Grevers, M.C.J.

English

eCommons@USASK

Deep ripping in Saskatchewan – results from 12 sites

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

DEEP RIPPING IN SASKATCHEWAN, RESULTS FROM 12 SITES INTRODUCTION by Mike Gravers Department of Soil Science Saskatchewan Institute of Pedology University of Saskatchewan This work is supported by : Agriculture Development Fund Deep ripping and/or paraplowing has received much attention in the media over the past 3 years. Deep ripping has been practiced in Alberta with some degree of success (Aiubadi and Webster, 1982; Bole, 1986; Lavado and Cairns, 1980). The work in Alberta involves solonetzic soils where impervious Bnt horizons restrict water, air and root penetration. Deep ripping in this case is considered an alternative to deep plowing, which is a considerably more expensive operation. In Saskatchewan, soil disturbance from the installation of pipelines has been found to increase soil productivity of solonetzic soils (De Jong and Button, 1973). Talk amongst the farm community in Saskatchewan regarding the Alberta experience with deep ripping and the pipeline phenomena has led to a number of inquiries by farmers about the feasibility of deep ripping in their areas. This study was set up to investigate the potential for deep ripping- in Saskatchewan under a variety of soil and climatic conditions. A deep tillage project was initiated in the fall of 1985 and this report represents year 2 of the research. Results from year 1 were reported at the 1987 Soils & Crops Workshop (Gravers and Tanner, 1987). MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 12 farm sites are included in the study, involving both deep ripping, ranging in depth from 18" to 30" and paraplowing to a depth of 20". The kind of soils and the year and depth of deep tillage operations are listed in Table I. In all cases deep ripping and paraplowing were carried out in the fall. On the majority of sites deep ripping was done with a KELLO-BIL T subsoiler, pulled with a 349 1150 VERSATILE tractor (450 HP). Paraplowing was done with a HOWARD 3-bottom paraplow (courtesy of Agriculture Canada @ Swift Current). The paraplow was pulled with a DEUTSCH DXI30 tractor (-120 HP) for most of the sites. At Tisdale, A BELARUS tractor (-250 HP) was used. At most sites, tillage strips were a 1/2 mile in length and 40-60' in width. The treatments were replicated three times. The strips were separated by a control area of similar dimensions. Secondary tillage operations, such as discing and harrowing to smooth down the deep-tilled fields were considerable, in particular at the Tisdale and Arborfield sites. At the Morgan farm,large depressions were left in the field, with subsequent exposed subsoil in some areas. At the Cragg and Chabot farms, secondary tillage operations had left the top 4" to 5" of the soil in a very dry and powdery condition. Soil chemical criteria used to differentiate solonetzic soils from chernozemic soils are the exchangeable Ca/Na ratio and the 0/o water soluble Na. A soil is considered to be solonetzic if the exchangeable Ca/Na ratio of the B horizon is equal to or less than I 0 (Canada Soil Survey Committee, 1978). A solonetzic soil can also be identified chemically, if the 0/o water soluble Na in the 8 horizon is equal to or greater than 50o/o (Ballantyne and Clayton, 1962). These chemical values are listed for each site in Table II. Soil physical parameters that were measured include soil moisture, soil bulk density and soil strength. Soil water content was measured with the neutron access tube method for 10 sites. For the Ackerman and Swenson sites, soil moisture was determined gravimetrically with augers. Readings were taken prior to seeding (I to 2 weeks) and at harvest time. Soil bulk density was measured with a Depth Density Probe (gamma ray backscattering) at the same time soil moisture readings were taken. Soil strength was measured with a Proctor penetrometer. This method involves pushing a probe into the soil and measuring the force require-d to do so. Penetrometer measurements were taken at the time of harvest at each crop sampling area. Crop yield was determined by taking square meter samples, 4 to 6 replicates in each tillage strip. The samples were then transported to the University, where ·che samples were dried, weighed, threshed and analyzed for protein- or total nitrogen content. Water use efficiency was determined by dividing crop yield by the sum of the growing season precipitation and the change in soil moisture content over that period. 350 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Soil water recharge from fall to spring, was evaluated for 7 of the 12 sites (Table Ill). When results for all the sites are averaged, the gain in soil moisture was 13.4 o/o in the ripped strips, 23.1 °/o in the paraplowed strips and 11.3 % in the control strips. The relatively small difference between soil water recharge in the ripped fields and that in the control fields is due partly because 3 of the ripped sites had not been ripped the previous fall, but in the fall of 1985. The paraplowed fields on the other hand were all in their first winter and in a very porous condition. The late winter and early spring period for many of the sites was characterized by little snow cover and little rainfall. Evaporative losses of soil moisture during this period can be substantial once the snow cover is gone (Grevers et al, 1986).lt is therefore quite possible that the more porous condition of the deep tilled soils may have resulted in greater water loss due to evaporation, that would have occurred otherwise. The fields at Glenside, Birsay, Lucky Lake and Chamberlain were bare of snow for much of the winter period. Soil bulk density values at the time of harvest are given in Table IV. For the 25cm and the 40cm depths, both the ripped and the paraplowed fields se.emed to be less dense than the control fields. However, these differences are not statistically different. The equipment used to measure bulk density is not sensitive to small differences in density. Hopefully in 1988, bulk density can be measured with equipment that is more sensitive~ Crop establishment was evaluated 3 to 4 weeks after seeding. In most cases there was little difference between the deep tilled and the control strips. At the two Arborfield sites however, crop growth in the ripped strips was definitely poor. The ripped strips could easily be recognized from the control· strips by their appearance of bare patches and overall sporadic crop emergence. At the Chabot site non-germinated pea seeds could be found in the powdery dry topsoiL Poor seedbed conditions, as earlier mentioned had resulted in poor contact between moist soil and seed. Relatively dry spring conditions did little to off-set the poor seedbed conditions. Apparently similar problems existed at the Tisdale sites in the spring of 1986. However, timely spring rainfall allowed the ripped crop to establish and to eventually catch-up and out yield the control crop. The effect of deep tillage on crop yields is shown in Table V. Yield increases due to deep ripping were limited mainly to the solonetzic soils Deep ripping resulted in yield increases of 89%, 351 14°/o, and 18°/o at the Boxall, McEwen and Morgan sites, respectively. Deep ripping decreased yields at the Cragg site. However, this may have been attributable to poor seedbed conditions. Crop production on chernozemic soils was by and large unaffected by deep ripping. One exeption was at the Rice site, where canota yields were apparently greater by I Oo/o in the ripped strips. Paraplowing increased yields at only one site, Boxall's (60°/o), which is a solonetzic site. At all the other sites paraplowed strips had similar yields to that of the control strips. Some of the farm cooperators are of the opinion that rainfall in their area may have masked the effect of deep tillage on crop growth. Timely rainfall during the growing season can do much to off-set the deleterious effects of shallow hardpan horizons on crop water uptake. Amongst the 12 locations, 6 received normal to above normal precipitation for much of the growing season (Table VI). The above would therefore suggest that results may have been different if 1987 had been a "dry" year for the 6 sites in question. On the other hand, the north-east was relatively dry. A "wet" year in this region could also have led to different results. Obviously continued monitoring of all the sites for at least 3 years is required. Protein content was not significantly affected by the tillage treatments .(Table VII). Levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the spring were similar between the test strips except for 4 sites. At the Rice , Chabot and Jessiman farms, soil N levels in the ripped strips were an average 13 lbs/A higher than in the control strips. At the Cragg farm soil N levels in the ripped strips were 24 lbs/A lower than in the control strips. At the sites where deep ripping and/or paraplowing had resulted in significant yield increases, protein content were only lightly lower in the ripped area crop. One of the problems with crop production on solonetzic soils, is the variability in crop yield within a field. Deep tillage by breaking up hardpan layers in the soil, should in theory "even-out" the variability in yield. Coefficients of variation in crop yield are listed in Table VIII. Deep ripping reduced yield variability by an average of 7°/o (excluding the Arborfield sites). At the Arborfield sites, deep ripping increased yield variability by an average of 1 0°/o, which is due to seeding problems. Paraplowing reduced yield variability by an average of 2o/o. Soil strength values for the depth of 2" are given in Table IX. Soil moisture content of the soil layer tested for soil strength, was taken into consideration when evaluating significant differences in soil strength. Deep ripping reduced soil strength by an average of 14%, while paraplowing reduced soil strength by an average of 6%. 352 Water-use-efficiency (w.u.e.) values are listed in Table X. Deep ripping increased w.u.e. by an average of 1 1°/o, while paraplowing increased w.u.e. by 8°/o. For all wheat crops, deep ripping increased w.u.e. by an average of '1 7o/o and paraplowing by 1 0°/o. For all the flax crops, deep ripping increased w.u.e. by i 4o/o and paraplowing by I 1%. The increased w.u .. e. due to deep tillage could be due to a number of factors such as improved soil physical and chemical (fertility) conditions. Soil nitrate-nitrogen levels in the spring were an average of 5 lbs/A greater in the ripped strips and 8 lbs/A in the paraplowed strip compared to the control areas. CONCLUSIONS The effect of deep ripping and/or paraplowing on soil conditions and plant growth, was evaluated on 12 farm sites. The sites represent 3 solonetzic soil sites, 3 sites where some of the area is solonetzic and 6 chernozemic soil sites. The results are summarized as follows: i) Over-winter recharge was greater following either deep tillage operation. Greater recharge occurred following paraplowing than following deep ripping. 2) Soil structure was characterized by lower soil strength at the 2" depth for either deep tillage. Deep ripping was more effective than paraplowing. There was only a trend apparent in soil bulk density, suggesting lower density for the 1 0" and 16" depth for either deep tillage. 3) Crop establishment was unaffected by either deep tillage operation for 10 of the 12 sites. For 2 of the sites poor seedbed conditions due to deep ripping resulted in poor crop growth. 4) Deep ripping increased yields at 4 sites, decreased yields at 1 site and had no significant effect at 7 sites. Paraplowing increased yields at oniy i site. The most dramatic yield increases occurred on solonetzic soils. Timely rainfall in some areas may have reduced the impact of improved soil physical conditions on crop growth. 353 5) Variation in crop yield within a field was reduced by either deep tillage operation, but more so with deep ripping than with paraplowing 6) Water-use-efficiency was increased with either deep tillage treatment. LIST OF REFERENCES Alzubaidi, A and G.R Webster. 1982. Effect of tillage in combination with chemical amendments on reclamation of a solonetzic soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 62:641-649. Ballantyne, A.K. and J.S. Clayton. 1962. The relationship of water-soluble cations to field separations of chernozemic and solonetzic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 43:359-369. Bole, J.B. 1986. Amelioration of a calcareous solonetzic soil by irrigation, deep ripping, and acidification with elemental sulfur. Can. J. Soil Sci. 66:347-356. Canada Soil Survey Committee. 1978. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Publication 1646. De Jong, E. and R.G. Button. 1973. Effects of pipeline installation -on soil properties and productivity. Can. J. Soil Sci. 53:37-47. Gravers, M.C., J.A. Kirkland, E. DeJong and D.A. Rennie. 1986. Soil water conservation under zero- and conventional tillage systems on the Canadian prairies. Soil & Tillage Res. 8:265-276. Gravers, M.C.J. and E. Tanner. 1977. Deep ripping experiments in N-E Saskatchewan. 1987 Soils & Crops Workshop. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Lavado , A.S. and R.R. Cairns. 1980. Solonetzic soil properties and yields of wheat, oats and barley as affected by deep plowing and deep ripping. Soil & Tillage Res. 1:69-79. 354 Table 1. Soil types and depth and year of tillage. ----------------------------------------------------Site Farm Soil Assn. Soil Order Year* Depth of Rip Ppl ------------------------------------------------------em ----Moose Jaw Swenson Haverhill L Chernozem 1986 76 Chamberlain Ackerman Weyburn L Chernozem 1986 50 Lucky Lake Jessiman Sceptre HC Chernozem 1986 50 50 Birsay Millar Fox Valley CL Chernozem 1986 50 Glenside Harrington Tuxford C Solonetz 1986 50 (j.l Cut Knife Foisy Oxbow L Chernozem 1986 50 50 Lll Lll Tisdale Box all Arborfield c Solonetz 1985 76 50 McEwen Arborfield c Solonetz 1985/6 76 50 Morgan Arborfield c Solonetz 1985 76 Rice Tisdale C Chernozem 1986 76 Arborfield Chabot Arborfield c Solonetz 1986 76 Cragg Arborfield c Solonetz 1986 76 --------------------------------------------------------* Year that the deep tillage operation was carried out. Ripper shanks were 56cm apart for the Tisdale and Arborfield sites and 112cm apart for the other sites. Paraplow bottoms were spaced at 50cm intervals. Table II. Soil chemical characteristics of the B horizons of all 12 soils. Site Moose Jaw Chamberlain Lucky Lake Birsay Glenside Cut Knife Tisdale, Boxall Tisdale, McEwen Tisdale, Morgan Tisdale, Rice Arborfield, Chabot Arborfield, Cragg Means of all profiles Ca/Na % W.S.S. * 61 13 47 8 231 10 30 22 35 44 28 '10 5 3'1 '19 43 2 68 '133 '14 30 46 7 79 Worst profile Ca/Na % W.S.S. 34 19 39 7 118 15 27 23 i 63 22 12 3 40 '14 57 i 7'1 '1'10 '19 '17 53 6 81 * Ripper shanks were 56cm apart for the Tisdale. and Arborfield sites and i i 2cm apart for the other sites. Paraplow bottoms were spaced at 50cm intervals. 356 Table Ill. Over-winter recharge (19S6/19S7) of soil moisture for 7 sites. Site Lucky Lake Birsay Glenside Cut Knife Tisdale, Boxall Tisdale, McEwen Tisdale,Morgan Average <% gain Tillage Ripped· Parapl. Control Parapl. Control Parapl. Control Ripped Parapl. Control Ripped Parapl. Control Ripped Parapl. Control Ripped Control Ripped Parapl. Control Fall 86 Spring 87 H20 gain -----------em 31.9 33.5 32.2 26.9 26.7 25.7 22.2 24.4 21.5 22.3 36.3 30.0 34.5 34.4 34.1 35.4 34.4 34.8 13.4%.~ 23.5'%, 11.3% 357 35. i 40.0 33.6 29.9 29.7 26.9 25.2 23.7 23.6 23.3 45.8 51.3 45.8 37.6 34.0 H20-----------3.2 6.5 1.4 3.0 3.0 1.2 3.0 -0.7 2.1 i .0 6.3 13.6 6.3 11.4 i 7.2 10.4 3.2 -0.8 Table IV. Soil bulk density values for the 25, 40 and 60 em depths. -----------------------------------------------------Site Depth Control Rip Paraplow ---------------------------------------em ----------- gm/cm3 ------------Lucky Lake 25 1.605 1.515 1.507 40 1.470 1.453 1.461 60 1.478 1.523 1.518 Birsay 25 1.566 1.596 40 1.478 1.506 60 1.520 1 .518 Glenside 25 1.638 1.578 40 1.605 1.484 60 1.660 1.515 Cut Knife 25 1.594 1.562 1.492 40 1.534 1.529 1.453 60 1.559 1.544 1.502 Tisdale, Boxall 25 1.605 1.575 1.572 40 1.438 1.430 1.406 60 1.459 1.457 1.438 Tisdale, McEwen 25 1.464 1.452 1.401 40 1.362 1.354 1.340 60 1.420 1.397 1.420 Tisdale, Morgan 25 1.674 1.681 40 1.545 1.523 60 1.555 1.553 Tisdale, Rice 25 1.502 1.428 40 1.464 i .446 60 1.444 1.475 Arborfield, Chabot 25 1 .564. 1.500 40 1.417 1.322 60 1.451 1.444 Arborfield, Cragg 25 1.372 1.443 40 1.272 i .228 60 1.364 1.382 358 Table V. Crop harvest yields in 1987. Site Crop Moose Jaw Wheat Chamberlain VVheat Lucky Lake Wheat Glenside Wheat Tisdale, Boxall Wheat Arborfield, Cragg Wheat Birsay Flax Flax* Tisdale, McEwen I Flax Tisdale, McEwen II Flax Tisdale, Morgan Flax Cut Knife Lentils Arborfield, Chabot Peas Tisdale, Rice Canola ** Cntrl. 40.3 18.8 44.1 20.0 18.4 41.8 34.7 29.4 21.0 23.0 40.4 31.2 Grain yield Rip Ppl. LSD .05 ------------Bu/ Acre-----------47.0 22.4 44.3 34.8 34.9 24.0 27.1 41.1 28.6 46.4 19.8 29.5 35.0 32.5 23.1 42.3 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 5.3 6.0. N.S. N.S. 3.0 N.S. 3.2 N.S. N.S. ? * Represent weigh wagon yields taken by Michael Millar ** Crop was estimated to bd 6" taller (-1 0% greater yield) in the ripped strips by Gary Rice 359 Table VI. Precipitation during the growing season of 1987. Site Growing season Precip. as a 0/o of normal precipitation May June July Aug --mm-- -----------~o----------Moose Jaw 243 88 80 123 104 Chamberlain 243 88 80 123 104 Lucky Lake 216 91 80 114 12 Birsay 216 91 80 114 122 Glenside 194 91 80 114 122 Cut Knife 263 90 80 123 120 Tisdale 209 76 49 80 94 Arborfield 274 71 65 92 116 360 Table VII. Percentage protein in harvested crops. Site Crop Cntrl Rip Ppl LSD .05 --------------- o/o --------------Moose Jaw Wheat 14.9 13.1 N.S. Chamberlain Wheat 12.8 11.9 N.S. Lucky lake Wheat 12.8 ·13.2 13.3 N.S. Glenside Wheat 12.8 13.2 N.S. Tisdale, Boxall Wheat 14.5 14.4 14.5 N.S. Arborfield, Cragg Wheat 13.5 13.7 N.S. Birsay Flax 19.3 19.4 N.S. Tisdale, McEwen Flax . 23.6 22.6 23.2 N.S. Tisdale, Morgan Flax 22.1 21.2 N.S. Cut Knife Lentils 21.6 21.1 21.1 N.S. Arborfield, Chabot Peas 20.6 20.3 N.S. 361 Table VIII. Variability in grain yields (coefficient of variability). Site Control Ripped Paraplowed --------------- o/o ----------------Moose Jaw 32.0 9.7 Chamberlain 27.4 19.9 Lucky Lake 21.1 19.5 21.2 Birsay 12.9 9.7 Glenside 19.6 22.3 Cut Knife 11.9 13.0 12.7 Tisdale, Boxall 35.9 31.2 30.7 Tisdale, McEwen 12.3 8.4 6.8 Tisdale, Morgan 18.0 10.3 Arborfield, Chabot 17.4 28.7 Arborfield, Cragg 12.8 20.9 362 Table IX. Soil strength values at 2" depth at harvest. Location Cntrl Rip Ppl LSD .05 ----------------- p. s. i. -----------------Moose Jaw 133 126 N.S. Chamberlain * 215 165 N.S. Lucky Lake 144 87 109 13 Birsay 578 718 129 Glenside 390 277 42 Cut Knife 321 341 375 N.S. Tisdale,Boxall 110 106 93 13 Tisdale, Morgan 425 296 108 Arborfield, Cragg 57 55 N.S. * Soil moisture content at 2" depth was greater in the ripped area, which reduces soil strength. 363 Table X. Water-use-efficiency values for the 1987 crops. Site Crop Cntrl Rip Ppl ----------kg/ha/cm -------Moose Jaw Wheat 94.0 112.7 Chamberlain Wheat 39.5 43.5 Glenside Wheat 49.7 48.2 Lucky Lake Wheat 126.2 110.6 116.7 Tisdale, Boxall Wheat 47.2 89.6 69.0 Arborfield, Cragg Wheat 67.5 53.6 Birsay Flax 75.8 78.1 Tisdale, McEwen Flax 45.5 49.8 Tisdale, McEwen II Flax 38.5 37.7 Tisdale, Morgan Flax 68.5 81.4 Cut Knife Lentils 91.0 94.5 84.9 Arborfield, Chabot Peas 63.8 52.2 Averages per crop All Crops 67.3 76.4 72.5 Wheat 59.6 74.9 58.6 Flax 57.1 65.6 57.9 364 

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/10837/1/M.C.J.%20Grevers%2c%201988.pdf

Deep ripping in Saskatchewan – results from 12 sites

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@USASK

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive