V. Alps-Adria Scientific WorkshopV. Alps-Adria Scientific WorkshopOpatija,

06-10. March, 2006

Food chain element transport and processesFood chain element transport and processes

SOIL QUALITY – SOIL CONDITION – SOIL QUALITY – SOIL CONDITION – PRODUCTION STABILITYPRODUCTION STABILITY

Márta BIRKÁS – Anthony DEXTER – Tibor KALMÁR – Márta BIRKÁS – Anthony DEXTER – Tibor KALMÁR – László BOTTLIKLászló BOTTLIK

ObjectivesObjectives: - select soil 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)

ISSUE:ISSUE:

1.1. poor soil qualitypoor soil quality results yield loss - instable crop production under extreme climatic conditions.

2. 2. improving soil improving soil qualityquality may result adequate yield and stable crop production (less climatic harms)

Material and methodMaterial and method

Tillage variantsTillage variants in trialsin trials:

1. Loosening 40-45 cm (LL), as root zone improvingroot zone improving,2. Ploughing 26-32 cm (PP), as soil layer invertingsoil layer inverting, 3. Disking 16-20 cm (DD), as mulch-mixing mulch-mixing, 4. Heavy-duty cultivatoring 16-20 cm (CC), as mulchingmulching,5. Shallow cultivatoring 12-16 cm (SCSC), as mulchingmulching, 6. Direct drilling (DDDD), as mulch-sowingmulch-sowing.

Plough, cultivators were equipped with surface-preparing elements.

1-5th variants: traffic number was 3.

Crop sequences:Crop sequences:1) 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).

2) mustard (mulch, 2002), w. wheat (2002/03), unsown (2003/04), pea (mulch 2004), w. wheat (2004/05),

mustard (mulch, 2005), w. wheat (2005/06).

Cover percentage of the Cover percentage of the disturbed soil surfacedisturbed soil surface::

DD 80 % > SC DD 80 % > SC andand C 35 % > D 30 % > C 35 % > D 30 % > L 25 % > P 0 %.L 25 % > P 0 %.

RESULTSRESULTS

Selected soil quality factors affecting soil sensitivity to climatic Selected soil quality factors affecting soil sensitivity to climatic

harmsharms plant production stabilityplant production stability (Birkás and Dexter, 2004)

Soil loosenessSoil looseness – soil condition to a depth of 0-40/0-50 cm Agronomical structureAgronomical structure (aggregation, mellowing) EarthwormsEarthworms activity (living soil) Soil organic materialorganic materialss conservation loss (paper for IV. AAS Workshop) Soil moisturemoisture management Soil conditioning tillagetillage Crops - rotationCrops - rotation Fertilization Fertilization IrrigationIrrigation etc. etc.

MeasuringMeasuring: : according to the accepted standards

Results – Soil loosenessResults – Soil looseness

Soil condition in 0-Soil condition in 0-40 / 40 / 50 cm50 cm

Water Water managementmanagement

Climate Climate impactsimpacts

Impacts on tillage and Impacts on tillage and crop productioncrop production

GoodGood – no compaction

favourable slight or moderate

beneficial

SettledSettled in the profile

limited moderately

moderate limiting

1 – 3 compactedcompacted layers

limited strongly strong energy and production loss

Factors improving soil looseness: Factors improving soil looseness:

(1) depthdepth ofof tillagetillage from 0 to 45 cm(2) use of soil structure conservationsoil structure conservation methodmethod (e.g. DD, SC, C, L); (3) mulchmulch on the surfaceon the surface out of the growing season, from 0 to 80 %(4) reducereduce soil loadload(5) use cropscrops with different rooting depth.

Results – Agronomical structureResults – Agronomical structure

50

55

60

65

70

75

2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Aggr

egate

%

LPCSCDDD

LSD5%:1,232

Trend in aggregate % over 4 years

0 10 20 30 40 50

DD

SC

C

D

P

L

Tillag

e var

iants

Depth cm

Tillage

Friable structure

Long-term tillage impacts on friable structure (Józsefmajor, 2005)

LSD 5%: friable str: 2,45

Results – Agronomical structureResults – Agronomical structure

AggregationAggregation Climate impactsClimate impacts Impacts on tillage and Impacts on tillage and crop productioncrop production

improvingimproving (aggregate: 70-75%; dust <10%)

slight or moderate beneficial

moderatedmoderated (aggregate %: 50-70, dust 15-25%)

moderate limiting

poorpoor (strong clod and/or dust formation)

strong energy and production loss

Factors affect the aggregationFactors affect the aggregation::

(1) soil and water conservation tillagetillage (less clod and dust formation),(2) promoting soil mellowingmellowing,(3) tillage at workable soil condition (prevention of compaction),(4) surface covercover (crops, residues),(5) reducedreduced soil loadload (e.g. traffics 1-3),

Results – EarthwormsResults – Earthworms

P L D SC C DD

2002

2003

2004

2005

Surface cover%025 35 35 35

80

Tillage variants

LSD5%:

2002:3,42;2003:2,33; 2004:3,45; 2005:3,11

Factors of earthworm activity: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).

Annual changes of earthworm number at 6 tillage variants

Results –Results – water managementwater management

Factors improving or maintaining Factors improving or maintaining water management: water management: (1)(1) loosened soil layerloosened soil layer at least to 20 cmat least to 20 cm surface cover of 30 % at least, surface cover of 30 % at least, moderate surface roughness moderate surface roughness to prevent soil slumping,to prevent soil slumping, a moderate plant biomass or yielda moderate plant biomass or yield.

(2)(2) deeper loosened soil layerdeeper loosened soil layer a smooth, non-compacted surface a smooth, non-compacted surface to be suitable both for water infiltration to be suitable both for water infiltration and conservation. and conservation. (3) (3) minimized soil disturbance and minimized soil disturbance and surface cover of 50 % at least. surface cover of 50 % at least.

Use of soil loosening, structureUse of soil loosening, structureconserving tillage.conserving tillage.

Humid, friable soil under DD (12. Oct. 2005)

ResultsResults – – Soil conditioning tillageSoil conditioning tillage

Tillage Tillage FeaturesFeatures Climate Climate harmsharms

Impacts on crop Impacts on crop productionproduction

ConservationConservation required depth and loosened, less disturbance, promoting friable structure and mellowing, C-and water conservation

may decrease beneficial

HHabitualabitual required depth, more disturbance, less aggregation, C- and water conserve moderately

may increase unfavourable in dry and rainy seasons

HarmfulHarmful too shallow/deep, more disturbance, no water storage, clod and dust formation, C- and water loss

increases unfavourable in all seasons

ResultsResults – – Crops and sequenceCrops and sequence

Plant (year) Soil condition

Yield min-max. (t/ha)

L P D SC C DD

W. wheat (02/03) Poor * 0,62-0,59 3. 1. 4. 2. 5. 6.

Maize (03) Poor * 5,07-6,32 1. 2. 5. 3. 4. 6.

Rye (green, 04) Medium 10,06-11,86 2. 1. 6. 3. 4. 5.

Pea (green, 04) Medium 1,85-5,44 1. 2. 5. 3. 4. 6.

W. wheat (04/05) Improving** 1,80-7,73 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Mustard (green, 05/06) Improving** 12,0-25,0 2. 1. 4. 3. 4. 5.

Mustard root (cm) Improving ** 26-40 1. 2. 4. 3. 5. 6.

W. wheat (05/06) Improving ** ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

(in the rank 1. means the best and 6. means the poorest)

*moisture-loss increasing land use and the poor soil quality,*moisture-loss increasing land use and the poor soil quality, ** the improvement of soil quality has become a yield stabilizing factor** the improvement of soil quality has become a yield stabilizing factor

PicturesPictures

Mustard sowing into wheat stubble (05.07.30)

volunteer wheat roots

Wheat sowing into ploughed soil

ConclusionsConclusions

Assessing the tillage variants affecting yield stabilization, we Assessing the tillage variants affecting yield stabilization, we found 7 common factors, that is:found 7 common factors, that is:

(1) soil conditioning; (1) soil conditioning; (2) protect soil quality (loose condition, aggregate, (2) protect soil quality (loose condition, aggregate, moisture management, organic matter, biological activity); moisture management, organic matter, biological activity); (3) avoid root zone compaction; (3) avoid root zone compaction; (4) avoid clod and dust formation; (4) avoid clod and dust formation; (5) improve water-holding capacity(5) improve water-holding capacity (Farkas et. al.) (Farkas et. al.); ; (6) prolong surface cover; (6) prolong surface cover; (7) manage weed infestation.(7) manage weed infestation.

Results confirmed thatResults confirmed that reducing land use induced damage should help to reducing land use induced damage should help to improve and restore soil quality. It may decrease the sensitivity to climatic improve and restore soil quality. It may decrease the sensitivity to climatic extremes and increase plant production stability.extremes and increase plant production stability.

„„Create and maintain a harmony between soil quality Create and maintain a harmony between soil quality conservation and plant productionconservation and plant production””

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Research programsResearch programs: : NKFP-OM-3B/0057/2002, OTKA-49.049; NKFP-OM-3B/0057/2002, OTKA-49.049; KLIMAKKT; GAK 2005 (KLIMA05)KLIMAKKT; GAK 2005 (KLIMA05)Experimental and Training FarmExperimental and Training Farm, Hatvan – , Hatvan – JózsefmajorJózsefmajor..