Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 1509–1517 | Cite as

Precipitation and Fertilization Level Impacts on Winter Rye (Secale cereale L.) Yield

  • L. MártonEmail author
Open Access


The effect of rainfall on crop fertilization factors, such as macronutrients and yield, were studied during a long-term field experiment on a calcareous sandy soil with low humus content in North Hungary at the Örbottyán Experimental Station of Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences from 1961 to 2004. At the time of the set-up of the experiment, in 1959, the soil’s ploughed layer had the following characteristics: pH(H2O): 7.5–7.8, pH(KCl): 6.9–7.1, humus content: 0.6–1.0%, clay content: 5%, CaCO3 content: 3–7%, AL soluble P2O5 and K2O content: 40–60 and 50–100 mg·kg−1. The experiment included ten treatments in five replications, giving a total of 50 plots (35 m2 each) arranged in a Latin square design. From the 1st to the 25th year the fertilization rates were 0, 50 and 100 N kg · ha−1 · year−1; 0 and 54 kg P2O5 ha−1 · year−1; 0 and 80 kg K2O ha−1 · year−1 and their combinations. From the 26th year on these rates were 0 and 120 kg N ha−1 · year−1; 0, 60 and 120 kg P2O5 ha−1 · year−1 and 0, 60 and 120 kg K2O ha−1 · year−1 and their combinations. The major findings can be summarised as follows. At average rainfall years on the control plots without any mineral fertilization the rye yield in monoculture stabilised at a level of around 0.8 t · ha−1 (Table 3). The yield doubled (1.8–1.9 t · ha−1) in the N, NP and NK treatments while the full NPK doses gave the maximum yield of 2.1 t · ha−1 significantly (mean: 1.7 t · ha−1). Without mineral fertilization on the control plots in droughty and dry years yields of 0.7 t · ha−1 and 0.8 t · ha−1 were harvested. This was a 13% yield reduction in droughty years as compared with an average year. Yield depressions of 33, 16, 21 and 20% were caused by drought (dry and droughty years) in the N, NP, NK and NPK treatments. In wet year the yield was 0.9 t · ha−1 in the control plots, representing a yield grown of 12.5% compared with average years (0.8 t · ha−1). In the case of N, NP, NK nutrition the increase in the harvested main yield was 43.1% while NPK treatments led to yield increment of 36.9% only. In the very wet years the rye yield declined even more than in case of drought. The unfertilised plots yielded 25% less than in the average years. In the case of unfavourable nutrition (N, NP, NK) the decrease in the main grain yield was 32.8% and in the case of NKP plots the negative effects was 26.2%. Rye in monoculture has approx. 29.4% less tolerance of very wet years than to dry. This yield depression is in line of Márton et al. (2007) statement whereas the over-wet conditions could be resulted oxygen deficiency in the crop’s root zone. Depending on the nutrient supplies, significant quadratic correlations were observed between the rainfall quantity and the yield (Control: R=0.7489***, N: R=0.8974***, NP: R=0.8020***, NK: R=0.7370***, NPK: R=0.9047***, mean R2=0.8180; 66.9%) during the vegetation period. The increase in grain yield per mm rainfall ranged from 3.0 to 6.4 kg·ha−1 in the case of optimum rainfall supplies, while the quantity of rainfall during the vegetation period required for the production of 1 kg air-dry yield ranged from 1529 to 3360 litres in the case of maximum yield. Based on the meteorological database for the 44 years of the long-term experiment (1961–2004) the frequency of years in which the rainfall was optimum for various levels of nutrient supply was as follows: control: 2%, N: 7%, NP: 7%, NK: 9%, NPK: 7%, giving an average of 6% over the treatments. This suggests that the occurrence of optimum rainfall supplies and the possibility of achieving optimum yields in the rye production will decline in the future. Under two different arable site plant ecological conditions (rainfall quantity, NPK fertilization) the yield average of rye in monoculture on calcareous sandy soil (Őrbottyán) was 86% less than that achieved in a biculture (rye and potato) on acidic sandy soil (Nyírlugos).


plant ecological indicator rain water mineral fertilization winter rye yield 


  1. Barrow, E.M., Hulme, M., Semenov, M.A., Brooks, R.J. 2000. Climate change scenarios. In: Downing, T.E., Harrison, P.A., Butterfield, R.E., Londsdale, K.G. (eds), Climate Change, Climatic Variability and Agriculture in Europe. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  2. EM. 2004. International Disaster Database. Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  3. EU. 2003. Drought costs EU farmers euro of 11 billion. European Report, Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. Harnos, Zs. 1993. Weather and weather-yield interaction analysis. (In Hungarian.) In: Baráth, Cs-né, Győrffy, B., Harnos, Zs. (eds), Aszály 1983. HFU, Akaprint, Budapest, 174 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Johnston, A.E. 2000. Some aspects of nitrogen use efficiency in arable agriculture. K. Scogs-o. Lantbr. Akad. Tidskr. 139:8.Google Scholar
  6. Jolánkai, M. 2005. Effect of climate change on plant cultivation. (In Hungarian.) “AGRO-21” Füzetek 41:47–58.Google Scholar
  7. Kádár, I. 1992. Principles and methods in plant nutrition. (In Hungarian.) MTA TAKI. Budapest, 398 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Kádár, I., Szemes, I., Lásztity, B. 1984. Relationship between “year effect” and state of nutrition in a long-term winter rye experiment. (In Hungarian.) Növénytermelés 33:235–241.Google Scholar
  9. Láng, I. 1973. Műtrágyázási tartamkísérletek homoktalajokon. MTA Doktori Értekezés. MTA TMB. Budapest.Google Scholar
  10. Láng, I. 2005. Weather and climate change: change-effect-response. (In Hungarian.) “AGRO-21” Füzetek 43:3–10.Google Scholar
  11. Láng, I., Harnos, Zs., Jolánkai, M. 2004. Strategies of adaptation to climatic changes: international experiences and possibilities in Hungary. (In Hungarian.) “AGRO-21” Füzetek 35:70–77.Google Scholar
  12. Márton, L. 2002. Climate fluctuations and the effects of N fertilizer on the yield of rye (Secale cereale L.). (In Hungarian.) Növénytermelés 51:199–210.Google Scholar
  13. Márton, L. 2004a. Rainfall and fertilization effects on crops yield in a global climate change. In: Proc. Role of Multipurpose Agriculture in Sustaining Global Environment-AGROENVIRON 2004 (Udine, 20–24. October 2004). Part 3. DPVTA. Udine, pp. 451–456.Google Scholar
  14. Márton L. 2004b. Scientific Report of 2004. RISSAC-HAS. Budapest.Google Scholar
  15. Márton L. 2004c. Effect of rainfall and nutrient supplies on the yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.). (In Hungarian.) Növénytermelés 53:583–598.Google Scholar
  16. Márton, L. 2005. Disasters as drought-, and rainfall excess and artificial fertilization effects on crop yield. In: Proc. International Conference on Energy, Environment and Disasters-INCEED2005 (Charlotte, 24–30. July 2005). ISEG. Charlotte, NC, USA, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  17. Márton, L. 2006. Natural water supply and fertilization interactions on crops yield in fragile agroecosystems. In: Alper, B., Ken, W. F. H., Orhan, G. Groundwater and Ecosystems. Springer Netherlands,  10.1007/1-4020-4738-X, 2006; pp. 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Márton, L., Pereda, M.P., Mohinder, S.G. 2007. Long-term studies of crop yields with changing rainfall and fertilization. Agricultural Engineering Research 13:37–47.Google Scholar
  19. Németh, T. 2004. Scientific Programme Conception of RISSAC-HAS from 2005 to 2010. (In Hungarian.) MTA TAKI, Budapest.Google Scholar
  20. NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Abrupt climate change. Inevitable surprises. Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, Ocean Studies Board, Polar Research Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 230 pp. ISBN 0-309-07434-7. Hardcover.Google Scholar
  21. Rajendra, K.P. 2004. Foreword. IPCC, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M.L. 1994. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367:133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seth, G.P., Yeffre, S.A. 2005. Crops and Environmental Change. Food Product Press, New York-London-Oxford, 632 pp.Google Scholar
  24. SPSS, 2000. SigmaPlot for Windows. Ver. 3.2. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  25. Szász, G. 2005. Climatic instability causing variability in crop output in the Carpathian Basin. (In Hungarian.) “AGRO-21” Füzetek 40:33–69.Google Scholar
  26. Várallyay, Gy. 1992. Effect of global climate change to soil. (In Hungarian.) Magyar Tudomány 9:1071–1076.Google Scholar
  27. Várallyay, Gy. 2005. Possible pedological effects of climate changes in Kisalföld. (In Hungarian.) “AGRO-21” Füzetek 43:11–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2007

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations