FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2085565621> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2085565621 endingPage "52" @default.
• W2085565621 startingPage "46" @default.
• W2085565621 abstract "No-till (NT) corn (Zea mays L.) production following perennial forages can reduce soil loss and machinery and labor requirements; yet few farmers in the northern USA are using this practice. Research has indicated NT corn performs best when planted following fall-killed perennials; yet most farmers who practice NT apply herbicides to perennials in the spring. The objective of this study was to compare two NT systems, fall-kill NT and spring-kill NT, with farmers' current tillage (CT) systems, which included either chisel or moldboard plowing. Farmer-managed comparisons were made in field-sized, replicated strip tests on silt loam soils on six farms in 1988 and 1989. Variables measured were percentage residue cover after planting, harvest plant populations, and grain moisture and yields. Residue cover averaged 13, 53, and 72% for CT, fall-kill NT, and spring-kill NT, respectively. Spring-kill NT, compared with CT and fall-kill NT, resulted in reduced plant populations at three of six farms and 3% higher average grain moisture. Fall-kill NT produced yields equal to, or higher than, CT and spring-kill NT at all farms. Averaged over all farms, production costs per bushel were lowest for fall-kill NT, intermediate for CT, and highest for spring-kill NT. Despite these advantages, use of fall-kill NT may be limited by (i) farmers' preferences for evaluating hay stands in the spring, before deciding where to plant corn; (ii) fall grazing needs; (iii) minimum requirements for crop residue cover after corn planting; and (iv) shortage of labor in the fall. Research Question Most producers who plant no-till following perennial forage species apply herbicides to kill perennials in the spring, rather than the fall. Farmers have not made side-by-side on-farm comparisons of corn planted no-till following spring-killed and fall-killed perennials to evaluate relative yields, management challenges, and economics. The objective of this study was to compare two no-till systems (fall-kill no-till and spring-kill no-till) with farmers' current tillage systems, which included either chisel or moldboard plowing. Literature Summary Growers' major concern about planting corn no-till into perennial forages is the application timing and efficacy of herbicides to control perennials. Previous research has indicated that split herbicide treatments, either in the fall or early spring and at planting, were needed to completely control perennial vegetation. No-till systems using fall Roundup (glyphosate) applications have consistently resulted in yields comparable to those with moldboard plowing. Results for corn planted no-till with spring-kill of perennials have been inconsistent, with performance highly dependent on spring rainfall. Study Description Farmer-managed comparisons were made on silt loam soils on six Wisconsin farms in 1988 and 1989. Treatments: Fall-kill no-till (Glyphosate applied to kill perennial species in the fall) Spring-kill no-till (Glyphosate or atrazine applied to kill perennial species in the spring) Current tillage (Fall or spring chisel or moldboard plowing) Additional weed control, soil fertility, insect control, hybrids, and other cultural practices varied with farms but were similar within sites for the three tillage systems. Applied Questions Which no-till system (fall- or spring-kill) resulted in best performance? No-till corn planted following spring-kill of perennial forage vegetation resulted in greatest residue cover after planting (Table 1), which probably would provide best soil erosion control. But spring-kill no-till resulted in inconsistent weed control, variable plant stands and corn growth, and reduced average yields compared with growers' current tillage systems (Table 1). With fall-kill no-till, weed control was effective and grain yields were always comparable to, or greater than, current tillage systems. Average corn production cost per bushel was lowest for fall-kill no-till, intermediate for current tillage systems, and highest for spring-kill no-till. Given these production advantages, why have few farmers adopted fall-kill no-till for corn following forage perennials? Fall-kill no-till requires growers to use a fixed crop rotation schedule, with the decision to rotate to corn made the previous fall. Growers prefer to assess forage crop winter survival in the spring as a basis for crop rotation plans. Other constraints, such as the need for fall grazing and labor shortages at corn harvest time, may prevent fall herbicide applications. In addition, crop residue cover from fall-killed vegetation, as low as 30% after planting (Table 1), may not provide adequate soil erosion control on steep slopes. Table 1. Average residue cover after planting, plant populations at harvest, grain yield, and production cost for corn grown under three tillage systems at six farms. Tillage system Residue cover Harvest population Grain yield Production cost ---- % ---- plants/acre × 1000 bu/acre ----- $/bu ---- Current tillage 13 22 114 2.42 (4–40)† (18–26) (62–163) (1.25–3.88) Fall-kill no-till 53 23 120 2.30 (30–67) (19–26) (74–162) (1.29–3.64) Spring-kill no-till 72 21 98 4.68 (57–89) (15–29) (20–176) (1.21–11.80) † Range of values across six farms." @default.
• W2085565621 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2085565621 creator A5039080945 @default.
• W2085565621 creator A5067515102 @default.
• W2085565621 date "1993-01-01" @default.
• W2085565621 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2085565621 title "No-Till Systems for Corn following Hay or Pasture" @default.
• W2085565621 cites W1972249285 @default.
• W2085565621 cites W2018167571 @default.
• W2085565621 cites W2036747257 @default.
• W2085565621 cites W2214099210 @default.
• W2085565621 cites W3032529832 @default.
• W2085565621 doi "https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1993.0046" @default.
• W2085565621 hasPublicationYear "1993" @default.
• W2085565621 type Work @default.
• W2085565621 sameAs 2085565621 @default.
• W2085565621 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2085565621 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2085565621 hasAuthorship W2085565621A5039080945 @default.
• W2085565621 hasAuthorship W2085565621A5067515102 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C106191032 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C113578266 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C116370137 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C159750122 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C16397148 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C168741863 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C180429540 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C24461792 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C2777904157 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C2778053677 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C32936327 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C34070608 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C38774213 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C48508581 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C6557445 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C106191032 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C113578266 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C116370137 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C159750122 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C16397148 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C168741863 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C180429540 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C18903297 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C24461792 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C2777904157 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C2778053677 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C32936327 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C34070608 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C38774213 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C48508581 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C6557445 @default.
• W2085565621 hasConceptScore W2085565621C86803240 @default.
• W2085565621 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2085565621 hasLocation W20855656211 @default.
• W2085565621 hasOpenAccess W2085565621 @default.
• W2085565621 hasPrimaryLocation W20855656211 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W1969991782 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W1994440572 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W1995741284 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W2007299325 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W2064697387 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W2081081424 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W2085565621 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W2560492299 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W3136551160 @default.
• W2085565621 hasRelatedWork W972228038 @default.
• W2085565621 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W2085565621 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2085565621 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2085565621 magId "2085565621" @default.
• W2085565621 workType "article" @default.