Preceding crops influence agronomic efficiency in sugar beet cultivation
The choice of the crop succession influences the agronomic efficiency (yield per unit agronomic input) and is relevant for the sustainable intensification of crop cultivation. However, such effects are often ignored in assessments of agronomic efficiency. The aim of the study was to propose a concept for the assessment of and to publish data on (i) the effect of the preceding crop on the amount of agronomic inputs used and the yield in sugar beet cultivation and (ii) the agronomic efficiency of the 2-year sum of preceding crop – sugar beet successions. As preceding crop (including catch crop) – sugar beet successions, we investigated (i) mustard – silage maize – sugar beet, (ii) phacelia – grain pea – mustard – sugar beet, and (iii) winter wheat – mustard – sugar beet in a field trial (Harste, Germany; 2011–2014). We found that fertilizer requirement of sugar beet was highest (108 kg nitrogen ha−1; 125 kg phosphate ha−1) when mustard – silage maize was the preceding crop and lowest (30 kg nitrogen ha−1; 96 kg phosphate ha−1) when phacelia – grain pea – mustard was the preceding crop. The efficiency of the agronomic inputs used for the cultivation of the 2-year sum of preceding crop – sugar beet successions was generally highest for the succession with silage maize with the exception of nitrogen-efficiency which was highest for the succession with grain pea. The main effect of the preceding crop on fertilizer requirement was driven by the amount of harvest residues. Results of 2-year agronomic efficiency were affected by the high energy yield of the succession with silage maize (670 GJ ha−1) and the low N-fertilization in the succession with grain pea (130 kg N ha−1). We show for the first time a methodological approach to assess preceding crop’s effects on agronomic efficiency and to illustrate results for decision making towards a sustainable intensification of crop cultivation.
KeywordsSustainable intensification Energy Management Crop rotation Field experiment Yield
Parts of this study were done with support from Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture by decision of the German Bundestag and via the Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. within the joint project “The sugar beet as an energy crop in crop rotations on highly productive sites – an agronomic/economic system analysis”. We are grateful for technical help especially for the conduction of the field trials and to further support in data assessing. Thus, “Thank you!” to Jens Günther, Marten Steinke and their team, Wiebke Brauer-Siebrecht, Friederike Hoberg, and Ronja Ruppelt. We further thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to our manuscript.
- Baumgärtel G (2013) Düngung. In: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen (ed) Empfehlungen 2013 – Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenschutz. Albrecht Druck, Hannover, pp 6–21Google Scholar
- BioGrace (2013) List of Standard Values – Version 4 – Public. http://www.biograce.net/content/ghgcalculationtools/recognisedtool/. Accessed 15 Janurary 2013
- Brentrup F, Pallière C (2008) GHG Emissions and Energy Efficiency in European Nitrogen Fertiliser Production and Use. In: The International Fertiliser Society (ed) Proceedings 639 – Conference in Cambridge on 11th December 2008, pp 1–26Google Scholar
- de Klein C, Novoa RSA, Ogle S, Smith KA, Rochette P, Wirth TC, McConkey BG, Mosier A, Rypdal K, Walsh M, Williams SA (2006) N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (ed) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IGES Hayama, Kanagawa, pp 11.1–11.54Google Scholar
- Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (1991) DLG-Futterwerttabellen für Wiederkäuer. DLG-Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
- European Union (2013) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 december 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1307&from=en. Accessed 09 June 2016
- IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri PK, Meyer LA (ed). Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Jacobs A, Brauer-Siebrecht W, Rücknagel J, Götze P, Christen O, Koch H-J, Märländer B (2016) Silage maize and sugar beet for biogas production in crop rotations and continuous cultivation—energy efficiency and land demand. Field Crops Res 196:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen – Geschäftsbereich Landwirtschaft (2010) Empfehlungen zur Stickstoffdüngung nach der Nmin-Methode. http://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/index.cfm/portal/pflanze/nav/341/article/14022.html. Accessed 13 May 2016
- Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffmann A, Giovannini E (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators – Methodology and User Guide. http://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.pdf. Accessed 09 May 2016
- Sneh B, Jabaji-Hare S, Neate S, Dijst G (eds) (1996) Rhizoctonia species: taxonomy, molecular biology, ecology, pathology and disease control. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar