Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:23:04.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of green manure use on sweet corn root length density under reduced tillage conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

C.M. Cherr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA,.
L. Avila
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA,.
J.M.S. Scholberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA,.
R. McSorley
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Nematology, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA,.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: jmscholberg@ifas.ufl.edu

Abstract

A green manure (GM) is a crop grown primarily as a nutrient source and soil amendment for subsequent crops. In environments such as Florida, combined use of GM and reduced tillage may improve soil water and nutrient retention and reduce potential groundwater pollution. In the first 3 years of a long-term experiment, use of GM in a reduced-tillage system on a sandy Florida soil benefited the season-long growth of sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. Rugosa) much more than final ear yields. To help understand these patterns, we evaluated response of sweet corn roots when in rotation with GM of sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.; summer) and cahaba white vetch (Vicia sativa L.; winter 2002–2003) and a multi-species mixture of hairy vetch (V. villosa Roth.) and cereal rye (Secale cereale L.; winter 2003–2004). Treatments included sweet corn with combinations of 0 or 133 kg chemical N ha−1 (as NH4NO3) and with or without GM. A highly fertilized treatment (267 kg chemical N ha−1) without GM was also included. Soil cores were sampled from three depths (0–15, 15–30 and 30–60 cm) both between and within corn rows. Data from two experiments showed that use of GM increased sampled corn root length density (RLD) by 44–54%, although only within the upper 15 cm of soil in one of the two experiments. Corn following GM plus 133 kg chemical N ha−1 produced up to 44% greater RLD than corn with 267 kg chemical N ha−1. Sampled RLD decreased with distance away from corn plants (from in-row to between-row positions, and from shallow to deeper depth), with roughly 85–95% of sampled RLD existing in the top 30 cm of soil across all treatments. During the 2004 experiment, we found that broadcast, as opposed to banded (placed along corn row only), chemical N application resulted in more even distribution of corn RLD between in-row and between-row positions during late-season without regard to GM crop. Although GM permitted optimal sweet corn growth with a 50% reduction in chemical N application, ear fill during the final 1–2 weeks before harvest may have been reduced in GM treatments. GM effects on the amount and spatial distribution of sweet corn RLD may help explain these trends. Provision of greater N from GM residues and/or altered distribution of supplementary chemical N and irrigation may be required to achieve greater ear yield benefit from GM.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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.

01Carlisle,, V.W., Sodek,, F.III, Collins,, M.E., Hammond,, L.C., and Harris,, W.G. (1988). Characterization data for selected Florida soils. University of Florida—Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Soil Science Research Report 88–1.Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
02Hochmuth, G.J. (1992) Concepts and practices for improving nitrogen management for vegetables. HortTechnology 2: 121124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
03Hochmuth,, G. and Cordasco,, K. (2000). A summary of N, P, and K research with sweet corn in Florida. Vegetable nutrition management series. Document HS-758. Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Available at web site http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CV235 (last accessed 24 June 2004).Google Scholar
04Schomberg, H.H., Steiner, J.L. and Unger, P.W. (1994) Decomposition and nitrogen dynamics of crop residues: residue quality and water effects. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58: 372381.Google Scholar
05Cherr,, C.M. (2004). Improved use of green manure as a nitrogen source for sweet corn. M.S. thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
06Hutchings, M.J. and John, E.A. (2003) Distribution of roots in soil, and root foraging activity. In de Kroon, H. and Visser, E.J.W. (eds). Root Ecology. Springer Verlag, New York, NY. p 3360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
07Paolillo, A.M., Scholberg, J.M.S., Parsons, L.R., Wheaton, T.A. and Morgan, K.T. (1999) Water and nitrogen status modify root growth of two citrus rootstock seedlings. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 112: 1822.Google Scholar
08Tinker, P.B. and Nye, P.H. (2000) Solute Movement in the Rhizosphere. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
09Eghball, B. and Maranville, J.W. (1993) Root development and nitrogen influx of corn genotype grown under combined drought and nitrogen stress. Agronomy Journal 85: 147152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Eghball, B., Settimi, J.R., Maranville, J.W. and Parkhurst, A.M. (1993) Fractal analysis for corn roots under nitrogen stress. Agronomy Journal 85: 287289.Google Scholar
11Mahmoudjafari, M., Kluitenberg, G.J., Havlin, J.L., Sisson, J.B. and Schwab, A.P. (1997) Spatial variability of nitrogen mineralization at the field scale. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61: 12141221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Hartwig, N.L. and Ammon, H.U. (2002) Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Science 50: 688699.Google Scholar
13McSorley, R. (1998) Alternative practices for managing plant-parasitic nematodes. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 13: 98104.Google Scholar
14Goldstein, W.A. (2000) The effect of farming systems on the relationship of corn root growth to grain yields. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15: 101109.Google Scholar
15Pallant, E., Lansky, D.M., Rio, J.E., Jacobs, L.D., Schuler, G.E. and Whimpenny, W.G. (1997) Growth of corn roots under low-input and conventional farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12: 173177.Google Scholar
16Nickel, S.E., Crookston, R.K. and Russelle, M.P. (1995) Root growth and distribution are affected by corn–soybean cropping sequence. Agronomy Journal 87: 895902.Google Scholar
17Opena, G.B. and Porter, G.A. (1999) Soil management and supplemental irrigation effects on potato II: root growth. Agronomy Journal 91: 426431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Thorup-Kristensen, K. and van der Boogaard, R. (1999) Vertical and horizontal development of the root system of carrots following green manure. Plant and Soil 212: 145153.Google Scholar
19Gallaher, R.N. and Ferrer, M.B. (1987) Effect of no-tillage vs. conventional tillage on soil organic matter and nitrogen contents. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 18: 10611076.Google Scholar
20Salinas-Garcia, J.R., Hons, F.M. and Matocha, J.E. (1997) Long-term effects of tillage and fertilization on soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61: 152159.Google Scholar
21Torbert, H.A., Potter, K.N., Morrison, J.E. Jr (1997) Tillage intensity and fertility level effects on nitrogen and carbon cycling in a vertisol. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 28: 699710.Google Scholar
22Pankhurst, C.E., Kirkby, C.A., Hawke, B.G. and Harch, B.D. (2002) Impact of a change in tillage and crop residue management practice on soil chemical and microbiological properties in a cereal-producing red duplex soil in New South Wales, Australia. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35: 189196.Google Scholar
23Coelho, E.F. and Or, D. (1999) Root distribution and water uptake patterns of corn under surface and subsurface drip irrigation. Plant and Soil 206: 123136Google Scholar