Stubble management and limitations for frost prone landscapes

2014 - 2016

Research organisaton
Funding source

Trial details

Researcher(s) Kelly Angel (BCG)
Ben Biddulph (DPIRD)
Sarah Jackson (BCG)
Year(s) 2014 - 2016
Contributor Birchip Cropping Group
Trial location(s) Hopetoun, VIC
Further information View external link
Stubble management and limitations for frost prone landscapes locations
Aims

To investigate the influence of stubble management and rate on the duration, severity and frost damage in frost prone parts of the landscape in the Mallee and Wimmera regions.

Key messages
  • Reducing stubble loads can reduce the severity and duration of frost events under certain conditions. However, under the situation of multiple and severe frost events the influence of stubble is less defined and stubble reduction does not reduce risk.
  • In the Mallee, most stubble management practices carried out prior to seeding to increase stubble incorporation or breakdown (cultivation, slashing) did not reduce stubble loads enough to reduce frost severity and duration.
  • In the Wimmera, reducing stubble loads did not consistently reduce frost severity or duration possibly due to a combined effect of greater canopy closure with higher yield potential (2014) and higher stubble break down with low stubble levels (2015).
  • Stubble management in frost prone areas is not about complete removal of stubble, but reducing it to a level that minimises your risk.
Lead research organisation Birchip Cropping Group
Host research organisation N/A
Trial funding source GRDC DAW00241,DAW00260
Related program Farming systems to manage frost
Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the GRDC as part of the ‘Farming systems to manage frost’ project (DAW00241) and ‘Advancing profitable farming systems – frost risk management’ project (DAW00260) as part of the five year GRDC National Frost Initiative.


Other trial partners Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop type Barley
Treatment type(s)
  • Stubble: Management
Trial type Experimental
Trial design Replicated

Hopetoun 2014

Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified

Hopetoun 2015

Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified

Hopetoun 2016

Sow date 2014 Hopetoun: 28 April; 2014 Lubeck: 26 April; 2015 Hopetoun: 12 May; 2015 Rupanyup: 14 May; 2016 H
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information

Download results

Trial results Table 1

# Treatment 1
Treatment 2
Screenings <2mm (%) Maturity biomass (t/ha) Stubble biomass (t/ha) Non-viable heads (m2) Harvest index (value) Retention (%) Viable heads (heads/m2) 1000 grain weight (mg) Floret sterility (%) Grain yield (t/ha)
1 Hopetoun 2014 Removed 2.8 4.58 0.79 75 0.23 67.5 510 32 52 0.99
2 Hopetoun 2014 Reduced 4.2 4.75 1.4 145 0.2 60.9 501 31.5 52 0.93
3 Hopetoun 2014 Retained 3.8 4.8 1.51 138 0.21 33 513 33 58 0.99
4 Hopetoun 2014 LSD(0.05) n/a 0.31 0.15 51 0.07 13.1 89 0.06 n/a 0.07
5 Hopetoun 2015 Removed 80.2 5.85 1.4 0 0.4 1.6 614 22.7 4.3 2.41
6 Hopetoun 2015 Reduced 71.6 5.54 2.82 0 0.42 2.5 592 24.6 4.6 2.33
7 Hopetoun 2015 Retained 65 5.55 2.96 0 0.4 3 590 25.1 5.6 2.16
8 Hopetoun 2015 LSD(0.05) 28.2 0.92 1.22 n/a 0.08 6.4 149.1 4 n/a 0.21
9 Lubeck 2014 Removed 6.69 0.1 70 0.31 23.1 439 25.2 36.5 1.58
10 Lubeck 2014 Reduced 6.63 5.04 106 0.29 10.2 464 40.8 43.2 1.51
11 Lubeck 2014 Retained 6.72 4.09 110 0.29 17.9 440 25.2 39.6 1.52
12 Lubeck 2014 LSD(0.05) 1.16 3.6 44 0.01 n/a 54 15.43 n/a 0.16
13 Rupanyup 2015 Removed 5.14 0.37 0 0.39 92.2 731 0.08 4.2 1.88
14 Rupanyup 2015 Reduced 5.56 2.32 0 0.44 91.2 738 0.11 4.8 1.98
15 Rupanyup 2015 Retained 4.86 2.67 0.1 0.39 86.5 614 0.15 3.6 1.84
16 Rupanyup 2015 LSD(0.05) 0.89 1.16 n/a 0.16 n/a 108.5 n/a n/a 0.15

Grain yield t/ha


Loading

1000 grain weight mg


Loading

Floret sterility %


Loading

Harvest index value


Loading

Maturity biomass t/ha


Loading

Non-viable heads m2


Loading

Retention %


Loading

Screenings <2mm %


Loading

Stubble biomass t/ha


Loading

Viable heads heads/m2


Loading
Observed trial site soil information
Trial site soil testing
Not specified
Soil conditions
Trial site Soil texture
Hopetoun, VIC Not specified
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
Hopetoun, VIC Tenosol
Soil Moisture Source: BOM/ANU
Average amount of water stored in the soil profile during the year, estimated by the OzWALD model-data fusion system.
Year Hopetoun VIC
2016 510.7mm
2015 472.9mm
2014 489.3mm
2013 520.5mm
2012 574.9mm
2011 609.6mm
2010 527.8mm
2009 462.3mm
2008 454.1mm
2007 455.4mm
2006 441.2mm
2005 483.1mm
2004 436.8mm
2003 429.3mm
2002 387.1mm
2001 445.0mm
2000 453.4mm
National soil grid Source: CSIRO/TERN
NOTE: National Soil Grid data is aggregated information for background information on the wider area
Actual soil values can vary significantly in a small area and the trial soil tests are the most relevant data where available

Soil properties

Loading

Climate

Derived climate information

No observed climate data available for this trial.
Derived climate data is determined from trial site location and national weather sources.

Hopetoun VIC

NOTE: Exact trial site locality unknown - Climate data may not be accurate
Loading
Loading
Loading

Some data on this site is sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology

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.



Trial last modified: 06-08-2019 07:54am AEST