|
|
|||||
|
Crop Residue/Trash Management INTRODUCTION
In the last twenty years, much of the research effort
on winter wheat production in western Canada has been conducted in
cooperation with farmers who were convinced that no-till cropping
was the way of the future. One of the most difficult early lessons
novice no-till farmers had to learn was that the development of an
effective system for handling trash (crop residues) must be placed
at the top of their revised list of management priorities.
Simple changes to systems are often the most difficult
to accept, especially when they are in conflict with established traditions.
Most farmers grew up with the attitude that crop residues were nothing
more than a trash nuisance. If crop residues were so heavy they couldn't
be ignored or buried, then you burned them. In contrast, in no-till
production systems, properly managed crop residues are valued as an
ally that will provide opportunities to reduce production risks, increase
crop productivity, and ensure agricultural sustainability.
Crop residue management programs need not be complex.
However, there is no single set of rules that can be applied to cover
all situations. In other words, to be effective crop residue management
systems should be custom-designed to individual needs.
There are four basic principles that should be emphasized
when custom designing crop residue management systems for successful
no-till winter wheat production.
1) The snow trapping ability of the standing stubble
must be adequate to ensure successful overwintering of the winter
wheat.
2) Water is normally the most limiting factor for
crop production in western Canada. Therefore, snow that is trapped
in standing stubble, and retained in the soil profile as melt water
the following spring, is potential money in the farmers' pocket.
3) Crop residues must be managed so that they do
not interfere with the seeding operation.
4) Crop residues must be distributed uniformly when
they are returned to the field so that they do not interfere with
winter wheat stand establishment and uniformity of development.
The importance of snowcover insulation
The importance of snow management in the overwintering
of crops has been recognized by researchers and farmers for many years.
In North Dakota, research dating as far back as 1923 established that
winter wheat sown into standing stubble had the best chance of winter
survival. Subsequent work on the Canadian prairies has confirmed the
importance of snow cover in overwintering wheat in regions with harsh
winter climates.
Deeper snow usually means warmer winter soil temperatures
and less cold stress on winter wheat plants. However, the insulative
value of snow is also dependent upon properties such as composition
of the solid phase or matrix, liquid water content, impurities, reflectiveness,
and density. Snow that is loosely packed has the best insulative value.
Consequently, when checking on winter wheat fields in January, remember
that snow you can walk on top of does not usually have as good insulative
value as the same quantity of snow that you sink into with each step.
In Saskatchewan, differences in soil temperature
at a depth of two inches (5 cm) can be as large as 10°C for bare
summerfallow fields compared to adjacent snow covered stubble fields
(-21°C for summerfallow versus -11°C for stubble). Field studies
have also shown that minor variation in snow cover over a distance
of just a few feet can cause large differences in soil temperatures.
The large effect that small differences in snowcover have on soil
temperature, and hence winter stress level, have made it difficult
to place numerical measures on the importance of snowcover insulation
for winter wheat.
The field survival index (FSI) was developed to provide
a numerical rating that represents a cultivar's winter survival potential
(Table 1). Differences in FSI reflect average percent differences
expected in field survival between cultivars. For example, a 38% (514
- 476 = 38) advantage is expected in winter survival potential for
Norstar compared to Norwin. The FSI has also been used to establish
the winter hardiness requirements for crop survival under different
depths of snowcover (Table 2).
Estimates of minimum winter survival potential required
to achieve undamaged winter cereal stands in Saskatchewan were obtained
from field trials that included cultivars with a wide range of FSI.
These estimates demonstrated that a cultivar FSI greater than 650
is required to ensure an undamaged winter cereal stand on bare summerfallow
(Table 2). This means that only the hardiest winter ryes, grown under
optimum management, have a chance of surviving without snowcover.
Two inches (five cm) of unpacked snow greatly reduces the winter hardiness
requirement but the risk for winter wheat is still high. With four
inches (10 cm) of snowcover, cultivars with an FSI greater than 430
may be considered.
Table 1. Winter hardiness of selected winter wheat cereal cultivars. _________________________________________________________________ Species and Cultivar FSI* Winter rye - Puma 735 Winter wheat - Norstar 514 - CDC Kestrel 497 - Norwin 476 - AC Readymade 437 _________________________________________________________________ *Field Survival Index - The higher a cultivar's FSI, the greater its ability to survive winter stresses. Table 2. Minimum cultivar field survival indices (FSI) required for undamaged winter cereal stands nine out of ten years in Saskatchewan. _________________________________________________________________ FSI Bare summerfallow >650 2 in. (5 cm.) snowcover 540 4 in. (10 cm.) snowcover 430 > 6 in. (15 cm.) snowcover <420 _________________________________________________________________ > greater than < less than The above observations emphasize the importance of
snowcover in determining the winterkill risk for wheat. In the zero
to four inch (0 to 10 cm) range, each additional 0.4 inch (1.0 cm)
of snowcover reduces the cultivar winter hardiness requirement for
successful overwintering by at least 22 FSI units (Table 2). In other
words, an additional 0.3 inch (0.8 cm) snowcover is all that separates
the winterkill risk for CDC Kestrel from that of Norstar
Cultivars with poor winterhardiness potential have
survived Saskatchewan winters when the snowcover is greater than six
inches (15 cm) (Table 2). In spite of this, cultivars with FSI less
than 420 are considered to have an unacceptably high risk of winterkill
when grown in most of western Canada.
Generally, the deeper the snowcover, the less winter
stress on plants. However with very deep persistent snowcover, there
is the danger of damage from diseases such as snow mould. It is also
important that snow be kept in its place in the normal sequence of
seasonal changes. A deep early snowcover, when soil temperatures are
warm and winter wheat has not yet fully acclimated, can reduce the
plant's overwintering ability.
Methods of snow trapping There are many methods for trapping snow. However,
for winter cereal production, it is important that the required snowcover
is uniformly in place over the entire field before soil temperatures
approach critical levels for the crop. With this restriction in mind,
several methods of snow trapping have been considered for winter wheat
production under Saskatchewan conditions. Most methods have shown
some promise in providing a snow trap for overwintering cereals. However,
they all have limitations.
a) Thin stands of rapeseed/canola, flax or other
summer annual grown as a companion crop with winter wheat. To
be effective, this method of snow trapping usually requires that the
field be seeded twice. The trap crop is seeded in late July or early
August to allow for sufficient growth to ensure adequate snow trapping.
Summerfallow seedbeds are often loose and dry at this time of the
year making the establishment of small seeded crops difficult. Seeding
a cover crop this early can also result in weed problems that have
to be controlled through the use of chemicals. The winter wheat is
seeded at the recommended date, in late August or early September.
b) Trap strips of summer annual crops or perennial
grasses sown at intervals across the wheat field, perpendicular to
the prevailing winter winds. This method also requires two seeding
operations. In addition, where perennial grasses such as tall wheat
grass are utilized, the strips interfere with normal tillage operations.
c) Tree shelterbelts. Shelterbelts have been
utilized to reduce soil erosion by wind. Similarly, they can be effective
in trapping and reducing the drifting of snow. However, where there
are only a few shelterbelts, most of the snow will collect in or adjacent
to the trees leaving the area between the shelterbelts free of snow.
A further problem arises in that snow banking of this nature often
produces an ideal environment for snow mould.
d) Underseeding winter wheat with a spring crop,
such as barley, in the spring. The spring crop is harvested, leaving
stubble for snow trapping and the winter wheat remains to produce
the next crop. This system has received considerable attention recently.
It is not a new idea, but it has never been adequately researched.
Several disadvantages argue against its use. The underseeded winter
wheat competes with the spring crop for moisture and nutrients during
the first growing season. Early sown winter wheat is more subject
to winter damage. Winter wheat is also more productive when sown at
the optimum date. In addition, the risk of a build-up of diseases,
such as wheat streak mosaic virus, is a genuine concern with this
system.
e) "Zero-till" summerfallow. The main advantage
with this system is that it provides standing stubble for a snow trap
and, at the same time, solves the problem of limited moisture for
winter crop establishment in the fall. In the past, the main limiting
factor for zero-till summerfallow has been high chemical costs. In
addition, when zero-till summerfallow is practised in regions with
favorable moisture, there have been difficulties in maintaining standing
stubble for a snow trap during the second winter, which is the winter
wheat crop year.
f) "Stubbling-in". Winter wheat is no-till
seeded into standing stubble in the fall immediately after harvest
of the previous crop. The first three to four inches (8 to 10 cm)
of snow have the greatest effect in buffering soil temperatures and
this depth is the easiest to maintain with the stubbling-in production
system. Where stubble land is seeded to winter wheat in the same year
that it was cropped, there must be sufficient moisture for germination,
the recommended seeding date must be adhered to, weeds must be controlled,
and adequate fertilizer must be provided. Where these requirements
have been met, this method of snow trapping has shown the most promise.
The primary advantages of stubbling-in are that seedbed preparation
costs are minimal and each year there are approximately 57 million
acres (23 million hectares) of standing stubble available in western
Canada. The main limitation of stubbling-in is the occurrence of cool,
wet fall weather that delays harvest and restricts access to stubble
fields until after the optimum date for seeding winter wheat.
Snow trapping potential of stubble The amount of snow available determines the upper
limit of snowcover that can be maintained on a field. Standing stubble
will only assist in maintaining a snowcover when there is snow available
to be trapped.
Height and density (number of stems per square foot
or metre) of standing stubble determine the snow trapping potential
of a stubble field. Within the limits imposed by crop height and snow
availability, snow depth on a field can be increased by simply leaving
taller stubble. More snow will blow out of thin than thick stubble
stands. Consequently, compared to thick stands, stubble height must
be taller to maintain a similar depth of snow when stubble stands
are thin. Snow also often packs more solidly into thin stands of stubble.
Greater packing of snow may mean more water from spring snowmelt,
but the insulative value is usually higher for a similar quantity
of loosely packed snow.
Type of crop has an influence on how stubble should
be managed for effective snow trapping. The stubble of rapeseed/canola
and mustard is often thinner than stubble from cereals and, therefore,
may have to be cut higher to compensate for poorer snow trapping capabilities.
Cereal stubble is also usually more resilient than canola stubble,
especially when the fall weather has been hot and dry or the canola
was infected with blackleg. Stubble that is brittle and breaks down
easily must be carefully managed to maintain a good snow trapping
potential.
Drill type and opener design both have a direct influence
on the snow trapping potential of stubble fields. Most hoe drills
breakdown more stubble than disc drills during the seeding operation.
More tillage and greater stubble breakdown can be expected with wide
compared to narrow openers on hoe drills.
Special attention should be given to the maintenance
of standing stubble in high traffic areas, especially during harvest
and winter wheat seeding. Stubble breakdown at entrances to fields
and on headlands often reduces snow trapping potential in these areas
resulting in winterkill and weed patches. Stubble height should be
maximized on dry years when crops are short and in areas where crop
stands are poor, such as on eroded knolls or saline patches. When
stands are especially short or thin, extra snow may be trapped by
leaving narrow strips of stubble where only heads have been removed.
In extreme cases, the crop may be left standing to maximize stubble
height and snow trapping potential.
Moisture availability during the growing season is
a major factor limiting crop productivity on the prairies. One third
of the prairie annual precipitation falls as snow. This snowfall represents
an average of three to 5.5 inches (75 to 140 mm) of water equivalent.
When properly managed, crop residues offer the farmer
an opportunity to conserve and more efficiently utilize total annual
precipitation for crop production. Crop resides can be used to:
When this approach is taken, crop residue management
becomes synonymous with crop water management.
No-till seeding into standing stubble from a previous
crop (stubbling-in) has been the most widely accepted method of snow
trapping for winter wheat production in western Canada. In this system,
height and density of the standing stubble determines the snow trapping
potential of a stubble field. Any additional gain in snow melt can
only be accomplished by increasing the packing of the snow trapped
in the stubble.
Assuming there is snow available to trap, methods
to increase the snow trapping potential of a stubble field include
uniformly increasing the stubble height, leaving narrow trap strips
where only the head of cereal crops has been removed or the crop is
not harvested, and alternating strips of short and tall stubble. Use
of a snowplow to ridge fields may also increase the snow trapping
potential of a field. However, the increased risk of winterkill where
the snow has been removed to form ridges makes this method of snow
trapping impractical for winter wheat production systems.
Straight combining permits the tallest stubble because
long straw is not required to keep a swath from falling to the ground.
A wind or air reel on the combine header allows a higher straight
cut than the conventional bat reel. When double swathing, stubble
height can be increased in alternate swaths by laying the swath with
the longest straw, and therefore shortest stubble, on the bottom of
the windrow. It has also been suggested that alternate height cutting
will increase the snow trapping potential of fields that are straight
combined.
The snow trapping efficiency of a rough stubble,
where narrow deflector or unharvested trap strips are left, is greater
than for a stubble of uniform height. For best results the strips
should be less than 50 feet (15 m) apart. More snow will collect near
the strips. Therefore, the closer the strips are together, the more
uniform the snowcover will be on the field.
Tall, dense stubble stands provide the opportunity
for greater snowcover in the winter and extra melt water. They may
also result in a slower snow melt and cooler soil temperatures in
the spring. These factors, combined with increased shading, can result
in slower spring plant growth. However, there is little evidence to
indicate that either shading of seedlings or cooler soil temperatures
in the spring reduce the final yield of winter wheat. The possibility
of excessive melt water causing flood damage to winter crops in low
lying areas (sloughs) in some regions in some years has been the only
problem associated with deep snowcovers from stubble traps.
A word of caution. It is recommended that nitrogen
fertilizer be broadcast on winter wheat as early as possible after
the soil has thawed in the spring. As early as possible does not mean
go out and get the fertilizer spreader stuck in the mud. Check your
winter wheat fields, not adjacent fields where the stubble was worked
down the previous fall, to determine when they are dry enough to allow
for spreader traffic. Results of the pickup test (driving a half-ton
across the field to determine when spring field operations can start)
can be very different for no-till stubble fields which have trapped
snow compared to fall tilled fields that the snow has blown off.
The amount of soil moisture derived from snow trapping
will be dependent upon the amount of snow held in the stubble and
the degree of melt water infiltration. The mulch layer formed by crop
residues is very absorbent and slows surface runoff allowing more
time for water to enter the soil. Infiltration rate is the highest
when the surface layers of the soil are dry and lowest when they are
saturated at freeze-up. When snow melt is greater than infiltration,
the excess water runs off into sloughs and other drainage areas.
Once melt water has entered the soil profile, it
must be retained for use by the crop during the growing season. On
the Canadian prairies, the average amount of water that can be obtained
from snow trapping has been estimated at 1.2 inches (30 mm). It has
also been estimated that each tillage operation in conventional cropping
systems wastes as much as a half inch (13 mm) of water through increased
evaporation. Therefore, with conventional cropping systems all the
water gained from trapped snow can be lost during the first six weeks
after snow melt. In no-till production systems, crop residues reduce
evaporation by providing a protective mulch, decreasing wind velocities,
and shading the soil surface. This means that more water is available
for the crop. Early spring growth allows winter wheat to efficiently
utilize this additional water, which is part of the reason why properly
managed Norstar winter wheat has had a 36 percent yield advantage
over hard red spring wheat in Saskatchewan.
Most of the problems encountered in no-till seeding
are directly related to the amount and type of crop residue present
on the field. Both amount and type of crop residue vary from region
to region, farm to farm, and even field to field on the same farm.
Consequently, successful no-till seeding requires a flexible adaptive
approach to the management of crop residues. This approach must minimize
the opportunity for drill plugging and emphasize shallow seed placement
with good seed-to-soil contact.
Residues from low yielding crops are easy to manage.
However, serious winter wheat producers seed a crop every year. Therefore,
they plan their crop residue management systems as if every year was
going to be a high residue year.
Special equipment is required for no-till seeding
of winter wheat. There are a large number of makes and models of minimum
tillage drills available on the market and experience with this equipment
often determines whether or not farmers continue with no-till production
systems.
When selecting a no-till seed drill, winter wheat
producers should take the following factors into consideration:
A no-till drill must be capable of seeding into the residues of all crop types that will be included in the stubbling-in management system for winter wheat. It must also be able to handle, without plugging, the stubble heights that will be left for snow trapping. In the absence of excessive trash, most minimum tillage
drills will give adequate soil penetration if properly adjusted. Drag
and horsepower requirements are usually lower for disc-type drills.
However, hoe drills (including most air seeders) give more positive
depth control. There is usually less soil and stubble disturbance
with disc drills than hoe drills. However, as long as sufficient stubble
is left standing, and the seedbed is not dried out, a small amount
of soil disturbance is not critical to winter wheat production. In
fact, a small amount of soil disturbance may have a beneficial effect
in ensuring good seed coverage.
Excessive crop residue can reduce penetration with
disc drills. In addition, even where penetration is adequate, "hairpinning"
(forcing of uncut straw or chaff into the furrow) may result in seed
"pop-up" after the disc drill passes, thereby reducing seed-to-soil
contact. Poor seed-to-soil contact interferes with germination and
seedling establishment and is often responsible for poor stands in
chaff rows.
Harrowing before seeding is not an effective method
of spreading excess chaff. Equipping combines with properly adjusted
chaff spreaders is the only practical means of managing excessive
chaff when seeding is done with a disc drill.
Compared to earlier designs, the introduction of
openers with a leading (off-set) disc has improved the residue cutting
of double disc drills. However, this improvement has not eliminated
the hairpinning problem associated with inadequately spread chaff.
Fields that have a long history of no-till often
build up a soft undisturbed surface mulch. Hairpinning is a greater
problem when the soil is soft and the residues are damp and tough.
Consequently, continuous no-till cropping can aggravate seed placement
problems with disc drills.
Hoe openers lift or push crop residues out of the
seed row. Consequently, penetration and hairpinning are not usually
problems with hoe type drills. However, excessive amounts of tall
stubble and long, poorly chopped or unchopped straw can cause plugging.
Problems with plugging are minimized when straw is finely chopped
and hoe drills have been designed with adequate space between ranks
and sufficient shank length to allow crop residues to pass through
without piling up.
There is a rule of thumb that states stubble height
should not be taller than the row spacing of a hoe drill. For example,
this rule suggests that stubble should not be cut more than eight
inches (20 cm) tall when hoe drill row spacing is eight inches. However,
vertical clearance (length of shank), number of ranks of openers (2,
3, or 4), distance among ranks, and placement of wheels near shanks
are also important factors that must be considered when assessing
the flow of crop residues through a hoe drill.
In regions with short growing seasons, there is often
an overlap between harvest of spring sown crops and the optimum seeding
dates for winter wheat. When this happens, the most opportune time
to seed winter wheat is when conditions are too wet for combining.
Seeding through trash that is damp or wet provides the ultimate test
of trash management systems and drill design. Wet, loose trash has
a tendency to pile up in front of the discs, resulting in plugging
of disc drills. The increased tendency of wet trash to pile up also
aggravates plugging problems with hoe drills. Where straw is damp,
hoe drills will sometimes pull out tall stubble, creating additional
plugging problems. Once again, these problems are mainly a result
of poor systems for trash management and/or drill design deficiencies
that can be corrected by proper equipment selection.
Crop residues that are not uniformly spread over
the field can have a significant, and often highly visible, effect
on plant establishment, growth, and productivity.
Improperly managed straw slows and frustrates the
seeding operation by causing drill plugging, especially when hoe type
drills are used for seeding. Trash piles are often left in the field
when drills are unplugged. These trash piles become obstacles to other
field operations. On farms where all crops are no-till seeded, trash
piles can become a long term nuisance that interferes with the seeding
of subsequent crops. Poor or nonexistent crop growth in trash piles
also reduces plant competition and increases the opportunities for
crop volunteers and weed growth.
Nonuniform stands and highly visible striped patterns
in winter wheat fields are the most dramatic effects of improperly
managed chaff. There are a number of possible causes for the variation
in crop stand caused by chaff rows.
Heavy chaff rows, which are left behind combines
that are not equipped with chaff spreaders, often result in poor seed
placement, especially with disc type drills. Poor seed-to-soil contact
interferes with germination and produces seedlings that are spindly.
Weak, spindly plants do not compete well with weeds and crop volunteers.
They may also be more susceptible to diseases and are often later
maturing and lower yielding.
A high concentration of crop residues in chaff rows
slows the soil warming process in the spring. In fact, ice can sometimes
be found under heavy crop residues in chaff rows after the winter
wheat between the chaff rows has begun spring "green-up". Delayed
spring development, due to cool soil temperatures in the chaff rows,
often has a season long effect that results in uneven crop ripening
and distinctive green strips in the field as the crop approaches maturity.
High microbial activity, due to large amounts of
crop residues, can temporarily immobilize nitrogen and increase the
probability of early season crop nitrogen deficiencies in chaff rows.
Early season nitrogen availability is critical to the development
of healthy winter wheat stands. Consequently, prior to crop heading,
nitrogen deficiencies associated with unspread chaff rows often show
up as yellow strips of nonvigorous, unproductive plants. When the
crop residue has been consumed by the microorganisms and their populations
die-off, the nitrogen once again becomes available for plant use.
However, nitrogen release from the decayed chaff rows usually occurs
too late to benefit the winter wheat crop.
Seeds of weeds and volunteer crops that are thrown
over the back of the combine are concentrated in a narrow strip when
chaff is not spread as part of the harvesting operation. Weak, uncompetitive
winter wheat plants and a concentration of seed provides an opportunity
for weeds and volunteer crops to thrive in chaff rows. This results
in weed control problems, increased dockage and, in some cases, grade
loss when the crop is sold.
Plants and their residues often exude inhibitors
that suppress the growth of other plant species. A species' ability
to inhibit the growth of another species through biochemical interactions
is known as an allelopathic or phytotoxic effect. The probability
of allelopathic interactions that suppress crop growth is increased
when residues, weeds, and volunteer plants are concentrated in chaff
rows.
An effective straw and chaff management system
is a must for successful no-till farming. There is a wide selection
of straw and chaff spreading options available. Straw that is finely
chopped presents fewer problems for hoe drills. Therefore, it is important
that cutting edges be kept sharp on straw choppers when seeding is
to be done with a hoe drill. Deflector design will influence spread
width and minor modifications to choppers may be necessary to obtain
uniform straw distribution on the field. One of the most effective
spreader designs has two large and two small optional deflectors that
deflect the straw at a 45° angle. Chaff spreading options range
from simple inexpensive homemade systems, which are basically spinning
deflectors mounted behind and below the combine sieves, to expensive
factory designed units that use air blasts across deflectors or modified
straw spreaders and choppers to spread chaff. The important feature
to look for is a durable spreader combination that will return the
chaff and straw uniformly to the field. A spread width of 25 feet
(7.5 m) for chaff and 40 feet (12 m) for straw should be a minimum
goal when a wide swather or combine header is used for the harvest
operation.
|
|||||
D. Brian Fowler Crop Development Centre Copyright © 2002. D.Brian Fowler All Rights Reserved. Revised URL:http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/cropsci/winter_cereals/ Free DHTML scripts provided by Dynamic Drive |