Next Article in Journal
Prediction and Analysis of Chlorophyll-a Concentration in the Western Waters of Hong Kong Based on BP Neural Network
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of China’s Low-Carbon City Pilot Policies on Enterprise Energy Efficiency
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310442
sustainability-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainable Potato Growth under Straw Mulching Practices

by
Abdul Waheed
1,†,
Chuang Li
2,†,
Murad Muhammad
1,3,
Mushtaq Ahmad
4,
Khalid Ali Khan
5,6,
Hamed A. Ghramh
5,7,
Zhongwei Wang
2,* and
Daoyuan Zhang
1
1
National Key Laboratory of Ecological Security and Resource Utilization in Arid Areas, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
2
Institute of Economic Plants, Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Gongzhuling 136105, China
3
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4
Department of Zoology, Islamia College University, Peshawar 25120, Pakistan
5
Unit of Bee Research and Honey Production, King Khalid University, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
6
Applied College, King Khalid University, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
7
Biology Department Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10442; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310442
Submission received: 7 June 2023 / Revised: 27 June 2023 / Accepted: 29 June 2023 / Published: 3 July 2023
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Extreme heat, droughts, pests, diseases, and short bursts of heavy rain make potato production unsustainable. This unfavorable environment negatively affects potato productivity and yield levels. Within the next few years, conditions will likely deteriorate even more. In potato cultivation, straw mulching has been shown to increase yields by promoting the growth of beneficial bacteria in the soil. Mulching improves soil humidity, decreases transpiration, and cools the soil in dry and hot regions. There is a global decline in potato yields per hectare due to poor nutrient management, moderately humid years, and high disease pressure caused by Phytophthora infestans and Alternaria species. Farmers must take cultivation measures to achieve economic efficiency and adequate yields. A range of practices contributes to better potato yields and productivity, such as the use of appropriate fungicides, planting high-yielding varieties, and increasing row spacing. These practices complicate cultivation and affect profits. Furthermore, inorganic nitrogen in the soil regularly causes acidification, eroding soil fertility. As a result of land preparation, straw residues from rice and maize are collected from the field and destroyed or burned, which depletes nutrients and pollutes the air. Returning these residues to the soil, however, can improve its quality. Integrating rice and maize straw mulching into potato cultivation practices can enhance agricultural sustainability, productivity, and yield. This review will focus on using rice and maize straw mulching in cultivating potatoes. Straw mulching promotes sustainable potato growth, increasing productivity and quality while minimizing reliance on chemical inputs. Such practices can mitigate the need for synthetic fertilizers to enhance sustainable agriculture, ensure long-term growth, improve soil health, increase yields, and promote sustainable agriculture.

1. Introduction

The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is the world’s most abundant food crop, producing 371 million tons on 18 million acres in 2019 [1]. Potato tubers contain vitamins B3, B6, and C and starch and polyphenols. According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics, approximately 99 million metric tons (MMT) of potatoes were produced in China in 2020/21, a 3% increase from the estimated 96 MMT produced in 2019/20 [2]. Potatoes occupy 36% of the total farmland in northwestern China, making them the essential tuber crop [3]. Approximately 60% of China’s potato production is eaten directly, 10% is processed, 12% is the seed, 5% is food, and 13% is lost during storage, according to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture [4]. There is a relatively low yield of fresh potatoes per hectare in China compared to the United States and New Zealand [5] due to drought [6], disease, and pest infestations. As measured by an average tuber yield per hectare, China’s yield of fresh potatoes is 64.84% and 64.44% lower than that of the United States and New Zealand, respectively. Since potato grows in temperate climates, high atmospheric temperatures (mean temperature > 17 °C) limit tuber growth and production. The potato is, therefore, grown exclusively during the winter season (November–March) [7]. However, the limited soil moisture availability prevents profit-making crops from being grown globally during the winter. High temperatures negatively affect potato growth and yield significantly when the mean temperature exceeds 17 °C [8]. A high-temperature delays or prevents tuber formation in most cases, with the formation of tubers rarely occurring above 30 °C. Potatoes are grown in countries with temperatures between 15 and 18 °C and ample rainfall or irrigation during the growing season. Organic farming differs from conventional agriculture in not using synthetic chemicals [9]. There is no doubt that plant protection issues are the most significant problems encountered in organic potato production. Developing a rotation plan and placing the potato crop in the rotation is critical to growing organic potatoes. The rotational design prevents crop diseases and pest outbreaks [10]. Potato yield decreases by 15% over time if cropping frequency is increased to one-third of the rotation, primarily because of nematodes [11].
As straw mulching techniques can be used to increase soil moisture retention, control weeds, improve soil structure, and preserve nutrients for the cultivation of potatoes, this offers a significant opportunity for sustainable cultivation [12]. In addition to enhancing root growth, straw mulching facilitates nutrient absorption and improves the plant’s overall health, all of which increase potato production [13]. It has been shown that the progressive breakdown of straw mulch results in more organic matter being incorporated into the soil, improving soil fertility and boosting microbial activity [14]. To promote sustainable potato farming, it is imperative to conduct scientific research to determine the most effective rates, timing, and environmental suitability of straw mulching techniques [15,16].
A conceptualization and understanding of organic farming require consideration of its objectives and practices. In organic farming, we aim to create agricultural ecosystems that mimic natural ecosystems [17,18]. Mulching the soil and green manuring can create a permanent cover for the soil, along with intercropping, mixed crops, and relay crops. Mulch is essentially dead organic material applied to soil to cover it with dead organic matter. In contrast to covering the soil with live companion plants, mulch does not negatively affect the crop. Increasing soil organic matter and preventing soil erosion are two benefits of mulching [19,20].
As organic material sources, rice and maize straw have great potential. Due to the increased productivity and quality of rice and maize mulching during potato cultivation, a product that, until now, has been highly dependent on chemical inputs can be made more productive by using these inputs [21,22]. Mulching is economically advantageous because compost’s high potassium content can replace costly commercial potassium (K) sources, such as KCl [23]. Consequently, the use of pesticides can be drastically reduced while mulching application is practiced. As a result of reducing the number of agrochemicals used, after implementing integrated organic farming, pesticide concentrations will be reduced annually [24].
Using straw mulch reduces the transmission of viruses transmitted by aphids. Potatoes are a valuable crop in organic agriculture, but their vegetative propagation makes them susceptible to several diseases [25]. Due to these factors, virus diseases transmitted by aphids can seriously reduce yields. From an agronomic and plant protection perspective, this review describes and evaluates the application of straw mulch to organic potatoes. Mulching with straw is more labor-intensive in the early summer but may add organic matter to the soil over the long run [26].
In northeast Indian potato crops, CaSO4, ZnSO4, farm yard manure, and straw mulch are utilized to protect against high temperatures [27,28]. The implementation of integrated soil management increases soluble sugar content, chlorophyll content, and superoxide dismutase activity, leading to increased tuber bulking rate and yield. A similar conclusion was reached in a previous research, which suggests that CaSO4, ZnSO4, farm yard manure and straw mulch mitigate the effects of high temperatures on potato growth [29]. In addition to improving the membrane integrity, chlorophyll content, total soluble sugars, and superoxide dismutase activity of the soil, this soil management strategy increases its fertility. Straw mulching has been shown to improve potato yields, sustainability, and farm productivity even beyond temperature reductions. To match our study objectives and aims with the literature, this review will focus on (1) determining how rice and maize straw-based compost affect potato production, (2) ensuring that compost-based farming of potatoes without inorganic fertilizers is a basis for organic farming, and (3) examining the pros and cons of straw mulching as a sustainable potato-growing method.

2. The Growing Trend toward Organic Potato Practice

There is a significant economic and social impact associated with organic potato farming. This is especially true when the potatoes are directly sold to consumers [30]. Several features of organic potato farming make it distinctive, including plant protection, rotational design, seed and tuber preparation, and weed control. Growing organic potatoes presents the most significant challenge in terms of plant protection [31]. An organic crop production system emphasizes management practices that promote biodiversity, the biological activity of the soil, the use of minimal off-farm inputs, and the restoration of ecological harmony. There was a significant increase in organic potato production in the United States between 2008 and 2016. Organic potato acreage doubled from 8000 to 17,000 acres between 2008 and 2016, and organic potato sales increased fivefold, from $30 to $150 million. [32,33]. There are several factors that affect the quality of potato tubers. For potato plants to grow, develop, yield, and produce high-quality tubers, nitrogen is essential. A major difference between conventional and organic potato production is the nitrogen source and form.
To ensure growth, potatoes must be rotated and planted in organic agriculture. In addition to preventing crop diseases and pest outbreaks, rotational farming increases yields. It is estimated that nematodes affect 15% of rotations, which results in a decline of one-third in potato yields [34]. In addition to controlling potato wart (Synchytrium endobioticum), late blight (derived from oospores), and tobacco rattle virus (derived from nematodes), short cropping breaks can also be beneficial. Cropping seed potatoes once is recommended at a maximum frequency of 20%, i.e., once every five years [35]. In Britain, organic farmers grow potatoes less than once every four years. It is recommended to plant legumes as pre-crops for potatoes to improve soil structure, make it friable, and increase organic matter degradation capabilities. In contrast to grain legumes, grass-legume mixtures (leys) are assessed as the efficient and suitable pre-crop for a high-yield potato crop. Grass-clover leys grown for one year vs. two years showed variable results [36].
In organic potato farming, pre-sprouting is recommended before planting; this measure aims to avoid late blight by seedling development before planting [37]. P. infestans terminates vegetation early, resulting in a 12–28% yield increase in years with pre-sprouting before sprouting [37]. Pre-sprouting is also recommended as an additional control measure against R. solani [38].
When growing organic potatoes, weed control is typically implemented in two stages: in the early stages of planting, harrowing (chain) and re-ridging (again) twice, and in the later stages when the plants are grown [39]. Besides killing weeds, re-ridging also breaks up soil crusts that prevent soil aeration, builds stable ridges with more potato roots, and prevents potatoes from greening. As a consequence of late blight infections, which drastically reduce competition between potato plants for light, water, and nutrients, in late summer, weed levels are often high; high weed levels can impede harvest and, therefore, weeds and haulm are cut off before harvest, or sometimes hand weeding is performed [40]. Seed tubers are used to propagate the potato crop vegetatively. Whether the tubers are produced organically or conventionally differs from the production of potatoes for human consumption and industrial purposes. Producing seed potatoes has many peculiarities, notably narrowing size limits and controlling tuber-transmitted viral diseases [41].

3. Agronomic Effects of Straw Mulch in Potatoes

Understanding how straw mulch application affects agronomic parameters, especially yield, is crucial before it is adopted in practice. First, we will examine the abiotic requirements for potatoes, followed by a description of cereal straw properties and their use. Finally, we will summarize the known soil effects of mulches.

3.1. Growing Potatoes Requires Abiotic Conditions

Frost, heat, and drought are among the stresses that potato plants may encounter [42]; tubers are damaged below −1°C to −3 °C (the daily mean temperature at 2 m height) and above 29 °C; optimum temperatures for fermentation are around 17 °C [43]. It is recommended that the water holding capacity be 60–80% of the available water. Potato yield responses to soil texture are weaker than those of other crops (e.g., rye). The potato can be grown on various soil types, and only clays or sands with high moisture content reduce yield [44]. Water availability is crucial on lighter sandy soils. If potatoes are grown on clay soils, their quality parameters will be negatively impacted, while they benefit when grown on sandy soils. As for soil structure, potatoes do not tolerate crusty soil and need friable, loose soil that warms quickly [45].

3.2. Straw Properties, Yield and Uses

Research shows that wheat and rye straw have average yields (5.5 t ha−1 dry matter) when temperate climate conditions prevail. In comparison, summer wheat (4.5 t ha−1 dry matter) and winter barley (4.0 t ha−1 dry matter) have lower yields when temperate climate conditions prevail [46]. Recent figures indicate that winter wheat yields have increase considerably over the last few decades, ranging from 7.0 to 9.0 t ha−1. A three-year experiment with 20 varieties of wheat straw showed yields between 5.2 and 7.2 tons ha−1 for organic farming [47]. Most of the straw used in animal husbandry is used for bedding, binding dung, and occasionally for fodder [48]. It was found that three-quarters of all straw consumed in Germany in 1974 was used for this purpose, while 20% of the remaining material was incorporated into the soil and 5% was burned. The law currently prohibits burning straws on the field [49,50].
While cereal straw has low nitrogen content (0.4% dry matter), it contains high levels of carbon, leading to a high C/N ratio of between 85 and 100 (summer barley, as well as rice and maize) [51]. A cereal straw can have K content of 1.0 % (in rice) to 2.5 % (in maize) and a P content of 0.07–0.17% [52]. The dry organic matter in straw is primarily organic, with cellulose accounting for about 45 percent, and lignin for 15–18%. Additionally, it is estimated that straw contains between 3–5% SiO2 as dry matter [53].
In a study, 55 winter wheat varieties and 25 summer wheat varieties were evaluated for physical and structural properties. On average, it was found that winter wheat straw was 95 cm long, and summer wheat straw was 89 cm long. These straws had a total weight of 1.6 g and 1.3 g and a diameter of 3.5 and 3.1 mm, respectively [54]. Winter wheat grown organically grew to a length of 90–110 cm. Despite its small size, straw holds a lot of water, with a capacity of about 200% its weight [55].
There are several factors that affect the speed of nutrient release from straw so that it can be utilized by the potato crop. These factors include soil pH, air temperature, soil moisture, straw C/N ratio, and soil aeration [56]. There is a range of time between 2 and 10 weeks for straw mineralization, which impacts how nutrients are utilized by potatoes [57]. It has been found that potassium (K) is released from straw at a higher rate than phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). Consequently, the type of straw used for potato mulching must be considered when determining the optimal timing [58]. A study has been conducted to investigate whether silicon (Si) in grass straw could decrease plant diseases [59]. The release of silicon from straw may impact the time that other vital nutrients undergo mineralization [60]. As well as its mineral composition, straw’s effectiveness as a mulch can be influenced by its composition. It is possible that a high mineral content straw will negatively affect the soil’s pH and nutrient balance, while a low mineral content straw may not provide sufficient nutrients for a potato crop [61]. When determining the optimal time frame for mulching potatoes with straw, it is crucial to consider the straw’s diversity and mineral composition [62]. Straw mulching techniques can help farmers increase the sustainability of potato farming by carefully analyzing these factors.

3.3. Economic Costs and Benefits of Mulching for Potato Production

The costs and benefits of synthetic chemicals, fertilizers, and mulches are always considered before they are used. In terms of soil health and crop performance, mulching materials are not as expensive as other, synthetic materials. Mulches can eliminate the need for pesticides [63] or other methods used for weed control. It was found by different researchers that mulching practices had significant effects on the cost of cultivation, gross monetary returns, net monetary returns, and benefit-to-cost (B:C ratio) ratios during two years of potato crop experiments [64,65]. In potato crops, mulching practices have a significant impact on economic parameters. As a result of straw mulching, the cost of cultivation, gross monetary returns, net monetary returns, and benefit–cost ratio are significantly higher than with unmulched cropping [66].

3.4. The Composition of Different Types of Mulches and Their Role in Potato Growth and Development

The application of mulch can enhance agricultural productivity by augmenting crop yields, mitigating water loss, and suppressing weed proliferation [67]. Potato farming utilizes various mulches, including organic, synthetic, and inorganic variants. Various mulches, such as those derived from plant leaves, straw, and wood, can decompose and enhance soil quality. Additionally, they offer a protective function during the decomposition process, as outlined in Table 1. The application of wood chip mulch aids in retaining soil moisture and serves as a barrier against the proliferation of weeds [68]. Using organic mulches creates a favorable habitat for soil organisms, particularly earthworms, thereby augmenting the microbial activity within the soil and averting compaction [69]. Organic mulch can mitigate the impact of early frosts and weed competition for light, nutrients, and water on potato plants.

4. Straw Mulching and Soil Health

4.1. Straw Mulching and Soil Properties

Straw mulch has been reported to increase soil moisture [77]. Mulched soils retain up to 6% more moisture than unmulched soils (top 30 cm). Typically, mulched soils retain 2 to 3 percent more moisture (Figure 1). It has been found that mulch increases soil moisture for two main reasons: (1) improved infiltration [78]—as a result of the mulch intercepting raindrops, the soil becomes less compacted and pore sealing is increased; (2) reduced evaporation, or better moisture conservation. Many studies have shown that shading significantly influences evaporation control [79,80]. The effect of straw mulch on evaporation decreases as the amount of straw is increased, i.e., the effectiveness of straw applications at already light weights is almost the same as that of heavier applications [80].
In addition, mulch suppresses weeds and reduces evaporation (Figure 1). Straw has a higher albedo than covered soil, which lowers surface temperatures, and mulch increases dew formation [63]. Increasing soil moisture decreases soil depth, i.e., it is most apparent in the upper layers of soil. A second critical condition that influences the effect of mulch on soil moisture is the amount of rainfall: Since mulch intercepts precipitation and causes it to evaporate before it reaches the soil, it has the most significant effect when rainfall is low [55].
In several studies, straw mulch has been shown to stabilize soil temperatures. Increasing soil temperature under straw mulch in winter [81] or mimicking soil temperatures in winter decreased average and maximum soil temperatures in summer by 1 to 6 K [67]. Under heavier mulches, soil temperatures will decrease more than under lighter mulches [82]. A decrease in temperature differences between mulched and unmulched soil occurs during the season, even though straw darkens [83].
It has been demonstrated that straw mulch reduces runoff and soil erosion. To combat soil erosion, straw mulch decreases runoff, decreases runoff velocity, inhibits rill formation [84], increases infiltration [62], and minimizes the impact of raindrops on the soil, thereby reducing aggregate soil breakup [85]. After conducting a series of experiments with straw, it was concluded “Water flow over the surface plays a lesser role in erosion-causing than raindrop impact” [86]. The mulch was mainly responsible for eliminating raindrop impact (Figure 1).

4.2. Straw-Mulched Soil Chemical Properties

According to some early studies, mulched soil has a lower nitrate concentration than unmulched soil [87]. Similarly, silt loam soil tested under mulch (8 tons/acre) had lower nitrate levels than straw-covered soils [88]. In addition, straw mulch may indirectly alter soil nitrate levels during the growing season (Figure 1). In either case, soil nitrate content increases or decreases based on soil moisture or temperature. Straw’s high C/N ratio can immobilize soil nitrogen, making soil nitrogen unavailable for microbial activity [89]. A common practice on arable farms is to incorporate straw into the soil after the harvest of cereals. In addition to increasing soil organic matter (slight increase of 0.2% after one year), straw mulch has been shown to increase soil fertility on a short-term basis as well [90].

4.3. Straw Mulching and Soil Biota

Straw mulch has been shown to benefit a variety of soil biota. Evidence shows that the earthworm populations increased under straw mulch [91]. Mulch protects the soil from excessive desiccation by providing readily available food for earthworms. Consequently, earthworms consume straw, reducing its thickness. In both straw-mulched and unmulched potato fields, soil samples were taken and analyzed for soil fauna, but it was not specified how much straw was applied, and the sampling dates varied [92]. The effects of straw mulch on soil are summarized as (1) an increase in soil moisture, (2) a decrease in soil temperature, (3) a dramatic reduction in runoff and erosion, and (4) a moderate increase in organic matter. The effects of straw incorporation on soil nitrate levels vary depending on the soil temperature and moisture; nitrogen immobilization increases earthworm activity and other soil biotas.

The Effect of Straw Mulching on Soil Microorganisms

Research has demonstrated that the utilization of straw mulching has a substantial influence on the microorganisms present in the soil [93]. Straw mulching significantly increased soil microbial biomass and activity [94]. On the other hand, a researcher concluded that the augmentation in microbial biomass was ascribed to the supplementary carbon and nutrients supplied by the straw, thereby promoting the proliferation of microorganisms [95]. Furthermore, the application of straw mulching resulted in an augmentation of the variety of soil microorganisms, potentially contributing to establishing a more robust and enduring soil ecosystem [96]. The rationale is that heterogeneous microbial populations exhibit the enhanced capacity to execute various tasks, including but not limited to nutrient circulation and pathogen inhibition, which are critical for preserving soil well-being [97].
Nevertheless, it should be noted that specific research endeavors have failed to demonstrate favorable impacts of straw mulching on soil microorganisms [98]. Furthermore, previous research has shown that mulching straw did not significantly affect soil microbial activity or biomass [99]. The observed incongruity could be attributed to variations in the experimental methodology or external factors such as climatic conditions and soil composition [100]. However, the literature indicates that straw mulching can significantly impact soil health by fostering microbial growth and diversity [101]. Consequently, this can result in enhanced soil fertility, efficient nutrient cycling, increased water-holding capacity, and crop productivity.

5. Nitrogen Dynamics, Weeds, Yield, and Soil Erosion in Organic Potatoes with Straw Mulch

The application of straw mulch reduced disease activity in a variety of crops, including lupins and rapeseed [102]. The seed potato industry, where tuber-transmitted viruses remain a significant problem, has adopted this approach [103]. Cereal straw mulch for potatoes growing in parts of North America was widespread several decades ago. Straw mulch was recognized as a helpful anti-degeneration tool. Seed potatoes were sprayed for virus control, but straw mulch in potatoes became obsolete when its function to increase soil moisture was replaced by sprinkler irrigation, and herbicides were used to suppress weeds. Due to this shift, many beneficial effects of straw mulch were lost, including reducing soil erosion [104].
Despite straw mulch being able to affect tuber yield, its impact has been variable. Different climatic conditions may have contributed to this variation (Figure 1). Despite increased yields from straw mulch under hot and dry summer conditions [50], straw mulch has also been reported to reduce yields in some cases. This was attributed to below-optimal soil temperatures, low nitrate levels in the soil, and mulching too early [105]. Historically, high application rates (10 t ha−1 and more) have been associated with yield reductions in cooler climates. Applying more mulch improved soil moisture and temperature [106]. There is no doubt that straw mulch is incredibly effective in preventing soil erosion as well as controlling viruses. A significant reduction in erosion (80% or more) occurs even when cotton straw is used in quantities of 1.5 to 2.5 t ha−1, leaving part of the soil uncovered [107]. Potato virus Y (P.V.Y.) and aphid infestation in potatoes were consistently reduced when straw was added in small to moderate amounts (3.5 to 5 t ha−1).
Consequently, small to moderate amounts of straw should be applied under temperate climate conditions, where soil moisture rarely restricts potato growth. By doing so, the risk of reduced yields in cool or wet growing seasons will be minimized. This method was evaluated over three years by 11 field experiments conducted at two German sites. In both fields, straw mulching increased yields by 2.5–5 t ha−1. During organic potato growing conditions, straw mulch was quantified to determine its effectiveness in preventing soil erosion [108].

6. Potato Diseases and Straw Mulching

The production of potatoes can be seriously hindered by a wide variety of pre- and post-harvest diseases, even under conventional farming conditions. In organic potato production, disease management is a serious problem as it is influenced by the crop physiology and nutritional availability that confer a plant’s ability to withstand disease stress. P. infestans, the fungus that causes late blight, is likely the most common cause of ware potato diseases [109]. Many diseases and pests are responsible for high economic losses in organic ware potatoes, including black scurf (Rhizoctonia solani), Alternaria solani (early blight), silver scurf (Helminthosporium solani), bacterial diseases such as soft rot, blackleg (Erwinia carotovora), common scab (Streptomyces scabies), Colorado potato beetles (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) and their larvae (Agriotes specie), potato cyst nematodes as well as Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallida [110]. The use of straw for potato growing in North America dates back to the 20th century [111], but today it is almost unheard of in commercial agriculture. Experimental evidence suggests straw mulch may improve commercial potato growing in several important ways, both from an environmental and economic perspective, due to its demonstrated ability to reduce soil erosion [15]. In addition, straw mulch has been shown to prevent virus transmission to seed potatoes [112]. Moreover, straw mulch can control nitrogen losses by immobilizing soil nitrate after harvest [113].

6.1. Microclimate

As a result of its ability to reduce evaporation, straw mulch can increase soil moisture. This effect appears responsible for the lower daytime air humidity and higher temperatures following mulching [114]. In contrast, straw-mulched soil had a higher nighttime temperature than unmulched soil [115], which may explain the higher nighttime relative humidity in mulched plots. A further benefit of mulching is that it reduces relative humidity at night as the air temperature is lower, due to increased air humidity [116]. There may also be a higher extent of dew formation as a result of increased air humidity [117].

6.2. Late Blight

A high-humidity environment is crucial to developing infections with P. infestans [118]. Despite the higher likelihood of infection at night than during the daytime, there was no increase in disease severity when mulched potatoes had a moister nocturnal microclimate. However, there was a general reduction in disease following mulch application, although this was not significant when the experiments were considered separately [119]. Due to the prevailing weather conditions (frequent and heavy rains), straw mulch may reduce disease severity by interfering with rain splash dispersal. Compared to the other varieties used in this experiment (e.g., Nicola) with an upright plant architecture [120], Christa tended to “lay down” more than the other varieties used. Therefore, rain splash dispersal may be more critical for horizontal varieties. The straw mulch may have impeded the spread of late blight due to its ability to reduce raindrop impact on the soil [121].
Additionally, mulched and unmulched plants have different nutritional statuses, which may influence late blight severity. Potato leaves’ nitrogen content positively affects P. infestans [122]. Even though there is no direct evidence that straw-mulched potatoes have lower nitrogen content in their leaves [123]. Additionally, a previous research conducted with Hydro-N-Tester, straw mulched plants were found to be less dark green (more yellow) than control plots, indicating that late blight susceptibility may have decreased [124].

6.3. Black Scurf

The occurrence of black scurf depends on several factors, such as the amount of humus in the soil, the level of weed infestation, and the amount of straw used in the pre-crop [125]. In addition, antagonists in the soil, such as Verticillium biguttatum, highly influence disease levels [126]. Even though straw mulch is known to influence soil physical and chemical parameters and soil microbial populations, black scurf is unaffected by straw mulch [127].
The fungus R. solani, which survives on plant debris over winter in arable fields, may benefit from straw incorporation into the soil after wheat harvest, increasing the risk that emerging potatoes will become infected [128]. It is, therefore, not recommended to incorporate straw into the soil after winter wheat harvest on arable farms with potato crops. Using straw mulch after the emergence of potatoes is, therefore, considered a strategy to combine plant protection (for R. solani) with the closed cycle principle (for soil organic matter) [129]. For a cultural technique such as straw mulch to be accepted, late blight and black scurf neutralized in this study are critical factors.

7. Advantages and Disadvantages of Mulches

Mulching covers the soil’s surface with organic or inorganic material to retain moisture, prevent weed growth, and boost soil fertility. Various materials, such as leaves, grass clippings, wood chips, straws, and plastic sheets, can be used for mulching [74]. It assists with soil moisture retention, temperature control, weed control, and the addition of beneficial organic matter [75]. However, some mulches may not degrade as expected and may build up on the soil’s surface over time, impairing plant growth and luring pests like slugs and rats, as shown in Table 2. Gardeners can take precautions like rotating different types of mulch every year or installing a protective layer of hardware cloth underneath the mulch to avoid these downsides.

8. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Through a variety of adaptations in the future, potato production and yield can be preserved despite less and less favorable growing conditions. More favorable growing conditions are being established for potato crops through cultivation methods. As a result of flat soil planting in dry, rain-fed areas, soil water is conserved at the tuber level better. At the same time, mulched cultivation provides better soil water availability and more favorable temperatures.
Additionally, mulching potatoes enhances growing conditions by attenuating biotic and abiotic stresses. As long as a thick layer of mulch is applied at planting (20–30 tons/ha is insufficient, and 40 tons/ha is sufficient), biotic stress can be attenuated by ultimately hindering weed germination and growth. Furthermore, mulch acts as a sponge and inhibits rain splashes, which reduces the spread of A. solani and P. infestans. A. solani and P. infestans splash their sporangia on young leaves when heavy rain falls. Mulching inhibits splashing, a primary source of inoculum, and reduces the incidence of blight diseases. The degradation of organic material by microorganisms also produces ammonia and/or volatile organic acids due to the decomposition of the mulch. In addition, this will further slow and kill primary Phytophthora inoculum and antagonistic microorganisms present in the soil that are detrimental to cultivation. In addition, the mulch provides a home for an increased number of natural enemies that help control other pest insects such as Colorado beetles.
Harvested potatoes from ridged and mulched cultivation significantly differ in size, quality, and yield. Cultivars differ in size based on their planting conditions. Unlike conventional ridge cultivation, mulched cultivation produces significantly larger tubers for sensitive varieties like Ratte. Compared to conventional ridge cultivation, mulched cultivation does not affect the size of more robust and drought-resistant varieties (Agria). To improve the quality of potatoes (dry matter and specific gravity), it is essential to use organic material for mulching. Straw mulch significantly reduces dry matter and specific gravity compared to ridge cultivation, resulting in lower-quality tubers. Comparatively, mulch from flax loaves does not affect the quality parameters of ridge cultivation. Mulched cultivation produces significantly higher yields than ridged cultivation (+39.5% on average), no matter the farmers using which cultivar.
A future cultivation method that uses mulch to enhance potato yield and productivity is a promising one for ensuring crop productivity under less favorable growing conditions. However, more research is needed to address unanswered questions regarding the widened cultivation of crops under the mulching method. More research would be needed to determine whether mulch is economical, what application rate gives the best results, whether time savings exist, and which cultivars are most productive under mulch.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the present form of the manuscript. A.W., C.L., M.M. and Z.W.: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing, Visualization. M.A., K.A.K. and H.A.G.: Editing and validation. Z.W. and D.Z.: Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Jilin Natural Science Foundation (20210101484JC) and Key research and development projects of Jilin Province (20210202016NC), therefore, we thank Wang Zhongwei for their contributions to the preparation and publication of the paper. Additionally, we extend our appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University Saudi Arabia for funding this work through Large Groups Project under grant number RGP2/495/44.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the CAS-PIFI Postdoc fellowship (2020PB0027) of Xinjiang Institute of Ecology & Geography, Urumqi, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China. The authors also acknowledge the support of the Research Center for Advanced Materials Science (RCAMS) at King Khalid University Abha Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Martiniello, G. Bitter Sugarification: Sugar Frontier and Contract Farming in Uganda. Globalizations 2021, 18, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, Z.; Liu, H.; Zeng, F.; Yang, Y.; Xu, D.; Zhao, Y.-C.; Liu, X.; Kaur, L.; Liu, G.; Singh, J. Potato Processing Industry in China: Current Scenario, Future Trends and Global Impact. Potato Res. 2022, 66, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jaiswal, A.K. Nutritional Significance of Processed Potato Products. In Potato Nutrition and Food Security; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 247–270. [Google Scholar]
  4. Xue, L.; Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Cheng, G.; Hu, Y.; Liu, J.; Dou, Z.; Cheng, S.; Liu, G. China’s Food Loss and Waste Embodies Increasing Environmental Impacts. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anning, D.K.; Qiu, H.; Zhang, C.; Ghanney, P.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y. Maize Straw Return and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Performance and Soil Physicochemical Characteristics in Northwest China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tunio, M.H.; Gao, J.; Shaikh, S.A.; Lakhiar, I.A.; Qureshi, W.A.; Solangi, K.A.; Chandio, F.A. Potato Production in Aeroponics: An Emerging Food Growing System in Sustainable Agriculture Forfood Security. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 80, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ávila-Valdés, A.; Quinet, M.; Lutts, S.; Martínez, J.P.; Lizana, X.C. Tuber Yield and Quality Responses of Potato to Moderate Temperature Increase during Tuber Bulking under Two Water Availability Scenarios. Field Crops Res. 2020, 251, 107786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Beillouin, D.; Schauberger, B.; Bastos, A.; Ciais, P.; Makowski, D. Impact of Extreme Weather Conditions on European Crop Production in 2018. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2020, 375, 20190510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Frische, T.; Egerer, S.; Matezki, S.; Pickl, C.; Wogram, J. 5-Point Programme for Sustainable Plant Protection. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ansari, R.A.; Sumbul, A.; Rizvi, R.; Mahmood, I. Organic Soil Amendments: Potential Tool for Soil and Plant Health Management. In Plant Health under Biotic Stress: Volume 1: Organic Strategies; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  11. Birch, P.R.; Bryan, G.; Fenton, B.; Gilroy, E.M.; Hein, I.; Jones, J.T.; Prashar, A.; Taylor, M.A.; Torrance, L.; Toth, I.K. Crops That Feed the World 8: Potato: Are the Trends of Increased Global Production Sustainable? Food Secur. 2012, 4, 477–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Goswami, S.B.; Mondal, R.; Mandi, S.K. Crop Residue Management Options in Rice–Rice System: A Review. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 66, 1218–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Singh, S.P.; Mahapatra, B.; Pramanick, B.; Yadav, V.R. Effect of Irrigation Levels, Planting Methods and Mulching on Nutrient Uptake, Yield, Quality, Water and Fertilizer Productivity of Field Mustard (Brassica rapa L.) under Sandy Loam Soil. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 244, 106539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Majumdar, B.; Sarkar, S.; Chattopadhyay, L.; Barai, S. Impact of Conservation Agriculture Practices on Soil Microbial Diversity. In Conservation Agriculture and Climate Change; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 335–350. ISBN 1-00-336466-7. [Google Scholar]
  15. Iqbal, R.; Raza, M.A.S.; Valipour, M.; Saleem, M.F.; Zaheer, M.S.; Ahmad, S.; Toleikiene, M.; Haider, I.; Aslam, M.U.; Nazar, M.A. Potential Agricultural and Environmental Benefits of Mulches—A Review. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2020, 44, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shah, F.; Wu, W. Use of Plastic Mulch in Agriculture and Strategies to Mitigate the Associated Environmental Concerns. Adv. Agron. 2020, 164, 231–287. [Google Scholar]
  17. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sievers-Glotzbach, S.; Euler, J.; Frison, C.; Gmeiner, N.; Kliem, L.; Mazé, A.; Tschersich, J. Beyond the Material: Knowledge Aspects in Seed Commoning. Agric. Hum. Values 2021, 38, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Toungos, M.D.; Bulus, Z.W. Cover Crops Dual Roles: Green Manure and Maintenance of Soil Fertility, a Review. Int. J. Innov. Agric. Biol. Res. 2019, 7, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  20. Díaz, M.G.; Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Gonzalez-Romero, J.; Plaza-Alvarez, P.A.; Navidi, M.; Liu, Y.-F.; Wu, G.-L.; Zema, D.A. Effects of Post-Fire Mulching with Straw and Wood Chips on Soil Hydrology in Pine Forests under Mediterranean Conditions. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 182, 106720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Adhikari, P.; Araya, H.; Aruna, G.; Balamatti, A.; Banerjee, S.; Baskaran, P.; Barah, B.; Behera, D.; Berhe, T.; Boruah, P. System of Crop Intensification for More Productive, Resource-Conserving, Climate-Resilient, and Sustainable Agriculture: Experience with Diverse Crops in Varying Agroecology. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dhaliwal, S.; Naresh, R.; Mandal, A.; Singh, R.; Dhaliwal, M. Dynamics and Transformations of Micronutrients in Agricultural Soils as Influenced by Organic Matter Build-up: A Review. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2019, 1, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Uroić Štefanko, A.; Leszczynska, D. Impact of Biomass Source and Pyrolysis Parameters on Physicochemical Properties of Biochar Manufactured for Innovative Applications. Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liang, W.; Zhao, Y.; Xiao, D.; Cheng, J.; Zhao, J. A Biodegradable Water-Triggered Chitosan/Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose Pesticide Mulch Film for Sustained Control of Phytophthora sojae in Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Halterman, D.; Charkowski, A.; Verchot, J. Potato, Viruses, and Seed Certification in the USA to Provide Healthy Propagated Tubers. Pest Technol. 2012, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bisognin, D.A. Breeding Vegetatively Propagated Horticultural Crops. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 2011, 11, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Paul, S.; Farooq, M.; Bhattacharya, S.S.; Gogoi, N. Management Strategies for Sustainable Yield of Potato Crop under High Temperature. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 276–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ram, R.; Pathak, R. Organic Approaches for Sustainable Production of Horticultural Crops: A Review. Progress. Hortic. 2016, 48, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Biswal, P.; Swain, D.K.; Jha, M.K. Straw Mulch with Limited Drip Irrigation Influenced Soil Microclimate in Improving Tuber Yield and Water Productivity of Potato in Subtropical India. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 223, 105484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. MacRae, R.J.; Frick, B.; Martin, R.C. Economic and Social Impacts of Organic Production Systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2007, 87, 1037–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mzoughi, N. Farmers Adoption of Integrated Crop Protection and Organic Farming: Do Moral and Social Concerns Matter? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1536–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rana, A.; Jhilta, P. Improved Practices Through Biological Means for Sustainable Potato Production. In Microbial Biotechnology in Crop Protection; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 189–207. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fiers, M.; Chatot, C.; Edel-Hermann, V.; Le Hingrat, Y.; Konate, A.Y.; Gautheron, N.; Guillery, E.; Alabouvette, C.; Steinberg, C. Diversity of Microorganisms Associated with Atypical Superficial Blemishes of Potato Tubers and Pathogenicity Assessment. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 128, 353–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wright, P.; Falloon, R.; Hedderley, D. Different Vegetable Crop Rotations Affect Soil Microbial Communities and Soilborne Diseases of Potato and Onion: Literature Review and a Long-Term Field Evaluation. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2015, 43, 85–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. GunactÕ, H.; ErkÕlÕc, A.; Ozgonen, H. Status of Potato Wart Disease (Synchytrium endobioticum) in Turkey and Control Methods. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 7, 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  36. Döring, T. Organic Production of Wheat and Spelt. In Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Wheat Volume 2; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 203–234. ISBN 1-351-11428-X. [Google Scholar]
  37. Keijzer, P.; Van Bueren, E.L.; Engelen, C.; Hutten, R. Breeding Late Blight Resistant Potatoes for Organic Farming—A Collaborative Model of Participatory Plant Breeding: The Bioimpuls Project. Potato Res. 2021, 65, 349–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kapsa, J.S. Important Threats in Potato Production and Integrated Pathogen/Pest Management. Potato Res. 2008, 51, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bernard, J.C.; Bernard, D.J. Comparing Parts with the Whole: Willingness to Pay for Pesticide-Free, Non-GM, and Organic Potatoes and Sweet Corn. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 35, 457–475. [Google Scholar]
  40. Demissie, Y.T. Integrated Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans) Disease Management in Ethiopia. Am. J. BioSci. 2019, 7, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zayan, S.A. Impact of Climate Change on Plant Diseases and IPM Strategies. In Plant Diseases-Current Threats and Management Trends; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  42. Demirel, U.; Morris, W.L.; Ducreux, L.J.; Yavuz, C.; Asim, A.; Tindas, I.; Campbell, R.; Morris, J.A.; Verrall, S.R.; Hedley, P.E. Physiological, Biochemical, and Transcriptional Responses to Single and Combined Abiotic Stress in Stress-Tolerant and Stress-Sensitive Potato Genotypes. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rykaczewska, K. The Impact of High Temperature during Growing Season on Potato Cultivars with Different Response to Environmental Stresses. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 2013, 412295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Williams, A.G.; Audsley, E.; Sandars, D.L. Environmental Burdens of Producing Bread Wheat, Oilseed Rape and Potatoes in England and Wales Using Simulation and System Modelling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wagg, C.; Hann, S.; Kupriyanovich, Y.; Li, S. Timing of Short Period Water Stress Determines Potato Plant Growth, Yield, and Tuber Quality. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 247, 106731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pampana, S.; Rossi, A.; Arduini, I. Biosolids Benefit Yield and Nitrogen Uptake in Winter Cereals without Excess Risk of N Leaching. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tabak, M.; Lepiarczyk, A.; Filipek-Mazur, B.; Lisowska, A. Efficiency of Nitrogen Fertilization of Winter Wheat Depending on Sulfur Fertilization. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Doan, T.T.; Henry-des-Tureaux, T.; Rumpel, C.; Janeau, J.-L.; Jouquet, P. Impact of Compost, Vermicompost, and Biochar on Soil Fertility, Maize Yield and Soil Erosion in Northern Vietnam: A Three Year Mesocosm Experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 514, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Achtnicht, M.; Germeshausen, R.; von Graevenitz, K. Does the Stick Make the Carrot More Attractive? State Mandates and Uptake of Renewable Heating Technologies. State Mandates and Uptake of Renewable Heating Technologies; ZEW–Center for European Economic Research: Mannheim, Gemany, 2017; pp. 17–067. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ren, J.; Yu, P.; Xu, X. Straw Utilization in China—Status and Recommendations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. N’Dayegamiye, A.; Tran, T.S. Effects of Green Manures on Soil Organic Matter and Wheat Yields and N Nutrition. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2001, 81, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ghaffar, S.H.; Fan, M. Lignin in Straw and Its Applications as an Adhesive. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2014, 48, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Peng, Y.; Lau, A.K. Improving the Quality of Crop Residues by the Reduction of Ash Content and Inorganic Constituents. J. Biobased Mater. Bioenergy 2020, 14, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Alcántara, J.C.; González, I.; Pareta, M.M.; Vilaseca, F. Biocomposites from Rice Straw Nanofibers: Morphology, Thermal and Mechanical Properties. Materials 2020, 13, 2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhao, X.; Virk, A.L.; Ma, S.-T.; Kan, Z.-R.; Qi, J.-Y.; Pu, C.; Yang, X.-G.; Zhang, H.-L. Dynamics in Soil Organic Carbon of Wheat-Maize Dominant Cropping System in the North China Plain under Tillage and Residue Management. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 265, 110549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Sarkar, S.; Skalicky, M.; Hossain, A.; Brestic, M.; Saha, S.; Garai, S.; Ray, K.; Brahmachari, K. Management of Crop Residues for Improving Input Use Efficiency and Agricultural Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Alghamdi, R.S.; Cihacek, L. Do Post-harvest Crop Residues in No-till Systems Provide for Nitrogen Needs of Following Crops? Agron. J. 2022, 114, 835–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yan, C.; Yan, S.-S.; Jia, T.-Y.; Dong, S.-K.; Ma, C.-M.; Gong, Z.-P. Decomposition Characteristics of Rice Straw Returned to the Soil in Northeast China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2019, 114, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Meena, V.; Dotaniya, M.; Coumar, V.; Rajendiran, S.; Ajay; Kundu, S.; Subba Rao, A. A Case for Silicon Fertilization to Improve Crop Yields in Tropical Soils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 84, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Novair, S.B.; Hosseini, H.M.; Etesami, H.; Razavipour, T. Rice Straw and Composted Azolla Alter Carbon and Nitrogen Mineralization and Microbial Activity of a Paddy Soil under Drying–Rewetting Cycles. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 154, 103638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Thomas, C.L.; Acquah, G.E.; Whitmore, A.P.; McGrath, S.P.; Haefele, S.M. The Effect of Different Organic Fertilizers on Yield and Soil and Crop Nutrient Concentrations. Agronomy 2019, 9, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Prosdocimi, M.; Jordán, A.; Tarolli, P.; Keesstra, S.; Novara, A.; Cerdà, A. The Immediate Effectiveness of Barley Straw Mulch in Reducing Soil Erodibility and Surface Runoff Generation in Mediterranean Vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Stigter, K.; Ramesh, K.; Upadhyay, P.K. Mulching for Microclimate Modifications in Farming-An Overview. Indian J. Agron. 2018, 63, 255–263. [Google Scholar]
  64. Yadav, G.S.; Das, A.; Lal, R.; Babu, S.; Meena, R.S.; Patil, S.B.; Saha, P.; Datta, M. Conservation Tillage and Mulching Effects on the Adaptive Capacity of Direct-Seeded Upland Rice (Oryza sativa L.) to Alleviate Weed and Moisture Stresses in the North Eastern Himalayan Region of India. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2018, 64, 1254–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Deka, A.; Sheikh, I.; Pathak, D.; Prahraj, C. Effect of Tillage Practices and Mulching on Growth, Yield of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Rice-Chickpea Based Cropping System under Rainfed Condition of Assam. J. Crop Weed 2021, 17, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sapre, N.; Kewat, M.; Sharma, A.; Singh, P. Effect of Tillage and Weed Management on Weed Dynamics and Yield of Rice in Rice-Wheat-Greengram Cropping System in Vertisols of Central India. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2022, 54, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sims, B.; Corsi, S.; Gbehounou, G.; Kienzle, J.; Taguchi, M.; Friedrich, T. Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers. Agriculture 2018, 8, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Ahmad, S.; Tariq, H.; Abbas, S.; Arshad, M.; Mumtaz, A.; Ahmed, I. Organic and Synthetic Mulching: Effects on Soil-Plant Productivity and Environment. In Mulching in Agroecosystems: Plants, Soil & Environment; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 329–351. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kader, M.; Senge, M.; Mojid, M.; Ito, K. Recent Advances in Mulching Materials and Methods for Modifying Soil Environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 168, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tariq, M.; Akhtar, K. Mulching Is an Approach for a Significant Decrease in Soil Erosion. In Mulching in Agroecosystems: Plants, Soil & Environment; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 59–70. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lutaladio, N.; Ortiz, O.; Caldiz, D. Sustainable Potato Production. Guidelines for Developing Countries; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2009; ISBN 92-5-106409-1. [Google Scholar]
  72. Masak, S. Studies on Utilization of Decomposed Solid Waste Combined with Cow Dung and Poultry Manure for Urban Agriculture in the Tamale Metropolis. Ph.D. Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  73. Heyman, H.; Bassuk, N.; Bonhotal, J.; Walter, T. Compost Quality Recommendations for Remediating Urban Soils. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Ranjan, P.; Patel, G.; Prem, M.; Solanke, K. Organic Mulching—A Water Saving Technique to Increase the Production of Fruits and Vegetables. Curr. Agric. Res. J. 2017, 5, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. El-Beltagi, H.S.; Basit, A.; Mohamed, H.I.; Ali, I.; Ullah, S.; Kamel, E.A.; Shalaby, T.A.; Ramadan, K.M.; Alkhateeb, A.A.; Ghazzawy, H.S. Mulching as a Sustainable Water and Soil Saving Practice in Agriculture: A Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hayes, D.G.; Anunciado, M.B.; DeBruyn, J.M.; Bandopadhyay, S.; Schaeffer, S.; English, M.; Ghimire, S.; Miles, C.; Flury, M.; Sintim, H.Y. Biodegradable Plastic Mulch Films for Sustainable Specialty Crop Production. In Polymers for Agri-Food Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 183–213. [Google Scholar]
  77. Waheed, A.; Haxim, Y.; Kahar, G.; Islam, W.; Ullah, A.; Khan, K.A.; Ghramh, H.A.; Ali, S.; Asghar, M.A.; Zhao, Q. Jasmonic Acid Boosts Physio-Biochemical Activities in Grewia asiatica L. under Drought Stress. Plants 2022, 11, 2480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Soil Structure and Organic Carbon Relationships Following 10 Years of Wheat Straw Management in No-Till. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 95, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Crop Residue Removal Impacts on Soil Productivity and Environmental Quality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2009, 28, 139–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Suriyagoda, L.; De Costa, W.; Lambers, H. Growth and Phosphorus Nutrition of Rice When Inorganic Fertiliser Application Is Partly Replaced by Straw under Varying Moisture Availability in Sandy and Clay Soils. Plant Soil 2014, 384, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liu, C.; Wang, H.; Tang, X.; Guan, Z.; Reid, B.J.; Rajapaksha, A.U.; Ok, Y.S.; Sun, H. Biochar Increased Water Holding Capacity but Accelerated Organic Carbon Leaching from a Sloping Farmland Soil in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 995–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jenni, S.; Brault, D.; Stewart, K. Degradable Mulch as an Alternative for Weed Control in Lettuce Produced on Organic Soils. In Proceedings of the XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Sustainability of Horticultural Systems in the 21st Century, Toronto, Canada, 11–17 August 2002; pp. 111–118. [Google Scholar]
  83. Nwosisi, S.; Nandwani, D.; Pokharel, B. Yield Performance of Organic Sweetpotato Varieties in Various Mulches. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Gholami, L.; Sadeghi, S.H.; Homaee, M. Straw Mulching Effect on Splash Erosion, Runoff, and Sediment Yield from Eroded Plots. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2013, 77, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Abrantes, J.R.; Prats, S.A.; Keizer, J.J.; de Lima, J.L. Effectiveness of the Application of Rice Straw Mulching Strips in Reducing Runoff and Soil Loss: Laboratory Soil Flume Experiments under Simulated Rainfall. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 180, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Niziolomski, J.C.; Simmons, R.W.; Rickson, R.J.; Hann, M.J. Efficacy of Mulch and Tillage Options to Reduce Runoff and Soil Loss from Asparagus Interrows. Catena 2020, 191, 104557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Shrestha, D.P.; Jetten, V.G. Modelling Erosion on a Daily Basis, an Adaptation of the MMF Approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 64, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mo, F.; Han, J.; Wen, X.; Wang, X.; Li, P.; Vinay, N.; Jia, Z.; Xiong, Y.; Liao, Y. Quantifying Regional Effects of Plastic Mulch on Soil Nitrogen Pools, Cycles, and Fluxes in Rain-fed Agroecosystems of the Loess Plateau. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 1675–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sinkevičienė, A.; Jodaugienė, D.; Pupalienė, R.; Urbonienė, M. The Influence of Organic Mulches on Soil Properties and Crop Yield. Agron. Res. 2009, 7, 485–491. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wang, J.; Chen, Z.; Xu, C.; Elrys, A.S.; Shen, F.; Cheng, Y.; Chang, S.X. Organic Amendment Enhanced Microbial Nitrate Immobilization with Negligible Denitrification Nitrogen Loss in an Upland Soil. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 288, 117721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Dossou-Yovo, E.R.; Brüggemann, N.; Ampofo, E.; Igue, A.M.; Jesse, N.; Huat, J.; Agbossou, E.K. Combining No-Tillage, Rice Straw Mulch and Nitrogen Fertilizer Application to Increase the Soil Carbon Balance of Upland Rice Field in Northern Benin. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Webber, S.M.; Bailey, A.P.; Huxley, T.; Potts, S.G.; Lukac, M. Traditional, and Cover Crop-Derived Mulches Enhance Soil Ecosystem Services in Apple Orchards. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 178, 104569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Liu, Z.; Zhou, H.; Xie, W.; Yang, Z.; Lv, Q. Long-Term Effects of Maize Straw Return and Manure on the Microbial Community in Cinnamon Soil in Northern China Using 16S RRNA Sequencing. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chen, Q.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, J.; Xu, X.; Zhu, Y. Long-Term Straw Mulching with Nitrogen Fertilization Increases Nutrient and Microbial Determinants of Soil Quality in a Maize–Wheat Rotation on China’s Loess Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Padalia, K.; Bargali, S.S.; Bargali, K.; Manral, V. Soil Microbial Biomass Phosphorus under Different Land Use Systems of Central Himalaya. Trop. Ecol. 2022, 63, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mahmud, K.; Missaoui, A.; Lee, K.; Ghimire, B.; Presley, H.W.; Makaju, S. Rhizosphere Microbiome Manipulation for Sustainable Crop Production. Curr. Plant Biol. 2021, 27, 100210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bertola, M.; Ferrarini, A.; Visioli, G. Improvement of Soil Microbial Diversity through Sustainable Agricultural Practices and Its Evaluation By-Omics Approaches: A Perspective for the Environment, Food Quality, and Human Safety. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Schonbeck, M.; Tillage, B. Principles of Sustainable Weed Management in Organic Cropping Systems; Clemson University: Clemson, SC, USA, 2011; Volume 3, pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  99. Liu, Q.; Liu, X.; Bian, C.; Ma, C.; Lang, K.; Han, H.; Li, Q. Response of Soil CO2 Emission and Summer Maize Yield to Plant Density and Straw Mulching in the North China Plain. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 180219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Piao, S.; Liu, Q.; Chen, A.; Janssens, I.A.; Fu, Y.; Dai, J.; Liu, L.; Lian, X.; Shen, M.; Zhu, X. Plant Phenology and Global Climate Change: Current Progresses and Challenges. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 1922–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, G.; Bai, Z.; Shah, F.; Cui, G.; Xiao, Z.; Gong, H.; Li, D.; Lin, Y.; Li, B.; Ji, G. Compositional and Structural Changes in Soil Microbial Communities in Response to Straw Mulching and Plant Revegetation in an Abandoned Artificial Pasture in Northeast China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 31, e01871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Amare, G.; Desta, B. Coloured Plastic Mulches: Impact on Soil Properties and Crop Productivity. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2021, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shah, M.A.; Naga, K.C.; Subhash, S.; Sharma, S.; Kumar, R. Use of Petroleum-Derived Spray Oils for the Management of Vector-Virus Complex in Potato. Potato Res. 2022, 65, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Singh, H.; Batish, D.R.; Kohli, R. Allelopathic Interactions and Allelochemicals: New Possibilities for Sustainable Weed Management. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2003, 22, 239–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Gheshm, R.; Brown, R.N. Organic Mulch Effects on High Tunnel Lettuce in Southern New England. HortTechnology 2018, 28, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Akhtar, K.; Wang, W.; Khan, A.; Ren, G.; Afridi, M.Z.; Feng, Y.; Yang, G. Wheat Straw Mulching Offset Soil Moisture Deficient for Improving Physiological and Growth Performance of Summer Sown Soybean. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 211, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sosnowski, M.; Fletcher, J.; Daly, A.; Rodoni, B.; Viljanen-Rollinson, S. Techniques for the Treatment, Removal, and Disposal of Host Material during Programmes for Plant Pathogen Eradication. Plant Pathol. 2009, 58, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kirchner, S.; Hiltunen, L.; Santala, J.; Döring, T.; Ketola, J.; Kankaala, A.; Virtanen, E.; Valkonen, J. Comparison of Straw Mulch, Insecticides, Mineral Oil, and Birch Extract for Control of Transmission of Potato Virus Y in Seed Potato Crops. Potato Res. 2014, 57, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Döring, T.F.; Brandt, M.; Heß, J.; Finckh, M.R.; Saucke, H. Effects of Straw Mulch on Soil Nitrate Dynamics, Weeds, Yield and Soil Erosion in Organically Grown Potatoes. Field Crops Res. 2005, 94, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Balkcom, K.; Schomberg, H.; Reeves, W.; Clark, A.; Baumhardt, L.; Collins, H.; Delgado, J.; Duiker, S.; Kaspar, T.; Mitchell, J. Managing Cover Crops in Conservation Tillage Systems. Manag. Cover Crops Profitab. 2007, 3, 44–61. [Google Scholar]
  111. Jez, J.M.; Topp, C.N.; Schlautman, B.; Bartel, C.; Diaz-Garcia, L.; Fei, S.; Flynn, S.; Haramoto, E.; Moore, K.; Raman, D.R. Perennial Groundcovers: An Emerging Technology for Soil Conservation and the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2021, 5, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Rolot, J.-L.; Seutin, H.; Deveux, L. Assessment of Treatments to Control the Spread of PVY in Seed Potato Crops: Results Obtained in Belgium through a Multi-Year Trial. Potato Res. 2021, 64, 435–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Alyokhin, A. Colorado Potato Beetle Management on Potatoes: Current Challenges and Future Prospects. Fruit Veg. Cereal Sci. Biotechnol. 2009, 3, 10–19. [Google Scholar]
  114. Teame, G.; Tsegay, A.; Abrha, B. Effect of Organic Mulching on Soil Moisture, Yield, and Yield Contributing Components of Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Int. J. Agron. 2017, 2017, 4767509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Sekhon, K.; Kaur, A.; Thaman, S.; Sidhu, A.; Garg, N.; Choudhary, O.; Buttar, G.; Chawla, N. Irrigation Water Quality and Mulching Effects on Tuber Yield and Soil Properties in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under Semi-Arid Conditions of Indian Punjab. Field Crops Res. 2020, 247, 107544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Si, C.; Qi, F.; Ding, X.; He, F.; Gao, Z.; Feng, Q.; Zheng, L. CFD Analysis of Solar Greenhouse Thermal and Humidity Environment Considering Soil–Crop–Back Wall Interactions. Energies 2023, 16, 2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gao, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liu, W.; Dang, Z.; Cao, W.; Qiang, Q. Effects of Mulch, N Fertilizer, and Plant Density on Wheat Yield, Wheat Nitrogen Uptake, and Residual Soil Nitrate in a Dryland Area of China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2009, 85, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Eberbach, P.; Humphreys, E.; Kukal, S. The Effect of Rice Straw Mulch on Evapotranspiration, Transpiration, and Soil Evaporation of Irrigated Wheat in Punjab, India. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1847–1855. [Google Scholar]
  119. Snyder, K.; Grant, A.; Murray, C.; Wolff, B. The Effects of Plastic Mulch Systems on Soil Temperature and Moisture in Central Ontario. HortTechnology 2015, 25, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Lehsten, V.; Wiik, L.; Hannukkala, A.; Andreasson, E.; Chen, D.; Ou, T.; Liljeroth, E.; Lankinen, Å.; Grenville-Briggs, L. Earlier Occurrence and Increased Explanatory Power of Climate for the First Incidence of Potato Late Blight Caused by Phytophthora Infestans in Fennoscandia. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Johnson, M.S.; Fennimore, S.A. Weed and Crop Response to Colored Plastic Mulches in Strawberry Production. HortScience 2005, 40, 1371–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Finckh, M.; Junge, S.; Schmidt, J.; Weedon, O. Disease and Pest Management in Organic Farming: A Case for Applied Agroecology. In Improving Organic Crop Cultivation; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 291–322. ISBN 1-351-11457-3. [Google Scholar]
  123. Alyokhin, A.; Nault, B.; Brown, B. Soil Conservation Practices for Insect Pest Management in Highly Disturbed Agroecosystems—A Review. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2020, 168, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Fitt, B.D.; Hu, B.; Li, Z.; Liu, S.; Lange, R.; Kharbanda, P.; Butterworth, M.; White, R. Strategies to Prevent Spread of Leptosphaeria maculans (Phoma Stem Canker) onto Oilseed Rape Crops in China; Costs and Benefits. Plant Pathol. 2008, 57, 652–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Chalker-Scott, L. Impact of Mulches on Landscape Plants and the Environment—A Review. J. Environ. Hortic. 2007, 25, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Shtienberg, D.; Elad, Y.; Bornstein, M.; Ziv, G.; Grava, A.; Cohen, S. Polyethylene Mulch Modifies Greenhouse Microclimate and Reduces Infection of Phytophthora Infestans in Tomato and Pseudoperonospora Cubensis in Cucumber. Phytopathology 2010, 100, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Bezabeh, M.W.; Haile, M.; Sogn, T.; Eich-Greatorex, S. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Production and Grain Quality Resulting from Compost Application and Rotation with Faba Bean. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 10, 100425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Lutz, S.; Thuerig, B.; Oberhaensli, T.; Mayerhofer, J.; Fuchs, J.G.; Widmer, F.; Freimoser, F.M.; Ahrens, C.H. Harnessing the Microbiomes of Suppressive Composts for Plant Protection: From Metagenomes to Beneficial Microorganisms and Reliable Diagnostics. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Van Bruggen, A.H.; Gamliel, A.; Finckh, M.R. Plant Disease Management in Organic Farming Systems. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Chakraborty, D.; Nagarajan, S.; Aggarwal, P.; Gupta, V.; Tomar, R.; Garg, R.; Sahoo, R.; Sarkar, A.; Chopra, U.K.; Sarma, K.S. Effect of Mulching on Soil and Plant Water Status, and the Growth and Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a Semi-Arid Environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 1323–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chopra, M.; Koul, B. Comparative Assessment of Different Types of Mulching in Various Crops: A Review. Plant Arch 2020, 20, 1620–1626. [Google Scholar]
  132. Patil Shirish, S.; Kelkar Tushar, S.; Bhalerao Satish, A. Mulching: A Soil and Water Conservation Practice. Res. J. Agric. For. Sci. 2013, 2320, 6063. [Google Scholar]
  133. Kaur, R.; Bains, S.; Sethi, M. Environment-Friendly Mulch Mats from Paddy Straw. Int. J. Farm Sci. 2020, 10, 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. SK, P.G.P.; Debnath, S.; Maitra, S. Mulching: Materials, Advantages and Crop Production. In Protected Cultivation and Smart Agriculture; Maitra, S., Gaikwad, D.J., Tanmoy, S., Eds.; New Delhi Publishers: New Delhi, India, 2020; pp. 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  135. Chakraborty, D.; Garg, R.; Tomar, R.; Singh, R.; Sharma, S.; Singh, R.; Trivedi, S.; Mittal, R.; Sharma, P.; Kamble, K. Synthetic, and Organic Mulching and Nitrogen Effect on Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a Semi-Arid Environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 738–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Thomas, R. Opportunities to Reduce the Vulnerability of Dryland Farmers in Central and West Asia and North Africa to Climate Change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 126, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Flury, M.; Narayan, R. Biodegradable Plastic as an Integral Part of the Solution to Plastic Waste Pollution of the Environment. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 30, 100490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Moursy, F.S.; Mostafa, F.A.; Solieman, N.Y. Polyethylene, and Rice Straw as Soil Mulching: Reflection of Soil Mulch Type on Soil Temperature, Soil Borne Diseases, Plant Growth and Yield of Tomato. Glob. J. Adv. Res. 2015, 2, 1497–1519. [Google Scholar]
  139. Meng, F.; Fan, T.; Yang, X.; Riksen, M.; Xu, M.; Geissen, V. Effects of Plastic Mulching on the Accumulation and Distribution of Macro and Micro Plastics in Soils of Two Farming Systems in Northwest China. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Begum, A.; Alam, S.; Jalal Uddin, M. Management of Pesticides: Purposes, Uses, and Concerns. In Pesticide Residue in Foods: Sources, Management, and Control; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 53–86. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 10442 g001 550
Figure 1. Mulching can dramatically increase soil nutrition and stop the weed population, as it prevents sunlight from reaching the seeds. By reducing evaporation, it protects plant roots against temperature fluctuations and retains moisture in the soil. As a result, wind and/or rain erosion can be reduced (or prevented).
Figure 1. Mulching can dramatically increase soil nutrition and stop the weed population, as it prevents sunlight from reaching the seeds. By reducing evaporation, it protects plant roots against temperature fluctuations and retains moisture in the soil. As a result, wind and/or rain erosion can be reduced (or prevented).
Sustainability 15 10442 g001
Table
Table 1. The composition of various mulches and their role in the development of potatoes.
Table 1. The composition of various mulches and their role in the development of potatoes.
Types of MuchRoleCompositionReferences
Straw mulchStraw mulch is inexpensive and offers decent defense against frost, weeds, and soil erosion while being easy to apply. Because it is an insulator, the straw ensures the soil stays warm during winter and cool during summer. Additionally, it helps retain moisture, which is essential for the growth of potatoes.The dried stalks of wheat, oats, or rice are the primary components of straw mulch.[70,71]
Compost mulchCompost is a good mulch for potatoes since it enriches the soil. Compost mulch enhances soil quality, lowers soil erosion, and aids in moisture retention. It is made up of degraded organic materials.Organic waste, such as food scraps, leaves, and yard clippings, is broken down into a nutrient-rich soil supplement.[72,73]
Leaf mulch:Rich in nutrients and organic matter, leaf mulch is an excellent choice for potatoes. Leaf mulch helps retain soil moisture, improves soil aeration, and inhibits vegetation growth. It consists of decomposing foliage.It is produced by stacking dried leaves and permitting them to decompose over time.[74]
Hay mulchHay is another popular potato mulch. It helps maintain soil moisture and inhibits vegetation growth.Hay mulch is composed primarily of dried grasses and is simple to apply.[75]
Wood chip mulchWood chips, a frequently employed mulching material for potatoes, offer exceptional moisture retention, weed inhibition, and enhancement of soil composition.These products are composed of fragmented wood chips.[76]
Table
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of mulches.
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of mulches.
AdvantagesDisadvantagesReferences
Mulches help plants get a head start by keeping the soil toasty and retaining heat from the sun. Compared to crops produced without mulch, those grown on it are ready for harvest 14–21 days earlier.Special equipment and expertise are required for applying plastic mulches in fields.[130,131]
The use of mulches significantly reduces nutrient loss due to soil surface runoff. Mulches aid in water conservation because they prevent water from evaporating.Black film’s high temperature increases the risk of “burning” or “scorching” young plants and seedlings.[132,133]
Mulching preserves soil compactivity, resulting in easily broken up and eroded soil. Plants growing in a mulched field have a more robust root system because the soil is better able to hold air.Organic mulches increase soil acidity, which further affects crop productivity.[134,135]
Mulching reduces soil and water erosion, which is crucial for agriculture in dry locations. Mulching aids in crop yield in dryland environments.The removal and disposal of polyethylene mulches pose significant agronomic, financial, and environmental constraints.[136,137]
Mulching reduces soil-borne diseases, improving both crop quality and productivity.Plastic mulch is hard to recover and use again.[138,139]
Mulches slow the development of weeds and pestsMulches in some areas are attractive to pests like slugs and rats and other rodents.[102,140]
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

Waheed, A.; Li, C.; Muhammad, M.; Ahmad, M.; Khan, K.A.; Ghramh, H.A.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, D. Sustainable Potato Growth under Straw Mulching Practices. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310442

AMA Style

Waheed A, Li C, Muhammad M, Ahmad M, Khan KA, Ghramh HA, Wang Z, Zhang D. Sustainable Potato Growth under Straw Mulching Practices. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310442

Chicago/Turabian Style

Waheed, Abdul, Chuang Li, Murad Muhammad, Mushtaq Ahmad, Khalid Ali Khan, Hamed A. Ghramh, Zhongwei Wang, and Daoyuan Zhang. 2023. "Sustainable Potato Growth under Straw Mulching Practices" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310442

APA Style

Waheed, A., Li, C., Muhammad, M., Ahmad, M., Khan, K. A., Ghramh, H. A., Wang, Z., & Zhang, D. (2023). Sustainable Potato Growth under Straw Mulching Practices. Sustainability, 15(13), 10442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310442

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