Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA04169
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 46(11)

Poor incorporation of lime limits grain yield response in wheat

B. J. Scott A B D and N. E. Coombes C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A NSW Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Institute, PMB, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.

B Current address: EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University), Faculty of Science and Agriculture, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.

C NSW Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Institute, Private Mail Bag, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.

D Corresponding author. Email: bscott@csu.edu.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11) 1481-1487 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA04169
Submitted: 10 August 2004  Accepted: 25 January 2005   Published: 9 October 2006

Abstract

Thorough mixing of lime with the soil is a standard recommendation for lime application. However, the implements and passes that may be used to achieve this in Australian cereal farming are unclear. Therefore, 2 experiments were conducted to examine the incorporation of lime applied at 0, 2 and 5 t/ha using a range of different agricultural implements and numbers of cultivation events. Shoot dry matter and grain yield of wheat were measured in the year of lime application in both experiments. The plots were resown to wheat in the following season by direct drilling, and measurements were repeated. In a dry season, high soil disturbance (rotary hoe and disc harrow) improved the response of wheat to lime in the first year of experiment 1. In experiment 2, rainfall was higher, and the advantage from thorough incorporation was less clear. However, the rank order of incorporation methods and lime responsiveness was positively correlated with that in experiment 1 for both dry matter and grain yield; thorough incorporation tended to give better responses to lime than ‘poor’ incorporation (light harrowing). In the second year of experiment 1 there was limited evidence of the influence of incorporation method on lime response. In the second season of both experiments the effects of incorporation method on lime response had dissipated or other effects were more important. We found that to maximise grain yield responses to lime, the most effective incorporation was achieved with a disc harrow or with multiple passes with a tined implement (scarifier). Incorporation limited to a light harrow was inadequate. However, any effects of method of incorporation reduced or disappeared in the following season, even when direct drilling was used and there was limited further soil disturbance.

Additional keywords: cultivation, implements, machinery, soil acidity, soil pH.


References


Barber SA (1984) Liming materials and practices. In ‘Soil acidity and liming’. (Ed. F Adams) pp. 171–210. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI)

Cregan PD, Scott BJ, Cumming RW (1984) ‘Liming problem acid soils.’ Agfact P1.4.1. (NSW Agriculture: Orange)

Connell P, Cooper S (2000) Land preparation and sowing practices. In ‘Australian grains industry 2000, a supplement to the Australian farm surveys report 2000’. pp. 57–65. (ABARE: Canberra)

Conyers MK, Scott BJ (1989) The influence of surface incorporated lime on subsurface acidity. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 29, 201–207.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Conyers MK, Heenan DP, McGhie WJ, Poile GP (2003) Amelioration of acidity with time by limestone under contrasting tillage. Soil and Tillage Research 72, 85–94.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Coventry DR, Hirth JR, Reeves TG (1985) Development of populations of Rhizobium trifolii and nodulation of subterranean clover following the cropping phase in crop–pasture rotations in south eastern Australia. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 17, 17–22.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Coventry DR, Walker BR, Morrison GR, Hyland MT, Avery JC, Maden JJL, Barton DC (1989) Yield responses to lime of wheat and barley on acid soils in north eastern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 29, 209–214.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Coventry DR, Hirth JR, Reeves TG (1992) Interactions of tillage and lime in wheat–subterranean clover rotations on an acidic sandy clay loam in south eastern Australia. Soil and Tillage Research 25, 53–65.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Dolling PJ, Porter WM, Robson AD (1991a) Effect of soil acidity on barley production in the south west of Western Australia. 2. Cereal genotypes and their response to lime. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31, 811–818.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Dolling PJ, Porter WM, Robson AD (1991b) Effect of soil acidity on barley production in the south west of Western Australia. 1. The interaction between lime and nutrient application. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31, 803–810.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Gleeson AC, Cullis BR (1987) Residual maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of a neighbour model for experiments. Biometrics 43, 277–288.
| Crossref |
open url image1

Isbell RF (1996) ‘The Australian soil classification.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Lathwell DJ, Reid WS (1984) Crop response to lime in the north eastern United States. In ‘Soil acidity and liming’. (Ed. F Adams) pp. 305–332. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI)

Mason MG, Porter WM, Cox WJ (1994) Effect of an acidifying nitrogen fertiliser and lime on soil pH and wheat yields. 1. Soil effects. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 237–246.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Northcote KH (1979) ‘A factual key for the recognition of Australian soils.’ 4th edn. (Rellim Technical Publications: Glenside)

Payne RW, Lane PW, Digby PGN, Harding SA, Leech PK, et al. (1993) ‘Genstat 5 Release 3 reference manual.’ (Clarendon Press: Oxford)

Pierce FJ, Fortin MC, Staton MJ (1994) Periodic plowing effects on soil properties in a no-till farming system. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58, 1782–1787. open url image1

Scott BJ, Rodham LA (1987) A lime spreader for use in field research. Journal of the Institute of Agricultural Science 53, 197–199. open url image1

Scott BJ, Conyers MK, Poile GJ, Cullis BR (1997) Subsurface acidity and liming affect yield of cereals. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 48, 843–854.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Slattery WJ, Coventry DR (1993) Response of wheat, triticale, barley, and canola to lime on four soil types in north eastern Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33, 609–618.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Vimpany IA, Holford IC, Milham PJ, Abbott TS (1985) ‘Soil testing service — methods and interpretation.’ (New South Wales Department of Agriculture: Rydalmere)