1 / 14

V. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop Opati j a, 06-10. March, 2006

V. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop Opati j a, 06-10. March, 2006 Food chain element transport and processes. SOIL QUALITY – SOIL CONDITION – PRODUCTION STABILITY. Márta BIRKÁS – Anthony DEXTER – Tibor KALMÁR – László BOTTLIK. ISSUE:.

timothy-terry
Download Presentation

V. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop Opati j a, 06-10. March, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. V. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop Opatija, 06-10. March, 2006 Food chain element transport and processes SOIL QUALITY – SOIL CONDITION – PRODUCTION STABILITY Márta BIRKÁS – Anthony DEXTER – Tibor KALMÁR – László BOTTLIK

  2. ISSUE: • poor soil quality results yield loss - instable crop production under extreme climatic conditions. • 2. improving soil quality may result adequate yield and stable crop production (less climatic harms) Objectives: - selectsoil quality factors, - review their effects on production stability. • Data: based on • field monitoring (started in 1976), • experiments (1991-2002, Gödöllő) • short-term experiment, initiated in June, 2002 (Hatvan-Józsefmajor)

  3. Material and method Tillage variantsin trials: 1. Loosening 40-45 cm (L), as root zone improving, 2. Ploughing 26-32 cm (P), as soil layer inverting, 3. Disking 16-20 cm (D), as mulch-mixing, 4. Heavy-duty cultivatoring 16-20 cm (C), as mulching, 5. Shallow cultivatoring 12-16 cm (SC), as mulching, 6. Direct drilling (DD), as mulch-sowing. Plough, cultivators were equipped with surface-preparing elements. 1-5th variants: traffic numberwas3. Cover percentage of the disturbed soil surface: DD 80 % > SC andC 35 % > D 30 % > L 25 % > P 0 %. • Crop sequences: • mustard (mulch, 2002), w. wheat (2002/03) and maize (2003), rye (mulch 2003/04), pea (mulch 2004), w. wheat (2004/05), mustard (mulch, 2005), w. wheat (2005/06). • mustard (mulch, 2002), w. wheat (2002/03), unsown (2003/04), pea (mulch 2004), w. wheat (2004/05), mustard (mulch, 2005), w. wheat(2005/06).

  4. RESULTS Selected soil quality factors affecting soil sensitivity to climatic harms plant production stability(Birkás and Dexter, 2004) • Soil looseness – soil condition to a depth of 0-40/0-50 cm • Agronomical structure (aggregation, mellowing) • Earthworms activity (living soil) • Soil organic materials conservation loss (paper for IV. AAS Workshop) • Soil moisture management  • Soil conditioning tillage • Crops - rotation • Fertilization • Irrigation etc. Measuring: according to the accepted standards

  5. Results – Soil looseness Factors improving soil looseness: (1) depthoftillage from 0 to 45 cm (2) use of soil structure conservationmethod (e.g. DD, SC, C, L); (3) mulchon the surface out of the growing season, from 0 to 80 % (4) reduce soil load (5) use crops with different rooting depth.

  6. Results – Agronomical structure LSD5%: friable str: 2,45 Long-term tillage impacts on friable structure(Józsefmajor, 2005) Trend in aggregate % over 4 years

  7. Results – Agronomical structure Factors affect the aggregation: (1) soil and water conservation tillage (less clod and dust formation), (2) promoting soil mellowing, (3) tillage at workable soil condition (prevention of compaction), (4) surface cover (crops, residues), (5) reduced soil load (e.g. traffics 1-3),

  8. Results – Earthworms Annual changes of earthworm number at 6 tillage variants Factors of earthworm activity: (1) loosening with less disturbance (2) humid, non-dried conditions during summer (3) surface mulching (4) stubble residue recycling (5) biological loosening (mustard, pea) (6) less chemicals (integrated farming).

  9. Results –water management • Factors improving or maintaining • water management: • loosened soil layerat least to 20 cm • surface cover of 30 % at least, • moderate surface roughness • to prevent soil slumping, • a moderate plant biomass or yield. • (2)deeper loosened soil layer • a smooth, non-compacted surface • to be suitable both for water infiltration • and conservation. • (3) minimized soil disturbance and • surface cover of 50 % at least. • Use of soil loosening, structure • conserving tillage. Humid, friable soil under DD (12. Oct. 2005)

  10. Results – Soil conditioning tillage

  11. Results – Crops and sequence (in the rank 1. means the best and 6. means the poorest) *moisture-loss increasing land use and the poor soil quality, ** the improvement of soil quality has become a yield stabilizing factor

  12. Pictures Mustard sowing into wheat stubble (05.07.30) volunteer wheat roots Wheat sowing into ploughed soil

  13. Conclusions Assessing the tillage variants affecting yield stabilization, we found 7 common factors, that is: (1) soil conditioning; (2) protect soil quality (loose condition, aggregate, moisture management, organic matter, biological activity); (3) avoid root zone compaction; (4) avoid clod and dust formation; (5) improve water-holding capacity (Farkas et. al.); (6) prolong surface cover; (7) manage weed infestation. Results confirmed thatreducing land use induced damage should help to improve and restore soil quality. It may decrease the sensitivity to climatic extremes and increase plant production stability.

  14. Acknowledgements Research programs: NKFP-OM-3B/0057/2002, OTKA-49.049; KLIMAKKT; GAK 2005 (KLIMA05) Experimental and Training Farm, Hatvan – Józsefmajor. „Create and maintain a harmony between soil quality conservation and plant production”

More Related