scholarly journals Spring Wheat-field Pea Rotation with Tillage Systems and Straw Retention Improves Soil Water Utilization and Reduces Carbon Emission

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-39
Author(s):  
Stephen Yeboah ◽  
Shirley Lamptey ◽  
Renzhi Zhang ◽  
LingLing Li
1992 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. P. Lafond ◽  
Heather Loeppky ◽  
D. A. Derksen

The long-term productivity of soils in Western Canada can be maintained, even enhanced, providing changes in production practices occur to reverse the current trends of soil degradation. A study was initiated in 1986 to investigate the interactions of tillage systems and crop rotations on soil water conservation, seedling establishment and crop yields. The three tillage systems used were zero (ZT), minimum (one preseeding tillage operation) (MT) and conventional tillage (fall and spring preseeding tillage operations) (CT). Three 4-yr crop rotations were superimposed on the three tillage systems: fallow-spring wheat-spring wheat-winter wheat, spring wheat-spring wheat-flax-winter wheat and spring wheat-flax-winter wheat-field pea. The amount of water conserved during the fallow period was not significantly affected by tillage systems. Under stubble cropping, ZT and MT increased soil water in the 0- to 60-cm soil layer by 9% and in the 0- to 120-cm soil layer by 6% over CT. When spring soil moisture under stubble in the 0- to 120-cm soil layer was expressed as a percentage of a saturated soil profile, ZT and MT averaged 87% and CT, 82%. Seedling populations in spring wheat and field pea were not affected by tillage systems while flax seedling populations were 8% less under ZT and MT than CT. The rate of plant establishment for spring wheat was not affected by tillage systems. Yields of spring wheat, flax and field pea under ZT and MT were increased by 21, 23 and 9% over CT, respectively. Crop production practices that minimize soil degradation by maximizing the benefits of surface residues and standing stubble can successfully be adopted.Key words: Pisum sativum L., Linum usitatissimum L., Triticum aestivum L., stubble cropping, fallow cropping, crop rotation


2004 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 913 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. Brennan ◽  
M. D. A. Bolland

Copper (Cu) is a common deficiency of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), the major crop grown in south-western Australia. The Cu requirements of wheat are well known for soils in the region, but are not known for field pea (Pisum sativum L.) grown in rotation with wheat on alkaline soils in the region. The Cu requirements of field pea and spring wheat were compared in a glasshouse experiment, using 2 alkaline soils from south-western Australia. The Cu was either incubated in moist soil at 22°C for 100 days before sowing (incubated Cu) or applied just before sowing (current Cu). Comparative Cu requirements were determined from yields of 43-day-old dried shoots for: (i) Cu already present in the soil (indigenous Cu); (ii) the amount of added Cu required to produce the same percentage of the maximum (relative) yield of dried shoots; and (iii) the Cu content of dried shoots (Cu concentration multiplied by yield of dried shoots). The critical concentrations of Cu in youngest mature growth and in dried shoots were also determined. As determined from yield of shoots, both species used indigenous Cu about equally effectively. Compared with spring wheat, field pea was about 12% less effective at using current and incubated Cu to produce dried shoots. It was about 15% less effective at using current and incubated Cu to increase Cu content in dried shoots. Relative to current Cu, the effectiveness of incubated Cu declined by about 60% for both wheat and field pea in both soils. The critical Cu concentration in the youngest tissue, associated with 90% of the relative yield, was 1.4 mg Cu/kg for spring wheat and 2.0 mg Cu/kg for field pea. The critical value for the rest of the dried shoots was about 3.0 mg Cu/kg for both species.


1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. P. Lafond ◽  
R. Geremia ◽  
D. A. Derksen ◽  
R. P. Zentner

The long-term viability of Canadian prairie agriculture depends on the ability to arrest soil degradation caused by wind and water erosion and excessive tillage. The challenge is to develop crop-production systems that are economically viable and environmentally sustainable. The objective of this study was to quantify the short-term economic performance of field pea (Pisum sativium L.), flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) and spring and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under three tillage-management systems. The economic analysis was based on a tillage × crop rotation experiment started in 1986 and involving zero tillage (ZT), minimum tillage (MT) and conventional tillage (CT) and three 4-yr crop rotations. The economic analysis considered only costs associated with purchased inputs and machinery. The effects of method of tillage management on herbicide and fuel use were also determined for each crop. Costs of production were similar for all tillage systems and crop types. Net returns were higher for field pea, flax and spring wheat grown on stubble using ZT and MT than when CT was used, because of higher grain yields. Net returns were similar for winter wheat grown on stubble and for spring wheat grown on fallow for all tillage-management systems. Fuel consumption was highest for CT, intermediate for MT and lowest for ZT for all crops except winter wheat. In contrast, herbicide use was greater for ZT and MT than for CT for al crops except winter wheat; no differences were observed among tillage systems for this crop because it was always seeded directly into standing stubble. The shift from CT to ZT or MT systems did not increase costs of production or reduce short-term economic returns. ZT and MT had higher production potential than CT because increased soil-moisture conservation generally provided higher net returns. ZT used less fuel but more herbicides than MT and CT. Key words: Stubble cropping, fallow cropping, zero, minimum, conventional


2021 ◽  
Vol 209 ◽  
pp. 104953
Author(s):  
Xinjun Huang ◽  
Hengfei Wang ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Rainer Horn ◽  
Tusheng Ren

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (9) ◽  
pp. 1423-1437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen Yin ◽  
Fuxue Feng ◽  
Cai Zhao ◽  
Aizhong Yu ◽  
Falong Hu ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document