What Won’t Work

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Ford Denison
Keyword(s):  
Plant Breeding ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Genetic Improvement ◽  
Nutrient Use Efficiency ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Resource Use Efficiency ◽  
Nutrient Use ◽  
Use Efficiency ◽  
Near Term

This chapter considers the challenge of improving crop resource-use efficiency using biotechnology or traditional plant breeding. It argues that some of biotechnology's stated goals, such as more efficient use of water by crops, are unlikely to be achieved without tradeoffs. After providing an overview of crop genetic improvement via traditional plant breeding or biotechnology, the chapter discusses the importance of greater resource-use efficiency and increasing yield potential. It then explains how natural selection has improved the efficiency of photosynthesis as well as water-use efficiency and how tradeoffs limit biotechnology improvement of crop water use. It also assesses the potential of genetic engineering to improve nutrient-use efficiency and asserts that near-term benefits of biotechnology have been exaggerated. The chapter concludes with a review of biotechnology's possible benefits and risks.

Rootstocks to improve root function and resource-use efficiency

2021 ◽  
pp. 561-588
Author(s):  
Francisco Pérez-Alfocea ◽  
◽  
Stephen Yeboah ◽  
Ian C. Dodd ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resource Use ◽  
Stomatal Closure ◽  
Nutrient Use Efficiency ◽  
Crop Improvement ◽  
Resource Use Efficiency ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Nutrient Use ◽  
Use Efficiency ◽  
And Function

Grafting, a surgical technique to attach genetically different shoots and roots (scions and rootstocks) allows “designer root systems” to enhance agricultural productivity and sustainability. Rootstocks improve plant nutrient relations by increasing nutrient capture and/or nutrient use efficiency, by multiple mechanisms including altered root morphology. Moreover, rootstocks can enhance water uptake and/or diminish water loss according to changes in root form and function, and root-to-shoot phytohormonal signalling. While the role of root-to-shoot ABA signalling in effecting stomatal closure is equivocal, root-sourced cytokinins and ACC regulate shoot senescence and vegetative growth respectively. Rootstock-mediated crop improvement offers opportunities to enhance crop resource use efficiency, especially in the developing world.

Repaying Darwin’s Debt to Agriculture

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Ford Denison
Keyword(s):  
Food Security ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Plant Breeding ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Genetic Improvement ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Change ◽  
Resource Use Efficiency ◽  
Agricultural Ecosystems ◽  
Use Efficiency

This book proposes new approaches to improving agriculture based on the principles of evolutionary biology and natural selection. It argues that two popular approaches to improving agriculture, biotechnology and traditional plant breeding, have tended to ignore evolutionary tradeoffs—that is, cases where an evolutionary change that is positive in one context is negative in another—and that both of them would benefit from greater attention to evolution. Whether we focus on genetic improvement of crops or better management of agricultural ecosystems, the book emphasizes the need to identify (and sometimes accept) tradeoffs that constrained past evolution in order to find new solutions to agricultural problems. It also considers some of the challenges facing agriculture, such as resource-use efficiency and food security. This chapter provides an overview of the book.

scholarly journals Using QUEFTS model for estimating nutrient requirements of maize in the Northeast China

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (No. 11) ◽  
pp. 498-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiang Wenting ◽  
Liu Xiaohu ◽  
Qi Wen ◽  
Xu Xiaonan ◽  
Zhu Yucui
Keyword(s):  
Northeast China ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Nutrient Use Efficiency ◽  
Maize Yield ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Nutrient Requirements ◽  
Plant Nitrogen ◽  
Nutrient Use ◽  
Supply Surplus ◽  
Use Efficiency

Accurate estimating of the balanced nutrition for maize is necessary for optimizing fertilizer management to prevent nutrient supply surplus or deficiency. Data from 300 field experiments in the Northeast China conducted between 2006 and 2011 were gathered to study the characteristics of maize yield, and using the QUEFTS model to estimate the balanced nutrition at different yield potential. The average grain yield was 10 427 kg/ha, and average internal efficiencies were 54.3, 251.5 and 78.2 kg grain per kg plant nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), respectively. With the harvest index values < 0.40 as outliers were excluded, the model simulated a linear-parabolic-plateau curve for the balanced N, P and K uptake when the initial yield target increased to the yield potential levels of 10 000 to 14 000 kg/ha. When the yield target reached approximately 60–70% of the yield potential, 16.7 kg N, 3.8 kg P, and 11.4 kg K were required to produce 1000 kg grain. The corresponding internal efficiencies were 60.0, 265.7 and 88.0 kg grain per kg plant N, P and K, respectively. These results contributed to improving nutrient use efficiency, and to demonstrate that the QUEFTS model could be a promising approach for estimating the balanced nutrition.

scholarly journals Evidence of Arithmetical Uncertainty in Estimation of Light and Water Use Efficiency

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 2271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meetpal S. Kukal ◽  
Suat Irmak
Keyword(s):  
Water Use Efficiency ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Resource Use Efficiency ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
Extensive Field ◽  
Methodological Bias ◽  
Use Efficiency ◽  
Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation

It was demonstrated that conventional resource use efficiency (RUE) estimation methodology is largely subject to arithmetic weakness. Extensive field research data on aboveground biomass (AGB), absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (APAR), and crop evapotranspiration (ETc) in maize, soybean, sorghum, and winter wheat confirmed this methodological bias for light use efficiency (LUE) and water use efficiency (WUE) estimation. LUE and WUE were derived using cumulated (data aggregates across samplings) and independent (data increments across samplings) approaches. Use of cumulated data yielded strong-but-false correlation between AGB and APAR or ETc, being a statistical artefact. RUE values from an independent approach were substantially lower than that from a cumulated approach with greater standard errors. Overall, a cumulated approach tends to oversimplify the complex interactions among carbon and resource coupling in agroecosystems, which is accurately represented when employing an independent approach instead.

scholarly journals Response of Irrigation and Mulching on Yield, Water Use Efficiency, Nutrient Use Efficiency and Economy of Mango Cv. Banganpalli in (Semiarid Region) Southern Telangana Region

2020 ◽  
pp. 215-224
Author(s):  
Guvvali Thirupathaiah ◽  
A. Bhagwan ◽  
A. Kiran Kumar ◽  
K. Avil Kumar ◽  
D. Vijaya
Keyword(s):  
Water Use Efficiency ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Drip Irrigation ◽  
Nutrient Use Efficiency ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Nutrient Use ◽  
Maximum Water ◽  
Use Efficiency

An investigation was carried out on sandy loam soils of semi arid regions of southern Telangana to analyze the potential of drip irrigation along with mulch on mango fruit yield, water and nutrient use efficiency. The treatments of present study were comprised of two levels mulching (M0-without mulch and M1-with mulching), with silver Polyethylene of 100 micron thickness were used and two levels of irrigation (I1 -75% and I2 100% ETc through drip), here irrigation levels and mulching together constituting four treatment combinations with five replications under 2x2 factorial randomized block design and the treatment combinations are: I1M0-75% ETc + No mulching, I1M1- 75% ETc + with mulch, I2M0- 100% ETc + No mulching and I2M1- 100 % ETc + with mulch.  The study revealed that drip irrigation 100% ETc along with silver polythene mulch showed better performance in terms of yield, water use efficiency, nutrient use efficiency as well as economics. Maximum yield of 89.11 kg tree-1 combination of 75 % ETc + with mulching has proven the maximum water use efficiency (5.54 g liter-1 water consumption) and fertilizers use efficiency (0.89 q kg-1 fertilizer application) however along with maximum net return of 400973. 90 rupees ha-1, net return of 346873.90 ha-1 per hectare and B: C ratio of 7.41 was recorded in I2M1 (100 % ETc + with mulch). So the experiment suggests that drip irrigation along with mulch has the potential to provide greater benefit by optimizing the use of water resources. But the interaction of 75 % ETc + with mulching has proven the maximum water use efficiency (6.28 g liter-1 water consumption).

scholarly journals Performance of Mulching and Fertigation on Nutrient Uptake and Nutrient Use Efficiency in Okra (Abelmoschus Esculentus L. Moench) for Seed Production

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
N. S. Nagegowda ◽  
S. Shankar Hebbar ◽  
V.M. Shilpashree
Keyword(s):  
Water Use ◽  
Seed Yield ◽  
Nutrient Use Efficiency ◽  
Water Soluble ◽  
Fertilizer Use ◽  
Soil Application ◽  
Nutrient Use ◽  
Npk Uptake ◽  
Use Efficiency ◽  
Soluble Fertilizer

Application of water soluble fertilizer @ T4-150:75:150 NPK kg/ha through fertigation either with mulch (14.05q/ha) or non-mulch (11.83q/ha) recorded significantly higher seed yield than fertilization through soil application (9.92 q/ha). The increased seed yield of 16.91 and 10.14 per cent was noticed in fertigation with mulch or without mulch treatment over soil application, respectively. NPK fertigation @150:75:150kg per ha with mulch (T4) resulted in higher NPK uptake in stem (63.49, 14.12&121.42 kg/ha), leaves (117.65 19.42&122.43 kg/ha) and in fruits (146.79 28.05&162.66 kg/ha), respectively than the fertilizer applied through soil at harvest. Maximum fertilizer use efficiency and water use efficiency were recorded in the treatment with integrated application of fertigation and mulch.

Yield Enhancement of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] through Drip Irrigation and Fertigation Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.D. Gadade ◽  
D.N. Gokhale ◽  
A.S. Kadale
Keyword(s):  
Water Use Efficiency ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Seed Yield ◽  
Drip Irrigation ◽  
Harvest Index ◽  
Nutrient Use Efficiency ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Nutrient Use ◽  
Use Efficiency ◽  
Drip Fertigation

Background: Pigeonpea an indeterminate pulse crop with profuse branching responds well to both irrigation and fertilizer. Erratic rainfall distribution pattern exposes this crop to dry spell during its vegetative stage and terminal drought at reproductive stage and the poor crop nutrition further results in to low yield. Under such circumstances it is very difficult to sustain the yield of pigeonpea. Agronomic practices like precise and timely application of drip irrigation along with judicious use of nutrients play a vital role to boost the yield of any crop. Thus the attempts were made to explore the yield potential of pigeonpea under drip irrigation and fertigation management. Methods: The present study was conducted at the experimental farm of AICRP on Irrigation Water Management, VNMKV, Parbhani (MS) during kharif 2018 and 2019. The experiment was laid out in split plot design with main plots comprising of four drip irrigation levels viz. 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 ETc (crop evapotranspiration) and conventional method and sub plots were allotted to four fertigation levels viz. control (no fertilizer), 80% RDF, 100% RDF (25: 50: 25 NPK kg ha-1) and 120% RDF. Result: Drip irrigation at 0.8 ETc recorded higher seed yield, harvest index, water use efficiency, nutrient use efficiency and net returns of pigeonpea followed by 1.0 ETc except in case of water use efficiency. As regards to fertigation studies, higher values of seed yield, harvest index and water use efficiency were recorded with drip fertigation @ 25:50:25 NPK kg ha-1 closely followed by 20:40:20 NPK kg ha-1. However higher nutrient use efficiency and net returns were obtained in drip fertigation @ 20:40:20 NPK kg ha-1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document