Improving the effectiveness of furrow sowing on water repellent sands.
-
Upload
corey-allen -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Improving the effectiveness of furrow sowing on water repellent sands.
Improving the effectiveness of furrow sowing on water repellent sands
What is wrong with furrow sowing on water repellent soils?
Anthony contour drill stuff here
Knife Points
Contour Drill – wings & paired rows
Furrow Ridge Ridge Wall
Vol
um
etr
ic m
oist
ure
0-10
cm (
%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Knife Points Winged Point
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Deep sand Sandy gravel
Whe
at e
stab
lishm
ent
(pla
nts/
m2)
Knife points
Winged points
0
1
2
3
4
5
6W
heat
gra
in y
ield
(t/h
a)Knife points
Winged points & paired rows
• Improved grading out of furrow (wings) • Paired rows - 50% more seeding row• High press wheel pressure - firming• Good seed/fertiliser separation
Knife points Winged & paired rows
Knife points Stilletto boots
Lure H2O trials on non-wetting soils of the West Midlands
region
NAMI funding partners:
Purpose: To investigate the influence of rate, application timing and soil type of the activity of Lure H20 as a pre-sow soil wetting agent in the cropping phase
Product rate/ha:•10 L•20L•40LTimings:•16th March•14th April
SoilsYellow deep sand Shallow sandy gravel
Shallow loamy gravel
Loamy gravel resultsSoil moisture
WMG LureH2O Trial, Fordham.
Yellow deep sand, 19 May 2011
Contro
l
40L/
ha L
ureH
2O, M
arch
40L/
ha L
ureH
2O, A
prilS
oil m
oist
ure
(0-5
cm
) %
vol
umet
ric
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
WMG LureH2O Trial, Scotney.
Shallow gravel, 19 May 2011
Contro
l
20L/
ha L
ure
H2O, M
arch
40L/
ha L
ureH
2O, M
arch
40L/
ha L
ureH
2O, A
pril
Soil m
oisture (0-5 cm) %
volumetric0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
40L March- 15% average soil moisture contentControl- 13% average soil moisture content
Loamy gravel resultsCrop emergence
Plants per meter row
March 20L, March 40L and April 40L were significantly different to untreated control.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Untreated 10L March 20L March 40L March 10L April 20L April 40L April
Loamy gravel resultsBiomass
Green leaf/ biomass assessment NDVI
March 20L, March 40L and April 40L were significantly different to untreated control.
Untreated control March 20L March 40L
Loamy gravel resultsYield & quality
Trmt. Treatment description Product Rate / ha Timing
Yield t/ha*
Protein % Oil %
1 Untreated check - - 2.165 21.4 41.8
2 Lure H20 10L March10L
March 2.149 22.2 40.9
3 Lure H20 20L March20L
March 2.081 21.9 41.7
4 Lure H20 40L March40L
March 1.956 22.2 41.4
5 Lure H20 10L April10L
April 2.071 21.8 41.2
6 Lure H20 20L April20L
April 2.098 21.8 41.4
7 Lure H20 40L April40L
April 2.022 21.5 41.4F prob NS NS NSCV % NS NS NSLSD NS NS NS
Hypothesis
Extremely soft finish allowed
untreated plots to compensate
for lower plant populations
Between rows On rows
Ave
rage
lupi
n pl
ants
/m2
0
10
20
30
40
50Nil Banded wetter
Summary of grain yield responses with dry sown lupins
banded trial yield response summary, kg/ha P<95% P<90%
distance from headland, m IRR LSD5% LSD10%
75 190 232 191225 84 175 144
375 -63 184 152
525 68 219 180
675 -91 213 175
825 -11 258 212
975 307 236 194
full distance 69 96 79
Photo courtesy of Margaret Roper, CSIRO