|
| Effects of Different Return Modes of Wheat Straws on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration of Maize Fields |
| Received:June 24, 2015 |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
| KeyWord:straw return;maize field;greenhouse gas emission;carbon sequestration |
| Author Name | Affiliation | E-mail | | LI Xin-hua | Shandong Institute of Agriculture Sustainable Development, Jinan 250100, China | | | ZHU Zhen-lin | Shandong Institute of Agriculture Sustainable Development, Jinan 250100, China | | | DONG Hong-yun | Shandong Institute of Agriculture Sustainable Development, Jinan 250100, China | | | YANG Li-ping | Shandong Institute of Agriculture Sustainable Development, Jinan 250100, China | | | GUO Hong-hai | Institute of Resource and Environment SAAS, Ji'nan 250100, China | honghaig@163.com |
|
| Hits: 3897 |
| Download times: 2974 |
| Abstract: |
| Returning crop residues to soil could improve soil fertility and increase crop yields, but it may also casue elevated greenhouse gas emissions. In this study, an experiment was conducted to assess the effects of different modes of wheat straw return on CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions and carbon sequestration in maize fields during maize growing season. The modes of wheat straw return included chopped straw direct return(CS), cow-digested straw return(CGS), and mushroom-cultivated straw return(CMS). The cumulative emissions of CO2 and N2O were both in order of CGS> CS> non-straw return(CK)> CMS, while the cumulative CH4 absorption followed the sequence of CGS> CK> CMS> CS. Soil organic carbon content decreased in order of CGS> CMS> CS> CK, with significant difference between different treatments(P<0.05). However, carbon storage in plants and grains declined in the sequence of CGS>CS>CMS>CK, with no significant difference between different treatments(P>0.05). Compared to CK, CS, CGS, and CMS all mitigated the global warming effects of maize fields. The post-livestock digestion straw return mode could be recommended from in order of CGS> CMS> CS> CK. The mitigating benefit of global warming by CGS was 22 493.83 kg CO2·hm-2, 24.2%, 18.7%, and 1.6% greater than that of CK, CS, and CMS, respectively. Therefore, the perspective of decreasing the global warming, and it also forms benign cycle of food-straw-cattle manure-fertilizer-food. |
|
|
|
