Effect of Cereal Crop Residue Distribution on the Following Year's Canola Emergence and Yield
Date: July 2021
Term: 4 years
Status: Completed
Researcher: Katelyn Blechinger, Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute
SaskCanola Investment: $122,389
Total Project Cost: $163,185
Funding Partners: Sask Wheat Development Commission
Project Summary
Residue management is a significant challenge for producers on a year-to-year basis. Wheat and canola crops are often grown in rotation, and it is important to understand how wheat crop residue management can affect the emergence of canola in a rotation. In this three-year project, the objectives were to analyze canola emergence and yield based on different wheat residue harvest management strategies. The results varied by year with few significant differences between the residue management and post-harvest treatments. However proper residue management is recommended on farm for a good plant stand, ease of in-field management, and a good canola harvest outcome.
Residue management is a significant challenge for producers on a year-to-year basis. Uneven and poorly distributed residue can lead to many complications including uneven seed depth the following spring, blocked drill openers, and uneven plant stands and emergence. Western Canadian producers often seasonally rotate wheat and canola crops. Therefore, it is important to have a better understanding of how wheat crop residue management can affect the emergence of canola in a rotation and in different regions.
In this three-year project, the objectives were to analyze canola emergence and yield based on different wheat residue harvest management strategies. Different field locations in Saskatchewan were selected each year to account for different soil properties, climatic variation, and management. A full quarter section of land was utilized to accommodate use of field-scale equipment and management techniques each year, with sites located near Delmas in year 1, Saint Front year 2 and Nipawin year 3. Good residue distribution treatment.
In the study, two different combine choppers were assessed comparing “good” distribution versus “poor” distribution. These included original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and aftermarket (AFT) choppers, where the OEM straw chopper was configured to represent “poor” (uneven) residue distribution. Three post-harvest treatment areas were also assessed, including a check with no further management, a heavy-harrowed treatment, and a tilled treatment with a high-speed disc. During the following spring, the sites were planted to canola and managed to match the producer’s other canola crops. In-field measurements were collected on the canola, including soil moisture, soil temperature, plant emergence counts, leaf staging, weed counts, and end-of-season yield.
The study results showed few significant differences in either canola emergence or yield between the two combine choppers, as well as the post-harvest treatments overall. However, in year three the results did show some significant differences in the yields between the AFT and OEM, along with other differences. Using an aftermarket chopper to shred the residue into finer pieces and provide a more even distribution width resulted in a more even field finish than the poorly set OEM chopper. The OEM chopper also left a clumping effect of larger residue pieces behind the combine.
Poor residue distribution treatment.
Although there were few significant differences found across the results, implementing a residue management strategy on farm is recommended and can provide some benefits. Without an even residue distribution pattern, there are risks associated with both bare ground as well as clumping behind the chopper. Proper residue management is recommended on farm for a good plant stand, ease of in-field management, and a good canola harvest outcome.