4.7 Article

Influences of soil tillage, irrigation and crop rotation on maize biomass yield in a 9-year field study in Muncheberg, Germany

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 241, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107565

关键词

Diversification; Maize monocropping; Long-term trial; No-tillage; Rainfed; Sandy soil

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To analyze the effects of tillage (no-tillage, plow tillage), irrigation (rainfed, irrigated), and crop rotation (continuous maize, 4-year crop rotation) and their development, we conducted a field experiment over 9 years under sandy soil conditions in northeastern Germany. The generalized linear model showed that tillage, irrigation and crop rotation jointly explained approximately 35% of the total variance. Irrigation and crop rotation significantly positively influenced maize biomass yield started immediately in the first years in 2008 and 2011 respectively, while tillage started to significantly positively affect yield starting from the fourth year. In general, irrigation had the most relative importance as a management factor compared to the importance of tillage and crop rotation. Crop rotation with legumes increased soil nitrogen and carbon content and led to a higher yield than continuous maize 11.1 dt ha(-1) y(-1) in average. Furthermore, the significant effect of crop rotation on the yield of the following crop (maize) continued after 2 cycles of a 4-year crop rotation. A significant influence of the 2-way interactions between rotation, tillage and irrigation was only found in extremely dry years. It can be concluded that (i) the negative influence of no-tillage becomes noticeable after 3 years, leading to significantly lower yield compared to plow tillage; (ii) under the sandy soil and dry conditions, irrigation significantly increases yields and is the most important factor compared to tillage and crop rotation; and (iii) crop rotation significantly increases and maintains maize yield under both plowed and irrigated conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据