| Literature DB >> 27414400 |
Yufang Shen1,2, Yingying Chen1, Shiqing Li1,2.
Abstract
Mulching is widely used to increase crop yield in semiarid regions in northwestern China, but little is known about the effect of different mulching systems on the microbial properties of the soil, which play an important role in agroecosystemic functioning and nutrient cycling. Based on a 4-year spring maize (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27414400 PMCID: PMC4945083 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The mean monthly precipitation (P) and air temperature (T) during the maize growing season in the five experimental years and long term (last 20 years) at the study site.
Fig 2The microbial biomass C and microbial biomass N (a) and dehydrogenase activity and urease activity (b) in each treatment. Soil samples were tested from rhizosphere of maize treated with different mulching and fertilizer treatments. The values are the means of three replicates, and different letters above the bars indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level. NMC, no mulching with inorganic N fertilizers; GMC, gravel mulching with inorganic N fertilizers; FMC, plastic-film mulching with inorganic N fertilizers; FMO, plastic-film mulching with chemical N fertilizers and organic manure addition.
Fig 3Variation in average well color development (AWCD) over time in Biolog ECO-microplates.
Soil samples were tested from rhizosphere of maize treated with different mulching and fertilizer treatments. The values are the means of three replicates (means±SD).
Fig 4Principal component analysis of CLPP results from maize rhizosphere soil treated with different mulching and fertilizer treatments.
Soil samples were tested from rhizosphere of maize treated with different mulching and fertilizer treatments.
Fig 5Loadings of 31 carbon substrates on PC1 and PC2 in the principal components analysis of the CLPP results.
Carbon source: A1: Water, A2: β-methyl-D-glucoside, A3: D-galactonic acid γ-lactone, A4: L-arginine, B1: Pyruvic acid methyl ester, B2: D-xylose, B3: D-galacturonic acid, B4: L-asparagine, C1: Tween 40, C2: I-erythritol, C3: 2-hydroxybenzoic acid, C4: L-phenylalanine, D1: Tween 80, D2: D-mannitol, D3: 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, D4: L-serine, E1: α-cyclodextrin, E2: N-acetyl-D-glucosamine, E3: γ-hydroxybutyric acid, E4: L-threonine, F1: Glycogen, F2: D-glucosaminic acid, F3: Itaconic acid, F4: Glycyl-L-glutamic acid, G1: D-cellobiose, G2: Glucose-1-phosphate, G3: α-ketobutyric acid, G4: Phenylethylamine, H1:α-D-lactose, H2: D,L-α-glycerol phosphate, H3: D-malic acid, H4:Putrescine.
Fig 6Relative substrate utilization for six substrate categories in each treatment.
Soil samples were tested from rhizosphere of maize treated with different mulching and fertilizer treatments. The values are the means of three replicates, and different letters above the bars indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level.
Fig 7The grain yield, biomass and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of maize treated with different mulching and fertilizer treatments.
The values are the means of three replicates, and different letters above the bars indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level.
Fig 8N accumulation during the pre- and post-silking period and of grain at maturity in different mulching and fertilizer treatments.
The values are the means of three replicates, and different letters above the bars indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level.