Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:40:30.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of farming systems on the relationship of corn root growth to grain yields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Walter A. Goldstein
Walter A. Goldstein
Affiliation:
Research Director, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, W2493 County Road ES, East Troy, WI 53120.
Get access

Abstract

The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial has been comparing different farming systems on two farm sites in southern Wisconsin since 1989. Inexplicable differences in the yields of corn grown in three systems stimulated research on the relationship between yield and the dynamics of root growth. The three systems were continuous corn with mineral fertilizer (CS1), corn—soybean—winter wheat—red clover (CS3), and corn—oat + alfalfa—alfalfa with dairy manure applied (CS5). Four or five sequential root samplings were taken each growing season on two sites for 3 years. Soil monoliths were taken from around the base of the plant and washed out over a 1-mm sieve. Estimates were obtained of the length and health of roots from different nodes that were attached to the crown of the plant. The seasonal accumulation of root length was estimated by summing the maximal root length produced at each root node. Corn grown in monoculture averaged 7.5 Mg of grain/ha, which was similar to corn grown after red clover green manure (7.3 Mg/ha) but less than corn grown after alfalfa with manure (8.5 Mg/ha). Contrary to expectations, corn grown in monoculture averaged 26% more root length over the season than CS3 and 12% more length than CS5. The differences were mostly due to increased production of later sets of roots (nodes 6–9) for the corn in monoculture. However, for the first sets of nodes (seminal—node 5) the percentage of healthy roots was lower in the monoculture system (59%) than in CS3 (63%) or CS5 (76%). The increased root growth associated with corn grown in monoculture may be a response to poor root health. Regressions with root growth accounted for a large amount of the variation in grain yields. Corn grown after alfalfa with manure achieved higher yields with less roots than did corn grown in monoculture. Yields in the former system plateaued at root lengths of 1 cm/cm3 and greater, producing grain yields that ranged from 8 to 10 Mg/ha. Corn grown in CS1 and CS3 showed curvilinear responses with calculated yield maxima of 8.7 and 9.9 Mg/ha at root lengths of 2.12 and 1.74 cm/cm3, respectively. Intensifying the use of rotations and organic manures seemed to increase the ability of the corn rooting system to support grain yields. The cause for this greater efficiency is not yet clear, though root health may be an important factor.

Keywords

crop rotationsgreen manuressustainable agricultureWisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 101 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Anderson, I.C., Sundberg, D.N., and Khosravi, G.. 1988. Does allelopathy occur in corn? Proc. 43rd Annual Corn and Sorghum Industry Res. Conf. 43:167–179.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1992. Objectives and treatment design of the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, First Report (1989–1992). Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. 1–12.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1996. Introduction. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Sixth Report. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. ii–iii.Google Scholar
4.Barber, S.A. 1986. Root distribution and mineral uptake as influenced by hybrids, environment and fertilizer. Proc. 41st Annual Corn and Sorghum Industry Res. Conf. 41:56–68.Google Scholar
5.Barber, S.A., and Mackay, A.D.. 1986. Root growth and phosphorus and potassium uptake by two corn genotypes in the field. Fertil. Res. 10:217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Benson, G.O. 1985. Why the reduced yields when corn follows corn and possible management responses? Proc. 40th Annual Corn and Sorghum Industry Res. Conf. 40:161–174.Google Scholar
7.Durieux, R.P., Kamprath, E.J., Jackson, W.A., and Moll, R.H.. 1994. Root distribution of corn: The effect of nitrogen fertilization. Agron. J. 86:958–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Goldstein, W.A. 1992. Farming systems and root health. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping System Trial, Second Report. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. 6–7.Google Scholar
9.Goldstein, W.A. 1995. Root health and soil structure under different management systems. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Fifth Report. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. 78–82.Google Scholar
10.Iragavarapu, T.K., Posner, J.L., Baldock, J.O., and Mulder, T.A.. 1996. Monitoring fall nitrates in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Sixth Report. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. 18–25.Google Scholar
11.Klemme, R., and Mulder, T.. 1996. Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial economic analysis. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Sixth Report. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. 32–34.Google Scholar
12.Kothari, S.K., Marschner, H., and George, E.. 1990a. Effect of VA mycorrhizal fungi and rhizosphere microorganisms on root and shoot morphology, growth and water relations in maize. New Phytol. 116:303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Kothari, S.K., Marschner, H., and Romheld, V.. 1990b. Direct and indirect effects of VA mycorrhizal fungi and rhizosphere microorganisms on acquisition of mineral nutrients by maize (Zea mays L.) in a calcareous soil. New Phytol. 116:637–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Lutzow, M.V., and Ottow, J.C.G.. 1994. Einfluss von konventioneller und biologisch-dynamischer Bewirtschaftungsweise auf die mikrobielle Biomasse und deren Stickstoff-Dynamik in Parabraunerden der Freidberger Wetterau. Zeitschrift fuer Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde 157:359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Nickel, S.E., Crookston, R.K., and Russelle, M.P.. 1995. Root growth and distribution are affected by corn-soybean cropping sequence. Agron. J. 87:895–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Ott, L. 1977. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA. p. 610–617.Google Scholar
17.Pallant, E., Holmgren, R.A., Schuler, G.E., McCracken, K.L., and Drbal, B.. 1993. Using a fine root extraction device to quantify small diameter corn roots (>0.025 mm) in field soils. Plant Soil 153:273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Pallant, E., Lansky, D.M., Rio, J.E., Jacobs, L.D., Schuler, G.E., and Whimpenny, W.G.. 1997. Growth of corn roots under low-input and conventional farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 12:173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Swinnen, J., van Veen, J.A., and Merckx, R.. 1995. Carbon fluxes in the rhizosphere of winter wheat and spring barley with conventional vs. integrated farming. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27:811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Tennant, D. 1975. A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 63:995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Voland, R., and Rouse, D.. 1992. Preliminary corn root health studies. In Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Second Report. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Agronomy, p. 21–23.Google Scholar
22.Wiesler, F., and Horst, W.J.. 1994. Root growth and nitrate utilization of maize cultivars under field conditions. Plant Soil 163:267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar