Under no-tillage and stubble retention, soil water content and crop growth are poorly related to soil water repellency

2013 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. 143-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.M. Roper ◽  
P.R. Ward ◽  
A.F. Keulen ◽  
J.R. Hill
Author(s):  
Coen J. Ritsema ◽  
Louis W. Dekker ◽  
Klaas Oostindie ◽  
Demie Moore ◽  
Bernd Leinauer

2014 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 602 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. H. Vance ◽  
R. W. Bell ◽  
C. Johansen ◽  
M. E. Haque ◽  
A. M. Musa ◽  
...  

The time of sowing chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in the High Barind Tract of north-west Bangladesh is critical to crop success. To ensure adequate emergence and subsequent crop growth, chickpea relies on residual soil moisture stored in the profile after rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivated in the preceding rainy season. With the development of mechanised, one-pass minimum tillage sowing, the time between rice harvest and chickpea sowing is decreased, and temperature constraints that limit biomass and/or pod formation and filling may be avoided. Minimum tillage may also limit evaporation from the soil surface compared with traditional, full cultivation procedures. The objective of this study was to identify the optimum sowing time to achieve adequate crop establishment and limit exposure of the chickpea crop to terminal drought and heat stress later in the growing season. Over three experimental seasons, chickpea sowing dates were spread from 22 November to 22 December. Soil water content, crop growth and temperature were monitored to determine the optimum sowing time. Over all seasons and sowing dates, the volumetric soil water content in the seedbed under minimum tillage remained within 17–34%, a range non-limiting for chickpea establishment in glasshouse and field experiments. Late planting (after 10 December) exposed seedlings to low temperatures (<15°C), which limited biomass formation and extended the vegetative growth phase into periods with high maximum temperatures (>35°C), resulting in unfilled pods and depressed grain yield. The preferred sowing time was determined to be 30 November to 10 December to reduce the risk of high temperatures and low soil water content during chickpea reproductive growth causing terminal heat and drought stress, respectively. Mechanised sowing in one operation allows farmers to optimise their time of sowing to match seed requirements for soil water at emergence and may assist farmers to avoid temperature stresses (both low and high) that constrain chickpea vegetative and reproductive growth.


2019 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 1616-1627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilie Hermansen ◽  
Per Moldrup ◽  
Karin Müller ◽  
Maria Knadel ◽  
Lis Wollesen Jonge

2001 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 1667-1674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis W. Dekker ◽  
Stefan H. Doerr ◽  
Klaas Oostindie ◽  
Apostolos K. Ziogas ◽  
Coen J. Ritsema

Soil Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 172 (8) ◽  
pp. 577-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lis W. de Jonge ◽  
Per Moldrup ◽  
Ole H. Jacobsen

1980 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-148
Author(s):  
H. R. B. Hack

SUMMARYSesame was grown in four seasons in which differences in the distribution of the rains and treatments of pre-sowing flooding, irrigation during crop growth and surface drainage resulted in contrasts in soil water content and crop development. In wet years pre-sowing flooding, absence of surface drainage and premature irrigation gave 32–37% decreases in yield. In a season of low rainfall prevention of surface run-off and one later irrigation gave, in the absence of pre-sowing flooding, a 43% increase in yield over that from plots irrigated only at sowing and with surface drainage. Agronomic applications are discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 208 ◽  
pp. 104869
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Burke ◽  
Katie L. Lewis ◽  
Glen L. Ritchie ◽  
Paul B. DeLaune ◽  
J. Wayne Keeling ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaas Oostindie ◽  
Louis W. Dekker ◽  
Jan G. Wesseling ◽  
Violette Geissen ◽  
Coen J. Ritsema

Abstract Soil water content and actual water repellency were assessed for soil profiles at two sites in a bare and grasscovered plot of a sand pasture, to investigate the impact of the grass removal on both properties. The soil of the plots was sampled six times in vertical transects to a depth of 33 cm between 23 May and 7 October 2002. On each sampling date the soil water contents were measured and the persistence of actual water repellency was determined of field-moist samples. Considerably higher soil water contents were found in the bare versus the grass-covered plots. These alterations are caused by differences between evaporation and transpiration rates across the plots. Noteworthy are the often excessive differences in soil water content at depths of 10 to 30 cm between the bare and grass-covered plots. These differences are a consequence of water uptake by the roots in the grass-covered plots. The water storage in the upper 19 cm of the bare soil was at least two times greater than in the grass-covered soil during dry periods. A major part of the soil profile in the grass-covered plots exhibited extreme water repellency to a depth of 19 cm on all sampling dates, while the soil profile of the bare plots was completely wettable on eight of the twelve sampling dates. Significant differences in persistence of actual water repellency were found between the grass-covered and bare plots.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document