Researcher(s) |
Bill Davoren (CSIRO) Rick Llewellyn (CSIRO) Therese McBeath (CSIRO) Willie Shoobridge (CSIRO) |
---|---|
Year(s) | 2015 |
Contributor | Mallee Sustainable Farming Inc. |
Trial location(s) |
Loxton, SA
|
Sandy soil types of the Northern Mallee often underperform despite good weed management and increased inputs of nitrogen and sulphur. There is still a yield gap that can be addressed, with anecdotal evidence of unused water commonly remaining in the soil at depths of approximately 60cm at harvest. In 2014 we set in place a diagnostic procedure to attempt to identify the production limitations on a poor-performing dune at the MSF site near Loxton. Characterisation of the plant available water capacity allowed us to calculate water use efficiency which suggested that the 2014 plots were operating well below industry benchmarks. Penetration resistance was measured to be greater than the threshold predicted to impede root exploration at 20-45 cm depth, suggesting that compaction might be limiting yield. Replicated harvest test strips on and off of wheel tracks measured at three locations in 2014 showed a significant effect of the wheel track compaction at one location only. The site is alkaline sand and pre-sowing soil tests in 2014 indicated relatively low soil test values for sulphur (S) and zinc (Zn). In-season tissue tests indicated marginal status for nitrogen (N), Zn and copper (Cu) and test strips with additional N showed a positive response. The likely primary limitations to production identified were compaction and nutrition.
Lead research organisation |
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation |
---|---|
Host research organisation | N/A |
Trial funding source | CSIRO |
Trial funding source | GRDC MSF00003 |
Related program | N/A |
Acknowledgments |
Thanks to Bulla Burra for their generous support in hosting the trial, and to Robin Schaeffer, Matthew Whitney, Michael Moodie, Jeff Braun and Lou Flohr for discussions around trial design. Thanks to Colin Rivers and Ros Baird for preparing granular Zn fertilisers. Funding for this work has been from the GRDC (MSF00003) and CSIRO Agriculture. |
Other trial partners | Not specified |
Crop type | Cereal (Grain): Wheat |
---|---|
Treatment type(s) |
|
Trial type | Experimental |
Trial design | Replicated |
Sow date | 6 May 2015 6th May 2015 |
---|---|
Harvest date | Not specified |
Plot size | Not specified |
Plot replication | 4 |
Fertiliser |
Plots were sown at Loxton with Mace wheat on the 6th May and all plots received 10 kg P/ha as triple superphosphate with the following nutritional treatments applied with four replicates: Control- P only 20N Urea @sow + 20N Zn enriched Urea@ GS14/22 20N Urea @sow 20N Urea @sow + 20N Urea@GS31 40N Urea at sow 20N Urea @sow+20S gypsum pre-sow 20N Zn enriched Urea @sow (Zn Oxide)# 20N Urea @sow+20S gypsum@ GS14/22 20N Urea + Zn blend @sow (Zn Oxide) 20N Urea @sow+20S/20 N SOA+ Urea@ GS14/22 20N urea + Foliar Zn @ 2-3 leaves (farmer Zn, Zn Sulfate) 20N Urea @sow+4 S SOA@ GS14/22 (replacement S) 20N Urea @sow + 20N Urea@GS14/22* 20N Urea @sow + 20N Urea@ GS14/22+20S gypsum@ GS14/22 #This product is not commercially available in Australia *GS14/22-early tillering, GS31-first node |
Other trial notes |
At maturity the highest yielding treatment was for 40N upfront which yielded similarly to all other treatments receiving 40N. Interestingly 20N applied as Zn enriched urea yielded similarly to the treatments with 40N applied. The timing and form of S did not influence yield and the yield outcome of these treatments was driven by the N applied with the S. Protein levels were responsive to N addition and all treatments with 40N applied as urea had the highest category of protein (Table 2). |
# |
Treatment 1
|
Grain yield (t/ha) | Dry weight (anthesis) (t/ha) | Protein (%) | Dry weight (first node) (t/ha) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Control | 0.96 | 1.62 | 9.54 | 0.82 |
2 | █ 20N Urea @ sow | 1.41 | 2.29 | 9.13 | 1.16 |
3 | █ 40N Urea @ sow | 1.66 | 2.57 | 10.16 | 1.15 |
4 | █ 20N Zn enriched urea @ sow | 1.53 | 2.56 | 9.13 | 1.21 |
5 | █ 20N Urea + Zn blend @ sow | 1.38 | 2.43 | 9.27 | 1.19 |
6 | █ 20N Urea + foliar Zn @ 2-3 leaves | 1.39 | 2.42 | 9.03 | 1.16 |
7 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20N Zn enriched Urea @ GS14/22 | 1.61 | 2.54 | 9.93 | 1.23 |
8 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20N urea @ GS31 | 1.55 | 2.5 | 9.6 | 1.08 |
9 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20S gypsum @ GS14/22 | 1.56 | 2.38 | 10.45 | 1.11 |
10 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20N urea @ GS31 | 1.29 | 2.44 | 8.88 | 1.13 |
11 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20S gypsum pre-sow | 1.35 | 2.72 | 9.43 | 1.24 |
12 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20N urea + 20S gypsum @ GS14/22 | 1.55 | 2.47 | 9.93 | 1.26 |
13 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 20S/20N SOA + urea @ GS14/22 | 1.59 | 3.02 | 9.63 | 1.18 |
14 | █ 20N Urea @ sow + 4 S SOA @ GS14/22 | 1.37 | 2.69 | 9.25 | 1.04 |
SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001). Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data , Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol 16/4, pp 309-330. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00008-1.