Next Article in Journal
Application of Drone Surveillance for Advance Agriculture Monitoring by Android Application Using Convolution Neural Network
Next Article in Special Issue
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Double-Season Rice Field under Different Tillage Practices and Fertilization Managements in Southeast China
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Long-Term Grazing on Feed Intake and Digestibility of Cattle in Meadow Steppe
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improving Morpho-Physiological Indicators, Yield, and Water Productivity of Wheat through an Optimal Combination of Mulching and Planting Patterns in Arid Farming Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy13071762
agronomy-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 Management on Soil Properties and Rice Yield in a Rice-Ratoon Rice System

by
Di Yang
1,2,
Youning Wang
1,* and
Qixia Wu
2
1
Hubei Key Laboratory of Quality Control of Characteristic Fruits and Vegetables, Hubei Engineering University, Xiaogan 432000, China
2
College of Agriculture, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(7), 1762; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071762
Submission received: 25 April 2023 / Revised: 25 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 29 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agricultural Management for Climate Change Adaptation, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, and Agricultural Productivity)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rice-ratoon system has long been considered an important economic, time-saving, and labor-saving planting method. Optimal tillage and straw management are beneficial to increasing the growth and yield of recycled rice. However, there is little research on the physical and chemical properties of soil under tillage and straw management, and its effects on the yield and fertilizer utilization of recycled rice. A field experiment was conducted to study the effects of four types of tillage and straw management on rice yield and soil properties in central China during 2020–2021. The types of management were no-till with residues retained (NT+S); plow tillage with residue retention (PT+S); no-till with residues removed (NT-S); and plow tillage with residue removed (PT-S). Compared with PT, yield decreased by 38.8% in NT, while straw returning effectively increased the yield of regenerated rice. NT+S increased the yield of main season rice by 37.0% and ratoon rice by 45.3%. Compared with non-returning straw, straw returning increased soil total porosity, soil organic carbon, and activity of β-glucosidase and urease, among which TP and SOC were increased by 8.8% and 27.8%, respectively. The results showed that returning straw to the field could significantly reduce the yield loss caused by no-tillage and improve the soil structure. No-tillage combined with returning straw to the field of regenerative rice is a green, light, and simplified cultivation mode worthy of further exploration.

1. Introduction

The rice-ratoon system is a rice planting method that uses the growth of axillary buds on rice piles after the main season of rice is harvested [1]. Ratoon rice has the advantages of saving seeds, saving labor, low input cost, and high economic benefits, which can improve the multiple cropping index, increase the harvested area, and stabilize the rice yield [1]. Ratoon rice is grown in many parts of the world, mainly in East and South Asia, some African countries, the south of the United States, and Latin America [2]. However, ratoon rice has problems of soil compaction, nutrient imbalance, and decreased organic matter content [3,4]. Climate change is driving increased frequencies of extreme climatic events, and these problems are expected to increase [5]. Tillage and straw returning methods are very important to the ratoon rice yield and paddy soil properties [6], but there is a lack of relevant reports.
Soil tillage is one of the important agronomic measures in the agricultural production process [7]. Reasonable soil tillage methods are beneficial to improving the physical, chemical [8], and biological properties of farmland soil, optimizing the growth environment of crops, promoting the growth and development of crops, and increasing yield [9]. However, frequent and high-intensity tillage results in a shallow ploughing layer and poor physical and chemical properties of farmland, reducing the nutrient storage capacity of the soil, which in turn affects the growth and yield of crops [10]. As an important part of conservation tillage technology, no-tillage (NT) is considered to have the advantages of stabilizing soil structure, improving soil organic matter, and huge carbon sequestration potential [3]. However, previous reports on the effects of NT and conventional tillage on soil properties and yield are still controversial. The effects of NT on soil and rice yield were found to be related to the NT years, fertilization methods, soil properties, and rice planting patterns [11]. However, there is a lack of reports on the effect of NT on soil traits and yield of ratoon rice.
Crop straw is an important material basis in the material cycle of the farmland ecosystem, and it is very important for the nutrient cycle and soil productivity [12]. In China, farmers generally choose to burn crop straw in the fields to reduce the labor input for straw disposal, but burning straw causes air pollution and reduces soil fertility [13]. Crop straw is an important renewable resource, and it is a huge challenge to develop effective straw utilization technology [14]. There are various forms of returning straw to the field, mainly including burying, mulching, composting, and decomposing agent [15]. Among them, returning straw to the field by mulching is the most economical method and is accepted by most farmers [16]. Returning straw to the field can avoid the environmental pollution caused by straw burning and accumulation [17]. In addition, returning straw can also fertilize the soil, reduce the runoff of surface water, increase soil water storage, and prevent soil compaction caused by a single application of chemical fertilizers [18].
Studies have shown that the effect of returning straw on rice yield is different, mainly due to differences in physical and chemical properties of the soil, and the rate of straw decomposition is determined by geothermal conditions of the soil [18]. Water management [19], fertilizer management [18], farming methods [11], experiment year [20], and straw returns also affect the impact of returning straw on rice yields [21]. A recent inspection found that the annual use of rice and wheat straw is 1500–4500 and 2250–6750 kg ha−1, respectively, which increases soil organic carbon, promotes high annual yields, and increases soil organic matter in the rice–wheat rotation system [22]. However, study of the effect of straw returning combined with tillage on rice yield and soil properties is lacking, especially for ratoon rice.
In this study, we investigated the effects of different tillage and straw returning methods on soil bulk density (BD), total porosity (TP), soil organic carbon (SOC), the activity of β-glucosidase (BG) and urease (UR), and grain yield. We hypothesized that optimizing tillage and straw management could improve the soil quality and rice yield.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Description

Experiments were conducted from 2020 to 2021 in the Yangtze University Farm (30°23′ N, 112°29′ E), Jingzhou City, Hubei Province, China. The experimental site belongs to the northern subtropical agricultural climate zone. Annual average precipitation was 1095 mm in 2020 and 1024 mm in 2021, and annual average sunshine time was 1718 h in 2020 and 1724 h in 2021.The soil in this site is a silty clay loam with 24% sand (0.02–2.00 mm), 40% silt (0.002–0.02 mm), and 36% clay (<0.002 mm). The experimental soil was sandy loam, containing 29.25 g kg−1 organic matter, 232.14 mg kg−1 available nitrogen, 10.92 mg kg−1 available phosphate, 115.23 mg kg−1 available potassium, and 5.83 pH. The crop planting model of the experimental site is main season rice–ratoon season rice and fallow in winter. The tested rice variety is Fengliangyuo2, which has strong ratoon ability and high yield, and the whole growth period of planting as main season rice–ratoon season rice is 213 days.

2.2. Experimental Design

The field experiment included four tillage + 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 (PT+S); (3) no-till with residues removed (NT-S); (4) plow tillage with residue removed (PT-S); After rice harvesting (main season and ratoon season), crop residues were either manually removed from the field (NT-S and PT-S) or cut to a length of 5–10 cm prior to the implementation of other treatments (NT+S and PT+S), while the roots were kept in the soil. PT means plowing tillage (25 cm) 1 time + rotatory tillage (15 cm) 2 times 2–3 days before rice planting. All treatments were allocated in a randomized block design with three replicates (10 × 10 m). The rice growth periods are listed in Table 1. A compound fertilizer (N-P2O5-K2O = 22-9-15) was applied at 400 kg ha−1 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. Timely prevention and control of diseases, pests, and weeds was undertaken to avoid yield loss.

2.3. Sampling and Data Collection

2.3.1. Soil Sampling and Analyses

The soil samples were collected (500 g composite sample from each plot) after the harvest of ratoon season rice in 2020 and 2021 from 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths to analyze the DB, TP, and SOC. Soil samples were collected using a standard cutting ring of 100 cm3 and dried at 105 °C to determine bulk density (BD). TP was evaluated using BD and the average particle density (2.65 g cm−3) value [23]. SOC was determined by the dry combustion method [24] using a TOC analyzer (Elementar Vario Select, Hanau, Germany). It was assumed that when soil pH is lower than 7, organic carbon equals total carbon and inorganic carbon concentration can be neglected [25].
The soil samples were collected (500 g composite sample, one sample from each plot) at the mid-tillering stage of the main season rice and ratoon season rice in 2020 and 2021 from a 0–20 cm depth to analyze the urease and β-glucosidase. In the laboratory, all procedures for soil enzyme analysis were carried out at low temperature (≦4 ℃) and completed on the same day. The β-glucosidase activity was determined using the Allison and Jastrow method [26]. Briefly, 10 g of fresh soil was disrupted in Tris buffer (pH 7.4) at low temperature (≦4 °C) for 1 minute. The enzyme extract obtained after cold centrifugation was incubated with pNP-β-d-glucopyranoside. The mixture was incubated in a culture chamber at a temperature maintained equal to that of the soil. The absorbance of the product formed that was p-nitrophenol was measured at 460 nm using a spectrophotometer (Visiscan 167, Systronics, Anand, Gujarat, India). The urease activity was determined using the Kandeler and Gerber method [27]. To do this, the enzyme extract was incubated with urea in cold Tris buffer at 37 ℃. The released NH4+ was estimated using the salicylic acid method [28].

2.3.2. Grain Yield and Straw Biomass

Grain yield was determined from a 5 m2 area in the center of each plot and adjusted to the standard moisture content of 14%. The plant samples were measured at maturity by taking 5 m2 plant samples from the center of each plot in 2020 and 2021. The filled grain samples were separated from the straw. The filled grain and straw samples were oven dried at 70 ℃ to a stable weight and weighed. Dried grain and straw samples were used for C and N determination.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All experimental data were collected in 2020 and 2021 and are expressed as mean ± standard error (SE) of three replicates. The normal distribution and homogeneity variance of the data were tested using Shapiro–Wilk’s test and Levene’s test, respectively, using SPSS 21.0. Differences in rice indicators among the four treatments were compared by one-way analysis of variance and Duncan’s multiple range tests. Differences in rice indicators between the 2 years were compared by independent sample t-test. ANOVA was performed on the soil tillage, straw treatment, year, and their interactive effects. In statistical analysis, 2 significance levels were set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. Figures were drawn using OriginPro 2023.

3. Results

3.1. Rice Yield and Straw Biomass

As shown in Figure 1, both in main season and ratoon season rice, yield and straw biomass were the highest under PT+S treatment, followed by PT-S, and the lowest under NT-S treatment. The interaction of tillage management and straw residue management had significant effects on rice yield and straw biomass in main season rice and rice yield in ratoon season rice (Table 2). In addition, analysis showed that compared with NT, PT significantly increased main season rice yield and straw biomass by 35.87% and 35.77%, and increased ratoon season rice yield and straw biomass by 29.12% and 29.32%, respectively. Meanwhile, compared with straw removal, straw returning significantly increased main season rice yield and straw biomass by 21.54% and 19.52%, and increased ratoon season rice yield and straw biomass by 27.29% and 26.99%, respectively.

3.2. Soil Bulk Density (BD) and Soil Total Porosity (TP)

The effects of straw treatment and tillage management practices on soil bulk density at 0–20 and 20–40 cm profile depths are shown in Figure 2 and Table S1. At a 0–20 cm depth, the soil bulk density of PT+S was the lowest, there was no significant difference between NT+S and PT-S, and there was a significant difference between the other two treatments. At a 20–40 cm depth, we also recorded that PT+S soil bulk density was lower than that in other treatments. Compared with NT, PT significantly reduced bulk density in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 13.97% and bulk density in the 20–40 cm soil layer by 11.58%. Compared with straw removal, straw returning reduced bulk density in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 10.44% and bulk density in the 20–40 cm soil layer by 3.27%. The interaction of tillage and straw treatment only had a significant effect on soil bulk density at a depth of 0–20 cm.
The total porosity of PT+S at depths of 0–20 and 20–40 cm was found to be higher than that of the other three treatments (Figure 3 and Table S1). Compared with NT, PT significantly increased total porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 10.15% and total porosity in the 20–40 cm soil layer by 6.20%. Compared with straw removal, straw returning significantly increased total porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 4.22% and total porosity in the 20–40 cm soil layer by 5.15%. The interaction of tillage and straw treatment had a significant effect on soil total porosity at a depth of 20–40 cm.

3.3. Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)

The highest soil organic carbon was also recorded at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths under PT+S treatment (Figure 4 and Table S2). Compared with NT, PT significantly increased soil organic carbon in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 5.16% and soil organic carbon in the 20–40 cm soil layer by 5.63%. Compared with straw removal, straw returning significantly increased soil organic carbon in the 0–20 cm soil layer by 6.28% and soil organic carbon in the 20–40 cm soil layer by 3.58%. The interaction of tillage and straw treatment had a significant effect on soil organic carbon in the 20–40 cm soil layer.

3.4. Activities of Soil β-glucosidase (BG) and Urease (UR)

In this study, it was observed that soil β-glucosidase and urease activities were highest in the PT+S treatment, followed by NT+S (Figure 5). In main season rice, soil β-glucosidase and urease activities under PT treatment were significantly higher than those under NT treatment, at 4.13% and 9.27%, respectively. Soil β-glucosidase and urease activities after returning straw were significantly higher than those after straw removal, by 15.36% and 17.37%, respectively. In ratoon season rice, soil β-glucosidase and urease activities under PT treatment were significantly higher than those under NT treatment, at 3.15% and 6.83%, respectively; Soil β-glucosidase and urease activities after returning straw were significantly higher than those after straw removal, by 6.61% and 9.29%, respectively. In addition, the interaction of tillage and straw treatment had significant effects on soil β-glucosidase activities in main season rice and soil urease activities in the two seasons.

3.5. Relationships between Grain Yield and Bulk Density, Total Porosity, Main Season Rice β-glucosidase, and Soil Organic Carbon under NT and PT

Grain yield was significantly (p < 0.01) positively correlated with both grain yield and bulk density, total porosity, main season rice β-glucosidase, and soil organic carbon across different tillage depths (Figure 6), but this relationship was different between NT and PT (Figure 6). BD was negatively correlated with the yield (p < 0.01), The higher grain yield in NT was more closely related to β-glucosidase (R2 = 0.80, R2 = 0.64) in 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths, and soil organic carbon (R2 = 0.64, R2 = 0.77, R2 = 0.78) in the main season rice, while the grain yield in PT depended more highly on the total porosity (R2 = 0.70, R2 = 0.66) in the 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths.

3.6. Relationships between Grain Yield and Bulk Density, Total Porosity, Main Season Rice β-glucosidase, and Soil Organic Carbon under Different Tillage and Straw Residue Management Measures

Grain yield was significantly (p < 0.01) positively correlated with both grain yield and total porosity, main season rice β-glucosidase, and soil organic carbon across different tillage depths (Figure 7), but this relationship was different among tillage and straw residue management measures (Figure 7). The higher grain yield in NT was more closely related to total porosity and soil organic carbon (p < 0.01). The correlation coefficients of grain yield and total porosity in NT+S were R2 = 0.50, R2 =0.64; those for soil organic carbon in NT+S were R2 =0.89, R2 =0.92, R2 =0.88, and R2 = 0.84 in 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths in main season and ratoon season rice; while the grain yield in PT+S depended more highly on the total porosity (R2 = 0.78, R2 =0.80) in the main season rice.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of Tillage and Straw Returning on Yield and Straw Biomass of Rice

Previous studies on the effect of the tillage method on rice yield have been inconsistent. Denardin et al. [29] reported that NT increases rice yield through soil quality improvement over time. Wang et al. [23] reported that NT reduces rice yield by increasing soil compaction, increasing weed damage to rice. Several meta-analyses show that the effect of tillage on rice yield was influenced by environmental and agronomic factors, such as climatic conditions, soil properties, tillage duration, rice planting pattern, and fertilizer and organic matter inputs [1,30]. We observed higher straw biomass and grain yields of main season and ratoon season rice under PT compared with NT. Reportedly, the main reasons for the increased yield of NT are slowing down the rate of straw decomposition, decreasing topsoil bulk density, increasing soil organic matter content, enhancing soil enzyme and microbial activities, and improving soil quality and the rice root growth environment [9,29,31]. However, under the regenerative rice model, rice fields cannot grow profitable crops such as wheat and rapeseed in the slack winter season [32], and unprofitable green manures are not attractive to farmers [33]. On the other hand, the application of chemical fertilizers instead of organic fertilizers is a long-term fertilization habit for Chinese farmers (consistent with the fertilization strategy of this study) to grow rice [34]. Both lead to the lack of organic matter input in regenerative rice paddies, resulting in low soil organic matter content, which greatly reduces the effect of NT on improving rice yield through soil quality improvement [35]. In addition, long-term and partial nitrogen application can cause soil compaction, while insufficient organic matter input can exacerbate soil compaction [23]. Therefore, PT may be a suitable tillage method for a regenerative rice model, because PT can reduce soil compaction, increase soil permeability, and enhance root growth and yield [10]. However, under PT, it is also necessary to consider increasing the input of organic matter in regenerated rice fields.
Straw management affects soil properties and crop growth and is important for rice yield [22]. A previous meta-analysis report found that the rice yield increased by more than 5.0% when straw was returned to the field compared to straw removal [36]. We observed that returning straw increased the main season and ratoon season straw biomass and grain yield, which was consistent with previous results [37].Returning straw to the field can increase soil carbon sequestration and nutrient content, promote root growth, and ultimately increase rice yield [19]. However, some studies have found that returning straw to the field has the risk of reducing yield, mainly due to the following reasons: (1) In the early stage of rice vegetative growth, microorganisms compete with rice for nutrients through nitrogen fixation, limiting rice growth [38]. (2) When straw is decomposed under anaerobic conditions, it releases phytotoxic substances that can harm plants and phenolic compounds that limit the availability of soil nitrogen [36]. Reportedly, applying sufficient nitrogen fertilizer can avoid the adverse effects of nitrogen fixation on rice plant growth [18]. The main season nitrogen application rate in this experiment was 163 kg ha−1, which is about 75% higher than the world average [39]. In addition, drainage during the rice growing season and soil drying/ventilation promote the decomposition of crop residues, reducing the harmful effects of the accumulation of phenolic lignin residues and phytotoxic substances under anaerobic conditions on rice growth [19]. Therefore, the application of straw returning technology in China’s regenerative rice fields can improve the rice yield. Furthermore, PT combined with returning straw had the best yield among the four treatments, indicating that PT combined with returning straw may be the best tillage and straw treatment for the growth of regenerative rice in central China.

4.2. Impact of Tillage and Straw Returning on Soil Properties

Tillage methods significantly affect soil structure and soil physicochemical properties [40]. We observed that in the 0–40 cm soil layer, NT increased the BD and decreased the TP compared with PT. Multiple studies found that NT only reduced the compaction in the 0–5 cm soil layer, while increasing the compaction in the soil layer below 5 cm, supporting our results [11,23,41]. Natural compaction of soil without tillage all year round in regenerated rice fields leads to an increase in soil bulk density [23]. Gupta Choudhury et al. [10] reported that conservation tillage practices significantly influenced the total soil organic carbon (SOC) content of the surface (0–15 cm) soil. However, studies have shown that NT only increased the SOC content in the 0–5 cm soil layer [23,34,42]. In this study, compared with PT, NT reduced the SOC content in the 0–40 cm soil layer. In the absence of organic fertilizer input, straw and residual roots are the main sources of organic matter in paddy fields [43]. PT reduced soil compaction and improved the growth environment of rice roots, which may have promoted the development of rice roots and aerial parts, and returned more straw and residual roots to the field [43]. This is also because less straw and residual roots were returned to the field under NT than under PT [43]. Furthermore, it is because, under the NT treatment, the base fertilizer is applied on the soil surface, and the nitrogen fertilizer remaining in the topsoil is easily lost through ammonia volatilization and surface water runoff, which reduces the soil N content [44]. The above results verify that NT restricts rice growth and reduces rice yield by increasing soil compaction and reducing soil SOC content in the ratoon rice method.
Returning straw reduces the BD and increases the TP in the 0–20 cm soil layer, which is consistent with the previous conclusion [45]. In addition, returning straw reduced the soil compaction of the 20–40 cm layer under PT conditions, which was related to the introduction of straw into the 20–40 cm soil layer by tillage. Returning straw increased the SOC contents in the 0–40 cm soil layer, which was consistent with the previous conclusions [21,46]. The straw is rich in C and N, and the input of C and N is increased after straw returns to the field [22]. In addition, returning straw improved soil physical and chemical properties, promoted root growth, and increased residual root biomass, which increased C and N inputs after being returned to the field [22,46]. Under the returning straw treatment, the SOC under PT was significantly higher than that under NT in the 20–40 cm soil layer. This is related to PT improving the root growth environment, increasing root biomass in the 20–40 cm soil layer, and tillage bringing straw into the 20–40 cm soil layer, all of which increase the C and N inputs of the soil layer [23,34]. Therefore, returning straw improves the yield of rice by improving soil physical and chemical properties in the ratoon rice method.
BG regulates the release of soil glucose, and UR regulates the decomposition of urea, both of which are important enzymes in soil C and N cycles [47,48]. We observed that tillage increased the activity of BG and UR, which was consistent with previous conclusions [49]. In this study, tillage increased SOC content, thus stimulating the synthesis of BG and UR [50]. In addition, tillage increases soil permeability, possibly promoting root development and increasing root exudates, which provide more unstable nutrients for the synthesis of BG and UR [51]. We observed that returning straw increased the activities of BG and UR, which was consistent with previous conclusions [52]. Returning straw provides more substrates and energy sources for enzyme synthesis [53]. PT combined with returning straw had higher BG and UR at the tillering stage of rice in the main season, which may be because tillage fully mixed the straw and soil, which promoted the decomposition of straw and the synthesis of enzymes [49].

5. Conclusions

In this experiment, we evaluated the contribution of BD, TP, and SOC to the grain yield of main season and ratoon season rice under different tillage and straw residue management measures. Our results showed that straw residue increased the yield by 52.8% in NT and by 24.9% in PT. The yield decreased under NT, but residue retention enhanced the soil structure, thereby making up for the yield loss under NT. On the whole, NT combined with returning straw is a green and efficient means of cultivation, effectively improving soil fertility and achieving high yield and efficient development.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy13071762/s1, Table S1. Effects of the bulk density and total porosity in main season and ratoon season rice under different tillage + straw treatments. Table S2. Effects of the soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in main season and ratoon season rice under different tillage + straw treatments.

Author Contributions

The contributors are Y.W. for conceptualization and methodology; Q.W. and D.Y. for formal analysis and investigation/writing—original draft/supervision; D.Y. for visualization, and writing—review/editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (No. U21A2039) and Hubei Province Higher Education Teaching Research Project (No. 2021425).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Yangtze University for providing experimental conditions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Wang, W.; He, A.; Jiang, G.; Sun, H.; Jiang, M.; Man, J.; Ling, X.; Cui, K.; Huang, J.; Peng, S.; et al. Ratoon rice technology: A green and resource-efficient way for rice production. Adv. Agron. 2020, 159, 135–167. [Google Scholar]
  2. Maclean, J.; Hardy, B.; Hettel, G. Rice Almanac: Source Book for One of the Most Important Economic Activities on Earth; IRRI: Los Baños, Philippines, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Crops Res. 2017, 208, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. 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]
  5. Liu, K.; Harrison, M.T.; Yan, H.; Liu, K.; Harrison, M.T.; Yan, H.; Liu, D.; Meinke, H.; Hoogenboom, G.; Wang, B.; et al. Silver lining to a climate crisis in multiple prospects for alleviating crop waterlogging under future climates. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, G.; 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]
  8. Wang, Y.X.; Chen, S.P.; Zhang, D.X.; Yang, L.; Cui, T.; Jing, H.R.; Li, Y.H. Effects of subsoiling depth, period interval and combined tillage practice on soil properties and yield in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain, China. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1596–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Timsina, J. Can organic sources of nutrients increase crop yields to meet global food demand? Agronomy 2018, 8, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. 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]
  11. Su, Y.; Gabrielle, B.; Makowski, D. A global dataset for crop production under conventional tillage and no tillage systems. J. Sci. Data 2021, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yu, Q.; Liu, R.; Li, K.; Ma, R. 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] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.; Hao, L. Contributions of open crop straw burning emissions to PM2. 5 concentrations in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 014014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Xu, M.; Feng, G.; Zhang, W.; Lu, C. Crop yield and soil organic matter after long-term straw return to soil in China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2015, 102, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Siedt, M.; Schäffer, A.; Smith, K.E.C.; Nabel, M.; Roß-Nickoll, M.; van Dongen, J.T. Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities, and the fate of pesticides. J. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 751, 141607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Seglah, P.A.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Bi, Y.; Zhou, K.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Feng, X. Crop straw utilization and field burning in Northern region of Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Goodman, B.A. Utilization of waste straw and husks from rice production: A review. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2020, 5, 143–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. 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]
  19. 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. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 211, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, C.; Lu, M.; Cui, J.; Li, B.; Fang, C. Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2014, 20, 1366–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. 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]
  22. Brar, B.S.; Singh, J.; Singh, G.; Kaur, G. Effects of long term application of inorganic and organic fertilizers on soil organic carbon and physical properties in maize–wheat rotation. Agronomy 2015, 5, 220–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Wang, X.; Qi, J.; Liu, B.; Kan, Z.; Zhao, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, H. 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]
  24. Nelson, D.A.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis: Part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. Sci. Res. J. 1983, 9, 539–579. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jagadamma, S.; Lal, R. Distribution of organic carbon in physical fractions of soils as affected by agricultural management. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2010, 46, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Allison, S.D.; Jastrow, J.D. Activities of extracellular enzymes in physically isolated fractions of restored grassland soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 3245–3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kandeler, E.; Gerber, H. Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1988, 6, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pandey, D.; Agrawal, M.; Bohra, J.S. Effects of conventional tillage and no tillage permutations on extracellular soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass under rice cultivation. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 136, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Denardin, L.G.D.O.; Carmona, F.D.C.; Veloso, M.G.; Martins, A.P.; de Freitas, T.F.S.; Carlos, F.S.; Marcolin, É.; 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]
  30. Huang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Ren, W.; Wang, L.; Hui, D.; Grove, J.H.; Yang, X.; Tao, B.; Goff, B. Greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield in no-tillage systems: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 268, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Das, A.; Lal, R.; Patel, D.P.; Idapuganti, R.G.; Layek, J.; Ngachan, S.V.; Ghosh, P.K.; Bordoloi, J.; Kumar, M. Effects of tillage and biomass on soil quality and productivity of lowland rice cultivation by small scale farmers in North Eastern India. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 143, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Whitmore, A.P.; Cadisch, G.; Toomsan, B.; Limpinuntana, V.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Purnomosidhi, P. An analysis of the economic values of novel cropping systems in NE Thailand and S. Sumatra. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2000, 48, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Ding, Z.; Hu, R.; Styles, D.; Wang, X.; Tian, Y.; Cao, Y.; Hou, J. Optimized ratoon rice system to sustain cleaner food production in Jianghan Plain, China: A comprehensive emergy assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 24639–24650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, H.; Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, D.; Li, L.; Li, W.; Sheng, L. Effects of long-term application of organic fertilizer on improving organic matter content and retarding acidity in red soil from China. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 195, 104382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. 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]
  36. Huang, S.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, J.; Shi, Q.; Pan, X. Effect of crop residue retention on rice yield in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2013, 154, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yang, L.; Zhou, X.; Liao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Nie, J.; Cao, W. Co-incorporation of rice straw and green manure benefits rice yield and nutrient uptake. Crop. Sci. 2019, 59, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shridhar, B.S. Nitrogen fixing microorganisms. Int. J. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 3, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Salahin, N.; Jahiruddin, M.; Islam, M.R.; Alam, M.K.; Haque, M.E.; Ahmed, S.; Baazeem, A.; Hadifa, A.; El Sabagh, A.; Bell, R.W. Establishment of crops under minimal soil disturbance and crop residue retention in rice-based cropping system: Yield advantage, soil health improvement, and economic benefit. Land 2021, 10, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tyagi, S.; Naresh, R.K.; Prakash, S.; Tyagi, K.; Jaat, L.; Mahajan, N.C. Dynamic of new generation tillage and crop establishment techniques on crop-water productivity and soil health in rice-wheat rotation in North-Western IGP: A review. IJCS 2019, 7, 3047–3065. [Google Scholar]
  42. Álvaro-Fuentes, J.; López, M.V.; Cantero-Martínez, C.; Arrúe, J.L. Tillage effects on soil organic carbon fractions in Mediterranean dryland agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2008, 72, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. 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]
  44. Rimski-Korsakov, H.; Rubio, G.; Lavado, R.S. Fate of the nitrogen from fertilizers in field-grown maize. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2012, 93, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dai, W.; Gao, H.; Sha, Z.; Penttinen, P.; Fang, K.; Wang, J.; Cao, L. Changes in soil organic carbon fractions in response to wheat straw incorporation in a subtropical paddy field in China. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2021, 184, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Powlson, D.S.; Poulton, P.R.; Glendining, M.J.; Macdonald, A.J.; Goulding, K.W. It possible to attain the same soil organic matter content in arable agricultural soils as under natural vegetation? Outlook Agric. 2022, 51, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zuber, S.M.; Villamil, M.B. Meta-analysis approach to assess effect of tillage on microbial biomass and enzyme activities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 97, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Jiang, S.; Du, B.; Hu, F.; Zhang, H.; Kong, P.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, J. A seven-year study on the effects of four tillage modes on soil physicochemical properties, microbial biomass, enzymatic activities, and grain yield in a rice–ratoon rice cropping system. Food Energy Secur. 2023, 12, e437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tang, H.; Li, C.; Cheng, K.; Shi, L.; Wen, L.; Li, W.; Xiao, X. Effects of different tillage management on rhizosphere soil nitrogen mineralization and its extracellular enzyme activity in a double-cropping rice paddy field of southern China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 4933–4943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zheng, Y.; Han, X.; Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Li, N.; An, N. Effects of biochar and straw application on the physicochemical and biological properties of paddy soils in northeast China. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Nevins, C.J.; Lacey, C.; Armstrong, S. The synchrony of cover crop decomposition, enzyme activity, and nitrogen availability in a corn agroecosystem in the Midwest United States. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 197, 104518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mariscal-Sancho, I.; Ball, B.; McKenzie, B. Influence of tillage practices, organic manures and extrinsic factors on β-glucosidase activity: The final step of cellulose hydrolysis. Soil Syst. 2018, 2, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Singh, J.; Kumar, S. Seasonal changes of soil carbon fractions and enzyme activities in response to winter cover crops under long-term rotation and tillage systems. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 72, 886–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 01762 g001 550
Figure 1. Effects on the yield and straw biomass in main season and ratoon season rice under different crop management measures in 2020 and 2021. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Figure 1. Effects on the yield and straw biomass in main season and ratoon season rice under different crop management measures in 2020 and 2021. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Agronomy 13 01762 g001
Agronomy 13 01762 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of different tillage and straw residue management measures on soil bulk density at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Figure 2. Effect of different tillage and straw residue management measures on soil bulk density at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Agronomy 13 01762 g002
Agronomy 13 01762 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of different tillage and straw residue management measures on soil total porosity at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05.
Figure 3. Effect of different tillage and straw residue management measures on soil total porosity at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05.
Agronomy 13 01762 g003
Agronomy 13 01762 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of different tillage and straw residue management measures on soil organic carbon at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Figure 4. Effect of different tillage and straw residue management measures on soil organic carbon at 0–20 and 20–40 cm depths. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Agronomy 13 01762 g004
Agronomy 13 01762 g005 550
Figure 5. β-glucosidase and urease activities in main season and ratoon season rice under different crop management measures in 2020 and 2021. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Figure 5. β-glucosidase and urease activities in main season and ratoon season rice under different crop management measures in 2020 and 2021. NT+S: no-till with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. NT-S: no-till with residues removed. PT+S: plow tillage with main season and ratoon season rice straw residue returning to the field. PT-S: plow tillage with residue removed. The same letter means they are not significantly different at the 0.05 level; different letters mean they are significantly different at the 0.05 level.
Agronomy 13 01762 g005
Agronomy 13 01762 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationships between grain yield and BD under different tillage measures in 0–20 cm (a) and 20–40 cm depths (b); total porosity in 0–20 cm (c) and 20–40 cm depths (d); main season rice β-glucosidase in 0–20 cm (e) and 20–40 cm depths (f); soil organic carbon in 0–20 cm in main season rice (g) and the 20–40 cm depth (h); soil organic carbon in the 0–20 cm depth in main season rice (i), (n = 12). ** significant at p < 0.01; ns, non-significant.
Figure 6. Relationships between grain yield and BD under different tillage measures in 0–20 cm (a) and 20–40 cm depths (b); total porosity in 0–20 cm (c) and 20–40 cm depths (d); main season rice β-glucosidase in 0–20 cm (e) and 20–40 cm depths (f); soil organic carbon in 0–20 cm in main season rice (g) and the 20–40 cm depth (h); soil organic carbon in the 0–20 cm depth in main season rice (i), (n = 12). ** significant at p < 0.01; ns, non-significant.
Agronomy 13 01762 g006
Agronomy 13 01762 g007 550
Figure 7. Relationships between grain yield and total porosity under different tillage and straw residue management measures in 0–20 cm (a) and 20–40 cm (b) depths; main season rice β-glucosidase in 0–20 cm (c) and 20–40 cm (d) depths; soil organic carbon in 0–20 cm in main season rice (e) and ratoon season rice (f), and the 20–40 cm depth in main season rice (g) and ratoon season rice (h); (n = 12). ** significant at p < 0.01; ns, non-significant.
Figure 7. Relationships between grain yield and total porosity under different tillage and straw residue management measures in 0–20 cm (a) and 20–40 cm (b) depths; main season rice β-glucosidase in 0–20 cm (c) and 20–40 cm (d) depths; soil organic carbon in 0–20 cm in main season rice (e) and ratoon season rice (f), and the 20–40 cm depth in main season rice (g) and ratoon season rice (h); (n = 12). ** significant at p < 0.01; ns, non-significant.
Agronomy 13 01762 g007
Table
Table 1. Growth data of main season and ratoon rice.
Table 1. Growth data of main season and ratoon rice.
Main Season RiceRatoon Rice
Sowing DataTransplanting DataHarvesting DataSeedling DataHarvesting Data
20213/244/218/138/1311/1
20223/224/208/148/1211/3
Table
Table 2. The interaction of yield and TDW under different types of tillage management and straw residue management.
Table 2. The interaction of yield and TDW under different types of tillage management and straw residue management.
ANOVAYield (t ha−1)TDW (t ha−1)
Main SeasonRatoon SeasonMain SeasonRatoon Season
Year (Y)nsnsnsns
Tillage management (T)234.97 **231.65 **233 **137.71 **
Straw residue management (S)96.08 **206.73 **80.02 **119.07 **
Y × Tnsnsnsns
Y × Snsnsnsns
T × S6.37 *4.82 *13.3 **ns
Y × T × Snsnsnsns
** significant at p < 0.01; * significant at p < 0.05; ns, non-significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, D.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Q. Impact of Tillage and Straw Management on Soil Properties and Rice Yield in a Rice-Ratoon Rice System. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071762

AMA Style

Yang D, Wang Y, Wu Q. Impact of Tillage and Straw Management on Soil Properties and Rice Yield in a Rice-Ratoon Rice System. Agronomy. 2023; 13(7):1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071762

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Di, Youning Wang, and Qixia Wu. 2023. "Impact of Tillage and Straw Management on Soil Properties and Rice Yield in a Rice-Ratoon Rice System" Agronomy 13, no. 7: 1762. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071762

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