Transcript WP2.INRA

BIOKENAF – QLK5-CT2002-01729
final meeting
ATHENS, 26-27 February 2007
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
INRA main involvement
• WP2: Adaptability and productivity field trials
– Task 2.2: Effect of different sowing dates and plant
populations on biomass yields
– Task 2.3: Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilisation
on biomass yields
• To provide data for:
– WP 3: Development of the crop growth simulation model
– WP 6: Environmental impact assessment and life cycle
analysis of kenaf production and use
– WP 7: Economic analysis for the crop production chain
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
WP2:
Adaptability and productivity
field trials
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
1. Presentation of trial conditions
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Trial location
Estrées-Mons
INRA centre
Latitude: 49°52’44’’
Longitude: 03°00’27’’
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Pedo-climate
• Climate: Oceanic temperate
– Mean temperatures: 10.7°C
– Mean rainfalls: 704 mm yr-1
• Soil type: Ortic Luvisol (FAO classification)
– Loamy soil (18 to 24 % of clay)
– 4 to 10 meters depth
– Potential yield of wheat : 10 tones of grain per
hectare
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
2. Results
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Trials and yields per year
trial objectif
V*S*D
I*N
Total yield min-medium-max (t DM/ha)
8.9-11.0-12.3
7.5-8.6-9.2
2004
V*S*D
N
10.0-10.5-11.5
8.3-9.9-11.2
2005
V
6.9-11.0-13.1
2006
N
8.5-9.2-10.5
2003
- No statistical effect
- Statistical effect
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
2003
Dry matter yield depending on variety and
sowing density
Dry m atter yield depending on N-fertilization and
irrigation
Yield (t/ha)
12
10
8
6
4
2
15/11/2003
ENVIRONN MENT
26/10/2003
AGRICULTURE
06/10/2003
FOOD
16/09/2003
0 kgN/ha non irrigated
100 kgN/ha non irrigated
0 kgN/ha irrigated
100 kgN/ha irrigated
27/08/2003
07/08/2003
18/07/2003
28/06/2003
15/11/2003
26/10/2003
06/10/2003
16/09/2003
27/08/2003
07/08/2003
18/07/2003
28/06/2003
08/06/2003
19/05/2003
Everglades 41 20 plants/m2
Everglades 41 20 plants/m2
Tainung 2 20 plants/m2
Tainung 2 40 plants/m2
08/06/2003
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
19/05/2003
Dry matter yield (t/ha)
14
50 kgN/ha non irrigated
150 kgN/ha non irrigated
50 kgN/ha irrigated
150 kgN/ha irrigated
12
2003
Ash content (%)
10
8
6
4
Ash content depending on variety and sowing
density
2
0
29/07/2003
14
Ash content (%)
12
20/08/2003
01/09/2003
15/09/2003
Stem - Everglades 41 - 20 plants/m2
Stem - Everglades 41 - 40 plants/m2
10
Stem - Tainung 2 - 20 plants/m2
8
Stem - Tainung 2 - 40 plants/m2
6
Leaves - Everglades 41 - 20 plants/m2
4
Leaves - Everglades 41 - 40 plants/m2
Leaves - Tainung 2 - 20 plants/m2
2
Leaves - Tainung 2 - 40 plants/m2
0
29/07/2003
20/08/2003
01/09/2003
15/09/2003
28/10/2003
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
28/10/2003
2004
Dry m atter yield depending on variety and sow ing density
14
12
Dry yield (t/ha)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-2
Cum ulative tem perature threshold 12°C
Sow ing 1 ; Everglades 41 ; 20 plants/m2
Sow ing 1 ; Tainung 2 ; 20 plants/m2
Sow ing 2 ; Everglades 41 ; 40 plants/m2
Sow ing 2 ; Tainung 2 ; 40 plants/m2
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
700
2005
Total dry matter yield depending on variety
14
Yield (t DM ha-1)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
01/08/2005
16/08/2005
31/08/2005
15/09/2005
Everglades 41
30/09/2005
15/10/2005
Tainung 2
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
30/10/2005
Dry matter yield of Tainung 2 as a function of real density
Dry matter yield (t ha-1)
14
12
10
8
6
4
R2 = 0.2306
2
0
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
Real density (plants ha-1)
-No correlation for T2
-Positive correlation
for E41
Dry metter yield of Everglades 41 as a function of real density
Dry metter yield (t ha-1)
14
12
10
8
6
4
R2 = 0.8806
2
0
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
30pl/m²: limiting
density is not
reached
350000
Real density (plants ha-1)
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Leaf/stem ratio evolution
Leaves/stems ratio evolution
100%
-Same trend for
E41 and T2
Percentage of each part
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
08/08/2005
30/08/2005
19/09/2005
17/10/2005
-Total yield mainly
explained by
stems
Date
Stems
Leaves
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
2006
Yield (t of dry matter/ha
Total dry matter yield evolution
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Days after emergence
N0
N1
No statistical difference between N0 and N1
So the Initial soil N content (100 kg/ha) was sufficient for the crop
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Yield comparison over years
Final Yield for each year
14
Yield (T / ha)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
In northern France, Kenaf yield vary from 8 to 12 tones of dry
matter per hectare
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
2005 trial
T2
E41
T2
E41
1.5 m
R3
R2
R1
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
In September 2005,
attack of Gray Mold
(Botrytis cinerea)
30% of Tainung 2
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Kenaf root profile
Method: presence of roots noticed by using a grid of
1m² with squares of 2cm*2cm: root present or not
Taproot of the kenaf
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Root exploration
0
-10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-20
soil depth (cm)
-30
-40
-50
Plow-pan
effect
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
percentage of colonisation
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Conclusions of the root exploration
• Roots sensitive to plow-pan and maybe to other
structural accidents or compactions
• Deep exploration that reaches more than 1
meter
• Maybe explain that in France, for a yield of 10t
per hectare, we have few response to irrigation
and fertilisation
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
3. Conclusions
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Task 2.2.
• Variety: there are few differences between varieties (T2,
E41 and G4). G4 should be more adapted.
• Sowing date: there are no clear conclusions. A
compromise must be found: not too early (low soil
temperatures and high weed competition) and not too
late (low soil moisture and too short growth cycle). The
middle of May seems to be the best.
• Sowing density: there are few effects of density on the
yield. So it can be a compromise between a higher cost
and a faster development.
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
Task 2.3.
• Irrigation: the effect is not obvious probably because of
the high soil water content. In northern France we should
recommend no irrigation.
• Nitrogen: there is no response to the fertilisation. The
soil nitrogen supply seems sufficient to achieve yields of
about 10t/ha.
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT
General conclusion
• In Northern France, the limiting factors are not
water and nitrogen but temperatures and
intercepted radiations
• The sustainable yield is about 10t/ha
• Some critical points:
– Weed competition: some agronomic solutions
– Fungal attacks: no solutions ?
– Losses at emergence: few agronomic solutions ?
FOOD
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONN MENT