Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 333–341 | Cite as

Impact of Rainfall, Liming, Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P2 O5), Potassium (K2 O), Calcium (CaO), Magnesium (MgO) Mineral Fertilization on Triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) Yield in a Monoculture in Hungary

  • L. MártonEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The natural climate variability may be masked by the anthropogenic made global warming, today. With a warmer climate, drought and excess rainfall conditions could become more frequent and longer lasting. The potential increase of the hazards result stresses and high costs in cereal production. For this reason a long-term study was conducted on a sandy acidic lessivated brown forest soil; WRB: Haplic Luvisol in the 44 year old Nyírlugos Field Trial (NYFT) in a Hungarian fragile agroecosystem in Nyírség region (N: 470 41’ 60, and E: 220 2’ 80,) on triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm.) yield between 1999 and 2006. In 1962, at the trial set up the soil had the following agrochemical properties: pH (H 2 O) 5.9, pH (KCl) 4.7, hydrolytic acidity 8.4, hyl 0.3, humus 0.7%, total N 34 mg kg −1, ammonlactate (AL) soluble-P 2 O 5 43 mg kg −1, AL-K 2 O 60 mg kg −1 in the plowed (0–25 cm) layer. The trial consisted of 32 × 4 = 128 plots in randomised block design. The gross plot size was 10 × 5 = 50 m 2. The average fertilizer rates in kg ha −1 year −1 were nitrogen 75, phosphorus 90 (P 2 O 5), potassium 90 (K 2 O), calcium 437.5 (CaCO 3) and magnesium 140 (MgCO 3). The groundwater table had at a depth of 2–3 m below the surface. During drought conditions the respective yield of the control areas was −25% less than for average years. The application N alone or NP and NK treatments led to yield reduction of −19.7%, while that of NPK, NPKCa, NPKMg and NPKCaMg caused an −28.3% yield drop. In the wet years the yield decreased by −22.2% on the unfertilized soils; in case of the N, NP and NK nutrition the yield dropped with an −14.1%; and the yield increased at 13.8% on NPK, NPKCa, NPKMg and NPKCaMg treated plots. Yield dropped in the very wettest year −43.1% on control soils; −39.3% of N, NP and NK loadings, and −35.8% on NPK, NPKCa, NPKMg and NPKCaMg treatments to those in the average year. The relationship between rainfall quantity during the vegetation period and N, P, K, Ca, Mg nutrition and yield was characterised by polynomial correlation (control: R = 0.7212***, N: R = 0.7410***, NP: R = 0.6452***, NK: R = 0.6998***, NPK: R = 0.5555***, NPKCa: R = 0.5578***, NPKMg: R = 0.4869**, NPK CaMg: R = 0.4341**). However, total regression coefficients ranged from 0.43 to 0.74 in depence on the different nutrient application. Maximum yields of 5.8–6.0 t ha −1 were achieve in the rainfall range of 580–620 mm. At values above and below this domain of the precipitation the grain yield reduced quadratically. So, it can be stated that both drought and excess rainfall conditions resulted dramatically significant negative effects between fertilization (N, P, K, Ca, Mg) and triticale yield.

Keywords

rainfall liming fertilization triticale yield 

References

  1. Adams, R.M., Fleming, R.A., Chang, C.C., McCarl, B.A., Rosenzweig, C. 1995. A reassessment of the economic effects of global climate change on U.S. agriculture. Climatic Change 30:147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alan, W. 1999. A deep antropocentric approach to environmental ethics. The Department of Environmental Science and Policy Journal 2:23–29.Google Scholar
  3. Asbjorn, T., Michelle, T., Bárd, R. 2004. Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Productivity in Norway. CICERO, Oslo, Norway, 34 pp.Google Scholar
  4. 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, 76 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Bullock, P., Le Houérou, E., Hoffman, M.T., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Sehgal, J., Várallyay, G. 1996. Land degradation and desertification. In: Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., Moss, R.H. (eds), Climate Change 1995: Impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: Scientific-technical analyses. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, Cambridge, 879 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Burman, R., Pochop, L.O. 1994. Evaporation, evapotranspiration and climatic data. University Wyoming, Laramie, USA, 181 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Easterling, D.R., Evans, J.L., Groisman, Ya.P., Karl, T.R., Kunkel, K.E., Ambenje, P. 1999. Observed variability and trends in extreme climate events. A brief review. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 81:417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EU (European Union). 2003. Drought costs EU farmers Euro of 11 billion. European Commission, Brussels, 2 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Fakhri, A.B. 1996. Global Climate Change and Agricultural Production. FAO, Rome, Italy, 338 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Fountaine, E.L. 2006. Adapting Crops for Climate Change. UBC Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Researches. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 15 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Harrison, P.A., Butterfield, R.E. 1996. Effects of climate change on Europe-wide winter wheat and sunflower productivity. Climate Research 7:225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harnos, Zs. 1993. Weather and weather-yield interaction analysis. (In Hungarian) In: Aszály 1983 (Szerk.: Baráth Cs-né., Győrffy B., Harnos Zs.). KÉE, Budapest, pp. 9–46.Google Scholar
  13. Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J., Ephraums, J.J. 1990. Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  14. IPCC, 2004. Climate Change 2001. Working Group I. IPCC-WMO., Genéva, Sweden, 32 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Jan, R., Mike, H., Thomas, E.D. 1994. Climate change implications for Europe. Global Environmental Change 4:97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnston, A.E. 2000. Some aspects of nitrogen use efficiency in arable agriculture. K. Scogs-o. Lantbr. Akad. Tidskr. 139:8.Google Scholar
  17. Jolánkai, M. 2005. Effect of climate change on plant cultivation. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 41:47–58.Google Scholar
  18. Kádár, I., Szemes, I. 1994. A nyírlugosi tartamkísérlet 30 éve (Lessons learned from a 30 years old field trial in Hungary). MTA TAKI, Budapest, 248 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Láng, I., 1973. Műtrágyázási tartamkísérletek homoktalajokon (Long-term fertilizer experiments on sandy soils). MTA Doktori Értekezés. MTA TMB. Budapest, 248 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Láng, I. 2005. Weather and climate change: change-effect-response. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 43:3–10.Google Scholar
  21. Láng, I., Harnos, Zs., Jolánkai, M. 2004. Strategies of adaptation to climatic changes: international experiences and possibilities in Hungary. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 35:70–77.Google Scholar
  22. Lásztity, B., Márton, L. 1990. The sulfur uptake in triticale grown on a Hungarian sandy soil. In: Augusto, C.B., José, R.S., Erlei, M.R., Sirio, W., Clóvis, L. de C. (eds), Second International Triticale Symposium. ITA, Passo Fundo, p. 31.Google Scholar
  23. Lobell, D.B., Asner, G.P. 2003. Response to comment on “Climate and Management Contributions to Recent Trends in U.S. Agricultural Yields”. Science 300 (5625):1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press INC, London, United Kingdom, 883 pp.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Márton, L. 2004. Rainfall and fertilization effects on crops yield in a global climate change. In: Proc. 4 th Agroenviron Symposium. Role of Multipurpose Agriculture in Sustaining Global Environment-AGROENVIRON 2004 (Udine, 20–24 Oct., 2004). DPVTA., Udine 3:451–456.Google Scholar
  27. Márton, L. 2005. Disasters as drought-, and rainfall excess and artificial fertilization effects on crop yield. In: Proc. Intern. Conf. on Energy, Environment and Disasters-INCEED2005 (Charlotte, 24–30 July, 2005). ISEG., Charlotte, USA, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  28. Márton, L. 2006. Ecological changes of rainfall and artificial fertilization on crop yield formation. ESA, Memphis, Tenesse, USA, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  29. McMaster, H.J. 1999. The potential impact of global warming on Hail Losses to winter crops in New South Wales. Climatic Change 43 (2):455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Németh, I. 2004. A klímaváltozás és a magyarországi mezőgazdaság (Climate change and the agriculture in Hungary). “AGRO-21” Füzetek. “AGRO-21” Kutatási Programiroda 33:65–69.Google Scholar
  31. Pilar, M., Arriaga, H., Salcedo, G., Márton, L., Pinto, M. 2006. Diet Influence on Ammonia Emission in Lactaing Dairy Cows. NEIKER, Bilbao, Spain, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Rajendra, K.P. 2004. Foreword. In: Proc. 22 nd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (New Delhi, 9–11 November, 2004). IPCC, New Delhi, India, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  33. Rácz, L. 1999. Climate History of Hungary since 16 th Century: Past, present and future. Research Fund of the Centre for Regional Studies. Pécs, 160 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A. 2003. Potential Impact of Climate Change on World Food Supply. Data sets from a major crop modeling study. Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center. Columbia University, New York, USA, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenzweig, C.P., Parry, M.L. 1994. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367:133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenzweig, C.P., Tubiello, F.N. 1997. Impacts of global climate change on Mediterranean agriculture: Current methodologies and future directions: An introductory essay. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1:219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Runge, E.C. 1968. Effect of rainfall and temperature interaction during the growing season on corn yield. Agron. J. 60:503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell, C.M., Jennifer, A.B. 1991. Climatic Risk in Crop Production: Models and Management for the Semiarid Tropics and Subtropics. C.A.B. International, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 548 p.Google Scholar
  39. Semenov, M.A., Porter, J.R. 1995. Climatic variability and modeling of crop yields. Agric. For Meteorol. 73:265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seth, G.P., Yeffrey, S.A. 2005. Crops and Environmental Change. Food Product Press, New York-London-Oxford, 421 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Szász, G. 2005. Climatic instability causing variability in crop output in the Carpathian Basin. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 40:33–69.Google Scholar
  42. Várallyay, Gy. 1992. Globális klímaváltozások hatása a talajra (Effect of Global Climate Change to soil). Magyar Tudomány 9:1071–1076.Google Scholar
  43. Várallyay, Gy. 1994. A nyírlugosi tartamkísérlet talajszelvényeinek leírása és laborvizsgálati eredményei (Soil profile description, and soil analysis results in the Nyírlugos Long-Term Field Trial). In.: Kádár, I., Szemes, I. (eds), A nyírlugosi tartamkísérlet 30 éve. MTA TAKI, Budapest, pp. 20–23.Google Scholar
  44. Várallyay, Gy. 2005. Possible pedological effects of climate changes in the Kisalföld. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 43:11–23.Google Scholar
  45. Voss, R.E., Hanway, J.J., Fuller, W.A. 1970. Influence of soil management and climatic factors on the yield response by corn to N, P and K fertilizer. Agron. J. 62:736–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watts, L. 2005. Impact of Climate Change on Crops Worse than Previously Thought. Royal Society, London, United Kingdom 5 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Wigley, T.M.L. 1999. The Science of Climate Change: Global and U.S. Perspectives. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USA, 48 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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