A growing mulch tillage system to reduce wind erosion losses of sugarbeets

Fornstrom, K. James; Boehnke, Rex D.

doi:10.5274/jsbr.19.1.65

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crop residue, left on the soil surface, will reduce soil erosion and seedling damage caused by wind ( 4,6,10). Small grain cover crops have been used in sugarbeet fields to reduce wind damage to soil and sugarbeet seedlings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reduced Seedbed Tillage Effects on Irrigated Sugarbeet Yield and Quality¹

Halvorson¹,

Hartman

1984

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted from 1979 through 1982 on a furrow irrigated silty clay loam soil (Typic Argiboroll) to determine if sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) sucrose production levels could be maintained with reduced seedbed tillage. Tillage treatments were: a) conventional tillage (CT)—complete fall incorporation of surface residues; b) strip tillage (ST)—fall incorporation of surface residues in 18‐cm wide bands located 56 or 61 cm apart; and c) no‐tillage (NT)—no incorporation of surface residues. Herbicides were fall applied for weed control. Sugarbeets were seeded 10 or 15 cm apart to eliminate need for thinning. Sugarbeet stands before cultivation averaged 3.7 sugarbeets/meter of row over the 4‐year period. Tillage treatment had no significant effect on spring soil temperatures and on sugarbeet stand, root yield, sucrose content, gross sucrose yield, and recoverable sucrose yield when averaged over the 4‐year period. Sugarbeet quality, in terms of clear juice purity, tended to be better in the reduced tillage treatments than in the CT treatment. This difference in clear juice purity probably resulted from the higher levels of spring soil NO3‐N found under CT than under reduced tillage plots. The results indicate that sucrose production under reduced seedbed tillage conditions can be maintained at levels comparable with conventional seedbed tillage conditions. Potential advantages of reduced seedbed tillage for sugarbeets are wind erosion control, reduced soil crusting problems, better soil water conditions in the seedbed for germination, reduced energy requirements, and reduced production costs.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Small grain cover crops have been used in sugarbeet fields to reduce wind damage to soil and sugarbeet seedlings. The cover crops have been effective in reducing wind damage, but excessive cover crop residue and phytotoxicity have resulted in reduced yields (2,4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced Seedbed Tillage Effects on Irrigated Sugarbeet Yield and Quality¹

Halvorson¹,

Hartman

1984

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although our Þndings clearly demonstrate the pest management potential of an oat cover crop for protection of sugarbeet roots from T. myopaeformis feeding injury, competition from the oats may have had an attenuating impact on net yield. Negative yield impacts from competition with sugarbeet yield have been observed in previous studies involving fallseeded cover crops (Carey et al 1975, Fornstrom andBoehnke 1976). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that yield differences between cover and noncover treatments may have been even more substantial and consistent if herbicidal removal of the oat cover crop had been timed more optimally.…”

Section: Producers In the North Central And Western Unitedmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…this cultural production practice include soil stabilization (Fornstrom and Boehnke 1976) and protection of seedlings from mechanical injury and mortality caused by wind damage and soil abrasion (Sommer and Schwerdtle 1984). Also, Fornstrom and Miller (1996) suggested that a net gain in early-season soil moisture could be realized if the cover crop is killed before 2.5 cm of available water is consumed.…”

Section: Producers In the North Central And Western Unitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Occasionally, growers underseed sugarbeet Þelds with a cereal cover crop to minimize plant stand losses and abrasion caused by wind and blowing soil. Soil stabilization can be an additional beneÞt of cover crops to sugarbeet production (Fornstrom and Boehnke 1976). Recent anecdotal evidence from commercial sugarbeet Þelds suggests that reduced larval feeding injury by T. myopaeformis may be an added beneÞt from oat, Avena sativa L., cover crops.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oat Cover Cropping and Soil Insecticides in an Integrated Sugarbeet Root Maggot (Diptera: Otitidae) Management Program

Dregseth

Boetel

Schroeder

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L., producers occasionally establish cereal cover crops to minimize early-season soil erosion, wind abrasion, and mechanical injury of seedlings. We evaluated the use of living oat, Avena sativa L., cover cropping as a cultural tactic to minimize feeding injury from sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis (Röder), larvae at five field sites during 1996, 1998, and 1999. Sweep-net sampling yielded 4.8-, 11.2-, and 7.2-fold more flies from oat cover-cropped chlorpyrifos, terbufos, and untreated control plots, respectively, than in noncover counterparts. However, larval feeding injury in terbufos-treated plots was reduced when cover-cropped (383 seeds/m2) at St. Thomas in all years. A reduced oat seeding rate (224 seeds/m2) also enhanced root protection in terbufos-treated plots at St. Thomas in 1999. Less root injury was sustained in cover-cropped chlorpyrifos plots than in noncover counterparts at St. Thomas in 2 study yr. Oat cover cropping also frequently resulted in reduced T. myopaeformis feeding injury in the absence of a soil insecticide. Although trends toward increased yields were often evident, significant yield benefits were limited to a 6.8% root yield increase in oat cover plots when compared with noncover treatments overall at St. Thomas in 1996 and an 18.4% sucrose yield increase in terbufos-treated plots at St. Thomas in 1999. These findings suggest that beneficial interactions between planting-time soil insecticides and cereal cover crops are achievable in areas infested by T. myopaeformis. Demonstrated reductions in root feeding injury, combined with additional agronomic benefits, may warrant use of this production practice as part of an integrated management program for this key insect pest of sugarbeet.

show abstract