Enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizer effect on camelina production under conventional and conservation tillage practices

If adoption of herbicide-resistant seed and adoption of conservation-tillage practices are determined simultaneously, adoption of herbicide-resistant seed could indirectly reduce soil erosion and adoption of conservation-tillage practices could indirectly reduce residual herbicide use and increase farm profits. Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between these two technologies for Tennessee cotton production. Evidence from Bayes' theorem and a two-equation logit model suggested a simultaneous relationship. Mean elasticities for acres in herbicide-resistant seed with respect to the probability of adopting conservation-tillage practices and acres in conservation-tillage practices with respect to the probability of adopting herbicide-resistant seed were 1.74 and 0.24, respectively.

Download Full-text

The adoption of conservation tillage practices in Oklahoma: Findings from a producer survey

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation ◽

10.2489/jswc.66.4.250 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 66 (4) ◽

pp. 250-264 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

J. D. Vitale ◽

C. Godsey ◽

J. Edwards ◽

R. Taylor

Keyword(s):

Conservation Tillage ◽

Tillage Practices

Download Full-text

Simulation of Sediment and Nitrate Loss on a Vertisol with Conservation Tillage Practices

Transactions of the ASAE ◽

10.13031/2013.27717 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 39 (6) ◽

pp. 2139-2145 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

K. W. King ◽

C. W. Richardson ◽

J. R. Williams

Keyword(s):

Conservation Tillage ◽

Nitrate Loss ◽

Tillage Practices

Download Full-text

Alternative production systems to reduce nitrates in ground water

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture ◽

10.1017/s0889189300001442 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 19-24 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Robert I. Papendick ◽

Lloyd F. Elliott ◽

James F. Power

Keyword(s):

Ground Water ◽

Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Production Systems ◽

Root Zone ◽

Conservation Tillage ◽

Current Status ◽

Water Protection ◽

Fertilizer Use ◽

Nitrate Concentrations

AbstractEvidence indicates a strong positive relationship between increases in nitrogen fertilizer use on cropland and nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water. This raises concern about the fate and efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer with current farming practices. Approximately 50 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied may be recovered by agronomic crops and 35 percent or less removed in the harvested grain of a crop such as corn. The residual nitrogen is subject to loss by several processes, one being leaching from the crop root zone. Alternative production systems that provide ground water protection must give attention to improved management of nitrogen fertilizer and to practices that minimize the need for nitrogen fertilizer and reduce soil nitrate concentrations. Most important in nitrogen fertilizer management is to more closely match nitrogen availability in the soil with crop needs and to avoid over-fertilization. Nitrogen fertilizer use can be reduced by alternate cropping of low and high nitrogen-demanding crops, use of legumes in the crop rotation to fix nitrogen, and proper use of manures, crop residues, and other organic wastes. Residual nitrates in soil can be reduced by use of cover crops, nitrogen-scavenging crops in the rotation, and alternating shallow and deep-rooted crops. Conservation tillage alone as used with many conventional cropping systems will probably not change the current status of nitrate leaching. Practices used by organic farmers should be carefully studied as possible approaches for ground water protection and adaptation into conservation tillage systems for conserving soil and water resources.

Download Full-text

Influence of Conservation Tillage Practices on Populations of Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Rotated and Nonrotated Tomato Fields

Environmental Entomology ◽

10.1093/ee/16.1.135 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 135-139 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Geoffrey W. Zehnder ◽

James J. Linduska

Keyword(s):

Colorado Potato Beetle ◽

Conservation Tillage ◽

Tillage Practices ◽

Potato Beetle

Download Full-text

A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil organic carbon storage

Soil Use and Management ◽

10.1111/j.1475-2743.2005.tb00105.x ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 38-52 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

R. Alvarez

Keyword(s):

Organic Carbon ◽

Soil Organic Carbon ◽

Carbon Storage ◽

Nitrogen Fertilizer ◽

Conservation Tillage ◽

Soil Organic Carbon Storage ◽

Organic Carbon Storage

Download Full-text

Conservation tillage increases in soil water storage, soil animal populations, grain yield, and response to fertiliser in the semi-arid subtropics

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture ◽

10.1071/ea9950223 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 35 (2) ◽

pp. 223 ◽

Cited By ~ 52

Author(s):

BJ Radford ◽

AJ Key ◽

LN Robertson ◽

GA Thomas

Keyword(s):

Soil Water ◽

Conservation Tillage ◽

Water Storage ◽

Soil Water Storage ◽

Reduced Tillage ◽

No Tillage ◽

Soil Animal ◽

Soil Macrofauna ◽

Tillage Practices ◽

Animal Populations

We compared 4 tillage practices (traditional, stubble mulch, reduced, no tillage) during 10 years under rainfed conditions on an alluvial soil in the semi-arid subtropics of central Queensland. In the final 4 years, responses to applied fertiliser nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and zinc (Zn) were determined. We measured soil water storage, soil nitrate accumulation, grain yield (sorghum, wheat), grain protein content, and populations of soil macrofauna, with the aim of identifying soil-conserving practices that also produce high yields of high quality grain. Stubble mulch, reduced tillage, and no tillage all outyielded traditional tillage when soil fertility was adequate. With applied N, S, and Zn, the mean wheat yields from traditional, stubble mulch, reduced, and no tillage were 2.44, 3.32, 3.46, and 3.64 t/ha, respectively. The yield responses to tillage practices were due to increases in storage of soil water or efficiency of crop water use or both. Populations of soil macrofauna averaged (per m2) 19 (traditional tillage), 21 (stubble mulch), 33 (reduced tillage), and 44 (no tillage). The effect of the tillage practices on soil animal populations may be a factor contributing to the measured differences in soil water storage and water use efficiency. We conclude that conservation tillage practices can greatly increase grain yields, provided crop and fallow management practices are appropriate. Potential yield advantages are realised if crop establishment, crop nutrition; and control of weeds, bests, and diseases ark adequate.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Tillage and Herbicide Interaction forAmaranthusControl in Cotton

Weed Technology ◽

10.1614/wt-d-12-00089.1 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 298-304 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jessica A. Kelton ◽

Andrew J. Price ◽

Michael G. Patterson ◽

C. Dale Monks ◽

Edzard van Santen

Keyword(s):

Conservation Tillage ◽

Cropping Systems ◽

Reduced Tillage ◽

No Tillage ◽

Tillage Practices ◽

Systems Research ◽

Herbicide Treatments ◽

Tillage Operation ◽

Almost All ◽

Tillage Operations

Amaranthuscontrol in cotton can be difficult with the loss of glyphosate efficacy, especially in conservation-tillage cropping systems. Research was conduction from 2006 to 2008 at EV Smith Research Center, Shorter, AL, to determine the level of glyphosate-susceptibleAmaranthuscontrol provided by four initial tillage and herbicide treatments, including 1) moldboard plowing followed by a single-pass disking and field cultivation plus pendimethalin at 1.2 kg ai ha−1preplant incorporation (PPI), 2) two-pass disking followed by field cultivation plus pendimethalin at 1.2 kg ha−1PPI, 3) no tillage including an application of pendimethalin at 1.2 kg ha−1PRE, or 4) no tillage without pendimethalin in 2006. No further tillage practices or pendimethalin applications were utilized after study initiation. Initial tillage operations, including inversion with disking or disking twice, resulted inAmaranthusdensity of ≤ 4 plants m−2and 47 to 82% control, whereas no-tillage treatments had ≥ 4 plants m−2and 14 to 62% control. Subsequent applications of PRE herbicides included fluometuron at 1.68 kg ai ha−1or prometryn at 1.12 kg ai ha−1and provided 53 to 98% and 55 to 93% control, respectively, and reducedAmaranthusdensity compared to no PRE herbicide to < 2 plants m−2, regardless of tillage treatment. A POST application of glyphosate at 1.0 kg ae ha−1improved control in conjunction with almost all treatments in each year. Results indicate that a one-time tillage operation followed by a return to reduced tillage may aid in the reduction ofAmaranthusdensity when used with PRE-applied herbicides; however, this system will likely not provide adequate control when high population densities of glyphosate-resistantAmaranthusare present, thus highlighting the need for a highly efficacious POST herbicide system.

Download Full-text