Agronomy Journal Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (18)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, C. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, C. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Legumes
Right arrow Water Use
Right arrow Crop Rotation Systems
Right arrow Dryland Cropping Systems
Right arrow Nitrogen
Right arrow Production Agriculture
Right arrow Crop Ecology
Agronomy Journal 95:972-979 (2003)
© 2003 American Society of Agronomy

PULSE CROPS

Pulse Crops for the Northern Great Plains

I. Grain Productivity and Residual Effects on Soil Water and Nitrogen

P. R. Miller*,a, Y. Ganb, B. G. McConkeyb and C. L. McDonaldb

a Dep. of Land Resour. and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
b Semiarid Prairie Agric. Res. Cent., Agric. and Agri-Food Can., Swift Current, SK, Canada S9H 3X2

* Corresponding author (pmiller{at}montana.edu)

Received for publication May 21, 2002.

   ABSTRACT
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Grain producers need to know the comparative productivity of pulse crops, and their effects on soil N and water, to optimize diversified cropping systems. The objective was to compare grain productivity, water use efficiency (WUE), and apparent N margin among dry pea (Pisum sativum L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.), and desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and their effects on subsequent soil water and N when grown on loam and clay soil textures. This study was conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, between 1996 and 1999. On the loam soil, pea yield equaled wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and was 39 and 34% greater than that of lentil and chickpea, respectively. On the clay soil, pea yields were 26% less than spring wheat yield, equal to chickpea yield, and 29% greater than lentil yield. The apparent N margin for pea averaged 40 and 32 kg ha-1 greater than for lentil and chickpea, respectively, indicating superior N2 fixation. Postharvest soil water status to a 122-cm depth was greater for all pulse crops compared with wheat on both soils, ranging from 25 to 49 mm greater under the clay soil and 12 to 31 mm greater under the loam soil. Postharvest soil water differences occurred primarily below 61 cm. However, differences in soil water status to a 122-cm depth disappeared by spring. Conversely, postharvest differences among crops for soil N increased over winter due primarily to an increase in soil N status above 61 cm. By spring, all three pulse crop stubbles had greater soil NO3–N than wheat, averaging 28 and 12 kg ha-1 greater at the clay and loam soil sites, respectively. Pulse crop productivity was less on the clay than the loam soil, but beneficial effects on soil water and N were greater, indicating that pulse crops will be economically valuable on both soil types.

Abbreviations: WUE, water use efficiency


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
THE CROPPING AREA devoted to production of cool-season pulse crops (dry pea, lentil, and chickpea) in semiarid southwestern Saskatchewan increased from 4 to 27% of the annually cropped area from 1996 to 2001 (Saskatchewan, Food and Rural Revitalization, 2002). As pulse crops increase in importance so does the need to understand their comparative productivity and soil effects within diversified cropping systems. Relatively little research has been published on the comparative productivity and cropping sequence effects of pulse crops in the northern Great Plains and more specifically in the driest agroecoregion, which encompasses southwestern Saskatchewan, southeastern Alberta, and northern Montana, hereafter referred to as Agroecoregion 12 (Padbury et al., 2002). The adaptation of pulse crops and their cropping sequence effects on subsequent wheat productivity were reported previously for a loam soil within Agroecoregion 12 (Miller et al., 2001, 2002a, 2002b). However, producers often ask about the adaptation of pulse crops to heavy- vs. medium-textured soils within this region. Miller et al. (2002b) concluded that the positive cropping sequence effect from pulse crops on subsequent spring wheat was more closely related to differences in soil N than to differences in soil water although these soil attributes were measured only in the fall. Zentner et al. (2001) reported that soil NO3–N to a 1.2-m depth averaged 11 kg ha-1 greater following lentil than following wheat in a long-term rotation study conducted in Agroecoregion 12. In subhumid regions of the northern Great Plains, measurement of the soil N contribution from pea residues ranged from 6 to 27 kg ha-1 (Stevenson and van Kessel, 1996; Beckie and Brandt, 1997). Preliminary research results from 1999 and 2000 in south-central North Dakota indicate that soil water use by pea (34 mm) was less than that for canola (Brassica napus L.; 53 mm) and spring wheat (43 mm; USDA-ARS Northern Great Plains Res. Lab., 2002). All of the above research studied pulse crop effects within the context of loam soils. The objective of this study was to compare grain productivity, WUE, and apparent N margin among dry pea, lentil, and desi chickpea and their effects on subsequent soil water and N when grown on loam and clay soils.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Site Characteristics and Climatic Patterns
This study was conducted at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research facility near Swift Current, SK (50°12' N, 107°24' W), and on farm fields 40 km away near Stewart Valley, SK (50°36' N, 107°48' W), from 1996 to 1999. Both sites were in Agroecoregion 12 of the northern Great Plains (Padbury et al., 2002). Soil types at the sites were a Swinton silt loam (Typic Haplustoll) at Swift Current and a Sceptre heavy clay (Vertic Haplustoll) at Stewart Valley. The soil organic C content was 16 g kg-1 at Swift Current and ranged from 15 to 25 g kg-1 between fields at Stewart Valley. Both sites followed optimal soil fertility management, and preseeding soil tests indicated that P, K, and S were not limiting to wheat growth. Soil fertility limitations are not well understood for pulse crop production, but it is likely that these macronutrients did not limit pulse crop growth either. Precipitation was measured on-site at both locations, and the monthly distribution is presented in Fig. 1 .



View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Monthly precipitation at Swift Current and Stewart Valley (May through August only), SK, Canada, 1996–1999.

 
Experimental Design and Field Operations
Previous crop management at all sites was tilled summer fallow. A three-replicate randomized complete block design was used, with five crops [wheat, pea, lentil, chickpea, and Oriental mustard (Brassica juncea L.)] occurring in 12- by 16-m plots. At each site, a 4- by 16-m tilled fallow reference plot (i.e., 2 yr consecutive summer fallow) occurred systematically in the center of each block for the sole purpose of providing an immediate reference of soil water status and thus was excluded from statistical analyses and comparisons.

All crops were seeded using a 2-m-wide, 10-row modified hoe drill with a cone and spinner assembly for precise seed placement. Cultivars, fungicides, and inoculants used are described in Table 1. Seeding dates ranged from late April to late May (Table 2) , depending on moisture conditions. For wheat and mustard, fertilizer N (urea and ammonium sulfate) was banded midway between each pair of rows (20-cm row spacing) through a double-disc opener running 1 m ahead of the hoe openers while fertilizer P was placed in the seed row. Pulse crops received only a small amount of N, which accompanied P in a fertilizer formulation of 11–51–0, except in 1997 at Stewart Valley where low soil NO3–N values in the top 61 cm measured in the fall prompted adding 13 kg ha-1 additional N fertilizer (Table 2). Fertilizer N rates for mustard and wheat were applied according to recommended rates, based on a fall soil test to a 61-cm depth (Table 2) (Saskatchewan Agric., 1988).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Cultivars, seed rates (live seeds-2), and fungicidal and inoculant seed treatments for Year-1 crops in cropping sequence study at Swift Current and Stewart Valley, SK, Canada, 1996–1998.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Agronomic factors for Year-1 crops in cropping sequence study at Stewart Valley and Swift Current, SK, Canada, 1996–1998.

 
Weeds were managed with recommended herbicides for all crops without supplemental hand weeding. At all sites but one (Swift Current in 1996), granular trifluralin [{alpha},{alpha},{alpha}-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N, N-dipropyl-p-toluidine] (1.1–1.4 kg a.i. ha-1) was applied in the spring before seeding. In all crops, commercially available postemergent herbicides were applied as needed to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. No postemergent broadleaf herbicide was available for chickpea, and the single postemergent option on lentil, metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-1], was applied but provided inadequate broadleaf weed control. In chickpea, chlorothalonil [tetrachloroisopthalonitrile] fungicide (2 kg a.i. ha-1) was applied to manage ascochyta blight [Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Lab.] at all sites but one (Stewart Valley in 1996), using from one to four applications per season.

Soil and Crop Data
Plots were sampled preseeding, postharvest, and the following spring (Table 2) by taking six cores per plot to a depth of 122 cm; dividing the cores into 0- to 30-, 30- to 61-, 61- to 91-, and 91- to 122-cm segments; and bulking segments by depth. Soil samples were analyzed for water (gravimetrically) and NO3–N (Hamm et al., 1970). Site values for soil bulk densities were obtained from a previous study at Swift Current (Campbell et al., 1983) and were measured by grid sampling at Stewart Valley. Bulk density values were used to express N and water content on a volumetric basis. Spring soil N sampling occurred 1 to 25 d after seeding (Table 2). To avoid contamination from applied fertilizer N, the samples were obtained in a grid pattern every 4 m on either side of each block (= replicate), outside the actual seeding area. Spring measurements were averaged from 32 cores to determine a common soil NO3–N and water value for each block within a site and year. Runoff was considered insignificant because the field sites were level. Deep percolation between spring and fall soil sampling was not measured, but if it occurred, it was reasonably considered to affect all crops equally. All plots were soil-sampled on the same date at each site to prevent operational bias. The time interval between crop maturity and postharvest soil sampling varied moderately by crop and year. For example, the time interval between wheat maturity and postharvest soil sampling ranged from 14 to 49 d in different years and averaged 25 d. Rainfall received between crop maturity and fall soil sampling was presumed to be stored in the soil.

Dry matter seed yield for each plot was obtained by direct-harvesting three 1.22- by 16-m strips with a small-plot combine. Shoot biomass was measured after physiological maturity by collecting total aboveground biomass from six 0.5-m2 sampling areas per plot and oven-drying for 48 h at 40°C to determine dry weight. Harvest index was determined by ratio of harvested seed to shoot biomass on a dry matter basis. Seed yield and seed N concentration were reported on a dry matter basis. Seed N concentration was determined using the standard micro-Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 2000). Water use efficiency was the ratio between dry matter seed yield and total water used. Total water use was defined as the difference between spring and fall soil water measurements to 122 cm plus all rain received between spring and fall sampling dates. The difference between N harvested in the seed and N inputs was measured as the apparent N margin. Nitrogen inputs were defined as fertilizer N minus spring NO3–N + fall NO3–N. This accounting of N output vs. N inputs provides a reasonable index of N2 fixation, assuming soil N mineralization dynamics are equal among crops.

Statistical Analyses
Subsample values were averaged to generate a single value per plot for statistical analyses. Sites were considered fixed and years random effects. The data were analyzed with the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst., 1988, 549–640). Analyses of variance were run including site within the full model and then by site, consistent with the objective of comparing pulse crop attributes in different soil textures. All mean comparisons were made within sites (Table 3). Where crop x year was significant, it was used as the error term for testing the crop effect and for calculating an appropriate standard error. A P value of 0.10 was used for testing the significance of interaction terms (F test) and for testing mean differences with the protected LSD procedure. Crop productivity data for pea at Stewart Valley in 1998 were omitted from analyses due to severe deer (Odocoileus virginianus) grazing and treated as missing data.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Full model ANOVA (mean squares), and ANOVA by site, for crop productivity parameters and effects on soil water and N on loam (Swift Current) and clay (Stewart Valley) soils, 1996–1998.

 

   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Pulse Crop Productivity
Crop available water for 1996 through 1998 was generally near or above the long-term average for these locations. Between 1996 and 1998, the growing season rainfall was near the 30-yr average, except at Stewart Valley in 1998, which was 25 mm drier than the 30-yr average due to a lack of rain in May (Fig. 1). Overwinter precipitation at Swift Current contrasted among years during this study in that the 1996–1997 and 1998–1999 September through April precipitation was above average while that for the 1997–1998 winter was below average. Summer drought, as is typical of this region, was encountered each year of this study.

Relative crop yields varied between soil textures as indicated by the equations below (Table 4):


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Mean seed yield, harvest index, seed water use efficiency (WUE), and apparent N margin for five Year-1 crops in a cropping sequence study at Stewart Valley (clay soil) and Swift Current (loam soil), SK, Canada, 1996–1998.

 
At both sites, pea yielded the greatest and lentil the least of the pulse crops, averaging 60 and 55% of pea on the clay and loam soils, respectively. On the clay soil, chickpea yields equaled pea while on the loam soil, chickpea yields were 37% less than pea yields. The pulse crops and wheat at the loam soil site had similar harvest indices, suggesting that yield differences primarily reflected differences in net primary productivity (Table 4). In the clay soil, the harvest index for lentil was lower than that for pea and chickpea, indicating reduced translocation of photosynthate during yield formation for lentil. Previous research conducted in 1992–1996 on loam soil at Swift Current showed that pea, chickpea, and lentil yielded 103, 59, and 54% of spring wheat, respectively, when grown on fallow (Miller et al., 2001). The results from the loam soil in this study were consistent with that previous work. However, the relative yield response on the clay soil at Stewart Valley was different in the current study where pea and lentil yields averaged only 75 and 45% of spring wheat, respectively, indicating a comparative disadvantage for pea and lentil in clay soil. Possible reasons for site differences in comparative crop productivity include agronomic management and soil–climatic effects. Due to generally wetter spring soil surface conditions, typical of a clay soil, seeding occurred 12 to 22 d later than on the loam soil, which might have penalized pea and lentil productivity more than spring wheat or chickpea. For example, in a related study of spring seeding date effects on crops, pea yields were more greatly reduced by delaying seeding from early to late May than was the case for chickpea (Miller et al., 1998). This was due possibly to a greater heat tolerance for chickpea compared with pea as has been reported previously by Wery et al. (1993). It also is possible that a greater rooting ability of chickpea in a clay soil increased its productivity compared with pea under the summer drought conditions that occurred all 3 yr. Chickpea had 24 mm greater soil water extraction to a 122-cm depth than pea under the clay soil, which supports this rooting depth argument (Table 5). However, chickpea also extracted 19 mm greater soil water from the loam soil and yet yielded less than pea. Thus, the greater rooting ability for chickpea offers, at best, only a partial explanation for the similar yield response when grown on clay soil. The yield for lentil when grown on the clay soil was affected greatly by the 1997 growing season when waterlogged soil conditions during emergence and early seedling growth interfered with lentil more strongly than other crops. Ignoring that year, the average yield of lentil relative to wheat was similar to that on the loam soil.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Postharvest (fall) and subsequent spring soil water and residual NO3–N following Year-1 crops in a cropping sequence study at Stewart Valley (clay soil) and Swift Current (loam soil), SK, Canada, 1996–1999.

 
Relative differences among crops for seed WUE were consistent with the yield response, except that pea did not differ statistically from wheat at either site (Table 4). This indicates that the lower pea yields attained at Stewart Valley concomitantly used less soil water than did wheat, supported by the observation that wheat used 49 mm greater soil water than pea at the clay soil site (Table 5). Although the WUE for lentil was less than for chickpea on the clay soil, when the 1997 data for lentil were ignored, there was no significant difference between them. Because soil samples were not collected immediately after crop maturity, it is likely that these reported values slightly underestimate true WUE values because some proportion of the rainfall received between crop maturity and fall soil sampling would have been lost to evaporation.

The apparent N margin was greater for the pulse crops than the two non-pulse crops (Table 4). This indicated effective N2 fixation for the pulse crops even under summer fallow soil conditions where total crop available N at planting (soil NO3–N + fertilizer N) varied among years from 47 to 140 kg ha-1 under the clay soil and from 58 to 67 kg ha-1 under the loam soil (Table 2). The apparent N margin for pea was 34 and 50 kg ha-1 greater than for chickpea and lentil, respectively, on the loam soil. Although a trend of equal magnitude was observed on the clay soil, a larger error variance (crop x year) may have prevented differences from being detected. These observed differences in apparent N margin, attributed to differences in N2 fixation ability, are generally consistent with a study by Biederbeck et al. (1996) where pea grown for green manure purposes held 22 kg ha-1 greater N in its vegetation than lentil at the time of growth termination approximately two months after seeding. Similarly, others have reported that pea is a more effective N2 fixer than lentil (Rennie and Dubetz, 1986; Bremer et al., 1988). Studies that compared N2 fixation of pea and chickpea are less common. Rennie and Dubetz (1986) concluded similar N2 fixation potential for pea and chickpea when grown under irrigated conditions in southern Alberta, but low stand densities, and the resultant low yields for chickpea, make it difficult to know if these results are valid for dryland scenarios. Armstrong et al. (1997) found that N2 fixation and N benefits to wheat were greater for pea than chickpea in an Australian semiarid environment.

Crop Effects on Soil Water
Postharvest soil water was greater for all pulse crops than for wheat at both sites (Table 5). However, cropping differences in soil water were greater under the clay soil (25–49 mm) than under the loam soil (12–31 mm). Soil differences indicate pulse crops might conserve more soil water for subsequent crops on clay than loam soils. These differences may be attributed to rooting depth. Here, differences among crop stubbles for postharvest residual soil water under the loam soil were greater than those reported by Miller et al. (2002b) in a previous cropping sequence study at the same site where only pea extracted less soil water than wheat. There, pea extracted 9 mm less soil water to a 120-cm depth than did wheat (P < 0.05) compared with 31 mm reported here under the same loam soil. In that study, growing season rainfall was much above average in 3 of the 5 yr, with no occurrence of summer drought, which might have caused different crop water use patterns compared with the more typical rainfall amounts that were encountered in the current study.

Postharvest soil water status differed among pulse crops at both sites in the following manner:

In two site-years (Swift Current in 1996 and Stewart Valley in 1997), moderate weed infestations were evident in chickpea but not in other crops, which might have biased chickpea water use upward. However, examination of the results by year at each site does not support this argument as differences in postharvest soil water status were as great between pea and chickpea in years where weed control was very good in chickpea (data not shown). Examination of postharvest soil water status by soil depth showed that the differences among crops occurred mainly below the 61-cm soil depth where pea and lentil extracted less soil water and wheat and mustard extracted more soil water (Fig. 2) . Based on these results, differences in soil water use were attributed to rooting depth.



View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Postharvest soil water status, referenced to fallow, at Stewart Valley and Swift Current, SK, Canada, 1996–1998. Crops marked with the same letter (or no letter) do not differ within soil depth increments (cm) (lowercase) or for total soil depth (uppercase) at each site, according to protected LSD (P < 0.10).

 
By the following spring, differences in soil water status disappeared (Table 5). These results were attributed to superior snow trapping and soil water conservation effects of dense wheat stubble compared with the sparse broadleaf crop stubbles. Examination of the soil water status by soil depth in the subsequent spring showed that some of the relative crop differences persisted below 61 cm (Fig. 3) . However, they were diminished and offset by differences within the 0- to 31-cm soil increment such that differences for the full 122-cm soil profile were no longer significant. Overwinter change in soil water status under wheat stubble was similar between the wetter-than-average winters of 1996–1997 and 1998–1999 and the drier-than-average winter of 1997–1998 (data not shown).



View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Soil water status relative to fallow measured in the subsequent spring at Stewart Valley and Swift Current, SK, Canada, 1997–1999. Crops marked with the same letter (or no letter) do not differ within soil depth increments (cm), according to protected LSD (P < 0.10).

 
Crop Effects on Soil Nitrogen
Relative differences in postharvest soil NO3–N among crops were similar between sites, with differences among crops appearing larger under the clay than the loam soil (Table 5). Residual NO3–N in the fall was less in wheat than in pea and lentil in both years, averaging 16 and 10 kg ha-1 less at the clay and loam soil sites, respectively. The effect of lentil stubble on soil NO3–N reported here for the loam soil site agrees closely with the average of 11 kg ha-1 reported by Zentner et al. (2001) in a long-term crop rotation study at the same location. The effect of pea stubble on soil NO3–N reported here appears to be equal or greater than that reported from other recent studies in the subhumid region of the northern Great Plains (Stevenson and van Kessel, 1996; Beckie and Brandt, 1997). This cropping sequence study was conducted during a period of average to above-average precipitation, which might have biased upward the crop effects on soil N, as was observed by Yamoah et al. (1998). Examining soil NO3–N status by depth showed that crops differed primarily below the 61-cm soil depth (Fig. 4) . This indicates that postharvest differences among crops in soil NO3–N status might be due to differences in root length. This observation is consistent with the soil water use results. It is also consistent with the Angadi et al. (1998) study that showed that the root length density for pea was only 25 and 5% of wheat in the 60- to 90- and 90- to 120-cm soil increments, respectively. It is possible that differences among crops for root length density might have been greater in the clay soil.



View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Postharvest soil NO3–N status at Stewart Valley and Swift Current, SK, Canada, 1996–1998. Crops marked with the same letter (or no letter) do not differ within soil depth increments (cm) (lowercase) or for total soil depth (uppercase) at each site, according to protected LSD (P < 0.10).

 
Soil NO3–N increased approximately 50% at both sites over the winter (Fig. 5) . In the spring, soil NO3–N under the pulse crops averaged 28 and 12 kg ha-1 greater than under wheat in the clay and loam soils, respectively (Table 5). This increase occurred in the surface 61 cm of soil. Nitrate N increased more in the pulse crops than in wheat. Higher NO3–N values in the pulse crops than in wheat was attributed to the return of low C/N residues to the soil followed by N mineralization and nitrification. This overwinter increase should be accounted when making recommendations for fertilizer N application in crops following pulse crops. Soil NO3–N under mustard stubble generally was lower than that under pea and lentil stubble and did not differ from that under wheat stubble at all sampling times. This indicates that the rotational effect of pulse crops elevates soil N compared with non-pulse broadleaf crops.



View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Soil NO3–N status measured the subsequent spring at Stewart Valley and Swift Current, SK, Canada, 1997–1999. Crops marked with the same letter (or no letter) do not differ within soil depth increments (cm) (lowercase) or for total soil depth (uppercase) at each site, according to protected LSD (P < 0.10).

 

   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
Relative productivity among pulse crops changed according to soil type. When seeded on a loam soil, pea yields were equal with spring wheat and 39 and 34% greater than lentil and chickpea yields, respectively. Conversely, when seeded on a clay soil, pea yielded 26% less than spring wheat, equal with chickpea and 29% greater than lentil. Thus, a comparative productivity advantage for pea relative to chickpea did not occur on the fallowed clay soil. The apparent N margin for pea averaged 40 and 32 kg ha-1 greater than that for lentil and chickpea, indicating superior rhizobial N2 fixation. The amount of NO3–N contained in the soil profile in the following spring support this hypothesis. Among these pulse crops, pea used the least soil water, due to a shallow rooting habit, and chickpea used the most. All three pulse crops used less soil water than spring wheat, but these water use differences were mitigated by overwinter precipitation. Among the pulse crops, pea and lentil contributed the greatest soil N, and chickpea the least, but all were greater than wheat when measured in the spring. Pulse crop effects on soil water and N were greater for the clay than the loam soil type, indicating that rotational benefits from pulse crops will be greater on clay than loam soils.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
Barry Campbell and Richard Weetman are acknowledged for their assistance with on-farm research sites at Stewart Valley. We also acknowledge the exceedingly competent technical assistance of Ray Leshures, Greg Ford, Rod Ljunggren, and Gary Winkleman. This project was funded by the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, the Saskatchewan Agriculture Development Fund, and the AAFC Matching Investment Initiative.


   NOTES
TOP
 NOTES
ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Journal Ser. no. 2002-30, Montana Agric. Exp. Stn., Montana State Univ., Bozeman.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
H. W. Cutforth, S. M. McGinn, K. E. McPhee, and P. R. Miller
Adaptation of Pulse Crops to the Changing Climate of the Northern Great Plains
Agron. J., November 6, 2007; 99(6): 1684 - 1699.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
F. L. Walley, G. W. Clayton, P. R. Miller, P. M. Carr, and G. P. Lafond
Nitrogen Economy of Pulse Crop Production in the Northern Great Plains
Agron. J., November 6, 2007; 99(6): 1710 - 1718.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
R. L. Lemke, Z. Zhong, C. A. Campbell, and R. Zentner
Can Pulse Crops Play a Role in Mitigating Greenhouse Gases from North American Agriculture?
Agron. J., November 6, 2007; 99(6): 1719 - 1725.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
D. L. Tanaka, J. M. Krupinsky, S. D. Merrill, M. A. Liebig, and J. D. Hanson
Dynamic Cropping Systems for Sustainable Crop Production in the Northern Great Plains
Agron. J., June 5, 2007; 99(4): 904 - 911.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
P. R. Miller, R. E. Engel, and J. A. Holmes
Cropping Sequence Effect of Pea and Pea Management on Spring Wheat in the Northern Great Plains
Agron. J., October 31, 2006; 98(6): 1610 - 1619.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
C. Chen, P. Miller, F. Muehlbauer, K. Neill, D. Wichman, and K. McPhee
Winter Pea and Lentil Response to Seeding Date and Micro- and Macro-Environments
Agron. J., October 31, 2006; 98(6): 1655 - 1663.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
D. C. Nielsen, P. W. Unger, and P. R. Miller
Efficient Water Use in Dryland Cropping Systems in the Great Plains
Agron. J., March 1, 2005; 97(2): 364 - 372.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
P. R. Miller and J. A. Holmes
Cropping Sequence Effects of Four Broadleaf Crops on Four Cereal Crops in the Northern Great Plains
Agron. J., January 1, 2005; 97(1): 189 - 200.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
P. M. Carr, R. D. Horsley, and W. W. Poland
Barley, Oat, and Cereal-Pea Mixtures as Dryland Forages in the Northern Great Plains
Agron. J., May 1, 2004; 96(3): 677 - 684.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (18)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, C. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by McDonald, C. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Legumes
Right arrow Water Use
Right arrow Crop Rotation Systems
Right arrow Dryland Cropping Systems
Right arrow Nitrogen
Right arrow Production Agriculture
Right arrow Crop Ecology

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome