Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:14:08.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative influence of soil and management on barley yield in the Vale of Whitehorse, England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. O. Ogunkunle  and
P. H. T. Beckett
A. O. Ogunkunle
Affiliation:
Soil Science Laboratory, Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Parks Road, Oxford
P. H. T. Beckett
Affiliation:
Soil Science Laboratory, Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Parks Road, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The reliability of the soil series as a basis for crop yield prediction was examined by comparing the influence of soil and management (inter-farmer differences) on the variance of barley grain yield. Yields of barley were measured from farmers' fields for 2 years and in undisturbed soil cores for 5 years. Fields on different soil series within farms and on the same soil series across farms were used. Linear stepwise regressions of yield on a number of soil properties were also examined to assess the relative influence of soil and management on the properties that were significant to yield.

The results show that generally, soil classification has a strong influence on yield variance, but there is clear evidence that the influence of management, specifically the cumulative effect of P and K fertilizer applications, is considerable. Thus in an undisturbed core, for the first 3 years when N, P, K and Mg were applied, the influence of soil was stronger than that of management, but this was reversed in the 4th year when P and K were not applied. Similarly in the field, the influence of soil was stronger in the 1st year, but this was reversed in the 2nd year, although on different field-farm combinations. In all cases, the influence of neither soil nor management was significantly stronger than the other.

The results of the regression studies also confirmed those of yield variance in that in general, neither soil nor management has exclusive control of the yield variance. The soil was significantly stronger than management in the control of only coarse sand content at 0–15 cm out of the four soil properties (including Mg and pH (0–15 cm) and K (15–30 cm)) which were significant to yield in the cores. On the other hand, management was significantly stronger than soil in the control of only available P at O–15 cm out of the three soil properties (including Cu and Mg both at 0–15 cm) that were significant to field yield.

It is concluded that for soil classification to be a reliable basis for yield prediction and/or agrotechnology transfer, the effect of management must be emphasized.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 555 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avery, B. W. & Bascomb, C. L. (ed.) (1974). Soil survey Laboratory Methods. Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 6, Soil Survey of England and Wales, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.Google Scholar
Bannister, P., Tomlinson, P. R. & Beckett, P. H. T. (1974). A simple procedure for soil mechanical analysis. Plant and Soil 40, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartelli, L. J. (1978). Technical classification systems for soil survey interpretation. Advances in Agronomy 30, 247–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckett, P. H. T. & Webster, R. (1971). Soil variability: a review. Soil and Fertilizers 34, 5.Google Scholar
Beinroth, F. H. (1982). Research on the transfer of agro-technology. Final Report of the Puerto Rico Benchmark Soil Project, Department of Agronomy and Soils, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagnez, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Benchmark Soils Project (1979). Transfer model and soil taxonomic interpretation, a network of 3 families. Benchmark Soils Project Progress Report 2 (Jan. 1978–June 1979). Department of Agronomy and Soil Science University of Hawaii and Department of Agronomy and Soils, University of Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A. & Dermott, T. W. (1964). Fertilizer experiments on maincrop potatoes 1955–61. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buol, S. W. & Denton, H. P. (1984). The role of soil classification in technology transfer. In Soil Taxonomy – Achievements and Challenges, pp. 29–43. Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Coulter, J. K. (1969). The productivity and chemical and physical properties of some mapping units of the Soil Survey of England and Wales. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Jarvis, M. G. (1973). Soils of the Wantage and Abingdon District. Memoirs of the Soil Survey of Great Britain England and Wales.Google Scholar
Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1971). Advisory Paper no. 10. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Ogunkunle, A. O. (1979). The optimization of classifications for soil survey. D. Phil, thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Scott, R. O., Mitchell, L., Purves, D. & Voss, R. L. (1971). Spectrochemical methods for analysis of soils, plants and other agricultural materials. Consultative Committee for Spectrochemical Work, Bulletin no. 2, Macaulay Institute of Soil Research, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Shrader, W. D., Riecken, E. F. & Englehorn, A. J. (1957). Effect of soil type differences on crop yields on Clarion–Webster soil in Iowa. Agronomy Journal 49, 254–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, J. A. (1984). An overview of Benchmark Soils Project. In: A multidisciplinary approach to agrotechnology transfer, Proceedings of the Benchmark Soils Project (ed. Uehara, G.). Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (1975). Soil Taxonomy: United States Department of Agriculture Handbook no. 436. Washington DC.Google Scholar
Sopher, C. D. & McCracken, R. J. (1973). Relationship between soil properties, management practices and corn yields on South Atlantic Coastal Plain Soils. Agronomy Journal 65, 595–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, P. R., Beckett, P. H. T., Bannister, P. & Marsden, R. (1977). Simplified procedure for routine soil analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 14, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, R., Hodge, C. A. H., Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1977). The effect of soil type and related factors on sugar beet yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar