Next Article in Journal
Differences in Early Root Endophytic Bacterial Communities between Japanese Sake Rice Cultivars and Table Rice Cultivars
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction and Classification of Phenol Contents in Cnidium officinale Makino Using a Stacking Ensemble Model in Climate Change Scenarios
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy14081768
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Tillage Practices Effect on Root Distribution and Variation of Soil CO2 Emission under Different Cropping Strategies

by
Agnė Buivydienė
*,
Irena Deveikytė
,
Agnė Veršulienė
and
Virginijus Feiza
Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Instituto al. 1, Kėdainiai District, LT-58344 Akademija, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(8), 1768; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081768
Submission received: 10 July 2024 / Revised: 1 August 2024 / Accepted: 10 August 2024 / Published: 12 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Innovative Cropping Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Conservation soil management strategies, particularly no-tillage and cropping strategies, have become an effective and widely adopted practice that has a direct influence on root parameters and mitigation of greenhouse gasses. However, the effect of different tillage and cropping strategies on root growth in field conditions is rarely studied. The study aimed to quantify and characterise the relationship between root network development and CO2 emission and how these parameters are affected by different cropping and tillage strategies. Five different crop rotations were tested, with or without the inclusion of catch crops (CC), by growing them in the soil where different tillage practices were applied. Selected cropping strategies differed among themselves in terms of the frequency of CC grown per rotation. The data revealed that in NT treatments, the CO2 emission (both autotrophic and heterotrophic simultaneously) was 25% higher than in CT. The cropping strategies were identified as an important factor influencing CO2 emissions. An increase in CO2 emission varied between 30 and 35% depending on the share of legume and CC inclusion. The frequency of CC grown per rotation has had an effect on the rate of CO2 emission. The cropping strategy when CC was grown every year showed the lowest amount of CO2 (by 26%), while in other cropping strategies, when CC was grown once or twice per rotation, significantly higher CO2 emissions were observed. Root growth and their development were significantly affected (p < 0.05) by soil depth and cropping strategies concerning root length and root volume changes. The inclusion of CC into the rotations led towards a decrease in root volume (by 21%). Root length (R2 = 0.45; p < 0.05) and root volume (R2 = 0.82; p < 0.05) had a significant impact on soil CO2 emissions. The results collected from 2021 to 2023 experiments indicated that cropping strategies and CC management areas are important tools not only for the improvement of root parameters but also for understanding how they affect CO2 emissions. The main message for stakeholders is that the cropping strategies diversification with the inclusion of CC every year in a winter oil-seed rape, spring wheat and pea crop rotation (R/W/P + CC) had demonstrated the possibilities to reduce CO2 emission and improve the root network parameters as compared to the monoculture strategy.

1. Introduction

Climate change has emerged as a major global concern with major impacts on Earth’s ecosystems. Mainly due to human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere, climate-related changes have increased significantly over the past century. As a result of continuing deforestation, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of the air, water, and land, the average global temperature has risen by about 0.9 °C since the 1800s. Estimates show that by 2050, the temperature should rise by 1.5 °C or more [1]. The growing global demand for food has led the agricultural industry to intensify its farming practices, leading to excessive use of agrochemicals, extensive livestock farming, and overexploitation of water resources. The mentioned factors lead to the deterioration of the current state of natural resources and increase the emission of greenhouse gases. In a global context, agriculture contributes up to 20% of greenhouse gas emissions; until 2010, this percentage increased to 24% [2]. The release of CO2 in the soil occurs as a result of biochemical processes that are closely linked to root respiration and microorganism biological activity. It is composed of respiration by roots and heterotrophic organisms, with each component having distinctive drivers and sensitivities and, consequently, varying feedback potential to climate change. Autotrophic soil respiration originates from roots and the rhizosphere and is mainly influenced by fine root biomass, soil temperature, nutrient availability, and C allocation [3,4]. In contrast, heterotrophic soil respiration originates from soil microbes and soil fauna decomposing soil organic matter and plant litter and is mainly affected by soil temperature, moisture content, organic C pool size and microbial biomass [5,6]. The autotrophic to heterotrophic soil respiration ratio generally ranges from 10% to 90% [7] and is affected by biotic and abiotic factors such as plant vegetation type, soil type, management practices, stand age, and climate conditions [8,9,10]. Because different sources of CO2 from soil respiration may respond differently to environmental changes, it is important to estimate the response of each source to climate change to more precisely estimate soil respiration [11] and to quantify their contributions to link the global carbon cycle. Recently, more attention has been paid to what can be changed in agricultural management practices to mitigate GHG emissions and maintain soil health, which is fundamental to achieving global sustainability goals [12,13]. The above-mentioned goals can be achieved through appropriate tillage systems, using a wider selection of crop rotations, avoiding monocultures, using catch crops, green manure and organic amendments [14].
The main causes of agricultural soil deterioration in recent years have been identified as unsuitable agricultural practices, such as intensive and traditional tillage systems that leave the soil surfaces bare. A number of agronomic studies conducted worldwide under various climatic conditions have identified common problems for arable soils, including compaction, erosion, limitations on water circulation and energy, and financial resources. In contrast to conventional tillage (CT), conservation tillage uses reduced and no-tillage (NT) management techniques that aim to reduce the frequency or intensity of tillage operations to provide some environmental benefit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions [15]. Evidence from previous studies shows that switching from CT to NT systems reduces and minimises CO2 emissions, especially when NT is used as a primary soil management strategy [16]. By reducing carbon emissions and protecting natural resources, NT methods reduce the impact of climate change [17,18]. Chemical, physical and biological processes in soil are actually improved by NT techniques [19]. The application of NT methods leads to the homogeneity of the soil structure and the development of structural stability, which ultimately leads to higher productivity while preserving the environment [20]. Benefits of the NT system include increased soil organic matter content, reduced runoff and erosion, increased crop residue inputs, augmenting microbial biomass and activity, and increased root biomass production. Studies show that increases in fine roots and microbial biomass are strongly associated with increases in soil organic carbon content in agroecosystems [21,22]. The precise effects on soil CO2 emissions remain controversial and greatly vary among studies [23,24]. Some studies showed a substantial decrease in soil CO2 and other grasses emissions with NT [25,26], while others reported a significant increase [27,28,29]. For example, a long-term study in arable soil exhibited a 50% increase in CO2 emission. Kim et al. [30] reported that the total CO2 flux from NT fields decreased by 20–27% in the first and second years after NT application. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the different soil CO2 emission responses due to NT. For example, a decrease in soil CO2 emission in NT might be due to carbon protection associated with enhanced soil aggregation and decreased soil temperature [26,31], while an acceleration in soil CO2 emission might be due to enhanced microbial activity caused by greater soil moisture availability [32]. This highlights a critical knowledge gap in the context of climate change mitigation and the pursuit of carbon neutrality. Findings from country-specific soil and meteorological conditions will lead to data acquisition and deeper knowledge.
The choice of crop rotation and its diversification also affect soil quality and ecosystem functions. A common crop rotation is the annual cultivation of cereals, which does not improve the condition of the soil. However, leguminous or catch crops should be integrated into crop rotations with cereals [33]. These crops included in crop rotation are very important because of their effects on soil properties [34]. According to Frasier et al. [35], the inclusion of CC in the NT system improves soil water and carbon sequestration and provides better biodiversity and nutrient availability. However, the impact of CC on CO2 emissions is still unclear. The research findings recorded in the literature are disagreeable. Given this, CC adds more carbon to the soil than other crops, so their CO2 emission process can last longer. Other scientists have reported that the inclusion of CC can increase CO2 emissions by 10% to 30% due to increased respiratory and metabolic activity in the soil rhizosphere [36,37,38]. This implies that various factors related to soil structure and composition, agrometeorological conditions, sampling period and plant involvement likely mediate soil CO2 production with the addition of CC.
The objectives of this study were (i) to compare the different tillage and cropping strategies on CO2 emission, (ii) to assess the effect of different catch crops and their composition in a crop rotation on CO2 emission, and (iii) to investigate the plant root network development under different tillage and cropping strategies on CO2 emission in a loamy Cambisol.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Location

The research was conducted at the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (LAMMC), Institute of Agriculture (55°23′N, 23°50′E, Figure 1). The field experiment was installed in 2021 on a conventionally managed field with a loam texture. The climate of Lithuania is humid continental, with warm summers and rather severe winters. According to standard climate norm data (1991–2020), the average air temperature at the experimental site was 7.5 °C, and the average amount of precipitation amounted to 700 mm. The investigations were performed in 2021–2023. The experimental soil type was classified as Endocalcary-Endohypogleyic Cambisol, according to WRB. Cambisols are typical and widespread in Lithuania’s central regions.
Soil textural composition was identified as a loam soil in which the content of clay particles (<0.002 mm) was 13.5, silt (0.063–0.002 mm)—37.53 and sand (2.0–0.063 mm)—48.97, bulk density—1.58 Mg m−3. Evaluating soil chemical characteristics, research soil was described as close to neutral reaction (pHKCl 6.6), with a high amount of plant-available phosphorus and potassium (200 and 150 mg kg−1, respectively) and a high amount of humus content (3.1%).

2.2. Meteorological Conditions

Meteorological conditions (annual mean air temperature and total amount of precipitation) were different during all study periods (2021–2023) (Table 1, Figure 2). During the crop vegetation period in 2021, the weather was warm and relatively wet. The annual mean air temperature was 1.9 °C higher compared to the long-term mean. The vegetation period in 2021 was moist enough in terms of precipitation. The amount of precipitation (452.9 mm) slightly exceeded the long-term mean (410 mm). In 2022, annual mean air temperature and total amount of precipitation during the plant’s vegetation period were close to the long-term mean and constituted to 13.6 °C and 452.9 mm, respectively. The vegetation period in 2023 was warmer and dryer than usual, which created unfavourable conditions for plant growth.
In 2023, the average air temperature during the plant’s vegetation period was 2.6 °C higher, and the total amount of precipitation was 184.6 mm lower compared to the long-term mean. The amount of precipitation evidently reduced during the 2023 crop vegetation period and was approximately twice as low compared to the long-term mean.

2.3. Experimental Design and Treatments

To study different tillage and cropping strategies effect on plant root parameters and variation on soil CO2 emission, the field experiment was executed during the three-year period in 2021–2023. Five different crop rotations were tested, with or without the inclusion of catch crops, by growing them on the background of different tillage practices. A split-plot design with four replications was set up in a field experiment, which included ten treatment combinations (40 plots in total). Different tillage systems (Factor A: conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT)); Factor B: different cropping strategies (Table 2, Figure 3).
The experiment comprised five cropping strategies: W/W/W—winter and spring wheat monoculture without inclusion of catch crops; W/W/W + CC—winter and spring wheat rotation with the inclusion of catch crops (growing them two times per rotation (first and third year); W/P/W + CC—spring wheat and pea rotation (catch crops were grown the first year); W/P/R + CC—spring wheat, pea and winter rape rotation with the inclusion of catch crops (growing them two times per rotation (first and second year); R/W/P + CC—winter oil-seed rape, spring wheat and pea rotation when catch crops were grown every year. Selected cropping strategies differed among themselves in terms of the share of Poaceae, Fabaceae and Brassicaceae spp. in the crop rotation and in the frequency of catch crop grown per rotation (Table 2, Figure 3). White mustard (Sinapis alba L.) was planted as a catch crop. It was sown after the main crop was harvested. Sowing was performed with the “Rapid 400 C” disk seed drill across the direction of tillage. Catch crop biomass was always incorporated by ploughing before sowing of the main crop. Mineral fertiliser (NPK) rates were calculated according to the amount of mineral nitrogen, mobile P2O5, and K2O in the soil. Fertilisers were spread on the soil surface and slightly incorporated during pre-sowing tillage under conventional tillage or during direct drilling under no-tillage.
Different cropping strategies were applied to the soil cultivated using two different tillage methods: conventional (CT) and no-tillage (NT). Deep ploughing and stubble cultivation constituted CT. Using a reversible plough with semi-screw mouldboards, the deep ploughing was performed to 20–22 cm depth. Pre-sowing tillage was performed the day before seeding. A seed drill with two flat discs was used for direct drilling. In NT (plots without inclusion of cover crops), a broad-action herbicide (Glyphosate, 4 L ha−1) was applied at the prescribed rate and diluted with 200 L ha−1 of water before sowing. The direct drilling was performed in one pass with a disc seed drill. Soil surface percentage coverage with crop residues was not determined as it was not a task of this experiment.

2.4. Measurement of Soil CO2 Emissions

A closed chamber methodology was used to measure the CO2 emission from soil (heterotrophic and autotrophic soil respiration). Using a portable analyser Li-Cor 6400-09 (ADC Bioscientific Ltd., Hoddesdon, UK), the soil CO2 emission (µmol m2 s−1) was measured in a soil layer within a depth of 0 to 10 cm. For the measurement, 20 cm diameter rings were inserted in advance into the ground. Three measurements were carried out in each record plot. Within a few minutes, when there were no discernible changes in CO2 respiration, the CO2 emission data were recorded. During experimental activity in 2021–2023, the CO2 emission measurements were conducted four times per growing season at the same time of the day (from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.) [39].

2.5. Investigations of Root Parameters

The root development of crop rotation plants was determined annually, once during the plant growing season, at the time of plant flowering (BBCH 61–65). Samples were taken by the method of small monoliths (10 × 10 × 10 cm) in two soil layers (0–10 and 10–20 cm), with three replications in each treatment plot. To avoid evaporation, fresh samples have been packed in plastic bags and refrigerated at −20 °C in a freezer until examination. In the laboratory, small mesh sieves with a diameter of 500 and 250 µm were used to wash the roots to separate them carefully from the soil. After washing the root samples, they were chopped into approximately 2 cm pieces and dyed with a “Neutral Red” reagent. Analysis of root volume, length and diameter was performed using the PC software program “WinRhizo Basic” (PC 64-bit) [40].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The statistical software program SAS 7.1 was used to analyse the collected data using a multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Duncan’s multiple range tests were used to compare the mean values and standard errors at a probability level of p < 0.05. Analysis of the relationship between different parameters was performed using Pearson’s correlation. In this study, correlation regression analysis was also employed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Changes in Root Parameters under Different Cropping Ant Tillage Strategies

Plant roots are essential for efficient functioning in both natural and agricultural environments. Different root parameters such as length, diameter, and volume need to be measured to understand plant and soil functions [41]. Numerous studies have been conducted worldwide to investigate the effects of tillage and crop rotation diversification on root parameters, but the findings are inconsistent [42,43,44]. Tillage alters soil moisture and physical characteristics, reducing bulk density and having a positive effect on root formation and growth [45,46]. The parameters of roots during the three-course crop rotation in the 0–10 cm and 10–20 cm topsoil layers are presented in Table 3. Root growth and development depended on cropping strategies and soil depth. The current study found significant effects (p < 0.05) of soil depth and cropping strategies on root length and root volume. It should be noticed that different tillage methods as a single factor did not affect any of the investigated root parameters. This result contradicts the data reported by other scientists, who found tillage to be one of the main practices influencing root growth and development due to better average root diameter and total root volume. However, some studies have also shown that NT application inhibits root growth by affecting bulk density and increasing soil compaction. Such conditions limit root growth and root system development [47,48].
Crop rotation can also be described as a factor affecting root length and root volume. Our data clearly show that crop rotation diversification was superior to monoculture. Bodner et al. [49] revealed that crop rotation diversification with the inclusion of CC decreased the root volume, thereby decreasing soil macropore volume of; they considerably enhanced the micropore volume and reduced the soil compaction. The inclusion of CC into rotations reduced root volume. The root volume was significantly lower in the rotations where CC was grown every year—R/W/P + CC (1.48 cm3) compared with the rotation where only wheat was grown—R/W/P + CC (1.88 cm3). The effects of tillage and soil depth, as well as soil depth and cropping strategies, significantly affected root volume. A trend of increasing root diameter with increasing CC cultivation in crop rotation was also observed. According to the findings of several other studies [50,51,52], larger-diameter roots can penetrate through compacted soil and facilitate soil compaction. At the same time, an increase in root diameter may increase soil density [53], which would negatively affect porosity and reduce soil water retention capacity [54]. Similar observations between root parameters and soil depth and crop rotations were recorded by Veršulienė et al. [55], who found that the inclusion of CC increased root diameter and reduced root volume due to CC management.

3.2. Soil CO2 Emissions in Response to Tillage and Different Cropping Strategies

A significant portion of the carbon cycle in terrestrial ecosystems is the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the soil. Tillage techniques are crucial to the cycle of carbon storage and release in agricultural ecosystems [56]. Tillage management practices can significantly alter CO2 emissions, which is a cause for concern about global warming [57,58]. Several conclusions have been drawn from the study of the impact of NT on CO2 emissions. Studies by Plaza-Bonilla et al. [32] and Shahidi et al. [59] showed that CO2 emissions from NT are stimulated, while Fuentes et al. [60] showed a reduction in emission. In our study, CO2 emissions were quite inconsistent during all study periods (Figure 4). The data obtained are in line with the research results of other scientists, which indicated that CO2 emissions from NT soil are higher only in some periods and lower in others [61]. During the first year of the study, CO2 emissions increased significantly in NT compared to CT. The sharp increase in CO2 emissions (3.2–5.6 µmol m−2 s−1) was observed in June of 2021 in all cropping strategies. Such a result can be attributed to the effect of environmental conditions (higher temperature and larger amount of precipitation) and the amount of crop residues in the topsoil layer, which could lead to higher microbiological activity. In the following years (2022 and 2023), similar CO2 emissions trends were observed for both tillage treatments (CT and NT).
It can be stated that the intensity of CO2 emission is highly dependent on the vegetative stage of the plants. Regardless of cropping strategies, cultivation year and type of tillage used the highest emissions were determined in the initial stages of vegetative development and then decreased until the end of vegetation. These observations support the results published by Jans et al. [62], who stated that such changes in CO2 emissions during the vegetation period may be associated with root and soil respiration rates.
The outcomes of the 2021–2023 research (Table 4) demonstrate that the soil CO2 emissions were significantly impacted by the tillage method. Furthermore, the dependence of CO2 emissions on cropping strategies was determined; however, no significant influence was observed between different years and when applying the combination of analysed factors. Observed trends showed that CO2 emissions were 25% higher with NT than with CT. Higher CO2 emissions with NT indicated possibly higher microbial activity in the soil, which may promote the decomposition of crop residues of large amounts and associated microbial and abiotic factors [63,64]. The results of the application of NT on CO2 emissions are contradictory. Abdalla et al. [16] demonstrated higher soil CO2 emissions using CT. These findings can be explained by faster decomposition of soil organic matter promoted by greater aeration, integration of crop residues, and breakdown of soil aggregates after tillage. The benefits of adopting NT practices also emerged from Cheng-Fanget al. [65] and Ussiri and Lal [66], who found increased CO2 emissions in conventionally tilled soils. Conversely, Shakoor et al. [67] studies found that NT techniques dramatically raised the emissions of CO2 and other gases. This was attributed to the influence of environmental factors and the amount of crop residues in the topsoil layer. Our results confirm these statements.
The cropping strategies have also been identified as an important factor influencing soil CO2 emissions. The inclusion of CC in the rotation also affected the amount of emitted CO2. The results indicated that CC contributed to a 35% increase in CO2 emissions. The highest CO2 emissions were observed in these cropping strategies involving legume crops and CC. These trends can be attributed to the contribution of labile C from legumes and CC to the soil [68], as well as improved aspects of biodiversity such as improved nutrient cycling, water movement, and soil structure [69,70]. In addition, the adoption of CC can increase C and N stocks, which would increase the release of carbon dioxide from the soil [71]. Similar results were observed by other scientists, who noticed that CO2 emissions increased by 20–30% after the inclusion of CC. Findings indicated that this phenomenon was associated with an increase in carbon consumption, microbial activity, and biomass [72,73]. In addition, it is worth noting that the number of CC cultivation times per rotation affected the emission rate. Cropping strategies R/W/P and CC were grown every year and showed the lowest amount of CO2, while other cropping strategies, when CC was grown once or twice per rotation, showed significantly higher CO2 emissions. This observation is in line with the findings of other scientists, who stated that CC adoption negatively affected soil CO2 emissions during the first year of growth. During the first year of CC growth, the crops increased the amount of unprotected SOC fraction that could be easily degraded by microbes and thus increase carbon dioxide emissions. It was stated that it may take 3–4 years before the effect of CC on SOC is noticeable [74,75,76].

3.3. The Effect of Root Parameters on Soil CO2 Emissions

The CO2 emissions from soil could be influenced not only by the decomposition of organic matter, microbial activity, soil moisture and temperature but also by the plant root network. Some other scientists found that root length and root volume had significant effects on soil CO2 emissions, suggesting that root activity is a major determinant of CO2 emissions from soil [77]. Our findings support this result. CO2 emissions from soil showed a linear relationship with root length (R2 = 0.45, p < 0.05) (Figure 5) and with root volume (R2 = 0.81, p < 0.05) (Figure 6) under different tillage and cropping systems.
A similar relationship between root length, root volume and CO2 emissions from soil was found by Shibistova et al. [77] and Kochiieru et al. [78] described the relationship between the root volume and CO2 efflux from soil under different types of soil management types.

4. Conclusions

The main conclusions from the study aimed to investigate the root network development and its influence on CO2 emission under different cropping management and tillage methods, as well as the effect of catch crops and its share in the crop rotation on CO2 emission, can be drawn:
  • The tillage method was identified as one of the main factors determining CO2 emissions. Reducing the intensification of tillage promoted the release of carbon dioxide from the soil.
  • The inclusion of legumes and catch crops in the rotation promoted CO2 emissions from the soil.
  • Soil depth, type of cropping systems and inclusion of CC significantly decreased the root length and root volume. The root volume was significantly lower in the rotations where the catch crop (CC) was grown each year (R/W/P + CC) compared with the rotation where CC where only wheat was grown—(W/W/W).
  • Root length and root volume had a positive effect on soil CO2 emissions, suggesting that root activity is a major factor in the production of CO2 emissions from the soil.
  • From a practical viewpoint, the results showed that cropping strategies diversification with the inclusion of CC every year (R/W/P + CC) demonstrates the possibility of reducing CO2 emission and improving root network parameters compared to monoculture. This informs us of the necessity of crop rotation implementation under moderate climatic conditions.
The conducted analysis provides an in-depth quantitative assessment of the effects of the type of tillage and cropping strategies on CO2 emissions and root parameters, which could assist in further understanding the feedback of CO2 to agricultural management practices and offer evidence in support of the preservation of the soil. Catch crop growing revealed a positive influence on the soil environment on Cambisol. However, additional research is required on soil microbiological activity to gain knowledge of soil respiration in relation to soil microbes-plant roots’ relationship within topsoil layers of contrasting tillage systems application under moderate climatic conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B. and I.D.; methodology, A.B., I.D. and V.F.; software, A.B.; validation, A.B., I.D., V.F. and A.V.; formal analysis, A.B. and I.D.; investigation, A.B.; data curation, A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.; writing—review and editing, I.D., V.F. and A.V.; visualisation, A.B.; supervision, I.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arora, N.K. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Production and Its Sustainable Solutions. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 2, 95–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Smith, P.; Bustamenta, M.; Krug, T.; Nabuurs, G.-J.; Molodovskaya Canada, M.; Bustamante, M.; Ahammad, H.; Clark, H.; Dong, H.; Elsiddig, E.A.; et al. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hopkins, F.; Gonzalez-Meler, M.A.; Flower, C.E.; Lynch, D.J.; Czimczik, C.; Tang, J.; Subke, J.A. Ecosystem-Level Controls on Root-Rhizosphere Respiration. New Phytol. 2013, 199, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wang, Q.; Zhang, W.; Sun, T.; Chen, L.; Pang, X.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, F. N and P Fertilization Reduced Soil Autotrophic and Heterotrophic Respiration in a Young Cunninghamia Lanceolata Forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 232, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yan, M.; Guo, N.; Ren, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, G. Autotrophic and Heterotrophic Respiration of a Poplar Plantation Chronosequence in Northwest China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 337, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Chang, S.X.; Liang, X.; Qin, H.; Chen, J.; Xu, Q. Linking Soil Fungal Community Structure and Function to Soil Organic Carbon Chemical Composition in Intensively Managed Subtropical Bamboo Forests. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 107, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Subke, J.; Inglima, I.; Cotrufo, M.F. Trends and Methodological Impacts in Soil CO2 Efflux Partitioning: A Metaanalytical Review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2006, 12, 921–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bond-Lamberty, B.; Wang, C.; Gower, S.T. A Global Relationship between the Heterotrophic and Autotrophic Components of Soil Respiration? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 1756–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saurette, D.D.; Chang, S.X.; Thomas, B.R. Autotrophic and Heterotrophic Respiration Rates across a Chronosequence of Hybrid Poplar Plantations in Northern Alberta. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2008, 88, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tu, L.-H.; Hu, T.-X.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.-W.; Hu, H.-L.; Liu, L.; Xiao, Y.-L. Nitrogen Addition Stimulates Different Components of Soil Respiration in a Subtropical Bamboo Ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 58, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Atarashi-Andoh, M.; Koarashi, J.; Ishizuka, S.; Hirai, K. Seasonal Patterns and Control Factors of CO2 Effluxes from Surface Litter, Soil Organic Carbon, and Root-Derived Carbon Estimated Using Radiocarbon Signatures. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2012, 152, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lehmann, J.; Bossio, D.A.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Rillig, M.C. The Concept and Future Prospects of Soil Health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kraamwinkel, C.T.; Beaulieu, A.; Dias, T.; Howison, R.A. Planetary Limits to Soil Degradation. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. King, A.E.; Blesh, J. Crop Rotations for Increased Soil Carbon: Perenniality as a Guiding Principle: Perenniality. Ecol. Appl. 2018, 28, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Singh, B.P.; Setia, R.; Wiesmeier, M.; Kunhikrishnan, A. Agricultural Management Practices and Soil Organic Carbon Storage. In Soil Carbon Storage: Modulators, Mechanisms and Modeling; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  16. Abdalla, K.; Chivenge, P.; Ciais, P.; Chaplot, V. No-Tillage Lessens Soil CO2 Emissions the Most under Arid and Sandy Soil Conditions: Results from a Meta-Analysis. Biogeosciences 2016, 13, 3619–3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kumara, T.K.; Kandpal, A.; Pal, S. A meta-Analysis of Economic and Environmental Benefits of Conservation Agriculture in South Asia. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Moussadek, R.; Mrabet, R.; Dahan, R.; Douaik, A.; Verdoodt, A.; van Ranst, E. Effect of Tillage Practices on the Soil Carbon Dioxide Flux during Fall and Spring Seasons in a Mediterranean Vertisol. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manag. 2011, 2, 362–369. [Google Scholar]
  19. Valkama, E.; Kunypiyaeva, G.; Zhapayev, R.; Karabayev, M.; Zhusupbekov, E.; Perego, A.; Schillaci, C.; Sacco, D.; Moretti, B.; Grignani, C.; et al. Can Conservation Agriculture Increase Soil Carbon Sequestration? A Modelling Approach. Geoderma 2020, 369, 114298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jat, H.S.; Datta, A.; Choudhary, M.; Yadav, A.K.; Choudhary, V.; Sharma, P.C.; Gathala, M.K.; Jat, M.L.; McDonald, A. Effects of Tillage, Crop Establishment and Diversification on Soil Organic Carbon, Aggregation, Aggregate Associated Carbon and Productivity in Cereal Systems of Semi-Arid Northwest India. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 190, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qin, R.; Stamp, P.; Richner, W. Impact of Tillage on Root Systems of Winter Wheat. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1523–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ghimire, R.; Norton, J.B.; Stahl, P.D.; Norton, U. Soil Microbial Substrate Properties and Microbial Community Responses under Irrigated Organic and Reduced-Tillage Crop and Forage Production Systems. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e103901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Kessel, C.; Venterea, R.; Six, J.; Adviento-Borbe, M.A.; Linquist, B.; van Groenigen, K.J. Climate, Duration, and N Placement Determine N2O Emissions in Reduced Tillage Systems: A Meta-Analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhao, X.; Liu, S.; Pu, C.; Zhang, X.; Xue, J.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Y.; Lal, R.; Zhang, H.; Chen, F. Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions under No-Till Farming in China: A Meta-Analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 1372–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jones, M.W.; Peters, G.P.; Gasser, T.; Andrew, R.M.; Schwingshackl, C.; Gütschow, J.; Houghton, R.A.; Friedlingstein, P.; Pongratz, J.; Le Quéré, C. National Contributions to Climate Change Due to Historical Emissions of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Since 1850. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lu, X.; Lu, X.; Tanveer, S.K.; Wen, X.; Liao, Y. Effects of Tillage Management on soil CO2 Emission and Wheat Yield under rain-Fed Conditions. Soil Res. 2016, 54, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oorts, K.; Merckx, R.; Gréhan, E.; Labreuche, J.; Nicolardot, B. Determinants of Annual Fluxes of CO2 and N2O in Long-Term No-Tillage and Conventional Tillage Systems in northern France. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 95, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yao, Z.; Zheng, X.; Wang, R.; Xie, B.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Zhu, J. Nitrous Oxide and Methane Fluxes from a Rice–Wheat Crop Rotation under Wheat Residue Incorporation and No-Tillage Practices. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 79, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, Z.; Chen, J.; Liu, T.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Sources and Tillage Practices on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Paddy Fields of Central China. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 144, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, S.Y.; Gutierrez, J.; Kim, P.J. Unexpected Stimulation of CH4 Emissions under Continuous No-Tillage System in Mono-Rice Paddy Soils during Cultivation. Geoderma 2016, 267, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. He, J.; Li, H.; Rasaily, R.G.; Wang, Q.; Cai, G.; Su, Y.; Qiao, X.; Liu, L. Soil Properties and Crop Yields after 11 Years of no Tillage Farming in Wheat–Maize Cropping System in North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 113, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Plaza-Bonilla, D.; Cantero-Martínez, C.; Bareche, J.; Arrúe, J.L.; Álvaro-Fuentes, J. Soil Carbon Dioxide and Methane Fluxes as Affected by Tillage and N Fertilization in Dryland Conditions. Plant Soil 2014, 381, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mrabet, R. No-Tillage Agriculture in West Asia and North Africa. In Rainfed Farming Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Desoky, E.-S.M.; Mansour, E.; Yasin, M.A.T.; El-Sobky, E.-S.E.A.; Rady, M.M. Improvement of Drought tolerance in Five Different Cultivars of Vicia Faba with Foliar Application of Ascorbic Acid or Silicon. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 18, e0802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Frasier, I.; Quiroga, A.; Noellemeyer, E. Effect of Different Cover Crops on C and N Cycling in Sorghum NT Systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sanz-Cobena, A.; García-Marco, S.; Quemada, M.; Gabriel, J.L.; Almendros, P.; Vallejo, A. Do Cover Crops Enhance N2O, CO2 or CH4 Emissions from Soil in Mediterranean Arable Systems? Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 466–467, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Skinner, C.; Gattinger, A.; Krauss, M.; Krause, H.-M.; Mayer, J.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Mäder, P. The Impact of Long-Term Organic Farming on Soil-Derived Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Youngerman, C.Z.; Ditommaso, A.; Curran, W.S.; Mirsky, S.B.; Ryan, M.R. Corn Density Effect on Interseeded Cover Crops, Weeds, and Grain Yield. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 2478–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cueva, A.; Bullock, S.H.; López-Reyes, E.; Vargas, R. Potential Bias of Daily Soil CO2 Efflux Estimates Due to Sampling Time. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bouma, T.J.; Nielsen, K.L.; Koutstaal, B. Sample Preparation and Scanning Protocol for Computerised Analysis of Root Length and Diameter. Plant Soil 2000, 218, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Seethepalli, A.; Dhakal, K.; Griffiths, M.; Guo, H.; Freschet, G.T.; York, L.M. RhizoVision Explorer: Open-Source Software for Root Image Analysis and Measurement Standardization. AoB Plants 2021, 13, plab056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shi, X.; Yang, X.; Drury, C.; Reynolds, W.; McLaughlin, N.; Zhang, X. Impact of Ridge Tillage on soil Organic Carbon and Selected Physical Properties of a Clay Loam in Southwestern Ontario. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 120, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. 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]
  44. Säle, V.; Aguilera, P.; Laczko, E.; Mäder, P.; Berner, A.; Zihlmann, U.; van der Heijden, M.G.; Oehl, F. Impact of Conservation Tillage and Organic Farming on the Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 84, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Feiziene, D.; Kadžiene, G. The Influence of Soil Organic Carbon, Moisture and Temperature on Soil Surface CO2 Emission in the 10 Th Year of Different Tillage-Fertilisation Management. Zemdirbyste 2008, 95, 29–45. [Google Scholar]
  46. Velykis, A.; Satkus, A. The Impact of Tillage, Ca-Amendment and Cover Crop on the Physical State of a Clay Loam Soil. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2018, 105, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Munkholm, L.J.; Hansen, E.M.; Olesen, J.E. The Effect of Tillage Intensity on Soil Structure and Winter Wheat Root/Shoot Growth. Soil Use Manag. 2008, 24, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bécel, C.; Vercambre, G.; Pagès, L. Soil Penetration Resistance, a Suitable Soil Property to Account for Variations in Root Elongation and Branching. Plant Soil 2012, 353, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bodner, G.; Leitner, D.; Kaul, H.-P. Coarse and Fine Root Plants Affect Pore Size Distributions Differently. Plant Soil 2014, 380, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Chen, G.; Weil, R.R. Root Growth and Yield of Maize as Affected by Soil Compaction and COVER crops. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Correa, J.; Postma, J.A.; Watt, M.; Wojciechowski, T. Soil Compaction and the Architectural Plasticity of Root Systems. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 6019–6034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ren, L.; Nest, T.V.; Ruysschaert, G.; D’hose, T.; Cornelis, W.M. Short-Term Effects of Cover Crops and Tillage Methods on Soil Physical Properties and Maize Growth in a Sandy Loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 192, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kolb, E.; Legué, V.; Bogeat-Triboulot, M.-B. Physical Root-Soil Interactions. Phys. Biol. 2017, 14, 065004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tubeileh, A.; Groleau-Renaud, V.; Plantureux, S.; Guckert, A. Effect of Soil Compaction on Photosynthesis and Carbon Partitioning within a Maize–Soil System. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 71, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Veršulienė, A.; Kadžienė, G.; Kochiieru, M.; Pranaitienė, S.; Meškauskienė, L.; Auškalnienė, O. Response of Spring Barley Root and Soil Physical Properties to Changes under Cover Crop and Different Tillage. Zemdirbyste 2022, 109, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Page, K.L.; Bell, M.; Dalal, R.C. Changes in Total Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Carbon Fractions in Sugarcane Systems as Affected by Tillage and Trash Management in Queensland, Australia. Soil Res. 2013, 51, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mangalassery, S.; Mooney, S.; Sparkes, D.; Fraser, W.; Sjögersten, S. Impacts of Zero Tillage on Soil Enzyme Activities, Microbial Characteristics and Organic Matter Functional Chemistry in Temperate Soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2015, 68, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sheehy, J.; Regina, K.; Alakukku, L.; Six, J. Impact of No-Till and Reduced Tillage on Aggregation and Aggregate-Associated Carbon in Northern European Agroecosystems. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 150, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shahidi, B.; Dyck, M.; Malhi, S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Tillage of Two Long-Term No-Till Canadian Prairie Soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 144, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fuentes, M.; Hidalgo, C.; Etchevers, J.; De León, F.; Guerrero, A.; Dendooven, L.; Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B. Conservation Agriculture, Increased Organic Carbon in the Top-Soil Macro-Aggregates and Reduced Soil CO2 Emissions. Plant Soil 2012, 355, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vinten, A.J.A.; Ball, B.C.; O’Sullivan, M.F.; Henshall, J.K. The Effects of Cultivation Method, Fertilizer Input and Previous Sward Type on Organic C and N Storage and Gaseous Losses under Spring and Winter Barley Following Long-Term Leys. J. Agric. Sci. 2002, 139, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jans, W.W.; Jacobs, C.M.; Kruijt, B.; Elbers, J.A.; Barendse, S.; Moors, E.J. Carbon Exchange of a maize (Zea mays L.) Crop: Influence of Phenology. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kan, Z.; Liu, W.; Lal, R.; Dang, Y.P.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H. Mechanisms of Soil Organic Carbon Stability and Its Response to No-till: A Global Synthesis and Perspective. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 693–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jayarathne, J.; Deepagoda, T.C.; Clough, T.J.; Thomas, S.; Elberling, B.; Smits, K.M. Effect of Aggregate Size Distribution on Soil Moisture, Soil-Gas Diffusivity, and N2O Emissions from a Pasture Soil. Geoderma 2021, 383, 114737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cheng-Fang, L.; Dan-Na, Z.; Zhi-Kui, K.; Zhi-Sheng, Z.; Jin-Ping, W.; Ming-Li, C.; Cou-Gui, C. Effects of Tillage and Nitrogen Fertilizers on CH4 and CO2 Emissions and Soil Organic Carbon in Paddy Fields of Central China. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e34642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ussiri, D.A.; Lal, R. Long-Term Tillage Effects on Soil Carbon Storage and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Continuous Corn Cropping System from an Alfisol in Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shakoor, A.; Shahbaz, M.; Farooq, T.H.; Sahar, N.E.; Shahzad, S.M.; Altaf, M.M.; Ashraf, M. A Global Meta-Analysis of Greenhouse Gases Emission and Crop Yield under No-Tillage as Compared to Conventional Tillage. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 142299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Austin, E.E.; Wickings, K.; McDaniel, M.D.; Robertson, G.P.; Grandy, A.S. Cover Crop Root Contributions to Soil Carbon in a No-Till Corn Bioenergy Cropping System. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 1252–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wortman, S.E.; Francis, C.A.; Lindquist, J.L. Cover Crop Mixtures for the Western Corn Belt: Opportunities for Increased Productivity and Stability. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Finney, D.M.; White, C.M.; Kaye, J.P. Biomass Production and Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio Influence Ecosystem Services from Cover Crop Mixtures. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Noland, R.L.; Wells, M.S.; Sheaffer, C.C.; Baker, J.M.; Martinson, K.L.; Coulter, J.A. Establishment and Function of Cover Crops Interseeded into Corn. Crop Sci. 2018, 58, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chirinda, N.; Olesen, J.E.; Porter, J.R.; Schjønning, P. Soil Properties, Crop Production and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer-Based Arable Cropping Systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ferrara, R.M.; Campi, P.; Muschitiello, C.; Leogrande, R.; Vonella, A.V.; Ventrella, D.; Rana, G. Soil Respiration during Three Cropping Cycles of Durum Wheat under Different Tillage Conditions in a Mediterranean Environment. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1547–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vicente-Vicente, J.L.; Gómez-Muñoz, B.; Hinojosa-Centeno, M.B.; Smith, P.; Garcia-Ruiz, R. Carbon Saturation and Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon Fractions in Mediterranean Rainfed Olive Orchards under Plant Cover Management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 245, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tiemann, L.K.; Grandy, A.S.; Atkinson, E.E.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; McDaniel, M.D. Crop Rotational Diversity Enhances Belowground Communities and Functions in an Agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 761–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gómez, J.A. Sustainability Using Cover Crops in Mediterranean Tree Crops, Olives and Vines—Challenges and Current Knowledge. Hung. Geogr. Bull. 2017, 66, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shibistova, O.; Lloyd, J.; Evgrafova, S.; Savushkina, N.; Zrazhevskaya, G.; Arneth, A.; Knohl, A.; Kolle, O.; Schulze, E.-D. Seasonal and Spatial Variability in soil CO2 Efflux Rates for a Central Siberian Pinus Sylvestris Forest. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2002, 54, 552–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kochiieru, M.; Feiza, V.; Feiziene, D.; Volungevicius, J.; Deveikyte, I.; Seibutis, V.; Pranaitiene, S. The Effect of Environmental Factors and Root System on CO2 Efflux in Different Types of Soil and Land Uses. Zemdirbyste 2021, 108, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 01768 g001
Figure 1. Study site location (X shows the study site).
Figure 1. Study site location (X shows the study site).
Agronomy 14 01768 g001
Agronomy 14 01768 g002
Figure 2. Precipitation (mm) and air temperature (°C) distribution during the study period (2021–2023). The data from the Dotnuva Meteorological Station.
Figure 2. Precipitation (mm) and air temperature (°C) distribution during the study period (2021–2023). The data from the Dotnuva Meteorological Station.
Agronomy 14 01768 g002
Agronomy 14 01768 g003
Figure 3. Graphical scheme of the experiment, where WW—winter wheat, SW—spring wheat, P—peas, WR—winter rape, CC—catch crops.
Figure 3. Graphical scheme of the experiment, where WW—winter wheat, SW—spring wheat, P—peas, WR—winter rape, CC—catch crops.
Agronomy 14 01768 g003
Agronomy 14 01768 g004
Figure 4. The dynamics of soil CO2 emissions during the plant vegetation period in 2021–2023 in different tillage systems and cropping strategies. Error bars indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level based on the least significant difference (LSD) test.
Figure 4. The dynamics of soil CO2 emissions during the plant vegetation period in 2021–2023 in different tillage systems and cropping strategies. Error bars indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level based on the least significant difference (LSD) test.
Agronomy 14 01768 g004
Agronomy 14 01768 g005
Figure 5. The relationship between root length and soil CO2 emissions under different tillage and cropping systems.
Figure 5. The relationship between root length and soil CO2 emissions under different tillage and cropping systems.
Agronomy 14 01768 g005
Agronomy 14 01768 g006
Figure 6. The relationship between root volume and soil CO2 emissions under different tillage and cropping systems.
Figure 6. The relationship between root volume and soil CO2 emissions under different tillage and cropping systems.
Agronomy 14 01768 g006
Table 1. Meteorological conditions (annual mean air temperature (°C) and total amount of precipitation (mm) during the study period (2021–2023)). The data from the Dotnuva Meteorological Station.
Table 1. Meteorological conditions (annual mean air temperature (°C) and total amount of precipitation (mm) during the study period (2021–2023)). The data from the Dotnuva Meteorological Station.
Year202120222023Long-Term Mean (1924–2021)
Annual mean air temperature, °C7.48.08.86.6
Difference from long-term mean, °C+0.8+1.4+2.2−
Average air temperature during the plant’s vegetation period, °C14.713.615.412.8
Difference from long-term mean, °C+1.9+0.8+2.6−
Total annual precipitation, mm573.0627.9504.7570.0
Difference from long-term mean, mm+3.0+57.9−65.3−
Total amount of precipitation during the plant’s vegetation period, mm374.4452.9225.4410
Difference from long-term mean, mm−35.6+42.9−184.6−
Table 2. Cropping strategies of the experiment (2021–2023).
Table 2. Cropping strategies of the experiment (2021–2023).
Cropping Strategy202120222023Share (%) of Poaceae, Fabaceae and Brassicaceae in the RotationCatch Crops (CC)The Number of Times CC Grown per Rotation
W/W/WW. wheatS. wheatW. wheat100 + 0 + 0−0
W/W/W + CCW. wheat ccS. wheatW. wheat cc100 + 0 + 0+2
W/P/W + CCS. wheat ccPeaS. wheat75 + 25 + 0+1
W/P/R + CCS. wheat ccPea ccW. rape50 + 25 + 25+2
R/W/P + CCW. rape ccS. wheat ccPea cc50 + 25 + 25+3
Note: catch crops +/− signs indicate whether catch crops were included in the rotation or not, cc = catch crop (indicates where cc was established in +CC treatments).
Table 3. The influence of cropping strategies, soil depth, and different tillage treatments on the plant root parameters.
Table 3. The influence of cropping strategies, soil depth, and different tillage treatments on the plant root parameters.
Tillage (Factor A)Soil Depth (Factor B)Cropping Strategies (Factor C)Root Length,
km m−3		Root Diameter,
mm		Root Volume,
cm3
CT 104.6 a0.41 a1.41 a
NT 104.4 a0.42 a1.39 a
0–10 cm 104.8 a0.44 a2.35 a
10–20 cm 104.2 a0.37 a1.44 b
W/W/W103.4 ab0.39 a1.88 a
W/W/W + CC104.5 ab0.38 a1.56 b
W/P/W + CC105.8 ab0.41 a1.21 a
W/P/R + CC106.0 b0.42 a1.56 b
R/W/P + CC102.9 a0.44 a1.48 b
Actions and Interactions
An.s.n.s.n.s.
Bn.s.n.s.**
C*n.s.**
A × Bn.s.n.s.**
A × Cn.s.n.s.n.s.
B × Cn.s.n.s.**
A × B × Cn.s.n.s.n.s.
Note. Numbers followed by different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; * and **—the least significant difference at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively; n.s.—not significant.
Table 4. The level of significance for the impact of the year (factor A), tillage (factor B), cropping strategies (factor C) and their interactions on soil CO2 emissions.
Table 4. The level of significance for the impact of the year (factor A), tillage (factor B), cropping strategies (factor C) and their interactions on soil CO2 emissions.
Year (Factor A)Tillage (Factor B)Cropping Strategies (Factor C)CO2 Emissions (µmol m−2 s−1)Actions
ABC
2021 1.66 an.s.
2022 1.77 b
2023 2.25 ab
CT 1.66 a **
NT 2.13 b
W/W/W1.75 ab *
W/W/W + CC1.89 ab
W/P/W + CC2.27 a
W/P/R + CC2.17 a
R/W/P + CC1.68 b
Interactions
A × Bn.s.
A × Cn.s.
B × Cn.s.
A × B × Cn.s.
Note. Numbers followed by different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; * and **—the least significant difference at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively; n.s.—not 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

Buivydienė, A.; Deveikytė, I.; Veršulienė, A.; Feiza, V. Tillage Practices Effect on Root Distribution and Variation of Soil CO2 Emission under Different Cropping Strategies. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081768

AMA Style

Buivydienė A, Deveikytė I, Veršulienė A, Feiza V. Tillage Practices Effect on Root Distribution and Variation of Soil CO2 Emission under Different Cropping Strategies. Agronomy. 2024; 14(8):1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081768

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buivydienė, Agnė, Irena Deveikytė, Agnė Veršulienė, and Virginijus Feiza. 2024. "Tillage Practices Effect on Root Distribution and Variation of Soil CO2 Emission under Different Cropping Strategies" Agronomy 14, no. 8: 1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081768

APA Style

Buivydienė, A., Deveikytė, I., Veršulienė, A., & Feiza, V. (2024). Tillage Practices Effect on Root Distribution and Variation of Soil CO2 Emission under Different Cropping Strategies. Agronomy, 14(8), 1768. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081768

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