Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:41:09.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ADAPTABILITY OF MAIZE (Zea mays L.) TO CULTIVATION ON CLOSED LANDFILL WITH REDUCED TILLAGE INPUTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

FRANCO TESIO ,
FRANCESCA FOLLIS  and
ANDRÉ ANDRES
FRANCO TESIO*
Affiliation:
ValOryza s.a.s. 55, Corso Gastaldi, 13100 Vercelli (VC), Italy
FRANCESCA FOLLIS
Affiliation:
ValOryza s.a.s. 55, Corso Gastaldi, 13100 Vercelli (VC), Italy
ANDRÉ ANDRES
Affiliation:
Embrapa Temperate Agriculture, BR 392 Km 78, 96.001-970 Pelotas, Brazil
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: franco.tesio@valoryza.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Cultivation of less productive soils such as closed landfills has become convenient because European subsidies covered part of the risk to obtain production. Aim of the research was to evaluate grain yields of maize hybrids belonging to different maturity classes (FAO 200, 300 and 400) (Gretzmacher, R. (1979). Die Bodenkultur 30:256--280) grown on closed landfills by the adoption of two minimum tillage methods (chisel plowing at 0.35 m plus disk harrowing at 0.20 m, or only disk harrowing at 0.20 m). Maize cultivation inserted in a winter cereal rotation had a grain production ranging from 4.6 t ha−1 (FAO 200, disk harrowing only) to 8.3 t ha−1 (FAO class 400, chisel plowing plus disk harrowing) in the two considered years (2011 and 2012). The adoption of chisel plowing coupled with disk harrowing reduced yield fluctuation between years, and furnished higher yield performance if compared with the single disk harrowing passage. The best growing hybrid cycles were those belonging to FAO class 300 with production similar to that of the longest maturity class, and with moisture content equal to the shortest maturity class.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 505 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Andres, A., Concenço, G., Theisen, G., Galon, L. and Tesio, F. (2012). Management of red rice (Oryza sativa) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) grown with sorghum with reduced rate of atrazine and mechanical methods. Experimental Agriculture 48:587–596.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. (1992). Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Science 40:654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battiston, L. A. (2013). A Study on the Technical and Economic Feasibility for Arable Agriculture and Biofuel Production on Landfill Covers in Southern Ontario. PhD thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario Canada.Google Scholar
Bazzani, G. M. Ed. (2008). Integrated participatory modelling of irrigated agriculture: the case study of the reorganisation of a water management system in Italy. Paper presented at the 107th EAAE Seminar on Modelling Agricultural and Rural Development Policies, Sevilla, Spain, January 30–February 1, 14 pp.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. (2006). Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technology 20 (3):793–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., Watson, P. R. and Derksen, D. A. (2001). Tillage intensity and crop rotation affect weed community dynamics in a winter wheat cropping system. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:805–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, N. and Crocker, G. J. (2000). Crop rotation effects on soil carbon and physical fertility of two Australian soils. Soil Research 38:71–84.Google Scholar
Brosseau, J. E. and Heitz, M. L. (1994). Trace gas compound emissions from municipal landfill sanitary sites. Atmospheric Environment 28:285–293.Google Scholar
Bullock, D. G. (1992). Crop rotation. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 11:309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. (2007). Rapid urbanization in China: a real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena 69:1–15.Google Scholar
Colbach, N. and Debaeke, P. (1998). Integrating crop management and crop rotation effects into models of weed population dynamics: a review. Weed Science 46:717–728.Google Scholar
Dickinson, N. M. (2000). Strategies for sustainable woodland on contaminated soils. Chemosphere 41:259–263.Google Scholar
Donatelli, M., Stöckle, C., Ceotto, E. and Rinaldi, M. (1997). Evaluation of CropSyst for cropping systems at two locations of northern and southern Italy. European Journal of Agronomy 6:35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitzinger, J., Štastná, M., Žalud, Z. and Dubrovský, M. (2003). A simulation study of the effect of soil water balance and water stress on winter wheat production under different climate change scenarios. Agricultural Water Managemen 61:195–217.Google Scholar
Ettala, M. O. (1988). Short-rotation tree plantations at sanitary landfills. Waste Management Research 6:291–302.Google Scholar
Gretzmacher, R. (1979). Die Beeinflussung des morphologischen Ertragsaufbaues und der Ertragsleistung durch den Standraum bei Kornermais. Die Bodenkultur 30:256–280.Google Scholar
Iglesias, A., Mougou, R., Moneo, M. and Quiroga, S. (2011). Towards adaptation of agriculture to climate change in the Mediterranean. Regional Environmental Change 11:159–166.Google Scholar
Kettler, T. A., Lyon, D. J., Doran, J. W., Powers, W. L. and Stroup, W. W. (2000). Soil quality assessment after weed-control tillage in a no-till wheat-fallow cropping system. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:339–346.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. (2007). Herbicide tolerant crops: 10 years later. Maydica 52:245–250.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C. and Vanasse, A. (2011). Short communication: a corn test crop confirms beneficial effects of crop rotation in three tillage systems. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 91:943–946.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Application 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A. N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C. L., Schneider, S. H. and Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516.Google Scholar
Mazzoncini, M., Di Bene, C., Coli, A., Antichi, D., Petri, M. and Bonari, E. (2008). Rainfed wheat and soybean productivity in a long-term tillage experiment in Central Italy. Agronomy Journal 100:1418–1429.Google Scholar
Morell, F. J., Lampurlanés, J., Alvaro-Fuentes, J. and Cantero-Martìnez, C. (2011). Yield and water use efficiency of barley in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem: long-term effects of tillage and N fertilization. Soil and Tillage Research 117:76–84.Google Scholar
Morillo, E., Romero, A. S., Maqueda, C., Madrid, L., Ajmone-Marsan, F., Grcman, H., Davidson, C. M., Hursthouse, A. S. and Villaverde, J. (2007). Soil pollution by PAHs in urban soils: a comparison of three European cities. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 9:1001–1008.Google Scholar
Olesen, Jr. E. and Bindi, M. (2002). Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. European Journal of Agronomy 16:239–262.Google Scholar
Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A. (2008). The nature of urban soils and their role in ecological restoration in cities. Restoration Ecology 16:642–649.Google Scholar
Plaza, E. H., Kozak, M., Navarrete, L. and Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. (2011). Tillage system did not affect weed diversity in a 23-year experiment in Mediterranean dryland. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environ 140:102–105.Google Scholar
Rebele, F. and Lehmann, C. (2002). Restoration of a landfill site in Berlin, Germany by spontaneous and directed succession. Restoration Ecology 10:340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. (2005). Bioassay analysis using R. Journal of Statistical Software 12:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochette, P., Angers, D. A. and Flanagan, L. B. (1999). Maize residue decomposition measurement using soil surface carbon dioxide fluxes and natural abundance of carbon-13. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:1385–1396.Google Scholar
Rodionov, A., Nii-Annang, S., Bens, O., Trimborn, M., Schillem, S., Schneider, B., Raab, T. and Hüttl, R.F. (2012). Impacts of soil additives on crop yield and C-sequestration in post-mine substrates of Lusatia, Germany. Pedosphere 22:343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strzyszcz, Z. (1996). Recultivation and landscaping in areas after brown-coal mining in middle-east European countries. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 91:145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesio, F. and Follis, F. (2011). Adaptability of old Italian flint maize (Zea mays L.) varieties to different weed control systems. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 7:295–300.Google Scholar
Tesio, F., Tabacchi, M., Cerioli, S. and Follis, F. (2013). Sustainable hybrid rice cultivation in Italy. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. doi:10.1007/s13593-013-0157-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tintner, J., Meissl, K. and Klug, B. (2008). Possible succession on landfill top covers in the Pannonia area-an example from eastern Austria. In Proceedings of 1st WSEAS International Conference on Environmental and Geological Science and Engineering, Malta, September 11–13, pp 11–13.Google Scholar
Verhulst, N., Nelissen, V., Jespers, N., Haven, H., Sayre, K. D., Raes, D., Deckers, J. and Govaerts, B. (2011). Soil water content, maize yield and its stability as affected by tillage and crop residue management in rainfed semi-arid highlands. Plant and Soil 344 (1–2):73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidotto, F., Tesio, F. and Ferrero, A. (2013). Allelopathic effects of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. in the invasive process. Crop Protection 54:161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar