Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoderma
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoderma

Soil aggregate and crop yield changes with different rates of straw
incorporation in semiarid areas of northwest China
Peng Zhang 1, Ting Wei 1, Zhikuan Jia ⁎, Qingfang Han, Xiaolong Ren
The Chinese Institute of Water-saving Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100 Shaanxi, China
Key Laboratory of Crop Physi-ecology and Tillage Science in Northwestern Loess Plateau, Ministry of Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100 Shaanxi, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The current cropping system of conventional tillage and stubble removal in the northwestern Loess Plateau of
Received 29 September 2013 China is known to decrease the water use efficiency and crop yield because of reduced aggregation and aggregate
Received in revised form 27 February 2014 stability, as well as degrading other soil properties. To determine the effects of straw incorporation on the soil ag-
Accepted 6 April 2014
gregates and crop yield, we conducted experiments in semiarid areas of southern Ningxia for 4 years
Available online 4 May 2014
(2007–2010). Four treatments were tested: (i) no straw incorporation (CK); (ii) incorporation of maize straw
Keywords:
at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha (L); (iii) incorporation of maize straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha (M); and
Crop yield (iv) incorporation of maize straw at a high rate of 13 500 kg/ha (H). In the final year of treatment (2010), the
Semiarid area mean soil bulk density of the tilth soil (0–60 cm) was decreased significantly with H, M and L, i.e., by 4.13%,
Soil aggregates 3.21% and 1.80% compared with CK, respectively, and the treatments greatly improved the total soil porosity.
Soil water storage The straw incorporation treatments increased the soil aggregate size distribution and soil aggregate stability in
Straw incorporation the 0–40 cm soil layers, according to the following order: H/M N L N CK. Straw incorporation significantly im-
proved the soil moisture content compared with CK. Higher yields coupled with greater water use efficiency
were achieved with H, M and L compared with CK, where these treatments increased the crop yields by
22.49%, 22.82%, and 10.62%, respectively, and the water use efficiency by 32.11%, 29.29%, and 14.05%.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
China has a large region of dryland farming in the northwest (Wang
et al., 2012), which is constrained by adverse weather, topography,
water deficiency, and infertile soils (Deng et al., 2006; Huang et al.,
2005). Thus, it is important to improve the soil quality and soil water ca-
pacity, which play significant roles in promoting the crop productivity
in this zone.
Since the 1980s, crop residue burning has been the traditional meth-
od for disposal after the harvest. However, crop residue burning reduces
the amount of organic substances (Chan et al., 2002), the water stability
of the entire soil, and the number of earthworms (Wuest et al., 2005), as
well as the dry aggregates. Furthermore, this practice has led to the deg-
radation of the agricultural ecological environment (Mandal et al.,
2004). Many studies have shown that crop straw is rich in organic ma-
terial and soil nutrients, so it is increasingly considered to be an impor-
tant natural organic fertilizer (Tan et al., 2007; Duiker and Lal, 1999;
Saroa and Lal, 2003). The addition of crop residues to cultivated soils
helps to improve the soil quality and productivity via its favorable
⁎ Corresponding author at: The Chinese Institute of Water-saving Agriculture,
Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100 Shaanxi, China.
E-mail address: jiazhk@126.com (Z. Jia).
1
These two authors contributed equally to this publication.
effects on soil properties (Mulumba and Lal, 2008). Jastrow (1996)
and Bhattacharyya et al. (2009) observed that residue management
and the artificial addition of organic matter sources to the soil and clay
minerals are the most important factors that facilitate soil structural de-
velopment and soil aggregation improvement. Li et al. (2006) and Tan
et al. (2007) found that straw incorporation can promote a favorable
soil environment for production, while also maintaining the physico-
chemical condition of the soil and improving the overall ecological bal-
ance of the crop production system.
Soil aggregates are the basic units of the soil structure (Scanlon et al.,
2002), which can protect soil organic matter (SOM) (Chevallier et al.,
2004; Jastrow, 1996; Tisdall and Oades, 1982), but they also affect
the soil tilth (Horn and Smucker, 2005), regulate water flow (Horn
and Smucker, 2005; Seybold and Herrick, 2001), determine the microbi-
al biomass and mineral nutrient reserves (Ashagrie et al., 2005;
Hernández-Hernández and López-Hernández, 2002; Villar et al.,
2004), and reduce run-off and erosion (Barthes and Roose, 2002;
Dexter, 1988; Six et al., 2000). Wagner et al. (2007) showed that the in-
corporation of barley straw is most effective for the development of
water-stable aggregates in the soil. Compared with farmyard manure,
straw incorporation improves the aggregate stability and other soil
properties, as well as reducing soil detachment and improving infiltra-
tion rates (Eynard et al., 2006; Sonnleitner et al., 2003). Mulumba and
Lal (2008) also reported that the addition of crop residues to cultivated

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.04.007
0016-7061/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
42 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49
soils had positive effects on the soil porosity, available water content,
soil aggregation, and bulk density. Bhagat and Verma (1991) showed
that the incorporation of crop straws for 5 years significantly increased
the crop yield and improved the soil properties.
Thus, straw has positive effects on the soil quality and it can be effec-
tive in stabilizing the soil structure, in addition to its roles in soil aggre-
gation and aggregate stability. However, the application of straw
incorporation in semiarid areas of northwest China has not been report-
ed previously. Thus, we investigated the effects of different crop straw
incorporation rates combined with conventional planting on the soil
bulk density and porosity, soil aggregate size distribution and aggregate
stability, soil water storage, and crop yield in a loessal soil in the south-
ern Ningxia region of northwest China.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
The experiments were conducted between 2007 and 2010 at the
Dryland Agricultural Research Station, Pengyang County, Ningxia,
China (106°45′N, 35°79′E and 1800 m a.s.l.). The experimental area
was in a hilly and gully region of the Loess Plateau, which was character-
ized by a semiarid, warm temperate, continental monsoon climate. The
average annual rainfall was 435 mm, which occurred mainly from June
to September. The annual mean evaporation was 1050 mm and the an-
nual temperature average was 8.1 °C with a frost-free period of
155 days.
Rainfall during the experimental period was measured using an au-
tomatic weather station (WS-STD1, Delta-T Devices, UK) at the experi-
mental site. The monthly precipitation distributions during the
experimental period are shown in Fig. 1.
The soil at the experimental site was a loessal soil with a pH of 8.5.
In the 0–40 cm soil layer, the organic matter, total N, P, and K were
8.32 g kg−1, 0.61 g kg− 1, 0.58 g kg− 1, and 5.4 g kg− 1, respectively,
while the available N, P, and K were 46.25 mg kg−1, 10.41 mg kg− 1,
and 104.82 mg kg−1. In 2007, the site was planted with maize prior to
the experiment
The experimental field was flat and the soil was a Calcic Cambisol
(sand 14%, silt 26%, and clay 60%) according to the FAO/UNESCO Soil
Classification (FAO/UNESCO, 1993). The key physical properties of the
soil layers (0–40 cm depth) are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 1. Distribution of mean monthly precipitation at the experimental site during 2007–2010.
2.2. Experimental design and field management
The experiment used a randomized block design with three repli-
cates. Each plot was 3 m wide and 6 m long. The experiment included
four straw incorporation rate treatments: (i) no straw incorporation
(CK); (ii) incorporation of maize straw at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha (L);
(iii) incorporation of maize straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha (M);
and (iv) incorporation of maize straw at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha (H).
The maize straw was mixed manually with the top 25 cm of soil in
the field. Before mixing with the soil, the maize straw was chopped
into 5 cm pieces and applied to the soil 6 months before the crop was
planted to facilitate the decomposition of the straw. The straw was
incorporated into the soil layer on October 15, 2007 and after the har-
vests in 2008–2010. Seeding maize (cv. Shendan 16) was planted at
a rate of 52 500 plants/ha in mid-April and harvested in mid-October
of 2007 and 2009, and seeding millet (cv. Datong 10) at a rate of
300000 plants/ha in 2008 and 2010.
Ten days before sowing, a basis fertilizer containing 102 kg N ha−1
and 90 kg P ha−1 was spread evenly over each plot and plowed into
the soil layer. No artificial irrigation was provided during the years of
the experiment. Manual weeding was performed throughout the
experiment.
2.3. Sampling and measurement
The rainfall data were recorded using a standard weather station lo-
cated at the experimental site. After the harvest in 2008–2010, soil sam-
ples were collected from the four incorporation treatments at depths of
0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, 20–30 cm and 30–40 cm to determine the aggre-
gate stability. The soil samples were collected from four points in each
plot replicate and mixed to produce a composite sample. Each soil sam-
ple was passed through an 8 mm sieve by gently breaking the soil clods,
where pebbles and stable clods N 8 mm were discarded.
Between 2007 and 2010, the soil water content was determined in
each plot by taking three random soil core samples using a 54 mm di-
ameter steel core-sampling tube, which was driven manually to a
depth of 2.0 m during each growing season (from May to October)
and between November and April in the next year. The soil cores were
weighed wet, dried in a fan-assisted oven at 105 °C for 48 h, and
weighed again to determine the soil water content and bulk density
(Ferraro and Ghersa, 2007). The gravimetric water content was
 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49 43

Table 1
Physical properties of the tilth soil (0–40 cm depth) in the experimental site.

Depth Bulk density Porosity Particle size (%)

(cm) (g/cm3) (%) Dry/wet

N5 mm 5–2 mm 2–1 mm 1–0.5 mm 0.5–0.25 mm b0.25 mm N0.25 mm

0–10 1.33 50.02 15.55/0.1 10.63/0.17 7.45/1.55 9.2/4.15 10.8/4.35 46.37/89.68 53.63/10.32
10–20 1.33 49.96 18.37/0.15 9.3/0.15 6.27/1.38 7.3/3.47 9.41/3.61 49.35/91.24 50.65/8.76
20–30 1.36 48.56 22.3/0 10.2/0.11 6.02/1.21 7.5/2.63 9.69/2.86 44.29/93.19 55.71/6.81
30–40 1.38 48.34 29.02/0 10.28/0.1 8.32/1.07 10.18/2.29 11.76/2.81 30.44/93.73 69.56/6.27

Xn !
multiplied by soil bulk density to obtain the volumetric water content. W logX i
i
The soil water storage was calculated for a 2.0-m profile by multiplying GMD ¼ exp X
i¼1
n ð6Þ
Wi
the mean soil volumetric water content by the soil profile depth. i¼1

The soil bulk density in the 0–60 cm depth was determined using the
core method (McCarty et al., 1998). The volume of a stainless ring used
was 200 cm3. Three core samples were collected at random in each plot
WSAR ¼ WSA=A  100% ð7Þ
during May before sowing and in October after the harvest. The soil po-
rosity was calculated using the bulk density (BD) and particle density
(PD, 2.65 Mg m−3) according to the following equation:

 PAD ¼ ðDR0:25 −WR0:25 Þ=DR0:25  100% ð8Þ
BD
Porosity ð100%Þ ¼ 1−  100: ð1Þ
PD
where R0.25 is the volume of soil particles with a diameter of N0.25 mm
The grain yield was determined at a water content of 12% after man- (DR0.25 is the dry stable macroaggregate content with a diameter of
ually harvesting the three central rows with a length of 5-m from each N0.25 mm, WR0.25 is the water-stable macroaggregate content with a
plot. The water use efficiency was estimated as the grain yield divided diameter of N0.25 mm), Wi is weight of the aggregates in a specific
by the growing season evapotranspiration (E) (Hussain and Al-Jaloud, size range as a fraction of the total dry weight of the sample analyzed,
1995), as follows: n is the number of sieves, X i is the mean diameter of aggregates for
each sieve size, WSA is the mass of WR0.25, and A is the mass of the
Yield
WUE ¼ ð2Þ soil aggregates with a diameter of N 0.25 mm.
E

where E was calculated as (He et al., 2009): 2.4. Statistical analysis

E ¼ P−DW
where P is the growing season rainfall and DW is the change in the
stored soil water for the soil profile (0–2.0 m depth) between planting
and harvest.
The size distribution of the dry-stable aggregates was determined by
placing a soil sample on a stack of sieves (5, 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.25 mm) fitted
to an oscillatory sieving analyzer (JH-200, China). The stacked sieves
were oscillated at a frequency of 300 times/60 s for 2 min. The propor-
tions of aggregates that measured N5, 5–2, 2–0.5, 0.5–0.25, and
b0.25 mm were calculated by weighing the soil remaining in the sieves.
The water-stable aggregates were analyzed by placing a soil sample on a
stack of sieves (5, 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25 mm) fitted to a soil aggregate ana-
lyzer (QD24–DIK–2001, Japan). The stacked sieves were immersed in
water and moved up and down by 3.5 cm at a frequency of 30 cycles/
60 s for 15 min. The proportions of aggregates that measured N 5, 5–2,
2–0.5, 0.5–0.25, and b0.25 mm were calculated by drying and weighing
the soil remaining on the sieves (Oades and Waters, 1991).
The proportions of aggregates were used to calculate the aggregate
content with a diameter of N 0.25 mm R0.25 (Hou et al., 2012), the
mean weight diameter (MWD) (Van Bavel, 1950; Youker and
McGuinness, 1957), the geometric mean diameter (GMD) (Mazurak,
1950), the soil aggregate stability (WSAR) (Yang and Wander, 1998)
and the percentage of aggregate destruction (PAD), using routine
methods. These parameters were calculated as follows:
M r N 0:25 M
R0:25 ¼ ¼ 1− r b 0:25
MT MT
X
n 1.10% at the 0–20 cm depth; 3.07% (P b 0.05), 3.25% (P b 0.05), and
MWD ¼ XiW i
i¼1
ð3Þ The mean values were calculated for each measurement and ANOVA
was used to compare the effects of different treatments on the mea-
sured variables. If the F-value was significant (P b 0.05), multiple com-
parisons of annual mean values were performed based on the least
significant difference (LSD). SPSS 13.0 was used for all statistical
analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Soil bulk density and porosity
The soil bulk density was used as an indicator of changes in the soil
structure with different tillage practices during the 4-year experiment
(Fig. 2). Compared with the level before the experiment (1.4 g/cm3),
the mean soil bulk density in the tilth (0–60 cm) following the incorpo-
ration treatments decreased significantly after 4 years (1.91%–4.23%),
and the soil bulk density increased with the soil layer depth, i.e. by
4.52%–7.59% at the 0–60 cm depth. With H, M and L, the soil
bulk density decreased compared with CK, i.e., by 4.23% (P b 0.05),
2.32% (P b 0.05), and 1.25% at the 0–20 cm depth; 3.39% (P b 0.05),
3.59% (P b 0.05), and 1.09% at the 20–40 cm depth; and 4.74%
(P b 0.05), 3.67% (P b 0.05), and 3.01% at the 40–60 cm depth, respec-
tively, whereas the differences between L and CK were not significant.
In this study, we found that the three straw treatments significantly
increased the total porosity after 4 years, whereas the CK treatment was
associated with a nonsignificant improvement (Fig. 2). The total poros-
ð4Þ ity decreased with the soil layer depth by 4.30–7.78% at the 0–60 cm
depth. Compared with CK, the H, M, and L treatments resulted in in-
creases in the total porosity of 3.64% (P b 0.05), 2.03% (P b 0.05), and
ð5Þ 1.00% at the 20–40 cm depth; and 4.57% (P b 0.05), 3.58% (P b 0.05),
and 2.95% at the 40–60 cm depth, respectively.
44 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49

Fig. 2. Change of soil bulk density and soil porosity at 0–60 cm depth under different straw incorporation treatments. Note: Ps, before treatment; CK, no straw incorporation; L, incorpo-
ration of straw at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha maize straw; M, incorporation of straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha maize straw; H, incorporation of straw at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha
maize straw; AVG, the mean value of the 0–40 cm soil layers. Bars with different lower case letters indicate significant differences at P b 0.05.

3.2. Soil aggregate size distribution
3.2.1. Macroaggregates (N 0.25 mm)
The aggregate size distribution and stability are important indicators
of the soil physical quality (e.g., soil structure, aggregation, and degrada-
tion). Table 2 shows that after 4 years of straw incorporation, the
N0.25 mm dry stable macroaggregates (DR0.25) increased significantly
in the 0–40 cm layers with H, M, and L compared with the pre-
treatment levels, i.e., by 13.19%, 20.52%, and 11.89%, respectively. All of
the straw incorporation treatments produced higher DR0.25 levels in
the 0–40 cm depth and the highest DR0.25 was found with M. The H,
M and L treatments increased the mean DR0.25 in the 0–40 cm soil layers
by 8.12%, 15.12%, and 6.88% compared with CK, respectively, and there
was a corresponding decrease in the DR0.25 with the soil layer depth.
As shown in Table 2, the mean N0.25-mm water-stable aggregate
content in the 0–40 cm soil layers was 5.71%–16.72% after the harvest
(2010), which was much less than the dry stable aggregate content
(56.44–78.28%), thereby indicating that the soil aggregates were pri-
marily dry-stable. After 4 years of straw incorporation, soil water-
stable aggregate content improved at a depth of 0–40 cm compared
with the pretreatment levels, i.e., the increase was significant with
H and M (53.18% and 61.96%, respectively) but not significant with
L (6.55%). The water-stable aggregate content decreased gradually
with the soil depth, i.e., by 57.97–89.86%. Compared with CK, the
N0.25-mm water-stable aggregate content increased with H, M, and L,
i.e., by 54.53%, 63.39%, and 7.49% at the 0–10 cm depth; 63.83%,
64.51%, and 16.35% at the 10–20 cm depth; 89.51%, 86.32%, and
32.42% at the 20–30 cm depth; and 49.94%, 54.14%, and 21.88% at the
30–40 cm depth, respectively, whereas the differences between H and
M, and L and CK were not significant.
3.2.2. MWD and GMD
The effects of straw incorporation on the mean weight diameter of
dry stable aggregates (DMWD) and the geometric mean diameter of
dry stable aggregates (DGMD) are shown in Fig. 3. Compared with the
pretreatment levels, the DMWD and DGMD increased significantly in
the tilth (0–40 cm) with all straw incorporation treatments, i.e., by
20.57% and 31.94%, respectively. The DMWD and DGMD (0–40 cm) in-
creases with the four treatments were ranked in the order: M N H N
L N CK. In the 0–40 cm layer, the DMWD values with H, M, and L were
22.02%, 37.80%, and 14.66% higher than that with CK, respectively,
while the DGMD values were 24.68%, 45.22%, and 17.55% higher. The
DMWD and DGMD increased gradually with the soil layer depth with
all four treatments, and the differences with the straw incorporation
treatments were obvious, especially in the 30–40 cm layer.
There were some differences in the results for the mean weight di-
ameter of water stable aggregates (WMWD) and the geometric mean
diameter of water stable aggregates (WGMD) (Fig. 3). Compared with
the pretreatment levels, WMWD increased significantly in the tilth
(0–40 cm) with all straw incorporation treatments, i.e., by 9.14%,
whereas the WGMD increased nonsignificantly by 0.88%. After 4 years
of straw incorporation, the WMWD values with the four treatments
were ranked in the order: M N H N L N CK, whereas the WGMD values
were ranked in the order: H N M N L N CK. The levels were significantly
higher with H and M compared with CK, while the levels were similar
with L and CK at the 0–40 cm depth (Fig. 3). With H and M, the

Table 2
N0.25 mm aggregate content by dry and wet sieving under different straw incorporation treatments (%). Note: Ps, before treatment; CK, no straw incorporation; L, incorporation of straw
at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha maize straw; M, incorporation of straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha maize straw; H, incorporation of straw at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha maize straw; AVG,
the mean value of the 0–40 cm soil layers.

Index Treatment Soil depth (cm) AVG

0–10 10–20 20–30 30–40

DR0.25 (%) Ps 53.63cCa ± 1.20b 50.65 dD ± 0.72 55.71cC ± 1.52 69.56cC ± 0.71 57.39dD ± 0.93
H 60.42aA ± 0.32 62.01bB ± 0.46 63.62bB ± 1.27 73.78bB ± 0.85 64.96bB ± 0.31
M 60.57aA ± 0.44 68.71aA ± 0.89 69.10aA ± 0.78 78.28aA ± 0.58 69.16aA ± 0.34
L 58.93aAB ± 2.23 61.93bB ± 0.90 62.98bB ± 0.95 73.01bB ± 1.53 64.21bB ± 0.85
CK 56.44bB ± 0.92 56.71cC ± 1.98 57.14cC ± 0.09 70.03cC ± 0.48 60.08cC ± 0.77
WR0.25 (%) Ps 10.32bB ± 1.20 8.76bB ± 0.54 6.81bB ± 0.51 6.27bcBC ± 0.14 8.04bcB ± 0.30
H 15.81aA ± 1.20 12.76aA ± 0.44 11.50aA ± 0.20 8.57aA ± 0.05 12.16aA ± 0.59
M 16.72aA ± 1.36 12.81aA ± 0.05 11.30aA ± 1.10 8.81aA ± 0.44 12.41aA ± 0.72
L 11.00bB ± 0.78 9.06bB ± 0.81 8.03bAB ± 2.14 6.96bB ± 0.81 8.76 bB ± 0.66
CK 10.23bB ± 0.46 7.79bB ± 0.23 6.07bB ± 0.46 5.71cB ± 0.23 7.45 cB ± 0.25
a
Different lower case letters in the same line indicate significant differences at P b 0.05 whereas capital letters indicate differences at P b 0.01.
b
Mean ± standard deviation.
 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49 45

Fig. 3. MWD and GMD values with dry and wet sieving under the different straw incorporation treatments. Note: WMWD, the mean weight diameter of water stable aggregates; WGMD,
the geometric mean diameter of water stable aggregates; DMWD, the mean weight diameter of dry stable aggregates; DGMD, the geometric mean diameter of dry stable aggregates; CK,
no straw incorporation; L, incorporation of straw at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha maize straw; M, incorporation of straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha maize straw; H, incorporation of straw
at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha maize straw. Bars with different lower case letters indicate significant differences at P b 0.05.

WMWD values in the 0–40 cm layer were 11.20% and 3.96% higher than
that with CK, respectively, while the WGMD values were 3.77% greater
with H and 2.75% greater with M compared with CK. All the straw incor-
poration treatments produced higher WMWD and WGMD values at a
0–10 cm depth compared with a 30–40 cm depth.
respectively. There were also significant decreases of 9.10% and 6.85%
at the 20–30 cm depth, and 3.91% and 3.48% at the 30–40 cm depth.
At the 0–30 cm depth, PAD did not differ significantly between L and CK.
3.4. Soil water storage

3.3. WSAR and PAD
Before the experiment, the mean WSAR in the tilth (0–40 cm) was
8.04%. After 4 years of straw incorporation, the WSAR increased signifi-
cantly compared with the initial background value, but the CK treat-
ment resulted in a slight decrease. In 2010, the straw incorporation
treatments significantly increased the WSAR at a depth of 0–40 cm
compared with CK, where the best effect was obtained with M. With
H, M, and L, the mean WSAR increased significantly by 41.80% at the
0–10 cm depth, 48.23% at the 10–20 cm depth, 69.41% at the
20–30 cm depth, and 41.99% at the 30–40 cm depth, compared with
CK, whereas there were no significant differences in the WSAR with L
and CK at the 0–30 cm depth.
Table 3 shows the PAD values with the four treatments at the
0–40 cm depth. All of the treatments produced lower PAD levels in
the surface soil (0–20 cm) compared with the deeper soil (20–40 cm),
and the lowest PAD was found with H. At the 0–10 cm depth, the
mean PAD values were 10.89 and 13.08% lower with H and M compared
with CK, respectively. At the 10–20 cm depth, the mean PAD values
were 8.58 and 6.01% lower with H and M compared with CK,
The fallow period occurs during the dry season in the semiarid re-
gion of northwest China, thus soil water storage is related significantly
to crop sowing and seedling emergence. During the 4 years of this
study, the pre-sowing soil water storage level varied greatly among
years. There were no significant differences between straw incorpora-
tion practices and CK with respect to the soil water storage levels during
the first two years (2007–2008) (Table 4). However, the straw incorpo-
ration treatments resulted in significantly higher soil water storage
levels compared with CK during 2009–2010, especially with the H and
M treatments, where the mean soil water storage levels were 9.42%
and 3.36% higher than CK, respectively.
The different tillage management and rainfall conditions meant that
there were significant differences in the soil water storage levels after
the crop harvest with the straw incorporation treatments and CK.
Table 5 shows that the rainfall levels in the growth periods were
346.5 mm in 2008 and 287.5 mm in 2009, both of which were lower
than the average of 355.73 mm. With H, M, and L, the mean soil water
storage levels after the harvest were significantly higher than that
with CK, i.e., by 9.53%, 8.54%, and 6.86%, respectively. In 2007 and
2010, the growth period rainfall levels were 255.6 mm and 407.3 mm,
46 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49

Table 3
Effect of different straw incorporation treatments on stability parameter of aggregates. Note: WSAR, the soil aggregate stability; PAD, the percentage of aggregate destruction; Ps, before
treatment; CK, no straw incorporation; L, incorporation of straw at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha maize straw; M, incorporation of straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha maize straw; H, in-
corporation of straw at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha maize straw; AVG, the mean value of the 0–40 cm soil layers.

Index Treatment Soil depth (cm) AVG

0–10 10–20 20–30 30–40

WSAR (%) Ps 10.32bBa ± 1.20b 8.76bB ± 0.54 6.81bB ± 0.51 6.27bcBC ± 0.14 8.04bcB ± 0.30
H 15.81aA ± 1.20 12.76aA ± 0.44 11.50aA ± 0.20 8.57aA ± 0.05 12.16aA ± 0.59
M 16.72aA ± 1.36 12.81aA ± 0.05 11.30aA ± 1.10 8.81aA ± 0.44 12.41aA ± 0.72
L 11.00bB ± 0.78 9.06bB ± 0.81 8.03bAB ± 2.14 6.96bB ± 0.81 8.76bB ± 0.66
CK 10.23bB ± 0.46 7.79bB ± 0.23 6.07bB ± 0.46 5.71cB ± 0.23 7.45bC ± 0.25
PAD (%) Ps 80.77aA ± 1.49 82.70bBC ± 1.03 87.74aA ± 1.08 90.99bAB ± 0.18 85.99bB ± 0.25
H 73.83bB ± 1.88 79.43cD ± 2.11 81.93bB ± 0.24 88.39cC ± 0.12 81.28cC ± 0.88
M 72.40bB ± 1.53 81.36bcCD ± 1.50 83.65bB ± 1.20 88.75cC ± 0.44 82.06cC ± 0.72
L 81.34aA ± 0.83 85.37aAB ± 0.27 87.23aA ± 2.87 90.47bB ± 0.81 86.36bAB ± 0.67
CK 81.87aA ± 0.67 86.25aA ± 1. 17 89.38aA ± 0.66 91.84aA ± 0.31 87.60aA ± 0.45
a
Different lower case letters in the same line indicate significant differences at P b 0.05 whereas capital letters indicate differences at P b 0.01.
b
Mean ± standard deviation.

and the mean soil water storage levels increased significantly with H, M
and L compared with CK, i.e., by 8.27%, 5.74%, and 3.88%, respectively.
There were no significant differences with H and M during the study
period.
3.5. Yield, water use efficiency and rain use efficiency
During the study period, the crop yields with the straw incorpora-
tion treatments were significantly different from those with CK
(Table 5). The grain yields with H, M, and L increased by 22.49%,
22.82%, and 10.62% compared with CK, respectively. The grain yields
agreed with the precipitation levels in each growing season.
The water use efficiency varied significantly with the growing sea-
son rainfall and straw incorporation practices (Table 5). During
2007–2010, the mean water use efficiency levels were 13.56, 13.16
and 13.65 kg/ha/mm with the H, M and L treatments, respectively.
Compared with the CK treatment, the three treatments improved the
water use efficiency significantly by 34.62%, 30.67%, and 15.72% with
H, M, and L, respectively. Compared with CK, the incorporation of
straw residues improved physical and chemical properties of the soil,
and significantly increased the rain use efficiency. With H, M, and L,
the rain use efficiency levels were higher than that with CK, i.e.,
18.13%, 18.95%, and 14.79% higher in 2007; 13.66%, 19.98%, and 3.67%
higher in 2008; 30.72%, 29.18%, and 12.51% higher in 2009; and
27.45%, 23.19%, and 11.53% higher in 2010, respectively.
4. Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that the application of crop
straw had positive effects on the physico-chemical properties of soil.
After 4 years, the straw incorporation treatments significantly reduced
the soil bulk density in the tilth (0–60 cm) compared with CK. These im-
provement can be explained by the increased SOM because the bulk
density was negatively correlated (P b 0.01) with the SOM content. Sim-
ilar effects were reported by Adams (1973) and Rawls et al. (1998).
Previous studies have shown that long-term crop straw incorpora-
tion practices have positive effects on the total porosity of the soil
(Mulumba and Lal, 2008). In the present study, the straw incorporation
treatments significantly increased the total porosity compared with CK
at the 0–60 cm depth. This improvement was attributed to the incorpo-
ration of crop straw, which caused the loessal soil particles to stick to-
gether and form aggregates. Thus, the bulk density was reduced and
the total porosity increased (Wei et al., 2006). The effect of straw incor-
poration was lower in the deeper layers compared with the surface
layers of the soil (Tripathy and Singh, 2004).
Soil aggregates are the basic units of the soil structure and they com-
prise primary particles and binding agents (Scanlon et al., 2002). They
are also necessary soil conditions for a high crop yield (Limon-Ortega
et al., 2009). Conventional tillage disturbs the soil and increases the ef-
fects of drying–rewetting and freezing–thawing, which increases the
susceptibility of the macroaggregate (N 0.25 mm) to disruption (Beare
et al., 1994; Mikha and Rice, 2004; Paustian et al., 1997; Pinheiro et al.,

Table 4
Soil water storage (0–200 cm) under different straw incorporation treatments between 2007 and 2010. Note: CK, no straw incorporation; L, incorporation of straw at a low rate of
4500 kg/ha maize straw; M, incorporation of straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha maize straw; H, incorporation of straw at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha maize straw.

Years Treatment Pre-sowing soil water storage Growth stage rainfall Soil water storage after the crop harvest
(mm) (mm) (mm)

2007 H 322.11bCa ± 2.91b 323.1 350.02aA ± 2.77

(Maize) M 329.76bBC ± 10.7 341.30bAB ± 0.96
L 345.25aAB ± 1.44 334.84bBC ± 3.95
CK 350.66aA ± 4.39 326.81cC ± 5.74
H 337.82aA ± 7.39 355.23a A ± 4.73
2008 M 335.46aA ± 7.78 345.4 351.42aA ± 3.04
(Millet) L 335.21aA ± 6.34 349.31aA ± 1.65
CK 325.84aA ± 5.34 336.99bB ± 3.33
H 350.57aA ± 6.32 360.00aA ± 1.92
2009 M 347.01aA ± 2.29 289.1 357.31aA ± 5.28
(Maize) L 340.65aA ± 4.14 348.60aA ± 8.64
CK 319.19bB ± 7.09 316.75bB ± 5.77
H 364.68aA ± 4.03 442.27aA ± 2.54
2010 M 359.29aAB ± 3.77 420.2 432.60bA ± 4.37
(Millet) L 357.56abAB ± 2.34 425.56bB ± 3.43
CK 348.78bB ± 8.39 404.13cC ± 5.36
a
Different lower case letters in the same line indicate significant differences at P b 0.05 whereas capital letters indicate differences at P b 0.01.
b
Mean ± standard deviation.
 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49 47

Table 5
Precipitation productive efficiency, yield, and water-use efficiency (WUE) of maize/millet under different straw incorporation treatments. Note: CK, no straw incorporation; L, incorporation of
straw at a low rate of 4500 kg/ha maize straw; M, incorporation of straw at a medium rate of 9000 kg/ha maize straw; H, incorporation of straw at a high rate of 13500 kg/ha maize straw.

Years Treatment Grain yield WUE Precipitation productive efficiency

(kg hm−2) (kg mm−1 hm−2) (kg mm−1 hm−2)

2007 H 6352aAa ± 22b 21.52aA ± 0.19 19.66bB ±0.32

(Maize) M 6396aA ± l5 20.53bB ± 0.04 19.80aA ± 0.21
L 6172bB ± 19 18.51cC ± 0.45 19.10cC ± 0.35
CK 5377cC ± 13 15.50dD ± 0.25 16.64dD ± 0.18
H 2321bB ± 9 7.08aA ± 0.26 6.72bB ± 0.33
2008 M 2450aA ± 11 7.44aA ± 0.22 7.09aA ± 0.12
(Millet) L 2117cC ± 5 6.39bB ± 0.15 6.13cC ± 0.27
CK 2042dC ± 7 6.11bB ± 0.16 5.91dC ± 0.26
H 4744aA ± 19 17.19aA ± 0.40 16.41aA ± 0.19
2009 M 4688aA ± 23 16.61aA ± 0.38 16.22aA ± 0.24
(Maize) L 4083bB ± 15 14.54bB ± 0.60 14.12bB ± 0.18
CK 3629cC ± 13 12.46cC ± 0.49 12.55cC ± 0.15
H 2897aA ± 15 8.46aA ± 0.13 6.89aA ± 0.21
2010 M 2800aA ± 13 8.07bB ± 0.04 6.66aA ± 0.16
(Millet) L 2535bB ± 13 7.20cC ± 0.09 6.03bB ± 0.17
CK 2273cC ± 14 6.23dD ± 0.06 5.41cC ± 0.25
a
Different lower case letters in the same line indicate significant differences at P b 0.05 whereas capital letters indicate differences at P b 0.01.
b
Mean ± standard deviation.

2004). Pinheiro et al. (2004) showed that soil exposure with tillage and
a lack of residue inputs led to a decline in aggregation and organic C,
both of which made the soil susceptible to erosion. Our study showed
that the straw incorporation treatment (0–40 cm) produced significant-
ly more and larger soil aggregates than CK, which indicated that the in-
corporation of crop straw effectively improved the soil physical quality.
This is because tillage stimulates the oxidation of soil organic carbon
(SOC), increases crop residue incorporation into the soil, and decom-
poses the OM, which improves the physical condition of the soil
(Aulakh et al., 1991; Coppens et al., 2007; Fontaine et al., 2007). By con-
trast, Nuttall et al. (1986) found that straw incorporation had no effect
on the SOC, soil moisture content, or soil aggregation, but these differ-
ences were not explained.
The results also indicate that the MWD and GMD increased after the
application of crop straw. The results of a similar field trial showed that
long-term straw application promoted the formation of soil macro-
aggregates and increased the aggregate stability (Li et al., 2010). There-
fore, it may be concluded that the incorporation of crop straw has pos-
itive effects on soil aggregation. This may be attributable to the
significant increase in the SOM content (average increases of
17.64–66.58% in 2010, data not shown), the lower soil bulk density
(Lal, 2000), and increased soil porosity (Pagliai et al., 2004) after straw
incorporation. Straw incorporation also stimulates the activity of soil
microorganisms (Kasteel et al., 2007) and an abundance of polyose
metabolites are produced during the straw decay process (Pascual
et al., 1999). These soil physical and chemical conditions may accelerate
the SOM decomposition process and increase soil aggregation
(Sonnleitner et al., 2003).
Wei et al. (2006) showed that the addition of crop residues was the
most effective method for increasing the rhizosphere aggregate stabili-
ty. Sonnleitner et al. (2003) also found that straw application improved
the aggregate stability and other soil properties. In our study, the soil ag-
gregate stability increased after the application of crop straw compared
with the control treatment (CK). These results agree with those report-
ed by Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2007) and Haynes and Naidu (1998). Fur-
thermore, the optimal WSA and PAD values were obtained after
applying 13.5 tons/ha maize straw (H). These results indicate that the
application of crop straw improved the physico-chemical properties of
the soil (Mulumba and Lal, 2008). Our results also indicate that straw in-
corporation was positively related to the physical protection of OM (Tan
et al., 2007) and an increased aggregate level (Tarafdar et al., 2001),
while it also improved the soil aggregate stability and reduced soil de-
generation (Nelson, 2002; Wilhelm et al., 2007).
In arid and semiarid regions, the conventional soil practices involve
the removal or burning of residues, which accelerates the decomposi-
tion of humus and organic residues in the topsoil, thereby reducing
the aggregate stability (Chirinda et al., 2010). Zhang and Xu (2005)
showed that an increase in the aggregate stability enhances the resis-
tance of soil to erosion, which is a major threat to crop production and
agricultural sustainability in these regions. Therefore, the application
of crop residues can improve the crop yield, soil water storage level,
and the physical properties of the soil (Ju et al., 2006; Li et al., 2010).
Straw incorporation increased the soil water storage level. The
presowing and postharvest soil water storage levels after the applica-
tion of crop straw differed significantly from that with CK, where the
highest and lowest soil water storage levels were obtained with H and
CK, respectively (Table 4). The return of the crop straw into the soil im-
proves the physico-chemical and biological properties of the soil, which
resulted in greater water retention in the soil and decreased evapora-
tion (Paustian et al., 1998; Reicosky et al., 1995). By contrast, the CK
treatment removed most of the crop residues from land after the har-
vest, which degraded the soil hydrological properties (Mele and
Crowley, 2008). These findings agree with previous reports. For exam-
ple, Zhu et al. (2010) reported that the incorporation of rice straw into
the soil for 8 years improved its bulk density, total porosity, and
water-holding capacity. Pinheiro et al. (2004) showed that soil exposure
with tillage and a lack of residue inputs caused declines in aggregation
and the organic carbon content, both of which promoted low soil
water storage and increased the susceptibility to erosion. Haynes and
Naidu (1998) showed out that the soil aggregate formation caused by
straw incorporation increased the water-holding capacity and the
total porosity.
The productivity of grain crops is affected significantly by water
availability and the soil quality (Fan et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2010), thus
well-managed soils can support sustainable production and improved
the crop yields. Mele and Crowley (2008) reported that conventional
tillage crop production with the removal or burning of residues can
lead to excessive soil compaction within the surface soil layers, thereby
producing adverse conditions for crop growth and a consequent yield
reduction. In our study, the crop yields and water use efficiency were
higher with straw incorporation than conventional tillage (CK).
Tripathy and Singh (2004) and Karami et al. (2012) also reported posi-
tive effects on the crop yield and soil productivity after crop straw appli-
cation, which were attributed mainly to the improved soil quality. The
incorporation of crop residues into the soil can significantly improve
the soil physical and chemical properties and increase soil water
48 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49
storage. Compared with CK, straw incorporation significantly increased
the crop yields and water use efficiency. Similar effects were reported
by Zhu et al. (2010) based on an 8-year field experiment in China.
5. Conclusion
In the semiarid area of northwest China, crop straw incorporation
with tillage was effective in improving the physical and chemical prop-
erties of the soil, and it increased both the grain yields and water use ef-
ficiency. Compared with the CK treatment, the incorporation of crop
straw significantly decreased the soil bulk density, increased the total
porosity of the soil tilth (0–60 cm), and greatly improved the soil struc-
ture. The incorporation of different levels of crop straw had significant
effects on the soil MWD, GMD, WSA, and PAD, which increased with
the crop straw incorporation rate, where the maximum benefits were
obtained with the maximum rate of crop straw incorporation
(13.5 tons/ha). Straw incorporation significantly increased the soil
water storage level before crop sowing and it improved the soil water
status during the crop growing season. The straw incorporation treat-
ments significantly increased the grain yields and water use efficiency
compared with the CK treatment. We suggest that straw incorporation
tillage practices will be highly beneficial in promoting the development
of rainfed farming.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the China Support Program for
Dryland Farming in the 12th 5-year plan period (2012BAD09B03,
2011AA100504, and 2011BAD29B09), the Program of Introducing
Talents of Discipline to Universities (No. B12007), the Youth project of
National Natural Science Fund (31201156), and the Basic Science
Research Fund in Northwest A&F University (QN2013005). We are
grateful to Mr Li Yongping and Liu Shixin for managing the field exper-
iments and professional English editor Jackson who is from UK, and kind
help with the language of this manuscript.
References
Adams, W., 1973. The effect of organic matter on the bulk and true densities of some un-
cultivated podzolic soils. J. Soil Sci. 24 (1), 10–17.
Ashagrie, Y., Zech, W., Guggenberger, G., 2005. Transformation of a Podocarpus falcatus
dominated natural forest into a monoculture Eucalyptus globulus plantation at
Munesa, Ethiopia: soil organic C, N and S dynamics in primary particle and
aggregate-size fractions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106 (1), 89–98.
Aulakh, M., Walters, D., Doran, J., Francis, D., Mosier, A., 1991. Crop residue type and place-
ment effects on denitrification and mineralization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55 (4),
1020–1025.
Barthes, B., Roose, E., 2002. Aggregate stability as an indicator of soil susceptibility to run-
off and erosion; validation at several levels. Catena 47 (2), 133–149.
Beare, M., Hendrix, P., Cabrera, M., Coleman, D., 1994. Aggregate-protected and unpro-
tected organic matter pools in conventional- and no-tillage soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
58 (3), 787–795.
Bhagat, R., Verma, T., 1991. Impact of rice straw management on soil physical properties
and wheat yield. Soil Sci. 152 (2), 108–115.
Bhattacharyya, R., Prakash, V., Kundu, S., Srivastva, A., Gupta, H., 2009. Soil aggregation
and organic matter in a sandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas under different
tillage and crop regimes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 132 (1), 126–134.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., 2007. Soil structure and organic carbon relationships following
10 years of wheat straw management in no-till. Soil Tillage Res. 95 (1), 240–254.
Chan, K., Heenan, D., Oates, A., 2002. Soil carbon fractions and relationship to soil quality
under different tillage and stubble management. Soil Tillage Res. 63 (3), 133–139.
Chevallier, T., Blanchart, E., Albrecht, A., Feller, C., 2004. The physical protection of soil or-
ganic carbon in aggregates: a mechanism of carbon storage in a Vertisol under pas-
ture and market gardening (Martinique, West Indies). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 103
(2), 375–387.
Chirinda, N., Olesen, J.E., Porter, J.R., Schjønning, P., 2010. Soil properties, crop production
and greenhouse gas emissions from organic and inorganic fertilizer-based arable
cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 139 (4), 584–594.
Coppens, F., Garnier, P., Findeling, A., Merckx, R., Recous, S., 2007. Decomposition of
mulched versus incorporated crop residues: modelling with PASTIS clarifies interac-
tions between residue quality and location. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39 (9), 2339–2350.
Deng, X.-P., Shan, L., Zhang, H., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water use effi-
ciency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agric. Water Manag. 80 (1), 23–40.
Dexter, A., 1988. Advances in characterization of soil structure. Soil Tillage Res. 11 (3),
199–238.
Duiker, S., Lal, R., 1999. Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon sequestration in a
Luvisol in central Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. 52 (1), 73–81.
Eynard, A., Schumacher, T., Lindstrom, M., Malo, D., Kohl, R., 2006. Effects of aggregate
structure and organic C on wettability of Ustolls. Soil Tillage Res. 88 (1), 205–216.
Fan, T., Stewart, B.A., Wang, Y., Luo, J., Zhou, G., 2005. Long-term fertilization effects on
grain yield, water-use efficiency and soil fertility in the dryland of Loess Plateau in
China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106, 313–329.
FAO/UNESCO (1993) ‘World soil resources. An explanatory note on the FAO World Soil
Resource Map at 1:25,000,000 scales’. (FAO: Rome).
Ferraro, D., Ghersa, C., 2007. Quantifying the crop management influence on arable soil
condition in the Inland Pampa (Argentina). Geoderma 141 (1), 43–52.
Fontaine, S., Barot, S., Barré, P., Bdioui, N., Mary, B., Rumpel, C., 2007. Stability of organic car-
bon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature 450 (7167), 277–280.
Haynes, R., Naidu, R., 1998. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil or-
ganic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.
51 (2), 123–137.
He, J., Kuhn, N., Zhang, X., Zhang, X., Li, H., 2009. Effects of 10 years of conservation tillage
on soil properties and productivity in the farming–pastoral ecotone of Inner
Mongolia, China. Soil Use Manag. 25 (2), 201–209.
Hernández-Hernández, R., López-Hernández, D., 2002. Microbial biomass, mineral nitro-
gen and carbon content in savanna soil aggregates under conventional and no-tillage.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 34 (11), 1563–1570.
Horn, R., Smucker, A., 2005. Structure formation and its consequences for gas and water
transport in unsaturated arable and forest soils. Soil Tillage Res. 82 (1), 5–14.
Hou, X., Li, R., Jia, Z., Han, Q., Wang, W., Yang, B., 2012. Effects of rotational tillage practices
on soil properties, winter wheat yields and water-use efficiency in semi-arid areas of
north-west China. Field Crop Res. 129, 7–13.
Huang, Y., Chen, L., Fu, B., Huang, Z., Gong, J., 2005. The wheat yields and water-use effi-
ciency in the Loess Plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects. Agric. Water Manag.
72 (3), 209–222.
Hussain, G., Al-Jaloud, A.A., 1995. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on water use efficiency
of wheat in Saudi Arabia. Agric. Water Manag. 27 (2), 143–153.
Jastrow, J., 1996. Soil aggregate formation and the accrual of particulate and mineral-
associated organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28 (4), 665–676.
Ju, X., Kou, C., Zhang, F., Christie, P., 2006. Nitrogen balance and groundwater nitrate con-
tamination: comparison among three intensive cropping systems on the North China
Plain. Environ. Pollut. 143 (1), 117–125.
Karami, A., Homaee, M., Afzalinia, S., Ruhipour, H., Basirat, S., 2012. Organic resource man-
agement: impacts on soil aggregate stability and other soil physico-chemical proper-
ties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 148, 22–28.
Kasteel, R., Garnier, P., Vachier, P., Coquet, Y., 2007. Dye tracer infiltration in the plough
layer after straw incorporation. Geoderma 137 (3), 360–369.
Lal, R., 2000. Physical management of soils of the tropics: priorities for the 21st century.
Soil Sci. 165 (3), 191–207.
Li, X.-G., Li, F.-M., Rengel, Z., Wang, Z.-F., 2006. Cultivation effects on temporal changes of
organic carbon and aggregate stability in desert soils of Hexi Corridor region in China.
Soil Tillage Res. 91 (1), 22–29.
Li, H., Qiu, J., Wang, L., Tang, H., Li, C., Van Ranst, E., 2010. Modelling impacts of alternative
farming management practices on greenhouse gas emissions from a winter wheat–
maize rotation system in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 135 (1), 24–33.
Limon-Ortega, A., Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., 2009. Crop rotation, wheat straw management,
and chicken manure effects on soil quality. Agron. J. 101 (3), 600–606.
Liu, E., Yan, C., Mei, X., He, W., Bing, S., Ding, L., Liu, Q., Liu, S., Fan, T., 2010. Long-term ef-
fect of chemical fertilizer, straw, and manure on soil chemical and biological proper-
ties in northwest China. Geoderma 158, 173–180.
Mandal, K.G., Misra, A.K., Hati, K.M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Ghosh, P.K., Mohanty, M., 2004.
Rice residue-management options and effects on soil properties and crop productiv-
ity. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2, 224–231.
Mazurak, A.P., 1950. Effect of gaseous phase on water-stable synthetic aggregates. Soil Sci.
69 (2), 135–148.
McCarty, G., Lyssenko, N., Starr, J., 1998. Short-term changes in soil carbon and nitrogen
pools during tillage management transition. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62 (6), 1564–1571.
Mele, P.M., Crowley, D.E., 2008. Application of self-organizing maps for assessing soil bio-
logical quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126 (3), 139–152.
Mikha, M.M., Rice, C.W., 2004. Tillage and manure effects on soil and aggregate-associated
carbon and nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68 (3), 809–816.
Mulumba, L.N., Lal, R., 2008. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties. Soil Till-
age Res. 98 (1), 106–111.
Nelson, R.G., 2002. Resource assessment and removal analysis for corn stover and wheat
straw in the Eastern and Midwestern United States—rainfall and wind-induced soil
erosion methodology. Biomass Bioenergy 22 (5), 349–363.
Nuttall, W., Bowren, K., Campbell, C., 1986. Crop residue management practices, and N
and P fertilizer effects on crop response and on some physical and chemical proper-
ties of a Black Chernozem over 25 years in a continuous wheat rotation. Can. J. Soil
Sci. 66 (1), 159–171.
Oades, J., Waters, A., 1991. Aggregate hierarchy in soils. Soil Res. 29 (6), 815–828.
Pagliai, M., Vignozzi, N., Pellegrini, S., 2004. Soil structure and the effect of management
practices. Soil Tillage Res. 79 (2), 131–143.
Pascual, J.A., Garcia, C., Hernandez, T., 1999. Comparison of fresh and composted organic
waste in their efficacy for the improvement of arid soil quality. Bioresour. Technol.
68 (3), 255–264.
Paustian, K., Levine, E., Post, W.M., Ryzhova, I.M., 1997. The use of models to integrate in-
formation and understanding of soil C at the regional scale. Geoderma 79 (1),
227–260.
 P. Zhang et al. / Geoderma 230–231 (2014) 41–49
Paustian, K., Cole, C.V., Sauerbeck, D., Sampson, N., 1998. CO2 mitigation by agriculture: an
overview. Clim. Change 40 (1), 135–162.
Pinheiro, E., Pereira, M., Anjos, L., 2004. Aggregate distribution and soil organic matter
under different tillage systems for vegetable crops in a Red Latosol from Brazil. Soil
Tillage Res. 77 (1), 79–84.
Rawls, W., Gimenez, D., Grossman, R., 1998. Use of soil texture, bulk density, and slope of
the water retention curve to predict saturated hydraulic conductivity. Trans. ASAE 41
(4), 983–988.
Reicosky, D., Kemper, W., Langdale, G., Douglas, C., Rasmussen, P., 1995. Soil organic mat-
ter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50
(3), 253–261.
Saroa, G., Lal, R., 2003. Soil restorative effects of mulching on aggregation and carbon se-
questration in a Miamian soil in central Ohio. Land Degrad. Dev. 14 (5), 481–493.
Scanlon, B.R., Andraski, B.J., Bilskie, J., 2002. 3.2.4 Miscellaneous methods for measuring
matric or water potential. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4 Physical Methods
(methodsofsoilan4), pp. 643–670.
Seybold, C., Herrick, J., 2001. Aggregate stability kit for soil quality assessments. Catena 44
(1), 37–45.
Six, J., Elliott, E., Paustian, K., 2000. Soil macroaggregate turnover and microaggregate for-
mation: a mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 32 (14), 2099–2103.
Sonnleitner, R., Lorbeer, E., Schinner, F., 2003. Effects of straw, vegetable oil and whey on
physical and microbiological properties of a chernozem. Appl. Soil Ecol. 22 (3),
195–204.
Tan, D.S., Jin, J.Y., Huang, S.W., Li, S.T., He, P., 2007. Effect of long-term application of K fer-
tilizer and wheat straw to soil on crop yield and soil K under different planting sys-
tems. Agric. Sci. China 6 (2), 200–207.
Tarafdar, J.C., Meena, S.C., Kathju, S., 2001. Influence of straw size on activity and biomass
of soil microorganisms during decomposition. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 37 (3), 157–160.
Tisdall, J., Oades, J.M., 1982. Organic matter and water‐stable aggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci.
33 (2), 141–163.
49
Tripathy, R., Singh, A.K., 2004. Effect of water and nitrogen management on aggregate size
and carbon enrichment of soil in rice–wheat cropping system. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.
167 (2), 216–228.
Van Bavel, C., 1950. Mean weight-diameter of soil aggregates as a statistical index of ag-
gregation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 14 (C), 20–23.
Villar, M., Petrikova, V., Dıaz-Ravina, M., Carballas, T., 2004. Changes in soil microbial bio-
mass and aggregate stability following burning and soil rehabilitation. Geoderma 122
(1), 73–82.
Wagner, S., Cattle, S.R., Scholten, T., 2007. Soil‐aggregate formation as influenced by
clay content and organic‐matter amendment. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 170 (1),
173–180.
Wang, X., Wu, H., Dai, K., Zhang, D., Feng, Z., Zhao, Q., Wu, X., Jin, K., Cai, D., Oenema, O.,
2012. Tillage and crop residue effects on rainfed wheat and maize production in
northern China. Field Crops Res. 132, 106–116.
Wei, C., Gao, M., Shao, J., Xie, D., Pan, G., 2006. Soil aggregate and its response to land man-
agement practices. China Particuol. 4 (5), 211–219.
Wilhelm, W.W., Johnson, J.M., Karlen, D.L., Lightle, D.T., 2007. Corn stover to sustain soil
organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agron. J. 99 (6), 1665–1667.
Wuest, S.B., Caesar-TonThat, T., Wright, S.F., Williams, J.D., 2005. Organic matter addition,
N, and residue burning effects on infiltration, biological, and physical properties of an
intensively tilled silt-loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 84 (2), 154–167.
Yang, X.-M., Wander, M.M., 1998. Temporal changes in dry aggregate size and stability:
tillage and crop effects on a silty loam Mollisol in Illinois. Soil Tillage Res. 49 (3),
173–183.
Youker, R., McGuinness, J., 1957. A short method of obtaining mean weight-diameter
values of aggregate analyses of soils. Soil Sci. 83 (4), 291–294.
Zhang, M., Xu, J., 2005. Restoration of surface soil fertility of an eroded red soil in southern
China. Soil Tillage Res. 80 (1), 13–21.
Zhu, H., Wu, J., Huang, D., Zhu, Q., Liu, S., Su, Y., Wei, W., Syers, J.K., Li, Y., 2010. Improving
fertility and productivity of a highly-weathered upland soil in subtropical China by
incorporating rice straw. Plant Soil 331 (1–2), 427–437.