Advertisement

Peanut residue distribution gradients and tillage practices determine patterns of nitrogen mineralization

  • Arun D. Jani
  • Michael J. Mulvaney
  • Heather A. Enloe
  • John E. Erickson
  • Ramon G. Leon
  • Diane L. Rowland
  • C. Wesley Wood
Original Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) harvest practices create residue distribution gradients in the field that lead to spatial and temporal variability in available nitrogen (N) during subsequent crop growth. The objective of this study was to quantify N mineralization from peanut residue loading rates that are reflective of postharvest residue distribution gradients under simulated conventional and conservation tillage. A field study was conducted in Florida, USA beginning in September 2015. Fresh shoot residues were placed in litterbags at loading rates (1.1, 2.2, 4.5, and 6.7 Mg ha−1 on an air-dry weight basis) that were based on the residue distribution gradient measured in the field following harvest. Three tillage scenarios were simulated by placing litterbags on the soil surface (no-till) or burying them at 0.10 m depth in fall or spring (fall and spring tillage, respectively). Litterbags were retrieved periodically over 365 days. Buried residues mineralized N faster than surface residues, even when buried residues had high levels of recalcitrant fractions, as was the case with spring-incorporated residues. Exponential models predicted that during a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop, residue loading rates of 1.1, 2.2, 4.5, and 6.7 Mg ha−1 would mineralize 3–6, 5–12, 24–34, and 35–41 kg N ha−1, respectively, depending on tillage practice. At the same loading rates, N mineralization estimates dropped to 2–4, 3–6, 9–11, and 5–18 kg N ha−1 during a hypothetical cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) crop planted the following spring. These results suggest that peanut harvest and tillage practices cause large spatial and temporal variability in available N following harvest and may partially explain inconsistencies and spatial variability in subsequent crop performance when peanut residues are relied upon as a N source and mineral N fertilization is reduced.

Keywords

Peanut Carbon Nitrogen Residues Mineralization Tillage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Florida Peanut Producers Association, administered through the Florida Deptartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project FLA-JAY-005475. The authors would particularly like to thank Dawn Lucas and James Boyer for assistance with this work.

Supplementary material

10705_2018_9962_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (3.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPG 3395 kb)

References

  1. Balkcom KS, Wood CW, Adams JF, Wood BH (2004) Composition and decomposition of peanut residues in Georgia. Peanut Sci 31(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balkcom KS, Wood CW, Adams JF, Meso B (2007) Suitability of peanut residue as a nitrogen source for a rye cover crop. Sci Agric 64(2):181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan M, King LD (1993) Carbon and phosphorus losses from decomposing crop residues in no-till and conventional till agroecosystems. Agron J 85(3):631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buntin GD, Grey TL, Harris GH, Phillips D, Prostko EP, Raymer P, Smith NB, Sumner PE, Woodruff J (2007) Canola production in Georgia. UGA Ext. B 1331. Univ. of Georgia Coop. Ext., AthensGoogle Scholar
  5. Caddel J, Redfearn D, Zhang H, Edwards J, Deng S (2006) Forage legumes and nitrogen production. Ext. Facts, No. 2590. Oklahoma Coop. Ext. Serv., Oklahoma State Univ., StillwaterGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciriaco FM, Henry DD, Mercadante VR, Schulmeister T, Ruiz-Moreno M, Lamb GC, DiLorenzo N (2015) Effects of different levels of supplementation of a 50:50 mixture of molasses: crude glycerol on performance, Bermuda grass hay intake, and nutrient digestibility of beef cattle. J Anim Sci 93(5):2428–2438.  https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2015-8888 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Coppens F, Garnier P, Findeling A, Merckx R, Recous S (2007) Decomposition of mulched versus incorporated crop residues: modelling with PASTIS clarifies interactions between residue quality and location. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2339–2350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dabney SM, Delgado JA, Reeves DW (2001) Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 32(7–8):1221–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gijsman AJ, Alarcón HF, Thomas RJ (1997) Root decomposition in tropical grasses and legumes, as affected by soil texture and season. Soil Biol Biochem 29(9–10):1443–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guenet B, Neill C, Bardoux G, Abbadie L (2010) Is there a linear relationship between priming effect intensity and the amount of organic matter input? Appl Soil Ecol 46:436–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunnarsson S, Marstorp H (2002) Carbohydrate composition of plant materials determines N mineralisation. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 62(2):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henriksen TM, Breland TA (2002) Carbon mineralization, fungal and bacterial growth, and enzyme activities as affected by contact between crop residues and soil. Biol Fert Soils 35(1):41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honeycutt CW, Potaro LJ, Avila KL, Halteman WA (1993) Residue quality, loading rate and soil temperature relations with hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) residue carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization. Biol Agric Hortic 9(3):181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jani AD, Grossman J, Smyth TJ, Hu S (2016) Winter legume cover-crop root decomposition and N release dynamics under disking and roller-crimping termination approaches. Renew Agric Food Syst 31(3):214–229.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li Q, Liao N, Zhang N, Zhou G, Zhang W, Wei X, Ye J, Hou Z (2016) Effects of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) straw and its biochar application on NH3 volatilization and N use efficiency in a drip-irrigated cotton field. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 62(5–6):534–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lu Y, Watanabe A, Kimura M (2003) Carbon dynamics of rhizodeposits, root-and shoot-residues in a rice soil. Soil Biol Biochem 35(9):1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynch MJ, Mulvaney MJ, Hodges SC, Thompson TL, Thomason WE (2016) Decomposition, nitrogen and carbon mineralization from food and cover crop residues in the central plateau of Haiti. Springerplus 5(1):973–981.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2651-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Maguire RO, Heckendorn SE (2011) Soil test recommendation for Virginia. Virginia Tech., BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
  19. Malkomes HP (1980) Strohrotteversuche zur Erfassung von Herbizid-Nebenvirkungen auf den Strohumsatz im Boden. Pedobiologia 20:417–427Google Scholar
  20. Mansoer Z, Reeves DW, Wood C (1997) Suitability of sunn hemp as an alternative late-summer legume cover crop. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61(1):246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meso B, Balkcom KS, Wood CW, Adams JF (2007) Nitrogen contribution of peanut residue to cotton in a conservation tillage system. J Plant Nutr 30:1153–1165.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160701394618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell CC, Phillips S (2010) Nitrogen recommendations. In: Mitchell CC (ed) Research-based soil testing and recommendations for cotton on Coastal Plain soils. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., AuburnGoogle Scholar
  23. Mubarak AR, Rosenani AB, Anuar AR, Zauyah S (2002) Decomposition and nutrient release of maize stover and groundnut haulm under tropical field conditions of Malaysia. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 33(3–4):609–622.  https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120002767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mulvaney MJ, Wood CW, Balkcom KS, Shannon DA, Kemble JM (2010) Carbon and nitrogen mineralization and persistence of organic residues under conservation and conventional tillage. Agron J 102(5):1425–1433.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2010.0129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulvaney MJ, Balkcom KS, Wood CW, Jordan D (2017) Peanut residue carbon and nitrogen mineralization under simulated conventional and conservation tillage. Agron J 109:696–705.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.04.0190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paul EA, Clark FE (2007) Soil microbiology and biochemistry, 3rd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Quemada M (2004) Predicting crop residue decomposition using moisture adjusted time scales. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 70:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Stat. Comput., ViennaGoogle Scholar
  29. Raun WR, Johnson GV (1999) Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agron J 91(3):357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruffo ML, Bollero GA (2003) Residue decomposition and prediction of carbon and nitrogen release rates based on biochemical fractions using principal-component regression. Agron J 95(4):1034–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt MW, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G, Janssens IA, Kleber M, Kögel-Knabner I, Lehmann J, Manning DA, Nannipieri P (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478(7367):49–56.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shahbaz M, Kuzyakov Y, Sanaullah M, Heitkamp F, Zelenev V, Kumar A, Blagodatskaya E (2017) Microbial decomposition of soil organic matter is mediated by quality and quantity of crop residues: mechanisms and thresholds. Biol Fert Soils 53(3):287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharma AR, Behera UK (2009) Recycling of legume residues for nitrogen economy and higher productivity in maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 83(3):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sievers T, Cook RL (2018) Aboveground and root decomposition of cereal rye and hairy vetch cover crops. Soil Sci Soc Am J 82(1):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soto G, Luna-Orea P, Wagger MG, Smyth TJ, Alvarado A (2005) Foliage residue decomposition and nutrient release in peach palm (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) plantations for heart-of-palm production in Costa Rica. Agron J 97(5):1396–1402.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steiner JL, Schomberg HH, Unger PW, Cresap J (1999) Crop residue decomposition in no-tillage small-grain fields. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63(6):1817–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stott DE, Stroo HF, Elliott LF, Papendick RI, Unger PW (1990) Wheat residue loss from fields under no-till management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 54(1):92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1;74(10):3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. VDCR (2014) Virginia nutrient management standards and criteria. Dep. of Conservation and Recreation, Div. of Soil and Water Conserv., RichmondGoogle Scholar
  40. Wider RK, Lang GE (1982) A critique of the analytical methods used in examining decomposition data obtained from litter bags. Ecology 63(6):1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright D, Marois J, Sprenkel R (2011) Production of ultra narrow row cotton. UF IFAS. Univ. of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  42. Wright D, Tillman B, Small IM, Ferrell JA, DuFault N (2016) Management and cultural practices for peanuts. UF IFAS. Univ. of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao D, Wright DL, Marois JJ, Mackowiak CL, Brennan M (2010) Improved growth and nutrient status of an oat cover crop in sod-based versus conventional peanut-cotton rotations. Agron Sustain Dev 30:497–504.  https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun D. Jani
    • 1
  • Michael J. Mulvaney
    • 1
  • Heather A. Enloe
    • 1
  • John E. Erickson
    • 1
  • Ramon G. Leon
    • 2
  • Diane L. Rowland
    • 1
  • C. Wesley Wood
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations