no till pumpkin production - presley

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


p = 0.67 p < 0.05

B BAB A

AAAA

0123456

Olathe Fall 14

0123456

Wichita Fall 14


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


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


p = 0.48 p = 0.19

Both sites: Cover vs. no cover was significant

050

100150200250300350400

Wichita Fall 2014

050

100150200250300350400

Olathe Fall 2014


p = 0.51 p = 0.93

Olathe: Cover vs. no cover was significant

050

100150200250300350400

Olathe Spring 2015


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


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

no till pumpkin production - presley

Environment