Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 511–522 | Cite as

Long-Term Study of Precipitation and Fertilization Interactions on Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Yield in the Nyírlugos Field Trial in Hungary between 1973 and 1990

  • L. MártonEmail author
Open Access


With a warmer climate, dry and excess rainfall conditions could become more frequent, severe, and longer-lasting. For these reasons, long-term study had been conducting in Eastern Hungary in the Nyírlugos Field Trial between 1973 and 1990 for obtain relationships between precipitation quantities-, soil agrochemical properties and mineral fertilization on winter wheat yield. The experimental precipitation character was formed by winter half-years (Oct.–Mar.), months (Oct.–Sep.), pre-months of sowing (Aug.), critical sequential month number in vegetation seasons (Sep.–Jul.) and critical sequential month number in experimental years (Sep.–Aug). In average rainfall years (equivalent to the 50 year rainfall mean from 1901 to 1950) without any mineral fertilization, the wheat yield stabilized at the level of 1.58 t · ha−1. With N, P, K and Mg fertilizer input, the minimum and maximum yields were 2.29 t · ha−1 and 3.72 t · ha−1. The yield increased to 38.5% (1.00 t · ha−1) with the whole NPK and Mg completed NPKMg treatment. On the control plots, the yield grew by 6% during a dry year compared to average year. At N, NP and NK combinations yields were diminished to 12%. Dry damage on yield production dropped to 11% with NPK and NPKMg applications. In dryer years compared to average years, yields were reduced with 31% on the control soils. Yields were lessened for an average year by 42% and 47% with N, NP, NK and NPK, NPKMg loadings. During wet conditions and without fertilization, the yields decreased more dramatically (82%) as compared to dry conditions. The yield was subsided by 61% with unfavorable (N, NP, NK) nutritions and the effect of excess rainfall was lowered on NPK and NPKMg treatments to 59%. Correlations between yield and precipitation during various vegetation periods (control: R = 0.59, N: R = 0.57, NP: R = 0.76, NK: R = 0.54, NPK: R = 0.67, NPKMg: R = 0.71) indicated that optimum yields developed in response to rainfall in the 450–500 mm range. Above or below this rainfall range yields reducted quadratically. Results obtained on fertilization compensation [yield loss (kg mm−1 and %) of ± 100 mm precipitation interspace (−lessening/+increasing, mm) from maximum yield (t ha−1) and its rainfall quantity (mm)] on negative effects of dry climate confirm that minimum and maximum yield losses had have changed among 0% (NP)–−114% (N), and in wet −46% (N)–−87% (NK). The best models were presented under dry in instance of wheat: NP (0%) and in wet N (−46%) loadings. In these fertilization systems in dry conditions the yield loss reductions had been having observed of 28% and in wet 64%, respectively.


dry wet nutrient supply winter wheat yield 


  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.Google Scholar
  2. 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 Commision, Brussels, 76 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Boudewijn, C. 1960. Progressive wheat production. Centre d’Etude de l’Azote. Geneva, 338 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, C.R., Barry, S., Michael, B. et al. 2000. Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. Climatic Change 45:181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conor, L., Semenov, A.M. 2006. Assessing lead-time for predicting wheat growth using a crop simulation model.
  6. David, M.L., Kelly, J.B., James, J.O.B. 1999. Impact of ENSO-related climate anomalies on crop yield in the U.S. Climate Change 42:351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EU (European Union). 2003. Drought costs EU farmers euro of 11 billion. European Report, Brussels, 2 pp.Google Scholar
  8. FAO. 2007. Statistical database. Rome
  9. Ghaffari, A., Cook, H.F., Lee, H.C. 2002. Climate change and winter wheat management: A modeling scenario for South-Eastern England. Climate Change 55:509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harnos, Zs. 1993. Weather and weather-yield interaction analysis. (In Hungarian) In: Baráth, Cs., Győrffy, B., Harnos, Zs. (eds), Aszály 1983. KÉE, Budapest, pp. 9–46.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.Google Scholar
  12. Jolánkai, M. 2005. Effect of climate change on plant cultivation. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 41:47–58.Google Scholar
  13. Kádár, I. 1992. Principles and methods in plant nutrition. RISSAC HAS. Budapest, 398 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Kádár, I., Szemes, I. 1994. Lesson learned from a 30 year old field trial in Hungary. RISSAC-HAS. Budapest, 248 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Láng, G. 1976. Szántóföldi növénytermesztés (Field crop production). Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 408 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Láng, I. 2005. Weather and climate change: change-effect-response. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 43:3–10.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Marc, A.J. 1997. Wheat production handbook. Kansas State University, Kansas City, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Second Edition. Academic Press, London-San Diego, 883 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Márton, L. 2004a. 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
  21. Márton, L. 2004b. Annual scientific report. RISSAC-HAS, Budapest, 15 pp.Google Scholar
  22. 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, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  23. Márton, L. 2006. Ecological changes of rainfall and artificial fertilization on crop yield formation. ESA, Memphis, TE, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. McMaster, H.J. 1999. The potential impact of global warming on Hail Losses to winter crops in New South Wales. Climatic Change 43:455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muchow, R.C., Bellamy, J.A. 1991. Climatic risk in crop production: Models and management for the semi-arid tropics and subtropics. C.A.B. International, Wallingford, 548 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Németh, T. 2004. MTA Talajtani és Agrokémiai Kutatóintézet (MTA TAKI) tudományos programjának megvalósítására vonatkozó koncepció (2005–2010). Scientific Programme Conception of RISSAC-HAS from 2005 to 2010. MTA TAKI., Budapest, 24 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Pilar, M., Arriaga, H., Salcedo, G., Márton L., Pinto, M. 2006. Diet influence on ammonia emission in lactating dairy cows. NEIKER, Bilbao, Spain, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  29. 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, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  30. 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, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  31. RS (Royal Society). 2005. Climate change warming over food production. Web address:
  32. Runge, E.C. 1968. Effect of rainfall and temperature interaction during the growing season on corn yield. Agron. J. 60:503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russel, E.W. 1973. Soil conditions and plant growth. 10 th Edition. Longman, New York, 849 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Seth, G.P., Yeffrey, S.A. 2005. Crops and environmental change. Food Product Press, New York-London-Oxford, 421 pp.Google Scholar
  35. SPSS 2000. SigmaPlot for Windows. Ver. 3.2, Chicago, IL.: SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Tubiello, F.N., Rosenzweig, C., Goldberg, R.A. Jagtap, S., Jones, J.W. 2002. Effects of climate change on U.S. crop production: Simulation results using two different GCM scenarios. Part I: Wheat, potato, maize and citrus. Climate Research 20:259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uprety, D.C., Garg, S.C., Tiwari, M.K., Mitra, A.P. 2000. Crop responses to elevated CO 2 technology and research. Global Environment Research 3:155–167.Google Scholar
  39. Várallyay, Gy. 1992. Globális klímaváltozások hatása a talajra (Effect of Global Climate Change to soil). Magyar Tudomány 9:1071–1076.Google Scholar
  40. Várallyay, Gy. 2005. Possible pedological effects of climate changes in the Kisalföld. (In Hungarian) In: “AGRO-21” Füzetek 43:11–23.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Watts, L. 2005. Impact of climate change on crops worse than previously thought. Royal Society, London, United Kingdom, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  43. 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 (, 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 Sciences (RISSAC-HAS)BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations