J.D. Jabro , W.B. Stevens , W.M. Iversen , U.M. Sainju , B.L. Allen , S.R. Dangi , C. Chen
{"title":"灌溉甜菜水分利用和水分利用效率对不同耕作方式的响应","authors":"J.D. Jabro , W.B. Stevens , W.M. Iversen , U.M. Sainju , B.L. Allen , S.R. Dangi , C. Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.still.2025.106776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There is limited literature and information on effects of various tillage practices on crop water use (WU) and water use efficiency (WUE) for irrigated sugarbeet (<em>Beta vulgaris</em> L.) production. A field study was conducted to assess the effect of conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT) and strip tillage (ST) practices on WU and WUE of sugarbeet in a clay loam soil under over-head sprinkler irrigation in the northern Great Plains region (NGP) of the United States. Tillage treatments were replicated five times in a randomized block design. Seasonal WU for sugarbeet root yield was calculated based on the soil water balance equation for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons under CT, NT and ST practices. Crop WUE for root yield or sucrose yield under each tillage system and year were estimated by dividing root yield and sucrose yield by the amount of water used by the crop through the process of evapotranspiration (ET). No significant differences due to tillage treatment were found for WU, sugarbeet root yield, sucrose yield, and WUE for root yield, and WUE for sucrose yield in 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons. On average, total amounts of water required to produce one Megagram (Mg) of sugarbeet root were 60.6 m<sup>3</sup> for CT, 65.7 m<sup>3</sup> for NT and 61.3 m<sup>3</sup> for ST. The amount of water used to produce a given quantity of roots under NT was slightly greater than both CT and ST. Maximizing crop WUE is possible with innovative, and smart technologies along with appropriate land and irrigation management practices. While NT and ST offer economic and environmental advantages over CT for agricultural production, more studies are needed under various soils, environments, and farming practices prior to making any recommendation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49503,"journal":{"name":"Soil & Tillage Research","volume":"255 ","pages":"Article 106776"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Irrigated sugarbeet water use and water use efficiency responses to various tillage practices\",\"authors\":\"J.D. Jabro , W.B. Stevens , W.M. Iversen , U.M. Sainju , B.L. Allen , S.R. Dangi , C. Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.still.2025.106776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>There is limited literature and information on effects of various tillage practices on crop water use (WU) and water use efficiency (WUE) for irrigated sugarbeet (<em>Beta vulgaris</em> L.) production. A field study was conducted to assess the effect of conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT) and strip tillage (ST) practices on WU and WUE of sugarbeet in a clay loam soil under over-head sprinkler irrigation in the northern Great Plains region (NGP) of the United States. Tillage treatments were replicated five times in a randomized block design. Seasonal WU for sugarbeet root yield was calculated based on the soil water balance equation for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons under CT, NT and ST practices. Crop WUE for root yield or sucrose yield under each tillage system and year were estimated by dividing root yield and sucrose yield by the amount of water used by the crop through the process of evapotranspiration (ET). No significant differences due to tillage treatment were found for WU, sugarbeet root yield, sucrose yield, and WUE for root yield, and WUE for sucrose yield in 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons. On average, total amounts of water required to produce one Megagram (Mg) of sugarbeet root were 60.6 m<sup>3</sup> for CT, 65.7 m<sup>3</sup> for NT and 61.3 m<sup>3</sup> for ST. The amount of water used to produce a given quantity of roots under NT was slightly greater than both CT and ST. Maximizing crop WUE is possible with innovative, and smart technologies along with appropriate land and irrigation management practices. While NT and ST offer economic and environmental advantages over CT for agricultural production, more studies are needed under various soils, environments, and farming practices prior to making any recommendation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil & Tillage Research\",\"volume\":\"255 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106776\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil & Tillage Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198725003307\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil & Tillage Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198725003307","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Irrigated sugarbeet water use and water use efficiency responses to various tillage practices
There is limited literature and information on effects of various tillage practices on crop water use (WU) and water use efficiency (WUE) for irrigated sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) production. A field study was conducted to assess the effect of conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT) and strip tillage (ST) practices on WU and WUE of sugarbeet in a clay loam soil under over-head sprinkler irrigation in the northern Great Plains region (NGP) of the United States. Tillage treatments were replicated five times in a randomized block design. Seasonal WU for sugarbeet root yield was calculated based on the soil water balance equation for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons under CT, NT and ST practices. Crop WUE for root yield or sucrose yield under each tillage system and year were estimated by dividing root yield and sucrose yield by the amount of water used by the crop through the process of evapotranspiration (ET). No significant differences due to tillage treatment were found for WU, sugarbeet root yield, sucrose yield, and WUE for root yield, and WUE for sucrose yield in 2018, 2019, and 2020 growing seasons. On average, total amounts of water required to produce one Megagram (Mg) of sugarbeet root were 60.6 m3 for CT, 65.7 m3 for NT and 61.3 m3 for ST. The amount of water used to produce a given quantity of roots under NT was slightly greater than both CT and ST. Maximizing crop WUE is possible with innovative, and smart technologies along with appropriate land and irrigation management practices. While NT and ST offer economic and environmental advantages over CT for agricultural production, more studies are needed under various soils, environments, and farming practices prior to making any recommendation.
期刊介绍:
Soil & Tillage Research examines the physical, chemical and biological changes in the soil caused by tillage and field traffic. Manuscripts will be considered on aspects of soil science, physics, technology, mechanization and applied engineering for a sustainable balance among productivity, environmental quality and profitability. The following are examples of suitable topics within the scope of the journal of Soil and Tillage Research:
The agricultural and biosystems engineering associated with tillage (including no-tillage, reduced-tillage and direct drilling), irrigation and drainage, crops and crop rotations, fertilization, rehabilitation of mine spoils and processes used to modify soils. Soil change effects on establishment and yield of crops, growth of plants and roots, structure and erosion of soil, cycling of carbon and nutrients, greenhouse gas emissions, leaching, runoff and other processes that affect environmental quality. Characterization or modeling of tillage and field traffic responses, soil, climate, or topographic effects, soil deformation processes, tillage tools, traction devices, energy requirements, economics, surface and subsurface water quality effects, tillage effects on weed, pest and disease control, and their interactions.