Next Article in Journal
EKNet: Graph Structure Feature Extraction and Registration for Collaborative 3D Reconstruction in Architectural Scenes
Previous Article in Journal
Differentiated GNSS Baseband Jamming Suppression Method Based on Classification Decision Information
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/app15137129
applsci-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

Responses of Corn Yield, Soil Microorganisms, and Labile Organic Carbon Fractions Under Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices in Black Soil

by
Lei Feng
1,
Yunyun Sun
2,* and
Guifen Chen
1,*
1
Resource and Environment College, Jilin Agriculture University, Changchun 130118, China
2
Northeast Agricultural Research Center of China, Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun 130033, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(13), 7129; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137129
Submission received: 6 May 2025 / Revised: 17 June 2025 / Accepted: 23 June 2025 / Published: 25 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In Northeast China, due to long-term, high-intensity continuous cultivation of black soil, the practice of “overuse with insufficient nurturing” has led to severe degradation of the black soil. Straw return is a crucial strategy for enhancing soil organic matter (SOM). However, the mechanism of combing straw return with different tillage methods on black soil microbial community structure and soil organic carbon (SOC) fractions remains unclear. A field experiment was conducted in black soil using four tillage treatments: conventional tillage without straw return (CK), no tillage with straw incorporation (NTS), rotary tillage with straw incorporation (RTS), and deep tillage with straw incorporation (PTS). Corn yield and the contents and fractions of SOC were measured, whereas the microbial structure at different soil depths was assessed by high-throughput sequencing technology. Meanwhile, the correlations between microbial diversity, changes in SOC fractions, and corn yield were analyzed. As a result, the straw return treatments significantly increased the contents of SOC in the 0–20 cm soil layer (up to 19.82 g kg−1 under RTS) and its labile fractions, enhanced soil microbial diversity (with a 7.03–25.14% increase in the Bacterial Chao1 index), and optimized the microbial community structure. Fungal diversity under PTS was the most prominent in the 20–40 cm depth. Correlation analysis indicated that the active SOC fractions and microbial diversity jointly explain the yield variation. The conclusions of this study will provide a theoretical foundation for developing scientifically sound straw return strategies in agricultural production.

1. Introduction

Microorganisms are among the most biologically active components of soil ecosystems and play a pivotal role in maintaining ecosystem functionality [1,2,3,4]. As the main decomposers in farmland ecosystems, they are closely involved in key soil processes, including organic matter decomposition, nutrient cycling, and humus formation [3,5]. Currently, soil microbial community diversity is widely recognized as a critical indicator of soil ecological characteristics and serves as an essential metric for assessing soil quality. Soil microorganisms exhibit high sensitivity to ecological perturbation, with their diversity and community composition being profoundly affected by field management practices including tillage, fertilization, and irrigation [6,7].
Soil organic carbon (SOC) is a critical determinant of plant productivity and soil fertility, and its maintenance and enhancement are essential for ensuring food security [8,9]. Active soil organic carbon (SOC) fractions are susceptible to decomposition, volatilization, and instability, making them easily absorbed and utilized by plants and microorganisms. Additionally, these fractions serve as the primary energy source for soil microbes, which play a crucial role in SOC turnover and the regulation of nutrient availability for crops [10,11]. Methods such as straw returning to the field and conservation tillage can be adopted to optimize agricultural practice strategies in order to increase the input of exogenous carbon, improve the soil microbial environment, and further enhance the crop yield [12,13].
The selection of appropriate tillage regimes is crucial for improving soil structure, enhancing crop cultivation suitability, optimizing resource utilization, maintaining soil fertility, and increasing crop yields [14]. Different tillage practices demonstrate significant variations in their effects on soil nutrient content and microbial communities [15]. Straw returning represents an environmentally sustainable agricultural production measure that enhances nutrient effectiveness, improves soil structure, and induces shifts in the diversity, structure, and composition of soil microbial communities [16,17,18]. As a nutrient-rich resource, straw incorporation increases the input of SOC content. The straw decomposition process, mediated by soil microorganisms, converts stable organic carbon in straw into labile organic carbon fractions, thereby elevating the content of active organic carbon in the soil [19]. Straw return is commonly implemented using different tillage practices. Studies have shown that straw return with conventional tillage increased SOC content by 3.9–11.2% in the 10–40 cm soil layer [20]. Compared to conventional tillage, no-tillage (NT) practices are more conducive to forming stable soil aggregates and reducing soil erosion. Straw return combined with NT reduced the soil disturbance frequency relative to conventional tillage, effectively maintaining soil stability [21]. A combination of rotary tillage (RT) and straw returning has been widely recognized as a crucial sustainable management practice, which can effectively mitigate soil erosion and enhance SOC sequestration [22]. Busar’s [23] research confirmed that deep tillage (PT) practice exhibits higher microbial diversity indices, dominance indices, and abundance indices. Additionally, studies showed that the model of deep tillage with straw return increased soil microbial activity by altering the soil structure of the lower plow layer [24].
Black soil is primarily distributed in the mid to high latitudes globally and is the most suitable soil type for crop cultivation among arable land resources. Jilin Province, located in the northeastern part of China, is situated within one of the world’s four famous black soil belts. According to statistics, the arable land area in the typical black soil region of Jilin Province is approximately 6.54 million hectares, accounting for more than one-fourth of the total typical black soil arable land area in the country [25]. However, due to long-term, high-intensity continuous cultivation of black soil, the practice of “overuse with insufficient nurturing” has led to severe degradation of the black soil. Implementing straw return to the field for soil fertility enhancement is a key agricultural measure at present [26]. As one of the world’s three major staple crops, corn yield level serves a crucial position in national food security and the agricultural economy [27]. According to the analysis by Zhang et al. [28] on the changes in maize planting area and yield in China from 1997 to 2020, the maize yield in Jilin Province showed an overall upward trend due to the increase in planting area, with the average sown area and yield accounting for 9.81% and 12.01% of the national total, respectively. However, the mechanisms by which the combination of straw return and various tillage methods affect the microbial community structure and soil organic carbon (SOC) fractions in black soil remain unclear. Therefore, revealing the impact of conservation tillage in black soil regions on corn yield and its key factors is of vital importance for protecting black soil and ensuring national food security [29]. Specifically, this study aims to achieve the following: (1) examine how the integration of straw return combined with three tillage practices influences SOC and its labile fractions, microbial diversity, community structure, and corn yield; (2) evaluate the interrelationship among soil carbon fractions, microbial diversity, and corn yield.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The experiment was conducted on typical black soil in Gongzhuling (Figure 1), located in central Jilin Province (43°30′ N,124°48′ E), China. The soil is classified as a Mollisol with a loamy texture, according to the USDA soil taxonomy. The region has a cold-temperate continental monsoon climate characterized by synchronous precipitation and thermal regimes, with mean annual precipitation of 500–600 mm, a frost-free period of approximately 140 days, and an average annual temperature of 4.5 °C.
Meteorological data for the experimental period are presented in Figure 2. The study site received 599.8 mm annual precipitation with a mean temperature of 20.4 °C in 2019. The corn cropping system followed annual rainfed monoculture without supplemental irrigation.

2.2. Experimental Design

The in situ straw mulching experiment was established in spring of 2017; the site for this experiment was originally a cornfield. It comprised four treatments: (1) Control subjects (CK): Conventional tillage without straw return. (2) No tillage with straw mulching (NTS): Straw coverage on the soil surface with a no-tillage planter for seeding. (3) Rotary tillage through straw incorporation (RTS): Mechanically crushed straw uniformly mixed into the 0–20 cm soil layer using a rotary tiller. (4) Deep tillage with straw incorporation (PTS): Straw buried at approximately 25 cm depth in the soil. The nutrient content of the applied straw is shown in Table 1.
In this study, the experiment followed a randomized complete block design with three replications. Each plot measured 1040 m2 (5.2 m × 200 m) in each region, resulting in a total experimental area of 12,480 m2 (12 plots). Fertilizer application was consistent across all treatments, including 220 kg hm−2 of nitrogen fertilizer, 90 kg hm−2 of phosphorus fertilizer (P2O5), and 100 kg hm−2 of potash fertilizer (K2O). The corn cultivar Dika159 was sown in late April and harvested in early October. The soil initial physicochemical properties are shown in Table 2. Soil samples were collected from 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm depths in July 2019 using the “S” sampling method and trichotomy method. After passing through a 2 mm sieve, samples were stored at −80 °C for the analysis of soil microbial communities. After harvest in 2019, soil samples were collected from 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm layers for the analyses of physical–chemical properties and SOC and its active components.

2.3. Analysis Methods

Genomic DNA was extracted from soil samples using the Cetyltrimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB) method. The bacterial 16S rRNA gene was amplified using primers 27F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG-3′) and 1492R (5′-GGTTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3′), while fungal ITS regions were amplified with primers ITS1F (5′-CTTGGTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAA-3′) and ITS4 (5′-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′) [30,31,32]. PCR amplification was performed in a 50 μL reaction system under the following conditions: initial denaturation at 94 °C for 4 min, denaturation at 94 °C for 50 s, annealing at 52 °C for 1 min, and extension at 72 °C for 1.5 min, followed by a final extension at 72 °C for 14 min. Fluorescence spectrophotometry was applied to quantify DNA, and the quality of electrophoresis completion of enriched fragments was assessed using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). The DNA library fragment size and distribution patterns were investigated and then sequenced in high throughput on the Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) [33]. Soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration was determined using the potassium dichromate heating method [34]. Fresh soil samples were extracted using 0.05 mol L−1 K2SO4 by shaking for 30 min and subsequently filtered through qualitative filter paper. The resulting filtrate was analyzed for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) content using a TOC analyzer (Liqui TOC II, Elementar, Langenselbold, Germany) [35]. Readily oxidizable organic carbon (ROC) was determined by the potassium permanganate oxidation method [36]. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) concentration was analyzed by the chloroform fumigation and extraction method [37]. In each plot, to avoid border effects, three random quadrates each covering 9 m2 were selected to determine maize grain yield, measured by adjusting the grain moisture content to 14% [38].

2.4. Data Analysis

Microbial community alpha diversity indices (Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson) were calculated using QIIME software (Version 1.9.1) [39]. Data processing was performed in Microsoft Excel, while statistical analysis and visualization were conducted using SPSS 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Origin 2022 (OriginLab, Northampton, MA, USA), respectively. Significant differences among treatments were determined using Duncan’s multiple range test at a 5% significance level (p < 0.05). The correlations between the measured indicators were evaluated through Pearson correlation analysis [40].

3. Results

3.1. Crop Yield

Compared with conventional tillage without straw return (CK), all straw-incorporated treatments (NTS, RTS, and PTS) increased corn yield. Notably, RTS and PTS treatments showed significant yield enhancements of 8.22% and 16.90%, respectively (p < 0.05; Figure 3). In addition, the physical and chemical properties of the soil are shown in Table S1.

3.2. Soil Organic Carbon and Its Labile Fractions

The variations in SOC, ROC, DOC, and MBC contents under different straw return practices are shown in Figure 4. Generally, the contents of SOC and its labile fractions decreased with increasing soil depth. In the 0–20 cm layer, all straw return treatments (NTS, RTS, and PTS) significantly increased SOC, ROC, DOC, and MBC contents compared to CK (p < 0.05), with the highest values observed in RTS treatment. In the 20–40 cm layer, these carbon fractions also showed varying degrees of enhancement across treatments, with PTS treatment exhibiting the highest content.

3.3. Diversity of Microbial Bacterial and Fungal Communities

The soil bacterial α-diversity indices showed different patterns among treatments (Table 3). Overall, the Chao1 index decreased with soil depth, with the lowest values observed in CK and the highest values in RTS (0–20 cm soil layer) and PTS (20–40 cm soil layer) treatments. The Shannon indices under RTS (0–20 cm) and PTS (20–40 cm) treatments were higher compared to other treatments. However, no significant differences were found for Simpson indices across treatments.
For fungal communities, the Chao1 index also decreased with increasing soil depth, though this did not affect the Shannon and Simpson indices. Compared to CK, all straw return treatments (NTS, RTS and PTS) increased the fungal Chao1 index. In the 0–20 cm layer, RTS treatment showed the highest fungal Chao1 index, while PTS treatment showed the highest fungal Chao1 index in the 20–40 cm layer. The Simpson index exhibited an opposite trend, with decreased values in all treatments. No statistically significant differences were observed for the Shannon index among treatments.

3.4. Composition of Bacterial and Fungal Communities at the Phylum Level

At 0–20 cm depth, straw return treatments increased the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Chloroflexi, Bacteroidetes, Gemmatimor, and Verrumicrobia compared to CK (Figure 5A). The RTS treatment showed the greatest enhancement, with increases of 19.14%, 47.00%, 32.76%, and 23.26%, respectively. In contrast, straw return reduced the relative abundance of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes. At 20–40 cm depth, straw return increased the relative abundance of Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, and Gemmatimonadetes. The PTS treatment exhibited the highest increase in Proteobacteria (21.89%). On the contrary, straw return significantly decreased the relative abundance of Actinobacteria, with PTS showing the largest reduction (48.20%).
For fungal communities at 0–20 cm depth, straw return significantly increased the relative abundance of Ascomycota compared to CK, with the RTS treatment showing the largest increase of 34.95% (Figure 5B). Straw return elevated the abundance of Chytridiomycota and Zygomycota while reducing that of Basidiomycota. In the deeper soil layer (20–40 cm), straw return treatments increased Ascomycota, Chytridiomycota, and Zygomycota abundance, and among which the increase was the greatest under PTS, while decreasing the abundance of Basidiomycota.

3.5. Correlation Analysis of Soil Microbial Community Composition, Organic Carbon Fractions and Crop Yield

The correlation analysis (Figure 6) revealed that, among SOC and its labile fractions, SOC, ROC, and DOC showed significant positive correlations with corn yield (p < 0.05). In contrast, the bacterial Simpson diversity index exhibited a significant negative correlation with yield (p < 0.05). Furthermore, soil carbon components (SOC and its labile fractions) were positively correlated with both bacterial and fungal Chao1 diversity indices, while showing negative correlations with Simpson indices (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices on Soil Organic Carbon and Its Labile Fractions, and Microbial Communities

SOC serves as a critical component of the soil carbon pool, playing a pivotal role in soil nutrient cycling. Extensive studies have demonstrated that corn straw return increases organic matter input, significantly enhancing both total SOC and labile organic carbon fractions [41]. The findings of this study align with these observations, showing elevated SOC content across both soil layers under straw incorporation treatments. The NTS, RTS, and PTS treatments all significantly increased the organic carbon content in the surface soil (0–20 cm). Existing studies have shown that combining straw return with NT (1) reduced the soil disturbance frequency and effectively maintained soil stability [42]; (2) reduced soil organic matter (SOM) mineralization and enhanced SOC sequestration in the topsoil [21]. Under the NTS treatments, the straw left on the soil surface is more susceptible to changes in external environmental conditions, resulting in C loss during straw decomposition process [43]. In the 0–20 cm layer, the RTS treatment exhibited particularly pronounced SOC accumulation. This enhancement may be attributed to improved straw–soil contact through rotary tillage, which optimizes soil aeration and water infiltration while stimulating microbial activity to accelerate straw decomposition. In contrast, the RTS treatment releases more C into the soil for SOC formation than straw covering [44,45]. These mechanisms collectively favor SOC sequestration under RTS treatment [46]. The PTS treatment facilitated SOC accumulation in deeper soil profiles (0–40 cm) through direct input of exogenous carbon to subsoil layers and enhanced root growth and rhizodeposition induced by deep tillage [47]. Furthermore, the formation of carbon-rich macroaggregates, along with changes in soil porosity and enzyme activity, contributed to the enhanced storage of soil organic carbon under conservation tillage and straw return [48]. As sensitive indicators of soil quality, labile SOC fractions (DOC and ROC) respond rapidly to agricultural management practices like straw return [49]. DOC represents a readily available microbial carbon source, while ROC comprises oxidizable and mineralizable organic components [10]. The findings of this study suggest two mechanisms for the increase in organic carbon content of labile SOC fractions under different straw return treatments: (1) direct input of decomposable straw-derived carbon elevated DOC and ROC pools; (2) straw decomposition enhanced microbial activity, driving the transformation of organic carbon [50]. The RTS and PTS treatments had the highest DOC content in the 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm soil layers, respectively. This might be because in RTS, the straw was fully mixed with the soil, which promoted the decomposition rate of straw and facilitated the rapid release of dissolved substances [51]; the PTS treatment promoted the migration of active organic carbon in the soil.
During the agricultural production process, soil bacteria can be affected by farming practices [52]. The Chao1 and Shannon indices can be used to evaluate the diversity and richness of microbial communities [53]. The straw returning treatments (NTS, RTS, and PTS) increased the Chao1 and Shannon indices of soil bacteria to varying degrees. This suggested that the substantial nutrients present in straw promoted the growth and reproduction of microorganisms, thereby enhancing bacterial diversity in farmland soils. The RTS treatment significantly increased the bacterial Chao 1 and Shannon indices of soil at 0–20 cm depth. This could be attributed to RT treatment improving soil aeration, increasing surface oxygen levels, thereby enhancing the activity of aerobic bacteria and boosting the metabolic activity of aerobic microorganisms in the topsoil [54]. Deep tillage (PT) disturbed the structure of deeper soil layers and reduced soil compactness [55]. The highest bacterial Chao 1 index in the PTS treatment at the 20–40 cm depth was explained from the perspective of physical disruption. However, the Simpson index remained unaffected by straw return. These findings align with Li et al. [56], who reported inconsistent patterns in bacteria Simpson indices across different studies. For fungal communities, diversity and richness varied depending on the soil environment and farmland management practices [57,58]. Straw return also increased the Chao l index of soil fungi across treatments. The RTS treatments showed the highest fungal diversity in soil at 0–20 cm depth, likely due to straw-induced modifications in SOC content, soil bulk density, and moisture conditions, which collectively influenced fungal community development [55]. Notably, the PTS treatment displayed the highest fungal diversity indices (Chao 1 and Shannon) in deeper soil layers; potential reason include the following: (1) deep tillage practice was found to alter soil compaction and aeration [57], improving the microbial environment and thus increasing microbial diversity; (2) straw was plowed into the deep soil layer, modifying the soil substrate and serving as an energy source for microbial activity [59,60].
Fierer et al. [61] demonstrated that Proteobacteria in soil primarily participate in organic matter transformation and soil structure formation, being closely associated with carbon utilization. In this study, straw incorporation increased the content of labile organic carbon, which consequently led to an increase in the relative abundance of Proteobacteria. Moreover, deep tilling of straw also further enhanced the abundance of Proteobacteria in deeper soil [60,62]. Compared to CK, straw return also increased the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes. As a beneficial bacteria phylum involved in carbon and nitrogen cycles, Bacteroidetes increased as the carbon content from straw in the soil increased, which explained the rise in their relative abundance. Certain microorganisms within Bacteroidetes possess the capability to utilize carbon sources, and straw return specifically promoted the enrichment of these microbial groups [63]. Notably, Bacteroidetes can secrete Carbohydrate-active enzymes in soil that facilitate the decomposition of polysaccharides into plant-available forms [64]. In this study, Ascomycota and Basidiomycota were the dominant soil fungal phyla across different soil layers and treatments, with Ascomycota showing the highest relative abundance. Ascomycota are well adapted to soil environments and represent a dominant phylum in soils, consistent with previous studies [1]. Exogenous input of organic matter has been shown to effectively increase the relative abundance of Ascomycota in soil [65]. The results of this study demonstrate that straw return effectively increased soil labile organic carbon content, thereby promoting the growth and multiplication of microorganisms of Ascomycota. Studies have shown that Ascomycetes respond faster to changes in soil labile organic carbon, while Basidiomycota can decompose to produce specific enzymes to degrade decomposition-resistant carbon compounds in soil [66]. In addition, NTS increased the relative abundance of Ascomycetes and Zygomycotain in the subsurface soil layer (0–20 cm), which may be attributed to improved soil physicochemical conditions under straw mulching. Liu et al. similarly demonstrated that straw return could promote soil moisture storage, increase soil surface temperature, and improve the topsoil environment, consequently increasing the relative abundance of Ascomycetes and Zygomycota [67].

4.2. Responses of Corn Yield to Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices

Different tillage practices can affect corn yield by altering soil properties and hydrothermal conditions [68]. The results of this study showed that all straw incorporation treatments increased corn yield regardless of tillage method. However, the NTS treatment did not achieve significant yield improvement because straw mulching reduced soil temperature, which may negatively affect early crop growth, particularly in the cold climate of Northeast China [69]. In contrast, both RTS and PTS treatments significantly increased yield. This can be attributed to the following: (1) the abundant nutrients in straw that became available for microbial uptake after decomposition, especially carbon, thereby participating in nutrient cycling and increasing soil organic matter content; (2) the significant correlations between SOC component (ROC, DOC, and MBC) and the fungal and bacterial diversity indices (Chao1 and Simpson), which were also verified in this study; and (3) the slow release rate of straw-derived nutrients, which can continue to provide nutrients during the later growth stages of corn.
The integrated straw return and tillage practices affected corn yield through multiple pathways. Correlation analysis revealed that SOC, its labile fractions, and soil microbial diversity collectively influenced corn yield. Specifically, SOC, ROC, and DOC contents were positive factors affecting yield, while the bacterial Simpson diversity index showed a significant negative correlation with yield. These findings are consistent with Ma et al. [70], who reported that straw return increases both total SOC and the stability of labile organic carbon, thereby enhancing soil carbon sequestration capacity and improving fundamental soil productivity. Previous studies have demonstrated a linear relationship between SOM content and crop yield [71]. Tillage practices optimize microbial community composition by altering bacterial abundance and diversity. The negative effect of the Simpson index may be related to the uneven distribution of microbial populations and competition among microorganisms.
In Northeast China, where corn accounts for 31% of the nation’s total planting area [29], the experimental results demonstrate the importance of straw return for yield improvement. When combined with appropriate tillage practices, straw return can effectively enhance corn productivity.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the effects of combining straw with no tillage (NT), rotary tillage (RT), and deep tillage (PT) on soil properties and corn yield in the black soil of Northeast China. All treatments positively influenced soil fertility, optimized the microbial community, and increased corn yield. Regarding the soil carbon components, all three straw return treatments elevated the contents of soil organic carbon (SOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in the 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm soil layers. The return of straw enhanced organic matter input, facilitating the accumulation of SOC. The direct input of decomposable straw-derived carbon increased DOC pools. And the RTS and PTS treatments activated microbial activity, thereby promoting the MBC content. The enhancement of these carbon pools not only improved the soil’s capacity to retain and supply nutrients, but also optimized the availability of soil nutrients, establishing a material foundation for high-yield corn. In terms of microbial ecology, RTS and PTS treatments promoted the growth and reproduction of aerobic microorganisms by increasing soil substrate supply, reducing soil compaction, and improving oxygen exchange conditions. This enhanced the diversity index of soil microorganisms at the phylum level, optimized microbial community structure, and strengthened the functional stability and nutrient cycling efficiency of the soil ecosystem.
In conclusion, various straw return treatments enhanced soil fertility and ecological functions by regulating the SOC and its active components as well as microbial diversity, ultimately leading to an increase in corn yield. The research findings provide a scientific basis for the rational selection of straw return methods and the formulation of sustainable soil management strategies in the northeast black soil region. Future research should further investigate the long-term effects of different straw return models and their compatibility with regional climates and planting systems, thereby offering more precise technical support for the protection and efficient utilization of black soil.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15137129/s1, Table S1: Soil physical and chemical properties in the different integrated straw return and tillage practices.

Author Contributions

Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—Original Draft Preparation, and Writing—Review and Editing, L.F.; Writing—Review and Editing, G.C.; Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, and Writing—Review and Editing, Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by [National Key Research and Development Program of China], grant number [2021YFD1500105], and [Jilin Province Science and Technology Development Plan], grant number [20240203007NC].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, X.C.; Sun, L.Y.; Song, F.B.; Liu, S.Q.; Liu, F.L.; Li, X.N. Soil microbial community and activity are affected by integrated agricultural practices in China. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 924–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Su, Y.; He, Z.C.; Yang, Y.H.; Jia, S.Q. Linking soil microbial community dynamics to straw-carbon distribution in soil organic carbon. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 5526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pan, F.X.; Li, Y.Y.; Chapman, S.J.; Khan, S.; Yao, H.Y. Microbial utilization of rice straw and its derived biochar in a paddy soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 559, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cha, S.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, A.L.; Lee, D.H.; Koo, N. Liming Alters the Soil Microbial Community and Extracellular Enzymatic Activities in Temperate Coniferous Forests. Forests 2021, 12, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ma, J.Q.; Ma, Y.; Wei, Z.; Wu, J.; Sun, C.; Yang, J.; Liu, L.; Liao, H. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis on microbial diversity and enzyme activities in the rhizosphere soil of Artemisia annua. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2021, 85, 703–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tang, Z.; Zhang, L.; He, N.; Gong, D.; Gao, H.; Ma, Z.; Fu, L. Soil bacterial community as impacted by addition of rice straw and biochar. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 22185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mueller, G.M.; Schmit, J.P. Fungal biodiversity: What do we know? What can we predict? Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Poeplau, C.; Dechow, R. The legacy of one hundred years of climate change for organic carbon stocks in global agricultural topsoils. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 7483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mason, A.R.G.; Salomon, M.; Lowe, A.; Cavagnaro, T. Microbial solutions to soil carbon sequestration. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 417, 137993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, C.Z.; Chang, D.; Li, B.; Cao, W.; Lu, Y.; Pan, Z. Effects of planting and incorporation of Chinese Milk Vetch coupled with application of chemical fertilizer on active organic carbon and nitrogen in paddy soil. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2017, 54, 657–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cui, H.X.; Luo, Y.; Chen, J.; Jin, M.; Li, Y. Straw return strategies to improve soil properties and crop productivity in a winter wheat-summer maize cropping system. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 133, 126436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dikgwatlhe, S.B.; Chen, Z.-D.; Lal, R.; Zhang, H.-L.; Chen, F. Changes in soil organic carbon and nitrogen as affected by tillage and residue management under wheat-maize cropping system in the North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 144, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ding, J.L.; Wu, J.; Ding, D.; Yang, Y.; Gao, C. Effects of tillage and straw mulching on the crop productivity and hydrothermal resource utilization in a winter wheat-summer maize rotation system. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 254, 106933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pan, Y.W.; Fan, J.; Hao, M.; Chen, X. Effects of long-term tillage and mulching methods on properties of surface soil and maize yield in tableland region of the Loess Plateau. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2016, 22, 1558–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, Y.L.; Li, J. Study of tillage patterns suitable for soil physicochemical properties and crop yields in wheat/maize fields. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2014, 20, 1139–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, H.D.; LI, j.; Jiao, X.; Jiang, H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X. The fate and challenges of the main nutrients in returned straw: A basic review. Agronomy 2024, 14, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, N.; Li, Y.; Cong, P.; Wang, J.; Guo, W.; Pang, H. Depth of straw incorporation significantly alters crop yield, soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in the North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 205, 104772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sun, X.D.; Men, X.; Huang, W.; Yi, S.; Wang, W.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Z. Effects of Exiguobacterium sp. DYS212, a saline-alkaline-tolerant P-solubilizing bacterium, on Suaeda salsa germination and growth. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, Z.M.; Yan, J.; Han, X.; Zou, W.; Chen, X.; Lu, X. Labile organic carbon fractions drive soil microbial communities after long-term fertilization. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 32, e01867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, H.G.; Yu, Z.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, Y. Effects of tillage practices on grain yield formation of wheat and the physiological mechanism in rainfed areas. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 202, 104675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dong, L.; Shi, X.; Xu, S.; Wang, M. Effects of different management measures on the organic carbon of farmland soil profile in China based on Meta analysis. Soils 2021, 53, 1290–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xiao, L.A.; Zhou, S.; Zhao, R.; Wei, C. The net and combined effects of minimum tillage and straw mulching on carbon accumulation in global croplands. Eur. J. Agron 2023, 143, 126719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Busari, M.A.; Kukal, S.; Kaur, A.; Bhatt, R.; Dulazi, A. Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2015, 3, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Essel, E. Long-Term Tillage Effects on Soil Microbial Diversity, CO2 Emission and the Underlying Mechanisms in Wheat-Pea Rotation Field in the Semi-Arid Loess Plateau, China. Ph.D. Thesis, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, China, 2019; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  25. Song, D.L.; Xie, W.S. A political economy analysis of the protection and utilization of the black soil in northeast China: Based on the Pear Tree Model. China Rev. Political Econ. 2021, 12, 47–62. [Google Scholar]
  26. Du, G.M.; Yao, X.; Zang, L.Z. Evolution of farming system and its influencing factors in the black soil region of Northeast China. Chin. J. Econ. Agric. 2025, 33, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, Z.H.; Cai, H.Y.; Chen, J.Y.; Liu, H.G. Analysis on the change of maize production spatial layout and its influencing factors. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2018, 39, 169–176. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang, A.N.; Zeng, Q.P.; Tian, F.; Luo, H.B. Analysis on the changes of maize sown area and yield in China from 1997 to 2020. Crop Res. 2024, 38, 329–333. [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, R.P.; Xie, R.; Luo, Y.; Sui, P.; Zheng, H.; Ming, B.; Wang, H. Effects of conservation tillage methods on maize growth and yields in a typical black soil region. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2024, 32, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, B.S.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xue, H.; Li, Z. Effects of saline-alkali stress on bacterial and fungal community diversity in Leymus chinensis rhizosphere soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 70000–700013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sun, T.; Miao, J.; Saleem, M.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Y. Bacterial compatibility and immobilization with biochar improved tebuconazole degradation, soil microbiome composition and functioning. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 398, 122941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miao, T.; Gao, S.; Jiang, S.; Kan, G.; Liu, P.; Wu, X.; AN, Y.; Yao, S. A method suitable for DNA extraction from humus-rich soil. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014, 36, 2223–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Maguire, V.G.; Bordenave, C.; Nieva, A.; Llames, M.; Colavolpe, M. Soil bacterial and fungal community structure of a rice monoculture and rice-pasture rotation systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 151, 103535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lu, R. Analytical Methods for Soil Agricultural Chemistry; China Agricultural Science and Technology Press: Beijing, China, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhao, W.Q.; Walker, S.; Huang, Q.; Cai, P. Adhesion of bacterial pathogens to soil colloidal particles: Influences of cell type, natural organic matter, and solution chemistry. Water Res. 2014, 53, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Blair, G.J.; Lefroy, R.; Lise, L. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1995, 46, 1459–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brookes, P.C.; Landman, A.; Pruden, G.; Jenjinson, D. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: A rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1985, 17, 837–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Su, Y.; Yu, M.; Xi, H.; Lv, J.; Ma, Z.; Kou, C.; Shen, A. Soil microbial community shifts with long-term of different straw return in wheat-corn rotation system. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schloss, P.D.; Gevers, D.; Westcott, S.L. Reducing the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artifacts on 16S rRNA-based studies. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e27310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, Y.; Wu, C.; Deng, S.; Zhang, J.; Hou, J.; Wang, C.; Fu, Z. Effect of different washing solutions on soil enzyme activity and microbial community in agricultural soil severely contaminated with cadmium. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 54641–54651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cong, Y.; Han, P. Maize straw returning for three consecutive years: Effects on soil physical and chemical properties and crop yield. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2018, 34, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mondal, S.; Chakraborty, D. Global meta-analysis suggests that no-tillage favourably changes soil structure and porosity. Geodema 2022, 45, 115443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Huang, T.; Yang, N.; Lu, C.; Qin, X.; Siddique, K.H.M. Soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available nutrients, and yield under different straw returning methods. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 214, 105171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Han, X.; Xu, C.; Dungait, J.A.J.; Bol, R.; Wang, X.; Wu, W. Straw incorporation increases crop yield and soil organic carbon sequestration but varies under different natural conditions and farming practices in China: A system analysis. Biogeosciences 2018, 15, 1933–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kuang, E.; Chi, F.; Su, Q.; Zhang, J.; Jin, L. Decomposition characteristics of maize straws under different returning methods. Maize Sci. 2012, 20, 99–106. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tian, P.; Jiang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Ma, Q.; Sui, P. Effect of straw return methods on maize straw decomposition and soil nutrients contents. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2019, 27, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wei, B.H. Yield increasing and quality improving effects of smash-ridging method and its potential in benefiting the nation and the people. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014, 15, 1767–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kahlon, M.S.; Lal, R.; Ann-Varughese, M. Twenty-two years of tillage and mulching impacts on soil physical characteristics and carbon sequestration in Central Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lu, W.T.; Jia, Z.; Zhang, P.; Wang, W.; Hou, X.; Yang, B. Effects of straw returning on soil labile organic carbon and enzyme activity in Semi-arid areas of Southern Ningxia, China. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2011, 30, 522–528. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dhaliwal, S.S.; Naresh, R.; Gupta, R.; Panwar, A.; Mahajan, N. Effect of tillage and straw return on carbon footprints, soil organic carbon fractions and soil microbial community in different textured soils under rice–wheat rotation: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2020, 19, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Johansson, J.F.; Paul, L.; Finlay, R. Microbial interactions in the mycorrhizosphere and their significance for sustainable agriculture. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010, 48, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kihara, J.; Martius, C.; Bationo, A.; Thuita, M.; Lesueur, D. Soil aggregation and total diversity of bacteria and fungi in various tillage systems of sub-humid and semi-arid Kenya. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2012, 58, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hao, M.; Hu, H.; Liu, Z.; Dong, Q. Shifts in microbial community and carbon sequestration in farmland soil under long-term conservation tillage and straw returning. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 136, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xiao, D.; Xiao, S.; Ye, Y.; Zhang, W. Microbial biomass, metabolic functional diversity, and activity are affected differently by tillage disturbance and maize planting in a typical karst calcareous soil. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 809–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Soong, J.L.; Castanha, C.; Hicks Pries, C.E.; Ofiti, N.; Porras, R.C. Five years of whole-soil warming led to loss of subsoil carbon stocks and increased CO2 efflux. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabd1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Li, Z.Q.; Li, D.; Ma, L.; Yu, Y.; Zhao, B. Effects of straw management and nitrogen application rate on soil organic matter fractions and microbial properties in North China Plain. J. Soil Sediment 2019, 19, 618–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Brennan, E.B.; Acosta-Martinez, V. Cover cropping frequency is the main driver of soil microbial changes during six years of organic vegetable production. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 109, 188–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, Y.; Jin, Y.; Han, P.; Hao, J. Impact of soil disinfestation on fungal and bacterial communities in soil with cucumber cultivation. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 685111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhu, F.N.; Lin, X.; Guan, S.; Dou, S. Deep incorporation of corn straw benefits soil organic carbon and microbial community composition in a black soil of Northeast China. Soil Use Manag. 2022, 38, 1266–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, H.; Yin, C.; Fan, X.; Ye, M.; Liang, Y. Effect of P availability on straw-induced priming effect was mainly regulated by fungi in croplands. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 9403–9418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fierer, N.; Mark, A.; Robert, B. Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology 2007, 88, 1354–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Patkowska, E.; Blazewicz-Wozniak, M.; Konopinski, M. The effect of cover crops on the fungal and bacterial communities in the soil under carrot cultivation. Plant Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, Y.L.; Gu, Y.; Wu, C.; Zhao, H.; Hu, W. Short-term straw returning improves quality and bacteria community of black soil in Northeast China. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2022, 31, 1869–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Larsbrink, J.; Tuveng, T.; Pope, P.; Bulone, P.; Eijsink, V. Proteomic insights into mannan degradation and protein secretion by the forest floor bacterium Chitinophaga pinensis. J. Proteom. 2017, 56, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fan, W.; Wu, J. Changes in soil fungal community on SOC and POM accumulation under different straw return modes in dryland farming. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2021, 7, 1935326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Breulmann, M.; Masyutenko, N.; Kogut, B.; Schroll, R. Short-term bioavailability of carbon in soil organic matter fractions of different particle sizes and densities in grassland ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 497, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, D.; Wang, H.; An, S.; Bhople, P.; Davlatbekov, F. Geographic distance and soil microbial biomass carbon drive biogeographical distribution of fungal communities in Chinese Loess Plateau soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1058–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, L.H.; Xu, C.; Yu, J.; Yan, W.; Sun, N.; Tan, G.; Zhao, H.; Li, F.; Meng, X.; Bian, S. Effects of straw returning on soil moisture, temperature and maize yield in semi humid area. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 35, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Drury, C.F.; Tan, C.; Welacky, T.; Oloya, T.; Hamill, A. Red clover and tillage influence on soil temperature, water content, and corn emergence. Agron. J. 1999, 91, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ma, P.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, C.; Lv, X. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer input and rice season nitrogen fertilizer application on soil nutrients, carbon pool and yield in rape-rice rotation. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 36, 896–904. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zheng, J.S.; Hu, Y.; Wei, Y.; Shen, Z.; Meng, Y. Effects of Green Manure Returning on Soil Labile Organic Carbon in Paddy Field Under Smash Ridging. Soils 2021, 53, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 07129 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Applsci 15 07129 g001
Applsci 15 07129 g002
Figure 2. Changes in precipitation and temperature in Gongzhuling in 2019.
Figure 2. Changes in precipitation and temperature in Gongzhuling in 2019.
Applsci 15 07129 g002
Applsci 15 07129 g003
Figure 3. Effects of integrating straw return and tillage practices on corn yield in 2019. Bars with different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05). The values represent means ± se (n = 3). Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
Figure 3. Effects of integrating straw return and tillage practices on corn yield in 2019. Bars with different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05). The values represent means ± se (n = 3). Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
Applsci 15 07129 g003
Applsci 15 07129 g004
Figure 4. Effects of integrating straw return and tillage practices on soil SOC and its labile fractions. Bars with different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05). The values represent means ± se (n = 3). Abbreviations: SOC (soil organic carbon), ROC (readily oxidizable organic carbon), DOC (dissolved organic carbon), MBC (microbial biomass carbon). Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
Figure 4. Effects of integrating straw return and tillage practices on soil SOC and its labile fractions. Bars with different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05). The values represent means ± se (n = 3). Abbreviations: SOC (soil organic carbon), ROC (readily oxidizable organic carbon), DOC (dissolved organic carbon), MBC (microbial biomass carbon). Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
Applsci 15 07129 g004
Applsci 15 07129 g005
Figure 5. Relative abundance of bacteria (A) and fungal (B) communities in different integrated straw return and tillage practices. Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
Figure 5. Relative abundance of bacteria (A) and fungal (B) communities in different integrated straw return and tillage practices. Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
Applsci 15 07129 g005
Applsci 15 07129 g006
Figure 6. Pearson′s correlation analysis of crop yield relative to SOC labile carbon and bacterial and fungal diversity community in different integrated straw return and tillage practices. Abbreviations: SOC (soil organic carbon), ROC (readily oxidizable organic carbon), DOC (dissolved organic carbon), MBC (microbial biomass carbon).
Figure 6. Pearson′s correlation analysis of crop yield relative to SOC labile carbon and bacterial and fungal diversity community in different integrated straw return and tillage practices. Abbreviations: SOC (soil organic carbon), ROC (readily oxidizable organic carbon), DOC (dissolved organic carbon), MBC (microbial biomass carbon).
Applsci 15 07129 g006
Table 1. The nutrient content of the corn straw used in the experiment (%).
Table 1. The nutrient content of the corn straw used in the experiment (%).
Total
Carbon		Total
Nitrogen		Total
Phosphorus		Total
Potassium		Hemi
Cellulose		CelluloseLignin
41.78 ± 0.100.92 ± 0.040.15 ± 0.001.11 ± 0.0123.45 ± 0.4137.25 ± 0.232.85 ± 0.03
The values represent means ± se (n = 3).
Table 2. Initial physical and chemical properties of soil.
Table 2. Initial physical and chemical properties of soil.
OM
(g kg−1)		TN
(g kg−1)		AN
(mg kg−1)		AP
(mg kg−1)		AK
(mg kg−1)		pH
20.10 ± 0.031.54 ± 0.01121.84 ± 0.2026.34 ± 0.04134.24 ± 0.496.11 ± 0.02
Abbreviations: OM (organic matter), TN (total nitrogen), AN (alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen), AP (available phosphorus), AK (available potassium). The values represent means ± se (n = 3).
Table 3. The diversities of microbial communities in the different integrated straw return and tillage practices.
Table 3. The diversities of microbial communities in the different integrated straw return and tillage practices.
DepthTreatmentBacterialFungal
Chao1ShannonSimpsonChao1ShannonSimpson
0–20 cmCK2991.33 ± 53.76 c8.53 ± 0.09 b0.998 ± 0.002 a475.55 ± 5.94 c3.29 ± 0.15 a0.871 ± 0.002 a
NTS3341.00 ± 39.0 b8.54 ± 0.10 b0.997 ± 0.001 a527.55 ± 4.89 a3.20 ± 0.17 a0.852 ± 0.001 b
RTS3743.33 ± 46.25 a8.91 ± 0.06 a0.996 ± 0.002 a533.16 ± 6.46 a3.11 ± 0.10 a0.836 ± 0.001 c
PTS3201.67 ± 60.89 b8.54 ± 0.11 b0.996 ± 0.001 a509.43 ± 4.06 b3.27 ± 0.19 a0.856 ± 0.002 b
20–40 cmCK2581.33 ± 44.83 c8.49 ± 0.08 c0.999 ± 0.001 a329.19 ± 4.07 d3.22 ± 0.14 a0.865 ± 0.001 a
NTS2938.00 ± 52.29 c8.56 ± 0.08 bc0.998 ± 0.000 a366.10 ± 6.15 c3.15 ± 0.13 a0.853 ± 0.001 b
RTS3027.33 ± 31.18 ab8.74 ± 0.08 ab0.996 ± 0.001 a388.45 ± 5.82 b3.17 ± 0.14 a0.854 ± 0.002 b
PTS3103.33 ± 39.9 a8.88 ± 0.05 a0.996 ± 0.001 a448.22 ± 7.14 a3.24 ± 0.09 a0.856 ± 0.002 b
Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among treatments (p < 0.05). The values represent means ± se (n = 3). Treatments as follows: CK (no straw + conventional tillage), NTS (straw mulch + no-tillage), RTS (straw incorporation + rotary tillage), PTS (straw incorporation + deep tillage).
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

Feng, L.; Sun, Y.; Chen, G. Responses of Corn Yield, Soil Microorganisms, and Labile Organic Carbon Fractions Under Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices in Black Soil. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 7129. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137129

AMA Style

Feng L, Sun Y, Chen G. Responses of Corn Yield, Soil Microorganisms, and Labile Organic Carbon Fractions Under Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices in Black Soil. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(13):7129. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137129

Chicago/Turabian Style

Feng, Lei, Yunyun Sun, and Guifen Chen. 2025. "Responses of Corn Yield, Soil Microorganisms, and Labile Organic Carbon Fractions Under Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices in Black Soil" Applied Sciences 15, no. 13: 7129. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137129

APA Style

Feng, L., Sun, Y., & Chen, G. (2025). Responses of Corn Yield, Soil Microorganisms, and Labile Organic Carbon Fractions Under Integrated Straw Return and Tillage Practices in Black Soil. Applied Sciences, 15(13), 7129. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137129

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