Effects of straw incorporation on the yield, nitrogen fertilizer and insecticide requirements of sugarbeet (<i>Beta vulgaris</i>)

Allison, M. F.; Jaggard, K. W.; Last, P. J.

doi:10.1017/s0021859600068799

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously, there was no straw management by N fertilizer interaction on sugarbeet sugar yield (Allison et al 1992) suggesting little to no immobilization, which was similar to our tomato research results. At both Ridgetown and Leamington, the lack of interaction between straw management and N fertilizer rate with soil mineral N and plant N parameters as well as all yield parameters suggests that wheat straw management had little influence on immobilization or overall N dynamics.…”

Section: Nitrogen Dynamicssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Our observed lack of differences in tomato crop N content or concentration among winter wheat straw management treatments was similar to barley straw management prior to sugarbeet (Allison et al 1992) or potato (Zebarth et al 2009) production. Likewise, others have observed that crop residue removal or retention did not impact subsequent crop N uptake (Soon and Arshad 2004;Yadvinder-Singh et al 2009).…”

Section: Nitrogen Dynamicssupporting

confidence: 62%

“…In contrast, Mitchell et al (2008) observed no consistent trend with rotations and tomato soluble solids or pH. Similarly, cereal straw management the year prior to potatoes (Zebarth et al 2009) or sugarbeet (Allison et al 1992) did not impact specific gravity or sugar content, respectively. Based on our research and other studies (Seliga and Shattuck 1995;Colla et al 2000;Warner et al 2004;Garcia and Barrett 2006;Barrett et al 2007;Mitchell et al 2008), cultivar and environment (i.e., temperature, moisture, and soil physicochemical characteristics) appear to have more of an impact on tomato quality than straw management/production practices or N fertility.…”

Section: Results and Discussion Fruit Qualitymentioning

confidence: 75%

“…But in other studies straw retention resulted in lower yields (Hairston et al 1987;Opoku et al 1997;Vyn et al 1998). Similar to the lack of processing tomato yield response to wheat straw management at Leamington, yield of potato (Zebarth et al 2009), sugarbeet sugar (Allison et al 1992), and other crops (Soon and Arshad 2004;Malhi et al 2006) were not impacted by cereal straw retention or removal. Researchers attributed the differences in crop yield response to straw management to various factors such as site and soil characteristics (Nyborg et al 1995), year (Malhi et al 2006), crop (Limon-Ortega et al 2000) and N rate (Malhi and Nyborg 1990).…”

Section: Fruit Yield and Profit Marginsmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Van Eerd, L. L., Loewen, S. A. and Vyn, R. J. 2015. Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 273Á283. The removal of crop residues to meet the anticipated demand for the bioeconomy sector may impact subsequent crop productivity. A field experiment was designed to evaluate the response of processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) straw management practices of: (1) retaining straw, (2) removing straw, or (3) retaining straw with a fall application of calcium ammonium nitrate at 34 kg N ha(1 to enhance straw decomposition. At two locations in 2006Á2009, a split-plot design within a randomized complete block experiment, with wheat straw management as main-plot factor and nitrogen fertilizer (0 and 145 or 224 kg N ha(1 ) to the tomato crop as split-plot factor. At Ridgetown, marketable and total yield and profit margins were significantly higher with straw retained compared with straw removed treatments (total yield of 74.4 vs. 66.3 Mg ha(1 yr (1 , respectively) but the straw retained plus fall N treatment (total yield 72.8 Mg ha(1 yr( 1 ) was not different. However, at Leamington, straw management had no effect on yield or profit margins likely due to the rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop used in the production system. At both locations, tomato quality (color, pH, soluble solids) was not influenced by straw or N management. Nitrogen fertilizer application to tomato had a significant effect on total processing yield, soil mineral N, and plant N, but wheat straw management had no effect on these parameters and there were no N fertilizer by straw management interactions. Winter wheat straw management did not impact soil N fertility for subsequent crop production. Thus, there may be significant undesired effects of removing crop residues on a subsequent crop yield; however, planting a cover crop may mitigate subsequent yield losses associated with biomass removal.Key words: Solanum lycopersicum, Triticum aestivum, stover, fruit quality, profit margins Van Eerd, L. L., Loewen, S. A. et Vyn, R. J. 2015. La gestion de la paille de ble´d'hiver et son incidence sur le rendement des tomates de transformation, leur qualite´, les parame`tres e´conomiques et la dynamique de l'azote. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 273Á283. Enlever les re´sidus des cultures pour re´pondre a`la demande pre´vue de la bio-e´conomie pourrait avoir un impact sur la productivite´agricole. Les auteurs ont proce´de´a`une expe´rience sur le terrain afin d'e´valuer la re´action de la tomate de transformation (Solanum lycopersicum L.) aux pratiques de gestion applicables a`la paille de ble´d'hiver (Triticum aestivum L.). Les pratiques en question e´taient les suivantes : 1) maintien de la paille, 2) retrait de la paille ou 3) pre´servation de la paille et application automnale de nitrate d'ammonium et de calcium a`raison de 34 kg de N par hectare en vue d'acce´le´rer la de´composition des re´sidus. Les chercheurs ont ame´nage´des p...

show abstract

Section: Nitrogen Dynamicssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Nitrogen Dynamicssupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Results and Discussion Fruit Qualitymentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Fruit Yield and Profit Marginsmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 20% of Ðelds the straw is disposed of by incorporation, whilst on the remaining 80% of Ðelds the straw is baled and removed. Previous studies (Allison et al 1992 ;Allison and Hetschkun 1995) have compared the e †ects of incorporating or removing cereal straw on the N nutrition of beet crops. There is little information, however, on how straw disposal a †ects the availability of other nutrients to the beet crop.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium and Phosphate Nutrition of Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Grown on Soils Containing Incorporated Straw

Allison¹,

Chapman²,

Garat³

et al. 1997

J. Sci. Food Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 1990 and 1992, a series of three experiments compared the effects of incorporating or removing straw from a total of five preceding cereal crops on the nutrient concentration, uptake and processing quality of sugarbeet. Incorporated straw increased K concentrations in tops and roots and increased total K uptake by c 40 kg ha‐1. Conversely, incorporated straw reduced Na concentrations and reduced total Na uptake by c 10 kg ha‐1. Straw incorporation had little effect on root processing quality, because whilst K impurities increased in the straw incorporated treatments, Na impurities were reduced. Generally, any effects of straw disposal method on concentration and uptake of phosphorus, calcium and magnesium were small and of little agronomic or economic significance. In the absence of regular soil analysis it is recommended that when straw has been incorporated that K fertiliser rates for beet are reduced by c 20 kg ha‐1. This is less than the allowance made for cereals. Also, contrary to the current cereal recommendation, there was no evidence for reducing P inputs when straw had been incorporated. © 1997 SCI.

show abstract

Effects of Residual Wheat Straw and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Sugar Beet in a Semi-Arid Region

Bagherzadeh

Kalat

Hajian³

2013

Sugar Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of straw incorporation on the yield, nitrogen fertilizer and insecticide requirements of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics

Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics

The Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium and Phosphate Nutrition of Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Grown on Soils Containing Incorporated Straw

Effects of Residual Wheat Straw and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Sugar Beet in a Semi-Arid Region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About