green pea company soil health project year 1 report tom ...€¦ · 1 green pea company – soil...

1

Green Pea Company – Soil Health Project

Year 1 report

Tom Jelden, Lea Herold, PGRO, January 2019

Aim

The aim of the project is to investigate whether integration of cover crops in a vining pea rotation – both pre-pea as

cover crops and post-pea as catch crops – can lead to improved soil structure and health. Three field trials are being

established yearly over three years with a variety of parameters indicative of soil structure and health monitored.

Cover and catch crops can have following benefits on soils and crops:

• Improvement of soil structure

• Increasing of organic matter content

• Improved earthworm activity

• Erosion control

• Improved drainage

• Weed suppression

• Reduction of nitrogen leaching

• Reduction of soil borne pathogen levels

• Benefits to wildlife and beneficial microbes

In this project, the following cover and catch crops have been used:

• Oats (Saia oats) – quick establishment, easy to destroy, erosion control

• Radish (Oil radish, variety Defender) – good at breaking up shallow layers of compacted soils, also penetration

into deep soil layers, good ground cover

• Vetch (Common vetch) – nitrogen fixation, included to investigate potential effects on foot rot pathogens

• Phacelia – ideal catch crop, quick establishment, deep rooting

• Clover (Berseem) – rapid establishment, nitrogen fixation

• Buckwheat – quick establishment, improves aggregate stability, decomposes quickly, uses the shortest

window of opportunity of any catch crop

Methods

In the first year, the field sites included 61B at Molescroft Farm (HU17 8QB) and AR at Eastfield Farm (YO25 9TR), west

and north-west of Beverly respectively, and Bubwith at Boxtree Farm (DN14 7HF) west of Howden.

Timings of drilling, harvesting and cover/catch crop destruction are given in table 2. Cover crops were directly drilled

into stubble at all three fields. At Eastfield AR and Boxtree Bubwith cover crops were sprayed off and peas drilled

directly or after min till, respectively. At Molescroft, cover crops were ploughed in before winter. Catch crops were

directly drilled and destroyed before drilling wheat. Soil and plant samples were taken and assessments made at the

dates in table 2.

Cover crop and catch crops were supplied by Elsoms Seeds. Species and mixtures used are given in table 1. A control

treatment with no plant cover was maintained. At Eastfield AR and Boxtree Bubwith the farms own custom mixes

were used. At Molescroft 61B the custom strips were left bare. All cover crops established well but plants at Molescroft

remained smaller. At Molescroft, vetch did not emerge. Peas at Boxtree Bubwith were not harvested because they did

2

not recover form slug and bird damage early on in the season. Establishment of catch crops was very successful with

the exception of clover that failed to emerge.

Table 1. Species and mixtures of cover and catch crops used in year 1.

Where only catch crops were drilled, the treatments will be abbreviated in this text with the prefix “Post” (i.e. post

control, post buckwheat). Where catch crops overlapped with cover crops the treatments are abbreviated as

Control:Control, Radish:Radish, Intensiv:Buckwheat and Universal:Clover. See figure 1 for further clarification.

Table 2. Cultivation and sampling diary. Molescroft 61B Eastfield AR Boxtree Bubwith

Pre-cc sampling 29/08/16 29/08/16 29/08/16 Cover crop drilled 30/08/16 29/08/16 10/09/16 Destruction 31/10/16, Plough 14/02/17, Sprayed 06/02/17, Sprayed Pre-pea sampling 07/02/17 06/02/17 08/02/17 Peas drilled 15/04/17 13/04/17 27/03/17 Variety PL SW AH Crop assessments 08/06/17 08/06/17 08/06/17 Post-pea sampling 30/06/17 29/06/17 22/06/17 Vining 07/07/17, 0.84 t/ha @99tr 11/07/17, 6.31 t/ha @92tr n/a, Abandoned Catch crop drilled 14/07/17 18/07/17 02/07/17 Catch crop sampling 14/09/17 13/09/17 12/09/17 Destruction ? 29/09/17, Flail + Sprayed 21/09/17, Sprayed WW drilled ? ? ? 1st WW sampling 06/06/18 05/06/18 04/06/18 2nd drilled 2nd sampling

Year 1 autumn sown cover crop

Species Mix Rates

Universal 60% oat, 20% phacelia, 20% clover 20 kg/ha

Intensiv 80% oat, 20% oil radish 30 kg/ha

Radish Var. Defender 18 kg/ha

Vetch 20 kg/ha

Year 1 summer sown catch crops

Species Mix Rates

Phacelia and radish P 90%, R 10% 18 kg/ha

Phacelia and buckwheat P 10%, B 90% 20 kg/ha

Phacelia and clover P 38%, C (Berseem) 62% 12 kg/ha

3

Figure 1. Location of cover crops (pre pea, bottom) and catch crops (post pea, right hand side). Samples were taken

from all cover and catch crops strips and from overlaps Control/Control, Radish/Phacelia + Radish, Intensiv/Phacelia

+ Buckwheat, Universal/Phacelia + Clover.

Soil cores were taken to assess nitrogen changes in the soil across the treatments (assessed at Hillcourt Farm

Research). Soil samples were refrigerated (to prevent mineral decay) and taken in replicates of three.

Soil samples from the upper soil horizon were taken and assessed for macronutrients at Hillcourt Farm Research.

Samples were also assessed at PGRO for foot rot risk. Three replicates for macronutrients and four replicates for foot

rot.

Soil health and structure was assessed according to VESS methods in replicates of three. Compaction readings were

made with a standard cone penetrometer in replicates of ten. A single measure of compaction (accumulated

compaction) was derived from the penetrometer data.

Soil moisture was recorded using buried probes provided by Delta-T.

Visual foot rot assessments of the pea crops were made prior to harvest where foot rot was present (61B & Bubwith),

scored as percentage plants infected from a sample of ten. Replicated ten times.

4

Severity of downy mildew infection and aphid pressure was also recorded in June at all sites, in samples of 25 replicated

three times (n=75).

Crop heights (in samples of 25 replicated three times (n=75)), fresh weights and dry weights (3 replications) were

recorded and crop N determined by Hillcourt Farm Research.

*Note. Greater detail on sampling methods and analysis are pending. These will be available when this year’s data

is complete (June 2020).

5

Results

Soil Nitrogen Pre-pea

Values for soil mineral nitrogen, which is available to plants, prior to vining pea drilling are shown in figures 2 & 3.

Data from Molescroft 61B are not available due to failure to collect samples. A significant quantity of soluble

nitrogen leached through the soil profile at AR and Bubwith in control plots. This can be demonstrated by the greater

amount of SMN in the deeper soil. Radish and Intensiv mixes had the least nitrogen at lower soil depths probably

due to the deep rooting oil radish in the mixes intercepting nitrogen from greater depths. At Eastfield AR, Universal

had a higher amount of free ammonium. At Bubwith, Vetch appeared to have failed in taking up nitrogen (having

figures similar to Control) perhaps due to the limited and shallow rooting of vetch, plus the readiness with which

nitrogen would leach in sandy soil. The high amount of SMN at 60-90cm in the Custom treatment is unexplained.

Figure 2. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Eastfield AR Pre-pea.

Figure 3. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Boxtree Bubwith Pre-pea.

C

AB

BCBC

AB

A

Y

X

Y

Y

YY

B

A

B

B

B B

0

10

20

30

40

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

0-30cm 30-60cm 60-90cm

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

NO3 NH4

BC

A

AB

C CBC

X

Y Y

Z Z

YZ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

0-30cm 30-60cm 60-90cm

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

6

Soil Nitrogen Post-pea

Values for soil mineral nitrogen at vining pea harvest (Post-pea) are shown in figures 4, 5 & 6. Few significant

differences were found at this sampling time. At Molescroft 61B, Control was lowest in SMN probably due to a lack

of available nitrogen released from plant biomass. However, all plots could potentially have lost nitrogen to leaching

over winter as a consequence of destroying cover crops at the beginning of winter (allowing nitrogen to leach).

At Eastfield AR, SMN was highest in Vetch and Universal plots (30-60cm). Vetch was generally the highest in SMN at

this time, possibly a result of fixed nitrogen released from destroyed vetch. Custom and Radish were lowest.

Some differences in SMN were also present at Bubwith (see figure 6). Control plots at both depths had the least SMN

compared to other treatments. Likely due to loss of soluble nitrogen over winter and no nitrogen release from

decaying biomass. This is not statistically supported. Overall, Vetch had the least amount of SMN (at Post-pea) which

contradicts what was observed at Eastfield AR. However, levels of SMN in the Vetch treatment appeared to have

caught up with other treatments by September (see figure 11), a phenomenon also observed at 61B.

Figure 4. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Molescroft 61B Post-pea.

Figure 5. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Eastfield AR Post-pea.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

0-30cm 30-60cm

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

NO3 NH4

B

AB

A

B

AB

A

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

0-30cm 30-60cm

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

7

Figure 6. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Boxtree Bubwith Post-pea.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

0-30cm 30-60cm

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

NO3 NH4

8

Soil Nitrogen Catch-crop + Follow WW

Values for soil mineral nitrogen at catch crop stage (Catch-crop) are shown in figures 7, 9 & 11. Values for soil

mineral nitrogen in the following winter wheat crop (Follow WW) are shown in figures 8, 10 & 12. By September, at

61B, SMN was lower in areas of current Catch-crop. An expected result seen at all sites given the nitrogen

requirements of the catch-crops. Vetch and Intensiv retained the greatest amount of soluble nitrogen compared to

other Pre-pea cover. By the following May in the wheat crop, Control had the lowest SMN whereas Post-Control had

the highest. The high SMN in Post-Control cannot be explained.

Figure 7. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Molescroft 61B Catch-crop.

Figure 8. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Molescroft 61B Follow WW.

At Eastfield AR, SMN was lowest in Catch-crop plots, with treatments containing Buckwheat having slightly higher

SMN. At the Following winter wheat stage, Control and Control:Control plots had the least amount of SMN. Of the

Pre-pea cover crop treatments, Vetch had the greatest amount of SMN at Catch (as seen at 61B and Bubwith), fixed

nitrogen released by decaying biomass likely responsible.

BC

AB

BCD

A

AB AB

E

CDEDE

ABC

CDE DE DE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

NO3 NH4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

9

Figure 9. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Eastfield AR Catch-crop.

Figure 10. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Eastfield AR Follow WW.

A

A AA

AA

B

B

B

A

B

B

B

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160M

ean

SM

N (

kg/h

a)NO3 NH4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

10

At Bubwith, as with the other sites, SMN was lowest in the vegetated plots at the catch-crop stage. At Follow winter

wheat, Control, Intensiv and Post Radish emerged as the treatments with greatest SMN. It is important to note that

all nitrogen data, for all sites, are subject to the effect of additional nitrogen inputs from the Catch-crop onwards.

Figure 11. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Boxtree Bubwith Catch-crop.

Figure 12. Mean soil mineral nitrogen at Boxtree Bubwith Follow WW.

ABCD

AB

A

AB

ABC

A

E

DE DE

BCDE

E

CDE DE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mae

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

NO3 NH4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mea

n S

MN

(kg

/ha)

11

Total System Nitrogen

* Note: The methods for determining nitrogen abundance are subject to change as well are figures.

Total system nitrogen discussed henceforth is the sum of SMN (to 60cm at vining and 30cm in 1st wheats), an

estimate of the exchangeable nitrogen and plant nitrogen expressed in kg per hectare. It is abbreviated to SNS (Soil

Nitrogen Supply). This excludes the potential nitrogen stored at lower soil depths and in root biomass.

At pea harvest, total system nitrogen varied significantly at all sites (figure 13). SNS in Intensiv plots far exceeded

other treatments at Molescroft 61B. This was observed in Vetch and Radish at Eastfield AR, where SNS was almost

double the Custom mix. At Bubwith, SNS was slightly ahead in Intensiv and Universal, although variable. At all sites,

Control generally had lower SNS.

Figures for Crop N (the nitrogen reserve in vegetation) can be found in appendix table 12b.

Molescroft 61B Eastfield AR Boxtree Bubwith

SN

S (k

g/h

a)

Figure 13. Total system nitrogen to 60cm soil depth. Post-pea. Red pairwise figures have borderline statistical backing.

By May the following year, total system nitrogen remained variable and difficult to interpret (figures 14, 15 & 16).

However, a few patterns were present across all sites. Catch-crop treatments containing radish have generally fared

well in terms of nitrogen which is expected due to the legacy of high biomass and nitrogen demand of oil radish.

Buckwheat appears to be a poor candidate for retaining nitrogen into the first wheats, possibly a consequence of

reducing wheat vigour which then exhibits poor nitrogen uptake efficiency. Lastly, on only one occasion did a control

measure show high system nitrogen (Post Control at 61B). Normally, system nitrogen in control measures was

relatively low or average.

The change of nitrogen over time is illustrated in appendix figures 44a,b,c.

AB

BAB AB

A

AB

50

70

90

110

130

150

B

AB

A A

AB

AB

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

12

Figure 14. Total system nitrogen to 30cm soil depth Molescroft 61B. Follow WW.

Figure 15. Total system nitrogen to 30cm soil depth Eastfield AR. Follow WW.

Figure 16. Total system nitrogen to 30cm soil depth Boxtree Bubwith. Follow WW.

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

290SN

S (

kg/h

a)

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

SNS

(kg/

ha)

150

200

250

300

350

400

SNS

(kg/

ha)

13

P, K, Mg, pH, OM%

Nutrient data at all stages were variable (figures 17 (Pre-pea), 18 (Post-pea), 19, 20, 21 (Follow WW). pH was found

to be within a decent range at all sites in all treatments. Organic matter contents were in the region of 2.5% to 3% in

all fields.

Looking at the data across all fields after cover crops (Pre-pea) neither P, K, organic matter or pH showed any

obvious pattern. Mg seemed to be higher in Intensiv than in other treatments. Phosphorus and pH at 61B displayed

a good negative correlation. At harvest (Post-pea), P seemed low in control plots and K was low in control plots at AR

and Bubwith. Mg, OM and pH did not show any pattern. In the following wheat crop, no pattern in any of the

nutrient measurements could be observed across all fields.

Looking at the data across the seasons within each field separately did not show any trends for Molescroft 61B. At

Eastfield AR, Vetch was higher in Mg at Post-pea and Follow WW. A potential slight increase in OM could be

observed in some of the cover crop treatments showing levels of less than 3.5% OM Pre-pea and between 4% and

5% OM Post-pea. At Boxtree Bubwith, the Intensiv treatment seemed to increase P and Mg concentrations in soil.

Here also, a general slight increase in OM in treated plots was observed. Alternatively, any differences observed at

Bubwith may be the result of a field effect given that nutrient parameters have increased generally from west to east

across the field.

14


Figure 17. Soil nutrient data Pre-pea.

5

7

9

11

13

15

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg/

kg)

B

AB

A

ABAB

AB

5

10

15

20

25

30

B

AB

B

AB

A

AB

10

15

20

25

30

B

AB

A A

A

B

50

100

150

200

250

Po

tass

ium

(m

g/kg

)

C

ABCAB

ABC

A

BC

50

100

150

200

250

300

100

150

200

250

AB

A

B

ABA AB

60

70

80

90

100

110

Mag

ne

siu

m (

mg/

kg)

AB

B

AB

B

A

AB

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

C

BC BCABC

A

AB

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

AB

AB

AB

A

AB

B

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

OM

%

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

B

AB

AB

ABAB

A

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

ABAB

B

B

AB

A

6.5

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

pH

6.5

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

6.5

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

15


Figure 18. Soil nutrient data Post-pea.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16P

ho

spo

rus

(mg/

kg)

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

15

20

25

30

35

AB

AB

BAB

AB

A

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Po

tass

ium

(m

g/kg

)

AB

B

A

AB

A

AB

200

250

300

350

400

450

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

AA

A

A

B

A

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mag

ne

siu

m (

mg/

kg)

BB

A

B

A

B

80

100

120

140

160

180

D

BC CDABC

A

AB

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

B

A A

B

A

A

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

OM

%

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

A

ABA

AB

AB

B

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

pH

B

AB A ABA

AB

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

B

ABAB AB

A

AB

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

8.2

16

Figure 19. Soil nutrient data Molescroft 61B Follow WW.

BC

BC

AB

BC

BCC

BCBC BC

BC

AB

A

BC

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24P

ho

sph

oru

s (m

g/kg

)

BC

C

BCBC BC BC

B

BCBC

BC

BC

A

B

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

Po

tass

ium

(m

g/kg

)

A

AB

AB

B

AB

AB AB

AB

AB

ABAB

BAB

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Mag

nes

ium

(m

g/kg

)

BCD

CD

ABC CD

D

CD

ABCABC

ABC

ABC

AAB

ABC

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

OM

%

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

pH

17

Figure 20. Soil nutrient data Eastfield AR Follow WW.

ABA

A

B

AB

A

AB

AB AA

ABAB

A

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35P

ho

sph

oru

s (m

g/kg

)

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

Po

tass

ium

(m

g/kg

)AB

A

B

AB AB

BAB

BB B

B

AB

AB

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Mag

nes

ium

(m

g/kg

)

AB

AB

A

AB

AB

ABAB

BAB

ABAB

ABAB

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

OM

%

BC

ABC

BC

ABC

A

BC

ABC

C

BC BCBC BC

AB

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

pH

18

Figure 21. Soil nutrient data Boxtree Bubwith Follow WW. Red pairwise figures distinguish borderline statistical evidence.

C

BC

AB

AB

ABC

ABC

ABC

BC BC

BC

A

ABCABC

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35P

ho

sph

oru

s (m

g/kg

)

ABCDE

ABCD

ABCDE

AAB

DE

ABC

CDE DE

E

ABCDABCD

BCDE

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Po

tass

ium

(m

g/kg

)C

ABCABC

ABC

A

BC

ABC

ABC ABC

C

C

ABC

AB

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

Mag

nes

ium

(m

g/kg

)

CDBCD

AB

D

ABCD

D

ABCDBCD CD

D

ABC

A

CD

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

OM

%

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

pH

19

Foot Rot

Plate tests for pathogen presence Pre-pea showed that Radish plots had the greatest risk of foot rot at 61B,

significantly higher risk than Vetch and Universal (figure 22). The Didymella pressure increased in Radish, Intensiv

and Universal treatments by the summer, with Radish remaining the highest in Didymella pressure and Vetch the

lowest (figure 22). Fusarium pressure was extremely low.

At Bubwith, there was no significant difference in overall foot rot risk between treatments, at both Pre-pea and Post-

pea (figure 23). However, Vetch remained low at both times. Fusarium abundance was lowest in Vetch at Pre-pea

with Control harbouring most Fusarium, but by summer this difference had levelled out. Didymella decreased by

over half in all treatments except Control between winter and summer.

Pre-Pea Post-Pea

Figure 22. Foot rot risk plate test Molescroft 61B.

Pre-Pea Post-Pea

Figure 23. Foot rot plate test Boxtree Bubwith.

AB ABB

A

AB

B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

Fusarium

Didymella

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

Fusarium

Didymella

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

20

Plate test from the catch-crop sampling period at 61B delivered very high numbers of Didymella colonies, almost 3-

fold greater than Post-pea (figure 24). The release of spores from the senesced pea roots probably explains this rise.

The highest counts derived from the Post Radish treatment, about 4 times greater than the Radish:Radish treatment.

Levels of Fusarium were negligible.

Didymella levels at Bubwith were lower than at 61B, but sometimes still high in general terms (figure 25). Custom

stands out as the highest in Didymella at this point. Custom aside, Intensiv showed the highest level of Didymella

pressure compared to other treatments which somewhat mirrors the effect in 61B. Overlapping plots showed about

two thirds less Didymella in soil compared to the overlapping Control treatment. Lowest levels of Fusarium were

detected in the Control treatment where almost no Fusarium has been detected. Highest levels were found in the

Radish:Radish and Universal:Clover treatments. Here also, Custom had low levels of Fusarium.

Figure 24. Foot rot plate test Molescroft 61B Catch-crop.

Fusarium spp. Didymella pinodella

Figure 25. Foot rot plate test Boxtree Bubwith Catch-crop.

BCBC BC

AB

ABCABC

A

ABC

ABC

ABC

C

ABC

ABC

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

sih

Intensiv.Buckw…

Un

iver

sal.C

love

r

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

C

C

C C

ABCBC

C

BC ABC

ABC

ABC

A

ABC

AB

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

sih

Intensiv.Buck…

Un

iver

sal.C

love

r

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt A

BCBC

BC

B

BC

BC

BCBC

C

BC

C C C

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

sih

Intensiv.Buck…

Un

iver

sal.C

love

r

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

21

The pathogen data from the Follow WW at 61B do not mirror what was observed 8 months earlier (figure 26).

Overall pathogen levels had generally decreased, however, the Radish:Radish treatment was the highest in May

where it was previously lowest risk. The Intensiv and Post Radish treatments have come down in pathogen level

since to a similar level to most other treatments. Fusarium levels were negligible.

At Bubwith, the results do reflect what was previously observed in some treatments (figure 26). Control, Radish, Post

Radish and Control:Control have increased in pathogen level, specifically Didymella.

Molescroft 61B Boxtree Bubwith

Figure 26. Foot rot plate test Molescroft 61B and Boxtree Bubwith Follow WW.

BC

ABC BC

C

BC

C

ABC

C

BC

ABC

A

BC

AB

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

ABC

ABC

ABC

BC BC

C

AB

ABC

ABC

A

CBC C

020406080

100120140160180200

Mea

n c

olo

ny

cou

nt

22

Plant Symptoms

Control and Radish treatments at 61B had roughly double the rate of early foot rot infection compared to other

vegetated treatments (figure 27). At Bubwith, the Custom plots showed higher initial foot rot compared to all others.

Rates of early infection at Bubwith were low. The data do not discriminate as to which pathogens are responsible for

the foot rot, which included Aphanomyces euteiches at 61B. As the season progressed, virtually all plants succumbed

to foot rot at both 61B and Bubwith.

Molescroft 61B Boxtree Bubwith

Figure 27. Percentage of plants affected by footrot in late spring.

Plant Health and Development

Plant biomass and haulm length were measured shortly prior to pea harvest (figure 28). At Molescroft 61B, Custom

plots showed shorter haulm lengths than other treatments with Universal having the greatest length. Dry weight did

not necessarily reflect haulm length, however, the Universal plants were the longest and heaviest. Vetch and

Intensiv had the tallest plants at Eastfield AR, significantly taller than Custom and Radish. Again this is not the case

concerning biomass were Radish plots had greatest biomass. At Bubwith, haulm length and biomass were generally

in accordance with Control showing the greatest height and biomass.

There are no data to indicate yield.

The occurrence of green aphid and downy mildew were recorded, but levels were to variable and low to warrant

analysis.

AB

A

AB

A

B

AB

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% p

lan

ts in

fect

ed

A

ABB

BAB

B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% p

lan

ts in

fect

ed

23

Figure 28. Mean haulm lengths and dry weights of pea plants prior to harvest.

Catch-crop mixtures containing buckwheat appeared to have depressed straw yield at 61B and AR. The figures below

compare yield expressed as a percentage of Control:Control (figures 29, 30 & 31). At Bubwith, no significant

treatment effect was detected in dry straw weight but there was in fresh weight (see appendix table 13). Yield was

generally greater in overwintered cover crop plots compared to other treatments.

At all sites, ear weight in the Intensiv:Buckwheat treatment was lower than the corresponding Intensiv and Post

Buckwheat plots.

B

A A A A

A

YXY

X

Y

XXY

C

AAB

C C BC

15

20

25

30

35

40M

ean

hau

lm le

ngt

h (

cm)

AB

B B B

AB

A

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Cu

sto

m

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal


Mea

n d

ry w

eigh

t (g

/m²)

24

Figure 29. Straw weights and yields Follow WW, Molescroft 61B.

Figure 30. Straw weights and yields Follow WW, Eastfield AR.

Figure 31. Straw weights and yields Follow WW, Boxtree Bubwith.

AB

ABAB

ABAB

AB AB

B

AB

A

ABAB

AB

500600700800900

100011001200

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v.B

uck

wh

eat

Un

iver

sal.C

love

r

Dry

Wei

ght

(g/m

²)

ABAB B

A

ABAB

ABAB

ABAB AB AB

AB

80859095

100105110115120

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v.B

uck

wh

eat

Un

iver

sal.C

love

rPre

dic

ted

rel

ativ

e yi

eld

AB

AB

AB

A AB

A

AB

B

ABAB

AB

AB

A

700800900

10001100120013001400

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v.B

uck

wh

eat

Un

iver

sal.C

love

r

Dry

Wei

ght

(g/m

²)

AB AB

AB AB AB AB AB

AB

A

AB

B

B

AB

80859095

100105110115120

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v.B

uck

wh

eat

Un

iver

sal.C

love

rPre

dic

ted

rel

ativ

e yi

eld

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

Co

ntr

ol

Vet

ch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v.B

uck

wh

eat

Un

iver

sal.C

love

r

Dry

Wei

ght

(g/m

²)

AB

ABAB

A

ABAB

AB ABAB AB B AB

AB

8090

100110120130140150160

Co

ntr

ol

Ve

tch

Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v

Un

iver

sal

Po

st C

on

tro

l

Po

st R

adis

h

Po

st B

uck

wh

eat

Po

st C

love

r

Co

ntr

ol.C

on

tro

l

Rad

ish

.Rad

ish

Inte

nsi

v.B

uck

wh

eat

Un

iver

sal.C

love

rPre

dic

ted

rel

ativ

e yi

eld

25

Soil Health

Visual soil assessments were done Post-pea and at the Catch-crop stage at all sites (table 3). Ground conditions

prevented any assessment in the following winter wheat. At the Post-pea stage, Intensiv and Universal generally

appear to support greater numbers of earthworms and best soil structure. Control treatments at AR and Bubwith

had the worst soil structure. At 61B, in the Custom plots (ploughing early winter) virtually no earthworms were

found. Soil structure score and earth worm abundance only correlate at AR (p = 0.011).

No patterns in earthworm abundance nor soil structure were confidently discernible at the catch-crop stage.

Table 3. Mean VESS SQ (1-5) scores, quality of soil structure declines with increasing score. Mean earthworm counts. N=3. Values of the different treatments are compared within each field and colour coded accordingly (green = good soil structure, high numbers of earth worms; red = worst soil structure, low numbers of earth worms). Molescroft 61B Eastfield AR Boxtree Bubwith

SQ Earthworm

no. SQ Earthworm

no. SQ Earthworm

no.

Post-Pea Custom 1.33 0.05 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 Control 1.50 0.33 3.33 0.33 3.83 1.00

Vetch 1.67 0.33 2.00 1.33 2.83 0.30 Radish 1.50 1.00 1.67 1.67 3.00 1.33

Intensiv 1.00 0.67 1.50 2.33 2.33 2.33 Universal 1.00 0.33 1.33 2.33 2.50 1.33

Catch

Control 2.3 0.7 2.2 3 2.7 0.3 Vetch 3 0 2 5.3 2.8 1

Radish 2.8 0.7 2 3.7 2.2 1.3 Intensiv 1.7 0.3 2 2.3 2.3 3.7

Universal 2.8 1.3 2 2 2.8 1.3 Post Control 2.2 0.7 2 2.7 2.2 2 Post Radish 1.5 0 1.8 0.7 1.7 2

Post Buckwheat 2.2 0.3 2.3 1 1.8 3.7 Post Clover 1.7 1 2.7 1.7 1.8 4.3

Control.Control 2.3 0.7 Radish.Radish 2.2 1 2.8 2.7 2.7 1.3 Intensiv.Buck 1.8 1 2.3 3 2.5 3.7

Universal.Clover 2 0.3 2.3 2.3 2.8 1.3

Boxtree Bubwith Control Boxtree Bubwith Universal

26

Soil Moisture

Figures 32 & 33 show the change in soil moisture over 48 hours following a rain event. A steeper line of best fit is

equivalent to a faster rate of drainage. Data for all rain events over the growing season have been analysed but only

selected data are shown. Here they are shown to demonstrate the difference in soil moisture changes at different

points in the season.

At Eastfield AR, Radish plots showed a greater rate of drainage compared to the other treatments observed in the

early spring. By summer, the Control area showed a relatively slower rate of drainage.

Soil moisture behaved quite differently at Bubwith. Control and Radish plots had a faster rate of drainage compared

to Intensiv and Universal in the spring. By the summer, cover cropped treatments had roughly equivalent rates of

soil moisture change but Control responded differently. Figure 33 (3rd June, Control) essentially shows water

percolating rapidly through the soil profile after a small second rain event.

S

oil

Mo

istu

re %

3rd March 8th March 3rd June Hours after rain event Figure 32. Change in soil moisture after rainfall, Eastfield AR.

S

oil

Mo

istu

re %

3rd March 8th March 3rd June Hours after rain event Figure 33. Change in soil moisture after rainfall, Boxtree Bubwith.

34

36

38

40

42

44

0 8 16 24 32 4034

36

38

40

42

44

0 8 16 24 32 40

ControlRadishIntensivUniversal

26

28

30

32

34

36

0 8 16 24 32 40

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

0 8 16 24 32 40

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

0 8 16 24 32 40

ControlRadishIntensivUniversal

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

0 8 16 24 32 40

27

Soil Compaction

This section describes soil compaction in terms of resistance with penetrometer. True measures of compaction

require records of soil moisture or bulk density which are not available here.

At Eastfield AR, overall compaction was lowest in the Radish treatment and highest in the Control in spring (figure

34). By June, the Control plots remained the most compacted changing little in patterns of compaction, yet the

Radish treatment had increased considerably (figure 35). During the catch-crop phase the currently vegetated plots

showed the highest compaction generally (figure 37).

Accumulated compaction at Bubwith nearly doubled between pre-drilling and harvest (figures 34 & 35). Control

plots had the highest compaction generally. In spring, Vetch and Intensiv had lowest compaction compared to Radish

and Universal. This was then reversed by June. Patterns of compaction in the catch-crop roughly mirror those of

Eastfield AR, although the data are more variable (figure 38).

Only catch-crop compaction data is available for Molescroft 61B (figure 36). At all sites in the catch-crop phase,

Control measures have reliably shown least overall compaction, with overlapping Radish plots having the greatest

compaction. Control treatments had the highest compaction over the vining pea season at both AR and Bubwith.

Eastfield AR Boxtree Bubwith

Figure 34. Accumulated compaction Pre-pea. LSM = least square mean.

A

B

C

B

B

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

Control Vetch Radish Intensiv Universal

Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

A

C

B

C

B

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500


Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

28


Figure 35. Accumulated compaction Post-pea. LSM = least square mean.

Figure 36. Accumulated compaction Catch-crop, Molescroft 61B. LSM = least square mean.

Figure 37. Accumulated compaction Catch-crop, Eastfield AR.

A

B

A

B

C

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900


Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

B

A

D

C

D

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700


Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

EFG

B

EF

G

CDE

EFG

DEF

BB

G

A

BC

EF

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

DD D

C

D

D

C

D

B

D

A

B

A

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

29

Figure 38. Accumulated compaction Catch-crop, Boxtree Bubwith.

Compaction Profile

Prior to drilling, Control plots showed consistently highest compaction at all depths at Eastfield (figure 39). This

generally remained the case at Post-pea with blip in Radish compaction at 15cm (figure 40). Radish had lower

compaction at deepest recordings. At Bubwith, compaction was greatest in Control in the upper soil horizon at Pre-

pea, beneath which differences became unclear (figure 39). By Post-pea, Control and Vetch plots had severe

compaction, with Radish and Universal performing best (figure 40). Here, compacted layers are discovered at 12cm

and after 22cm. At both sites, Control and Vetch have highest compaction due to the absence or lack of deeper

reaching roots, showing that Radish, Intensiv and Universal have some ability to ease compaction.

ABC

BC

C

ABC

ABC

ABC

ABC

AB

ABC

ABC

A AB

ABC

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

Acc

um

ula

ted

co

mp

acti

on

LSM

30


Figure 39. Compaction in soil profile Pre-pea.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Soil

Dep

th (

Icm

)Compaction (kPa)

ControlVetchRadishIntensivUniversal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Soil

Dep

th (

Icm

)

Compaction (kPa)

31


Figure 40. Compaction in soil profile Post-pea.

At the Catch crop stage compaction showed extreme variability (figures 41, 42 & 43). Generally speaking, the plots

with Post-pea vegetation cover had greatest compaction. This may have something to do with rooting interference

or vegetation effect on soil moisture (i.e. more vegetation, less soil moisture, greater resistance to penetrometer).

This is also supported by the observation that Post Buckwheat has moderate compaction and also the lowest overall

biomass. Compaction data in the following wheat are not available due to the poor sampling conditions.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Soil

Dep

th (

cm)

Compaction (kPa)

ControlVetchRadishIntensivUniversal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Soil

Dep

th (

cm)

Compaction (kPa)

32

Figure 41. Compaction in soil profile Catch-crop, Molescroft 61B.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500So

il D

epth

Inch

esCompaction (kPa)

Control

Vetch

Radish

Intensiv

Universal

Post Control

Post Radish

Post Buckwheat

Post Clover

Control/Control

Radish/Radsih

Intensiv/Buckwheat

Universal/Clover

33

Figure 42. Compaction in soil profile Catch-crop, Eastfield AR.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Soil

Dep

th In

ches

Compaction (kPa)

Control

Vetch

Radish

Intensiv

Universal

Post Control

Post Radish

Post Buckwheat

Post Clover

Control/Control

Radish/Radsih

Intensiv/Buckwheat

Universal/Clover

34

Figure 43. Compaction in soil profile Catch-crop, Boxtree Bubwith.

1.5

6.5

11.5

16.5

21.5

26.5

31.5

36.5

41.5

46.5

51.5

56.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Soil

Dep

th In

ches

Compaction (kPa)

Control

Vetch

Radish

Intensiv

Universal

Post Control

Post Radish

Post Buckwheat

Post Clover

Control/Control

Radish/Radsih

Intensiv/Buckwheat

Universal/Clover

35

Conclusions from year 1

• Nitrogen leached from the control plots over winter resulting, in combination with the lack of nitrogen

released from decaying plant material, in lower nitrogen levels in soil prior to pea harvest.

• Vetch plots showed high levels of soil mineral nitrogen latest by the catch-crop stage.

• Organic matter increased slightly at Eastfield AR and Boxtree Bubwith in cover cropped plots.

• Data on the effects of cover and catch crops on foot rot pathogen levels in soils are still difficult to interpret

and soil pathogen levels do not necessarily correlate with foot rot symptoms in the plants.

• Vetch did not increase pathogen levels in soil.

• Cover crop treatments might have reduced disease development in some cases.

• Buckwheat suppressed wheat yield whereas some of the cover crop treatments had greater wheat yields

than the control plots.

• Under non-plough conditions, cover crops improved soil structure.

• On heavier soil (Eastfield AR) cover crops led to better drainage.

• On lighter soil (Boxtree Bubwith) cover crops retained higher levels of soil moisture after rain events in

summer.

• At Pre-pea and Post-pea stages the greatest compaction was seen in control plots at AR and Bubwith. Radish

alleviated compaction at deeper soil layers.

• At the Catch crop stage all fields showed lower compaction in control and cover crop treatments than in

catch crop treatments potentially due to lower moisture in the catch crop plots (no data available).

-End-

36

Appendices

Table 4. Soil core nitrogen kg/ha. SMN represents soil mineralisable nitrogen. Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05. n=3.


NO3 NH4 SMN NO3 NH4 SMN NO3 NH4 SMN

Pre-CC 0-30cm

28.7 6.1 34.8 32.4 7.9 40.4 19.5 5.3 24.8 Pre-CC 30-60cm

7.9 2.8 10.7 10.1 5.2 15.3 10.6 3.8 14.4 Pre-Pea 0-30cm

Custom - - - 4.76ᵈ 1.93ᵃᵇ 6.69ᶜ 7.82ᵃᵇ 2.97 10.79 Control - - - 17.33ᵃᵇᶜ 2.02ᵃᵇ 19.35ᵃᵇ 13.51ᵃ 3.79 17.30

Vetch - - - 8.80ᶜᵈ 1.47ᵃᵇ 10.28ᵇᶜ 10.66ᵃᵇ 2.00 12.66 Radish - - - 11.39ᵇᶜᵈ 1.24ᵇ 12.63ᵇᶜ 5.35ᵇ 3.89 9.25

Intensiv - - - 17.94ᵃᵇ 2.00ᵃᵇ 19.94ᵃᵇ 10.95ᵃᵇ 3.71 14.66 Universal - - - 23.44ᵃ 4.06ᵃ 27.49ᵃ 9.57ᵃᵇ 4.08 13.65

ANOVA

p-value - - - < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.009* 0.29 0.14 Root MSE - - - 4.34 1.16 4.72 3.44 1.35 4.09 CoEff.Var - - - 31.16 54.60 29.41 35.71 39.67 31.37

Pre-Pea30-60cm *Welches anova Custom - - - 0.57ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 0.57ᵇ 8.35ᵇ 1.56 9.91ᵇᶜ Control - - - 30.69ᵃ 0.12ᵇ 30.82ᵃ 19.47ᵃ 1.82 21.29ᵃ

Vetch - - - 6.78ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 6.78b 16.81ᵃ 0.06 16.87ᵃᵇ Radish - - - 3.17ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 3.17b 2.22ᵇ 0.94 3.17ᶜ

Intensiv - - - 4.77ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 4.77b 3.95ᵇ 0.29 4.25ᶜ Universal - - - 6.42ᵇ 1.62ᵃ 8.04b 8.26ᵇ 0.39 8.64ᵇᶜ

ANOVA

p-value - - - < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.15 < 0.001 Root MSE - - - 5.71 0.15 5.72 3.65 1.05 3.97 CoEff.Var - - - 65.38 53.02 63.40 37.10 124.89 37.18

Pre-Pea60-90cm Custom - - - 0.61ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 0.61ᵇ 47.52ᵃ 0.31 47.83ᵃ Control - - - 21.66ᵃ 0.00ᵇ 21.66ᵃ 26.83ᵇ 0.86 27.68ᵇ

Vetch - - - 4.50ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 4.50ᵇ 27.49ᵇ 0.00 27.49ᵇ Radish - - - 1.61ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 1.61ᵇ 1.35ᵈ 1.79 3.14ᶜ

Intensiv - - - 3.79ᵇ 0.00ᵇ 3.79ᵇ 2.50ᶜᵈ 0.01 2.51ᶜ Universal - - - 3.50ᵇ 1.84ᵃ 5.35ᵇ 17.66ᵇᶜ 0.13 17.79ᵇᶜ

ANOVA

p-value - - - < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.21 < 0.001 Root MSE - - - 3.32 0.35 3.26 6.92 1.11 7.09 CoEff.Var - - - 55.79 113.31 52.21 33.65 213.37 33.65

Post-Pea 0-30cm Custom 14.32 6.99 21.31 15.23ᵃᵇ 10.07 25.30 52.50 3.30 55.80 Control 10.82 1.63 12.45 10.98ᵇ 11.01 21.98 23.49 4.77 28.26

Vetch 15.86 2.68 18.54 32.52ᵃ 4.48 37.01 29.73 5.91 35.64 Radish 13.48 2.35 15.83 16.16ᵃᵇ 11.22 27.38 39.58 4.19 43.77

Intensiv 13.27 5.45 18.72 15.99ᵃᵇ 11.46 27.45 50.62 3.20 53.83 Universal 14.34 2.02 16.36 16.64ᵃᵇ 14.00 30.64 44.45 6.81 51.26

ANOVA

p-value 0.86 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.09 0.13 0.13 Root MSE 4.73 2.25 4.28 6.57 5.97 9.64 12.60 1.70 12.92 CoEff.Var 34.59 64.16 24.87 36.72 57.57 34.08 31.45 36.40 28.89

Post-Pea30-60cm Custom 17.87 1.08 18.95 13.12ᵇ 0.66 13.78ᵇ 42.57 0.79 43.36 Control 14.73 0.00 14.73 18.51ᵃᵇ 0.46 18.97ᵃᵇ 26.18 3.27 29.46

Vetch 16.36 0.00 16.36 28.31ᵃ 0.00 28.31ᵃ 43.26 0.88 44.14 Radish 20.33 1.10 21.43 13.15ᵇ 0.00 13.15ᵇ 44.79 1.96 46.75

Intensiv 19.34 0.00 19.34 16.34ᵃᵇ 4.80 21.13ᵃᵇ 50.72 0.93 51.65 Universal 17.72 0.00 17.72 28.44ᵃ 2.63 31.08ᵃ 39.63 1.71 41.34

ANOVA

p-value 0.97 0.39 0.95 0.04 0.21 0.03 0.40 0.48 0.53 Root MSE 8.43 0.91 8.77 6.66 2.55 6.69 13.47 1.71 13.79 CoEff.Var 47.55 252.12 48.44 33.92 180.3 31.81 32.67 107.3 32.23

37

Catch

Control 26.49ͤͩ ᵇ 1.64 28.13ᵇᶜ 113.63ᵃ 11.71 125.34ᵃ 30.08ᵃᵇᶜ 2.30 32.38ᵃᵇᶜᵈ Vetch 38.81ᵃᵇ 2.53 41.34ᵃᵇ 109.72ᵃ 1.44 111.16ᵃ 29.48ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 12.22 41.70ᵃᵇ

Radish 25.87ᵇᶜ 1.20 27.07ᵇᶜᵈ 103.49ᵃ 0.92 104.41ᵃ 46.90ᵃ 2.57 49.46ᵃ Intensiv 43.90ᵃ 1.23 45.14ᵃ 88.95ᵃ 6.90 95.85ᵃ 39.12ᵃᵇ 4.25 43.36ᵃᵇ

Universal 36.06ᵃᵇ 3.32 39.38ᵃᵇ 83.73ᵃ 0.98 84.72ᵃ 33.69ᵃᵇ 2.68 36.37ᵃᵇᶜ Post Control 36.84ᵃᵇ 2.11 38.96ᵃᵇ 94.26ᵃ 0.86 95.12ᵃ 46.15ᵃ 2.65 48.80ᵃ Post Radish 6.19ᵈ 2.34 8.53ᵉ 16.64ᵇ 2.24 18.88ᵇ 6.85ᵉ 2.10 8.97ᵉ

Post Buckwheat 10.89ᶜᵈ 2.38 13.27ᶜᵈᵉ 31.17ᵇ 2.44 33.61ᵇ 12.53ᶜᵈᵉ 2.31 14.84ᵈᵉ Post Clover 8.53ᵈ 2.55 11.07ᵈᵉ 18.94ᵇ 3.11 22.05ᵇ 8.68ᵉ 4.01 12.69ᵈᵉ

Control.Control 27.10ᵇ 1.68 28.78ᵃᵇᶜ 99.41ᵃ 0.84 100.25ᵃ 23.81ᵇᶜᵈᵉ 4.05 27.86ᵇᶜᵈᵉ Radish.Radish 9.51ᵈ 2.92 12.43ᶜᵈᵉ 15.71ᵇ 1.27 16.98ᵇ 8.33ᵉ 3.01 11.34ᵉ Intensiv.Buck 8.59ᵈ 2.09 10.68ᵈᵉ 32.00ᵇ 9.02 41.01ᵇ 11.99ᵈ 6.25 18.24ᶜᵈᵉ

Universal.Clover 8.87ᵈ 2.43 11.29ᵈᵉ 14.50ᵇ 3.16 17.66ᵇ 10.66ᵉ 4.46 15.12ᵈᵉ

ANOVA p-value <0.001* 0.09 0.006* <0.001 0.13* <0.001* <0.001* 0.07 <0.001*

Root MSE 4.99 0.79 28.98 10.00 5.97 13.89 6.06 3.44 6.67 CoEff.Var 22.54 36.18 5.38 15.81 172.9 20.83 25.54 84.49 24.01

*Welches ANOVA

Follow WW Control 18.03ᵇ 7.57 25.57 22.47 10.73 33.20 75.93 17.50 93.47

Vetch 31.10ᵃᵇ 14.97 46.07 53.47 14.80 68.30 44.77 9.23 54.00 Radish 33.53ᵃᵇ 10.03 43.53 38.5 12.50 51.00 48.63 9.40 58.07

Intensiv 27.40ᵃᵇ 8.97 36.40 39.33 19.17 58.53 84.23 14.97 99.17 Universal 27.17ᵃᵇ 10.43 37.63 25.47 11.20 36.70 56.80 12.60 69.40

Post Control 63.93ᵃ 19.13 83.03 33.37 22.10 55.47 28.03 8.20 36.23 Post Radish 36.67ᵃᵇ 11.83 48.50 40.2 15.23 55.43 61.67 25.43 87.10

Post Buckwheat 30.17ᵃᵇ 8.30 38.43 19.73 25.47 45.23 27.67 10.20 37.90 Post Clover 43.67ᵃᵇ 13.93 57.60 23.7 41.60 65.30 20.10 9.80 29.87

Control.Control 29.63ᵃᵇ 12.30 41.93 17.03 10.27 27.27 23.93 8.50 32.47 Radish.Radish 19.07ᵇ 9.80 28.87 22.37 27.00 49.37 26.07 14.67 40.73 Intensiv.Buck 19.07ᵇ 10.03 29.07 24.67 31.40 56.03 18.23 9.17 27.40

Universal.Clover 15.77ᵇ 18.87 34.63 30.63 12.23 42.87 22.73 9.47 32.17

ANOVA p-value 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.36 0.56 0.11 0.38 0.08

Root MSE 13.77 4.92 18.21 13.18 15.46 22.26 29.15 7.99 31.98 CoEff.Var 45.28 40.98 42.94 43.82 79.20 44.88 70.34 65.28 59.57

38

Table 5. Soil pH, organic matter and soil nutrient supply (SNS, 0-60cm, kg/ha). Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05. n=3.


pH OM% SNS pH OM% SNS pH OM% SNS

Pre-CC 7.3 3.5 73.6 6.9 3.2 92.7 7.0 2.6 69.6

Pre-Pea Custom 7.1ᵃᵇ 3.1ᵃᵇ - 6.9 2.6 - 6.9 2.0ᵇ - Control 6.9ᵃᵇ 3.2ᵃᵇ - 7.2 3.0 - 7.2 2.4ᵃᵇ -

Vetch 6.8ᵇ 3.1ᵃᵇ - 7.3 3.2 - 7.2 2.2ᵃᵇ - Radish 6.6ᵇ 3.4ᵃ - 7.5 2.8 - 7.2 2.4ᵃᵇ -

Intensiv 6.9ᵃᵇ 3.1ᵃᵇ - 6.9 2.9 - 7.4 2.2ᵃᵇ - Universal 7.5ᵃ 3.0ᵇ - 6.8 2.8 - 7.4 2.5ᵃ -

ANOVA

p-value 0.007 0.017 - 0.066 0.051 - 0.061 0.031 - Root MSE 0.28 0.15 - 0.36 0.26 - 0.24 0.20 - CoEff.Var 4.02 4.69 - 5.18 8.89 - 3.39 8.48 -

Post-Pea Custom 7.1ᵃ 2.8ᵇ 98.2ᵃᵇ 5.8ᵇ 4.0 107.1ᵇ 6.9ᵇ 2.3 152.5 Control 6.8ᵃᵇ 3.2ᵃ 72.5ᵇ 6.4ᵃᵇ 3.8 131.9ᵃᵇ 7.5ᵃᵇ 2.4 118.6

Vetch 6.8ᵃ 3.2ᵃ 82.4ᵃᵇ 6.6ᵃ 5.0 171.0ᵃᵇ 7.4ᵃᵇ 2.6 130.4 Radish 6.6ᵃᵇ 2.8ᵇ 83.7ᵃᵇ 6.5ᵃᵇ 4.1 185.8ᵃ 7.4ᵃᵇ 2.6 147.3

Intensiv 6.8ᵃᵇ 3.2ᵃ 123.9ᵃ 6.7ᵃ 3.8 143.8ᵃᵇ 7.8ᵃ 2.7 191.1 Universal 6.2ᵇ 3.4ᵃ 114.4ᵃᵇ 6.0ᵃᵇ 4.0 165.0ᵃᵇ 7.7ᵃᵇ 2.8 187.0

ANOVA

p-value 0.011 <0.001 0.07* 0.011 0.083 0.07* 0.045 0.061 0.20 Root MSE 0.21 0.07 20.5 0.27 0.45 29.0 0.29 0.17 37.8 CoEff.Var 3.14 2.24 21.4 4.32 11.0 19.2 3.93 6.54 24.5

Follow WW *α=0.1 *α=0.1

Control 6.0 3.2ᵇᶜᵈ 197.3 5.9ᵇᶜ 3.5ᵃᵇ 274.7 5.9 2.6ᶜᵈ 265.9 Vetch 6.0 3.2ᶜᵈ 190.6 6.4ᵃᵇᶜ 3.9ᵃᵇ 338.9 6.1 2.6ᵇᶜᵈ 260.1

Radish 6.1 3.3ᵃᵇᶜ 211.9 5.8ᵇᶜ 4.0ᵃ 283.1 6.7 2.8ᵃᵇ 247.5 Intensiv 6.0 3.2ᶜᵈ 213.7 6.1ᵃᵇᶜ 3.8ᵃᵇ 305.5 6.8 2.5ᵈ 278.3

Universal 5.6 2.9ᵈ 209.7 6.8ᵃ 3.6ᵃᵇ 267.2 6.2 2.7ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 325.2 Post Control 6.0 3.2ᶜᵈ 263.4 5.9ᵇᶜ 3.9ᵃᵇ 274.9 6.3 2.5ᵈ 262.1 Post Radish 6.2 3.4ᵃᵇᶜ 233.4 6.3ᵃᵇᶜ 3.9ᵃᵇ 311.0 6.3 2.7ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 319.6

Post Buckwheat 6.0 3.3ᵃᵇᶜ 192.7 5.6ᶜ 3.3ᵇ 264.5 6.6 2.6ᵇᶜᵈ 224.8 Post Clover 6.1 3.3ᵃᵇᶜ 227.0 5.9ᵇᶜ 3.4ᵃᵇ 279.0 6.2 2.5ᶜᵈ 243.1

Control.Control 5.8 3.3ᵃᵇᶜ 227.5 5.9ᵇᶜ 3.7ᵃᵇ 281.3 6.3 2.5ᵈ 199.3 Radish.Radish 6.1 3.6ᵃ 216.6 5.8ᵇᶜ 3.7ᵃᵇ 294.7 6.3 2.8ᵃᵇᶜ 289.6 Intensiv.Buck 6.0 3.5ᵃᵇ 199.7 5.8ᵇᶜ 3.6ᵃᵇ 281.5 6.7 2.9ᵃ 241.2

Universal.Clover 6.1 3.3ᵃᵇᶜ 231.0 6.4ᵃᵇ 3.7ᵃᵇ 321.5 6.9 2.6ᶜᵈ 230.8

ANOVA

p-value 0.487 <0.001 0.12 <0.001 0.035 0.45 0.156 0.069 0.19 Root MSE 0.26 0.11 26.6 0.27 0.23 38.1 0.39 0.16 51.1 CoEff.Var 4.25 3.43 12.3 4.47 6.23 13.1 6.08 6.11 19.6

39

Figure 44a. SNS flux Molescroft 61B. Note: Pre-pea data here is missing.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

SNS pre-cc SNS post-pea SNS catch SNS follow

SNS

(kg/

ha)

CustomControlVetchRadishIntensivUniversalPost ControlPost RadishPost BuckwheatPost CloverControl.ControlRadish.RadishIntensiv.BuckwheatUniversal.Clover

40

Figure 44b. SNS flux Eastfield AR. Note: Pre-pea data here exclude crop N.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

SNS pre-cc SNS pre-pea SNS post-pea SNS catch SNS follow

SNS

(kg/

ha)


41

Figure 44c. SNS flux Boxtree Bubwith. Note: Pre-pea data here exclude Crop N.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

SNS pre-cc SNS pre-pea SNS post-pea SNS catch SNS follow

SNS

(kg/

ha)


42

Table 6. Soil phosphorus, potassium and magnesium (mg/kg). Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05 (unless otherwise stated). n=3.


P K Mg P K Mg P K Mg

Pre-CC 12.1 174.6 95.6 32.8 222.1 101.9 25.3 187.9 184.6

Pre-Pea Custom 9.82ᵃ 107.34ᵇ 80.1ᵃᵇ 9.19ᵇ 139.3ᶜ 107.3ᵃᵇ 14.65ᵇ 170 160.8ᶜ Control 10.3ᵃᵇ 137.25ᵃᵇ 99.59ᵃ 12.99ᵃᵇ 189.4ᵃᵇᶜ 90.57ᵃ 17.76ᵃᵇ 180.69 190.8ᵇᶜ

Vetch 10.9ᵃᵇ 169.3ᵃ 67.91ᵇ 22.62ᵃ 216.1ᵃᵇ 97.75ᵃᵇ 13.85ᵇ 179.28 184.4ᵇᶜ Radish 11.74ᵃ 169ᵃ 88.35ᵃᵇ 15.31ᵃᵇ 201.2ᵃᵇᶜ 83.03ᵇ 18.76ᵃᵇ 157.99 199.2ᵃᵇᶜ

Intensiv 13.66ᵃ 134.53ᵃ 93.1ᵃ 12.38ᵃᵇ 245.78ᵃ 116.2ᵃᵇ 22.69ᵃ 178.99 243.7ᵃ Universal 7.21ᵇ 96.64ᵇ 87.45ᵃᵇ 11.93ᵃᵇ 169.8ᵇᶜ 99.5ᵃᵇ 20.37ᵃᵇ 214.46 226.6ᵃᵇ

ANOVA

p-value 0.039* 0.013* 0.018* 0.030 0.001 0.009 0.008 0.32 0.003* Root MSE 2.89 42.6 9.92 5.26 28.4 11.2 3.19 33.59 21.84 CoEff.Var 24.28 31.40 11.52 37.41 14.68 11.34 17.7 18.64 10.87

Post-Pea Custom 10.0 110.7ᵃᵇ 85.7ᵃ 27.3ᵇ 292.3ᵃᵇ 104.3ᵇ 25.0 255.3 94.7ᵈ Control 11.3 130.3ᵃᵇ 80.0ᵃ 29.3ᵇ 250.0ᵇ 114.3ᵇ 25.0 210.0 137.0ᵇᶜ

Vetch 12.7 107.3ᵇ 71.0ᵃ 147.7ᵃ 368.0ᵃ 150.7ᵃ 23.3 232.0 132.7ᶜᵈ Radish 13.3 115.7ᵃᵇ 81.7ᵃ 42.3ᵃᵇ 314.7ᵃᵇ 114.3ᵇ 31.7 254.7 140.7ᵃᵇᶜ

Intensiv 12.3 134.3ᵃᵇ 52.0ᵇ 30.3ᵇ 381.0ᵃ 164.3ᵃ 30.7 253.7 180.7ᵃ Universal 14.0 149ᵃ 79.7ᵃ 30.0ᵇ 286.0ᵃᵇ 111.7ᵇ 28.7 256.7 175.0ᵃᵇ

ANOVA

p-value 0.153 0.038 0.001 0.028 0.008 <0.001 0.107 0.481 <0.001 Root MSE 1.73 14.5 6.0 40.8 35.7 8.9 3.78 33.4 14.8 CoEff.Var 14.08 11.68 8.00 79.68 11.33 7.00 13.82 13.69 10.29

exceptional value

Follow WW Control 13.8ᵇᶜ 98.6ᵇᶜ 118.8ᵃ 27.7ᵃᵇ 140.0 121.0ᵃᵇ 18.3ᶜ 99ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉ 112.0ᶜ

Vetch 14.1ᵇᶜ 63.1ᶜ 94.3ᵃᵇ 31.0ᵃ 153.7 178.0ᵃ 20.3ᵇᶜ 112ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 126.7ᵃᵇᶜ Radish 18.0ᵃᵇ 91.3ᵇᶜ 106.2ᵃᵇ 31.0ᵃ 160.3 109.0ᵇ 29.3ᵃᵇ 106ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉ 121.3ᵃᵇᶜ

Intensiv 15.5ᵇᶜ 87.2ᵇᶜ 82.6ᵇ 19.3ᵇ 143.7 153.7ᵃᵇ 28.7ᵃᵇ 126ᵃ 130.7ᵃᵇᶜ Universal 13.0ᵇᶜ 87.6ᵇᶜ 92.7ᵃᵇ 21.3ᵃᵇ 195.3 154.3ᵃᵇ 28.3ᵃᵇᶜ 122ᵃᵇ 147.3ᵃ

Post Control 11.7ᶜ 96.9ᵇᶜ 95.9ᵃᵇ 30.3ᵃ 153.7 115.3ᵇ 22.3ᵃᵇᶜ 90ᵈᵉ 115.0ᵇᶜ Post Radish 13.5ᵇᶜ 132.7ᵇ 97.6ᵃᵇ 27.0ᵃᵇ 193.7 122.7ᵃᵇ 28.0ᵃᵇᶜ 119ᵃᵇᶜ 129.0ᵃᵇᶜ

Post Buckwheat 13.3ᵇᶜ 114.4ᵇᶜ 91.7ᵃᵇ 28.3ᵃᵇ 156.0 104.3ᵇ 20.0ᵇᶜ 91ᶜᵈᵉ 120.7ᵃᵇᶜ Post Clover 12.9ᵇᶜ 103.8ᵇᶜ 98.2ᵃᵇ 30.3ᵃ 140.3 109.7ᵇ 19.7ᵇᶜ 91ᵈᵉ 119.3ᵃᵇᶜ

Control.Control 14.6ᵇᶜ 93.7ᵇᶜ 95.8ᵃᵇ 30.7ᵃ 146.0 111.3ᵇ 21.7ᵇᶜ 80ᵉ 112.0ᶜ Radish.Radish 17.3ᵃᵇ 120.2ᵇᶜ 93.7ᵃᵇ 25.7ᵃᵇ 164.0 97.7ᵇ 32.3ᵃ 118ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 101.0ᶜ Intensiv.Buck 22.3ᵃ 219.9ᵃ 86.2ᵇ 25.7ᵃᵇ 158.7 117.0ᵃᵇ 25.3ᵃᵇᶜ 113ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 119.3ᵃᵇᶜ

Universal.Clover 15.5ᵇᶜ 132.6ᵇ 91.3ᵃᵇ 30.3ᵃ 180.7 149.3ᵃᵇ 26.0ᵃᵇᶜ 97ᵇᶜᵈᵉ 144.3ᵇᶜ

ANOVA

p-value <0.001 <0.001 0.017 0.008 0.250 0.002 <0.001 0.059* <0.001 Root MSE 1.85 19.64 9.35 3.67 27.69 20.84 3.43 17.54 10.1 CoEff.Var 12.3 17.7 9.76 13.3 17.3 16.49 13.9 16.7 8.19

*Duncan’s multiple range test, α = 0.1

43

Table 7. Molescroft 61B mean colonies Year 1, Didymella only for September. n=10. ANOVA, Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05.

Pre-Pea Post-Pea Catch Fusarium Didymella Total Fusarium Didymella Total Didymella

Custom 5.50ᵃᵇ 88ᵃᵇ 93.5ᵃᵇ 0.5 120.75 121.25 Control 8.25ᵃ 86ᵃᵇ 94.25ᵃᵇ 1.5 145 146.5 253.75ᵇᶜ

Vetch 8.50ᵃ 68ᵇ 76.5ᵇ 3.75 107.75 111.5 230.25ᵇᶜ Radish 5.75ᵃᵇ 136.75ᵃ 142.5ᵃ 1.75 226.25 228 209.75ᵇᶜ

Intensiv 1.00ᵇ 93.5ᵃᵇ 94.5ᵃᵇ 1.75 204 205.75 559.5ᵃᵇ Universal 1.75ᵇ 71.75ᵇ 73.5ᵇ 0.75 217 217.75 414.5ᵃᵇᶜ

Post Control - - - - - - 331.25ᵃᵇᶜ Post Radish - - - - - - 664.75ᵃ

Post Buckwheat - - - - - - 329.25ᵃᵇᶜ Post Clover - - - - - - 450.75ᵃᵇᶜ

Control.Control - - - - - - 308.5ᵃᵇᶜ Radish.Radish - - - - - - 160.5ᶜ

Intensiv.Buckwheat - - - - - - 381.5ᵃᵇᶜ Universal.Clover - - - - - - 318ᵃᵇᶜ

ANOVA

p-value 0.005 0.022 0.03 0.087 0.337 0.342 <0.0001 Root MSE 2.87 26.38 26.98 1.51 93.66 93.38 112.62 CoEff.Var 60.0 29.09 28.16 90.55 55.05 54.35 43.72

Table 8. Boxtree Bubwith mean colonies Year 1. n=10.** denotes p<0.01 against all treatments bar universal (p=0.02). ANOVA, Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05.

Pre-Pea Post-Pea Catch Fusarium Didymella Total Fusarium Didymella Total Fusarium Didymella Total

Custom 16 18ᵇ 34 7.75 7.5 15.25 Control 23 16ᵇ 39 18.25 12.5 30.75 13ᶜ 220.75ᵃ 233.75**

Vetch 5.25 24.5ᵃᵇ 29.75 9.5 11 20.5 1.75ᶜ 85.75ᵇᶜ 87.5 Radish 10.5 28ᵃᵇ 38.5 15.5 18.75 34.25 7ᶜ 67ᵇᶜ 74

Intensiv 19.75 31.75ᵃᵇ 51.5 10 14.75 24.75 7.25ᶜ 48.25ᵇᶜ 55.5 Universal 8 39ͤͩᵃ 47 10 17.75 27.75 15ᵃᵇᶜ 114.5ᵇ 129.5

Post Control - - - - - - 13.75ᵇᶜ 50ᵇᶜ 63.75 Post Radish - - - - - - 14.25ᵇᶜ 57ᵇᶜ 71.25

Post Buckwheat - - - - - - 16ᵃᵇᶜ 38.5ᵇᶜ 54.5 Post Clover - - - - - - 22.25ᵃᵇᶜ 16.5ᶜ 38.75

Control.Control - - - - - - 20ᵃᵇᶜ 68.5ᵇᶜ 121.75 Radish.Radish - - - - - - 42ᵃ 19ͤͩ.75ᶜ 61.75

Intensiv.Buckwheat - - - - - - 15ᵃᵇᶜ 24ᶜ 39 Universal.Clover - - - - - - 40.75ᵃᵇ 22.75ᶜ 63.5

ANOVA

p-value 0.31 0.019 0.2554 0.35 0.29 0.19 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Root MSE 12.32 8.70 13.41 7.47 7.33 10.73 66.72 33.45 36.8 CoEff.Var 89.64 33.18 33.57 63.1 53.5 42.03 10.2 78.39 62.06

44

Table 9. Boxtree Bubwith mean colonies Year 1. n=10. ANOVA, Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05.

Follow WW Fusarium Didymella Total Fusarium Didymella Total

Control 16.0 91.7ᵃᵇᶜ 107.7ᵃᵇᶜ - - - Vetch 14.0 44.3ᵃᵇᶜ 58.3ᵃᵇᶜ - - -

Radish 2.8 88.3ᵃᵇᶜ 91.0ᵃᵇᶜ - - - Intensiv 5.8 37.3ᵇᶜ 43.0ᵇᶜ - - -

Universal 2.8 36.8ᵇᶜ 39.5ᵇᶜ - - - Post Control 1.0 26.3ᶜ 27.3ᶜ - - - Post Radish 4.3 120.5ᵃᵇ 124.8ᵃᵇ - - -

Post Buckwheat 22.5 61.3ᵃᵇᶜ 83.8ᵃᵇᶜ - - - Post Clover 5.8 45.3ᵃᵇᶜ 51.0ᵃᵇᶜ - - -

Control.Control 12.3 129.0ᵃ 141.3ᵃ - - - Radish.Radish 5.8 18.0ᶜ 23.8ᶜ - - -

Intensiv.Buckwheat 17.8 22.5ᶜ 40.3ᵇᶜ - - - Universal.Clover 9.3 17.8ᶜ 27.0ᶜ - - -

ANOVA

p-value 0.047 <0.001 <0.001 - - - Root MSE 9.33 36.1 37.7 - - - CoEff.Var 101.4 63.6 57.0 - - -

poor variance

Table 10. Molescroft 61B mean colonies Year 1. n=10. Anova, Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05.

Follow WW Fusarium Didymella Total Fusarium Didymella Total

Control 8.8ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 131.5ᵇᶜ 140.3ᵇᶜ - - - Vetch 2.0ᶜᵈ 190.0ᵃᵇᶜ 192.0ᵃᵇᶜ - - -

Radish 9.3ᵃᵇᶜ 159.0ᵇᶜ 168.3ᵇᶜ - - - Intensiv 5.3ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 107.5ᶜ 112.8ᶜ - - -

Universal 3.5ᵇᶜᵈ 145.5ᵇᶜ 149ᵇᶜ - - - Post Control 8.3ᵃᵇᶜᵈ 115.0ᶜ 123.3ᶜ - - - Post Radish 0.8ᵈ 193.0ᵃᵇᶜ 193.8ᵃᵇᶜ - - -

Post Buckwheat 11.8ᵃᵇ 103.8ᶜ 115.5ᶜ - - - Post Clover 13.0ᵃ 151.0ᵇᶜ 164ᵇᶜ - - -

Control.Control 3.5ᵇᶜᵈ 199.8ᵃᵇᶜ 203.3ᵃᵇᶜ - - - Radish.Radish 3.0ᶜᵈ 298.0ᵃ 301.0ᵃ - - -

Intensiv.Buckwheat 4.5ᵇᶜᵈ 174.8ᵇᶜ 179.3ᵇᶜ - - - Universal.Clover 4.3ᵇᶜᵈ 250.0ᵃᵇ 254.3ᵃᵇ - - -

ANOVA

p-value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - - Root MSE 3.36 47.4 46.9 - - - CoEff.Var 56.22 27.78 26.56 - - -

45

Table 11. Footrot symptoms (% plants infected) prior to harvest. N=100. Fischer’s LSD pairwise comparison, α=0.05.

Molescroft 61B

Boxtree Bubwith

Custom 32ᵃᵇ 32ᵃ Control 45ᵃ 19ᵃᵇ

Vetch 28ᵃᵇ 17ᵇ Radish 45ᵃ 15ᵇ

Intensiv 18ᵇ 18ᵃᵇ Universal 25ᵃᵇ 9ᵇ

ANOVA

p-value 0.024 0.007 Root MSE 20.56 12.57 CoEff.Var 63.92 68.67

Table 12a. Mean haulm lengths (n=100) and dry weights (n=3) of pea plants prior to harvest. One-way ANOVA where applicable, Kruskal-Wallis where not. Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05.

Molescroft 61B Eastfield AR Boxtree Bubwith Mean haulm

length (cm) Mean dry

weight (g/m²) Mean haulm length (cm)

Mean dry weight (g/m²)

Mean haulm length (cm)

Mean dry weight (g/m²)

Custom 26.2ᵇ 244.7ᵃᵇ 35.1ᵇ 432 19.4ᶜ 138 Control 28.5ᵃ 200ᵇ 36.3ᵃᵇ 412 23ᵃ 237.3

Vetch 28.7ᵃ 212ᵇ 37.7ᵃ 502.7 21.5ᵃᵇ 168.7 Radish 29.1ᵃ 198ᵇ 35.5ᵇ 540 18.9ᶜ 163.3

Intensiv 28.9ᵃ 314ᵃᵇ 38.2ᵃ 440 19.4ᶜ 184.7 Universal 31.7ᵃ 365.3ᵃ 36.5ᵃᵇ 477.3 20.6ᵇᶜ 167.3

ANOVA p-value < 0.0001 0.0051 < 0.0001 0.521 - 0.213

Root MSE 3.89 48.76 4.29 89.08 - 44.54 CoEff.Var 13.7 19.07 11.8 19.06 - 22.22

Kruskal-Wallis p-value - - - - < 0.0001 - χ² value - - - - 56.45 -

Table 12b. Crop N at Post-pea, Catch, Follow WW (kg/ha). Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05, unless otherwise stated. n=3.


Post-pea Crop N

Catch Crop N

1st Follow Crop N

Post-pea Crop N

Catch Crop N

1st Follow Crop N

Post-pea Crop N

Catch Crop N

1st Follow Crop N

Custom 31.9ᵇ - - 106.4 - - 26.75 - -

Control 26.9ᵇ - 151.9 111.5 - 201.0 35.89 - 141.6

Vetch 31.8ᵇ - 116.2 129.3 - 220.9 26.02 - 170.8

Radish 26.9ᵇ - 136.7 139.7 - 203.3 24.78 - 157.5

Intensiv 52.8ᵃᵇ - 141.3 115.5 - 203.5 31.03 - 141.3

Universal 62.8ᵃ - 136.2 130.2 - 180.1 28.35 - 203.3

Post Control - - 137.2 - - 185.3 - - 193.1

Post Radish - 29.9 150.7 - 37.5 193.8 - 70.6 196.9

Post Buckwheat - 21.1 120.1 - 27.7 184.1 - 49.8 155.8

Post Clover - 35.0 124.6 - 42.0 182.1 - 43.2 172.6

Control.Control - - 160.1 - - 208.9 - - 138.3

Radish.Radish - 37.3 136.2 - 41.2 209.4 - 74.7 175.0

Intensiv.Buck - 31.4 128.7 - 40.2 190.0 - 47.8 162.2

Universal.Clover - 32.1 139.4 - 43.3 230.5 - 39.1 168.2

ANOVA

p-value 0.03* 0.37 0.43 0.64 0.49 0.59 0.31 0.26 0.28

Root MSE 13.3 8.76 21.3 26.6 10.1 28.8 6.03 20.7 32.0

CoEff.Var 34.2 28.2 15.5 21.8 26.2 14.5 21.0 38.2 19.1

*Duncans MRT

46

Table 13. Mean weights of fresh and dry straw. Predicted yield expressed as a percentage of Control:Control. Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05 (unless otherwise stated).


Straw fresh

(g/m²)

Straw dry (g/m²)

Relative yield

%

Straw fresh

(g/m²)

Straw dry

(g/m²)

Relative yield

%

Straw fresh

(g/m²)

Straw dry

(g/m²)

Relative yield

% Control 3524 865ᵃᵇ 97.8ᵃᵇ 3967ᵃᵇ 1044ᵃᵇ 103.0ᵃᵇ 3163ᵇ 1033 103.2ᵃᵇ

Vetch 3147 817ᵃᵇ 92.5ᵃᵇ 4284ᵃᵇ 1189ᵃ 102.1ᵃᵇ 3369ᵇ 1088 116.4ᵃᵇ Radish 3309 873ᵃᵇ 91.8ᵇ 3921ᵃᵇ 1015ᵃᵇ 97.0ᵃᵇ 3344ᵇ 1097 128.0ᵃᵇ

Intensiv 3825 909ᵃᵇ 107.9ᵃ 4349ᵃ 1168ᵃ 94.1ᵃᵇ 3279ᵇ 987 136.0ᵃ Universal 3504 856ᵃᵇ 100.0ᵃᵇ 4108ᵃᵇ 1113ᵃᵇ 100.4ᵃᵇ 4159ᵃᵇ 1245 105.8ᵃᵇ

Post Control 3255 800ᵃᵇ 96.3ᵃᵇ 4308ᵃ 1165ᵃ 94.5ᵃᵇ 3749ᵃᵇ 1248 102.7ᵃᵇ Post Radish 3259 827ᵃᵇ 104.1ᵃᵇ 4297ᵃᵇ 1137ᵃᵇ 94.9ᵃᵇ 5533ᵃ 1331 109.5ᵃᵇ

Post Buckwheat 2705 677ᵇ 100.0ᵃᵇ 3239ᵇ 864ᵇ 102.5ᵃᵇ 3857ᵃᵇ 1197 106.9ᵃᵇ Post Clover 3048 771ᵃᵇ 104.5ᵃᵇ 3795ᵃᵇ 977ᵃᵇ 116.1ᵃ 3868ᵃᵇ 1207 97.9ᵃᵇ

Control.Control 3981 1051ᵃ 100.0ᵃᵇ 3876ᵃᵇ 1028ᵃᵇ 100.0ᵃᵇ 2993ᵇ 993 100.0ᵃᵇ Radish.Radish 3212 833ᵃᵇ 98.1ᵃᵇ 4039ᵃᵇ 1089ᵃᵇ 88.6ᵇ 3780ᵃᵇ 1228 91.5ᵇ Intensiv.Buck 2984 771ᵃᵇ 97.8ᵃᵇ 3628ᵃᵇ 928ᵃb 83.9ᵇ 3339ᵇ 1065 96.3ᵃᵇ

Universal.Clover 3640 928ᵃᵇ 101.5ᵃᵇ 4392ᵃ 1173ᵃ 91.9ᵃᵇ 3744ᵃᵇ 1199 103.7ᵃᵇ

ANOVA p-value 0.103 0.076* 0.042 0.050 0.019 0.013 0.002* 0.139 0.030

Root MSE 451 111 4.65 391 109 6.40 710 147 8.79 CoEff.Var 15.3 13.1 5.25 9.74 10.2 8.34 19.2 12.8 13.0

*Duncans MRT, α=0.1. *Kruskal-Wallis, χ² 17.53

Table 14. ANCOVA of soil moisture drainage regressions against four treatments, Tukey pairwise comparison, α=0.05. n=48.


3rd March 8th March 3rd June 3rd March 8th March 3rd June

Control A A B B B C Radish A A A A A AB

Intensiv B B B C B A Universal C B B B A B

ANCOVA p-value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Root MSE 0.74 0.93 0.50 0.98 1.25 0.95 CoEff.Var 1.94 2.45 1.60 2.74 3.47 3.04

47

Table 15. Accumulated compaction. Values equate to Least Squared Mean derived from ANCOVA analysis. Tukey post-hoc analysis, α=0.05.


Pre-Pea Control - 1392.25ᵃ 1461.7ᵃ

Vetch - 1169.5ᵇ 1113.3ᶜ Radish - 1068.7ᶜ 1346.3ᵇ

Intensiv - 1210.3ᵇ 1154.5ᶜ Universal - 1242.7ᵇ 1347.9ᵇ

ANCOVA p-value - < 0.001 < 0.001

Root MSE - 212.6 265.8 CoEff.Var - 17.6 20.7

Post-Pea Custom - 1356ᵈ 2302.9ᶜ Control - 1832ᵃ 2522.3ᵇ

Vetch - 1660ᵇ 2647.1ᵃ Radish - 1792ᵃ 2013.7ᵈ

Intensiv - 1641ᵇ 2272.6ᶜ Universal - 1509ᶜ 2010.8ᵈ

ANCOVA p-value - < 0.001 < 0.001

Root MSE - 240.5 317.1 CoEff.Var - 14.7 13.9

Catch Control 1241.1ᵉᶠᵍ 1421ᵈ 1295.1ᵃᵇᶜ

Vetch 1485.2ᵇ 1372.6ᵈ 1243.7ᵇᶜ Radish 1311ᵉᶠ 1370.9ᵈ 1206.4ᶜ

Intensiv 1159.6ᵍ 1694.6ᶜ 1344.7ᵃᵇᶜ Universal 1361.8ᶜᵈᵉ 1357.4ᵈ 1310.2ᵃᵇᶜ

Post Control 1255.5ᵉᶠᵍ 1477.2ᵈ 1257.4ᵃᵇᶜ Post Radish 1347.9ᵈᵉᶠ 1760ᶜ 1295.8ᵃᵇᶜ

Post Buckwheat 1493.7ᵇ 1443.3ᵈ 1390.5ᵃᵇ Post Clover 1462.6ᵇ 2004.1ᵇ 1337.3ᵃᵇᶜ

Control.Control 1166.5ᵍ 1423.5ᵈ 1292.8ᵃᵇᶜ Radish.Radish 1646.2ᵃ 2149ᵃ 1430.5ᵃ Intensiv.Buck 1427.1ᵇᶜ 1971.4ᵇ 1421.8ᵃᵇ

Universal.Clover 1299.4ᵉᶠ 2193.5ᵃ 1303ᵃᵇᶜ

ANCOVA

p-value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Root MSE 267.8 272.6 406.1 CoEff.Var 19.7 16.4 30.8

Table 16. Fertilizer application diary.


Pre-cc 2016 76kg S + 49kg Ca + 26kg Mg Winter 2017 Spring 2017 127kg MOP 28kg S + 77kg Potash + 55kg

Ca 60kg K

Summer 2017 65kg TSP Autumn 2017 Winter 2018

green pea company soil health project year 1 report tom ...€¦ · 1 green pea company – soil...

Documents