Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Feb 26:16:1493357.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1493357. eCollection 2025.

Impact of straw return on greenhouse gas emissions from maize fields in China: meta-analysis

Qi Sun  1   2 , Xue-Jia Gu  1   2 , Yu-Feng Wang  1   2 , Hong-Sheng Gao  1   2 , Xiao-Jun Wang  1   2 , Xue-Li Chen  1   2 , Si-Miao Sun  1   2
Affiliations

Impact of straw return on greenhouse gas emissions from maize fields in China: meta-analysis

Qi Sun et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: An increase in the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere causes global warming, and >14% of all GHG emissions come from agricultural activities. The three primary atmospheric GHGs are CO2, CH4, and N2O; therefore, regulating GHG emissions from agroecosystems is important for global climate management. Straw return is an environmentally friendly agricultural practice that positively affects crop production and soil fertility. However, its effects on long-term GHG emissions remain controversial.

Methods: To examine the impact of straw return on GHG emissions from Chinese maize fields, 281 data pairs from 45 publications were assessed using a data meta-analysis.

Results: The findings demonstrated substantial increases in CO2 and N2O emissions of 140 and 40%, respectively. Methane emissions increased by 3% after straw return, and the maximum effect value of CO2 emissions was 2.66 at nitrogen rates<150 kg/hm2. The effect value of CH4 emissions increased with an decrease in soil organic content, and the effect value of CH4 emissions changed from negative to positive at concentrations >6 g/kg. With a nitrogen rate increase, N2O emission effects under straw return initially increased and then decreased. N2O emissions increased significantly when nitrogen rates were<250 kg/hm2. The results of a random forest model showed that the most important factor affecting CO2 and N2O emissions from corn fields under straw return was the amount of nitrogen applied, and the most important factor affecting CH4 emissions from corn fields under straw return was soil organic carbon content.

Discussion: This shows that a suitable straw return can achieve the mutually beneficial goal of guaranteeing food security and minimizing adverse effects on the environment.

Keywords: greenhouse gases; maize; meta-analysis; random forest; straw return.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Searching and filtering flowcharts.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The geographical distribution of the trial locations in the meta-analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Summary of the overall effects of straw return in maize fields on CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions. Blue squares are effect values; red line segments are 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The effects of TN (g/kg), SOC (g/kg), nitrogen rate (kg/hm2), soil pH, soil type, average annual temperature (°C), rainfall (mm), plant method, and tillage method on CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from straw return in maize fields. Blue squares are effect values; red line segments are 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The figure on the left illustrates the factors that impact greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soils where straw was returned. On the right side, the figure displays the relationship between CO2 emissions and nitrogen fertilization rate (A, D), CH4 emissions and organic carbon content (B, E), and N2O emissions and nitrogen fertilization rate (C, F) under straw-returned conditions. "ns" indicates no significant difference, "*" indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05), and "**" indicates a strong significant difference (P < 0.01).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Conceptual map of the impact of straw returning on greenhouse gas emissions. The plus sign in red indicates an increase, while the minus sign in green indicates a decrease. The number next to the sign represents the corresponding effect value.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akhtar K., Wang W., Ren G., Khan A., Enguang N., Khan A., et al. (2020). Straw mulching with inorganic nitrogen fertilizer reduces soil co2 and n2o emissions and improves wheat yield. Sci. Total Environ. 741, 140488. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140488 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ali M., Muhammad S., Zakir K. A. I. A. (2019). The use of crop residues for biofuel production. Biomass Biopolymer-Based Mater. Bioener. 16, 369–395. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102426-3.00016-3 - DOI
    1. Ben-Noah I., Friedman S. P. (2018). Review and evaluation of root respiration and of natural and agricultural processes of soil aeration. Vadose Zone J. 17, 1–47. doi: 10.2136/vzj2017.06.0119 - DOI
    1. Bhattacharyya P., Bisen J., Bhaduri D., Priyadarsini S., Munda S., Chakraborti M., et al. (2021). Turn the wheel from waste to wealth: economic and environmental gain of sustainable rice straw management practices over field burning in reference to India. Sci. Total Environ. 775, 145896. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145896 - DOI
    1. Chan K. Y., Heenan D. P., Oates A. (2002). Soil carbon fractions and relationship to soil quality under different tillage and stubble management. Soil Tillage Res. 63, 133–139. doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00239-2 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources