Next Article in Journal
Volatility in Live Calf, Live Sheep, and Feed Wheat Return Markets: A Threat to Food Price Stability in Turkey
Previous Article in Journal
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling for Sustainable Production in Olive Groves
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/agriculture12040565
agriculture-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:
Article

Seedling Establishment and Yield Performance of Dry Direct-Seeded Rice after Wheat Straw Returning Coupled with Early Nitrogen Application

by
Jinyu Tian
1,
Shaoping Li
1,
Zhipeng Xing
1,
Shuang Cheng
1,
Qiuyuan Liu
2,
Lei Zhou
1,
Ping Liao
1,
Yajie Hu
1,
Baowei Guo
1,
Haiyan Wei
1 and
Hongcheng Zhang
1,*
1
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Cultivation and Physiology/Innovation Center of Rice Cultivation Technology in Yangtze Valley, Ministry of Agriculture/Co-Innovation Center for Modern Production Technology of Grain Crops, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
2
Agricultural College, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang 464000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(4), 565; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040565
Submission received: 15 March 2022 / Revised: 10 April 2022 / Accepted: 14 April 2022 / Published: 15 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Production)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dry direct-seeded rice sown by multifunctional seeders (MS-DDSR) has received increased attention for its high efficiency. Wheat straw returning is widely used as an important agricultural practice because it is the simplest and quickest approach to dispose of wheat straw and also improve soil quality. The study determined whether MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning could obtain a high yield and whether early nitrogen (N) application could compensate for the negative effects caused by returned wheat straw. Field experiments were performed in a split-plot design. Main plots were comprised without wheat straw returning (S0) and wheat straw returning (S1). Split plots consisted of three plots with early N application treatment: 65 (N1), 95 (N2), and 125 (N3) kg N ha−1 at 0 and 20 days after sowing. S1 reduced yield, N uptake, and biomass accumulation in MS-DDSR compared to S0 because S1 negatively affected the seedling roots growth, seedling establishment, and tillering capacity of MS-DDSR. The positive interaction between wheat straw returning and early N on yield, biomass accumulation, and N uptake was likely related to the positive interaction on spikelet number per panicle, total spikelet number, and biomass accumulation after the stem elongation stage. These findings demonstrate that wheat straw returning led to poor seedling establishment and yield loss for MS-DDSR, but these negative effects could be compensated for by an appropriate increase in early N application, based on the locally recommended N application protocols.

1. Introduction

Dry direct seeding, an ancient method of rice establishment, is based on sowing dry rice seeds directly in the main field without saturated and puddled soils [1]. Historically, dry direct-seeded rice (DDSR) was mostly concentrated in rainfed areas of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean [2,3]. More recently, a looming water crisis [4] and escalating labor costs [5] have driven the gradual expansion of the cultivation area in well-irrigated areas such as the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in China and the upper Ganges River delta in India [6,7,8]. In addition, the development of multifunctional seeders that perform synchronous rotary tillage and sowing [9,10] and the improvement of weed management technology [11,12] provide opportunities to improve the efficiency and increase the yield of DDSR. Dry direct-seeded rice sown by multifunctional seeders (MS-DDSR) was eventually developed.
Rice–wheat rotation is an important agricultural production system in countries in south Asia, such as China and India [13,14]. Because of the short turnaround time after combine harvesting of wheat, wheat straw management is a challenging problem in the rice–wheat rotation system [15]. Open field burning of wheat straw is the common practice [16,17], but it has led to serious impacts on air quality, health, and climate [18,19,20]. Thus, wheat straw returning by rotary tillage is widely used as an important agricultural measure because it is the simplest and quickest approach to dispose of wheat straw and meet the time requirement in the rice–wheat rotation system. However, rice seedlings exhibit stress after wheat straw returning. For example, wheat straw returning leads to the accumulation of microbial allelochemicals, such as organic acids and toxic soil reductants, during wheat straw decomposition, restricting root development of rice seedlings [21,22,23,24]. Wheat straw returning may increase the yield of transplanted rice [25,26,27,28] because it can ameliorate soil structure and improve soil organic matter content, and its additional nutrients and positive effects can alleviate its negative effects on rice growth [23,29,30]. Nonetheless, relative to transplanted rice seedlings that already possess some level of stress resistance when transplanting from the seedling raising land to the main field, MS-DDSR is always under stress from seed germination to seedling growth, leading to poor seedling establishment. The differences between MS-DDSR and transplanted rice make it unlikely that MS-DDSR sown after wheat straw returning would also increase yield. To our knowledge, some studies have been conducted under conditions of wet direct-seeding [31,32,33,34], pot planting [21,35], and manual direct-seeding (i.e., broadcasting) [36,37,38], but few studies have been conducted on the effects of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning. Seedling establishment and yield performance of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning require further evaluation, confirmation, and data support in the rice–wheat rotation system.
Nitrogen (N) is an essential nutrient for rice growth [39,40]. However, MS-DDSR caused higher N loss than transplanted rice because of increased ammonia volatilization [41] and surface runoff [42] in the early growth stage. The higher C:N ratio (~80:1) of wheat straw also results in high N immobilization and mineralization during wheat straw decomposition, especially within 30 days after wheat straw returning [43], thereby causing N deficiency in rice seedlings in the early growth stage [44,45]. Moreover, early N application of basal and tillering fertilizers plays a decisive role in the root development, seedling establishment, tillering occurrence, biomass accumulation, and yield performance of rice [46]. Therefore, early N application is particularly important for MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning. Wang [31] reported that alternate wetting and drying and furrow irrigation could alleviate the negative effects of wheat straw returning by increasing root and shoot biomass, root oxidation activity, and harvest index. Yang [36] reported that yield reduction in direct-seeded rice after wheat straw returning could be mitigated by appropriate water management and improving soil phosphorus (P) availability. Previous studies on alleviating the negative effects on rice after wheat straw returning mainly focused on water management and reducing wheat straw returning. However, whether early N application can compensate for the negative effects on seedling establishment and yield performance of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning is unclear.
The objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate the seedling establishment and yield performance of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning, and (2) to clarify the mechanisms of how early N application can alleviate or compensate the negative effects caused by wheat straw returning. The findings of this study provide theoretical and practical support for high-yield cultivation and regulatory approaches of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Weather Conditions

Field experiments were performed in 2019 and 2020 on a typical rice-wheat rotation system at the research farm of Yangzhou University, Jiangsu, China (32°61′ N, 120°12′ E). The field soil was a sandy loam with a viscous texture and 30.4 g kg−1 organic matter, 1.91 g kg−1 total N, 31.6 mg kg−1 available P, and 154 mg kg−1 available potassium (K). The amount of wheat straw returning was approximately 6.51 t ha−1 biomass on average in both years. The sowing date was 11 June and the harvest date was October 20 in both years. Meteorological data for daily mean temperature, sunshine hours, and precipitation during the rice growing season in 2019 and 2020 were collected at a weather station near the experimental site (Figure 1).

2.2. Experimental Design and Treatment Modes

The experiment was performed using a split-plot design. Main plots were the wheat straw returning treatment methods: control without wheat straw returning (S0) and wheat straw returning (S1). Split plots were the three early N application modes (urea with 45.6% N content): 65 kg N ha−1 (N1), 95 kg N ha−1 (N2, locally recommended N application), and 125 kg N ha−1 (N3) at 0 and 20 days after sowing (DAS; the information of nitrogen application are shown in Table 1). In all plots, P fertilizer of calcium superphosphate (12% P2O5 content; 135 kg P ha−1) was applied at pre-sowing (0 DAS), and K fertilizer of potassium chloride (60% K2O content; 135 kg K ha−1) was applied at pre-sowing and again at the panicle initiation stage (50 DAS). Treatments were arranged in the same experimental plots in both years. The experiments were replicated four times with an area of 36 m2 in each plot. The japonica rice variety Nanjing-9108 was selected in this experiment.
In both years, wheat was harvested by a combine and wheat straw was returned to the field. Wheat straw in the main plots (where wheat straw was not returned) was manually removed, and fertilizer was applied to all plots. Next, rice seeds (dry seeds without germination) were seeded with a multifunctional seeder that performs synchronous rotary tillage and sowing. The depth of rotary tillage was 10−15 cm, and the seedling rate was 130 kg ha−1. After sowing, the plots with the different treatment modes were surrounded by bunds (width 40 cm; height 30 cm), which were covered with plastic film. Until the three-leaf stage, the seedlings in each plot were thinned to 260 m−2.

2.3. Crop Cultivation

After sowing, wet irrigation management was used during the seedling period to ensure the growth and development of rice seedlings. Thereafter, moistening conditions were maintained until the five-leaf stage. The field was flooded after the five-leaf stage, and the water level was maintained at 2–3 cm until the middle tillering stage. Water was then drained for 7–10 days to control unproductive tillers. After the stem elongation stage, an alternate wetting and drying irrigation management regime was used until one week before the final harvest. In the alternate wetting and drying irrigation management regime, fields were not irrigated until the soil water potential reached −15 kPa (soil moisture content 0.170 g g−1) at 15–20 cm soil depth. The soil water potential was monitored at 15–20 cm soil depth using a tensiometer with a 5 cm sensor (Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China). Four tensiometers were installed in each plot, and readings were recorded at 11:00 each day. When the soil water potential reached the threshold, all plots were flooded with 3 cm of water. The irrigation water level was monitored with a LXSG-50 flow meter (Shanghai Water Meter Manufacturing Factory, Shanghai, China) installed on the irrigation pipelines.

2.4. Sampling and Measurements

2.4.1. Seedling Characteristics

At 35 DAS, 20 consecutive seedlings were randomly selected from each plot to measure their morphological characteristics, such as height, leaf area, and base diameter. Leaf area was measured with a LI-3100 leaf area meter (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). The base diameter was measured with Vernier calipers. Seedlings were oven-dried at 105 °C for 30 min and then at 80 °C in bags to a constant weight, and the seedling weight was measured. N uptake per seedling was calculated by multiplying the N concentration per seedling (%) by the biomass per plant, and N concentration was determined by the semi-micro-Kjeldahl procedure.

2.4.2. Root Morphological Characteristics

At 35 DAS, a sampling core was used for root sampling, in which a 25 cm × 16 cm × 20 cm cube of soil was removed from each plot. The cube was placed in a nylon net, and the soil was removed with running water. To determine the root morphological characteristics, such as length, average diameter, surface area, and volume, roots were scanned with a flatbed image scanner (Epson Expression 1600 scanner, Torrance, CA, USA), and the images were analyzed using WinRhizo software (v5.0, Regent Instruments, Quebec City, QC, Canada). Roots were oven-dried at 105 °C for 30 min and then at 80 °C in bags to a constant weight, and the root weight was measured.

2.4.3. Dynamic Tillering Model

In the two years, three adjacent rows (1 m length) in each plot were measured at five-day intervals from the three-leaf stage until the tiller number diminished.
Tiller number ( Y ) was fit with a logistic equation:
Y = Y m 1 + e x p ( A − B x ) ,
where Y m is the maximum tiller number, x is DAS, and A and B are rate-controlling parameters [47]. The fitting was performed using Origin 9 (Origin Lab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA).

2.4.4. Oxidation–Reduction Potential

In situ soil oxidation–reduction potential (Eh) was determined by potentiometry (FJA-6; Institute of Soil Science, Nanjing, China) at 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 DAS, respectively. Each measurement was taken at 08:00. The depth of measurement was 10 cm below the soil surface, and five replicates were performed for each plot.

2.4.5. Biomass

Biomass was determined at the stem elongation, heading, and maturity stages. Samples were collected from three adjacent rows (50 cm × 75 cm) in each plot, oven-dried at 105 °C for 30 min and then at 80 °C in bags to a constant weight, and the weight was measured.

2.4.6. Yield and Yield Components

At the maturity stage, three adjacent rows (1 m length) were sampled randomly from each plot for measurement of panicle traits and yield components, including spikelet number per panicle, filled grain percentage, and 1000-grain weight. Three adjacent rows (5 m length) were sampled randomly from each plot to determine the panicle number per m2. Total spikelet number per m2 was calculated as panicle number per m2 multiplied by spikelet number per panicle. Yield was determined from the harvest area of 8 m2 in each plot and adjusted to the standard moisture content of 0.14 g H2O g−1.

2.5. Statistical Analysis and Formula Calculation

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA), and treatment means were compared by the least significant difference test. Graphical representations of the data were produced using Origin 9 (Origin Lab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA), Microsoft Excel 2019 (Microsoft Corporation, Washington, DC, USA), and SigmaPlot 12.0 (Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Yield and Yield Components

Wheat straw returning and early N application significantly affected yield and N uptake at maturity of MS-DDSR (Table 2). Compared with S0, S1 had 7.2% lower yield and 9.4% lower N uptake in the N1 treatment mode, and 4.6% lower yield and 7.1% lower N uptake in the N2 treatment mode. Compared with the N1 treatment mode, the N3 treatment mode had 7.2% higher yield and 18.4% higher N uptake, and the N2 treatment mode had 4.7% higher yield and 9.7% higher N uptake. In terms of yield components, S1 had a significantly increased spikelet number per panicle, but a significantly decreased panicle number compared with S0. The panicle number was 3.9% and 5.4% higher for the N2 and N3 treatment modes compared with the N1 treatment mode. Wheat straw × N application positively affected yield, N uptake, spikelet number per panicle, and total spikelet number per m2 (Table 2 and Figure 2).
The correlation analysis over the two years (Figure 3) showed a significant positive correlation between yield and panicle number, total spikelet number per m2, biomass, and N uptake at maturity. No significant correlation was observed between yield and filled grain percentage and 1000-grain weight.

3.2. Biomass Accumulation

Wheat straw returning significantly affected biomass accumulation, mainly affecting biomass accumulation from the sowing to the stem elongation stage of MS-DDSR (Table 3). Compared with S0, S1 had 7.8% lower biomass accumulation at maturity in the N1 treatment mode and 5.7% lower biomass accumulation at maturity in the N2 treatment mode. Biomass accumulation from the sowing to the stem elongation stage was 8.1% lower for S1 than for S0.
Early N application significantly affected biomass accumulation at all growth stages. Compared with the N1 treatment mode, the N3 treatment mode had 8.4% higher biomass accumulation and the N2 treatment mode had 5.5% higher biomass accumulation at maturity. Wheat straw × N application positively affected biomass accumulation at maturity, from the stem elongation to the heading stage, and from the heading stage to the maturity stage (Table 3 and Figure 4).

3.3. Tillering Dynamics

From the dynamic tillering model across the two years (Figure 5), the estimated maximum tiller number was 4.8–5.2% lower for S1 than for S0. Compared with S0, S1 had 5.4–7.3% lower maximum tiller number in the N1 treatment mode and 3.8–7.7% lower maximum tiller number in the N2 treatment mode. Increasing early N application could compensate for the negative effects of wheat straw returning and increase the maximum tiller number.

3.4. Seedling Characteristics

Wheat straw returning negatively affected seedling establishment (Table 4). This was reflected in the seedlings by the reduction in height by 4.6%, weight by 5.8%, leaf area by 6.1%, base diameter by 7.1%, and N uptake by 7.3%. In the N1 treatment mode, S1 decreased seedling height by 5.9%, weight by 7.5%, leaf area by 8.3%, base diameter by 10.5%, and N uptake by 9.0%, compared with S0. Similarly, in the N2 treatment mode, S1 decreased seedling height by 5.4%, weight by 5.7%, leaf area by 6.9%, base diameter by 6.1%, and N uptake by 6.7%, compared with S0. Early N application positively affected seedling establishment. The interactions between wheat straw returning, nitrogen, and year were not significant for seedling morphological characteristics and N uptake at 35 days after sowing.

3.5. Root Morphological Characteristics

Wheat straw returning and early N application significantly affected the root morphological characteristics of MS-DDSR (Table 5). Compared with S0, S1 led to restricted root growth, which was reflected in the seedling roots by the reduction in weight by 6.0%, length by 6.5%, average diameter by 4.2%, surface area by 5.3%, and volume by 5.1%. Increasing early N application could increase seedling root weight by 7.1%, length by 8.1%, average diameter by 5.7%, surface area by 7.6%, and volume by 6.7% in the N1 treatment mode. Similarly, in the N2 treatment mode, increasing early N application could increase seedling root weight by 6.1%, length by 7.3%, average diameter by 4.8%, surface area by 5.1%, and volume by 5.2%. The interactions between wheat straw returning, nitrogen, and year were not significant for root morphological characteristics at 35 days after sowing.

3.6. Oxidation–Reduction Potential

S1 could increase soil Eh within 15 DAS (Figure 6), but Eh gradually decreased after about 15 DAS compared with S0. The Eh value was 128–179% lower for S1 than for S0 at 40 DAS. Increasing early N application reduced the Eh value within 40 DAS.

4. Discussion

Dry direct-seeded rice sown by multifunctional seeders that perform synchronous rotary tillage and sowing has received increased attention. Wheat straw returning is widely used as an important agricultural practice because it is the simplest and quickest approach to dispose of wheat straw and also improve soil quality in the rice–wheat rotation system [28,48]. This study showed that wheat straw returning negatively affected seedling establishment, which was reflected by decreased height, weight, leaf area, and base diameter at 35 DAS, and lower biomass accumulation from the sowing to the stem elongation stage for MS-DDSR seedlings. These results were similar to the results of Du [49], in which wheat straw returning reduced the tiller number, plant height, dry weight, and NPK concentrations of rice seedlings. Enhanced N fixation by soil microbes during wheat straw decomposition decreases N absorbed by plants [50,51]. Azam [52] reported that the uptake of soil N by plants decreased with wheat straw returning. The present study also showed that wheat straw returning decreased N uptake by seedlings (Table 4). Therefore, N deficiency in seedlings contributed to poor seedling establishment of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning.
The root system, as a bridge for information and material exchange between plant and soil, performs the functions of absorbing and transporting nutrients, as well as synthesizing and storing nutrients; it also plays a crucial role in seedling establishment. Tanaka [53] reported that the decline in crop N uptake caused by straw returning originated from N uptake inhibition. Du [49] reported that rice roots after wheat straw returning showed low growth, poor vigor, and insufficient nutrient uptake capacity. In the present study, wheat straw returning negatively affected the seedling root system, which was reflected by lower weight, length, average diameter, surface area, and volume of roots of MS-DDSR seedlings (Table 5). There are two possible reasons for the restricted seedling root system after wheat straw returning. First, the formation of strongly reducing conditions after wheat straw returning restricted the growth of the seedling roots. Soil reductants, such as ferroporphyrin sulfite and reducible organic acids, accumulate in strongly reducing conditions after wheat straw returning in paddy soils [21]. In addition, excessive ferrous iron concentrations lead to rice malnutrition by antagonistic effects on the uptake of essential nutrients [54]. Sulfite can be reduced to H2S under strongly reducing conditions, resulting in damage to seedling roots [21]. Soil Eh is an important indicator of the degree of oxidation or reduction in soil [55]. The soil Eh value after wheat straw returning decreased with the advancement of straw returning and soil flooding (Figure 6). This result was consistent with the findings of Yang [36] that straw returning under continuous flooding might intensify the soil reducing strength, as determined by a causal relationship analysis using structural equation modeling. Second, microbial allelochemicals, such as phenolic acids, accumulate during the decomposition of returned wheat straw [22,56]. These allelochemicals may negatively affect the physiological and biochemical processes of rice seedlings, such as inhibiting cell division and elongation, destroying cell membrane integrity, and changing enzyme activity [57,58]. Therefore, poor seedling establishment was caused by wheat straw returning that originated from the restricted root system of the MS-DDSR seedlings.
Wheat straw returning negatively affected the yield performance of MS-DDSR (Table 2). This result was consistent with the findings of [21] and Yang [36] that showed lower yields of DDSR after wheat straw returning. In terms of yield components, wheat straw returning tended to increase the spikelets per panicle, filled grain percentage, and 1000-grain weight, but it led to a decrease in the panicle number without wheat straw returning. These results were consistent with previous studies [28,32]. The increase in spikelets per panicle, filled grain percentage, and 1000-grain weight could be related to the fact that nutrient release after wheat straw decomposition was beneficial to rice grain filling. The correlation analysis indicated that the panicle number was the key factor to determine the yield and total spikelet number per m2 (Figure 3). Therefore, the insufficient panicle number was the main reason for the reduced yield of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning. The maximum tiller number is one of the primary factors determining the panicle number. In this study, the estimated maximum tiller number based on the dynamic tillering model was greater in the field without wheat straw returning than in the field with wheat straw returning (Figure 5). Gao [21] reported that rice responded strongly to straw returning in the early growth stage, and that the tiller number (at about six weeks after sowing) was significantly reduced by straw returning. Wheat straw returning reduces the incidence of low tiller position or early emerging tillers [59]. Therefore, limited seedling tillering capacity after wheat straw returning may be the main reason for the decreased panicle number of MS-DDSR. In addition, limited seedling tillering may be because of poor seedling establishment after wheat straw returning, as seedling quality can reflect seedling tillering capacity to a certain extent [60].
Given the current harvest index of rice, improving biomass accumulation, especially after the heading stage [61], may be key to further improvement of rice yield [62,63]. The biomass accumulates of rice increased after wheat straw returning because additional organic matter and nutrients brought about by wheat straw returning may promote growth in the middle and late growth stages of rice [64,65,66]. However, this study showed that biomass accumulation and yield after wheat straw returning were reduced for MS-DDSR. Wheat straw returning is beneficial for increasing biomass and yield, mainly realized by transplanting rice, in previous research [25,28]. Thus, additional organic matter and nutrients brought about by wheat straw returning could not alleviate poor seedling establishment for MS-DDSR. The negative effects on MS-DDSR could also not be compensated for by the positive effects after wheat straw returning. There are two possible reasons for the difference between our results (i.e., MS-DDSR) and those of previous research (i.e., transplanting rice). First, seedling establishment of MS-DDSR was poorer compared with transplanting rice. When transplanting from the seedling raising area to the main field with wheat straw returned soil, the transplanted rice seedlings had at least four leaves, indicating that they had reached the stress resistance stage and acquired some stress resistance. However, MS-DDSR was always under stress caused by wheat straw returning. Second, after wet tillage, wheat straw was fully mixed in the 0–25 cm soil layer in the main field for transplanting rice, which reduced the negative effects of wheat straw. However, the rotary tillage depth of MS-DDSR was only 0–15 cm, which caused most wheat straw to assemble on the soil surface, increasing its toxic effects.
Early N application positively affected seedling establishment and yield performance. Wheat straw × N application had no effect on biomass accumulation before the stem elongation stage, N uptake, and seedling growth at 35 DAS, indicating that the negative effects caused by wheat straw returning could be mitigated by the positive effects of increased early N application. There are three possible reasons. First, increasing early N application could enhance seedling root development and compensate for the restricted seedling root system brought about by wheat straw returning. The N supply level affects root structure and physiological characteristics [67]. N deficiency severely affects the growth and development of the root system [68]. Increasing N application can promote cytokinin biosynthesis and acropetal transport [69], thereby enhancing seedling root development. Furthermore, low to medium N availability enhances root growth and branching to optimally utilize the macronutrient, whereas high levels of N availability may limit root growth [70]. In the present study, the seedling root system showed a promoting effect at the highest N level. It also showed that N was still deficient for MS-DDSR seedlings after wheat straw returning in the early growth stage (i.e., increased N was still in the range of root promotion). The possible reasons were that (1) returned wheat straw with a higher C:N ratio led to a decrease in soil available N in the early stage of decomposition [43,71], and (2) MS-DDSR easily increased ammonia volatilization [41,72] and N runoff losses [42] during the early growth stage because of the very shallow ponding water and large soil porosity. Second, increasing early N application could improve seedling N uptake and growth and increase stress tolerance of MS-DDSR seedlings after wheat straw returning. Third, increasing N application can decrease the accumulation of organic acids [73] and reduce the negative effects of wheat straw returning, thereby increasing its beneficial effects [64,74].
Increasing early N application led to a decrease in Eh (Figure 6). The possible reasons were that (1) N application motivates soil N-cycle microbial communities [75], and the promotion of their metabolic activities increases the consumption of soil-dissolved oxygen [76], which further induces a decrease in soil Eh [77], and (2) N application promotes the decomposition of wheat straw, thereby producing more reductants leading to a lower soil Eh. Although increasing early N application could not alleviate the reducing condition in the soil, it could compensate for the negative effects caused by wheat straw returning by promoting root development and increasing N uptake to improve seedling establishment.
The positive interaction between wheat straw returning and early N application on yield, biomass accumulation, and N uptake at maturity was likely related to the positive interaction between wheat straw returning and early N application on spikelet number per panicle, total spikelet number per m2, and biomass accumulation after the stem elongation stage. The positive interaction may be because of several reasons. First, the initially immobilized N in the early growth stage was released in the middle to late growth stage. Second, increasing early N application can promote wheat straw decomposition, optimize the release of organic matter and nutrients of wheat straw, and provide a sufficient supply for biomass accumulation after the stem elongation stage [27]. Third, increasing early N application could compensate for the N loss caused by wheat straw returning, promote N absorption, seedling establishment (Table 4 and Table 5), and tillering capacity (Figure 5), thereby providing a strong foundation for biomass accumulation after the stem elongation stage (Table 3). Fourth, increasing early N application increased the base diameter of seedlings after wheat straw returning, which was beneficial for resistance to rice lodging and enhanced light transmission in the rice population, thus favoring a positive interaction effect on yield.
Seedling establishment and yield performance were better in 2019 than in 2020. This difference could be explained by the weather differences between the two years (Figure 1). The duration of sunshine hours was 45.6% higher in 2019 than in 2020 during the rice growing season. In addition, the precipitation was 183.5% higher in 2020 than in 2019 during the rice growing season, especially during the early growth stage, which resulted in N loss.

5. Conclusions

Wheat straw returning negatively affected the seedling root system, seedling establishment, tillering capacity, biomass accumulation, and yield performance of MS-DDSR. Although increasing early N application could compensate for these negative effects, it is not advisable because additional N input would increase production costs, and excessive N input would lead to yield losses, reduced N utilization, and serious environmental consequences. Approaches such as improving the quality of tillage and increasing the seedling density of MS-DDSR after wheat straw returning will be the focus of future research.

Author Contributions

Field experiment and sampling analysis, J.T., S.L., S.C., Q.L. and L.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, J.T.; writing—review and editing, Z.X., P.L., Y.H., B.G. and H.W.; funding acquisition, J.T., Z.X., H.W. and H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Jiangsu Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation Fund, grant number CX(20)1012; the Jiangsu Demonstration Project of Modern Agricultural Machinery Equipment and Technology, grant number NJ2020-58; the Jiangsu Technical System of Rice Industry, grant number JATS[2020]432; the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 31801293; the National Technical System of Rice Industry, grant number CARS–01–27; and the Yangzhou University Scientific Research and Innovation Program, grant number XKYCX20_022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for grants from the Jiangsu Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation Fund, the Jiangsu Demonstration Project of Modern Agricultural Machinery Equipment and Technology, the Jiangsu Technical System of Rice Industry, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Technical System of Rice Industry, and the Yangzhou University Scientific Research and Innovation Program. We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their useful feedback that improved this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pandey, S.; Velasco, L. Economics of direct seeding in Asia: Patterns of adoption and research priorities. In Direct Seeding: Research Strategies and Opportunities, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Direct Seeding in Asian Rice Systems: Strategic Research Issues and Opportunities, Bangkok, Thailand, 25–28 January 2000; Pandey, S., Mortimer, M., Wade, L., Tuong, T.P., Lopez, K., Hardy, B.E., Eds.; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2002; Volume 11, pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kumar, V.; Ladha, J.K. Direct Seeding of Rice: Recent Developments and Future Research Needs. Adv. Agron. 2011, 111, 297–413. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rao, A.N.; Johnson, D.E.; Sivaprasad, B.; Ladha, J.K.; Mortimer, A.M. Weed Management in Direct-Seeded Rice. Adv. Agron. 2007, 93, 153–255. [Google Scholar]
  4. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Lee, D.J.; Ito, O.; Siddique, K. Advances in Drought Resistance of Rice. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2009, 28, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shi, M.; Krishna, P.P.; Chen, F.B. Mechanization and Efficiency in Rice Production in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, W.Q.; Peng, S.B.; Liu, H.Y.; Tao, Y.; Huang, J.L.; Cui, K.H.; Nie, L.X. The possibility of replacing puddled transplanted flooded rice with dry seeded rice in central China: A review. Field Crops Res. 2017, 214, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ohno, H.; Banayo, N.P.M.C.; Bueno, C.; Kashiwagi, J.-I.; Nakashima, T.; Iwama, K.; Corales, A.M.; Garcia, R.; Kato, Y. On-farm assessment of a new early-maturing drought-tolerant rice cultivar for dry direct seeding in rainfed lowlands. Field Crops Res. 2018, 219, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Farooq, M.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Rehman, H.; Aziz, T.; Lee, D.J.; Wahid, A. Rice direct seeding: Experiences, challenges and opportunities. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 111, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, Y.P.; Du, R.D.; Xi, P.S.; Yang, S.D.; Wang, Z.W. Design and experiment of wide band seeding rice seeder with reversed stubble cleaning and anti-blocking. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017, 33, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Qin, K.; Ding, W.M.; Fang, Z.C.; Du, T.T.; Zhao, S.Q.; Wang, L. Design and Experiment of Seeding System for Harvest Ditch and Stalk-disposing Machine. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2017, 48, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Matloob, A.; Khaliq, A.; Chauhan, B.S. Weeds of Direct-Seeded Rice in Asia: Problems and Opportunities. Adv. Agron. 2015, 130, 291–336. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chauhan, B.S. Strategies to manage weedy rice in Asia. Crop Prot. 2013, 48, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Prasad, R. Rice–Wheat Cropping Systems. Adv. Agron. 2005, 86, 255–339. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ladha, J.K.; Pathak, H.S.; Tirol-Padre, A.; Dawe, D.; Gupta, R.K. Productivity trends in intensive rice–wheat cropping systems in Asia. In Improving the Productivity and Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Systems: Issues and Impacts; Ladha, J.K., Hill, J.E., Duxbury, J.M., Gupta, R.K., Buresh, R.J., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2003; Volume 65, pp. 45–76. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bijay, S.; Shan, Y.H.; Johnson-Beebout, S.E.; Yadvinder, S.; Buresh, R.J. Crop Residue Management for Lowland Rice-Based Cropping Systems in Asia. Adv. Agron. 2008, 98, 117–199. [Google Scholar]
  16. Yu, K.; Qiu, L.; Wang, J.J.; Sun, L.; Wang, Z.M. Winter wheat straw return monitoring by UAVs observations at different resolutions. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2017, 38, 2260–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, H.; Dai, M.W.; Dai, S.L.; Dong, X.J. Current status and environment impact of direct straw return in China’s cropland—A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 159, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Chen, J.M.; Li, C.L.; Ristovski, Z.; Milic, A.; Gu, Y.T.; Islam, M.S.; Wang, S.X.; Hao, J.M.; Zhang, H.F.; He, C.R.; et al. A review of biomass burning: Emissions and impacts on air quality, health and climate in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 1000–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Grover, D.; Chaudhry, S. Ambient air quality changes after stubble burning in rice-wheat system in an agricultural state of India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 20550–20559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qu, C.S.; Li, B.; Wu, H.; Giesy, J.P. Controlling Air Pollution from Straw Burning in China Calls for Efficient Recycling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7934–7936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gao, S.; Tanji, K.; Scardaci, S. Impact of Rice Straw Incorporation on Soil Redox Status and Sulfide Toxicity. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yu, J.G.; Gu, Y.; Chang, Z.Z.; Li, R.P. Allelopathic effects of wheat straw extract and decomposition liquid on rice. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2013, 50, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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 Crops Res. 2018, 221, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, N.H.; Wang, X.C.; Zhao, C.K.; Li, J.; Qin, J.; Long, Z.L. Effects of oilseed rape straw incorporation on root, tiller and grain yield of rice. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yang, J.H.; Luo, Y.L.; Chen, J.; Jin, M.; Wang, Z.L.; Li, Y.F. Effects of Main Food Yield Under Straw Return in China: A Meta-Analysis. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2020, 53, 4415–4429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, J.; Hang, X.N.; Lamine, S.M.; Jiang, Y.; Afreh, D.; Qian, H.Y.; Feng, X.M.; Zheng, C.Y.; Deng, A.X.; Song, Z.W.; et al. Interactive effects of straw incorporation and tillage on crop yield and greenhouse gas emissions in double rice cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 250, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharma, S.; Singh, P.; Choudhary, O.P.; Neemisha. Nitrogen and rice straw incorporation impact nitrogen use efficiency, soil nitrogen pools and enzyme activity in rice-wheat system in north-western India. Field Crops Res. 2021, 266, 108–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, S.; Zeng, Y.J.; Wu, J.F.; Shi, Q.H.; Pan, X.H. Effect of crop residue retention on rice yield in China: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2013, 154, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jiang, D.; Zhuang, D.F.; Fu, J.Y.; Huang, Y.H.; Wen, K.G. Bioenergy potential from crop residues in China: Availability and distribution. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1377–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, J.W.; Li, W.W.; Zhou, Y.; Ding, Y.F.; Xu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Li, G.H. Long-term straw incorporation increases rice yield stability under high fertilization level conditions in the rice–wheat system. Crop J. 2021, 9, 1191–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, Z.Q.; Gu, D.J.; Beebout, S.S.; Zhang, H.; Liu, L.J.; Yang, J.C.; Zhang, J.H. Effect of irrigation regime on grain yield, water productivity, and methane emissions in dry direct-seeded rice grown in raised beds with wheat straw incorporation. Crop J. 2018, 6, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, G.W.; Tan, G.L.; Wang, Z.Q.; Liu, L.J.; Yang, J.C. Effects of Wheat-Residue Application and Site-Specific Nitrogen Management on Grain Yield and Quality and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Direct-Seeding Rice. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2009, 42, 2736–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khaliq, A.; Matloob, A.; Hussain, A.; Hussain, S.; Aslam, F.; Zamir, S.I.; Chattha, M.U. Wheat Residue Management Options Affect Crop Productivity, Weed Growth, and Soil Properties in Direct-Seeded Fine Aromatic Rice. Clean-Soil Air Water 2015, 43, 1259–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Peng, Z.Y.; Ding, F.; Shen, J.; Xiang, K.H.; Ma, P.; Guo, C.C.; Ma, J. Effects of straw mulching and nitrogen management on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of direct seeding rice under wheat rape rice rotation. J. Hunan Agric. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2020, 46, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, Y.Y.; Fan, P.S.; Li, L.; Tian, H.; Ashraf, U.; Mo, Z.W.; Duan, M.Y.; Wu, Q.T.; Zhang, Z.; Tang, X.R.; et al. Straw Incorporation Coupled with Deep Placement of Nitrogen Fertilizer Improved Grain Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Direct-Seeded Rice. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 2338–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yang, H.S.; Feng, J.X.; Weih, M.; Meng, Y.; Li, Y.F.; Zhai, S.L.; Zhang, W.Y. Yield reduction of direct-seeded rice under returned straw can be mitigated by appropriate water management improving soil phosphorus availability. Crop Pasture Sci. 2020, 71, 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Z.C.; Li, H.W.; Wang, X.M.; Yuan, L.M.; Wang, Z.Q.; Liu, L.J.; Yang, J.C. Effect of Non-flooded Straw-mulching Cultivation on Grain Yield and Quality of Direct-seeding Rice. Acta Agron. Sin. 2011, 37, 1809–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Polthanee, A.; Tre-loges, V.; Promsena, K. Effect of rice straw management and organic fertilizer application on growth and yield of dry direct-seeded rice. Paddy Water Environ. 2008, 6, 237–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vitousek, P.M.; Naylor, R.; Crews, T.; David, M.B.; Drinkwater, L.E.; Holland, E.; Johnes, P.J.; Katzenberger, J.; Martinelli, L.A.; Matson, P.A.; et al. Nutrient Imbalances in Agricultural Development. Science 2009, 324, 1519–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bailey-Serres, J.; Parker, J.E.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Oldroyd, G.E.D.; Schroeder, J.I. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature 2019, 575, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Xu, J.Z.; Liao, L.X.; Tan, J.X.; Shao, X.X. Ammonia volatilization in gemmiparous and early seedling stages from direct seeding rice fields with different nitrogen management strategies: A pots experiment. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 126, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, Y.F.; Liu, H.J.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, C.S.; Sheng, J.; Chen, L.G.; Luo, Y.Q.; Zheng, J.C. Direct-seeded rice increases nitrogen runoff losses in southeastern China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 251, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, J.F.; Zhong, F.F. Nitrogen release and re-adsorption dynamics on crop straw residue during straw decomposition in an Alfisol. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Olk, D.C.; Samson, M.I.; Gapas, P. Inhibition of nitrogen mineralization in young humic fractions by anaerobic decomposition of rice crop residues. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2007, 58, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cucu, M.A.; Said-Pullicino, D.; Maurino, V.; Bonifacio, E.; Romani, M.; Celi, L. Influence of redox conditions and rice straw incorporation on nitrogen availability in fertilized paddy soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2014, 50, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, D.Y.; Xu, C.M.; Ye, C.; Chen, S.; Chu, G.; Zhang, X.F. Low recovery efficiency of basal fertilizer-N in plants does not indicate high basal fertilizer-N loss from split-applied N in transplanted rice. Field Crops Res. 2018, 229, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Caton, B.P.; Cope, A.E.; Mortimer, M. Growth traits of diverse rice cultivars under severe competition: Implications for screening for competitiveness. Field Crops Res. 2003, 83, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, C.; Lu, M.; Cui, J.; Li, B.; Fang, C.M. Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Global Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 1366–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Du, K.; Xie, Y.Q.; Lin, Z.M.; Liu, Z.H.; Wang, S.H.; Ding, Y.F. Effect of nitrogen on rice seedling growth and nutrient uptake under wheat straw returning. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2016, 39, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Witt, C.; Cassman, K.; 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 2012, 225, 263–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Han, W.; He, M. The application of exogenous cellulase to improve soil fertility and plant growth due to acceleration of straw decomposition. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3724–3731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Azam, F.; Lodhi, A.; Ashraf, M. Availability of soil and fertilizer nitrogen to wetland rice following wheat straw amendment. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1991, 11, 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tanaka, F.; Ono, S.-i.; Hayasaka, T. Identification and evaluation of toxicity of rice root elongation inhibitors in flooded soils with added wheat straw. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1990, 36, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fageria, N.K.; Santos, A.B.; Filho, M.P.B.; Guimarães, C.M. Iron Toxicity in Lowland Rice. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 1676–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Haque, E.; Sarkar, S.; Hassan, M.; Hossain, M.S.; Minett, A.I.; Dou, S.X.; Gomes, V.G. Tuning graphene for energy and environmental applications: Oxygen reduction reaction and greenhouse gas mitigation. J. Power Sources 2016, 328, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, D.J.; Chang, Z.Z.; Wang, C.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, S.M. Regulation and effect of 100% straw return on crop yield and environment. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2015, 23, 1073–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, P.; Zhao, X.Q. Effect of Allelochemicals on cotton seed germination and seedling growth. J. China Agric. Univ. 2001, 6, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wu, H.W.; An, M.; Liu, D.L.; Pratley, J.; Lemerle, D. Recent Advances in Wheat Allelopathy. In Allelopathy in Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry; Zeng, R.S., Mallik, A.U., Luo, S.M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 235–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xiong, R.H.; Hang, Y.H.; Wang, Q.S.; Xu, G.C.; Liu, X.; Wu, H. Wheat straw returned combined with nitrogen as base fertilizers and topdressing at tiller stage improving the tiller emergency, earbearing traits and yield for machine-transplanted super japonica rice. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2015, 31, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Su, Z.F.; Wu, J.L.; Li, G.S.; Zhang, Y.J. Effects of Seedling quality on productive tiller percentage and yield components of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Tillage Cultiv. 1995, 3, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ling, Q.H.; Zhang, H.C.; Cai, J.Z.; Su, Z.F.; Ling, L. Investigation on the population quality of high yield and its optimizing control programme in rice. Sci. Agric. Sin. 1993, 26, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  62. Peng, S.; Cassman, K.G.; Virmani, S.S.; Sheehy, J.; Khush, G.S. Yield Potential Trends of Tropical Rice since the Release of IR8 and the Challenge of Increasing Rice Yield Potential. Crop Sci. 1999, 39, 1552–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Li, G.H.; Xue, L.H.; Gu, W.; Yang, C.D.; Wang, S.H.; Ling, Q.H.; Qin, X.; Ding, Y.F. Comparison of yield components and plant type characteristics of high-yield rice between Taoyuan, a ‘special eco-site’ and Nanjing, China. Field Crops Res. 2009, 112, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xu, Y.Z.; Nie, L.X.; Buresh, R.J.; Huang, J.L.; Cui, K.H.; Xu, B.; Gong, W.H.; Peng, S.B. Agronomic performance of late-season rice under different tillage, straw, and nitrogen management. Field Crops Res. 2010, 115, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. 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]
  66. Wang, X.H.; Yang, H.S.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.S.; Chen, W.P.; Wu, J.; Zhu, L.Q.; Bian, X.M. Effects of ditch-buried straw return on soil organic carbon and rice yields in a rice–wheat rotation system. Catena 2015, 127, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xu, G.; Fan, X.; Miller, A.J. Plant nitrogen assimilation and use efficiency. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2012, 63, 153–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Ötvös, K.; Marconi, M.; Vega, A.; O’Brien, J.; Johnson, A.; Abualia, R.; Antonielli, L.; Montesinos, J.C.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Tan, S.T.; et al. Modulation of plant root growth by nitrogen source-defined regulation of polar auxin transport. EMBO J. 2021, 40, e106862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gu, J.F.; Li, Z.K.; Mao, Y.Q.; Struik, P.C.; Zhang, H.; Liu, L.J.; Wang, Z.Q.; Yang, J.C. Roles of nitrogen and cytokinin signals in root and shoot communications in maximizing of plant productivity and their agronomic applications. Plant Sci. 2018, 274, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gruber, B.D.; Giehl, R.F.H.; Friedel, S.; Wirén, N.V. Plasticity of the Arabidopsis Root System under Nutrient Deficiencies. Plant Physiol. 2013, 163, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. 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. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 4761–4773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hayashi, K.; Nishimura, S.; Yagi, K. Ammonia volatilization from a paddy field following applications of urea: Rice plants are both an absorber and an emitter for atmospheric ammonia. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 390, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shan, Y.H.; Cai, Z.C.; Han, Y.; Sarah, E.J.; Roland, J.B. Accumulation of organic acids in relation to C:N ratios of straws and N application in flooded soil. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2006, 43, 941–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bird, J.A.; Horwath, W.R.; Eagle, A.J.; Kessel, C.V. Immobilization of Fertilizer Nitrogen in Rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 618–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Söderberg, K.H.; Bååth, E. The influence of nitrogen fertilisation on bacterial activity in the rhizosphere of barley. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 195–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chen, X.P.; Zhu, Y.G.; Xia, Y.; Shen, J.P.; He, J.Z. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea: Important players in paddy rhizosphere soil? Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 1978–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Minamikawa, K.; Sakai, N. The practical use of water management based on soil redox potential for decreasing methane emission from a paddy field in Japan. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 12 00565 g001 550
Figure 1. Daily mean temperature, sunshine hours, and precipitation during the rice growth season in 2019 and 2020.
Figure 1. Daily mean temperature, sunshine hours, and precipitation during the rice growth season in 2019 and 2020.
Agriculture 12 00565 g001
Agriculture 12 00565 g002 550
Figure 2. Yield (A); N uptake (B); spikelets per panicle (C); and total spikelets number (D) for all treatment combinations in 2019 and 2020. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information on these treatments was shown in Table 1. Error bars show standard error of replicates (n = 3).
Figure 2. Yield (A); N uptake (B); spikelets per panicle (C); and total spikelets number (D) for all treatment combinations in 2019 and 2020. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information on these treatments was shown in Table 1. Error bars show standard error of replicates (n = 3).
Agriculture 12 00565 g002
Agriculture 12 00565 g003 550
Figure 3. Correlation analysis among yield components, N uptake, and biomass at maturity (R0.05 = 0.576 and R0.01 = 0.707). N: N uptake at maturity; PN: panicles number; SN: spikelets number per panicle; TSN: total spikelet number per m2; FG: filled grain percentage; GW: grain weight.
Figure 3. Correlation analysis among yield components, N uptake, and biomass at maturity (R0.05 = 0.576 and R0.01 = 0.707). N: N uptake at maturity; PN: panicles number; SN: spikelets number per panicle; TSN: total spikelet number per m2; FG: filled grain percentage; GW: grain weight.
Agriculture 12 00565 g003
Agriculture 12 00565 g004 550
Figure 4. Biomass accumulation at MA (A); SO-SE (B); SE-HD (C); and HD-MA (D) for all treatment combinations in 2019 and 2020. SO: sowing stage; SE: stem elongation stage; HD: heading stage; MA: maturity stage. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information of these treatments was shown in Table 1. Error bars show standard error of replicates (n = 3).
Figure 4. Biomass accumulation at MA (A); SO-SE (B); SE-HD (C); and HD-MA (D) for all treatment combinations in 2019 and 2020. SO: sowing stage; SE: stem elongation stage; HD: heading stage; MA: maturity stage. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information of these treatments was shown in Table 1. Error bars show standard error of replicates (n = 3).
Agriculture 12 00565 g004
Agriculture 12 00565 g005 550
Figure 5. Tillering dynamics under wheat straw returning coupled with early N management in 2019 and 2020. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information on these treatments was shown in Table 1.
Figure 5. Tillering dynamics under wheat straw returning coupled with early N management in 2019 and 2020. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information on these treatments was shown in Table 1.
Agriculture 12 00565 g005
Agriculture 12 00565 g006 550
Figure 6. The oxidation–reduction potential (Eh) during 40 day after sowing under wheat straw returning coupled with early N management in 2019 and 2020. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information on these treatments was shown in Table 1. Error bars show standard error of replicates (n = 3).
Figure 6. The oxidation–reduction potential (Eh) during 40 day after sowing under wheat straw returning coupled with early N management in 2019 and 2020. S0 and S1 represent treatment without wheat straw returning and treatment with wheat straw returning, respectively. N1, N2, and N3 represent early N management of 65 kg N ha−1, 95 kg N ha−1, and 125 kg N ha−1, respectively. The information on these treatments was shown in Table 1. Error bars show standard error of replicates (n = 3).
Agriculture 12 00565 g006
Table
Table 1. Information on nitrogen application in this experiment.
Table 1. Information on nitrogen application in this experiment.
Treatment0 DAS 1
(kg ha−1)		20 DAS
(kg ha−1)		50 DAS
(kg ha−1)		70 DAS
(kg ha−1)
Without wheat straw returningN165654040
N295954040
N31251254040
Wheat straw
returning		N165654040
N295954040
N31251254040
1 DAS: days after sowing; 0 DAS: sowing stage; 20 DAS: early tillering stage; 50 DAS: panicle initiation stage; 70 DAS: initiation of spikelet differentiation stage.
Table
Table 2. Average yield, N uptake, and yield components at maturity as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Table 2. Average yield, N uptake, and yield components at maturity as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Yield
(t ha−1)		N Uptake
(kg ha−1)		Panicles
(m−2)		Spikelets
(Panicle−1)		Total Spikelets
(m−2)		Filled Grain
(%)		Grain Weight
(mg)
Year (Y) 1
201910.01814031034139294.726.6
20209.86 **180391 **10440655 *95.9 *26.5
Wheat straw (S) 2
S010.21864071024138395.226.5
S19.79 ***175 ***388 ***105 ***40664 *95.426.7
Nitrogen (N) 3
N19.601653851023923295.726.5
N210.11814001044155395.326.6
N310.3 ***196 ***406 ***104 **42286 ***95.026.7
F-values 4
S × N11.1 ***3.96 *5.42 *7.95 **15.5 ***NSNS
S × YNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
N × YNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Significant treatment effects within a main category are indicated by * (0.01 < p ≤ 0.05), ** (0.001 < p ≤ 0.01), and *** (p ≤ 0.001). 1 Values were averaged across wheat straw and nitrogen. 2 Values were averaged across nitrogen and year. 3 Values were averaged across wheat straw and year. 4 F-values are provided for interactions. There were no significant three-way interactions.
Table
Table 3. Biomass accumulation as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Table 3. Biomass accumulation as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Biomass (MA)
(t ha−1)		Biomass (SO-SE)
(t ha−1)		Biomass (SE-HD)
(t ha−1)		Biomass (HD-MA)
(t ha−1)
Year (Y) 1
201917.34.126.776.45
202016.7 ***3.97 **6.865.92 ***
Wheat straw (S) 2
S017.44.216.876.35
S116.7 ***3.87 ***6.756.03 **
Nitrogen (N) 3
N116.33.576.735.99
N217.24.016.946.16
N317.7 ***4.47 ***6.776.41 **
F-values 4
S × N11.0 ***NS7.06 **3.91 *
S × YNSNSNSNS
N × YNSNSNSNS
Significant treatment effects within a main category are indicated by * (0.01 < p ≤ 0.05), ** (0.001 < p ≤ 0.01), and *** (p ≤ 0.001). Biomass (MA), Biomass (SO-SE), Biomass (SE-HD), and Biomass (HD-MA) represent biomass accumulation at maturity, biomass accumulation from sowing to stem elongation stage, biomass accumulation from stem elongation to heading stage, and biomass accumulation from heading to maturity stage, respectively. 1 Values were averaged across wheat straw and nitrogen. 2 Values were averaged across nitrogen and year. 3 Values were averaged across wheat straw and year. 4 F-values are provided for interactions. There were no significant three-way interactions.
Table
Table 4. Seedling morphological characteristics and N uptake at 35 days after sowing as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Table 4. Seedling morphological characteristics and N uptake at 35 days after sowing as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Height
(cm)		Weight
(mg)		Leaf Area
(cm2)		Base Diameter
(mm)		N Uptake
(mg)
Year (Y) 1
201922.887.87.775.012.75
202021.4 ***481.8 ***6.49 ***4.23 ***2.53 ***
Wheat straw (S) 2
S022.687.47.354.792.74
S121.6 ***82.3 **6.90 ***4.45 **2.54 ***
Nitrogen (N) 3
N120.580.66.514.132.43
N222.084.87.074.612.65
N323.8 ***89.0 ***7.80 ***5.12 ***2.84 ***
1 Values were averaged across wheat straw and nitrogen. 2 Values were averaged across nitrogen and year. 3 Values were averaged across wheat straw and year. 4 Significant treatment effects within a main category are indicated by ** (0.001 < p ≤ 0.01), and *** (p ≤ 0.001).
Table
Table 5. Root morphological characteristics at 35 days after sowing as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Table 5. Root morphological characteristics at 35 days after sowing as affected by wheat straw returning (S0 or S1; n = 18), nitrogen (N1, N2, or N3; n = 12), and year (2019 or 2020; n = 18).
Root Weight
(mg)		Root Length
(cm)		Average Diameter
(mm)		Root Surface Area
(mm2)		Root Volume
(mm3)
Year (Y) 1
201910.490.60.401109100
20209.90 ***87.4 **0.401080 *96.0 **
Wheat straw (S) 2
S010.591.90.411124100
S19.82 *86.0 ***0.39 *1065 ***95.0 **
Nitrogen (N) 3
N19.4680.10.37104292.0
N210.288.80.40109598.0
N310.8 ***98.1 ***0.43 ***1146 ***104 ***
Significant treatment effects within a main category are indicated by * (0.01 < p ≤ 0.05), ** (0.001 < p ≤ 0.01), and *** (p ≤ 0.001). 1 Values were averaged across wheat straw and nitrogen. 2 Values were averaged across nitrogen and year. 3 Values were averaged across wheat straw and year.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tian, J.; Li, S.; Xing, Z.; Cheng, S.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, L.; Liao, P.; Hu, Y.; Guo, B.; Wei, H.; et al. Seedling Establishment and Yield Performance of Dry Direct-Seeded Rice after Wheat Straw Returning Coupled with Early Nitrogen Application. Agriculture 2022, 12, 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040565

AMA Style

Tian J, Li S, Xing Z, Cheng S, Liu Q, Zhou L, Liao P, Hu Y, Guo B, Wei H, et al. Seedling Establishment and Yield Performance of Dry Direct-Seeded Rice after Wheat Straw Returning Coupled with Early Nitrogen Application. Agriculture. 2022; 12(4):565. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040565

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tian, Jinyu, Shaoping Li, Zhipeng Xing, Shuang Cheng, Qiuyuan Liu, Lei Zhou, Ping Liao, Yajie Hu, Baowei Guo, Haiyan Wei, and et al. 2022. "Seedling Establishment and Yield Performance of Dry Direct-Seeded Rice after Wheat Straw Returning Coupled with Early Nitrogen Application" Agriculture 12, no. 4: 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040565

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