no till pumpkin production - presley
Post on 09-Feb-2017
60 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
No‐till pumpkin production using cover crops in the Great Plains:
soil health and fruit yield
Cathryn J. Davis, DeAnn Presley, Peter Tomlinson, Cary Rivard, Jason Griffin,
Kim Oxley
Introduction
• Demonstrate effectiveness of using cover crops in pumpkin production
• Assess the impact of different cover crop species on soil health measured by:– Soil aggregation (water stable aggregates)– Microbial biomass carbon
Pumpkins and Soil Health• U.S. per capita consumption of pumpkins is 2.4 kg (USDA‐ERS, 2014)
• 400 ha of pumpkins grown per year in Kansas, important in agri‐tourism
• Challenge: Are there practices that can benefit soil health while maximizing horticultural crop yields?
(Pieper et al., 2015, HortScience)
Locations & Treatments1. Conventional Tillage2. Rye3. Rye / Pea4. Rye / Hairy Vetch5. Rye / Canola6. Rye / Hairy Vetch / Canola7. Oats8. Oats / Pea
• Plot size 9.1 x 18.3 m2
• RCBD 3 replications • 2 locations, 3 years
– K‐State Horticulture Research & Extension Center, Olathe KS
– J.C. Pair Horticulture Center, Haysville KS (south of Wichita)
Field operations and methods• Fall 2012 study established in conventionally tilled fields
• Study area rototilled• Fall covers were planted, spring covers were planted
• Cover crops roller crimped• Pumpkins transplanted into residue
– Thus, the pumpkins were no‐tilled
John C. Pair Center
Early Spring Cover Crop Growth
Late Spring Cover Crop (Prior to termination)
Pumpkin no‐till planted into cover crop residue
Harvest (prior to fall tillage)
Methods, continued• After the pumpkins are picked, we collect soil samples
• Then the entire field is thoroughly tilled up• Then the fall covers are planted in certain plots• In spring, the covers are planted• Late spring: all covers are rolled, and the conventional treatment is rototilled again
• Then pumpkins are planted no‐till
Methods
• Sampled twice per year• Spring: after pumpkins are transplanted• Fall: immediately after pumpkin harvest• Infiltration, bulk density (0‐5 and 5‐10 cm)• Wet aggregate stability (Kemper and Rosenau)• Microbial biomass C* and dissolved OC
*Chloroform fumigation extraction
0123456
Olathe Fall 13
0123456
Wichita Fall 13
Soil Physical Properties Mean Weight Diameter (mm)
p = 0.72 p = 0.88
One‐way analysis of variance with treatment as the variable
0123456
Wichita Spring 14
0123456
Olathe Spring 14
Soil Physical Properties Mean Weight Diameter (mm)
p = 0.67 p < 0.05
B BAB A
AAAA
0123456
Olathe Fall 14
0123456
Wichita Fall 14
Soil Physical Properties Mean Weight Diameter (mm)
p = 0.29 p = 0.12
0123456
Wichita Spring 15
0123456
Olathe Spring 15
Soil Physical PropertiesMean Weight Diameter (mm)
p < 0.03 p < .0001
A AAAA AA
B
A
CDABCD
ABCABBCDD
AB
0123456
Olathe Fall 15
0123456
Wichita Fall 15
Soil Physical Properties Mean Weight Diameter (mm)
p = 0.11 p < 0.01
A AAAA AA
B
Olathe 1/5 and Wichita 3/5 samplings: Cover crops better structureSpring: More differences than FallStructure improving over time?
b
aa a a
b
b
a
bb b b
a
a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
>4.75 2.00 to4.75
1.00 to2.00
0.50 to1.00
0.25 to0.50
<0.25 TotalAg (%)
MWD
Water Stable Ag
gregates
(%)
Size Fraction (mm)
Olathe Fall 2015
No cover Cover
Microbial Biomass Carbon (μg C g‐1soil)
050
100150200250300350400
Olathe Fall 2013
p = 0.42
050
100150200250300350400
Wichita Spring 2014
050
100150200250300350400
Olathe Spring 2014
Microbial Biomass Carbon (μg C g‐1soil)
p = 0.48 p = 0.19
Both sites: Cover vs. no cover was significant
050
100150200250300350400
Wichita Fall 2014
050
100150200250300350400
Olathe Fall 2014
Microbial Biomass Carbon (μg C g‐1soil)
p = 0.51 p = 0.93
Olathe: Cover vs. no cover was significant
050
100150200250300350400
Olathe Spring 2015
Microbial Biomass Carbon (μg C g‐1soil)
p = 0.40 p = 0.52
050
100150200250300350400
Wichita Spring 2015Neither site: no significant difference for cover or no cover
050
100150200250300350400
Wichita Fall 2015
050
100150200250300350400
Olathe Fall 2015
Microbial Biomass Carbon (μg C g‐1soil)
p = 0.99 p = 0.53
Neither site: no significant difference for cover or no cover
Olathe Fruit Yield (Mg ha‐1) 2013
0102030405060
P < 0.03
A ABBC C BCBC BC BC
Olathe Fruit Yield (Mg ha‐1) 2013 – 2014
0102030405060
2013 2014
P<0.22P < 0.03
A ABBCC
BCBC BC BC
Olathe Fruit Yield (Mg ha‐1) 2013 – 2015
0102030405060
2013 2014 2015
p = 0.34P = 0.22P < 0.03
A ABBCC
BCBC BC BC
Wichita Fruit Yield (Mg ha‐1) 2013
0102030405060
2013
p < 0.001
AB AABC ABC
ABCBC
D
C
Wichita Fruit Yield (Mg ha‐1) 2013 ‐2014
0102030405060
2013 2014
p = 0.20p < 0.001
AB AABC ABC
ABCBC
D
C
Results and Conclusions• Relative to the control, cover crops improved soil aggregation, 2‐3 years into the study– And all plots are rototilled after harvest
• 4 out of 5 site years, no fruit yield penalty for no‐tilling pumpkins into rolled cover crops
• Lessons learned: Pumpkins needed to be fertigated, cover crops need timely termination, pumpkins should be rotated with other crops to break weed and disease cycles
Acknowledgements
• Brett Lynn, Sarah Tatarko, Taylor Fischer, Peter Tomlinson, Cary Rivard, Kimberly Oxley, Jason Griffin, DeAnn Presley
• Development and Adoption of No‐Till and Minimum Tillage Vegetable Production Systems in the Great Plains. National Conservation Innovation Grant, September 1, 2012 – September 1, 2015. $221,282.
Olathe Fruit Yield (Mg/ha‐1) 2013 – 2015
p < 0.34P<0.22P < 0.03
0510152025303540
2013
0510152025303540
2014
0510152025303540
Tillage Rye
Rye / P
eaRye / V
etch
Rye / C
anola
Rye/Ve
tch/Can…
Oats
Oats /
Winter…
2015
2013‐2014 Wichita Fruit Yield (Mg/ha‐1)
0102030405060
2013
0102030405060
2014
p < 0.001 p < 0.20
Soil Biological PropertiesMicrobial Biomass Carbon
p < 0.48 p < 0.19
0
50
100
150
200
250
Microbial Biomass Ca
rbon
(μg C g‐1 soil)
Spring 2014 Wichita Olathe
Soil Biological PropertiesMicrobial Biomass Carbon
0
50
100
150
200
250
Microbial Biomass Ca
rbon
(μg C g‐1 soil)
Fall 2014Wichita Olathe
p < 0.51 p < 0.93
top related