4.7 Article

Crop yield and soil carbon responses to tillage method changes in North China

期刊

SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 207-213

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2016.06.005

关键词

Conservation tillage; Deep tillage; Tillage conversion; Crop yield; Soil organic carbon

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China [ZR2015CQ007]
  2. Youth Scientific Research Foundation of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences [2015YQN37]
  3. Special Research Funding for Public Benefit Industries (Agriculture) of China [201503121]
  4. National Science and Technology Research Projects of China [2012BAD14B07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subsoil compaction at 15-30 cm depths due to the increase of bulk density or decrease in porosity after long-term no tillage or reduced tillage (e.g. rotary tillage or harrow tillage) is of growing concern. Deep tillage is generally regarded as an important method to reduce subsoil compaction due to long-term conservation tillage and thereby improve crop production and soil conditions. We compared the responses of crop yield and soil carbon (C) among 10-year no tillage (NT), rotary tillage (RT), and harrow tillage (HT) treatments, and their conversions to deep tillage (DT) for 4 years involving NT-DT, RT-DT and HT-DT treatments. The soil organic carbon (SOC) pool under the NT treatment was 29 and 91% higher than the SOC pools of the HT and RT treatments, respectively, whereas the NT annual yield decreased by 0.6 Mg ha(-1) yr(-1) over 10 years. The NT-DT, RT-DT and HT-DT treatments increased crop yield by 35, 24 and 24% and altered the SOC pool by-1.5,15.6 and 13.2 Mg ha(-1) over the 4 years of deep tillage compared with the corresponding values for NT, RT, and HT, respectively. Therefore, conversion to DT after long-term NT, RT, and HT use can benefit crop yield and play an important role in improving soil carbon sequestration following the long-term adoption of RT and HT systems in North China. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据