Effect of straw return on soil respiration and NEE of paddy fields under water-saving irrigation · Knowledge Library

BonaResKnowledge Library

Effect of straw return on soil respiration and NEE of paddy fields under water-saving irrigation · Knowledge Library

rice yield

↑ 2= 13

increase
CS (CI and SR) vs. FF (FI and FFP)significant · 2014 and 2015 rice harvest · Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station · CS versus FF, joint controlled irrigation and straw incorporation versus flooding without straw. Table3 a/b bothyears,LSD.05.
Numbers
- treatment 10,350 vs. control 9,657 kg ha−1 (+7.145 %) · 2014
- treatment 10,100 vs. control 9,730 kg ha−1 (+3.762 %) · 2015
Source · p. 5
“Compared with FF paddy fields, the rice yields of the CS paddy fields increased by 7.14% and 3.77% in 2014 and 2015 (p<0.05), respectively.”
increase
SR under FI and CI (matched within irrigation) vs. FFP under FI and CI (matched within irrigation)significant · 2014 and 2015 harvest · Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station · Actual matched pairs FS/FF underFI andCS/CF underCI;agreeing variant results merged,notpooled. EachTable3 paira/b,LSD.05.
Numbers
- treatment 10,420 vs. control 9,657 kg ha−1 (+7.922 %) · 2014 · FI:FS/FF
- treatment 10,350 vs. control 9,589 kg ha−1 (+7.905 %) · 2014 · CI:CS/CF
- treatment 10,120 vs. control 9,730 kg ha−1 (+3.998 %) · 2015 · FI:FS/FF
- treatment 10,100 vs. control 9,682 kg ha−1 (+4.276 %) · 2015 · CI:CS/CF
Source · p. 4
“SR significantly increased rice yield and irrigation water use efficiencies of paddy fields (p<0.05).”
no effect
CI under FFP and SR (matched within carbon management) vs. FI under FFP and SR (matched within carbon management)not significant · 2014 and 2015 rice harvest · Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station · Controlled irrigation versus flooding, matched CF/FF without straw and CS/FS with 3000 kg wheat straw ha-1 each year. Table3 b/b for CF/FF and a/a for CS/FS in both years, LSD alpha0.05. Agreeing strata and years merged; no pooled means or tests. Yield sampled aboveground; no soil-depth assignment.
Numbers
- treatment 9,589 vs. control 9,657 kg ha−1 (-0.7042 %) · 2014 · FFP without straw: CF/FF
- treatment 10,350 vs. control 10,420 kg ha−1 (-0.7196 %) · 2014 · SR: CS/FS
- treatment 9,682 vs. control 9,730 kg ha−1 (-0.4933 %) · 2015 · FFP without straw: CF/FF
- treatment 10,100 vs. control 10,120 kg ha−1 (-0.2273 %) · 2015 · SR: CS/FS
Source · p. 4
“No significant difference in rice yield was observed between the different irrigation treatments (Table 3).”
Source · p. 6
“2014 Yield (kg ha−1): FF 9657±54.4b; FS 10422±132a; CF 9589±88.2b; CS 10347±70.8a.”
Source · p. 6
“2015 Yield (kg ha−1): FF 9730±40.3b; FS 10119±112a; CF 9682±61.8b; CS 10096±80.4a.”

irrigation water use efficiency

↑ 33

increase
CS (CI and SR) vs. FF (FI and FFP)significant · 2014 and 2015 rice seasons · Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station · CS versus FF;Table3 a/d bothyears,LSD.05. Water input407/804mm2014 and517/912mm2015.
Numbers
- treatment 2.55 vs. control 1.2 kg m−3 (+112.5 %) · 2014
- treatment 1.95 vs. control 1.07 kg m−3 (+82.24 %) · 2015
Source · p. 14
“CS management significantly increased the rice yields and the irrigation water use efficiency of paddy fields compared with the control.”
increase
SR under FI and CI (matched within irrigation) vs. FFP under FI and CI (matched within irrigation)significant · 2014 and 2015 rice seasons · Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station · MatchedFS/FF underFI andCS/CF underCI;Table3c/d anda/b ineachyear,LSD.05.No pooledmeans.
Numbers
- treatment 1.3 vs. control 1.2 kg m−3 (+8.333 %) · 2014 · FI:FS/FF
- treatment 2.55 vs. control 2.36 kg m−3 (+8.051 %) · 2014 · CI:CS/CF
- treatment 1.11 vs. control 1.07 kg m−3 (+3.738 %) · 2015 · FI:FS/FF
- treatment 1.95 vs. control 1.87 kg m−3 (+4.278 %) · 2015 · CI:CS/CF
Source · p. 4
“SR significantly increased rice yield and irrigation water use efficiencies of paddy fields (p<0.05).”
increase
CI under FFP and SR (matched within carbon management) vs. FI under FFP and SR (matched within carbon management)significant · 2014 and 2015 rice seasons · Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station · Controlled irrigation versus flooding, actual matched CF/FF without straw and CS/FS with straw. Table3 b/d and a/c respectively in both years, LSD alpha0.05; four agreeing pairwise comparisons merged, no pooled means or test. Printed plus/minus error type unspecified and not inferred.
Numbers
- treatment 2.36 vs. control 1.2 kg m−3 (+96.67 %) · 2014 · FFP without straw: CF/FF
- treatment 2.55 vs. control 1.3 kg m−3 (+96.15 %) · 2014 · SR: CS/FS
- treatment 1.87 vs. control 1.07 kg m−3 (+74.77 %) · 2015 · FFP without straw: CF/FF
- treatment 1.95 vs. control 1.11 kg m−3 (+75.68 %) · 2015 · SR: CS/FS
Source · p. 6
“2014 IWUE (kg m−3): FF 1.20±0.0104d; FS 1.30±0.00702c; CF 2.36±0.0241b; CS 2.55±0.0190a.”
Source · p. 6
“2015 IWUE (kg m−3): FF 1.07±0.0964d; FS 1.11±0.00418c; CF 1.87±0.00875b; CS 1.95±0.00695a.”

Sites

Kunshan Irrigation and Drainage Experiment Station

Location: Taihu Lake Region of China31.25° N, 120.96° E
Land use: paddy fieldsRice fields
Management on the whole site: rice–wheat rotationAsian rice/Oryza sativa Wheat/Triticum aestivum, Japonica Rice Nanjing 46Asian rice/Oryza sativa, local nitrogen fertilizerNitrogen fertilizer

Soil layers
Depth	Texture	Clay	pH	Organic C	Bulk density
initial site soil (depth not stated)	clay	75 %	7.4	–	–