4.7 Article

Chickpea response to tillage and soil residual nitrogen in a continuous rotation with wheat -: I.: Biomass and seed yield

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 88, 期 2-3, 页码 191-200

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.011

关键词

chickpea; No-tillage; N fertilizer; seed yield; yield components

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present field study was undertaken in Cordoba (Spain) on a Vertisol to determine the effects of tillage systems on spring chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) yield over 12 years, and the effects of tillage systems and residual N on chickpea biomass, seed yield and yield components over 4 years, in a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-chickpea rotation under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. Tillage treatments included no-tillage and conventional tillage. Nitrogen fertilizer rates were 0, 50, 100 and 150 kg N ha(-1) applied only to wheat. Seed yield was strongly dependent on rainfall during the preceding fallow period, as well as during the flowering and seed-filling period. Maximum seed yield (about 2000 kg ha(-1)) was achieved with around 390 mm rainfall in those periods. Higher rainfall prompted lower seed yield, due to the negative effect of waterlogging. Although the tillage system did not significantly influence chickpea seed yield, no-tillage represents a viable alternative to conventional tillage. Application of fertilizer N to wheat at a rate of 100 kg N ha(-1) consistently influenced subsequent chickpea seed yield due to the carryover effect of fertilizer N. Residual fertilizer N did not appear to affect chickpea N fixation, illustrating the inability of this legume to stock up with N. Biomass and harvest index were the two parameters most closely related to chickpea seed yield. Seeds per pod was the yield component exerting the greatest direct positive influence on seed yield. The compensatory effect of yield components on chickpea yield was very limited, since the indirect effects of these components were negligible. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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