managing for increased crop production on sands (renmark mru) - therese mcbeath (csiro)

1. Low water holding capacity

2. Subsoil constraints / hard pans

3. Prone to water repellence

4. Poor establishment

5. Poor fertility/ low N supply / low organic matter

6. Low biological activity - root disease/herbicide

residues

7. Brome grass

Sandy soil constraints

Long-term performance of N strategies on sands (Karoonda est. 2009)

Long-term performance of N strategies on sands

Soil Nil 9 N 40 N Sowing 40 N split LSD

Heavy (2) 18.0 17.4 18.8 18.1 3.0

Mid (5) 12.9 14.6 19.6 18.9 2.3

Deep sand (8) 8.0 8.3 13.4 12.6 3.3

• 30% more grain using 40N Vs 9N on mid slope sands (5 t/ha) • 60% more grain using 40N instead of 9N on deep sands (5 t/ha) • 10N+30N split was not better than 40N at seeding on sand • No significant N response on heavy flat after 7 yrs

Karoonda cumulative wheat yields (t/ha) 2009-2015

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cu

mm

ula

tive

GM

(20

09

-15)

$/h

a

district practice

Nil Fert

High N Upfront

High N topdressed

Position 1= swale, 9 = Dune (6 = crest)

Long-term performance of N strategies on sands

Heavy -$200

Mid +$1400

Deep sand +$1100

What does on/near-row sowing offer on sands?

Photo: Margaret Roper WA

Water follows in-tact roots of prior

crop rows

On-row vs. inter-

row

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

On-row Inter-row On-row Inter-row

20

15

Est

ablis

hm

en

t (p

lan

ts/m

2)

a

b

b

a

Better crop establishment under marginal sowing

conditions

Karoonda

Non-Wetting

Loxton

Wetting

Knife points P=0.05

Up to 4 times more top soil moisture at seeding with on-row seeding

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

on-row inter-row on-row inter-row

Su

rfa

ce S

oil

Wa

ter

at

So

win

g (

mm

/to

p 1

0cm

)

a

b

cc

April Sowing May Sowing

Karoonda Sand 2015 (0-10 cm soil water)

P=0.05

Increased weed suppression by on-row crops

Brome plants/

m2

Brome seeds/m2

On-row 28 2022

Inter-row 105 7332

Inter-row vs on-row

≈70% less seed set in 2015

and 80% less in 2014

P=0.05

Pre-emergence herbicide options for brome on sand

Results 2013-14: Can achieve 75%+

brome plant control using pre-ems other

than trifluralin but variable

Pre-emergence herbicide options for brome on sand (Karoonda 2015)

1. Trifluralin (control) (1.5 L/ha); 2. Trifluralin + Metribuzin (1.5 L/ha + 150 g/ha); 3. Trifluralin + Metribuzin + post emergence Avadex Xtra (1.5 L/ha + 150 g/ha + 2.0 L/ha); 4. Trifluralin + Avadex Xtra (1.5 L/ha + 2.0 L/ha); 5. Sakura (118 g/ha); 6. Sakura + Avadex Xtra (118 g/ha + 3.2 L/ha); 7. Sakura + Metribuzin (118 g/ha + 150 g/ha). with Uni of Adelaide (Kleeman, Preston, Gill)

• Sakura alone resulted in 55% less brome panicles than

trifluralin alone

• Sakura + Avadex resulted in 72% less brome panicles

than trifluralin alone ($$)

Interrow sowing is used to decrease disease risk...

Crown rot (fusarium) and Take all infection weren’t found

But, there was less rhizoctonia infection with on-row seeding

DNA Test Rating

Karoonda Early Sow

Karoonda Late Sow

Loxton Early Sow

Loxton Late Sow

On -row Medium Medium Medium High

Inter-row Low Medium Medium Low

P=0.05

• Similar levels of N available at sowing at Karoonda on row Vs inter-row, but can be some early tie up (e.g. Loxton)

• Greater N availability later in season on row

Karoonda

Non-Wetting

Loxton

Wetting

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

On-row Early Inter-row Early On-row Late Inter-row LateA

nth

esi

s W

he

at N

up

take

(kg

/ha)

a

a

bb

Some early tie-up but on-row N uptake higher by anthesis.....

Increased yield for non-wetting sand but not other soils

• 0.3 t/ha more yield on-row at Karoonda on sand but not on the

swale or Loxton wetting sand

14 |

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

On-row Inter-row On-row Inter-row

Gra

in Y

ield

(t/

ha)

a

b

P=0.1

Nutrition: Right rate, place, time and form

N Zn S

Rate 0 vs 20 vs 40 0 vs 1 vs 4 0 vs 4 vs 20

Time Upfront vs. tillering vs. first node

Upfront vs. 3 leaf vs tillering

Upfront vs. tillering

Form Urea vs. SOA enriched granule, granule blend and foliar

Gypsum vs. SOA

Rate= 40 N Urea Time= upfront/early led to best yield Place= Zn enriched Urea below seed to be followed up Form= Urea, Zn enriched granule, S not significant

Treatment Grain Yield

(t/ha)

Protein

(%)

Control (P only) 0.96 9.5

20N Urea @sow 1.41 9.1

40N Urea at sow 1.66 10.2

20N Zn enriched Urea @sow 1.53 9.1

20N Urea @sow + 20N Urea@GS31 1.56 10.4

Nutrition: Right rate, place, time and form

P=0.05

Summary

• Early vigour critical to performance on sands – establishment, N supply, weed and disease competition

• Higher N early has led to gains over 7 years with need for sand-specific management

• Using last year’s crop row on non-wetting sand is showing promise

• Continue to explore the best nutrition package

• Pre-emergence herbicides (not trif) can greatly reduce brome seed set with crop competition

• New work focused on improving water use efficiency on sands to begin in 2016

|

Thank you Acknowledgments

Landholders- The Loller Family and

Bulla Burra

Advice- Agrilink and Dodgshun

Medlin

Technical- Anthony Whitbread,

Damian Mowat, Paul Adkins, Marcus

Hicks, Maxime Salot

Disclaimer

The information, advice and/or procedures contained in this

publication are provided for the sole purpose of disseminating

information relating to scientific and technical matters in

accordance with the functions of CSIRO under the Science and

Industry Act 1949. To the extent permitted by law CSIRO shall

not be held liable in relation to any loss or damage incurred by

the use/or reliance upon any information and/or procedure

contained in this publication.

Mention of any product in this publication is for information

purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of

any such product either express or implied by CSIRO.

This publication contains information that is unpublished and

can not be reproduced in any form without the written consent

from the authors.