Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments.
Straw retention is an effective method to conserve soil water content and improve soil carbon stocks. However, how soil carbon dynamics respond to different straw retention practices remains unclear. In this study, we investigated soil respiration and soil carbon sequestration at depths of 0-100 cm....
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219253 |
| _version_ | 1819019801533612032 |
|---|---|
| author | Dejie Kong Nana Liu Weiyu Wang Kashif Akhtar Na Li Guangxin Ren Yongzhong Feng Gaihe Yang |
| author_facet | Dejie Kong Nana Liu Weiyu Wang Kashif Akhtar Na Li Guangxin Ren Yongzhong Feng Gaihe Yang |
| author_sort | Dejie Kong |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Straw retention is an effective method to conserve soil water content and improve soil carbon stocks. However, how soil carbon dynamics respond to different straw retention practices remains unclear. In this study, we investigated soil respiration and soil carbon sequestration at depths of 0-100 cm. We conducted a two-year field experiment with three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments in northwest China. The straw retention treatments included no straw retention (NS), retention of half the straw (HS), and retention of the total amount of straw (TS). The crop rotations treatments included winter wheat plus summer soybean (WS), winter wheat plus summer maize (WM), and winter wheat plus summer fallow (WF). Mean soil respiration rates under WS, WM, and WF treatments were 5.14, 6.53, and 5.49 μmol·m-2·s-1; and 5.67, 5.47, and 6.03 μmol·m-2·s-1 under TS, HS, and NS treatments. The mean soil water content were 15.50%, 15.57%, and 15.74% under WS, WM, and WF rotations, and 15.81%, 15.41%, and 15.50% under TS, HS, and NS treatments. The soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration was higher with increased straw retention, and lower at deeper soil depths. Mean SOC concentrations under different rotations and straw treatments of TS, HS, and NS, respectively were as follows: WS: 6.91, 6.63, 6.39 g/kg; WM: 6.90, 6.72, 6.57 g/kg; and WF: 6.49, 6.52, 6.37 g/kg. Soil temperature was the main determinant of soil respiration rates. We conclude that WS rotation resulted in lower soil respiration, WM rotation resulted in a higher soil carbon sequestration potential, and WF rotation resulted in higher soil water content. However, continued, long-term monitoring is needed to confirm the effect of rotations and straw retention on soil respiration and carbon sequestration in dryland cropping systems in northern China. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T03:41:05Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bf1c49c407474764bd0745b707b6a23b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T03:41:05Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-bf1c49c407474764bd0745b707b6a23b2022-12-21T19:17:12ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01149e021925310.1371/journal.pone.0219253Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments.Dejie KongNana LiuWeiyu WangKashif AkhtarNa LiGuangxin RenYongzhong FengGaihe YangStraw retention is an effective method to conserve soil water content and improve soil carbon stocks. However, how soil carbon dynamics respond to different straw retention practices remains unclear. In this study, we investigated soil respiration and soil carbon sequestration at depths of 0-100 cm. We conducted a two-year field experiment with three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments in northwest China. The straw retention treatments included no straw retention (NS), retention of half the straw (HS), and retention of the total amount of straw (TS). The crop rotations treatments included winter wheat plus summer soybean (WS), winter wheat plus summer maize (WM), and winter wheat plus summer fallow (WF). Mean soil respiration rates under WS, WM, and WF treatments were 5.14, 6.53, and 5.49 μmol·m-2·s-1; and 5.67, 5.47, and 6.03 μmol·m-2·s-1 under TS, HS, and NS treatments. The mean soil water content were 15.50%, 15.57%, and 15.74% under WS, WM, and WF rotations, and 15.81%, 15.41%, and 15.50% under TS, HS, and NS treatments. The soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration was higher with increased straw retention, and lower at deeper soil depths. Mean SOC concentrations under different rotations and straw treatments of TS, HS, and NS, respectively were as follows: WS: 6.91, 6.63, 6.39 g/kg; WM: 6.90, 6.72, 6.57 g/kg; and WF: 6.49, 6.52, 6.37 g/kg. Soil temperature was the main determinant of soil respiration rates. We conclude that WS rotation resulted in lower soil respiration, WM rotation resulted in a higher soil carbon sequestration potential, and WF rotation resulted in higher soil water content. However, continued, long-term monitoring is needed to confirm the effect of rotations and straw retention on soil respiration and carbon sequestration in dryland cropping systems in northern China.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219253 |
| spellingShingle | Dejie Kong Nana Liu Weiyu Wang Kashif Akhtar Na Li Guangxin Ren Yongzhong Feng Gaihe Yang Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments. PLoS ONE |
| title | Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments. |
| title_full | Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments. |
| title_fullStr | Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments. |
| title_short | Soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments. |
| title_sort | soil respiration from fields under three crop rotation treatments and three straw retention treatments |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219253 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dejiekong soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT nanaliu soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT weiyuwang soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT kashifakhtar soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT nali soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT guangxinren soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT yongzhongfeng soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments AT gaiheyang soilrespirationfromfieldsunderthreecroprotationtreatmentsandthreestrawretentiontreatments |