Tillage, crop residue and crop sequence effects on nitrogen availability in a legume-based cropping system

Abstract

Soon, Y. K. and Arshad, M. A. 2004. Tillage, crop residue and crop sequence effects on nitrogen availability in a legumebased cropping system. Can. J. Soil Sci. 84: 421-430. A field study was conducted to determine the effects and interactions of crop sequence, tillage and residue management on labile N pools and their availability because such information is sparse. Experimental treatments were no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT), and removal vs. retention of straw, imposed on a barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)-canola (Brassica rapa L.)-field pea (Pisum sativum L.) rotation. 15 N-labelling was used to quantify N uptake from straw, below-ground N (BGN), and fertilizer N. Straw retention increased soil microbial biomass N (MBN) in 2 of 3 yr at the four-leaf growth stage of barley, consistent with observed decreases in extractable soil inorganic N at seeding. However, crop yield and N uptake at maturity were not different between straw treatments. No tillage increased soil MBN, crop yield and N uptake compared to CT, but had no effect on extractable soil inorganic N. The greater availability of N under NT was probably related to soil moisture conservation. Tillage effects on soil and plant N were mostly independent of straw treatment. Straw and tillage treatments did not influence the uptake of N from its various sources. However, barley following pea (legume/non-legume sequence) derived a greater proportion of its N from BGN (13 to 23% or 9 to 23 kg N ha -1 ) than canola following barley (nonlegumes) (6 to 16% or 3 to 9 kg N ha -1 ). Fertilizer N constituted 8 to 11% of barley N uptake and 23 to 32% of canola N uptake. Straw N contributed only 1 to 3% of plant N uptake. This study showed the dominant influence of tillage on N availability, and of the preceding crop or cropping sequence on N uptake partitioning among available N sources. [421][422][423][424][425][426][427][428][429][430]. Les auteurs ont effectué une étude sur le terrain afin d'établir les effets et les interactions de la succession des cultures, du travail du sol et de la gestion des résidus de récolte sur les réserves et la disponibilité du N labile, car on sait peu de choses en la matière. Les traitements examinés étaient les suivants : non-travail (NT) contre travail ordinaire (TO) du sol et retrait ou rétention de la paille dans un assolement orge (Hordeum vulgare L.)-canola (Brassica rapa L.)-pois de grande culture (Pisum sativum L.). Les auteurs ont recouru au marquage par le 15 N pour quantifier l'absorption du N venant de la paille, du sol (NS) ou de l'engrais. La rétention de la paille a accru le N de la biomasse bactérienne (NBB) deux années sur trois au stade de la quatrième feuille, ce qui concorde avec la diminution du N minéral extractible présent dans le sol aux semis. Toutefois, le rendement et l'absorption de N à maturité ne varient pas avec le traitement de la paille. Comparativement au travail ordinaire du sol, le non-travail accroît le NBB, le rendement et l'absorption du N, sans agir sur la quantité de N minéral extractib...

Effect of Straw and Fertilizer Nitrogen Management for Spring Barley on Soil Nitrogen Supply to a Subsequent Potato Crop

“…Early herbicide burn-down of winter cereal cover crops increased soil nitrate content in the following spring compared with no herbicide application (Jewett and Thelen 2006). Straw retention decreased soil mineral N content in the following spring compared with straw removal, but did not affect N uptake of the succeeding crop in barleycanola-field pea rotations (Soon and Arshad 2004). In a long-term study at two sites in England, autumn soil mineral N was higher where straw was burned than incorporated, and higher when incorporated in early than in late autumn, however the effects of straw management on yield and N uptake of the subsequent crop were inconsistent (Silgram and Chambers 2002).…”

Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics

“…But in other studies straw retention resulted in lower yields (Hairston et al 1987;Opoku et al 1997;Vyn et al 1998). Similar to the lack of processing tomato yield response to wheat straw management at Leamington, yield of potato (Zebarth et al 2009), sugarbeet sugar (Allison et al 1992), and other crops (Soon and Arshad 2004;Malhi et al 2006) were not impacted by cereal straw retention or removal. Researchers attributed the differences in crop yield response to straw management to various factors such as site and soil characteristics (Nyborg et al 1995), year (Malhi et al 2006), crop (Limon-Ortega et al 2000) and N rate (Malhi and Nyborg 1990).…”

“…For instance, with no N fertilizer, crop N content was higher with barley straw removed compared to straw retained (Zebarth et al 2009), which suggests immobilization in the straw retained treatment. Despite immobilization in the spring with straw retained compared with removed treatments, Soon and Arshad (2004) observed no effect on crop yield or N uptake. Previous research attributed the interaction of straw management and N fertilizer on crop yield to immobilization (Hairston et al 1987;Malhi et al 1989;Malhi and Nyborg 1990).…”

“…The observed harvest index and harvest N index values were consistent with other research. The lack of influence of N fertilizer on dry matter and N partitioning between reproductive and vegetative tissues has been observed in tomato (Benincasa et al 2006;Hartz and Bottoms 2009) and other crops (Soon and Arshad 2004). Overall, at both Ridgetown and Leamington, there was no straw management by N fertilizer interaction for all soil mineral N (Table 4) and plant N (Table 5) parameters.…”

“…Our observed lack of differences in tomato crop N content or concentration among winter wheat straw management treatments was similar to barley straw management prior to sugarbeet (Allison et al 1992) or potato (Zebarth et al 2009) production. Likewise, others have observed that crop residue removal or retention did not impact subsequent crop N uptake (Soon and Arshad 2004;Yadvinder-Singh et al 2009). The harvest index and harvest N index (i.e., proportion of biomass and N content in reproductive tissue) was over 70% and not influenced by straw management or tomato N fertilization and had no straw by N interaction (Table 5).…”