Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SOIL TILLAGE IMPACTS ON NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF SOYBEAN Faculty of Agriculture, University J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Trg Sv. Trojstva 3, HR-31000 Osijek,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SOIL TILLAGE IMPACTS ON NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF SOYBEAN Faculty of Agriculture, University J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Trg Sv. Trojstva 3, HR-31000 Osijek,"— Presentation transcript:

1 SOIL TILLAGE IMPACTS ON NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF SOYBEAN Faculty of Agriculture, University J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Trg Sv. Trojstva 3, HR-31000 Osijek, Croatia, djug@pfos.hr, djug@pfos.hr Irena JUG, Danijel JUG, Vlado KOVAČEVIĆ, Bojan STIPEŠEVIĆ, Ivan ŽUGEC

2 Introduction  Object of this study was testing nutritional status of soybean under different soil tillage with aim of possible new recommendation for fertilization under reduction/absence of soil tillage.

3 Material and methods  The Field experiment  cultivar :: soybean TISA (in rotation with winter wheat) maturity group 0-1  location :: eastern Croatia – experimental site near Kneževo  experimental period :: 2002-2005  soil tillage treatments :: CT – conventional tillage DH – diskharrowing NT – no-tillage  Basic experimental plot :: 900 m -2  fertilization :: N:P 2 O 5 :K 2 O=40:130:130 kg ha -1 +Bradyrhizobium japonicum - trade name “Biofiksin S”

4  Conventional tillage - in autumn

5  Diskharrowing - in autumn

6  No-tillage – early season

7  Sampling and chemical analysis  sampling soybean :: R-4 (full-developed pods)  samples :: microwave digestion (65% HNO 3 + 30% H 2 O 2 )  analyses :: 23 elements with a Jobin-Yvon Ultrace 238 ICP-OES spectrometer (laboratory of the RISSAC, Budapest, Hungary)  sowing :: John Deere 750A interrow spacing 16.5 cm 550 plants per square meter deep of sowing 3-5 cm  Plant protection :: uniformly for each tillage treatments

8  Soil characteristics  calcareous chernozem on loess substrate  chemical properties :: pH (H 2 O) - 8,1 pH (KCl) - 7,5 Humus - 2,6% CaCO 3 - 2,1% P 2 O 5 -18,7 mg 100 g -1 tla (AL-soluble) K 2 O - 28,4 mg 100 g -1 tla (AL-soluble)

9 Mean air temperature and precipitation on experimental field (N::45  82, E::18  64) YearPrecipitation (mm)Air temperature ( o C) 200262012.4 200349411.5 200482311.1 200585510.6 1965-200563611.0 Weather characteristic

10

11 Results

12 Soil tillage (ST) :: conventional - CT; diskharrowing - DH; no-till - NT and composition of soybean (cultivar Tisa)** ST The aerial part of soybean at full-developed pods stage** Percent on dry matter basismg kg -1 on dry matter basis PKCaMgSZnMnMoCuB CT DH NT 0.370 0.366 0.327 2.18 2.31 1.93 1.68 1.75 1.87 0.538 0.565 0.592 0.226 0.215 0.212 25.3 26.7 25.0 71.7 75.0 80.7 0.267 0.175 0.146 10.5 9.1 8.9 46.8 47.3 46.7 LSD 5%n.s. 1.3n.s. Mean0.3542.141.770.5650.21825.775.80.1969.546.9 Influences of the soil tillage on nutritional status of soybean in four year average Referral values of some nutrients in soybean (Bergman, 1992) 0.35- 0-60 2.50- 3.70 0.60- 1.50 0.30- 0.70 25- 60 30- 100 0.5- 1.0 10- 20 25- 60

13 Soil tillage (ST) :: conventional - CT; diskharrowing - DH; no-till - NT and composition of soybean (cultivar Tisa)** ST The aerial part of soybean at full-developed pods stage** mg kg -1 on dry matter basis FeCoNiCrSrBaAlPbCdNa CT DH NT 272 222 296 0.149 0.120 0.145 2.56 2.14 1.99 0.626 0.485 0.626 19.1 21.7 22.1 5.75 7.80 7.46 214 163 230 0.374 0.394 0.374 0.051 0.043 0.045 39.5 41.6 44.9 LSD 5%n.s. 0.1262.51.70n.s. Mean2640.1382.230.57921.39.482150.3810.04742.0 under detectable levels (mg kg -1 ): Se (<0.60), Hg (<0.12), As (<0.40)

14 The year (the factor A) and soil tillage (ST = the factor B: conventional = CT; diskharrowing = DH; no-till = NT) and composition of soybean (cultivar Tisa) YearSTThe aerial part of soybean at full-developed pods stage (A)*(B)Percent on dry matter basismg kg -1 on dry matter basis PKCaMgSZnMnFeCuB 2003CT DH NT 0.320 0.287 0.283 1.65 1.79 1.25 1.67 1.80 2.26 0.560 0.581 0.776 0.230 0.176 0.229 21.1 21.6 24.6 90.1 105.5 137.7 296 261 597 10.3 6.8 8.9 46.3 48.8 45.0 LSD AxB 5% LSD AxB 1% n.s. 0.014 n.s. 0.045 n.s. 186 267 n.s. mg kg -1 on dry matter basis MoCoNiCrSrBaAlPbCdNa 2003CT DH NT 0.345 0.122 0.126 0.110 0.112 0.258 2.25 1.71 1.55 0.521 0.457 0.848 18.3 20.8 24.3 4.69 7.21 8.03 208 229 499 0.332 0.306 0.371 0.034 0.041 0.050 34.8 23.0 30.1 LSD AxB 5%n.s.0.089n.s. 188n.s. * non-significant (n.s.) differences among treatments for 2002, 2004 and 2005 Impact of interaction AxB (year and soil tillage) on nutritional status of soybean

15

16 Conclusion  reduction or absence of soil tillage under conditions of calcareous chernozem of Barannya province did not seriously affect nutritional status of soybean  usual fertilization practice can be recommended for possible use of non-conventional soil tillage practice

17 Thank you for your attention


Download ppt "SOIL TILLAGE IMPACTS ON NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF SOYBEAN Faculty of Agriculture, University J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Trg Sv. Trojstva 3, HR-31000 Osijek,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google