Tillage and Cropping Systems to Increase Dryland Crop ...
Transcript of Tillage and Cropping Systems to Increase Dryland Crop ...
Tillage and Cropping Systems to
Increase Dryland Crop Production in
Southwest Oklahoma
by Gary Strickland
Extension Educator – OCES
Jackson County
Team Approach
• OSU’s IPM Program
• Area Extension Staff – Mr. Jerry Goodson (SWREC), Dr. Mark Gregory, Mr. Rick Kochenower, Mr. Terry Pitts, and Daniel Skipper
• State Extension Staff – Dr. J.C. Banks, Mr. Shane Osborn, Dr. Jeff Edwards, Dr. Chad Godsey, Dr. Randy Taylor
• OAES – Mr. Rocky Thacker and SWREC Crew,
• Jackson County OCES Program
• Local and Private Industry Sponsors (i.e.; Oklahoma Grain Sorghum Producers, Seed Companies, Coops, etc…)
Objectives of the Study
• Determine the impact of different cropping systems on resident insect populations
• Determine the effect of tillage and cropping management systems on weed species population dynamics
• Determine and demonstrate the effects of tillage and crop rotation on the economic components of weed, insect, and yield management in cotton, wheat, and grain sorghum production systems in Southwest Oklahoma
• To estimate the effects of tillage and cropping systems on SOM accumulation
Study Design
• Randomized Complete Block with a Split
Plot Design
• Two Tillage Systems
• Three Crops (Cotton, Wheat, Grain
Sorghum)
• Seven Cropping Systems (C-W-GS, C-W,
C-GS, W-DCGS-C, W, C, GS)
Summary of Insect Data
• To date, no significant differences have been noted between tillage treatments or among cropping systems regarding insect populations or species.
• Crop scouting principle has been reinforced in this study
• When a buildup of insect pests occurs a corresponding buildup of beneficial insects has occurred
Table 5. Wheat Insects 2002/2003
Treatment∞
‡ Greenbug Parasitized Greenbugs Beneficials
Weekly Counts
†
6 7 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10
4. W-DCGS-C (NT) 2.7 2.7 75 46 5.7 3.3 64 13 28 6.3 7.0
6. W (NT) 1.7 0.3 61 15 10 5.0 70 16 15 6.0 13
11. W-DCGS-C (CT) 5.3 0.3 80 12 5.0 6.3 84 13 9.3 7.0 5.0
13. W (CT) 1.7 0.7 63 7.7 4.0 4.3 64 9.0 6.7 5.3 8.0
Pest and Beneficial Insect Relationship
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Nu
mb
ers
of
Tota
l In
sect
s fr
om
both
Sw
eep
an
d L
inea
r
Foot
of
Row
Cou
nts
Insect and Week Count: Greenbug (GB); Parasitized Greebug (PGB); Beneficial (B)
IPM PRINCIPLE REINFORCED - 2002/2003 WHEAT
W-DCGS-C (NT)
W (NT)
W-DCGS-C (CT)
W (CT)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
NT - Week 6 CT - Week 6 NT - Week 7 CT - Week 7 NT - Week 8 CT - Week 8
Nu
mb
ers
of
Tota
l In
sect
s fr
om
both
sw
eep
s an
d l
inea
r ro
w
foot
cou
nts
Weeks of Insect Buildup and Decline
IPM Principle Reinforced
2007 Cotton Crop
Aphids
Beneficials
Soil Organic Matter Management - Importance
in Dryland Crop Production
• Soil Erosion Prevention
• Increased Soil Water Storage Capacity
• Increased Water Infiltration Rates
• Decreased Soil Evaporation Rates
• Increase of In-Season Precipitation Use Efficiency
• Increased Organic Matter Pool
• Increased Cation Exchange Complex (CEC)
• Increased Anion Exchange Complex (AEC)
• Decrease in Soil Compaction in the Long Term
TS C-W-
GS
C-W C-GS W-
DCGS-
C
C W GS Mean L.S.D.
(.05)
NT 2.00(2)
1.49(6)
1.93(2)
1.63(6)
2.03(2)
1.84(6)
2.08(2)
1.71(6)
2.13(2)
1.71(6)
1.94(2)
1.68(6)
2.42(2)
1.79(6)
2.08(2)
1.69(6)
NS(2)
NS(6)
CT 1.76(2)
1.64(6)
1.87(2)
1.83(6)
1.82(2)
1.70(6)
1.84(2)
1.72(6)
1.79(2)
1.69(6)
1.96(2)
1.87(6)
2.06(6)
1.69(6)
1.87(2)
1.73(6)
NS(2)
0.13(6)(.10)
(2) 2 inch sampling depth; (6) 6 inch sampling depth
Tillage by Crop Rotation System SOM
Comparisons (2002-2008).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Soil resistance, kPa
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Soi
l dep
th, c
m
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
C-W-GS
C-W
C-GS
W-DCGS-C
C
W
GS
Rotations
Water content, g g-1
0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
Table of significanceRotation / Tillage
*** / ***
*** / ns
*** / *
*** / ***
*** / ***
* / ***
ns / ***
A
B
Organic Matter Summary
• The interaction between tillage systems and cropping systems was
significant at the .05 probability level therefore comparisons should
be primarily between cropping systems within a tillage system.
• Soil organic matter accumulation, in general, indicate no significant
differences between cropping systems within tillage treatments to
date with the exception of the 6 inch sampling depth in the CT
cropping systems. But the data does reflect a trend across cropping
systems of increasing organic matter content in the top two inches
when compared to the six inch depth in both systems, NT systems are
38% higher and the CT systems are 16% higher.
• However, a significant difference between the two systems does exist
(as indicated by the significant interaction) with the NT systems
showing higher levels of SOM across all cropping systems, except for
the W only system, at the 2 inch layer.
Summary of Weed Data
• Only a few significant differences have been noted to date between tillage treatments or among cropping systems
• In general the NT systems show higher weed populations than the CT systems
• Common weed species that continue to be present in the field include: common purslane, prickly lettuce, winter grasses (bromegrass species primarily), marestail, and henbit
• New weed species that have appeared with time include: honeyvine milkweed, morningglory, red stem filaree, and common groundsel.
• To date current herbicide programs seem to be working in terms of weed population control with the exception of the Grain Sorghum No-Till Mono-Crop where significant increase in pigweed species occurred and has remained after a glyphosate and two atrazine herbicide applications; and common groundsel in the cotton systems.
2006 Cotton Weed PopulationsTreatments Common
Purslane
Prickly
Lettuce
Pigweed
C-W (NT) 1.0ψ (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
0.5 (P.E.)
0.5 (P.H.)
0.5 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
C (NT) 4.3 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
0.3 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
4.0 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
C-W (CT) 0.0 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
0.0 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
0.7 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
C (CT) 0.0 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
0.0 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
0.0 (P.E.)
0.0 (P.H.)
Ψ: Weed numbers are from counts taken in 1/1000 of an acre.
Post-E Pigweed Counts in 2008
Grain Sorghum Systems
Tillage
System
C-GS GS Mean L.S.D.
(.05)
NT 5.8ψ 57.2 31.5 24.2
CT 0.33 0.5 0.42 NS
Ψ: Numbers are counts taken in 1/1000 of an acre
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Wee
ds/
A
Cropping Systems by Tillage Treatment
Grain Sorghum Crop System Average Weed Population
(Pre-Harvest) 2002-2008
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
Pigweed (PE) Groundsel (PH)
Pla
nts
-T
ho
usa
nd
/Acr
e
Weed Species by Tillage and Cropping System
2009 Cotton Weed Counts
C-W-NT
C-GS-NT
C-NT
C-WCT
C-GS-CT
C-CT
Crop Herbicide SystemsHerbicide Time of
Applica-
tion
Mode of
Action
Group
Crop
Use
Crop
Rotation
Intervals
(M)
Broadleaf
Tank
Mixes
Grazing
Restric-
tion
(Days)
Roundup
(Glyphosate)
Pre, Post, HA Inhibition of
EPSP Syn. (9)
C, W, GS All Crops –
0M
Yes 0 Days
Dual
(metolachlor)
Pre & Post Shoot
Inhibitors (15)
GS, C W-4.5M; C &
GS – Next
Spring
Yes Do not feed
Maverick(sulfosulfuron)
Post ALS Inhibitor
(2)
W C &GS – 12M Yes 0 Days
Osprey
(mesosulfuron-
methyl)
Post ALS Inhibitor
(2)
W C – 3M; GS-
10M
Yes 0 Days
Olympus Flex Post ALS Inhibitor
(2)
W C & GS –
12M
Yes 0 Days
Finesse Grass &
Broadleaf
Post ALS Inhibitor
(2)
W C & GS -
Bioassay
Yes 7 Days
Axial XL Post ACCase
Inhibitor (1)
W C & GS – 4M Yes 30 Days
Crop Herbicide Systems Continued
Herbicide Time of
Applica-
tion
Mode of
Action
Group
Crop Use Crop
Rotation
Intervals
(M)
Broadleaf
Tank
Mixes
Grazing
Restric-
tion
Power Flex Post ALS
Inhibitor (2)
W C & GS –
9M
Yes 7 Days
MCPA Post Synthetic
Auxin (4)
W After
Harvest
Yes 7 Days
Harmony
ExtraPost ALS
Inhibitor (2)
W C & GS –
1.5M
Yes NA
Peak
(prosulf-
uron)
Post ALS
Inhibitor (2)
W & GS W – 0M
GS – 1M
C – 18M
Yes 30 Days
Basagran
(bentazon)
Post PS II
Inhibitor (6)
GS W-0M
C – 0M
Yes
Buctril
(bromoxy-
nil)
Post PS II
Inhibitor (6)
GS W – 1M
C – 1M
Yes 45 Days
Atrazine Post PS II
Inhibitor (5)
GS See Label Yes 21 Days
Crop Yield and Economic Responses
538
425
557
640
364
486
169
554 552
371
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700L
int
Yie
ld (
Lb
s./A
)
Cropping Systems by Tillage Treatment
Average Cotton Yields 2003-2008
74
59
15
49
64 63
37
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yie
ld (
Bu
./A
)
Cropping Systems by Tillage Treatment
Wheat Yields 2003-2008
1649
2831
0
2690
0
1743
0
1932
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000Y
ield
(L
bs.
/A)
Cropping Systems by Tillage Treatment
Grain Sorghum Yields 2003-2008
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do
lla
rs P
er a
cre
Cropping System Treatments
Cropping Systems by Tillage Average Crop Year System Returns:
2003-2009
NT
CT
C-W
-GS
C-W C-G
S
W-D
CG
S-C
C W
GS
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Do
lla
rs P
er A
cre
Cropping System Treatments
Cropping System by Tillage Adjusted Average Crop Year System
Returns: 2003-2009 (mono-crops minus 2007)
NT
CT
C-W
-GS
C-W
C-G
S
W-D
CG
S-C
C W
GS
Production Economic Summary for 2003-2009
• While not always significant, the NT crop systems have shown a
consistent trend for higher return dollars beyond production
inputs than the CT systems.
• With only a few exceptions the crop rotations have indicated a
trend for higher yields and/or returns in the year by year
comparisons
• When averaged across years the NT C-W and
C-GS crop rotation systems are doing significantly better than the
mono-crop systems. However C and W only systems
(especially within the CT tillage system) have done surprisingly
well in comparison as all years are considered. This is somewhat
tied to the 2007 elevated crop year yields and commodity prices.
When the 2007 crop year is removed from the data then the NT
Rotation Systems and CT-CW rotation perform significantly
better.