1. V. Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop Opatija, 06-10. March, 2006 Food chain element transport and processes SOIL QUALITY – SOIL CONDITION – PRODUCTION STABILITY Márta BIRKÁS – Anthony DEXTER – Tibor KALMÁR – László BOTTLIK

2. Objectives Objectives: - select soil quality factors, - review their effects on production stability. Data: based on  field monitoring (started in 1976),  experiments (1991-2002, Gödöllő)  short-term experiment, initiated in June, 2002 (Hatvan-Józsefmajor) ISSUE: 1.poor soil quality 1.poor soil quality results yield loss - instable crop production under extreme climatic conditions. 2. improving soil quality 2. improving soil quality may result adequate yield and stable crop production (less climatic harms)

3. Material and method Tillage variants in trials Tillage variants in trials : L 1. Loosening 40-45 cm (L), root zone improving as root zone improving, P 2. Ploughing 26-32 cm (P), soil layer inverting as soil layer inverting, D 3. Disking 16-20 cm (D), mulch-mixing as mulch-mixing, 4. Heavy-duty cultivatoring Cmulching 16-20 cm (C), as mulching, 5. Shallow cultivatoring SCmulching 12-16 cm (SC), as mulching, DD 6. Direct drilling (DD), mulch-sowing as mulch-sowing. Plough, cultivators were equipped with surface-preparing elements. 1-5 th variants: traffic number was 3. Crop sequences: 1)mustard (mulch, 2002), w. wheat (2002/03) and maize (2003), rye (mulch 2003/04), pea (mulch 2004), w. wheat (2004/05), mustard (mulch, 2005), w. wheat (2005/06). 2)mustard (mulch, 2002), w. wheat (2002/03), unsown (2003/04), pea (mulch 2004), w. wheat (2004/05), mustard (mulch, 2005), w. wheat (2005/06). Cover percentage of the disturbed soil surface : DD 80 % > SC and C 35 % > D 30 % > L 25 % > P 0 %.

4. RESULTS Selected soil quality factors affecting soil sensitivity to climatic harms  plant production stability Selected soil quality factors affecting soil sensitivity to climatic harms  plant production stability (Birkás and Dexter, 2004) Soil looseness  Soil looseness – soil condition to a depth of 0-40/0-50 cm Agronomical structure  Agronomical structure (aggregation, mellowing) Earthworms  Earthworms activity (living soil) organic materials  Soil organic materials conservation  loss (paper for IV. AAS Workshop) moisture  Soil moisture management    tillage  Soil conditioning tillage  Crops - rotation  Fertilization  Irrigation etc. Measuring: Measuring: according to the accepted standards

5. Results – Soil looseness Soil condition in 0- 40 / 50 cm Water management Climate impacts Impacts on tillage and crop production Good Good – no compaction favourableslight or moderate beneficial Settled Settled in the profile limited moderately moderatelimiting compacted 1 – 3 compacted layers limited stronglystrongenergy and production loss Factors improving soil looseness: depthoftillage (1) depth of tillage from 0 to 45 cm soil structure conservationmethod (2) use of soil structure conservation method (e.g. DD, SC, C, L); mulchon the surface (3) mulch on the surface out of the growing season, from 0 to 80 % reduceload (4) reduce soil load crops (5) use crops with different rooting depth.

6. Results – Agronomical structure Trend in aggregate % over 4 years Long-term tillage impacts on friable structure (Józsefmajor, 2005) LSD 5%: friable str: 2,45

7. Results – Agronomical structure Aggregation Climate impacts Impacts on tillage and crop production improving improving (aggregate:  70-75%; dust <10%) slight or moderatebeneficial moderated moderated (aggregate %: 50-70, dust 15-25%) moderatelimiting poor poor (strong clod and/or dust formation) strongenergy and production loss Factors affect the aggregation: tillage (1) soil and water conservation tillage (less clod and dust formation), mellowing (2) promoting soil mellowing, (3) tillage at workable soil condition (prevention of compaction), cover (4) surface cover (crops, residues), reducedload (5) reduced soil load (e.g. traffics 1-3),

8. Results – Earthworms Factors of earthworm activity: (1) loosening with less disturbance (2) humid, non-dried conditions during summer (3) surface mulching (4) stubble residue recycling (5) biological loosening (mustard, pea) (6) less chemicals (integrated farming). Annual changes of earthworm number at 6 tillage variants

9. Results – water management Factors improving or maintaining water management: (1)loosened soil layerat least to 20 cm  (1)loosened soil layer at least to 20 cm  surface cover of 30 % at least, surface cover of 30 % at least, moderate surface roughness moderate surface roughness to prevent soil slumping, to prevent soil slumping, a moderate plant biomass or yield a moderate plant biomass or yield. (2)deeper loosened soil layer (2) deeper loosened soil layer  a smooth, non-compacted surface to be suitable both for water infiltration to be suitable both for water infiltration and conservation. and conservation. (3) minimized soil disturbance and surface cover of 50 % at least. surface cover of 50 % at least.  Use of soil loosening, structure conserving tillage. Humid, friable soil under DD (12. Oct. 2005)

10. Results – Soil conditioning tillage TillageFeatures Climate harms Impacts on crop production Conservation required depth and loosened, less disturbance, promoting friable structure and mellowing, C-and water conservation may decreasebeneficial Habitual required depth, more disturbance, less aggregation, C- and water conserve moderately may increaseunfavourable in dry and rainy seasons Harmful too shallow/deep, more disturbance, no water storage, clod and dust formation, C- and water loss increasesunfavourable in all seasons

11. Results – Crops and sequence Plant (year) Soil condition Yield min-max. (t/ha) LPDSCCDD W. wheat (02/03)Poor *0,62-0,593.1.4.2.5.6. Maize (03)Poor *5,07-6,321.2.5.3.4.6. Rye (green, 04)Medium10,06-11,862.1.6.3.4.5. Pea (green, 04)Medium1,85-5,441.2.5.3.4.6. W. wheat (04/05)Improving**1,80-7,732.1.3.4.5.6. Mustard (green, 05/06)Improving**12,0-25,02.1.4.3.4.5. Mustard root (cm)Improving **26-401.2.4.3.5.6. W. wheat (05/06)Improving **??????? ( in the rank 1. means the best and 6. means the poorest) *moisture-loss increasing land use and the poor soil quality, ** the improvement of soil quality has become a yield stabilizing factor

12. Pictures Mustard sowing into wheat stubble (05.07.30) volunteer wheat roots Wheat sowing into ploughed soil

13. Conclusions Assessing the tillage variants affecting yield stabilization, we found 7 common factors, that is: (1) soil conditioning; (2) protect soil quality (loose condition, aggregate, moisture management, organic matter, biological activity); moisture management, organic matter, biological activity); (3) avoid root zone compaction; (4) avoid clod and dust formation; (5) improve water-holding capacity (Farkas et. al.); (6) prolong surface cover; (7) manage weed infestation. Results confirmed that reducing land use induced damage should help to improve and restore soil quality. It may decrease the sensitivity to climatic extremes and increase plant production stability.

14. „Create and maintain a harmony between soil quality conservation and plant production” Acknowledgements Research programs: NKFP-OM-3B/0057/2002, OTKA-49.049; KLIMAKKT; GAK 2005 (KLIMA05) Experimental and Training Farm, Hatvan – Józsefmajor.