Rotational Diversity Effects in a Triticale-based Cropping System
Research indicates that not all crops respond similarly to cropping diversity and the response of triticale (× Triticosecale ssp.) has not been documented. We investigated the effects of rotational diversity on cereals in cropping sequences with canola (Brassica napus L.), field pea (Pisum sativum L.), or an intercrop (triticale:field pea). Six crop rotations were established consisting of two, 2-yr low diversity rotations (LDR) (continuous triticale (T-T_LDR) and triticale-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (T-W_LDR)); three, 2-yr moderate diversity rotations (MDR) (triticale-field pea (T-P_MDR), triticale-canola (T-C_MDR), and a triticale: field pea intercrop (T- in P_MDR)); and one, 3-yr high diversity rotation (HDR) (canola-triticale-field pea (C-T-P_HDR)). The study was established in Lethbridge, Alberta (irrigated and rainfed); Swift Current (rainfed) and Canora (rainfed), Saskatchewan, Canada; and carried out from 2008 to 2014. Triticale grain yield for the 3-yr HDR was superior over the LDR rotations and the MDR triticale-field pea system; however, results were similar for triticale-canola, and removal of canola from the system caused a yield drag in triticale. Triticale biomass was superior for the 3-yr HDR. Moreover, along with improved triticale grain yield, the 3-yr HDR provided greater yield stability across environments. High rotational diversity (C-T-P_HDR) resulted in the highest soil microbial community and soil carbon concentration, whereas continuous triticale provided the lowest. Net economic returns were also superior for C-T-P_HDR ($670 ha–1) and the lowest for T-W_LDR ($458 ha–1). Overall, triticale responded positively to increased rotational diversity and displayed greater stability with the inclusion of field pea, leading to improved profitability and sustainability of the system.
Keywordsrotational diversity triticale pulses canola bioethanol production grain yield net economic returns
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anonymous. 2015. Crop planning guide 2015 Government of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, p. 16.Google Scholar
- Beres, B., Pozniak, C., Bressler, D., Gibreel, A., Eudes, F., Graf, R., Randhawa, H., Salmon, D., McLeod, G., Dion, Y., Irvine, B., Voldeng, H., Martin, R., Pageau, D., Comeau, A., DePauw, R., Phelps, S., Spaner, D., 2013a. A Canadian ethanol feedstock study to benchmark the relative performance of triticale: II. Grain quality and ethanol production. Agron. J. 105:1707–1720.Google Scholar
- Beres, B., Pozniak, C., Eudes, F., Graf, R., Randhawa, H., Salmon, D., McLeod, G., Dion, Y., Irvine, B., Voldeng, H., Martin, R., Pageau, D., Comeau, A., DePauw, R., Phelps, S., Spaner, D. 2013b. A Canadian ethanol feedstock study to benchmark the relative performance of triticale: I. Agronomics. Agron. J. 105:1695–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cook, A., Wilhelm, N. Vvsr, G. Frischke, A. 2012. The impact of crop rotation and nutrition on Rhizoctonia disease incidence in cereals on grey calcareous soils of upper Eyre Peninsula, in: Yunusa., I. (ed.), Capturing Opportunities and Overcoming Obstacles in Australian Agronomy. Proceedings of 16th Australian Agronomy Conference. Armidale, NSW, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
- Cutforth, H.W., Angadi, S.V., McConkey, B.G., Miller, P.R., Ulrich, D., Gulden, R., Volkmar, K.M., Entz, M.H., Brandt, S.A. 2013. Comparing rooting characteristics and soil water withdrawal patterns of wheat with alternative oilseed and pulse crops grown in the semiarid Canadian prairie. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93:147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kirschenmann, F. 2002. Why American agriculture is not sustainable. Renewable Resour. J. 20:7–11.Google Scholar
- Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., Wolfinger, R.D. 2006. SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., New York.Google Scholar
- Smith, C., Bond, W., Verburg, K., Dunin, F. 2000. Water use of cereal-canola-lucerne rotations in southeastern Australia, nuclear techniques in integrated plant nutrient, water and soil management. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, pp. 178–184.Google Scholar