Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Dry Matter Weight and Yield of Direct-Seeded Rice under Straw Return
by
Peng Ma
†,
Ke-Yuan Zhang
†,
Xue-Huan Liao
†,
Li-Se Aer
,
Er-Luo Yang
,
Jun Deng
,
Lin Zhou
and
Rong-Ping Zhang
* School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2023, 13(12), 3058; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123058
Submission received: 20 October 2023
/
Revised: 6 December 2023
/
Accepted: 11 December 2023
/
Published: 14 December 2023
Abstract
:Straw is an agricultural byproduct that results from the production of many crops, such as cereals, yet it is often considered a waste product. However, straw has both historical precedent and future potential as an agricultural resource. In this study, we aimed to determine the effects of returning straw to the soil on rice cultivation. To this end, we used the hybrid rice variety Luliangyou Jingling as the test material to study the effect of straw return under four different nitrogen application levels (0 kg N (N1), 120 kg N/hm2 (N2), 150 kg N/hm2 (N3), and 180 kg N/hm2 (N4)) on rice tillering dynamics, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter accumulation, and yield. We found that rice under straw return had a higher number of effective panicles, along with a higher number of grains per panicle, compared to those without straw return. Additionally, the tiller number, LAI, total dry matter, and yield of rice in each main growth period under straw return were higher than those without straw return, and these values increased with an increase in nitrogen application rate. The yield was the highest at 9520.63 kg/hm2 without straw return, while the highest yield with straw return was achieved at 10,738.26 kg/hm2. Our results revealed the optimal nitrogen application level for high yield of two-line direct-seeded rice under straw return, which provides a theoretical reference for the precise reduction of fertilizer application in rice cultivation.
1. Introduction
In recent years, the yield of crops, such as rice and wheat, has increased, and the volume of byproducts, such as straw, has also increased accordingly. However, as the economy has evolved to favor industrialized agriculture, crop straw that was previously incorporated back into the soil or used as animal feed is now considered agricultural waste. China is a country with high agricultural production and is rich in agricultural straw resources. The annual output of crop straw is approximately 800 million tons, accounting for 30% of the total global output [1]. However, a complete and effective institutional mechanism for the comprehensive utilization of straw in our country has not yet been established, and the utilization efficiency of crop straw remains relatively low. Currently, soil degradation, the loss of organic C and nutrients, and a decline in soil fertility are the main problems hindering China’s agricultural development. As an important renewable agricultural resource, straw that is returned to the field can effectively increase the structure of soil aggregates [2,3,4], and it contains N, P, K, Ca, S, and other nutrients required for crop growth and development [5]. When crop straw is incorporated into the soil, it promotes the proliferation of microorganisms. Lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose, crude protein, and other substances contained in straw will decompose in the soil and become organic matter. An increase in organic matter content improves soil quality and fertility [6]. Straw return has become a popular research topic, as well as a widely promoted method in crop cultivation. As an effective straw treatment method, straw return addresses the problem of excessive volumes of straw waste, reduces the amount of pollution caused by straw burning, and improves soil fertility.
Nitrogen is the nutrient most closely related to plant yield in global crop production [7]. It is not only the nutrient required by crops in the largest amount but also the most mobile element in the soil [8]. Approximately 75% of leaf nitrogen is related to chloroplasts [9], which have important physiological importance in the production of dry matter through photosynthesis [10]. Appropriate nitrogen fertilizer application provides rice with a suitable leaf area index at the heading stage and supports a strong production capacity of photosynthetic substances from flowering to filling maturity. In addition, adequate nitrogen fertilizer application can promote the transfer of photosynthetic products (carbohydrates) to grains [9]. To achieve a higher rice yield in China, the amount of nitrogen fertilizer used is increasing, resulting in low nitrogen use efficiency [11]. According to data from China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs for 2020, the nitrogen use efficiency of three main cereal crops (rice, wheat, and maize) was only 35% [12]. Beckinghausen et al. found that at least 1.8 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer is wasted every year [13]. The rational application of nitrogen fertilizer can minimize waste, improve the utilization rate, and reduce environmental pollution, thereby promoting the sustainable development of farmlands. Previous studies have shown that straw return combined with nitrogen fertilization can promote crop yield, reduce the application of chemical fertilizer, and improve the fertilizer utilization rate, which can improve the sustainable supply potential of soil nutrients [14]. Studies have also found that under straw return, increasing the amount of base nitrogen fertilizer can effectively offset the nitrogen shortage of the rice population in the early growth stage and competition for nitrogen at the peak of straw decomposition [15].
In this study, we aimed to determine the effects of different nitrogen application levels on the dry matter weight and yield of rice under rapeseed straw return and identify the optimal nitrogen application level for two-line direct-seeded rice under different straw return treatments. The results of this study provide a theoretical reference and technical support for scientific straw return and the precise reduction of fertilizer under double-cropping rice cultivation systems.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
The experiment was carried out in a strict field micro-plot in Dayan (31°54′ N, 104°69′ E), which was the test base of Southwest University of Science and Technology in 2020–2021. The surface soil (0–20 cm depth) at the study site contained 1.95 g/kg total N, 27.20 mg/kg available P, and 58.32 mg/kg available K. We utilized the Sichuan oil–rice double-cropping system. The rice variety tested was a two-line hybrid rice, Luliangyou Jingling. A two-factor split-plot design was used for this experiment. The main plot was divided into an area with no straw return (T1) and an area with rapeseed straw return (T2), and the subplots were treated with four different levels of nitrogen application: 0 kg N (N1), 120 kg N/hm2 (N2), 150 kg N/hm2 (N3), and 180 kg N/hm2 (N4). Each treatment plot area was 5.21 m2, with three replicates. The nitrogen fertilizer was in the form of urea, and it was applied in a 4:3:3 ratio of base fertilizer, tillering fertilizer, and panicle fertilizer. The application methods of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were the same for each treatment. Calcium superphosphate (90 kg P/hm2) and potassium chloride (225 kg K/hm2) were applied to each subplot before rice sowing, and all phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were applied as base fertilizers.
The experiment was conducted based on a rapeseed seed yield of 2250 kg/hm2, an economic coefficient of 0.28, and non-fertilization treatment of previous rape. The rapeseed straw was returned to the field at 5785.65 kg/hm2. After crushing and incorporating rape straw into the soil, direct seeding of rice was carried out around May 16. The planting holes were 37 cm long and 16.5 cm wide, with 3–4 grains per hole and 2 seedlings (3-leaf stage) per hole. The ridge between each treatment plot was wrapped with plastic film to prevent movement of fertilizer between plots. Tap water was used for irrigation to minimize the influence of water source on the experiment. After the rice seedlings were transplanted, the surface water layer of the field was maintained at 3–5 cm. During the rice planting period, except for drainage during the baking period, cultivation and management were carried out according to local high-yield cultivation methods. The meteorological data of rainfall and temperature during the experiment are shown in Figure 1.
2.2. Variables
2.2.1. Tillering Dynamics
At the 5–6 leaf stage, 10 holes of plants with consistent growth were selected, and the number of tillers were recorded every 7 days until the number of tillers decreased.
Tiller spike rate (%) = effective panicle/maximum tiller number × 100.
Relative tillering rate (tiller/d) = [ln(n2) − ln(n1)]/(t2 − t1), n1 and n2 are the average numbers of tillers per plant at times t1 and t2, respectively [16].
2.2.2. Leaf Area Index (LAI)
At the full heading and maturity stages, the average tiller number of each treatment was used as the standard, and three representative plants were selected to measure the length and width of green leaves to calculate the leaf area.
Leaf area = leaf length × leaf width × correction coefficient k (correction coefficient 0.75 for rice) [17].
LAI = total leaf area per unit land area/unit land area [18].
2.2.3. Dry Matter
Three plants were taken from each treatment at maximum tillering stage, full heading stage, and mature stage. The samples were placed in an oven at 105 °C for 30 min, dried to constant weight at 75 °C, and weighed after cooling to room temperature.
2.2.4. Yield
When the rice matured, 15 plants were selected for seed testing based on the average effective panicles. The panicles of the sampled plants were removed and placed in nylon mesh bags until the moisture content reached approximately 13.5%. The number of grains per panicle, number of filled grains, seed setting rate, and 1000-grain weight were measured, and the theoretical yield was calculated.
2.3. Statistical Analyses
Microsoft Excel 2010 software was used for data collation, DPS 7.05 data analysis software was used to analyze the variance according to LSD at a significance level of p < 0.05, and Origin 2021 was used for drawing.
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Application Rate on LAI
As shown in Figure 2, compared with the LAI of direct-seeded rice with no straw return, samples at each growth stage after straw return showed a different degree of increase, and the two-year trend was consistent. The LAI of direct-seeded rice at the maximum tillering stage under T2 was 2.3–25.3% higher than that under T1. The LAI of direct-seeded rice at the full heading stage increased by 2.3–55.5%. In terms of nitrogen application, the LAI of direct-seeded rice with and without straw return increased with an increase in the nitrogen application rate in each growth period throughout the two years. At the maximum tillering stage, the LAI under N2, N3, and N4 increased by 41.4–81.9%, 65.5–102.5%, and 116.2–152.3%, respectively, compared with that under N1. At the full heading stage, the LAI under N2, N3, and N4 increased by 39.5–141.1%, 60.1–154.8%, and 90.4–211.2%, respectively, compared with that under N1.
3.2. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Application Rate on Tillering Dynamics
As shown in Figure 3a, the number of tillers in direct-seeded rice in each treatment reached a maximum during the same period (28 d), and the trend of T2 > T1 was apparent. At the maximum tillering stage, the tiller numbers of direct-seeded rice in T2 were 20.6, 8.4, 4.1, and 7.0 higher than those in T1 under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively. Under the same straw returning conditions, an increase in the nitrogen fertilizer level substantially promoted rice tillering. Compared with the tiller number under N1, those under N2, N3, and N4 increased by 27.3–41.6, 25.1–45.0, and 41.8–59.7, respectively. The relative tillering rate of direct-seeded rice in each treatment was the highest at 7–14 d, after which the tillering rate gradually decreased. Except for the tillering rate of T2 under the 7–14 d N3 and N4 treatment, which was less than that of T1, the tillering rate in the other periods showed a clear trend of T2 > T1. Compared with the tillering rate of T1, the relative values of T2 under N1, N2, N3, and N4 were lower. The tillering rate increased by 8.7–21.0, 2.9–46.1, 10.5–59.5, and 4.3–17.4 under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively. As shown in Figure 3b, under each nitrogen application rate, the tiller spike rate of the direct-seeded rice was T1 > T2. Under the same straw returning conditions, the tiller earing rate of direct-seeded rice was the highest under N3, followed by that under N4, N2, and N1. Compared with that under N1, the spike rate of tillers under N3, N4, and N2 increased by 10.4–12.9, 0.4–3.9, and 0.03–3.2, respectively, indicating that N3 was beneficial to the improvement of the spike rate in hybrid rice.
3.3. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Application Rate on Dry Matter Accumulation
As shown in Table 1, under the same nitrogen application level, the dry matter accumulation of rice under T2 at the maximum tillering stage in 2021 was lower than that under T1, and the dry matter accumulation under T2 was higher than that under T1 during other periods. At the maximum tillering stage in 2020, the dry matter under T2 increased by 26.4%, 6.4%, 2.3%, and 2.5% under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively, compared to that under T1, whereas at the maximum tillering stage in 2021, the dry matter under T2 decreased by 17.8%, 12.2%, 10.4%, and 9.9% under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively, compared to that under T1. Compared to that under T1, the dry matter weight under T2 at the full heading stage increased by 26.1%, 14.6%, 15.5%, and 6.3% under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively. Compared to that under T1, the dry matter accumulation under T2 increased by 26.1%, 14.4%, 12.5%, and 2.8% under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively. Under the same straw returning conditions, the dry matter accumulation of rice was the highest when the nitrogen application level was N4 (180 kg N/hm2) in 2020 and 2021, followed by N3, N2, and N1. Compared with that under N1, the dry matter accumulation under N2 increased by 13.9–91.7%, 24.7–61.2%, and 29.6–56.2% at the maximum tillering stage, full heading stage, and mature stage, respectively. The dry matter accumulation under N3 increased by 53.3–148.1%, 38.2–80.5%, and 39.2–86.5% in each growth period, respectively. That under N4 increased by 53.1–164.2%, 58.7–107.9%, and 58.0–108.9% in each growth period, respectively.
Dry matter accumulation after full heading was greater in T1 than in T2 in 2020 and lower in T1 than in T2 in 2021; however, dry matter accumulation after full heading showed an increasing trend with increasing nitrogen application rates over the two years. Compared with that under N1, the dry matter accumulation after full heading under N2, N3, and N4 increased by 28.2–53.7%, 40.8–109.5%, and 56.7–122.4%, respectively. In the two-year field experiment, the total amount of dry matter in the main growth stages of rice increased with an increase in nitrogen application rate, and the difference between the treatments was significant in both T1 and T2. Straw return had no significant effect on the dry matter accumulation of direct-seeded rice at the maximum tillering stage, and the effect was highly significant during the other periods. Both straw return and nitrogen fertilizer application can increase the total dry matter of rice in the main growth period, and the interaction between the two has a significant effect on the increase in the dry matter accumulation of rice. Year (Y), straw return treatment (T), nitrogen application rate (N), Y × T, Y × N, and Y × T × N had significant effects on the dry matter accumulation of rice at each stage and dry matter accumulation after heading. By contrast, Y × T had no significant effect on the dry matter accumulation of leaves at the maximum tillering stage.
3.4. Effects of Straw Return and Nitrogen Application Rate on Yield
As shown in Table 2, straw return combined with nitrogen fertilizer application had a significant effect on rice yield. In the two-year field experiment, under the same nitrogen application level, the rice yield of each treatment under T2 was higher than that under T1, and the yield was 7.8–25.6%, 2.0–10.6%, 6.9–7.5%, and 13.4–13.8% higher under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the yield under each nitrogen application rate. Under T1, the yield of rice first increased and then decreased with the increase in nitrogen fertilizer application rate: T1N3 > T1N4 > T1N2 > T1N1. Compared with the yield under T1N1, those under T1N3, T1N4, and T1N2 were 50.0–119.9%, 49.2–118.8%, and 32.7–102.4% higher, respectively. Under T2, rice yield increased with an increase in the nitrogen application rate, but at a gradually decreasing rate. Compared with the yield under T2N1, those under T2N2, T2N3, and T2N4 were 36.1–64.3%, 48.7–88.2%, and 47.4–97.5% higher, respectively. The yield after two years showed T2N3 > T1N4, indicating that straw returning can compensate for the effect of less nitrogen fertilizer to a certain extent and even obtain higher yield.
Panicle number and number of grains per panicle are important components of rice yield. The effective panicle number was higher under T2, and the effective panicle number and grain number per panicle under both T1 and T2 showed increasing trends with an increasing nitrogen application rate. Compared with that under T1, the effective panicle number under T2 increased by 0.1–14.6%, 2.4–4.2%, 3.7–5.5%, and 0.86.5% under N1, N2, N3, and N4, respectively. Under the same straw return conditions, the effective panicle number under N2, N3, and N4 increased by 20.5–46.1%, 9.5–44.7%, and 3.7–45.8%, respectively, compared to that under N1 where the number of grains per panicle increased by 0.5–29.9%, 6.3–31.6%, and 6.3–36.1%, respectively. The 1000-grain weight under T2 was slightly higher than that under T1, and it increased with an increasing nitrogen application rate. Under N2, the seed setting rate of T1 was higher than that of T2; however, the seed setting rate of T2 was higher than that of T1 under the other nitrogen application levels.
The significance levels of rice traits affected by the test year (Y), straw return treatment (T), N application rate (N), Y × T, Y × N, and Y × T × N are shown in Table 2. Except for the effect of Y × T on the yield, the effects of other treatments and their interactions on the yield were significant. Under T1, the optimal nitrogen application level was N3 (150 kg N/hm2), and under T2, the optimal nitrogen application level was N4 (180 kg N/hm2).
4. Discussion
As a carbon-rich energy source, crop straw contains large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other nutrients required for crop growth [19]. It plays an important role in alleviating the imbalance of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in farmland soil and compensates for the lack of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers. Zhang and Wu et al. [20,21] found that the total amount of returned straw could improve the contents of soil organic carbon, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium, increase the number of grains per panicle and effective panicle number, and increase rice yield. Yang et al. [22] found that straw return increased soil fertility and crop yield by 6.8% and 4.4%, respectively, in southern China. Yaozhu et al. [23] demonstrated that the effect of adding composted straw on rice population quality was significantly higher than that of returning straw directly to the field: the high-efficiency LAI increased by approximately 4.71–6.50% at the full heading stage, and the population dry matter increased significantly by approximately 9.22–13.30% with straw return compared to the values without straw return. Additionally, the number of effective panicles and number of grains per panicle increased by approximately 5.9–9.8% and 1.5–5.2%, respectively, with straw return, and the yield increased by 9.5–13.4% compared to that without straw return.
Leaf area is an important factor that determines dry matter accumulation and final yield of rice, and tiller number can also reflect the potential rice yield. The results of this study show that the LAI and tiller number of direct-seeded rice under the straw return treatment were significantly higher than those without straw return, which is consistent with the results of previous studies. Although the number of tillers and effective panicles of direct–seeded rice under the straw return treatment significantly increased, the percentage of tillers decreased. A similar result was reported in a study by Wei et al. [24], indicating that straw return may cause rice to produce more ineffective tillers. Straw return can increase topsoil C, N, and P stocks, which can benefit crop growth and increase grain yield [25]. Under the same nitrogen application level, the dry matter accumulation at the full heading and mature stages in the straw return treatment was higher than that without straw return; however, the total dry matter in the straw return treatment at the maximum tillering stage was lower than that without straw return. These results were consistent with those of Yajie et al. [26]. Straw return can release nitrogen and effectively promote dry matter accumulation; thus, the dry matter accumulation of the straw return treatment showed a significant increase. However, the straw nutrient release was slow, so the effect on dry matter weight was not apparent in the early stages. LAI and dry matter are directly related to rice yield [27]. In this study, the rice yield under different nitrogen treatments was also higher under the straw return treatment than without straw return. This was mainly due to an increase in the effective panicle and seed setting rates of rice, which verified the conclusion of Yan et al. [28]. A possible reason for this is that the full decomposition of straw in the middle and late growth stages provides a continuous nutrient supply for rice, which is essential for achieving an economic yield and improving nitrogen use efficiency [29].
Previous studies have shown that the effect of straw return on rice growth is closely related to nitrogen fertilizer application [30]. In a study by Zheng Huantong [31], it was shown that straw return combined with appropriate nitrogen fertilization could effectively increase rice LAI, thereby increasing the net photosynthetic rate of rice and improving its photosynthetic ability. However, Xie Fang et al. [32] demonstrated that the absorption of nitrogen by rice increases with an increase in nitrogen application rate within a certain range, but beyond that, not only will the absorption decrease, but also the yield of rice will decrease. In this study, the tiller number, leaf area, and total dry matter of rice increased with the increase in nitrogen application rate under the two straw return treatments, which was similar to the findings of Zhou Liyan et al. [33]. The greater the amount of nitrogen applied, the greater the peak number of tillers of rice, thus increasing the yield of rice. However, increased nitrogen application also increases the number of ineffective tillers. Increasing the amount of nitrogen fertilizer will increase the LAI of rice in each growth period, indicating that increasing the amount of nitrogen application can increase the leaf area of the plant, promote photosynthesis, and increase the yield of rice, which verified the conclusion of Xie et al. [34]. The yield without straw return showed a trend of gradually increasing and then decreasing with the increase in nitrogen fertilizer application rate, and the yield was the highest at N3 (10 kg N/667 m2), indicating that this was the optimal nitrogen application rate without straw return, which is consistent with the conclusions of Yang Yihua et al. [35]. The yield of rice is proportional to the application of nitrogen fertilizer. Within the appropriate range of nitrogen application, the rice yield increases with an increase in nitrogen application rate, but when the nitrogen application rate exceeds a certain range, the yield decreases again. The yield under the straw return treatment gradually increased with an increasing nitrogen fertilizer application rate, and the yield was the highest at N4 (12 kg N/667 m2), indicating that this was the optimal nitrogen application rate under straw return. The effective panicle number and number of grains per panicle also showed the same growth trend as the yield, indicating that the increase in production due to nitrogen fertilization was mainly achieved by increasing the number of effective panicles and the number of grains per panicle, which was consistent with the results of Han et al. [36]. In terms of the interaction effect of straw return and nitrogen fertilization, the yield of T2N4 was the highest, which was 12.8–13.2% higher than that of T1N3, indicating that straw return combined with appropriate nitrogen fertilization rates could increase yield. This study provides a scientific basis for optimizing the application rate of nitrogen fertilizer in combination with straw return.
5. Conclusions
Straw return, nitrogen application, and their interaction had considerable regulatory effects on tiller number, tiller earing rate, LAI, and dry matter accumulation during the main growth stages, as well as rice yield. Straw return can substantially increase rice yield, and appropriate nitrogen fertilizer application can further increase the yield. In this study, the highest yield (9520.63 kg/hm2) without straw return was obtained under the N3 treatment, indicating that the optimal rate of nitrogen application was N3 (150 N kg/hm2). Meanwhile, the highest yield (10,738.26 kg/hm2) under straw return was obtained under the N4 treatment, indicating that the optimal rate of nitrogen application was N4 (180 kg N/hm2). The results of this study provide a valuable reference for the optimal nitrogen application level in rice cultivation with and without straw return.
Author Contributions
P.M., K.-Y.Z. and X.-H.L.: Data curation, writing—original draft. L.-S.A.: Investigation. E.-L.Y. and J.D.: Methodology, software. L.Z. and R.-P.Z.: Methodology. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by high-efficiency cultivation technology integration and industrial application of Yuehesimiao series direct-seeded rice, grant number 2022ZYDF039.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
The research team wishes to extend their gratitude to Jian-chao Shu, Xue-wu He, Fei Gao and all the authors for their contributions to this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Wang, J.; Qiu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, Z.; Han, X.; Zhou, Y.; Qin, L.; Liu, K.; Li, S.; Wang, W. Increasing basal nitrogen fertilizer rate improves grain yield, quality and 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline in rice under wheat straw returning. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 13, 1099751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, Y.; Sun, B.; Wu, S.; Feng, H.; Gao, M.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Y. After-effects of straw and straw-derived biochar application on crop growth, yield, and soil properties in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-maize (Zea mays L.) rotations: A four-year field experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, W.; Wu, J.-F.; Pan, X.-H.; Tan, X.-M.; Zeng, Y.-J.; Shi, Q.-H.; Liu, T.-J.; Zeng, Y.-H. Effects of long-term straw return on soil organic carbon fractions and enzyme activities in a double-cropped rice paddy in South China. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.X.; Li, M.L.; Chen, X.J.; Su, Y.; Yu, M.; Shen, A.L. Effects of nitrogen management on soil microbial community structure at different growth stages under straw returning in paddy soils. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 2020, 31, 935–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, Z.; Shah, T.; Zhang, L.; Liu, H.; Peng, S.; Nie, L. Effect of straw returning on soil organic carbon in rice–wheat rotation system: A review. Food Energy Secur. 2020, 9, e200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, W.; Shao, X.; Geng, Y.; Jin, F.; Sun, Q.; Liu, L.; Fan, H.; Guo, L. Effects of straw returning and nitrogen application on rice yield and nitrogen utilization. J. Irrig. Drain. 2019, 38, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, C.; Li, P.; Lu, J.; Ren, T.; Cong, R.; Li, X. Application of Controlled-Release Urea in Rice: Reducing Environmental Risk While Increasing Grain Yield and Improving Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 1176–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timsina, J.; Panaullah, G.M.; Saleque, M.A.; Ishaque, M.; Pathan, A.B.M.B.U.; Quayyum, M.A.; Connor, D.J.; Saha, P.K.; Humphreys, E.; Meisner, C.A. Nutrient Uptake and Apparent Balances for Rice-Wheat Sequences. I. Nitrogen. J. Plant Nutr. 2006, 29, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Z. Effects of Nitrogen Application on Nitrogen Metabolism of Rice and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Paddy Field. Ph.D. Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gotoh, E.; Suetsugu, N.; Yamori, W.; Ishishita, K.; Kiyabu, R.; Fukuda, M.; Higa, T.; Shirouchi, B.; Wada, M. Chloroplast Accumulation Response Enhances Leaf Photosynthesis and Plant Biomass Production. Plant Physiol. 2018, 178, 1358–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, B.; Yang, X.; Murphy, D.V.; He, X.; Zhou, J. Fate of 15 N-labeled fertilizer in soils under dryland agriculture after 19 years of different fertilizations. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Network CAI. Available online: http://www.agri.cn/V20/ZX/nyyw/202007/t20200703_7444643.htm (accessed on 3 July 2023).
- Beckinghausen, A.; Odlare, M.; Thorin, E.; Schwede, S. From removal to recovery: An evaluation of nitrogen recovery techniques from wastewater. Appl. Energy 2020, 263, 114616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soon, Y.K.; Lupwayi, N.Z. Straw management in a cold semi-arid region: Impact on soil quality and crop productivity. Field Crops Res. 2012, 139, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grzyb, A.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Niewiadomska, A. The Significance of Microbial Transformation of Nitrogen Compounds in the Light of Integrated Crop Management. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, G.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, B.; Zhang, R.; Zhou, X.; Guo, S. The mechanism of the effects of nitrogen and planting density on rice tillering dynamics. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2018, 24, 896–904. [Google Scholar]
- Tao, H.; Lin, S. Comparison of punching weighing method, copy weighing method and length-width correction method for determination of rice leaf area. Plant Physiol. J. 2006, 42, 496–498. [Google Scholar]
- Mo, J. Brief introduction of rice leaf area index determination method. Guangxi Agric. Sci. 1978, 8, 22–23. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, W.; Xie, X.; Wang, K.; Li, Z. Effects of straw returning at different stages on growth and yield of rice. Chin. J. Rice Sci. 2008, 1, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Wang, L.; Cui, Y.; Hao, X.; Wang, B.; Tian, X.; Li, X.; Qin, Y. Effects of rotation mode and straw returning on rice yield, rice quality and soil fertility. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci. 2021, 27, 1926–1937. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, R.-P.; Huang, Z.; Ashen, R.; Zhou, N.-N.; Zhou, L.; Feng, T.-Y.; Zhang, K.-Y.; Liao, X.-H.; Aer, L.; Ma, P. Phosphorus Application during Rapeseed Season Combined with Straw Return Improves Crop Productivity and Soil Bacterial Diversity in Rape-Rice Rotation. Agronomy 2023, 13, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Dong, Y.; Xu, M.; Bao, Y. Effects of straw returning on the integrated soil fertility and crop yield in southern China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 23, 3040–3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.; Guo, C.; Sun, Y.; Wu, Y.; Yu, H.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, H.; Yang, Z.; Ma, J. Effects of rape straw returning and water and nitrogen management on population quality and yield of hybrid rice under rice-rape rotation. Chin. J. Rice Sci. 2019, 33, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, W.; Feng, Y.; Xu, G.; Guan, Z.F.; Ou, D.; Zhang, J.; Wang, L. Effects of straw returning and nitrogen application rate on dry matter accumulation and yield of indica hybrid rice in karst area. Acta Agric. Nucl. Sin. 2019, 33, 1856–1864. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Fang, L.; Qiu, T.; Chen, J.; Wang, H.; Liu, M.; Yi, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C.; Sardans, J.; et al. Crop residue return achieves environmental mitigation and enhances grain yield: A global meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 43, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Zhu, D.; Xing, Z.; Gong, J.; Zhang, H.; Dai, Q.; Huo, Z.; Xu, K.; Wei, H.; Guo, B. Effects of improved nitrogen application on rice yield and nitrogen uptake and utilization. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci. 2015, 21, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
- Iqbal, A.; He, L.; Khan, A.; Wei, S.; Akhtar, K.; Ali, I.; Ullah, S.; Munsif, F.; Zhao, Q.; Jiang, L. Organic Manure Coupled with Inorganic Fertilizer: An Approach for the Sustainable Production of Rice by Improving Soil Properties and Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Agronomy 2019, 9, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, J.; Wang, W.; Li, B.; Li, Y.; Jiang, R.; Shen, M.; Wang, C.; Cui, B. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction under straw returning on rice yield and nitrogen absorption and utilization in northern Jiangsu. China Soils Fert. 2021, 5, 74–82. [Google Scholar]
- Sheng-Gang, P.; Sheng-Qi, H.; Jing, Z.; Jing-Ping, W.; Cou-Gui, C.; Ming-Li, C.; Ming, Z.; Xiang-Ru, T. Effects of N Management on Yield and N Uptake of Rice in Central China. J. Integr. Agric. 2012, 11, 1993–2000. [Google Scholar]
- Shan, A.; Pan, J.; Kang, K.J.; Pan, M.; Wang, G.; Wang, M.; He, Z.; Yang, X. Effects of straw return with N fertilizer reduction on crop yield, plant diseases and pests and potential heavy metal risk in a Chinese rice paddy: A field study of 2 consecutive wheat-rice cycles. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 288, 117741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, W. Effects of Straw Returning and Nitrogen Application on Growth and Yield of Rice. Master’s Thesis, Jilin Agricultural University, Jilin, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, F.; Han, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, X.; Zuo, R.; Wu, Z. Effects of different nitrogen treatments on nitrogen uptake and yield of rice. China. Soils Fert. 2010, 4, 24–26+45. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, L.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Guo, Z.; Hong, R.; Wang, Y.; Xia, L.; Fu, L.; Li, Y.; Chen, Q. Effects of different nitrogen fertilizer regulation on tiller number and leaf area index of rice. Hubei Agric. Sci. 2020, 59, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H.; Wu, K.; Iqbal, A.; Ali, I.; He, L.; Ullah, S.; Wei, S.; Zhao, Q.; Wu, X.; Huang, Q.; et al. Synthetic nitrogen coupled with seaweed extract and microbial inoculants improves rice (Oryza sativa L.) production under a dual cropping system. Ital. J. Agron. 2021, 16, 1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Su, Z. Effects of nitrogen application rate on yield components and dry matter accumulation of hybrid rice. J. Tianjin Agric. Coll. 2005, 1, 5–8+30. [Google Scholar]
- Cong, X.; Shi, F.; Ruan, X.; Luo, Y.; Ma, T.; Luo, Z. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer levels on nitrogen use efficiency, yield and quality of different rice genotypes. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 28, 1219–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Meteorological data of rainfall and temperature during the experiment.
Figure 2.
The effects of different straw returning and nitrogen application rates on the LAI of direct-seeded rice in the 2020–2021 experiment. Note: T1, no straw return; and T2, straw returning. N1—0 kg N application; N2—120 kg N/hm2 application; N3—150 kg N/hm2 application; N4—180 kg N/hm2 application. The different lowercase letters in the same group indicate that there is a significant difference between different straw treatments at the 5% level under the same nitrogen application rate.
Figure 2.
The effects of different straw returning and nitrogen application rates on the LAI of direct-seeded rice in the 2020–2021 experiment. Note: T1, no straw return; and T2, straw returning. N1—0 kg N application; N2—120 kg N/hm2 application; N3—150 kg N/hm2 application; N4—180 kg N/hm2 application. The different lowercase letters in the same group indicate that there is a significant difference between different straw treatments at the 5% level under the same nitrogen application rate.
Figure 3.
Effects of different straw returning and nitrogen application rates on tillering dynamics of direct-seeded rice in the 2020–2021 experiment: (a) tiller spike rate; (b) tiller earing rate. Note: T1, no straw return; and T2, straw returning. N1—0 kg N application; N2—120 kg N/hm2 application; N3—150 kg N/hm2 application; N4—180 kg N/hm2 application. The different lowercase letters in the same group in Figure (b) indicate that the difference between different nitrogen application treatments under the same straw returning treatment is significant at the 5% level.
Figure 3.
Effects of different straw returning and nitrogen application rates on tillering dynamics of direct-seeded rice in the 2020–2021 experiment: (a) tiller spike rate; (b) tiller earing rate. Note: T1, no straw return; and T2, straw returning. N1—0 kg N application; N2—120 kg N/hm2 application; N3—150 kg N/hm2 application; N4—180 kg N/hm2 application. The different lowercase letters in the same group in Figure (b) indicate that the difference between different nitrogen application treatments under the same straw returning treatment is significant at the 5% level.
Table 1.
Effects of straw returning and nitrogen fertilizer application on dry matter accumulation and translocation of rice at main growth stages (kg hm−2).
Table 1.
Effects of straw returning and nitrogen fertilizer application on dry matter accumulation and translocation of rice at main growth stages (kg hm−2).
| Year | Treatment | Maximum Tillering Stage | Full Heading Stage | Mature Stage | Dry Matter Accumulation After Full Heading | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stem | Leaf | Stem and Leaf | Panicle | Stem and Leaf | Panicle | ||||
| 2020 | T1 | N1 | 891.07c | 626.44d | 5282.19d | 624.18c | 2946.08d | 4526.39d | 1566.10c |
| N2 | 1562.11b | 1346.98c | 8100.41c | 1420.88b | 3821.40c | 7847.33c | 2147.45b | ||
| N3 | 1926.29a | 1838.93b | 9274.91b | 1383.75b | 5200.84b | 8738.29b | 3280.47a | ||
| N4 | 2025.12a | 1887.52a | 10,433.16a | 1843.30a | 6255.46a | 9356.98a | 3335.98a | ||
| Mean | 1601.15 | 1424.97 | 8272.67 | 1318.03 | 4351.94 | 7617.25 | 2582.50 | ||
| T2 | N1 | 1057.33c | 860.86c | 6851.03d | 982.26d | 3470.56d | 5954.73c | 1592.00c | |
| N2 | 1576.85b | 1518.06b | 9273.27c | 1524.25c | 4825.92c | 8012.56b | 2040.95b | ||
| N3 | 1995.09a | 1856.40a | 10,668.85b | 1806.53b | 5775.23b | 9643.28a | 2943.13a | ||
| N4 | 1969.42a | 2039.31a | 10,901.99a | 1933.39a | 6144.14a | 9761.22a | 3069.98a | ||
| Mean | 1649.67 | 1568.66 | 9423.79 | 1561.61 | 5053.96 | 8342.95 | 2411.51 | ||
| 2021 | T1 | N1 | 1199.84c | 573.85d | 5112.75d | 507.23d | 3337.70d | 5199.29d | 2917.01d |
| N2 | 1306.31c | 713.08c | 6654.68c | 589.95c | 4856.95c | 6869.78c | 4482.09c | ||
| N3 | 1732.46a | 986.08b | 7450.18b | 700.52b | 5156.43b | 7922.69b | 4928.42b | ||
| N4 | 1815.45a | 1196.56a | 8953.78a | 933.66a | 6974.64a | 9399.67a | 6486.87a | ||
| Mean | 1513.52 | 867.39 | 7042.85 | 682.84 | 5081.43 | 7347.86 | 4703.60 | ||
| T2 | N1 | 945.40d | 512.97d | 6103.19d | 619.16c | 4327.60d | 6426.70d | 4031.94c | |
| N2 | 1135.95c | 636.09c | 7632.05c | 749.93b | 5465.30c | 8467.10c | 5550.42b | ||
| N3 | 1528.53b | 907.18b | 8477.73b | 815.18b | 6342.75b | 8627.08b | 5676.93b | ||
| N4 | 1574.67b | 1140.60a | 9711.30a | 958.50a | 7479.28a | 9507.78a | 6317.25a | ||
| Mean | 1296.14 | 1025.96 | 7981.07 | 785.69 | 5903.73 | 8257.17 | 5394.14 | ||
| F Value | Y | 386.97 ** | 964.59 ** | 21,634.69 ** | 5491.30 ** | 1307.79 ** | 42.79 ** | 14,693.69 ** | |
| T | 0.3 | 0.23 | 16,432.18 ** | 107.96 ** | 1032.01 ** | 2588.20 ** | 1175.44 ** | ||
| N | 386.72 ** | 622.19 ** | 8864.67 ** | 519.40 ** | 5450.63 ** | 5902.37 ** | 2264.68 ** | ||
| Y ×T | 20.94 * | 3.55 | 170.62 ** | 17.81 * | 62.26 ** | 32.64 ** | 3232.06 ** | ||
| Y × N | 29.75 ** | 92.63 ** | 295.19 ** | 138.74 ** | 80.31 ** | 185.34 ** | 222.01 ** | ||
| T × N | 7.42 ** | 3.81 * | 63.02 ** | 13.00 ** | 73.07 ** | 95.95 ** | 74.81 ** | ||
| Y × T × N | 10.86 ** | 12.04 ** | 23.88 ** | 9.70 ** | 43.89 ** | 86.24 ** | 39.03 ** | ||
Note: T1, no straw return; and T2, straw returning. N1—0 kg N application; N2—120 kg N/hm2 application; N3—150 kg N/hm2 application; N4—180 kg N/hm2 application. The same column of different lowercase letters indicates that there is a significant difference at the 5% level between the same straw treatment and different nitrogen application treatments; Y, T and N in the F value are year, straw returning treatment, and nitrogen application rate, respectively. Y × T, Y × N, T × N, and Y × T × N are the interaction between year, straw returning treatment, and nitrogen application rate, respectively. * and ** represent significant levels of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Table 2.
Effects of straw returning and nitrogen fertilizer application on rice yield and yield traits.
Table 2.
Effects of straw returning and nitrogen fertilizer application on rice yield and yield traits.
| Year | Treatment | 1000-Grain Weight (g) | Grain Filling (%) | Panicles (×104·hm−2) | Spikelets per Panicle | Grain Yield (kg·hm−2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | T1 | N1 | 26.53a | 82.71c | 171.99d | 114.72d | 4329.61d |
| N2 | 26.50a | 88.28a | 251.35c | 149.06c | 8764.84c | ||
| N3 | 26.63a | 86.11b | 275.18b | 150.93b | 9520.63a | ||
| N4 | 26.56a | 80.04d | 285.39a | 156.17a | 9471.93b | ||
| Mean | 26.55 | 80.29 | 245.98 | 142.72 | 8021.75 | ||
| T2 | N1 | 26.59b | 82.77c | 197.17c | 125.40b | 5438.22d | |
| N2 | 26.81ab | 87.18b | 257.33b | 148.61a | 8936.52c | ||
| N3 | 26.80ab | 86.98b | 285.39a | 153.91a | 10,236.67b | ||
| N4 | 26.90a | 89.76a | 287.55a | 154.65a | 10,738.26a | ||
| Mean | 26.77 | 86.67 | 256.86 | 145.64 | 8837.42 | ||
| 2021 | T1 | N1 | 25.46b | 85.60a | 181.40c | 146.15c | 5776.07c |
| N2 | 26.01b | 88.35a | 218.55b | 152.62b | 7662.26b | ||
| N3 | 26.89a | 87.30a | 223.86b | 164.82a | 8661.46a | ||
| N4 | 26.06b | 85.91a | 232.44a | 165.62a | 8618.70a | ||
| Mean | 26.10 | 86.79 | 214.06 | 157.30 | 7678.98 | ||
| T2 | N1 | 25.50b | 86.19a | 181.51d | 156.17b | 6228.93d | |
| N2 | 27.00a | 87.83a | 227.80c | 156.92b | 8478.09c | ||
| N3 | 26.92a | 87.76a | 236.14b | 166.00a | 9260.87b | ||
| N4 | 27.07a | 88.14a | 247.52a | 166.08a | 9804.17a | ||
| Mean | 26.62 | 87.48 | 223.24 | 161.29 | 8443.01 | ||
| F Value | Y | 10.26 | 92.95 * | 1719.11 ** | 120.13 ** | 105.58 ** | |
| T | 39.45 ** | 36.84 ** | 113.62 ** | 15.21 * | 480.15 ** | ||
| N | 16.27 ** | 21.36 ** | 1075.23 ** | 246.20 ** | 2466.26 ** | ||
| Y × T | 6.48 | 11.16 * | 0.81 | 0.36 | 0.51 | ||
| Y × N | 15.30 ** | 3.40 * | 109.40 ** | 88.22 ** | 161.95 ** | ||
| T × N | 3.21 * | 20.38 ** | 1.44 | 11.13 ** | 17.48 ** | ||
| Y × T × N | 3.31 * | 8.46 ** | 16.67 ** | 1.7 | 11.77 ** | ||
Note: T1, no straw return; and T2, straw returning. N1—0 kg N application; N2—120 kg N/hm2 application; N3—150 kg N/hm2 application; N4—180 kg N/hm2 application. The same column of different lowercase letters indicates that there is a significant difference at the 5% level between the same straw treatment and different nitrogen application treatments; Y, T, and N in the F value are year, straw returning treatment, and nitrogen application rate, respectively. Y × T, Y × N, T × N, and Y × T × N are the interaction between year, straw returning treatment, and nitrogen application rate, respectively. * and ** represent significant levels of 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ma, P.; Zhang, K.-Y.; Liao, X.-H.; Aer, L.-S.; Yang, E.-L.; Deng, J.; Zhou, L.; Zhang, R.-P. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Dry Matter Weight and Yield of Direct-Seeded Rice under Straw Return. Agronomy 2023, 13, 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123058
AMA Style
Ma P, Zhang K-Y, Liao X-H, Aer L-S, Yang E-L, Deng J, Zhou L, Zhang R-P. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Dry Matter Weight and Yield of Direct-Seeded Rice under Straw Return. Agronomy. 2023; 13(12):3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123058
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Peng, Ke-Yuan Zhang, Xue-Huan Liao, Li-Se Aer, Er-Luo Yang, Jun Deng, Lin Zhou, and Rong-Ping Zhang. 2023. "Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Dry Matter Weight and Yield of Direct-Seeded Rice under Straw Return" Agronomy 13, no. 12: 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123058
APA StyleMa, P., Zhang, K. -Y., Liao, X. -H., Aer, L. -S., Yang, E. -L., Deng, J., Zhou, L., & Zhang, R. -P. (2023). Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Dry Matter Weight and Yield of Direct-Seeded Rice under Straw Return. Agronomy, 13(12), 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13123058
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
