Cropping frequency, wheat classes and flexible rotations: Effects on production, nitrogen economy, and water use in a Brown Chernozem
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Producers in the semiarid Canadian prairies rely on frequent summerfallowing (F) to conserve water, control weed infestations, and maximize soil mineral N reserves, but this practice often results in soil degradation. A crop rotation experiment was initiated in 1987 on a medium-textured, Orthic Brown Chernozem at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, to determine the most ideal cropping frequency for wheat in this region and whether a fixed rotation such as fallow-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) - wheat (F-W-W) or F-W-W-W would be more effective than flexible rotations in which fallowing is decided each spring based on criteria such as available soil water (if water), or the need to control perennial weed infestations (if weeds). The study also compared the production of traditional Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat class with the newer higher-yielding (Hy), Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) wheat class. We analyzed results of six rotations over the first 12 yr of the study. The rotations included F-W-W, F-W-W-W, F-Hy-Hy, Continuous wheat (Cont W), Cont W (if weeds), and Cont W (if water). Reduced tillage management was used and stubble was cut tall to enhance snowtrap. Fertilizer N was applied based on soil tests and fertilizer P was applied based on the general recommendations for the region. Over the 1988–1999 period, weather conditions were generally favourable and yields were above average for this region. Canada Prairie Spring wheat outyielded CWRS by 32% when grown on fallow and by 17% when grown on stubble; however, straw yields of the two wheat classes were similar on fallow and CPS was 11% less than CWRS on stubble. Harvest index (HI) averaged 44% for CPS and 37% for CWRS wheat. Water use efficiency for CWRS wheat grown on fallow averaged 7.2 kg ha-1 mm-1 and for CPS 9.4; when grown on stubble the respective values were 6.3 and 7.5 kg ha-1 mm-1. Grain N concentration for CWRS was slightly higher for wheat grown on fallow (25.7 g kg-1) than on stubble (24.5 g kg-1), but was similar for CPS wheat on grown on fallow and stubble (21.9 g kg-1). Straw N concentration averaged 3.8 g kg-1 for CWRS and 4.4 g kg-1 for CPS. Nitrogen yield for grain from CPS was 9% greater than from CWRS when grown on fallow, but there was no effect of wheat class when grown on stubble. Nitrogen yield of CPS straw was 15% greater than for CWRS when grown on fallow, but on stubble N yield was generally not affected by wheat class. Nitrogen harvest index (NHI) averaged about 80% for both wheat classes, whether grown on fallow or stubble. On a rotation basis, grain produced with F-W-W was 1502 kg ha-1 yr-1. The F-W-W-W and Cont W (if weeds) rotations produced 9% more grain than F-W-W, while Cont W (if water) produced 24% more, F-Hy-Hy produced 26% more, and Cont W produced 30% more than F-W-W. Nitrogen production in the grain, straw and aboveground plant material was lowest in F-W-W, highest in Cont W, and intermediate for other rotations. Although the economic and soil quality assessments have yet to be completed, a preliminary conclusion based on crop production characteristics alone suggests that a flexible cropping system in which available soil water in spring is used as the determining criterion is superior to a fixed F-W-W or F-W-W-W rotation. Key words: Yield, N concentration, N yield, water deficit, wheat classes, regressions
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».