 2021 (Table 1). Compared to NT, CT significantly increased panicle density m−2 by 14.63%, spikelets per panicle by 13.19%, 1000-grain weight by 4.00%, and yield by 33.70%. Compared to straw removal, straw returning significantly increased panicle density m−2 by 15.28%, 1000-grain weight by 4.78%, and yield by 13.37%. The interaction of tillage and straw treatment had a significant effect on yield. Compared to straw returning, straw removal reduced the yield by 17.93% under NT and 13.03% under CT. Conventional tillage combined with straw returning had the highest main-season rice yield among the four treatments.

3.4. Ratoon-Season Rice Yield and Yield Composition

There was a significant difference in panicle density m−2, grain filling rate, 1000-grain weight, and yield between the two years (Table 2). The panicle density m−2, grain filling rate, and yield in 2020 were 3.57%, 3.26%, and 5.53% lower than those in 2021, respectively, and the 1000-grain weight was 1.58% higher than that in 2021. Compared to NT, CT significantly increased panicle density m−2 by 10.86%, spikelets per panicle by 13.10%, 1000-grain weight by 4.56%, and yield by 29.12%, respectively. Compared to straw removal, straw returning significantly increased panicle density m−2 by 13.47%, spikelets per panicle by 8.75%, 1000-grain weight by 4.23%, and yield by 27.29%. The interaction of tillage and straw treatment had a significant effect on panicle density m−2, spikelets per panicle, and yield. Compared to straw returning, straw removal reduced panicle density m−2 by 17.97% under NT and 9.56% under CT, reduced the spikelets per panicle by 13.16% under NT and 5.01% under CT, and reduced the yield by 37.69% under NT and 19.56% under CT. Conventional tillage combined with straw returning had the highest ratoon-season rice yield among the four treatments.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of Tillage and Straw Returning on Growth and Yield of the Main-Season Rice

Tillage is an important factor affecting rice yield [19]. Denardin et al. [20] reported that NT increased rice yield through soil quality improvement over time. We observed higher grain yields of main-season rice under CT compared to NT (Table 1), contrary to the conclusion of Denardin et al. [20]. These higher yields under CT could at least in part be attributed to greater panicle number m−2, spikelet number panicle−1, and 1000-grain weight values (Table 1). Different rotation patterns (rice and ryegrass in the test of Denardin and main-season rice and ratoon-season rice in our test) resulted in different inputs of organic matter, which may have been the reason for the difference in the effect of NT on yield. The lack of organic matter input from winter crop straws in ratoon rice models has been found to result in a low soil organic matter content, which greatly reduced the effect of NT on improving rice yield by increasing soil organic matter content [36,37]. In addition, long-term NT and partial nitrogen fertilization could lead to soil compaction, which is exacerbated by a lack of organic matter input [38,39,40,41]. Soil compaction in regenerative paddy fields will reduce soil permeability, increase the accumulation of reducing substances, adversely affect rice root growth, and ultimately lead to reduced yields [20,42]. Root function (as reflected by root dry weight and root vitality) and photosynthetic capacity (as reflected by the Pn, LAI, and chlorophyll content) are closely associated with the grain yield of rice [28,43]. In this study, compared to NT, CT increased the root function and photosynthetic capacity of main-season rice, which is consistent with the results of Badshah et al. [44]. Reportedly, NT combined with straw returning to the field or increasing the input of organic fertilizer can increase rice yields by increasing soil organic matter [11,45]. Therefore, if a more convenient and inexpensive NT is to be adopted and the rice yield is to be maintained in the regenerative rice mode, it is necessary to optimize fertilization strategies.
Crop straw management affects both crop productivity and soil fertility, thus playing a critical role in the sustainability of cropping systems [46]. Previous meta-analysis reports showed that straw returning increased rice yield by more than 5.0% compared to straw removal [47,48]. Previous reports support our findings that straw returning increased the main-season rice yield (Table 1). In addition, in our study, straw returning increased the spikelet number panicle−1, 1000-grain weight, root function, and photosynthetic capacity (at the heading stage) of main-season rice, results that are consistent with those of Dossou-Yovo et al. [19]. Straw returning to the field can increase soil carbon sequestration and nutrient content, enhance root growth and photosynthesis, and ultimately increase rice yield [19,28]. The risks of straw returning to the field reducing rice yield mainly include: 1. microbial fixation of soil and fertilizer N in the early stage of rice nutrition, which may limit the uptake of N by rice [45]; 2. when the straw is decomposed in anaerobic conditions, the straw will release phytotoxic substances that damage plants and soil phenols that limit soil N availability [47,49]. The adverse effects of N fixation on rice plant growth can be avoided by applying sufficient amounts of nitrogen fertilizer [27]. In our experiment, 163 kg ha−1 N was applied in the main season, which exceeded the world average by about 75% [50]. In addition, drainage and soil drying/aeration during the rice-growing season promotes the decomposition of crop residues and alleviates the detrimental effect of residue returning on rice growth due to the accumulation of phenolic lignin residues and phytotoxic substances under anaerobic conditions [28,51]. Therefore, in rice fields with long-term excessive and partial nitrogen fertilizer application, straw returning technology can be used to improve rice yield.
Many researchers have studied the effect of the interaction between tillage and straw returning on rice yield. Song et al. [52] reported that growing wheat under NT and rice under CT in combination with single-crop straw incorporation in a rice–wheat cropping area could achieve better ecological and yield dual benefits. Dossou-Yovo et al. [19] reported that NT combined with straw returning and suitable N application could achieve higher grain yields and lower soil CO2 emissions. Memon et al. [53] reported that reducing tillage with 60% rice straw returning could improve soil structures and increase rice yields under rice–wheat rotation fields. Zhang et al. [54] did not find a significant effect of combined tillage and straw returning on rice yield in a rice–wheat rotation system. The inconsistent conclusions among studies suggests that the effects of combined tillage and straw returning on rice yield are also influenced by soil properties, cropping systems, climatic conditions, and experimental duration [45,54]. In the ratoon rice planting model, we found that tillage combined with straw returning could promote main-season rice growth and increase yield. Tillage combined with straw returning increases soil organic matter, reduces the compactness of regenerated paddy soil, increases soil permeability, and promotes rice root growth and photosynthesis capacity, thereby improving rice yield [52,55]. In general, CT combined with straw returning can enhance the growth and yield of main-season rice.

4.2. Impact of Tillage and Straw Returning on Growth and Yield of the Ratoon-Season Rice

The yield of ratoon rice accounts for 28.6% to 64.3% of the grain yield in the main season, which also plays an important role in the stabilization of grain yield [40]. There have been few reports on the effect of tillage on the growth and yield of ratoon-season rice. Asenso et al. [56] reported that the ratoon-season rice yield of under the moldboard ploughing method is higher than that under the rotary tillage method. Jiang et al. [8] reported that in a 4-year experiment, the yield of ratoon-season rice under NT was higher than that under CT in only one year, and the other 3 years of tillage had no significant effect on the yield of the ratoon season. In this study, compared to NT, CT increased the yield of ratoon-season rice, which was mainly attributed to the increases in the panicle number m−2 and spikelet number panicle−1. The yield of ratoon-season rice is determined by the yield component, and the panicle number m−2 and spikelet number panicle−1 are closely related to rice regeneration ability [57]. The function of the root system in the late growth stage of main-season rice determines the regeneration ability of rice [31]. NT leads to soil compaction and the accumulation of reducing substances, which is not conducive to root development, and this negative effect also impacts the growth of rice roots and limits root function in the regeneration season [20,46]. Therefore, restrictions of the function of rice roots and regeneration ability could be the main reasons why NT reduces the yield of ratoon-season rice. Accordingly, CT should be used to increase ratoon-season rice yields.
At present, there are no reports on the effect of straw returning on the growth and yield of regenerated rice. When Chinese farmers plant regenerative rice, they usually smash the straw of the main-season rice and cover it in the paddy field [58]. In this study, we compared the effects of straw removing or straw returning (main-season rice and ratoon-season rice) on the growth and yield of regenerated rice. It was found that straw returning significantly improved the yield, panicle number m−2, spikelet number panicle−1, 1000-grain weight, root function, and photosynthesis ability of regenerated rice. These results are related to the improvement in soil fertility caused by returning straw to the field [59]. In addition, repeated drying and wetting in paddy fields during the main-season rice growth period was shown to decrease soil microbial activity [17], and a large amount of N was artificially input into a field in order to promote the growth of regenerative rice [15], which together reduced the competition between microorganisms and rice for nutrients [27]. Furthermore, when straw mulch topsoil is decomposed, the released metabolites have little effect on rice root systems [30,59].
Consistent with the results of the main-season rice, we found that tillage combined with straw returning resulted in the highest yield of regenerated rice. Therefore, tillage combined with straw returning can improve the annual yield of rice by improving root function and photosynthetic capacity.

5. Conclusions

Straw returning combined with ploughing can improve rice yields by improving root function and photosynthetic capacity compared to straw removing/no-tillage in a rice–ratoon rice cropping system. However, more tillage, straw management, and fertilization methods need to be studied in order to optimize field management in rice–ratoon rice cropping systems, improve soil quality and rice yield, and maintain the sustainable development of the regenerative rice industry.

Author Contributions

S.L. and Y.Z. designed the experiments, S.L. and L.G. analyzed the data and wrote the article, S.L. and Y.Z. performed the trait investigation, and S.L. and X.L. revised and edited the manuscript. S.L. and Y.Z. contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The National Natural Science Foundation of China (31071482) and Ministry of Finance (Agriculture) Industry Special (201303008).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to relevant test results have not been published.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, G.; Tang, J.; Zheng, J.; Chu, C. Exploration of rice yield potential: Decoding agronomic and physiological traits. Crop J. 2021, 9, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fahad, S.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Alam, M.; Ullah, H.; Saeed, M.; Khan, I.A.; Adnan, M. Environment, Climate, Plant and Vegetation Growth; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ren, D.; Li, Y.; He, G.; Qian, Q. Multifloret spikelet improves rice yield. New Phytol. 2020, 225, 2301–2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dong, H.; Chen, Q.; Wang, W.; Peng, S.; Huang, J.; Cui, K.; Nie, L. The growth and yield of a wet-seeded rice-ratoon rice system in central China. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 208, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yin, Y.; Peng, X.; Guo, S.; Zhai, L.; Hua, L.; Wang, H.; Liu, H. How to improve the light-simplified and cleaner production of rice in cold rice areas from the perspective of fertilization. J. Clean Prod. 2022, 361, 131694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, W.; He, A.; Jiang, G.; Sun, H.; Nie, L. Ratoon rice technology: A green and resource-efficient way for rice production. Adv. Agron. 2020, 159, 135–167. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shen, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J. Ratoon rice production in central China: Environmental sustainability and food production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 764, 142850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jiang, P.; Xu, F.; Zhang, L.; Liu, M.; Xiong, H.; Guo, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhou, X. Impact of tillage and crop establishment methods on rice yields in a rice-ratoon rice cropping system in Southwest China. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Huang, J.; Wu, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Z.; Fang, C.; Shao, C.; Lin, W.; Weng, P.; Muhammad, U.K.; Lin, W. Optimal management of nitrogen fertilizer in the main rice crop and its carrying-over effect on ratoon rice under mechanized cultivation in Southeast China. J. Integr. Agr. 2022, 21, 351–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, S.; Guo, L.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Integrated assessment of carbon footprint, energy budget and net ecosystem economic efficiency from rice fields under different tillage modes in central China. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 295, 126398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, T.; Huang, J.; Chai, K.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Effects of N fertilizer sources and tillage practices on NH3 volatilization, grain yield, and N use efficiency of rice fields in Central China. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Islam, S.F.; Sander, B.O.; Quilty, J.R.; De Neergaard, A.; Van Groenigen, J.W.; Jensen, L.S. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and reduced irrigation water use in rice production through water-saving irrigation scheduling, reduced tillage and fertiliser application strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 140215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Choudhury, S.G.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, R.; Chaudhari, S.K.; Sharma, D.K.; Singh, S.K.; Sarkar, D. Tillage and residue management effects on soil aggregation, organic carbon dynamics and yield attribute in rice—Wheat cropping system under reclaimed sodic soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 136, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bu, R.; Ren, T.; Lei, M.; Liu, B.; Li, X.; Cong, R.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, J. Tillage and straw-returning practices effect on soil dissolved organic matter, aggregate fraction and bacteria community under rice-rice-rapeseed rotation system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 287, 106681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.; Qi, J.; Zhang, X.; Li, S.; Virk, A.L.; Zhao, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, H. Effects of tillage and residue management on soil aggregates and associated carbon storage in a double paddy cropping system. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xue, J.; Pu, C.; Liu, S.; Chen, Z.; Chen, F.; Xiao, X.; Lal, R.; Zhang, H. Effects of tillage systems on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in a double paddy cropping system in Southern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 153, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pandey, D.; Agrawal, M.; Bohra, J.S.; Adhya, T.K.; Bhattacharyya, P. Recalcitrant and labile carbon pools in a sub-humid tropical soil under different tillage combinations: A case study of rice—Wheat system. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 143, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Ruis, S.J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 2018, 326, 164–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dossou-Yovo, E.R.; Brüggemann, N.; Jesse, N.; Huat, J.; Agbossou, E.K. Reducing soil CO2 emission and improving upland rice yield with no-tillage, straw mulch and nitrogen fertilization in northern Benin. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 156, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Denardin, L.G.D.O.; Carmona, F.D.C.; Veloso, M.G.; Martins, A.P.; Freitas, T.F.S.D.; Carlos, F.S.; Marcolin, L.; Camargo, F.A.D.O.; Anghinoni, I. No-tillage increases irrigated rice yield through soil quality improvement along time. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 186, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Min, H.; Zhou, X.; Cao, F.; Bing, X.; Zou, Y. No-tillage effect on rice yield in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crop Res. 2015, 183, 126–137. [Google Scholar]
  22. Liang, X.; Zhang, H.; He, M.; Yuan, J.; Xu, L.; Tian, G. No-tillage effects on grain yield, N use efficiency, and nutrient runoff losses in paddy fields. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R 2016, 23, 21451–21459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Qya, B.; Rla, B.; Kla, B.; Rma, B. A review of crop straw pretreatment methods for biogas production by anaerobic digestion in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Xu, M.; Feng, G.; Zhang, W.; Lu, C.A. Crop yield and soil organic matter after long-term straw return to soil in China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys 2015, 102, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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. 2018, 81, 2695–2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.; Hao, L. Contributions of open crop straw burning emissions to PM2.5 concentrations in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 14014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kalkhajeh, Y.K.; He, Z.; Yang, X.; Lu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Gao, H.; Ma, C. Co-application of nitrogen and straw-decomposing microbial inoculant enhanced wheat straw decomposition and rice yield in a paddy soil. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 4, 100134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Maneepitak, S.; Ullah, H.; Paothong, K.; Kachenchart, B.; Datta, A.; Shrestha, R.P. Effect of water and rice straw management practices on yield and water productivity of irrigated lowland rice in the Central Plain of Thailand. Agr. Water Manag. 2019, 211, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, L.; Hu, N.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, J.; Tao, B.; Meng, Y. Short-term responses of soil organic carbon and carbon pool management index to different annual straw return rates in a rice—Wheat cropping system. Catena 2015, 135, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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 Secur. 2020, 9, e200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Xu, F.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, X.; Guo, X.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, M.; Xiong, H.; Jiang, P. The ratoon rice system with high yield and high efficiency in China: Progress, trend of theory and technology. Field Crop Res. 2021, 272, 108282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, L.; Wang, Y.; Kobayashi, K.; Zhu, J.; Huang, J.; Yang, H.; Wang, Y.; Dong, G.; Liu, G.; Han, Y. Seasonal changes in the effects of free—Air CO2 enrichment (FACE) on growth, morphology and physiology of rice root at three levels of nitrogen fertilization. Global Change Biol. 2008, 14, 1844–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ramasamy, S.; Ten Berge, H.; Purushothaman, S. Yield formation in rice in response to drainage and nitrogen application. Field Crop Res. 1997, 51, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tian, G.; Gao, L.; Kong, Y.; Hu, X.; Xie, K.; Zhang, R.; Ling, N.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. Improving rice population productivity by reducing nitrogen rate and increasing plant density. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e182310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wellburn, A.R.; Lichtenthaler, H. Formulae and program to determine total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. In Advances in Photosynthesis Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984; pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jat, R.K.; Sapkota, T.B.; Singh, R.G.; Jat, M.L.; Kumar, M.; Gupta, R.K. Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice—wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 164, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yadav, G.S.; Lal, R.; Meena, R.S.; Babu, S.; Das, A.; Bhowmik, S.N.; Datta, M.; Layak, J.; Saha, P. Conservation tillage and nutrient management effects on productivity and soil carbon sequestration under double cropping of rice in north eastern region of India. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tian, D.; Niu, S. A global analysis of soil acidification caused by nitrogen addition. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 24019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Han, J.; Shi, J.; Zeng, L.; Xu, J.; Wu, L. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on the acidity and salinity of greenhouse soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 2976–2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, X.; Qi, J.Y.; Liu, B.Y.; Kan, Z.R.; Zhao, X.; Xiao, X.P.; Zhang, H.L. Strategic tillage effects on soil properties and agricultural productivity in the paddies of Southern China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 1277–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fahad, S.; Sönmez, O.; Saud, S.; Wang, D.; Wu, C.; Adnan, M.; Arif, M. Engineering Tolerance in Crop Plants Against Abiotic Stress; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, S.; Jiang, X.; Wang, X.; Wright, A.L. Tillage effects on soil nitrification and the dynamic changes in nitrifying microorganisms in a subtropical rice-based ecosystem: A long-term field study. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 150, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Long, S.P. Photosynthesis engineered to increase rice yield. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Badshah, M.A.; Naimei, T.; Zou, Y.; Ibrahim, M.; Wang, K. Yield and tillering response of super hybrid rice Liangyoupeijiu to tillage and establishment methods. Crop J. 2014, 2, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Guo, L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, L.; Sheng, F.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Effects of long-term no tillage and straw return on greenhouse gas emissions and crop yields from a rice-wheat system in central China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, X.; He, C.; Cheng, H.; Liu, B.; Li, S.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H. Responses of greenhouse gas emissions to residue returning in China’s croplands and influential factors: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Huang, S.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, J.; Shi, Q.; Pan, X. Effect of crop residue retention on rice yield in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crop Res. 2013, 154, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, P.; He, J.; Li, H.; Wang, Q.; Lu, C.; Zheng, K.; Liu, W.; Zhao, H.; Lou, S. Effect of straw retention on crop yield, soil properties, water use efficiency and greenhouse gas emission in China: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2019, 13, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Olk, D.C.; Jimenez, R.R.; Moscoso, E.; Gapas, P. Phenol accumulation in a young humic fraction following anaerobic decomposition of rice crop residues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 943–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Peng, S.; Buresh, R.J.; Huang, J.; Zhong, X.; Zou, Y.; Yang, J.; Wang, G.; Liu, Y.; Hu, R.; Tang, Q. Improving nitrogen fertilization in rice by sitespecific N management. A review. Agron Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chu, G.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Liu, L.; Yang, J.; Zhang, J. Alternate wetting and moderate drying increases rice yield and reduces methane emission in paddy field with wheat straw residue incorporation. Food Energy Secur. 2015, 4, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Song, K.; Yang, J.; Xue, Y.; Lv, W.; Zheng, X.; Pan, J. Influence of tillage practices and straw incorporation on soil aggregates, organic carbon, and crop yields in a rice-wheat rotation system. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Memon, M.S.; Guo, J.; Tagar, A.A.; Perveen, N.; Ji, C.; Memon, S.A.; Memon, N. The effects of tillage and straw incorporation on soil organic carbon status, rice crop productivity, and sustainability in the rice-wheat cropping system of eastern China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Zhang, L.; Zheng, J.; Chen, L.; Shen, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, M.; Bian, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, W. Integrative effects of soil tillage and straw management on crop yields and greenhouse gas emissions in a rice—Wheat cropping system. Eur. J. Agron 2015, 63, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tang, H.; Li, C.; Shi, L.; Wen, L.; Cheng, K.; Li, W.; Xiao, X. Functional soil organic matter fraction in response to short-term tillage management under the double-cropping rice paddy field in southern of China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R 2021, 28, 48438–48449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Asenso, E.; Zhang, L.; Tang, L.; Issaka, F.; Tian, K.; Li, J.; Hu, L. Moldboard plowing with direct seeding improves soil properties and sustainable productivity in ratoon rice farmland in Southern China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. He, A.; Wang, W.; Jiang, G.; Sun, H.; Jiang, M.; Man, J.; Cui, K.; Huang, J.; Peng, S.; Nie, L. Source-sink regulation and its effects on the regeneration ability of ratoon rice. Field Crop. Res. 2019, 236, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Song, K.; Zhang, G.; Ma, J.; Peng, S.; Lv, S.; Xu, H. Greenhouse gas emissions from ratoon rice fields among different varieties. Field Crop. Res. 2022, 277, 108423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhao, H.; Sun, B.; Lu, F.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X.; Ouyang, Z. Straw incorporation strategy on cereal crop yield in China. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 1773–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 09290 g001 550
Figure 1. Maximum temperature, minimum temperature, mean temperature, daily rainfall, and daily sunshine hours from April 1 to September 15 in the experiment conducted during 2020 to 2021.
Figure 1. Maximum temperature, minimum temperature, mean temperature, daily rainfall, and daily sunshine hours from April 1 to September 15 in the experiment conducted during 2020 to 2021.
Sustainability 14 09290 g001
Sustainability 14 09290 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of the root activity (mg a-NA g−1 DW h−1) in 2020 (A) and 2021 (B) and root dry weight (g m−2) in 2020 (C) and 2021 (D) under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; The same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
Figure 2. Effects of the root activity (mg a-NA g−1 DW h−1) in 2020 (A) and 2021 (B) and root dry weight (g m−2) in 2020 (C) and 2021 (D) under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; The same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
Sustainability 14 09290 g002
Sustainability 14 09290 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of the leaf area index (LAI) in 2020 (A) and 2021 (B), net photosynthetic rate (Pn, μmol m−2 S−1) in 2020 (C) and 2021 (D), and chlorophyll content (mg g−1) in 2020 (E) and 2021 (F) under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; The same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
Figure 3. Effects of the leaf area index (LAI) in 2020 (A) and 2021 (B), net photosynthetic rate (Pn, μmol m−2 S−1) in 2020 (C) and 2021 (D), and chlorophyll content (mg g−1) in 2020 (E) and 2021 (F) under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; The same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
Sustainability 14 09290 g003
Table
Table 1. Effects of the main-season rice yield and yield composition under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; ns: No significant effects; *: Significant effect at the p < 0.05 level; **: Significant effect at the p < 0.01 level; ***: Significant effect at the p < 0.001 level. Numbers within a column among the same year followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
Table 1. Effects of the main-season rice yield and yield composition under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; ns: No significant effects; *: Significant effect at the p < 0.05 level; **: Significant effect at the p < 0.01 level; ***: Significant effect at the p < 0.001 level. Numbers within a column among the same year followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
YearsTreatmentsSpikes DensitySpikelets per PanicleGrain Filling Rate1000-Grain WeightYield
m−2 %gt ha−1
2020NT+S250.26 ± 11.96 a154.60 ± 1.44 b79.07 ± 1.93 a27.84 ± 0.53 b8.13 ± 0.16 b
NT-S209.53 ± 13.25 b148.24 ± 3.13 b75.37 ± 2.99 a25.94 ± 0.20 c5.57 ± 0.30 c
PT+S274.97 ± 7.43 a170.50 ± 5.73 a75.44 ± 1.45 a28.51 ± 0.14 a9.81 ± 0.54 a
PT-S250.87 ± 21.96 a171.79 ± 3.94 a77.30 ± 1.72 a27.67 ± 0.10 b8.59 ± 0.42 b
2021NT+S244.62 ± 2.77 b155.42 ± 2.43 b76.69 ± 3.71 a26.74 ± 0.44 a7.50 ± 0.56 c
NT-S210.12 ± 14.13 c152.04 ± 2.85 b79.07 ± 4.05 a25.01 ± 0.35 b6.12 ± 0.20 d
PT+S281.25 ± 3.83 a174.86 ± 10.4 a77.39 ± 4.39 a27.07 ± 0.42 a9.92 ± 0.10 a
PT-S241.24 ± 8.93 b173.66 ± 7.10 a80.05 ± 2.74 a26.51 ± 0.11 a8.81 ± 0.53 b
Year (Y)nsnsns***ns
T******ns******
S***nsns******
Y*Tnsnsnsnsns
Y*Snsnsnsnsns
T*Snsnsns***
Y*T*Snsnsnsnsns
Table
Table 2. Effects of the ratoon-season rice yield and yield composition under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; ns: No significant effects; *: Significant effect at the p < 0.05 level; **: Significant effect at the p < 0.01 level; ***: Significant effect at the p < 0.001 level. Numbers within a column among the same year followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
Table 2. Effects of the ratoon-season rice yield and yield composition under different tillage (T) and straw (S) treatments. NT+S: no-till with main-season and ratoon-season rice residues retained on the soil surface; CT+S: plow tillage with residue retention; NT-S: no-till with residues removed; CT-S: plow tillage with residues removed; ns: No significant effects; *: Significant effect at the p < 0.05 level; **: Significant effect at the p < 0.01 level; ***: Significant effect at the p < 0.001 level. Numbers within a column among the same year followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (0.05).
YearsTreatmentsSpikes DensitySpikelets per PanicleGrain Filling Rate1000-Grain WeightYield
m−2 %gt ha−1
2020NT+S243.35 ± 4.63 b80.98 ± 2.78 a69.02 ± 2.33 a25.73 ± 0.85 b3.3 ± 0.08 b
NT-S212.42 ± 4.58 d70.64 ± 1.51 b71.04 ± 2 a24.26 ± 0.28 c2.43 ± 0.05 c
PT+S267.93 ± 2.9 c86.13 ± 1.73 a68.67 ± 2.14 a26.64 ± 0.12 a4.04 ± 0.16 a
PT-S229.35 ± 7.11 a84.39 ± 4.94 a69.87 ± 0.36 a25.48 ± 0.31 b3.22 ± 0.21 b
2021NT+S254.95 ± 8.87 ca79.93 ± 0.8 b73.68 ± 2.97 a25.07 ± 0.22 b3.41 ± 0.1 b
NT-S209.97 ± 8.63 b71.55 ± 2.00 c71.9 ± 2.08 a23.99 ± 0.48 c2.44 ± 0.13 c
PT+S265.68 ± 7.37 a89.46 ± 1.38 a71.43 ± 0.77 a25.97 ± 0.5 a4.11 ± 0.2 a
PT-S257.68 ± 6.6 a82.82 ± 2.3 b70.99 ± 1.19 a25.48 ± 0.15 ab3.58 ± 0.06 b
Year (Y)**ns****
T******ns******
S******ns******
Y*Tnsnsnsnsns
Y*Snsnsnsnsns
T*S**nsns*
Y*T*Snsnsnsnsns
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, L.; Li, X. Impact of Tillage and Straw Treatment Methods on Rice Growth and Yields in a Rice–Ratoon Rice Cropping System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159290

AMA Style

Li S, Zhang Y, Guo L, Li X. Impact of Tillage and Straw Treatment Methods on Rice Growth and Yields in a Rice–Ratoon Rice Cropping System. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Shengchun, Yilin Zhang, Lihao Guo, and Xiaofang Li. 2022. "Impact of Tillage and Straw Treatment Methods on Rice Growth and Yields in a Rice–Ratoon Rice Cropping System" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9290. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159290

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