2001
DOI: 10.4314/jgsa.v3i2.17914
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Management of crop residues for sustainable crop production

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Islam et al (2016) also found that residue retention turned negative N balances into positive balances under a lentil-mung bean-monsoon rice rotation. By contrast, Boateng and Dennis (2000) showed that application of residue had no significant effect on N uptake by crops, while surface application of residue reduced N uptake and crop yield by N immobilisation (Soon and Lupwayi, 2012). It is likely that after 12-14 successive crops, as in the present study, the N immobilisation processes are suppressed due to the larger stock of soil organic carbon (Alam et al, 2018) and soil N (present study).…”
Section: N Availabilitycontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…Islam et al (2016) also found that residue retention turned negative N balances into positive balances under a lentil-mung bean-monsoon rice rotation. By contrast, Boateng and Dennis (2000) showed that application of residue had no significant effect on N uptake by crops, while surface application of residue reduced N uptake and crop yield by N immobilisation (Soon and Lupwayi, 2012). It is likely that after 12-14 successive crops, as in the present study, the N immobilisation processes are suppressed due to the larger stock of soil organic carbon (Alam et al, 2018) and soil N (present study).…”
Section: N Availabilitycontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…When crop residues were exported, the soil was exposed to erosion (mainly wind erosion), and inputs of organic matter to the soil decreased, which explains the low SOM (less than 1.5%) and P contents, as reported elsewhere in the literature [58,61]. In addition, bare soil increases water evaporation from the soil [61,62], and erosion decreases the rooting zone depth and water-holding capacity, which decreases soil productivity by removing organic matter, nutrients, and fine particles with the topsoil [63,64]. These impacts tend to be more extreme in oases because of the arid climate, soil texture, and degraded soil structure, since these factors make the soil highly erodible [11,64].…”
Section: Potential Impacts Of Current Agricultural Practices and Management Of Organic Input Flows On Soil Fertilitymentioning
confidence: 61%
“…In addition, bare soil increases water evaporation from the soil [61,62], and erosion decreases the rooting zone depth and water-holding capacity, which decreases soil productivity by removing organic matter, nutrients, and fine particles with the topsoil [63,64]. These impacts tend to be more extreme in oases because of the arid climate, soil texture, and degraded soil structure, since these factors make the soil highly erodible [11,64]. Thus, low SOM content in this region was caused mainly by inadequate management of crop residues and applying too little manure or compost.…”
Section: Potential Impacts Of Current Agricultural Practices and Management Of Organic Input Flows On Soil Fertilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The probable reasons for the increased N uptake could be associated with the increased availability of directly added N. The decreased soil surface temperature [ 41 , 42 ] and lower water losses in mulched plots have been reported to increase the grain yield and nutrient uptake in soybean crops [ 43 ]. Similarly, the increased decomposition of crop residues led to an increase in the release of nitrogen, which corresponded with plant N uptake, irrespective of the fertilizer source of N, and resulted in decreased N losses and, hence, increased the N uptake and crop yield [ 44 , 45 ]. These arguments support the trend of our data, indicating positive and linear relationships of N uptake with the grain and the biological yields of maize.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%