Tony J. Vyn & Graduate Students, T.D. West, Colleagues, & Farmers Tillage Systems to Sustain Soil and Yield in “Continuous” Corn
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Tony J. Vyn & Graduate Students, T.D. West, Colleagues, & Farmers
Tillage Systems to Sustain Soil and Yield in “Continuous” Corn
Picture courtesy of B. Moebius, Cornell University, 2007
Does ethanol really change the conservationtillage decisions for corn production?
Tillage Choices for Corn after Soybean versus Corn after Corn?
Photo credit: Greg Stewart
Answer: Depends on Soil Type, Erosion Risk, Technology Adoption and Crop Management
Picture courtesy of Jeff Vetsch, Univ. of Minnesota
What Kind of Corn-Dominant Rotation?
•
Continuous Corn•
Soybean-Corn-Corn
•
Soybean-Corn-Corn-Corn•
Soybean-Corn-Corn-Soybean-Corn
•
Soybean-Wheat-Corn-Corn-Corn•
Alfalfa-Alfalfa-Alfalfa-Corn-Corn-Corn
Wooster
Western
Hoytville
Coshocton
Triplett -
Van Doren Tillage and Rotation Plots in Ohio
60
100
140
180
220
CM CS CC CM CS CC
Plow No-Till
1963-2006 1997-2006
15%
14%12%
9%++
Corn Yield Response to Rotation/Tillage (Wooster, OH; 1963-2006)
Source: Dr. Warren Dick, OSU
Wooster SiteOrganic Carbon (g kg-1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Plow No tillage
0 10 20 30 40Organic Carbon (g kg-1)
Source: Dr. Warren Dick, OSU
Soil Core Sampling Year
1962 1980 1993 20035
10
15
20
25
30
35
40WoosterNo-Till
Plow Till
Org
anic
Car
bon
in S
oil
(g k
g-1)
Tillage Effects on Organic C (Wooster) from 1962 to 2003
Source: Dr. Warren Dick, OSU
80
120
160
200
240
CM CS CC CM CS CC
Plow No-Till
1963-2006 1997-2006
17%
8%
5%13%
-2%11%
22%
0%
Corn Yield Response to Rotation/Tillage (Hoytville, OH; 1963-2006)
Source: Warren Dick, OSU
6 2
0 1 2 3 4 5
2005Hoytville(41 years)
Tillage Effects on Organic C (Hoytville) (1980 to 2005)
Source: Dr. Warren Dick, OSU
Long-term Rotation and Tillage Plots Silty
clay loam, W. Lafayette, IN 1975-2006
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
C-S CC C-S CC
Plow Chisel No-Till
1975-2007 1998-2007
4%7%
18%
2%4%15%
13%11%
Corn Yield Response to Tillage and Rotation, Silty
Clay Loam, W. Lafayette, IN, 1975-2007.
13%16%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30 - 40"
20 - 30"
12 to 20"
6 to 12"
2 to 6"
0 to 2"
No-tillPlow
Soil
Dep
th (i
n)
Organic Matter (%)
Source: Gál, Vyn et al., 2007, Soil Tillage Research
Long-term Tillage Effects on Soil Organic Matter (1975-2003, West Lafayette, IN)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Mean
ContinuousCorn
Soybean-Corn
No-tillPlow
Soil Organic C (tonnes/ha)Source: Gàl, Vyn et al., 2007, Soil Tillage Research
Long-term Tillage and Rotation Effects on Total Soil Carbon to 40”
depth (1975-2003)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
Tillage System
No-till 24 yr Plow 17 + NT 7Plow 17 + Ch. 7 Chisel 24 yr
Soil C Mass(t/ha)
Source: Omonode, Gál, Stott, Abney & Vyn* 2006, SSSAJ 70:419-425
aab ab
b
Continuous versus Short-term No-till Influence on Soil Carbon Weight
Strip Tillage for Corn after Corn?
Split the middle w/oguidance
Source: Norm Larson, Elburn Co-op, IL
Strip-Till Corn after Corn
Feasibility for ethanol production?Effects on soil properties?
Questions about Corn Stover Removal
Pictures from Dr. Stuart Birrell, Ag and Biological Engineering, Iowa State
Corn Yield Response to Residue Removal in Corn after Corn
J. Coulter and E. Nafziger, Univ. of Illinois, (2006-2007)Across 5 Mollisol environments in Illinois
180
190
200
210
220
All Half None
Residue removed
Yield (bu/ac)
Chisel
No-tillNS a
b
a
b
P ≤ 0.1
Across 2 Alfisol environments in Illinois
100
120
140
160
180
All Half None
Residue Removed
Yield (bu/ac)
Chisel
No-till
a
b
NSa
b
P ≤ 0.1
Source: Lauer, unpublished
Source: Lauer, unpublished
The rotation effect lasts two years increasing corn grain yield 19% for 1C and 7% for 2C …
Corn Yield Response Following Five Years of Soybean
177 180
166162 163 163 160
152
194 194
143139
147150148
158
179178
100
120
140
160
180
200
CS 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C Cont. 1987-1996
1997-2006
Cropping SequenceC= Corn, S= Soybean, Number = consecutive year of corn
Gra
in Y
ield
(bus
hels
/acr
e)
Conventional tillageNo tillage
�� 9% 0%
A B C C
-1% 1% 5% 9% 9% 9% 12% A A A A B C BC DE BC D BC DE C E
Control treatments during 1987-2006 at Arlington WI
Source: Lauer, unpublishedSource: Lauer, unpublished
Corn Yield Response to Tillage After 5 Years of Soybean(Arlington, WI; 1987 to 2006; Control Treatments)
Management Issues Include Automatic Guidance,Fertility, Prior Compaction, and Seed Row Uniformity
Row Position in No-Till Continuous Corn
Corn Yield Response to Tillage and Rotation, Sebewa
Loam soil, Wanatah, IN (1997-2007)
140145150155160165170175180185190195200205
Corn after Soy Cont. Corn
Fall ChiselFall DiskNo-Till
13%10%7%
6566676869707172737475
Corn after soybean Continuous Corn
Deg
rees
F
Fall chisel, disk,field cultivate
No-till
Average Maximum Soil Temperatures in First 4 Weeks after Planting (1997-2002)
Wanatah, IN on Loam Soil
What do Average Heights Tell us?
Uniformity More Difficult to Achieve in Corn after Corn
Chisel Plow
No-Till
Grain Yield Response of No-till Continuous Corn vs. Plow + No-till Rotation Corn (1980-1994)
Boomsma and Vyn, 2007 (Purdue AY 329-W)
Tony’s Top Five forConservation-till Corn after Corn
1. Be realistic about costs before switching to 2nd
- year Corn or Continuous Corn. Rotation
advantage very tillage & soil dependent, and may decline with time in corn-soybean rotations.
2. Pick your best drained and most productive fields.3. Consider strip tillage as an alternative to no-till or
conventional tillage. 4. Optimize conservation-till corn performance with
superior management (e.g. hybrids, fertilizer rate and placement, pest control).
5. Aim for plant-to-plant uniformity in the row.
Funding:USDA-CASMGS Purdue University (Mary S. Rice & Mission Oriented Funds)Foundation for Agronomic Research (PPI or IPNI)Fluid Fertilizer FoundationJohn Deere & Co.
Equipment:John Deere Cropping Systems Unit
Case-DMI (Goodfield, IL)Remlinger (Kalida, OH)
Seed:Pioneer Hi-Bred, Int.
Beck’s Hybrids
Acknowledgments
Related Documents
