Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:55:08.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of corn residue on yield of cool-season crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2013

Randy L. Anderson
Randy L. Anderson*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Brookings, South Dakota 57006, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: randy.anderson@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Synergy between dry pea and corn can reduce the density of corn needed for optimum yield. Lower crop density may accrue an additional benefit, as after-harvest residues of corn lying on the soil surface can reduce yield of crops planted the next year. This study evaluated impact of corn residue levels on growth and yield of three cool-season crops in no-till. Corn was grown at two densities, 52,000 and 73,000 plants ha−1, leading to after-harvest residue levels designated as low and high residue. Residue quantity on the soil surface differed by 21%. Controls were included for each residue level by burying residue with tillage. Spring wheat, dry pea and red clover were planted the following year. Grain yield of spring wheat and dry pea and forage yield of red clover were reduced 13–33% by residue on the soil surface. However, yield of cool-season crops were 10–18% higher in the low-residue treatment compared with high residue. Furthermore, yield loss because of weed interference in spring wheat and red clover was greater with high residue. Of the three crops, spring wheat was the least affected by corn residue on the soil surface. One contributing factor to lower yield with high residue was reduced crop seedling establishment. Producers may be able to reduce the negative impact of corn residue on following crops in no-till systems by using synergistic crop sequences in the rotation.

Keywords

crop diversitysynergysystems designweed tolerance
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 184 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

1 Welbaum, G.E., Sturz, A.V., Dong, Z., and Nowak, J. 2004. Managing soil microorganisms to improve productivity of agro-ecosystems. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:175–193.Google Scholar
2 Dore, T., Makowski, D., Malezieux, E., Munier-Jolain, N., Tchamitchian, M., and Tittonell, P. 2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting methods, concept, and knowledge. European Journal of Agronomy 34:197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Hobbs, P.R. 2007. Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? Journal of Agricultural Science 145:127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Kirschenmann, F.L. 2007. Potential for a new generation of biodiversity in agroecosystems of the future. Agronomy Journal 99:373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Anderson, R.L. 2011. Synergism: A rotation effect of improved growth efficiency. Advances in Agronomy 112:205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Anderson, R.L. 2012. Possible causes of dry pea synergy to corn. Weed Technology 26:438–442.Google Scholar
7 DeFelice, M.S., Carter, P.R., and Mitchell, S.B. 2006. Influence of tillage on corn and soybean yield in the United States and Canada. Online. Crop Management doi: 10.1094/CM-2006-0626-01-RS.Google Scholar
8 Fortin, M.C. 1993. Soil temperature, soil water, and no-till corn development following in-row residue removal. Agronomy Journal 85:571–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Kaspar, T.C., Erbach, D.E., and Cruse, R.M. 1990. Corn response to seed-row residue removal. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54:1112–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Watt, M., Kirkegaard, J.A., and Passioura, J.B. 2006. Rhizosphere biology and crop productivity. Australian Journal of Soil Research 44:299–317.Google Scholar
11 Pierce, F.J., Fortin, M.C., and Staton, M.J. 1992. Immediate and residual effects of zone tillage in rotation with no-tillage on soil physical properties and corn performance. Soil Tillage Research 24:149–165.Google Scholar
12 Janovicek, K.J., Vyn, T.J., Voroney, R.P., and Allen, O.B. 1997. Early corn seedling growth response to acetic, propionic, and butyric acids. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 77:333–337.Google Scholar
13 Vyn, T.J. and Hooker, D.C. 2002. Assessment of multiple- and single-factor stress impacts on corn. Field Crops Research 75:123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Janovicek, K.J., Vyn, T.J., and Voroney, R.P. 1997. No-till corn response to crop rotation and in-row residue placement. Agronomy Journal 89:588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Vetsch, J.A. and Randall, G.W. 2000. Enhancing no-till systems for corn with starter fertilizer, row cleaners, and nitrogen placement methods. Agronomy Journal 92:309–315.Google Scholar
16 Anderson, R.L. 2008. Diversity and no-till: Keys for pest management in the U.S. Great Plains. Weed Science 56:141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Harker, K.N. 2001. Survey of yield losses due to weeds in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:339–342.Google Scholar
18 Wilhelm, W.W. and Wortman, C.S. 2004. Tillage and rotation interactions for corn and soybean grain yield as affected by precipitation and air temperature. Agronomy Journal 96:425–432.Google Scholar
19 Wilhelm, W.W., Johnson, J.M.F., Karlen, D.L., and Lightle, D.T. 2007. Corn stover to sustain soil organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agronomy Journal 99:1665–1667.Google Scholar
20 Vereijken, R. 2002. Transition to multifunctional land use and agriculture. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 50:171–179.Google Scholar
21 Porter, P.M., Crookston, R.K., Ford, J.H., Huggins, D.R., and Lueschen, W.E. 1997. Interrupting yield depression in monoculture corn: Comparative effectiveness of grasses and dicots. Agronomy Journal 89:247–250.Google Scholar