Next Article in Journal
Dam System and Reservoir Operational Safety: A Meta-Research
Next Article in Special Issue
Runoff Decline Is Dominated by Human Activities
Previous Article in Journal
Intrinsic Vulnerability Assessment of the Qingduo Karst System, Henan Province
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Tool for Mapping Water Yield in Cold Alpine Regions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/w15193426
water-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

Research Progress and Application Analysis of the Returning Straw Decomposition Process Based on CiteSpace

by
Yitong Wang
1,*,
Qiujie Shan
1,
Chuan Wang
1,2,
Shaoyuan Feng
1 and
Yan Li
1
1
College of Hydraulic Science and Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
2
International Shipping Research Institute, Gongqing Institute of Science and Technology, Jiujiang 332020, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(19), 3426; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193426
Submission received: 30 June 2023 / Revised: 19 September 2023 / Accepted: 27 September 2023 / Published: 29 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Climate and Socio-Economic on Irrigation Water Management and Agricultural Water Productivity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Straw returning is an important measurement to determine the utilization of straw resources. Understanding the decomposition process and nutrient release process of straw is of great significance to the efficient utilization of straw resources and the sustainable development of the agricultural economy. In this study, the literature published in the CNKI and WOS from 2002 to 2022 was used as the data pool, and a keyword co-occurrence network map was drawn with the CiteSpace (6.2.R4) software. Visual analyses were based on the straw returning literature (1998 articles) and straw decomposition agent literature (125 articles), and the decomposition and nutrient release of straw under the action of a decomposition agent were analyzed using a straw decomposition characterization experiment. In general, returning straw can effectively improve soil fertility conditions and provide nutrients for crop growth, and the use of a straw decomposition agent can further improve soil conditions and increase crop yield. The straw decomposition characterization experiment further showed that Pseudomonas could effectively increase the decomposition rate and increase the nutrient release rate of straw. According to the above results, determining how to improve the utilization efficiency of straw resources via decomposable bacteriological agents according to local conditions will become a research hotspot in the future.

1. Introduction

With the continuous improvement of agricultural technology, agricultural production is growing. The amount of crop straw has soared, and the annual output of crop straw has reached 965 million tons [1]. Crop straw is a type of easily dispersed and low-density agricultural waste that is prone to regional, seasonal, and structural surplus problems [2]. The decomposition rate of crop straw is slow, and large amounts of crop straw accumulation will create a soil C/N imbalance [3]. These problems have limited the enthusiasm of farmers in the use of in situ straw returning. At present, the utilization of excess crop straw is in a critical stage of transitioning from “quantitative change” to “qualitative change”. Crop straw used as fertilizer, raw material energy, agricultural raw materials, and industrial raw materials is of great significance to the sustainable development of the agricultural economy [4,5]. Thus, how to use crop straw more effectively and avoid farmland ecological nonpoint source pollution during crop straw utilization are becoming research hotspots.
Crop straw, as an important soil fertilizer, can return some of the nutrients absorbed during the crop period to the soil, improve soil fertility conditions, and promote the growth of crops in later periods. Firstly, straw returning can change the physical and chemical properties of the soil. Straw can help improve soil water retention performance, reduce soil bulk density, increase soil total porosity, improve soil aeration conditions, and promote soil deep root penetration [6,7]. Straw returning can improve the nutrient absorption of crops by promoting the soil permeability of deep roots and increasing crop yield [8]. Secondly, straw returning provides better breeding conditions for microorganisms and improves soil biodiversity by increasing the number of microorganisms in the soil. For example, Zhang et al. [9] effectively increased the diversity and abundance of fungi in the 0–10 cm soil layer by returning sugarcane straw to the field in 14 months. Thirdly, straw returning also has a positive effect on soil pollution by heavy metals. Greenhouse pot experiments showed that rice straw could reduce nickel bioavailability by 68% with a 2% return application [10]. However, the slow decomposition rate of returning straw will affect the germination and rooting of the next crop, and long-term straw mulching may increase the risk of blight and lead to crop death [11]. Thus, using a decomposition agent to accelerate straw decomposition is an effective way to solve these problems.
Straw decomposition agents are composed of microorganisms that can degrade straw rapidly, including fungi, bacteria, and actinomyces. The principle of these agents is to convert the cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin in straw into glucose, amino acids, fatty acids, and other small molecular organic compounds and minerals via the microbial metabolism [12]. The results show that adding a decomposition agent can significantly improve the decomposition rate of straw and prevent or reduce the adverse effects of excessive straw in the field on crop growth [13]. In addition, adding a decomposition agent can improve the soil microbial activity, kill pathogenic microorganisms in straw, provide more nutrients for crop growth, increase yield, and improve quality [14]. At present, most studies on the application of straw decomposition agents focus on the influence of decomposition agents on soil properties. However, nutrient release due to changes in the straw decomposition rate remains an understudied area.
Bibliometric analysis is a popular technical tool for quantitatively analyzing published literature on a specific topic in scientific research. The CiteSpace (6.2.R4) software is often used in academic research. This software was developed by the Chinese scholar Dr. Chen Chaomei using mathematical and statistical methods [15] and was introduced in China in early 2007. This software has been widely applied by scholars from various fields [16]. CiteSpace can draw a visual map through literature data retrieval; concisely and intuitively display the publication time, author institutions, research hotspots, and frontiers of literature in related fields [17]; and help further interpret and analyze the research status and development direction in this field [18,19].
With the continuous improvement of straw resource utilization and the gradual maturity of decomposition technology, the research results in the field of straw returning are becoming increasingly comprehensive, which provides strong guidance for the practical application of straw returning. In view of the above research background, the CiteSpace software was used to summarize the relevant research progress and research trends in straw returning and the application of straw decomposition agents in this paper, as well as to clarify the research context and frontiers to timely and comprehensively understand the technical level and application direction of straw returning. In addition, the improvement effects of straw returning were also analyzed in this paper, and the application effects of straw decomposition agents on straw returning are discussed. A simulation test was used to explore changes in the decomposition rate and nutrient release of straw returning under different decomposition agents. The purpose of this paper is to help researchers quickly understand the research development direction and existing achievements in the field of straw returning, providing reference for further related research.

2. Research Vein and Trend Analysis of Straw Returning

2.1. Statistical Analysis of Straw Returning Studies

In total, 1999 studies published from 2002 to 2022 were retrieved from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) with the keyword “straw returning”. In total, 995 studies were retrieved from the international database Web of Science (WOS) with the keyword “straw mulching”.

2.1.1. Number of Published Papers

Figure 1 presents the number of papers related to “straw returning” published from 2002 to 2022, showing a general trend of fluctuating growth. From 2002 to 2013, a total of 514 papers were published, with an annual average of 43. This rate indicates a slow growth trend with a small fluctuation. From 2014 to 2022, the total number of published papers was 1484, with an annual average of 165. The annual growth rate reached 188.72%, much higher than that of the first stage (2002–2013). Notably, the number of papers published in 2014 exceeded 100. Starting in that year, the related studies on straw returning experienced a small upsurge. It can be predicted that straw returning will remain a research hotspot in the future.
Figure 2 shows a co-occurrence network map of the keywords. In general, soil fertility, soil type, crop nutrition, and tillage methods were the main foci of current research on straw returning. The papers in the CNKI encompass 537 nodes and 713 lines, while the papers in the WOS encompass 545 nodes and 4127 lines. The size of each graph node represents the frequency of the keywords, and the betweenness represents the importance of the node in the network. Here, a node with a betweenness exceeding 0.1 is considered a key node. As shown in Figure 2a, in the CNKI, the most frequent keywords were “straw return” and “straw returning”; the frequency was 444 occurrences, and the betweenness was 1.04. The keyword “soil nutrient” ranked second, with a frequency of 55 and a betweenness of 0.11. Ranked next were the keywords related to planted crops, soil indexes, soil types, and tillage, such as “winter wheat”, “grain yield”, “crop yield”, “soil enzyme activity”, “soil organic carbon”, “soil respiration”, “paddy soil”, “black soil”, and “conservation tillage”. As shown in Figure 2b, the most frequent keyword was “yield”; the frequency was 220 occurrences, and the betweenness was 0.07. The keyword “water use efficiency” ranked next, with a frequency of 186 occurrences and a betweenness of 0.04. Ranked next were keywords related to straw, soil indicators, crops, and tillage, including “straw mulch”, “straw mulching”, “soil temperature”, “organic carbon”, “growth”, “winter wheat”, “grain yield”, “crop yield”, “management”, and “tillage”. The keywords of CNKI and WOS were clustered on this basis. The modularity value of CNKI was QCNKI = 0.5739 (Q > 0.3), the mean silhouette of CNKI was SCNKI = 0.8708 (S > 0.5), the modularity value of WOS was QWOS = 0.3588 (Q > 0.3), and the mean silhouette of CNKI was SCNKI = 0.6906 (S > 0.5). The results show that the clustering structure was reasonably divided.

2.1.2. Research Trends of Straw Returning

Figure 3 shows the time and intensity of the keywords’ emergence. The CiteSpace software was used to create the burst detection of the papers. The results show that the use of conservation tillage technology to improve soil fertility conditions will be a future development trend in the straw returning field. The keyword “summer maize” first appeared in 2004. The initial research object in the field of straw returning was mainly maize, which corresponds to a large volume of straw. With the advancement of research, crop straw resources, such as rice (2007) and wheat (2010), have gradually been fully introduced to the field. From 2007 to 2009, the keywords “soil K” and “soil fertility” suddenly appeared, indicating that straw returning research had become an effective way to measure soil improvements and that the importance of soil fertility in agricultural production was gradually becoming recognized. From 2009 to 2011, “CH4 flux” and “greenhouse gas” appeared suddenly, indicating that straw returning research was further extended to explore the air environment. From 2013 to 2014, the emergence of “grain yield”, “crop yield”, and “lime concretion black soil” suggests that the research scope of straw returning extended to soil improvement and crop yield. Notably, the keyword “soil aggregate” first appeared in 2018, ranking first in strength (strength = 4.17). Soil aggregates are the basic units of soil’s structure, composition, and stability, which play important roles in influencing soil pore structure and coordinating water, fertilizer, gas, and heat in soil. These factors determine the sustainability of soil utilization [20]. In addition, the emergence of “microbial community” in 2019 indicates that the research direction of straw returning was shifting from improving soil toward restoring the topsoil’s ecological structure. This shift indicates that research and testing in the field of straw returning is becoming increasingly complex.

2.2. Statistical Analysis of Straw Decomposition Agent Studies

In the CNKI, a total of 58 studies were retrieved with the keywords “maturation agent” and “promoting agent” from 2002 to 2022. In the WOS, a total of 72 studies were retrieved with the keywords “straw decomposing agent” and “straw decomposition agent” from 2002 to 2022.

2.2.1. Statistical Analysis of Straw Decomposition Agent Studies

Figure 4 shows the number of papers related to straw decomposition agents from 2002 to 2022. In general, this chart indicates a fluctuating growth trend year by year, which was divided into two stages. The first stage spanned 2004–2013: the total number of published papers was 48, and the average annual number of published papers was 5. The second phase covered 2014–2022: the total number of publications was 77, with an average annual number of 6, of which only 5 were published in 2017. As can be seen from the visible change trend of the papers in Figure 4, studies on applying decomposition agents to straw returning are mainly concentrated after 2019, with the peak years being 2019 and 2021 (13 articles). Therefore, it can be predicted that research on the application of decomposition agents to straw returning will remain an academic hotspot in the future.
Figure 5 presents a co-occurrence network map of the major keywords. In general, soil fertility and straw type were the main concerns of current research on straw decomposition agents. The documents in the CNKI encompassed 102 nodes and 197 lines, and the documents in the WOS encompassed 344 nodes and 1318 lines. As shown in Figure 5a, “straw returning” appeared eight times, with the highest frequency in the CNKI in the field of straw decomposition agents, and the betweenness was 0.63. The keywords “decomposing agent”, “decomposition agent”, and “decomposing inoculant” ranked second, with a frequency of 17 and a betweenness of 0.65, followed by keywords related to soil indicators and straw types such as “soil nutrient”, “soil enzyme activity”, “nutrient release”, “rice straw”, and “wheat straw”. As shown in Figure 5b, the highest occurrence frequency among the keywords was “decomposition” in the WOS, with 220 occurrences and a betweenness of 0.07. The next most common keywords were related to soil properties and straw properties, such as “carbon”, “organic matter”, “nitrogen”, “microbial community”, “bacterial”, “CH4 emission”, “bioma”, “lignin”, “lignocellulosic bioma”, and “mineralization”. The keywords were clustered on this basis. The modularity value of CNKI was QCNKI = 0.7351 (Q > 0.3), the mean silhouette of CNKI was SCNKI = 0.9496 (S > 0.5), the modularity value of WOS was QWOS = 0.726 (Q > 0.3), and the mean silhouette of CNKI was SWOS = 0.9267 (S > 0.5). The results show that the clustering structure was reasonably divided.

2.2.2. Research Trend of Straw Decomposition Agent

Figure 6 shows the time and intensity of keywords’ emergence. The results indicate that the development trends of straw decomposition agents focused on how to improve soil fertility and promote crop growth by accelerating straw decomposition. The keyword “transformation promoter” first appeared in 2005 and remained commonplace for seven years, with strength = 2.42. From 2011 to 2016, keywords for soil properties and straw properties emerged, such as “organic matter”, “soil enzyme activity”, and “lignin”. This result indicates that earlier research on straw maturation agents focused on soil fertility and straw decomposition effects. From 2016 to 2019, the keywords “bioma” and “crop yield” appeared suddenly, and related research was further extended toward crop physiological and biochemical indexes and yield. In 2019, the emergent keywords “CH4 emissions” and “biochar” indicate that the research was extended to soil carbon and air-quality effects. The keywords of “decomposing agent”, “decomposition agent”, and “straw returning” emerged in 2020, indicating the great significance of straw decomposing agents in straw returning.

3. Study on the Ecological Effects of Straw Returning to Farmland

3.1. Effects of Straw Returning on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties

Straw returning is one of the most important agronomic measures to improve soil’s physical and chemical properties and can help reduce soil bulk density, increase soil porosity, and prevent soil compaction. Lu et al. [21] found that straw returning significantly reduced the soil bulk of surface soil (5–25 cm) by 9.15–23.99%, increased the total porosity by 4.6–15.4%, and increased the capillary porosity by 8.78–58.8%. Straw returning prevents soil water from escaping and evaporating by changing the contact between the soil surface and the external environment. At the same time, straw returning on the soil surface can reduce surface runoff and increase rainwater seepage into the soil layer, impacting evaporation inhibition, water collection, and water retention [22,23]. Straw returning can significantly increase the soil moisture of crops (such as wheat, corn, and potato) by 6.3–61.0% during the most critical period of water demand [24,25,26,27].
Soil organic matter is the foundation of farmland fertility, and organic carbon is one of the main elements of organic matter, which is of great significance to crop yield and agricultural environmental sustainability. Research showed that the soil organic carbon content of monoculture with dry crop residues incorporation (i.e., conventional monoculture) (7.59 t/ha) was significantly higher than that of monoculture with residues removal (i.e., alternative monoculture) (1.02 t/ha) over the 2006–2016 period [28]. An increase in soil organic matter content can provide a better environment for the growth and propagation of microorganisms. Hu et al. [29] demonstrated that 3-year straw returning could increase soil organic matter content by 0.07%. The combined application of returned straw and inorganic fertilizer was found to have positive effects on the diversity and population of soil fungi in paddy fields and significantly changed the function of fungi [30]. The combined application of returned straw and fertilizer, the bacterial richness (Shannon index), and the AMF bacterial richness (Shannon index) of maize root increased by 63.6% (27.9%) and 40.1% (35.7%), respectively [31]. Soil enzyme activity, which is a potential index to maintain soil fertility, shows positive correlations with soil TC and TN content and also plays an important role in the ecological cycle [32,33]. Straw returning combined with lower fertilizer use of a reduction of 20% compared to conventional fertilization significantly increased urease activity in the rice season by 20.31% and in the rape season by 24.33% [34].
With appropriate environmental conditions and soil microorganisms, N, P, K, and other mineral nutrients released by straw decomposition can be reabsorbed by crops. Returning straw has already become an important nutrition source in place of chemical fertilizer [35]. Many studies have shown that straw returning can effectively reduce not only fertilizer use but also soil nutrient loss [36,37,38]. The potential for crop straw to replace K2O, N, and P2O5 fertilizers was 33.08–285.95 kg/hm2, 9.52–82.32 kg/hm2, and 4.91–28.71 kg/hm2, respectively [39]. In addition, the nutrient release rate of straw returning was significantly different during decomposition, when the release rate of K was the highest, followed by P. The release rate of N was the lowest [40].

3.2. Effects of Straw Returning on Saline Soil Properties

Salinized soil is widely distributed globally, covering 424 million ha of topsoil (0–30 cm) and 833 million ha of subsoil (30–100 cm) [41], with an annual growth rate of 1.0 × 106–1.5 × 106 hm2 [42,43]. The character of saline soil includes a heavy texture, poor permeability, high salt content, lack of nutrients, and low microbial activity, which seriously affects crop growth and ecosystem functions [44,45]. However, the saline soil area is flat, which is suitable for mechanical cultivation and has great fertility potential. Therefore, this soil plays a key role in alleviating the shortages of cultivated land resources and promoting the sustainable development of agriculture through scientific improvements and the exploitation of salinized soil.
As an effective form of conservation tillage, straw returning is considered to be an effective measure for improving saline soil. As a barrier for water and salt migration in the soil layer, returning straw can promote soil salt leaching during precipitation and irrigation, inhibit soil salt return, and reduce soil salt accumulation in the topsoil [46,47]. Zhang et al. [48] found that the soil salt content in the 0–40 cm soil layer decreased by 3.07–36.82% after a three-year straw returning. A soil column experiment conducted by Liao et al. [49] showed that treatment with desulfurized gypsum and decomposed straw could significantly reduce the soil salinity of sodic saline soil after leaching. The simultaneous application of straw returning and nitrogen fertilizer improved the properties of the Shandong coastal saline soil and reduced the soil salinity by 27.08% [50]. Straw returning can also optimize the root growth environment by changing water and salt migration, soil porosity, and aggregate size distribution in the soil layer [51,52]. Straw returning can provide sufficient organic matter for microbial proliferation [53,54]. Additionally, organic matter mineralization releases nutrients for crop growth and increases soil nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents [55,56]. A 4-year straw-return cotton experiment showed that soil salt decreased by 6.8–11.9% in the 0–20 cm and 20–40 cm soil layers [57].

3.3. Effects of Straw Returning on Greenhouse Gases

Straw returning has an important effect on controlling greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is the main source of soil carbon pool input. Straw returning has a good carbon sequestration effect, which is of great significance for soil organic carbon (SOC) fixation and CO2 emission reductions. After returning to the field, 8% to 35.7% of the organic carbon in straw is converted into soil organic carbon and stored in the soil carbon bank [58], which enables the conversion of farmland from a carbon source into a carbon sink and indirectly reduces CO2 emissions. Therefore, how to quantitatively estimate the carbon emission and carbon sink effects of straw with different disposal methods, how to optimize the efficient utilization of straw resources, and how to maximize the potential of carbon emission reductions are current research hotspots in agricultural sustainable development. Using the emission factor method, Ma et al. [12] calculated that the average annual carbon sink from straw returning in China is 271 tons of CO2, contributing 10–31% of the global terrestrial carbon sink [59]. A meta-analysis found that straw returning significantly increased CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions by 31.7%, 130.9%, and 12.2%, respectively [60], and the annual carbon sequestration could reach 0.597 tons/ha [61]. Taking Jiangsu Province in China as an example, the carbon emission reduction potential of straw returning was evaluated based on the amount of recoverable straw resources. It was found that the carbon emission reduction potential of straw returning totaled 362,000 tons of CO2e, equivalent to 0.18% of the greenhouse gas emissions in Jiangsu Province [62]. In addition, straw returning can significantly increase CH4 emissions (21.1–39.6%) and enhance the soil’s ability to absorb CH4 [63,64]. The increase is 21.1–39.6% but has no effect on the emissions of N2O [65]. Recent studies have shown that the utilization of biogas produced from agricultural wastes has reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [66]. Biogas is produced through anaerobic digestion of various biomass energy sources. Anaerobic digestion (AD) technology allows for the bioconversion of organic matter from agricultural wastes, as well as the recovery of biogas for the generation of electricity or the production of biomethane [67,68] and renewable fertilizers biogas residue [69]. Cynara cardunculus L. residue has been widely used as a source of biomass for biogas production process because of its high biomass content and renewable characteristics [70]. De Menna et al. [71] investigated the biogas production potential of five different varieties of artichoke and found methane production of 292 LCH4/kg VS.

4. Study on Accelerating Decomposition of Retuning Straw

4.1. Mechanism of Straw Decomposition Agent

Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, protein, and soluble sugar are the main components of straw, and cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin account for approximately 80% of straw’s total dry matter mass [72]. Straw is also rich in C, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and other elements. However, because of the slow decomposition of straw under natural conditions [73], only 25% of the mass of straw is effectively returned to the field [74]. Therefore, the rational application of a straw decomposition agent is one of the most important measures to promote the use of straw returning technology.
A straw decomposition agent is mainly composed of bacteria, fungi, actinomyces, and bioenzymes. These microorganisms can effectively degrade straw components in the process of growth and reproduction and convert straw components into mineral elements such as N, P, K, Ca, and Mg, which are required for crop growth [12]. The application of a decomposition agent can effectively improve the decomposition rate and degree of straw [75].
However, the effects of straw decomposition agents on straw decomposition were found to be different under different field temperatures. When the temperature was below 3 °C, the decomposition rate of rice straw after 25 days was basically 0. When the temperature was higher than 3 °C, the decomposition rate of rice straw increased rapidly with an increase in temperature [76]. During the wheat season, the field temperature was low for 30 to 60 days of rice straw decomposition, so the effect of the decomposition agent was not obvious [77]. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the climatic characteristics of the cultivation area and select a suitable decomposition agent to provide ideal environmental conditions for a straw decomposition agent and, thus, ensure effective straw decomposition. Adding a straw decomposition agent also increased the diversity of the microbial community in the soil [78] and significantly enhanced the activities of hydrolase and other soil enzymes [79], thus effectively improving soil texture, alleviating soil nutrient loss, improving soil fertility, and improving crop quality and yield [80,81].

4.2. Effects of Accelerating Straw Decomposition on Soil Properties

Adding a straw decomposition agent to straw returning can further improve the soil structure and increase soil fertility. Compared with the control soil, the soil water content of the soil with a straw decomposition agent increased by 1.88–10.80% [82], and soil N, P, and K concentrations also increased significantly [83]. In rape cultivation, soil total nitrogen and available nitrogen levels increased by 3% and 4%, respectively, under straw returning treatment with a microbial agent [84]. Microorganisms play a vital role in the straw decomposition and soil nutrient cycle, which can accelerate straw decomposition [85,86]. The straw returning treatment, which involved rotary tillage with microbial agents, yielded a higher decomposition rate of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin at 35.49%, 84.23%, and 85.50%, respectively, and the soil microbial biomass carbon and soluble carbon under these treatments increased by 14.22 mg/kg and 25.10 mg/kg compared with the levels under other treatments [87]. Under the condition of no-tillage straw returning, the straw was exposed to the surface. Because of insufficient contact between the straw and soil, the decomposition agent was affected by sunlight and water shortage. For this reason, microorganisms could not fully play their respective roles, thereby affecting the decomposition and nutrient release of the straw [88,89]. Microbial agents can also enhance the functional diversity of soil microorganisms and increase the content of enzymes in the microbial community, thus accumulating more enzymes in the soil. Soil enzyme activity is involved in nutrient cycling and the decomposition of organic matter and has a synergistic correlation with soil nutrients [90,91,92].

4.3. Effects of Accelerating Straw Decomposition on Crop Growth

Yield and quality are important indicators related to the economic and social benefits of agricultural products. Straw returning combined with a decomposition agent can promote the growth of crops and increase yield. In this study, straw returning combined with a microbial agent significantly increased crop water utilization rates by 7.9–8.4% and rice yield by 7.3–7.7% [93], possibly because microbial agents can rapidly release nutrient elements in crop straws and improve soil properties to promote the growth of rice [94,95]. Zhang et al. [96] found that when rape straw was decomposed and returned to the field, the plant height, ear length, and other agronomic traits of rice from the subsequent crop were improved compared with the traits of rice from crops not exposed to a decomposition agent, and the yield further increased by 14.73%. A meta-analysis showed that the effects of straw-decomposing microbial inoculant (SDMI) on crop yield were significantly different under different soil conditions [97]. Compared with neutral soil, SDMI significantly increased the straw decomposition rate and crop yield in acidic soil and alkaline soil. This result may reflect the competition between SDMI and the microbial community in neutral soil, which limited the efficacy of SDMI [98].

5. Quantitative Characterization Experiment of Straw Decomposition

5.1. Materials and Methods

5.1.1. Experimental Sample

(1) Wheat straw: The straw was taken from a wheat field in Lianyungang, with a length of 3–5 cm. The nutrient content of the straw included total N of 2.82 mg/kg, total P of 2.23 mg/kg and total K of 18.94 mg/kg.
(2) Straw decomposition agent: Bacillus subtilis (wettable powder) was produced by Byvo Co., LTD. (Beijing, China), and the active ingredient content was 10 billion CTU/g.
(3) Pseudomonas (wettable powder) was produced by Shandong Huimin Zhonglian Biotechnology Co., LTD. (Shandong, China), and the active ingredient content was 300 billion/g.
(4) The yeast quick rot agent was produced by Huaian Dahua Biotechnology Co., LTD. (Jiangsu, China), and was mainly composed of Bacillus subtilis, Rhizopus oryzae, lactic acid bacteria community, and tablet pentose, with an effective viable bacteria number ≥ 0.5 million.
(5) The EM bacteria was produced by Jiangsu Werner Biotechnology Co., LTD. (Jiangsu, China), and the main components were lactic acid bacteria, yeast, actinomyces, and photosynthetic bacteria, totaling more than 80 varieties of functional beneficial microbial flora. The effective viable bacteria number was 200 million/mL.

5.1.2. Experiment Design

A total of 20 g wheat straw was evenly sprayed with water to reach 60% water content; then, the straw was wrapped and sealed with plastic wrap and placed at room temperature to facilitate rot decomposition (20 °C–25 °C). In total, 5 treatments were used: control group (CK), straw + Bacillus subtilis (T1), straw + enzyme quick rot agent (T2), straw + Pseudomonas (T3), and straw + fecal treasure (T4). Each treatment used 3 replicates (shown in Figure 7).

5.1.3. Research Trends of the Straw Decomposition Agent

On the 7th, 15th, and 30th d of decomposition, the straw was put in an oven until dried (75 °C) to a constant weight, and its dry weight was determined. The straw was then ground and screened (0.1 mm) to determine the content of total N, total P, and total K.
The cumulative decomposition rate and decomposition rate of straw were calculated using Formulas (1) and (2) [99,100], and Formula (3) was used to calculate the straw nutrient release rate [101]. To further compare the decomposition dynamics of straw under different treatments, a modified Olson exponential decay model (4) was used in this study for fitting [102]:
D t = M 0 − M t M 0 × 100 %
V t = M 0 − M t t
Y t = C 0 × M 0 − C t × M t C 0 × M 0
D = M t M 0 = e − k t
where Dt is the cumulative decomposition rate of straw on the T day (%); Vt is the straw decomposition rate (%); M0 is the initial dry weight of straw (g); Mt is the dry weight of straw on the t day of decomposition (g); C0 is the initial nutrient content of straw (mg/g); Yt is the percentage of nutrient release in the process of straw decomposition in t days to the total initial straw nutrient (%); Ct is the nutrient content of residual straw after t days of decomposition (mg/g); D is the residue rate of straw decomposition (%); and K is the decomposition rate constant.

5.1.4. Data Analysis

The straw decomposition rate and nutrient release rate were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the means were compared using a least significant difference (LSD) test at a significance level of p < 0.05 with SPSS.

5.2. Results and Discussion

5.2.1. Effect of the Decomposition Agent on the Wheat Straw Decomposition Rate

As shown in Figure 8, with the straw decomposition process, the decomposition rate of the treatments presented a downward trend, and the difference in the straw decomposition rate between each treatment and the CK was reduced. In the first 7 days of decomposition, the straw decomposition rates of all treatments were higher than 360 mg/d, and the straw decomposition rate of T3 (569.52 mg/d) was significantly higher than that of the other treatments, which was 26.96% higher than that of the CK. During 7–15 d, the straw decomposition rates of all treatments were less than 200 mg/d, among which the decomposition rate of T1 was the fastest (186.25 mg/d), and that of T4 was the slowest (134.17 mg/d). However, there was a significant difference between CK and other treatments. During 15–30 d, there was no significant difference between treatments. The reason for this phenomenon is that a large number of easily degradable substances and carbon sources were present in the straw during the early stages of decomposition, while the microbial activity gradually decreased in the later stages of decomposition, which gradually decelerated the straw decomposition rate [103,104,105]. After adding different decomposition agents, the straw decomposition rate was T3 (straw + Pseudomonas) > T1 (straw + Bacillus subtilis) > T4 (straw + fecal treasure) > T2 (straw + Enzyme quick rot agent) because bacteria have the advantages of fast reproduction and a short fermentation cycle, and a large number of bacteria can accelerate the decomposition of lignocellulosic components in straw after entering the organic material [106].
Table 1 presents the Olson exponential decay model of the straw decomposition rate. The results showed that T3 had the highest k, and the residue ratio of T3 was 63.63% after 30 d, which reduced by 13.17% compared with the CK. T2 had the lowest k, but the residue ratio of T2 was slightly higher than that of the CK after 30 days.
The straw decomposition rate is related to the dosage of the bactericide and temperature [107,108]. Microorganisms are the main decomposers of straw, and their abundance and community composition affect the decomposition rate of straw [109]. As the dominant strain of straw decomposition, Pseudomonas increases the activity of decomposition enzymes, thereby accelerating the decomposition rate of straw [110,111,112].

5.2.2. Effect of the Decomposing Agent on Straw Nutrient Release

As shown in Figure 9, the straw decomposition agent promoted the nutrient release of straw, and the nutrient release rate of each treatment showed a gradually decreasing trend. The nutrient release rates of different treatments were roughly as follows: T3 (straw + Pseudomonas) > T4 (straw + fecal treasure) > T1 (straw + Bacillus subtilis) > T2 (enzyme quick rot agent). The release rates of different nutrients were K > P > N. In the first 7 days of straw decomposition, the N release rate of all treatments was higher than 13%, the P release rate was higher than 20%, and the K release rate was higher than 21%. The N release rate of T3 (18.99%) was higher than that of the other treatments and was 41.61% higher than that of the CK. The P and K release rates of T2 were higher than those of other treatments and increased, respectively, by 21.00% and 22.94% compared with the CK. The N release rate, P release rate, and K release rate of different treatments were 11–17%, 14–20%, and 16–22%, respectively, over 7–15 d of straw decomposition. The release rates of N, P, and K in the T3 treatment were the highest and increased by 39.82%, 32.99%, and 32.73%, respectively, compared with the CK. Over 15–30 d, the N release rate, P release rate, and K release rate of the different treatments were 5–11%, 8–15%, and 9–18%, respectively. The release rates of N, P, and K in the T3 treatment were the highest, showing increases of 85.09%, 66.54%, and 90.00%, respectively, compared with the CK. There was no significant differences in the nutrient release rates among the different treatments with the same decomposition period. The different nutrient release rates among the different treatments were mainly due to the morphology of the elements in straw. Among them, K mainly exists in an ionic state in plant tissues and is easily soluble in water. Thus, the release rate of K is the fastest and the final cumulative release rate is also the highest, P mainly exists in an insoluble organic state, with a smaller presence than K [40,113], and N is mainly composed of insoluble organic matter, which decomposes quickly in the early stages and has difficulty decomposing in the later stages, resulting in a decreased decomposition rate [114]. N, which is the main component of straw, has a high degree of cementation and does not easily decompose, resulting in slow release [115,116]. For different nutrients, there was a significant difference in the nutrient release rate of the CK between the early stage of decomposition (0–7 d) and at the end of decomposition (15–30 d) but no significant difference in the nutrient release rate of T1 and T2; we observed significant differences only in the P release rate of T3 and the K release rate of T4. In the early stage of straw decomposition, the decomposition agent caused a sudden increase in the microbial flora in straw. In addition, soluble organic matter and inorganic nutrients in straw provided a large amount of energy and nutrients for microorganisms, stimulated microbial activity, and accelerated straw decomposition, which promoted nutrient release [117]. At the end of decomposition, the amount of microorganisms gradually decreased, their activity became inhibited, and the effect of promoting decay decelerated, which produced significant differences [118].

6. Conclusions

This paper summarized the trends in research on straw returning, analyzed the effects of straw returning decomposition on soil properties and crop growth, and verified the straw decomposition rate and nutrient release rate with a quantitative characterization experiment. The experiment showed that straw combined with Pseudomonas is suitable for application in soil degradation areas, such as those characterized by nutrient deficiency, low yield, and barrenness, and provides more nutrients for crop growth. Straw returning can optimize soil properties and provide nutrients needed for crop growth, and application of a straw decomposition agent will further increase the decomposition rate of straw and promote the release of nutrients therefrom. The overall analysis of straw decomposition agents showed an increasing trend, mainly focusing on straw types, soil fertility changes, and crop growth responses. The regulating effect of straw returning on soil properties is related to the amount of straw returning to the field, the time of straw returning, the length of the straw, temperature, and other factors. To exert the maximum effect of straw returning, it is necessary to conduct in-depth research and establish an optimal model for straw returning treatment suitable for different soils and regions. However, the types of straw for a field are not comprehensive enough at present. Most studies are on the application of crops such as corn and wheat. There are few studies on the utilization of crop straw such as fruit, vegetable, and tea. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the practical research of various crop straw returning to the field.

Author Contributions

Data curation, Q.S.; project administration, Y.W.; supervision, S.F. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.S.; writing—review and editing, Y.W., S.F., Y.L. and C.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Jiangsu Natural Science Fund, grant numbers: BK20210824 and BK20200941; Yangzhou Talent Project of Jiangsu Province, grant number: YZLYJF2020PHD096; and College Student Academic Technological Innovation Fund Supported Project, grant number: X20220517.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be obtained upon request of the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper express our most sincere gratitude to all the staff who help during our experiment and writing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cui, X.H.; Guo, L.Y.; Li, C.H.; Liu, M.Z.; Wu, G.L.; Jiang, G.M. The total biomass nitrogen reservoir and its potential of replacing chemical fertilizers in China. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2021, 135, 110215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, X.Q.; Wang, Z.F.; Can, M.Y.; Bai, H.; Ta, N. Analysis of yield and current comprehensive utilization of crop straws in China. J. China Agric. Univ. 2021, 26, 30–41. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang, Q.F. Problems and Countermeasures of Straw Returning. Sci. Technol. West China 2014, 13, 73+126. [Google Scholar]
  4. Saroj, D.; Charu, G.; Shankar Lal, J.; Parmar, M.S. Crop residue recycling for economic and environmental sustainability: The case of India. Open Agric. 2017, 2, 486–494. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhuvaneshwari, S.; Hettiarachchi, H.; Meegoda, J.N. Crop residue burning in India: Policy challenges and potential solutions. Int. J. Environ. Health 2019, 16, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mahmoud, I.; Esawy, M.; Doaa, I. Assessing the impact of water treatment residuals and rice straw compost on soil physical properties and wheat yield in saline sodic Soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 2388–2397. [Google Scholar]
  7. Xu, X.; Pang, D.W.; Chen, J.; Luo, Y.L.; Zheng, M.J.; Yin, Y.P.; Li, Y.X.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.L. Straw return accompany with low nitrogen moderately promoted deep root. Field Crop Res. 2018, 221, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, Z.; Ma, L.J.; Lv, X.B.; Meng, Y.L.; Zhou, Z.G. Straw returning coupled with nitrogen fertilization increases canopy photosynthetic capacity, yield and nitrogen use efficiency in cotton. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 126, 126–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, C.F.; Lin, Z.L.; Que, Y.X.; Fallah, N.; Tayyab, M.; Li, S.Y.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Z.C.; Abubakar, A.Y. Straw retention efficiently improves fungal communities and functions in the fallow ecosystem. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, U.; Shaaban, M.; Bashir, S.; Fu, Q.L.; Zhu, J.; Shoffikul Islam, M.; Hu, H.Q. Effect of rice straw, biochar and calcite on maize plant and Ni bio-availability in acidic Ni contaminated soil. Environ. Manag. 2020, 259, 109674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Qiu, Y.; Lv, W.C.; Wang, X.P.; Xie, Z.K.; Wang, Y.J. Long-term effects of gravel mulching and straw mulching on soil physicochemical properties and bacterial and fungal community composition in the Loess Plateau of China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2020, 98, 103188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ma, Y.C.; Liu, D.L.; Schwenke, G.; Yang, B. The global warming potential of straw-return can be reduced by application of straw-decomposing microbial inoculants and biochar in rice-wheat production systems. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Witt, C.; Cassman, K.G.; Olk, D.C.; Biker, U.; Liboon, S.P.; Samson, M.I.; Ottow, J.C.G. Crop rotation and residue management effects on carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling and productivity of irrigated rice systems. Plant Soil. 2000, 225, 263–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, J.; Yi, T.; Ye, Y.L.; Zhang, X.L. Research Progress and Development Trend of Straw Decomposing Agent. Hunan Agric. Sci. 2021, 108–110. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, C.M. Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 5303–5310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hou, J.H.; Hu, Z.G. Review on the Application of CiteSpace at Home and Abroad. J. Mod. Inf. 2013, 33, 99–103. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  17. Hu, L.N.; Zhang, J.F.; Xing, J. Research Hotspot and Evolution Trend of Green Economic Efficiency at Home and Abroad-Visual Analysis Based on CiteSpace. J. Commer. Econ. 2022, 4, 189–192. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chu, W.W.; Hafiz, N.R.M.; Mohamad, U.A.; Ashamuddin, H.; Tho, S.W. A review of STEM education with the support of visualizing its structure through the CiteSpace software. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. Online 2022, 33, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zong, X.; Wen, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, L. Research progress of glucoamylase with industrial potential. J. Food Biochem. 2022, 46, e14099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, Q.; Wang, L.J.; Xing, Y.; Ma, S.M.; Zhang, X.D.; Chen, J. Effects of Chinese milk vetch intercropped with rape under straw mulching on soil aggregate and organic carbon character. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 1235–1242. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lu, W.L. Effects of Tillage and Straw Return on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Flue-cured Tobacco Growth. Ph.D. Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, Q.; Li, H.B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, S.Q.; Chen, Y.L. Mulching improves yield and water-use efficiency of potato cropping in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crop Res. 2018, 221, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jin, Z.Q.; Shah, T.R.; Zhang, L.; Liu, H.Y.; Peng, S.B.; Nie, L.X. Effect of straw returning on soil organic carbon in rice-wheat rotation system: A review. Food Energy Secur. 2020, 9, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, S.Y.; Li, Y.; Lin, H.X.; Feng, H.; Dyck, M. Effects of different mulching technologies on evapotranspiration and summer maize growth. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 201, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yang, Y.H.; Ding, J.L.; Zhang, Y.H.; Wu, J.C.; Zhang, J.M.; Pan, X.Y.; Gao, C.M.; Wang, Y.; He, F. Effects of tillage and mulching measures on soil moisture and temperature, photosynthetic characteristics and yield of winter wheat. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 201, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chang, L.; Han, F.X.; Chai, S.X.; Cheng, H.B.; Yang, D.L.; Chen, Y.Z. Straw strip mulching affects soil moisture and temperature for potato yield in semiarid regions. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 1126–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hou, X.Q.; Li, R. Interactive effects of autumn tillage with mulching on soil temperature, productivity and water use efficiency of rainfed potato in loess plateau of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 224, 105747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Deligios, P.A.; Farina, R.; Tiloca, M.T.; Francaviglia, R.; Ledda, L. C-sequestration and resilience to climate change of globe artichoke cropping systems depend on crop residues management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hu, Y.F. Study on the improvement of farmland soil organic matter by straw returning. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 1, 131. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nie, S.A.; Lei, X.M.; Zhao, L.X.; Brookes, P.C.; Wang, F.; Chen, C.R.; Yang, W.H.; Xing, S.H. Fungal communities and functions response to long-term fertilization in paddy soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 130, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tian, L.; Shi, S.H.; Zhang, J.F.; Gao, Q.; Tian, C.J. Effects of Long-term Fertilization and Straw Return on Diversity lndices of AMF and Bacteria in Maize Rhizosphere. Soils Crops 2017, 6, 291–297. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lai, R.; Lagomarsino, A.; Ledda, L.; Roggero, P.P. Variation in soil C and microbial functions across tree canopy projection and open grassland microenvironments Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  33. Song, Y.; Song, C.; Shi, F.; Wang, M.; Ren, J.; Wang, X.; Jiang, L. Linking plant community composition with the soil C pool, N availability and enzyme activity in boreal peatlands of Northeast China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 140, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jin, Y.T.; Li, X.F.; Cai, Y.; Hu, H.X.; Liu, Y.F.; Fu, S.W.; Zhang, B.R. Effects of Straw Returning with Chemical Fertilizer on Soil Enzyme Activities and Microbial Community Structure in Rice-Rape Rotation. Environ. Sci. 2021, 42, 3985–3996. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhuang, M.H.; Zhang, J.; Kong, Z.Y.; Fleming, R.M.; Zhang, C.Y.; Zhang, Z.Y. Potential environmental benefits of substituting nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer with useable crop straw in China during 2000–2017. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yang, S.Q.; Han, R.Y.; Xing, L.; Liu, H.Y.; Wu, H.J.; Yang, Z.L. Effect of slope farmland soil and water and soil nitrogen and phosphorus loss based on different crop and straw applications and ridge patterns in the basin of the main stream of the Songhua River. Acta Petrol. Sin. 2018, 38, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, C.; Han, X.; Zhuge, Y.P.; Xiao, G.P.; Ni, B.; Xu, X.C.; Meng, F.Q. Crop straw incorporation alleviates overall fertilizer-N losses and mitigates N2O emissions per unit applied N from intensively farmed soils: An in situ 15N tracing study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 764, 142884–142894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hua, K.K.; Zhu, B.; Li, C.C. Pathways of Dissolved Unreactive Phosphorus Loss under Long-Term Crop Straw and Manure Application. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2021, 120, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, Y.; Liang, B.Q.; Bao, H.; Chen, Q.; Cao, Y.L.; He, Y.Q.; Li, L.Z. Potential of crop straw incorporation for replacing chemical fertilizer and reducing nutrient loss in Sichuan Province, China. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 320, 121034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dai, W.C.; Gao, M.; Lan, M.L.; Huang, R.; Wang, J.Z. Nutrient release patterns and decomposition characteristics of different crop straws in drylands and paddy fields. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2017, 25, 188–199. [Google Scholar]
  41. FAO. Global Map of Salt Affected Soils; Version 1.0; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  42. Luo, S.S.; Wang, S.J.; Tian, L.; Shi, S.H.; Xu, S.Q.; Yang, F.; Li, X.J.; Wang, Z.C.; Tian, C.J. Aggregate-related changes in soil microbial communities under different ameliorant applications in saline-sodic soils. Geoderma 2018, 329, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Z.J.; Zhuang, J.J.; Zhao, A.P.; Li, X.X. Types, harms and improvement of saline soil in Songnen Plain. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 2018, 322, 052059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xian, X.X.; Pang, M.Y.; Zhang, J.L.; Zhu, M.K.; Kong, F.L.; Xi, M. Assessing the effect of potential water and salt intrusion on coastal wetland soil quality: Simulation study. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 2251–2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Santos, J.S.; Introíni, G.O.; Veiga-Menoncello, A.C.P.; Blasco, A.; Rivera, M.; Recco-Pimentel, S.M. Comparative sperm ultrastructure of twelve leptodactylid frog species with insights into their phylogenetic relationships. Micron 2016, 91, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Song, X.L.; Sun, R.J.; Chen, W.F.; Wang, M.H. Effects of surface straw mulching and buried straw layer on soil water content and salinity dynamics in saline soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2019, 100, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xie, W.J.; Wu, L.F.; Zhang, Y.P.; Wu, T.; Li, X.P.; Ouyang, Z. Effects of straw application on coastal saline topsoil salinity and wheat yield trend. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 169, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, H.Y.; Pang, H.C.; Zhao, Y.G.; Lu, C.; Zhang, X.L.; Li, Y.Y. Water and salt exchange flux and mechanism in a dry saline soil amended with buried straw of varying thicknesses. Geoderma 2020, 365, 114213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liao, X.; Yang, F.; Wang, Z.C.; Guan, Q.J.; He, M.L.; An, F.H.; Yang, H.T.; Zhao, D.D.; Zhu, W.D. Effects of decomposed straw and desulfurized gypsum on salt leaching in saline-sodic soils. Soils Crops 2020, 9, 74–82. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, H.J.; Xia, J.B.; Xie, W.J.; Wei, S.C.; Cui, Q.; Shao, P.S.; Sun, J.K.; Dong, K.K.; Qi, X.C. Effects of straw returning and nitrogen addition on soil quality of a coastal saline soil: A field study of four consecutive wheat-maize cycles. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 34, 2061–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lenka, N.K.; Lal, R. Soil aggregation and greenhouse gas flux after 15 years of wheat straw and fertilizer management in a no-till system. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhao, H.; Shar, A.G.; Li, S.; Chen, Y.L.; Shi, J.L.; Zhang, X.Y.; Tian, X.H. Effect of straw return mode on soil aggregation and aggregate carbon content in an annual maize-wheat double cropping system. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 175, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Akhtar, K.; Wang, W.Y.; Ren, G.X.; Khan, A.; Feng, W.Z.; Yang, G.H.; Wang, H.Y. Integrated use of straw mulch with nitrogen fertilizer improves soil functionality and soybean production. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Su, Y.; Yu, M.; Xi, H.; Lv, J.L.; Ma, Z.H.; Kou, C.L.; Shen, A. Soil microbial community shifts with long-term of different straw return in wheat-corn rotation system. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ahmed, W.; Qaswar, M.; Jing, H.; Wenjun, D.; Geng, S.; Kailou, L.; Ying, M.; Ao, T.; Mei, S.; Chao, L.; et al. Tillage practices improve rice yield and soil phosphorus fractions in two typical paddy soils. Soil Sediments 2020, 20, 850–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bai, Y.L.; Wang, L.; Lu, Y.L.; Yang, L.P.; Zhou, L.P.; Ni, L.; Cheng, M.F. Effects of long-term full straw return on yield and potassium response in wheat-maize rotation. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 2467–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mao, L.L.; Guo, W.J.; Yuan, Y.C.; Qin, D.L.; Wang, S.L.; Nie, J.J.; Zhao, N.; Song, X.L.; Sun, X.Z. Cotton stubble effects on yield and nutrient assimilation in coastal saline soil. Field Crop. Res. 2019, 239, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Huo, L.L.; Yao, Z.L.; Zhao, L.X.; Luo, J.; Zhang, P.Z. Contribution and Potential of Comprehensive Utilization of Straw in GHG Emission Reduction and Carbon Sequestration. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2022, 53, 349–359. [Google Scholar]
  59. Piao, S.L.; He, Y.; Wang, X.H.; Chen, F.H. Estimation of China’s terrestrial ecosystem carbon sink: Methods, progress and prospects. Sci. China (Earth Sci.) 2022, 65, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, P.; He, J.; Li, H.W.; Wang, Q.J.; Lu, C.Y.; Zheng, K.; Liu, W.Z.; Lou, S.Y. Effect of straw retention on crop yield, soil properties, water use efficiency and greenhouse gas emission in China: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 13, 347–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jin, L.; Li, Y.E.; Gao, Q.Z.; Liu, Y.T.; Wan, Y.F.; Qin, X.B.; Shi, F. Estimate of carbon sequestration under cropland management in China. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2008, 41, 734–743. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sun, J.F.; Zheng, J.F.; Cheng, K.; Pan, G.X. Estimate of the quantity of collectable straw resources and competitive utilization potential. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2018, 24, 404–413. [Google Scholar]
  63. Chen, H.X.; Liu, J.J.; Zhang, A.F.; Chen, J.; Cheng, G.; Sun, B.H.; Pi, X.M.; Dyck, M.; Si, B.C.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Effects of straw and plastic film mulching on greenhouse gas emissions in Loess Plateau, China: A field study of 2 consecutive wheat-maize rotation cycles. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 814–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Gao, H.H.; Yan, C.G.; Liu, Q.; Ding, W.L.; Chen, B.Q.; Li, Z. Effects of plastic mulching and plastic residue on agricultural production: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Wang, L.; Qin, T.; Liu, T.Q.; Guo, L.J.; Li, C.F.; Zhai, Z.B. Inclusion of microbial inoculants with straw mulch enhances grain yields from rice fields in central China. Food Energy Secur. 2020, 9, e230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Czyrnek-Deletre, M.M.; Smyth, B.M.; Murphy, J.D. Beyond carbon and energy: The challenge in setting guidelines for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems. Renew. Energy 2017, 105, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Poeschl, M.; Ward, S.; Owende, P. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 3305–3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wall, D.M.; O’Kiely, P.; Murphy, J.D. The potential for biomethane from grass and slurry to satisfy renewable energy targets. Bioresour. Tech. 2014, 149, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Arthurson, V. Closing the global energy and nutrient cycles through application of biogas residue to agricultural land-Potential benefits and drawbacks. Energies 2009, 2, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mancini, M.; Volpe, M.L.; Badaracco, P.; Cravero, V.P. Lignocellulosic materials characterization of wild and cultivated cardoon. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1147, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. De Menna, F.; Malagnino, R.A.; Vittuari, M.; Molari, G.; Seddaiu, G.; Deligios, P.A.; Solinas, S.; Ledda, L. Potential Biogas Production from Artichoke Byproducts in Sardinia, Italy. Energies 2016, 9, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Niu, W.J.; Huang, G.Q.; Liu, X.; Chen, L.J.; Han, L.J. Chemical Composition and Calorific Value Prediction of Wheat Straw at Different Maturity Stages Using Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 7474–7482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, M.H.; Tang, C.G.; Chen, X.; Huang, S.W.; Zhao, W.W.; Cai, D.Q.; Wu, Z.Y.; Wu, L.F. High Performance Bacteria Anchored by Nanoclay to Boost Straw Degradation. Materials 2019, 12, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zheng, H.B.; Fu, R.G.; Jia, W.; Tang, Q.Y. Rapid decomposition of straw: Effect on rice yield and nitrogen use efficiency in the rice region of southern China. J. Agric. 2019, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wu, C.L.; Tang, C.S.; Yu, L.; Zhang, J.Y.; Wang, P. Application of straw decomposing agent in straw returning to field in northeast China. Mod. Agric. 2022, 12, 29–31. [Google Scholar]
  76. Su, Y.; Jia, S.Q.; He, Z.C.; Yang, Y.H.; Yu, M.; Chen, X.J.; Shen, A.L. Optimization of straw decomposition with inoculants by using response surface method. Acta Agric. Zhejiangensis 2019, 31, 798–805. [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhang, Z.Y.; He, J.; Fan, X.P.; Xia, Y.; Zhang, F.L.; Liu, D.B.; Wu, M.Q. Characteristics of straw decomposition and nutrient release in rice and wheat rotation system. Soil Fertil. Sci. China 2022, 8, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  78. Malhi, S.S.; Nyborg, M.; Goddard, T.; Puurveen, D. Long-term tillage, straw and N rate effects on quantity and quality of organic C and N in a Gray Luvisol soil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011, 90, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Marschner, P.; Umar, S.; Baumann, K. The microbial community composition changes rapidly in the early stages of decomposition of wheat residue. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 445–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, G.Y.; Yan, Z.L.; Li, Q.; Wei, L.; Guan, X.K.; Wang, T.C. Effects of Straw Returning with Fertilizer and Decomposition Inoculants on Soil Enzyme Activity and Yield of Winter Wheat. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 45, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  81. Hu, C.; Chen, Y.F.; Qiao, Y.; Liu, D.H.; Zhang, S.T.; Li, S.L. Effect of returning straw added with straw-decomposing inoculants on soil melioration in low-yielding yellow clayey soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 22, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  82. Wang, J.; Xiao, G.J.; Zhang, F.J.; Wang, J.; Xu, X. Effect of returning straw with straw-decomposing inoculants on saline-alkali soil in North Yinchuan of China. Agric. Res. Arid. Areas 2017, 35, 209–215+283. [Google Scholar]
  83. He, Z.F.; Yang, X.R.; Xiang, J.; Wu, Z.L.; Shi, X.Y.; Gui, Y.; Liu, M.Q.; Kalkhajeh, Y.K.; Gao, H.J.; Ma, C. Does Straw Returning Amended with Straw Decomposing Microorganism Inoculants Increase the Soil Major Nutrients in China’s Farmlands? Agronomy 2022, 12, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yang, G.H.; Zhang, J.J.; Yang, G.L. Preliminary study on effect of straw decomposition additive in rice/rape pattern. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 4, 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhao, S.C.; Qiu, S.J.; Xu, X.P.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Zhang, S.Q.; He, P. Change in straw decomposition rate and soil microbial community composition after straw addition in different long-term fertilization soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 138, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Li, D.D.; Li, Z.Q.; Zhao, B.Z.; Zhang, J.B. Relationship between the chemical structure of straw and composition of main microbial groups during the decomposition of wheat and maize straws as affected by soil texture. Biol. Fert. Soils Coop. J. Int. Soc. Soil Sci. 2020, 56, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, X.; Wang, X.X.; Geng, P.; Yang, Q.; Chen, K.; Liu, N.; Fan, Y.L.; Zhan, X.M.; Han, X.R. Effects of different returning method combined with decomposer on decomposition of organic components of straw and soil fertility. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liu, S.R.; Hu, R.G.; Cai, G.C.; Lin, S.; Zhao, J.S.; Li, Y.Y. The role of UV-B radiation and precipitation on straw decomposition and topsoil C turnover. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2014, 77, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Naruo, M.; Wanida, N.; Nongluck, P.; Tomohide, S.; Praison, R.; Suphakarn, L.; Kensuke, K. Soil carbon sequestration on a maize-mung bean field with rice straw mulch, no-tillage, and chemical fertilizer application in Thailand from 2011 to 2015. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 67, 190–196. [Google Scholar]
  90. Qin, S.J.; Jiao, K.B.; Lyu, D.G.; Shi, L.; Liu, L.Z. Effects of maize residue and cellulose-decomposing bacteria inocula on soil microbial community, functional diversity, organic fractions, and growth of Malus hupehensis Rehd. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2015, 61, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhao, J.; Ni, T.; Xun, W.B.; Huang, X.L.; Huang, Q.W.; Ran, W.; Shen, B.; Zhang, R.F.; Shen, Q.R. Influence of straw incorporation with and without straw decomposer on soil bacterial community structure and function in a rice-wheat cropping system. Appl. Microbiol. Biot. 2017, 101, 4761–4773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, P.; Chen, X.L.; Wei, T.; Yang, Z.; Jia, Z.K.; Yang, B.P.; Han, Q.F.; Ren, X.L. Effects of straw incorporation on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and crop yield in a semiarid region of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 160, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Du, X.Z.; Hao, M.; Guo, L.J.; Li, S.H.; Hu, W.L.; Sheng, F.; Li, C.F. Integrated assessment of carbon footprint and economic profit from paddy fields under microbial decaying agents with diverse water regimes in central China. Agric Water Manag. 2022, 262, 107403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Liu, G.; Yu, H.Y.; Ma, J.; Xu, H.; Wu, Q.Y.; Yang, J.H.; Zhuang, Y.Q. Effects of straw incorporation along with microbial inoculant on methane and nitrous oxide emissions from rice fields. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 518–519, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ma, L.J.; Kong, F.X.; Wang, Z.; Luo, Y.; Lv, X.B.; Zhou, Z.G.; Meng, Y.L. Growth and yield of cotton as affected by different straw returning modes with an equivalent carbon input. Field Crop Res. 2019, 243, 107616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, Z.Y.; Liao, G.X.; Chen, Y.C.; Li, S.Q.; Yu, C.Q.; Chen, L. Application effect of rape straw returning rotten technology on rice. Mod. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2020, 14, 18+20. [Google Scholar]
  97. Yang, X.R.; Xu, B.; He, Z.F.; Wu, J.; Zhuang, R.H.; Ma, C.; Chai, R.S.; Yusef, K.K.; Ye, X.X.; Zhu, L. lmpacts of Decomposing Microorganism Inoculum on Straw Decomposition and Crop Yield in China: A Meta-Analysis. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2020, 53, 1359–1367. [Google Scholar]
  98. Xiong, W.; Guo, S.; Jousset, A.; Zhao, Q.Y.; Wu, H.S.; Li, R.; Kowalchuk, G.A.; Shen, Q.R. Bio-fertilizer application induces soil suppressiveness against Fusarium wilt disease by reshaping the soil microbiome. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2017, 114, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kalkhajeh, Y.K.; He, Z.F.; Yang, X.R.; Lu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Gao, H.J.; Ma, C. Co-application of nitrogen and straw-decomposing microbial inoculant enhanced wheat straw decomposition and rice yield in a paddy soil. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 4, 100134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. He, H.; Li, J.H.; Wei, C.Z.; Zhuang, Y.T. Decomposition characteristics and nutrient release rules of maize straw under different returning amounts. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 3695–3707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, K.K.; Hu, W.S.; Xu, Z.Y.; Xue, Y.H.; Zhang, Z.; Liao, S.P.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Li, X.K.; Ren, T.; Cong, R.H.; et al. Seasonal Temporal Characteristics of In Situ Straw Decomposition in Different Types and Returning Methods. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 2022, 22, 4228–4240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zhang, L.P.; Liu, Z.W.; Gao, X.B.; Du, H.X.; Gao, W.J. Study on Decomposition of Different Mixed Leaf Litter. J. Northwest For. Univ. 2006, 21, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  103. Heitkamp, F.; Wendland, M.; Offenberger, K.; Gerold, G. Implications of input estimation, residue quality and carbon saturation on the predictive power of the Rothamsted Carbon Model. Geoderma 2012, 170, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Li, F.Y.; Sun, X.F.; Feng, W.Q.; Qin, Y.S.; Wang, C.Q.; Tu, S.H. Nutrient release patterns and decomposing rates of wheat and rapeseed straw. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2009, 15, 374. [Google Scholar]
  105. Wang, Y.Q.; Guo, X.S. Decomposition characteristics of crop-stalk under different incorporation methods. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2008, 16, 607. [Google Scholar]
  106. Li, M.H. Study on the Degradation of Wheat Straw by Nano-Carrier Bacteria; University of Science and Technology of China: Anhui, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  107. Chen, S.; Liu, Z.R.; Zeng, K. Effect of straw-decomposing inoculant on decomposition of rice straw. Chin. J. Environ. Eng. 2016, 10, 840–844. [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang, J.Z.; Lu, C.A.; Zhang, W.J.; Feng, G.; Wang, X.J.; Xu, M.G. Decomposition of organic materials in cropland soils across China: A meta analysis. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2016, 53, 16–27. [Google Scholar]
  109. Kamble, P.N.; Baath, E. Comparison of fungal and bacterial growth after alleviating induced N-limitation in soil. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2016, 103, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Baldrian, P. Increase of laccase activity during interspecific interactions of white-rot fungi. Fems. Microbiol. Ecol. 2004, 50, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Liang, J.J.; Fang, X.X.; Lin, Y.Q.; Wang, D.H. A new screened microbial consortium OEM2 for lignocellulosic biomass deconstruction and chlorophenols detoxification. J. Haz. Mat. 2018, 347, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Guo, T.F. The Mechanism of Carbon and Nitrogen Interaction During Rice Straw Decomposition. Ph.D. Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  113. Zhao, S.C.; Ignacio, A.C.; Qiu, S.J.; Xu, X.P.; He, P. Characteristics of maize residue decomposition and succession in the bacterial community during decomposition in Northeast China. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Murayama, S. Decomposition kinetics of straw saccharides and synthesis of microbial saccharides under field conditions. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 35, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wu, J.; Guo, X.S.; Lu, J.W.; Wan, S.X.; Wang, Y.Q.; Xu, Z.Y.; Zhang, X.L. Decomposition characteristics of wheat straw and effects on soil biological properties and nutrient status under different rice cultivation. Acta. Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 565–575. [Google Scholar]
  116. Devêvre, O.C.; Horwath, W.R. Decomposition of rice straw and microbial carbon use efficiency under different soil temperatures and moistures. Soil Boil. Biochem. 2000, 32, 1773–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Borjigin, Q.; Yu, X.F.; Gao, J.L.; Wang, Z.G.; Borjigin, N.; Wang, Z.; Hu, S.P.; Gao, L.; Hu, H.H. Study on degradation of corn stalk by decomposing microbial inoculants. J. Northwest A F Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2016, 44, 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  118. Li, H.D.; Liu, Y.; Cong, R.H. The characteristics of returning straw to the field with different carbon-nitrogen ratios. Soil Fertil. Sci. China 2022, 9, 102–106. [Google Scholar]
Water 15 03426 g001
Figure 1. Number of papers in the field of straw returning from 2002 to 2022.
Figure 1. Number of papers in the field of straw returning from 2002 to 2022.
Water 15 03426 g001
Water 15 03426 g002
Figure 2. Keywords co-occurrence network map in the field of straw returning.
Figure 2. Keywords co-occurrence network map in the field of straw returning.
Water 15 03426 g002
Water 15 03426 g003
Figure 3. The first 20 burst terms in the field of straw returning. The blue lines are the periods in which the keywords appear, and the red lines are the sudden periods of the keywords.
Figure 3. The first 20 burst terms in the field of straw returning. The blue lines are the periods in which the keywords appear, and the red lines are the sudden periods of the keywords.
Water 15 03426 g003
Water 15 03426 g004
Figure 4. Number of papers in the field of straw decomposition agents from 2002 to 2022.
Figure 4. Number of papers in the field of straw decomposition agents from 2002 to 2022.
Water 15 03426 g004
Water 15 03426 g005
Figure 5. Keywords co-occurrence network map in the field of straw decomposition agents.
Figure 5. Keywords co-occurrence network map in the field of straw decomposition agents.
Water 15 03426 g005
Water 15 03426 g006
Figure 6. The first 10 burst terms in the field of straw decomposition agents. The blue lines are the periods in which the keywords appeared, and the red lines are the sudden periods of the keywords.
Figure 6. The first 10 burst terms in the field of straw decomposition agents. The blue lines are the periods in which the keywords appeared, and the red lines are the sudden periods of the keywords.
Water 15 03426 g006
Water 15 03426 g007
Figure 7. Treatment design.
Figure 7. Treatment design.
Water 15 03426 g007
Water 15 03426 g008
Figure 8. Decomposition rates of the treatments. The different capital letters indicate significant differences among treatments measured on the same day (p < 0.05), while the different lowercase letters indicate significant differences on different days in the same treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 8. Decomposition rates of the treatments. The different capital letters indicate significant differences among treatments measured on the same day (p < 0.05), while the different lowercase letters indicate significant differences on different days in the same treatment (p < 0.05).
Water 15 03426 g008
Water 15 03426 g009
Figure 9. The nutrient (N, P, and K) release rate of straw under different treatments. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences on different days during the same treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 9. The nutrient (N, P, and K) release rate of straw under different treatments. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences on different days during the same treatment (p < 0.05).
Water 15 03426 g009
Table 1. Olson exponential decay equation fitting the straw decomposition residual rate with time.
Table 1. Olson exponential decay equation fitting the straw decomposition residual rate with time.
TreatmentD (%)kR2
7 d15 d30 d
CK84.3078.0073.050.013 ± 0.0040.995
T184.1276.6771.570.014 ± 0.0040.996
T287.1781.2773.330.012 ± 0.0020.998
T380.0773.5063.630.018 ± 0.0020.994
T483.5078.1369.280.014 ± 0.0020.996
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

Wang, Y.; Shan, Q.; Wang, C.; Feng, S.; Li, Y. Research Progress and Application Analysis of the Returning Straw Decomposition Process Based on CiteSpace. Water 2023, 15, 3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193426

AMA Style

Wang Y, Shan Q, Wang C, Feng S, Li Y. Research Progress and Application Analysis of the Returning Straw Decomposition Process Based on CiteSpace. Water. 2023; 15(19):3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193426

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yitong, Qiujie Shan, Chuan Wang, Shaoyuan Feng, and Yan Li. 2023. "Research Progress and Application Analysis of the Returning Straw Decomposition Process Based on CiteSpace" Water 15, no. 19: 3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193426

APA Style

Wang, Y., Shan, Q., Wang, C., Feng, S., & Li, Y. (2023). Research Progress and Application Analysis of the Returning Straw Decomposition Process Based on CiteSpace. Water, 15(19), 3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193426

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