Wheat stubble height effects on subsequent corn and grain sorghum crops

Abstract

For sustainable productivity, a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-summer crop (corn [Zea mays L.] or grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor L.])-fallow (W-SC-F) cropping system could benefit from optimal wheat stubble cutting height management, but only limited information is available. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of wheat stubble height on subsequent corn and grain sorghum yields, available soil water, crop water use, and precipitation storage efficiency in a W-C-F and W-S-F cropping system. This study was conducted from 2006 through 2020 at the Kansas State University Southwest Research-Extension Center near Tribune, KS. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three wheat stubble heights (high, low, and strip). Average across all years, there was a 9%-10% corn yield and 7%-11% corn biomass advantage from high and stripper harvested wheat stubble compared with low cut stubble, and a 5% sorghum yield advantage from high cut stubble compared with low cut stubble. Kernel weight of corn was the only yield component that significantly differed among stubble height treatments. Water productivity of corn in the high and stripper harvested stubble treatments (15.3 kg ha −1 mm −1 ) was significantly greater compared with the low cut stubble (14 kg ha −1 mm −1 ). Water productivity of sorghum in the high cut stubble treatment (18.9 kg ha −1 mm −1 ) was also significantly greater compared with low cut stubble (17.7 kg ha −1 mm −1 ). Total available soil water at planting (ASWP) and available soil water at harvest (ASWH) of corn were both greater for high cut stubble compared with stripper harvested stubble but total ASWP and ASWH of grain sorghum were not significantly different among stubble height treatments. We concluded that low cut wheat stubble decreased subsequent corn and grain sorghum yields in a W-C/S-F cropping system.

Continuous winter wheat response to nitrogen fertilizer rate in long‐term reduced tillage semi‐arid variable yield environments

“…However, estimated optimal N application rates stayed relatively constant across environments in this study unlike variable application rate recommendations by a few prior studies (Qiu et al., 2022; Ren et al., 2022). Most common fertilizer rate to winter wheat recommended or used by researchers are about 90 kg ha −1 in Oklahoma (Thomason et al., 2000), 75–86 kg ha −1 around Tribune (Schlegel et al., 2018, 2023), and 84 kg N ha −1 around Colorado (Halvorson et al., 2004). Therefore, the agronomic and economic optimal rate we found in this study are within those reported for studies in the central Great Plains.…”

“…(2018) reported that an RT system had a 12% yield advantage in dryland wheat in the central Great Plains compared with CT. Other research showed a 15%–18% yield advantage for RT compared with wheat yields in CT system when weeds were removed from RT (Hofmeijer et al., 2019). Among factors that contributed to reported yield benefits from RT wheat are improvement in soil properties, increased retention of soil moisture, and improved water availability to crops (Hofmeijer et al., 2019; Holland, 2004; Meurer et al., 2018; Schlegel et al, 2023). An increase in soil N content in RT than in CT was reported, but yields were compared between these tillage systems with similar fertilizer amounts in the aforementioned studies.…”

Historic winter wheat yield, production, and economic value trends in Kansas, the “Wheat State”

“…age in the central Great Plains, contributing to soil water conservation needed for successive crops (Schlegel et al, 2023). However, a recent study reported that the frequency of hot-dry-windy weather events has increased in Kansas and surrounding regions and is attributed to significant yield reduction (Zaho et al, 2022).…”

“…Presently, major crop rotations in the region, such as wheat–summer crop–fallow, has wheat as the base crop (Assefa et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2012). In part, because wheat stubble provides excellent soil cover to minimize wind and water erosion and improve soil water storage in the central Great Plains, contributing to soil water conservation needed for successive crops (Schlegel et al., 2023). However, a recent study reported that the frequency of hot‐dry‐windy weather events has increased in Kansas and surrounding regions and is attributed to significant yield reduction (Zaho et al., 2022).…”