Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 DTD 5 6 3.2. Soil nitrate dynamics At emergence and immediately before harvest, only small and non-significant differences in soil nitrate between <strong>mulch</strong>ed and un<strong>mulch</strong>ed plots were found (Table 4). Nitrogen mineralization after the harvest process lead to a post-harvest increase <strong>of</strong> nitrate in the soil (62 and 51 kg NO3–N ha 1 in the un<strong>mulch</strong>ed soil, experiments 4 and 11, respectively). The post-harvest amount <strong>of</strong> nitrate was greater in the un<strong>mulch</strong>ed than in the <strong>mulch</strong>ed plots with a total difference <strong>of</strong> 33.8 kg NO 3–N ha 1 in experiment 4 (not significant) and 17.6 kg NO3–N ha 1 in experiment 11 (significant at p = 0.035; Table 4). The reason for this is seen in an immobilization <strong>of</strong> nitrogen after incorporation <strong>of</strong> the (partially decayed) <strong>straw</strong> into the soil due to the high C/N-ratio <strong>of</strong> <strong>straw</strong> T.F. Döring et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2005) xxx–xxx Table 3 Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong> in potatoes on soil moisture shortly before harvest (wt%): means S.E. Soil moisture pre-harvest Experiment 1 (2001, n = 8) Experiment 4 (2002, n = 4) Experiment 11 (2003, n =4) 0–30 cm 30–60 cm 0–30 cm 30–60 cm 0–30 cm 30–60 cm Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed 17.7 0.5 19.0 1.1 21.1 2.8 20.2 2.3 8.8 0.3 11.7 0.2 Mulched 18.9 0.8 18.0 0.6 21.1 2.3 20.6 3.1 9.3 0.3 11.8 0.2 L.S.D. 5% (untransformed) 1.6 ns 2.0 ns 2.6 ns 1.7 ns 1.6 ns 1.1 ns ns: difference not significant (both for untransformed and angle-transformed data). (Cheshire et al., 1999). The C/N-ratio <strong>of</strong> the <strong>straw</strong> in experiment 4 was determined as 76.7; this value is well below the long-time average C/N-ratio <strong>of</strong> 100 for winter wheat <strong>straw</strong> presented by Boguslawski and Debruck (1977). Per tonne <strong>straw</strong> applied, ca. 6.8 and 7.0 kg N (experiments 4 and 11, respectively) were immobilized; this immobilization rate is at the upper end <strong>of</strong> the range (1–7 kgNt 1 ) summarized by Christensen and Olesen (1998). 3.3. Parameters <strong>of</strong> plant nutritional status and plant growth Hydro N-Tester values, as a measure <strong>of</strong> the nutritional status <strong>of</strong> the plant, were significantly reduced by <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong> application in experiment 1 (Fig. 1). Plant height was slightly but significantly Table 4 Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong> applied to potatoes (var. Christa) on soil nitrate-N (kg ha 1 ) in two experiments a : means S.E., n =4 Soil nitrate a Experiment 4 (2002) Experiment 11 (2003) 0–30 cm At emergence (before <strong>mulch</strong>ing) 30–60 cm Sum (0–60 cm) 0–30 cm 30–60 cm Sum (0–60 cm) b Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed 70.2 12.5 40.4 11.4 110.6 23.6 40.1 4.1 14.3 2.7 54.4 6.7 Mulched 74.3 7.3 39.4 10.2 113.7 17.4 36.2 3.9 14.0 3.5 50.2 7.3 Pre-harvest (after haulm death) b Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed 25.3 4.8 22.7 5.2 48.0 9.7 20.7 1.1 3.2 0.2 23.9 1.0 Mulched Post-harvest 24.4 2.6 21.8 5.8 46.2 8.3 20.6 2.1 4.5 1.1 25.1 1.6 Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed 69.4 16.2 40.6 11.7 110.0 27.8 61.1 8.1 13.8 4.7 74.9 11.1 Mulched Post-harvest difference 46.4 10.2 29.8 7.2 76.2 17.2 48.7 6.7 8.7 1.3 57.3 8.0 Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed-Mulched 23.0 11.7 10.8 7.2 33.8 18.8 12.5 2.6 5.1 4.1 17.6 4.8 LSD (5%) 37.1 ns 23.0 ns 59.8 ns 8.3 * 13.2 ns 15.2 * ns: not significant. a For details <strong>of</strong> experimental conditions see Table 2; for sampling dates see text (Section 2.2). b There were no significant differences between <strong>mulch</strong>ed and un<strong>mulch</strong>ed treatments concerning soil nitrate at emergence and pre-harvest. * p < 0.05. UNCORRECTED PROOF FIELD 4474 1–12 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335
336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 DTD 5 Fig. 1. Hydro N-Tester value as affected by <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong>ing (experiment 1). Means S.E.; n = 8. Mulching effect significant at p < 0.001; effect <strong>of</strong> leaf position significant at p < 0.001. Interaction between <strong>mulch</strong>ing and leaf position is not significant. reduced by <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong> in two out <strong>of</strong> five cases, i.e., in experiments 7 and 12 on the later sampling date, butitwasnotinfluenced in experiments 9 and 11, and in experiment 12 on the earlier sampling date (Table 4). One reason for decreased growth might be possibly lower soil nitrate levels under <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong> during the vegetation period (Albrecht, 1922; Albrecht and Uhland, 1925), but—again probably due to the small amount <strong>of</strong> <strong>straw</strong> applied—growth parameters were not consistently affected (Table 5). T.F. Döring et al. / Field Crops Research xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 7 Table 5 Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong>ing in potatoes on plant height in cm Experiment 7 9 11 12 12 Variety Nicola Marabel Christa Nicola Nicola Sampling date 19.06.02 09.07.03 12.06.03 12.06.03 09.07.03 Plants/plot 16 16 8 8 8 Replications 8 4 4 8 16 Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed 38.1 55.5 41.2 47.8 64.9 Mulched 36.0 53.3 42.0 48.5 63.3 L.S.D. 5% 1.5 * 3.8 ns 2.6 ns 2.8 ns 1.57 * ns: not significant. * p < 0.05. 3.4. Weeds The most dominant weed species were Fumaria <strong>of</strong>ficinalis in experiment 1, Polygonum persicaria and Cirsium arvense in experiments 7 and 8, Thlaspi arvense and Chenopodium album in experiment 9 and Stellaria media and Chenopodium album in experiment 12. There were no consistent effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>mulch</strong>ing on the number <strong>of</strong> weeds, weed cover and biomass (Table 6; Fig. 2). However, the sampling position with respect to the ridges and the timing within the season appeared to interact with the effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>mulch</strong>ing in experiment 1. Earlier in the season (6 June) <strong>mulch</strong>ing increased the number and cover <strong>of</strong> weeds, while three Table 6 Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>straw</strong> <strong>mulch</strong> and sampling position on weed counts (number <strong>of</strong> plants per m 2 ) and weed cover (%) in experiment 1, 9 and 12 Parameter Count/m 2 Experiment (date) Cover (%) 1 (06.06) 1 (27.06) 9 (12.06) 12 (18.06) 1 (06.06) 1 (27.06) 9 (12.06) 12 (18.06) 12 (09.07) Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed in furrows 10.4 82.0 103.3 31.4 0.0 2.1 1.3 1.7 10.5 Mulched in furrows 15.6 24.4 56.8 30.4 1.8 3.2 1.0 1.9 10.3 Un<strong>mulch</strong>ed on ridges 5.2 20.1 21.5 3.9 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 – a Mulched on ridges Significance level for 16.9 10.1 19.7 3.3 3.0 2.2 0.3 0.4 – Mulching effect * ** ns ns ** ns * ns ns Position effect ns ** *** *** ns ns ** *** – Interaction ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns – Error d.f. 21 21 9 9 21 21 9 9 7 Number <strong>of</strong> subsamples 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 10 ns: not significant. a Not sampled. * 0.01 < p < 0.05. ** 0.001 < p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. UNCORRECTED PROOF FIELD 4474 1–12 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359
Page 1 and 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 3 and 4: DTD 5 T.F. Döring et al. / Field C
Page 5: 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226
Page 9 and 10: 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387
Page 11 and 12: 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546

Effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?