Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T11:45:40.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of conventional and alternative cropping systems in cryoboreal subhumid central Alberta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. C. Izaurralde ,
N. G. Juma ,
W. B. McGill ,
D. S. Chanasyk ,
S. Pawluk  and
M. J. Dudas
R. C. Izaurralde
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Alberta, 4–42 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
N. G. Juma
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Alberta, 4–42 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
W. B. McGill
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Alberta, 4–42 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
D. S. Chanasyk
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Alberta, 4–42 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
S. Pawluk
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Alberta, 4–42 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
M. J. Dudas
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Alberta, 4–42 Earth Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A 3-year field study (1986–88) was conducted in central Alberta to discover how diverse soil-plant systems function under cryoboreal subhumid conditions. Barley, fescue, faba (field) bean and a barley/field pea intercrop were grown continuously on different soils at Ellerslie and Breton using two distinct tillage methods. The agronomic performance, weed-crop interactions and below-ground productivity of these cropping systems were examined. The main findings were as follows: different soil properties did not affect yields of barley, barley/field pea and fescue fertilized with N and P; silage yield of faba bean at Breton was greater than at Ellerslie; barley/field pea and faba bean could be grown without tillage at Ellerslie; barley/field pea plots had the lowest weed counts; fescue root biomass was greatest at all depths followed by faba bean and barley; and soil properties appeared not to induce differences in root production of a cereal, an annual forage legume and a perennial grass. Increasing the use of annual legumes into rotations, either as sole crops or as intercrops with cereals, may be a viable alternative to continuous cereal cropping because annual legumes contribute N through biological N fixation, reduce weed competition and increase the input of root mass in soil.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 120 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alberta Agriculture (1989). 1989 Agricultural Statistics Yearbook. Publication no. Agdex 853–10. Edmonton, AB.Google Scholar
Atmospheric Environmental Service (1982 a). Canadian Climate Normals. 1951–1980. Volume 2 – Temperature. Downsview: Atmospheric Environment Service.Google Scholar
Atmospheric Environmental Service (1982 b). Canadian Climate Normals. 1951–1980. Volume 3 – Precipitation. Downsview: Atmospheric Environment Service.Google Scholar
Atmospheric Environmental Service (1982 c). Canadian Climate Normals. 1951–1980. Volume 4 – Degree Days. Downsview: Atmospheric Environment Service.Google Scholar
Crown, P. H. & Greenlee, G. M. (1978). Guidebook for Soils and Land Use in the Edmonton Region, Alberta. 11th Congress of the International Society of Soil Science, Edmonton, Canada.Google Scholar
Dinwoodie, G. D. & Juma, N. G. (1988). Allocation and microbial utilization of C in two soils cropped to barley. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 68, 495–505.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. (1988). Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. In Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches (Eds Altieri, M. A. & Liebman, M.), pp. 213–333. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Gilson, C. (1989). Implications for farmers, food consumers and the general environment. In National Agri-Food Policy Proceedings on Sustainable Agriculture, pp. 5–16. Ottawa: Agriculture Canada.Google Scholar
Government of Alberta and University of Alberta (1969). Atlas of Alberta. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar
Gu, J. (1988). Carbon and nitrogen assimilation, dinitrogen fixation infaba bean (Vicia faba L.) and microbial biomass in soil–plant systems (faba bean, canola, barley and summer fallow) on a Gray Luvisol. MSc thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Hansson, A. C. & Andren, O. (1986). Below-ground plant production in a perennial grass ley (Festuca pratensis Huds.) assessed with different methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 23, 657–666.Google Scholar
Izaurralde, R. C., Juma, N. G. & McGill, W. B. (1990). Plant and nitrogen yield of barley–field pea intercrop in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agronomy Journal 82, 295–301.Google Scholar
Izaurralde, R. C., McGill, W. B. & Juma, N. G. (1992). Nitrogen fixation efficiency, interspecies N transfer, and root growth in barley–field pea intercrop on a Black Chernozemic soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 13, 11–16.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. & Robichaux, R. H. (1990). Competition by barley and pea against mustard: effects on resource acquisition, photosynthesis and yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 31, 155–172.Google Scholar
McGill, W. B. (1982). Soil Fertility and Land Productivity in Alberta. Report no. ECA82–17/1B16. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. & Liebman, M. (1987). Weed productivity and composition in sole crops and intercrops of barley and field pea. Journal of Applied Ecology 24, 685–699.Google Scholar
Odum, E. P. (1984). Properties of agroecosystems. In Agricultural Ecosystems: Unifying Concepts (Eds Lowrance, R., Stinner, B. R. & House, G. J.), pp. 5–11. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. & Roush, M. L. (1990). The role of competition in agriculture. In Perspectives on Plant Competition (Eds Grace, J. B. & Tilman, D.), pp. 341–363. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rice, E. L. (1984). Allelopathy (2nd edn). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, P. M. & Juma, N. G. (1989). Shoot, root, soil and microbial biomass nitrogen dynamics in two contrasting soils cropped to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Biology and Fertility of Soils 8, 134–143.Google Scholar
Slinkard, A. E. & Blain, H. L. (1988). Production of pea, lentil, faba bean and chickpea in North America. In World Crops: Cool Season Food Legumes (Ed. Summerfield, R. J.), pp. 1059–1063. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Smucker, A. J. M., McBurney, S. L. & Srivastava, S. K. (1982). Quantitative separation of roots from compacted soil profiles by the hydropneumatic elutriation system. Agronomy Journal 74, 500–503.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1986). Resource use by intercrops. In Multiple Cropping Systems (Ed. Francis, C. A.), pp. 57–81. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar