Impact of headland area on whole field and farm corn silage and grain yield

Abstract

Use of agricultural equipment on corn (Zea mays L.) fields can contribute to soil compaction, especially on headland (HL) areas where wheel traffic is more intense than on non‐headland (NHL) areas. Better decisions about HL management (investment to improve production potential, discontinue, or plant another crop) can be made when the HL contribution to field and farm yield is known. We quantified yield differences between HL and NHL areas, at field‐, and at farm‐scale using corn grain and silage yield data from 4,145 fields (∼20,000 ha) across 63 farms in New York. Further, we quantified the yield impact of HL areas across years from four farms with 8–11 yr of yield records. Per field and farm “potential production gain” was determined as the potential gain in production if HL yield could be increased to equal NHL yield. Yields per hectare were 14% (grain) and 16% (silage) lower in the HL areas. Production gain per field averaged 4% for both grain and silage, reflecting the smaller proportion of HL per field. For about 70% of the fields potential production gain was <5%, vs. 5–20% potential production gain for about 25% of the fields. Small, low‐yielding fields had the highest potential production gain (>20%). Production gains across years ranged from 1 to 7% (grain) and 0.4 to 6% (silage), independent of growing season precipitation. We conclude potential production gains are sufficiently large to warrant headland management, but management should be directed to fields with the greatest potential for yield increase.

Distinct soil health indicators are associated with variation in maize yield and tile drain nitrate losses

“…This could reflect adequate N supply via mineralization in the high OM soils of our study site. The low yield under the high fertilization rate of 224 kg N/ha located in the western boundary is likely due to high traffic causing soil compaction (Raper, 2005; Stenitzer & Murer, 2003), which restricts plant growth and affects the water and nutrient distribution (Chen et al., 2014; Raper, 2005; Sunoj et al., 2021). For example, Voorhees (2000) found a significant reduction in maize yield after the initial application of high compaction forces, and Abu‐Hamdeh (2003) reported a 27% reduction in maize yield as a result of compaction.…”

Proposed Method for Statistical Analysis of On-Farm Single Strip Treatment Trials

“…Some data points, however, exhibited distinctly different yield estimates when compared against nearing data points. Such data points were often, but not always, located at intersections of main areas in a field and headland areas where compaction, pest pressure, and shading could impact yield [42]. Spatial autocorrelation of yield estimates was also evident from the semi-variograms (Figure 6).…”

Development of a precision farming model using soil temperature and trees growth of Azadirachta Indica for randomized tree plantations and maintaining agro-ecology

“…Automated vineyard detection and characteriza-tion was done by Rabatel et al (2008). The headland includes all areas of the field polygon that intersect with tracks (Spekken & de Bruin, 2013) or includes all boundary areas (Sunoj et al, 2021). Trees planted on a linear hedge of mud at the boundary encompasses an idea of land use explored in this work and used by the farmers here.…”