Upload
joanna-hicks
View
1.051
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.
Citation preview
Sense and nonsense in Conservation Agriculture:
principles, pragmatism and productivity......
John Kirkegaard
Mark Conyers, James Hunt, Clive KirkbyMichelle Watt, Greg Rebetzke
Principles - Conservation Agriculture (FAO)
● Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance
● Permanent soil cover (crop or mulch)
● Diversification of crop species in sequence/association
C LE R M O N T
120
0
DA LBY
120
0
C O N DO B O LIN
120
0
WA G G A WA G G A
120
0
M O O M B O O LDO O L
120
0
H O R SH A M
120
0R O SE W O R TH Y
120
0
E S P E R AN C E
120
0
M E R R E D IN
120
0
G E R A LDTO N
120
0
Mixed farms (2000 ha)
1 crop/yr (May-Nov)
Mean yield 2 - 3 t/ha
Australian environment, soils and system
Dry (300-500mm), infertile soils, unsubsidised agriculture
Farming system evolution
● Since 1990 - Intensification of cropping
fewer , larger farms
increased crop area per farm (3.6% pa)
less pasture, fewer sheep
more crop diversity
● Up to 1980s
ley pastures grass/annual legumes (merino sheep for wool)
cereals (wheat and barley)
Pasture Wheat Barley
Pasture WheatCanola Wheat Lupin Wheat
Australian national wheat yield trends
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Yie
ld (
t h
a-1
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Organicfarming
Fallowing &mechanisation
Milleniumdrought
Break crops& nitrogen
Phosphorus &improved pasture
1.1% pa
Fallowing, P fertilisernew cultivars
legume pasturemechanisation
herbicides, Nbreak crops
semi-dwarf wheat
Angus (2009); Fischer (2009)
CA
No-till adoption and use in Australia
Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
% n
o-t
ill
ad
op
tio
n
0
20
40
60
80
100
year vs upper year vs lower year vs mean
GRDC 2010; Llewellyn et al 2011
Extent of Use (2009)
62 - 92% use No-till
73 - 96% crop area
WA, QLD
Mallee
Precision agriculture - building on CA
Controlled traffic (CT)
Variable rate technology (VRT)
Pragmatic adoption of principles
Principle 1. Minimum soil disturbance
● No-till adopters cultivate 24% crop area
● 88% use narrow tines, not discs
Principle 2. Permanent soil cover
● Crop residues often reduced (graze, bale, burn)
Principle 3. Diversity in sequence
● integrating livestock and crops
● Intensive cereals (64 - 80% cereal)
Principle 1 – Minimum soil disturbance
< 5% practice multiple cultivation pre-sowing
No-till adopters use cultivation on 24% area
88% use narrow points only (rather than discs)
Discs used to sow ~30% cropped area
(GRDC 2010; Llewellyn et al 2011)
High adoption, but flexible approach
Strategic tillage
Case specific, but evidence is contested
Strategic tillage can resolve some issuesWeed, disease management
Lime incorporation - 23M ha acid subsoils
Subsoil amelioration
Is some soil disturbance needed?
Does it cause irreparable soil damage?
Infrequent tillage in an (otherwise) “No-till” system
Strategic tillage - integrated weed management
Multiple herbicide resistant annual ryegrass (L. rigidum)
189 cases glyphosate-resistance (50% no-till, continuous crop)
Tillage has a role in IWM approach (Preston 2010)
Harrington seed destructor
Resistant populations of annual ryegrass
New threat - resistant weeds in summer fallow
Current Glyphosate-resistant weeds in summer fallow
No grazing (seed set control)
No cultivation or burning
Less disturbance (disc seeders)
Wide rows (light for germination)
No crop competition (summer fallow)
3-4 herbicide applications/yr
Factors influencingevolution under CA
Conyza Echinochloa Urochloa Chloris Sonchus(at risk)
Strategic tillage - disease and biological constraints
Rhizoctonia solani
No-till Cultivate No-tillFumigate
(Simpfendorfer et al 2002)
No-tillCultivate
Intact soil cores from field
0
4
8
12
Fast growingroots
Slow growing Roots
Pseudomonas per mm root (x 103)
Cultivated soil(Fast growing roots)
No- till soil(Slow growing roots)
Inhibitory Pseudomonas on root tips in no-till soil
(Watt et al 2005, 2006)
5 mm
Live wheat crop roots
Dead roots frompreceding crop
Pore in no-till soil
(Watt et al., 2005; ME McCully, images)
No-till root environment....not all good!
Hard soil – no roots
Further benefits from root-soil biology research
● Yield constraints may remain
● Varietal responses?
● Interactions of…new root geneticsprecision placement novel inputs (formulations)
Understanding
Farming systems
Lab Tilled No-till
Further efficiency and productivity gains
Principle 2 - Stubble retention
● Adoption rates are high
Cutting height , straw spreaders, wider rows, inter-row sowing
disc openers, improved herbicides, seed collection, seed destruction
● High rainfall mixed farms (heavy cereal residues > 6t/ha)
less erosion risk
high in-crop rainfall
wide rows reduce yield
weed, pest, disease issues
pastures build soil C
alternate use for residue
Makes sense to manage to thresholds
CIMMYT: 30% retained = 100% retained
None retained (burnt)
100% retained=
30% retained
Govaerts et al (2005)
● Long-term wheat yields on permanent beds (1993-2006)
Principle 3 – Diversity (pastures)
Integrate Segregate Eliminate
Pasture benefits lostSoil damage?
Efficient (time/labour)Diverse
Managing livestock (and pastures) in CA systems
Impact of livestock in CA systems
● Surprisingly little data for southern Australia
● Literature review (Bell et al 2011)
● Field experiments (4 sites since 2008)
Outcomes
Soil physical damage shallow and transient
Removal of cover more important
Water balance impacts season-dependant
Effects on yield are rare
Sheep mouths do more damage than hooves
James Hunt , Thursday 9.35, pg 382
Dual-purpose crops – graze and grain
● Cereal and canola crops grazed without yield penalty
● Increase flexibility, profitability and reduce risk
● Increase animal and crop production from mixed farms
● zonal crop and stubble grazing
● livestock ‘sweeping’ to achieve cover targets
● patch weed control
Future - precision animal management....
● Efficient, safe grazing in larger crop paddocks
“Virtual” fences
Principle 3 – Diversity (broad-leaf crops)
Intensive cereals dominate (64-80%)
Why cereals?
easy to manage and market
lower risk (cost and reliable performance)
high residues for cover/grazing
New technology helps
disease resistance, soil/seed fungicides, soil DNA testing
precision inter-row sowing and residue management
new herbicide options
● Large stubble load
● Cereal on cereal
● Canola on cereal
Inter-row sowing in CA systems
6-9% yield benefit
Take-all
18% Infection 50%
(Matt McCallum 2008)
Inter-row On-row
CA Systems - the carbon conundrum.....
Stable organic matter (humus) has a constant ratio of C:N:P:S
1000 kg C requires 83 kg N; 20 kg P; 14 kg S
Nutrients (not C) might limit humus formation
Pastures build soil organic carbon (SOC)
CA slows SOC decline, but rarely builds (slow)
Why?
(Kirkby et al. Geoderma 2011)
Nutrients and C sequestration - incubation study
(Clive Kirkby, Poster 122, pg 538)
Leeton
Incubation cycle0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ca
rbo
n (
%)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Soil + stubble + supplementary nutrientsSoil + stubble
error bars are SE
Repeated addition of 10 t/ha wheat straw (3 monthly)
Car
bon
%
10 t/ha wheat straw
+ nutrients NPS
10 t/ha wheat straw
Laboratory incubation study (Leeton soil)
CA systems - energy efficiency?
· Time, labour, fuel efficiencies undisputed (on-farm)
Overall energy efficiency (grain yield per unit energy input)
Conv. 173 kg GJ-1 Cereal-legume 360 kg GJ-1
No-till 177 kg GJ-1 Cereal monoculture 137 kg GJ-1
Impact on GHG emissions (chemicals substitute for tillage)
Chemical use 80 kg CO2e/ha
Tillage 97 kg CO2e/ha(Maraseni & Cockfield 2011)
CA systems – component interactions
Cumulative improvements Wheat Yield (t/ha)
Baseline (1980s) 1.60
No-till /SR 1.84
No-till/SR + spray fallow 2.80
No-till/SR + spray fallow + pea break crop 3.45
No-till/SR + spray fallow + pea break crop + sow 25/4 4.01
Kirkegaard and Hunt (2010) Journal Experimental Botany
Baseline Scenario (Kerang, Victorian Mallee)
1980s - Burn/cultivate, grazed fallow, continuous wheat, sow after 25 May
Cumulative improvements
No-till/stubble retain, spray fallow, pea break crop, sow after 25 April
Summary of key messages
CA principles make sense - adoption is high
Australian adoption is pragmatic (in system context)
strategic tillage
residue thresholds
flexible sequences
Evidence-based innovation needs to continue
Thank you
CSIRO Plant IndustryJohn Kirkegaard
Phone: 02 62465080Email: [email protected]
Contact UsPhone: 1300 363 400 or +61 3 9545 2176Email: [email protected] Web: www.csiro.au
Strategic tillage for multiple constraints
Compact, acid subsurface
Water-repellent sandy topsoil
Herbicide resistant weeds
Stratified organic matter
Deep Yellow Sand
(Steve Davies DAFWA)
Strategic inversion tillage (1 year in 10)
Plough ($70/ha) Herbicides ($70/ha)
Yield 1.6 t/haYield 2.5 t/ha
● Reduced weeds
● Reduced water-repellence
● Reduced soil strength
● Improved pH profile (+lime)
● Increased C in top 30cm
Yield 1.5 t/haYield 2.5 t/ha(Steve Davies DAFWA)
Year 2
Year 1
Inversion to 25 cm depth
3. Improving productivity of modern, no-till farming
Adoption is driven by
● Erosion control, water conservation
● Labour, machinery, fuel savings
● Timelines of operations
● Soil “health” benefits
● Improved productivity
Insert presentation title
Impact of season on response to no-till
Growing season rainfall (mm)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Yie
ld d
iff (
RD
D-B
C)
(t/h
a)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0Yield gain
Yield loss
HARDEN
WAGGA
Insert presentation title
Biological constraints in Retain - DD
Yellow leaf spot
Rhizoctonia
Inhibitory Pseudomonas
Wheat productivity improvements ??
State No-till vs Cult Retain vs Burn
NSW 0.01 - 0.31
Victoria 0.04 - 0.02
Western Aust. - 0.03 - 0.09
Queensland 0.06 - 0.14
South Australia - 0.02 - 0.02
Mean - 0.02 - 0.15
Review of 39 long-term experiments (Kirkegaard 1995)
Yield differences (t/ha)
Adoption of No-till
CSIRO long-term study, Harden NSW
• Increased earthworms • Higher microbial biomass • Disease suppression (Rhizoctonia)• Higher abundance of mites, nematodes, collembola • Diversity shifts in mites, nematodes, collembola • Maintain levels of organic C and N • Improved infiltration and less runoff • Good crop establishment in all years
• Reduced crop vigour and yield (-11%) x• Rhizoctonia, inhibitory bacteria, yellow leaf spot x• Herbicide resistance x• Increased drainage x
(commenced 1990)