Agronomy Science, przyrodniczy lublin, czasopisma up, czasopisma uniwersytet przyrodniczy lublin
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Agronomy Science Baner text

Vol. 79 No. 3 (2024)

Articles

Effect of reduced tillage practices on yield, total protein content and weed infestation of winter barley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2024.5368
Submitted: April 5, 2024
Published: 2025-01-13

Abstract

A multi-year field experiment aimed to evaluate grain yield, yield structure elements, total protein content, and weed infestation indices of winter barley cultivated in a conventional tillage system (CT) and two no-tillage variants: (i) reduced without glyphosate (RT) and (ii) reduced with glyphosate (RT + G). Common peas served as the previous crop in each study year on all plots. Shallow ploughing and pre-sowing ploughing were applied in the CT system after previous crop harvest. In turn, cultivating instead of shallow ploughing and a cultivation unit (a cultivator + a string roller) instead of pre-sowing ploughing were used on RT plots. Finally, shallow ploughing was replaced by glyphosate treatment, whereas pre-sowing ploughing – by a cultivation unit in the RT + G system. A higher grain yield was determined on CT plots than RT and RT+G plots, i.e., by 18% and 23.3%, respectively. The grain yield was also observed to differ significantly between study years. Spike number and 1000 grain weight were differentiated by tillage practices, whereas plant number after emergence by study years. There were no differences in the protein content of winter barley grain as affected by the variants of tillage practices and study years. In contrast, the weeds produced a higher air-dry weight on RT plots than on CT and RT + G plots. Weed bio-diversity determined at the tillering stage was greater on RT than CT plots, whereas that assessed at the milk maturity stage on CT than RT + G plots. The weed diversity index was determined by study year in both terms of assessment.

References

  1. Blair N., Faulkner R.D., Till A.R., Poulton P.R., 2006. Long-term management impacts on soil C, N and physical fertility. Part I: Broadbalk experiment. Soil Till. Res. 91(1–2), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.11.002
  2. Brennan J., Hackett R., McCabe T., Grant J., Fortune R.A., Forristal P.D., 2014. The effect of tillage system and residue management on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in win-ter wheat in a cool Atlantic climate. Eur. J. Agron. 54, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.009
  3. De Vita P., Di Paolo E., Fecondo G., Di Fonzo N., Pisante M., 2007. No-tillage and conven-tional tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy. Soil Till. Res. 92, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.01.012
  4. Deike S., Pallutt B., Melander B., Strassemeyer J., Christen O., 2008. Long-term productivity and environmental effects of arable farming as affected by crop rotation, soil tillage intensity and strategy of pesticide use: A case-study of two long term field experiments in Germany and Denmark. Eur. J. Agron. 29, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2008.06.001
  5. Dębska B., Jaskulska I., Jaskulski D., 2020. Method of tillage with the factor determining the quality of organic matter. Agronomy 10(9), 1250. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10091250
  6. FAO, 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Re-sources Reports, No. 106. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i3794en/I3794en.pdf [ac-cess: 27.03.2023].
  7. Farooq M., Flower K.C., Jabran K., Wahid A., Siddique K.H.M., 2011. Crop yield and weed management in rainfed conservation agriculture. Soil Till. Res. 117, 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.001
  8. Feledyn-Szewczyk B., Smagacz J., Kwiatkowski C.K., Harasim E., Woźniak A., 2020. Weed flora and soil seed bank composition as affected by tillage system in three-year crop rota-tion. Agriculture 10(5), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10050186
  9. Głąb T., Kulig B., 2008. Effect of mulch and tillage system on soil porosity under wheat (Triti-cum aestivum). Soil Till. Res. 99(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.02.004
  10. Gruber S., Claupein W., 2009. Effect of tillage intensity on weed infestation in organic farm-ing. Soil Till. Res. 105(1), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.06.001
  11. Hernández Plaza E., Navarrete L., González-Andújar J.L., 2015. Intensity of soil disturbance shapes response trait diversity of weed communities: The long-term effects of different tillage systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.031
  12. Jaskulska I., Gałęzewski L., Piekarczyk M., Jaskulski D., 2018. Strip-till technology – a method for uniformity in the emergence and plant growth of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) in different environmental conditions of Northern Poland. Ital. J. Agron. 13, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2018.981
  13. Josa R., Ginovart M., Solé A., 2010. Effects of two tillage techniques on soil macroporosity in sub-humid environment. Int. Agrophys. 24, 139-147.
  14. King A.E., Blesh J., 2017. Crop rotations for increased soil carbon: Perennially as a guiding principle. Ecol. Appl. 28, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1648
  15. MacLaren C., Storkey J., Menegat A., Metcalfe H., Dehnen-Schmutz K., 2020. An ecological future for weed science to sustain crop production and the environment. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00631-6
  16. Maillard É., Angers D.A., Chantigny M., Lafond J., Pageau D., Rochette P., Lévesque G., Leclerc M.L., Parent L.É., 2016. Greater accumulation of soil organic carbon after liquid dairy manure application under cereal-forage rotation than cereal monoculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 233, 171-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.011
  17. Meier U. (ed.), 2018. Growth stages of mono- and dicotyledonous plants: BBCH Monograph. Open Agrar Repositorium, Quedlinburg, https://doi.org/10.5073/20180906-074619
  18. Melander B., Holst N., Jensen P.K., Hansen E.M., Olesen J.E., 2008. Apera spica-venti popula-tion dynamics and impact on crop yield as affected by tillage, crop rotation, location and herbicide programmes. Weed Res. 48, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2008.00597.x
  19. Micucci F.G., Taboada M.A., 2006. Soil physical properties and soybean (Glycine max, Merrill) root abundance in conventionally and zero-tilled soil in the humid Pampas of Argentina. Soil Till. Res. 86, 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016./j.still.2005.02.004
  20. Naeem M., Hussain M., Farooq M., Farooq S., 2021. Weed flora composition of different bar-ley‐based cropping systems under conventional and conservation tillage practices. Phyto-parasitica 49, 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-021-00900-4
  21. Pranagal J., Woźniak A., 2021. 30 years of wheat monoculture and reduced tillage and physical condition of Rendzic Phaeozem. Agric. Water Manag. 243, 106408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106408
  22. Riemens M.M., van der Weide R.Y., Bleeker P.O., Lotz, L.A.P., 2007. Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities. Weed Res. 47(2), 149–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00554.x
  23. Roldán A., Salinas-Garcia J.R., Alguacil M.M., Caravaca F., 2005. Changes in soil enzyme activity, fertility, aggregation and C sequestration mediated by conservation tillage prac-tices and water regime in a maize field. Appl. Soil Ecol. 30, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.01.004
  24. Ruisi P., Giambalvo D., Saia S., Di Miceli G., Frenda A.S., Plaia A., Amato G., 2014. Conser-vation tillage in a semiarid Mediterranean environment: results of 20 years of research. Ital. J. Agron. 9, 560. http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ija.2014.560
  25. Santín-Montanyá M.I., Martín-Lammerding D., Zambranab E., Tenorio J.L., 2016. Manage-ment of weed emergence and weed seed bank in response to different tillage, cropping sys-tems and selected soil properties. Soil Till. Res. 161, 38–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.03.007
  26. Swanton C.J., Nkoa R., Blackshaw R.E., 2015. Experimental methods for crop-weed competi-tion studies. Weed Sci. 63, 2–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1614/WS-D-13-00062.1
  27. Tørresen K.S., Skuterud R., 2002. Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. IV. Changes in the weed flora and weed seedbank. Crop Prot. 21, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00081-3
  28. Tracy B.F, Davis A.S., 2009. Weed biomass and species composition as affected by an integrat-ed crop-livestock system. Crop Sci. 49(4), 1523–1530. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0488
  29. Woźniak A., Rachoń L., 2022. Spring barley response to tillage systems and crop residues. Agron. Sci. 77(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2022.1.3
  30. Woźniak A., Soroka M., 2022. Weed flora in crop rotation and winter wheat monoculture. Span. J. Agric. Res. 20(2), e0301. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2022202-18984
  31. Woźniak A., Soroka M., 2015. Structure of weed communities occurring in crop rotation and monoculture of cereals. Int. J. Plant Prod. 9(3), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.22069/IJPP.2015.2227
  32. Zikeli S., Gruber S., Teufel C.F., Hartung K., Claupein W., 2013. Effects of reduced tillage on crop yield, plant available nutrients and soil organic matter in a 12-year long-term trial under organic management. Sustainability 5(9), 3876–3894. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093876

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>