1 / 90

David Granatstein

Orchard Floor Management. David Granatstein. WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources Wenatchee, WA. Orchard Floor Management Functions Impacted by: Water intake/storage Understory species Physical support Understory canopy Gas exchange for roots Irrigation system

maisie-dickson
Télécharger la présentation

David Granatstein

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Orchard Floor Management David Granatstein WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources Wenatchee, WA

  2. Orchard Floor Management Functions Impacted by: Water intake/storage Understory species Physical support Understory canopy Gas exchange for roots Irrigation system Nutrient cycling/storage Nutrient inputs Habitat (micro, macro) Spray drip Micro-climate Organic inputs

  3. Orchard Floor Management Review Microclimate:  soil temperature inverse to the amount of herbage or mulch  plant mulch dampens extremes of daily soil temperature  plant cover reduces minimum air temperature by 0.5-1.0oC  bare, compacted wet soil raised minimum air temperature by as much as 2oC  dwarf rootstocks grow best at 14oC vs. up to 27oC for seedling rootstocks (Skroch & Shribbs, 1986)

  4. Orchard Floor Management Review Soil quality:  avoid cultivation  favorable soil effects: legumes > grass > mulch > bare ground > cultivation Water:  soil moisture availability mulch > bare soil > minimal cultivation > grass > legumes >continuous cultivation  mowing decreases water use (Skroch & Shribbs, 1986)

  5. SOIL • Complex, dynamic living medium as indispensable to plant growth as sunlight and air. • Civilizations have fallen throughout history due to failure to maintain the quality of soils. • Source and medium of delivery of most water and nutrients for plants. • Defined by its physical, chemical, and biological properties..

  6. SOIL QUALITY Definition “Capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to:  sustain biological productivity  Maintain environmental quality  promote plant and animal health.” Not a soil property, but a value based on human needs. Soil health and quality are used interchangeably.

  7. Soil Quality • Chemical • Biological Physical • Dynamic interplay of 3 aspects • Short-term and long-term changes • Influenced by environment (climate, geology, plants) • Influenced by human activity (erosion, fertilization, irrigation, plants)

  8. Soil Quality Reference Point Current SystemNative EcosystemReference Point Dryland wheat (KS) Prairie Prairie  Rainfed corn (WI) Temperate forest Pasture ? Paddy rice (Asia) Tropical rainforest ?? Irrigated potatoes (ID) Shrub-steppe Pasture ? Orchard (Yakima) Shrub-steppe ??

  9. INDICATORS OF IMPROVED SOIL QUALITY Increasing: Decreasing: Infiltration Bulk density Aggregate stability Soil resistance Macropores Runoff Aeration Erosion Biological activity Nutrient losses Water-holding capacity Diseases Soil organic matter Production costs

  10. Carbon – the key ingredient Carbon (C), the basis of Soil Organic Matter, which affects: Physical – bulk density, aggregate stability, water-holding capacity Chemical – cation exchange capacity, nutrient release Biological – energy source for microbes, base of the soil food web, nutrient turnover, soil-borne diseases

  11. SOIL ORGANIC MATTER Friends: Enemies: No-till Tillage Mulching Erosion Organic amendments Fumigation Cool temperatures Herbicides, bare ground Nutrient balance Leaching, nutrient export

  12. Carbon Budget Inputs Crop residues – leaves, roots, prunings Green manures Animal manures Imported organics – compost, yard debris, etc. Losses Background soil respiration Tillage – accelerated mineralization Erosion – wind, water Crop export – roots Burning

  13. Soil Quality Testing Chemical Biological Physical Integration Soil Quality Index

  14. Testing Approaches Soil – physical, chemical, biological  Plant – bioassay  Ecosystem – watershed, energy, diversity

  15. Soil Quality Index – Orchard Systems Four soil functions (after Karlen et al., 1994):  Accommodate water entry (weight 0.20)  Facilitate water transfer and absorption (weight 0.20)  Resist degradation (weight 0.20)  Sustain fruit quality and productivity (weight 0.40) (Glover et al., 1998)

  16. Soil Quality Index Function: Accommodate water entry Weight Indicator: Infiltration 0.40 Aggregate stability 0.30 Surface bulk density 0.20 Earthworms 0.10 (Glover et al., 1998)

  17. Soil Quality Index Function: Facilitate water transfer and absorption Weight Indicator: Water filled pore space 0.40 Porosity (0-15 cm) 0.30 Organic C (0-15 cm) 0.15 Earthworms 0.15 (Glover et al., 1998)

  18. Soil Quality Index Function: Resist degradation Weight Indicator: Aggregate stability 0.60 Microbial processes 0.40 (Glover et al., 1998)

  19. Soil Quality Index Function: Sustain fruit quality and productivity Weight Indicator: Rooting environment 0.27 Water relations 0.27 Nutrient relations 0.26 Chemical barriers 0.20 (Glover et al., 1998)

  20. Soil Quality Index for 1998 WSU Orchard Systems Trial – Zillah, WA Orchard System FunctionConventionalIntegratedOrganic Water entry 0.09 0.14 0.17 Water transfer 0.17 b 0.19 a 0.17 b Resist degrad. 0.14 b 0.20a 0.16 ab Sustain product. 0.13 b 0.34 a 0.36 a Total 0.71 b 0.87 a 0.86 a (Glover et al., 1998)

  21. WSU Orchard Systems Trial - Zillah, WASoil Organic Matter Content (0-15 cm)

  22. Soil Biology The last frontier ? The ultimate black box ? Microbe - Microbe Microbe - Macrofauna Microbe - Plant

  23. Effect of Apple Replant Disease – Gala/M26, Moxee, WA Replant soil ‘Virgin’ soil

  24. Growth of ‘Gala’ Apple Seedlings in Soil from Orchard Blocks of Varying Age

  25. Changes in Relative Recovery of Specific Microorganisms with Increasing Age of WVC Orchard Blocks

  26. Cover Crops and Fallow No change in disease pressure with one-year fallow Wheat cover crops effective in reducing Rhizoctonia, Pythium, Pratylenchus penetrans; inducing microbial shifts; and enhancing tree seedling growth Effect of wheat is very cultivar-specific Rapeseed cover crop moderately effective, but soil amendment with rapeseed meal is promising

  27. Growth of ‘Gala’ Apple Seedlings in CV Orchard Replant Soil Following Planting with Different Wheat Cultivars

  28. Other Cultural Controls Autumn trenching nearly as effective as soil fumigation Planting new tree rows in former drive aisles also effective Alternating between apple and non-susceptible perennial crop (e.g. cherry) Plant more resilient or vigorous rootstocks

  29. Trench Control

  30. Recovery of Fungi from Apple Roots at CV Orchard

  31. Organic Amendments

  32. Evaluating Compost Quality for Orchard Use What end use?  Absence of contaminants  Maturity  Moisture content  Organic matter  Electrical conductivity (EC)  pH  Total N  Available N

  33. Nutrient Content of WA Composts Parameter Chicken (3) Cow (4) Yard (3) Org. Matter (%) 4-78 30-50 30-50 pH 6.3-8.3 6.1-8.9 6.3-7.6 E.C. (mmho/cm) 25-30 7-25 2-13 C:N 10-38 10-32 13-23 Total N (%) 1.1-4.2 0.9-1.9 0.8-2.0 NO3-N (ppm) 162-2460 36-2081 8-1421 NH4-N (ppm) 3600-9780 16-306 17-50 Total P (%) 0.9-1.8 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.3 Total K (%) 0.6-2.5 0.3-1.4 0.4-1.1 (Granatstein, 1996)

  34. Comparison of Testing Labs MeanRangeC.V. pH Chicken 6.6 5.7 – 7.7 10 Yard 6.9 6.5 – 7.3 5  E.C. Chicken 25 14 – 38 34 (mmho/cm) Yard 7 4 – 11 36  Total N Chicken 3.6 2.9 – 4.2 12 (%) Yard 1.2 0.9 – 1.4 16  NH4-N Chicken 8620 6700 – 10500 19 (ppm) Yard 370 17 - 1400 158 Low C.V. – pH, total N, total P, organic matter

  35. Compost Costs $/wet ton $/wet ton $/dry ton $/lb N FOBFreightDelivereddry Chicken manure 40 30 107 1.31   compost Dairy manure 24 17 80 1.74   compost Yard debris 14 26 70 2.69 compost

  36. Nutrient $ Value of Compost Value $/wet ton Total Available NutrientNutrient Chicken manure compost $41-53 $13-14 (4% total N) Yard debris compost $20-23 $5 (2% total N) Includes N, P, K, Ca, S, Zn (37¢lb N; 40-90¢/lb P; 21¢/lb K; 9¢/lb Ca; 11¢/lb S; $1.40/lb Zn) Based on fertilizer prices of 2/98.

  37. Organic N Sources and Costs

  38. Disease Suppression with Compost • Need sufficient organic matter to support microbial growth/activity • General Suppression – occurs as compost matures and limits readily available substrate; effective on Pythium, Phytophthora • Specific Suppression – requires colonization by microbial antagonists of pathogen; needed for Rhizoctonia • Suppressive ability hard to predict in terms of range and longevity of control; influenced by compost feedstocks, production process

  39. Effect of Compost on Trunk GrowthNew orchard sites - 3 year cumulative P = 0.04 R2 = 0.22

  40. Foliar Disease Control with Compost Tea – Oregon, 1996 No Water Compost  Best Crop/Disease Trt Control Tea Fungicide   - - - - - - % infection or infestation - - - - - - Apple/Scab Leaves 41 -- 40 13 Fruit 52 -- 37 11 Cherry Blossom blight 11 -- 6 3 Cherry leaf spot 62 -- 42 5 Grape/Powdery Mildew Leaves -- 25 19 8 Clusters -- 25 17 10 (H. Wittig, 1997)

  41. Compost Tea and Pathogens Can Human Pathogens Grow In Compost Tea? Addition of molasses led to Salmonella growth (3 log or more) No growth without molasses Tea sprayed on strawberry plants, pathogens grew on leaves (B. Duffy, USDA-ARS)

  42. Orchard Mulching and Cover Crops Weed control – non-herbicide; suitable for organic production Moisture conservation Fertility management, soil quality Pest management ?

  43. Orchard Cover Crops Purposes:  Prevent erosion, dust  Reduce effects of equipment on compaction  Improve soil quality and nutrient cycling  Improve orchard IPM

  44. Orchard Cover Crops A good cover crop…  Limited competition with the tree  Poor habitat for rodents, other pests  Good habitat for beneficial species  Improves soil quality

  45. Area and Timing of Weed Control – New York ‘Imperial Gala/M.26 Weed-free Cum. Yield Cum. Growth area (ft2)(kg/tree)TCSA (cm2) 0 14.9 20.0 22 41.0 25.5 43 38.2 25.6 65 41.1 24.7 LSD(.05) 11.0 5.1 Planted in 1991; cumulative data for 1991-1995. (Merwin & Ray, 1997)

  46. Area and Timing of Weed Control – New York ‘Imperial Gala/M.26’ Weed Control Time Cumulative Yield (days) (month)(kg/tree) 0 check 15.0 30 May 34.4 30 June 34.5 30 July 30.7 30 August 36.6 60 Ma, Jn 46.3 60 Jn,Jy 42.7 60 Jy, Au 40.5 90 Ma, Jn, Jy 51.9 90 Jn, Jy, Au 46.0 (Merwin & Ray, 1997)

  47. Costs of Orchard Weed Control – New York Cost (US$/acre/yr) SystemMaterials LaborTotal Hay-straw mulch 300-400 145 300-550 Wood chip mulch 0-20 295 130-315 Weed collarTM 9800 200 10,000 1.2 mil polyethylene 150 35 185 Belton-Sarlon plastic 735 35 190-770* Warren’s Weed-arrestTM 1800 35 395-1835* Herbicide strip 10 5 15-50 Mowed sodgrass 30 40 70-100 Clean cultivation 15 35 50 *cost based on 1-4 yr life of material (Merwin, 1995)

  48. Orchard Floor Management – New York Soil Changes Over 5 Years SOM NO3-N P K Treatment(g/kg soil) (kg/ha)(kg/ha)(kg/ha) Mowed sod 5.6 6.3 5.7 209 Straw mulch 6.2 37.6 28.5 1230 Glyph. 5’ strip 4.9 8.3 6.4 201 Tilled 4.5 53.2 4.7 188 LSD(.05) 1.0 30.1 12.0 163 (Merwin & Stiles, 1994)

More Related