Residue Management Practice Effects on Soybean Establishment and Growth in a Young Wheat-Soybean Double-Cropping System

Soil Properties, Soybean Response, and Economic Return as Affected by Residue and Water Management Practices

“…It was also hypothesized that the more sustainable combination of NT and non-burning residue would be at least as productive as the common practice of burning residue followed by CT, which is consistent with the initial three years of this study (Cordell et al, 2006). However, since soil requires some time to equilibrate to altered management, such as conversion from CT to NT, it is possible that increased soybean yields will be observed in NT compared to CT at some time after the initial equilibration period.…”

“…A three-factor split-strip-plot experimental design was used to establish this field study (Cordell et al, 2006). The three factors initially included were 1) residue burning (burning or non-burning); 2) wheat-residue level (high or low, achieved with different N fertilization levels): and 3) tillage (CT or NT).…”

“…Three replications of the tillage factor were arranged as a randomized complete block and were stripped across burn treatments. Within each tillage-burn combination, wheat-residue level formed a splitplot factor (Cordell et al, 2006). At the start of the 2005 soybean growing season, a water management treatment (irrigated or non-irrigated) was added as a fourth experimental factor.…”

“…Positive impacts of residue burning on soybean yield have been attributed to an early soybean growth advantage (Hairston et al, 1987) from no surface cover to inhibit seedling emergence and less herbicide interference (Daniels and Scott, 1991) than when wheat stubble was left on the soil surface. Several other studies have reported no burn effect on soybean yield (Beale and Langdale, 1967;Cordell et al, 2006;NeSmith et al, 1987;Rasmussen and Rohde, 1988;Undersander and Reiger, 1985). Residue burning has also had either a negative effect on soil moisture (Kelley and Sweeny, 1998;NeSmith et al, 1987) and soil organic matter (SOM; Sanford, 1982) or no/little effect on SOM (Beale and Langdale, 1967;Brye et al, 2006b;Kelley and Sweeny, 1998;Undersander and Reiger, 1985), bulk density (Beale and Langdale, 1967;Brye et al, 2006b), permeability (Beale and Langdale, 1967), water infiltration (Undersander and Reiger, 1985) and soil surface CO 2 flux (Brye et al, 2006a).…”

“…However, CT leaves the soil vulnerable to evaporative losses, whereas a soil surface covered by residue in a NT setting reduces potential evaporative losses (Blevins et al, 1983;Dao, 1993). Furthermore, NT has been shown to have similar soybean yields to CT (Beale and Langdale, 1967;Cordell et al 2006;NeSmith et al, 1987;Parsch et al, 2001). However, the benefits of conservation-tillage practices are time dependent.…”