CC BY
8resistant, and cv. TB Flavour and Patricia - to sensitive group (47.7 and 48.6%). As between these two indicators it is observed though high, but statistically insignificant correlation (r = 0.654), it is possible to use them at the same time for more differentiated assessment of resistance level to a stress in a set of cultivars.
Conclusions. Thus, collection samples of spring barley significantly differ on the level of resistance to an early drought. Use of an indicator of redistribution of biomass between underground and aboveground parts of a plant (RSR) allows to divide the studied sets of spring barley cultivars on groups of resistance to an early drought more differentially, than the indicators of germination and relative accumulation of biomass by whole seedling used in practice.
References
1. Batalova G.A. Oats in the Volga-Vyatka region // Kirov: LLC Orma, 2013. 288 p.
2. Shchennikova I.N. Influence of weather conditions on growth and development of barley plants in
the Kirov region // Agrarian science of Euro-NorthEast. 2014. No. 4. P. 9-13.
3. Nettevich E.D. Selected works. Breeding and seed farming of spring grain crops // Moscow: Nemchi-novka: NIISH TSRNZ. 2008. 348 p.
4. Shikhova L.N., Lisitsyn E.M. Seasonal dynamics of acidity of the natural and reclaimed sod-pod-zolic soil // Plodorodie. 2014. No. 6 (81). P. 40-41.
5. Batalova G.A., Lisitsyn E.M. About oats breeding on resistance to an edaphic stress // Selekciya i semenovodstvo. 2002. No. 2. P. 17-19.
6. Rodina N.A. Breeding of barley in the NorthEast of Non-Chernozem Region. Kirov: Zonal NIISH of the North-East. 2006. 488 p.
7. Kokina L.P., Shchennikova I.N. Efficiency of use of collection samples in barley breeding // Methods and technologies in plant breeding. Kirov: NIISH of the Northeast, 2014. P. 117-120.
8. Diagnostics of plant resistance to stressful influences (methodical manual). Leningrad, 1988. 227 p.
РЕСУРСОСБЕРЕГАЮЩИЕ СПОСОБЫ ОБРАБОТКИ ПОЧВЫ ПОД ЗЕРНОФУРАЖНЫЕ
КУЛЬТУРЫ
Носкова Е.Н.
Федеральный Аграрный Научный Центр Северо-Востока
Киров, Российская Федерация
RESOURCE-SAVING WAYS OF SOIL PROCESSING FOR GRAIN-FORAGE CROPS
Noskova E.
Federal Agricultural Research Center of the North-East
Kirov, Russian Federation
АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье рассмотрено влияние различных видов основной и предпосевной обработок почвы в сочетании с внесением биопрепаратов на урожайность ярового ячменя и овса и продуктивность звена севооборота. Отмечено достоверное увеличение урожайности ярового ячменя по вспашке по сравнению с плоскорезной обработкой - на 0,54 т/га (LSD05A=0,13). На урожайность овса в большей степени повлияли изучаемые препараты: при обработке посевов в фазу кущения препаратом на основе штамма Streptomyces higroscopicus А4 отмечена прибавка урожайности на 0,19-0,32 т/га по сравнению другими вариантами.
ABSTRACT
The influence of different types of the main and pre-sowing processings of the soil in combination with introduction of biological products on productivity of spring barley and oats as well as productivity of a chain of a crop rotation is considered in the article. Reliable increase in productivity of spring barley on plowing in comparison with surface processing is noted - on 0.54 t/hectare. The productivity of oats was affected in higher degree by the studied preparations: when crops were processed with preparation on the basis of A4 strain of Streptomyces hygroscopicus at tillering stage, increase in productivity on 0.19-0.32 t/hectare in comparison by other options is noted.
Ключевые слова: урожайность зерна, яровой ячмень, овес, продуктивность, переваримый протеин.
Keywords: grain productivity, spring barley, oats, productivity, digestive protein.
Productivity is an integrating indicator of action of all cultivation conditions on a plant. Due to growth of Earth's population the increase in productivity of crops remains a strategic task of world agriculture [1].
Some of the major factors influencing receiving high productivity of spring grain crops are: high quality of soil processing, both the main, and pre-sowing, rational use of mineral fertilizers, micro- and biofertiliz-
The main and pre-sowing processings of the soil play the leading role in the system of agriculture of the Kirov region. They optimize the modes of growth and development of cultivated plants, affect agro-physical properties of the soil, its microbiological activity, help to fight against weed vegetation, provide seal of plant residues and a condition of a top soil optimum for crops [2, 3, 4].
ers.
Due to the environmental pollution, one of tasks in agriculture there is a search of ecologically safe preparations promoting increase in productivity [5]. Use of various preparations with microorganisms is among effective receptions of its decision. Besides, use of such biological preparations improves adaptive properties of crops [6]. The microorganisms forming their basis have a complex of useful properties: stimulate growth and development of plants; suppress development of phyto-pathogenes; improve mineral nutrition of crops [7].
Researches were conducted in 2015-2017 in a six-field crop rotation on a plot of FARC of the North-East, Kirov. The soil of a plot is middle-loam sod-podzolic. Agrochemical indicators of the soil: pH. - 5.0; hydro-lytic acidity - 3.6; the sum of the absorbed bases - 14.3 mg. - equivalent.; the maintenance of P205 - 140-180 mg and K20 - 150-200 mg per 1 kg of the soil (according to Kirsanov), a humus - 1.7% (according to Tyurin).
Scheme of test:
Factor A - the main processing: plowing with PLN-3-35 (control); surface processing with the combined unit KPA-2.5.
Factor B - pre-sowing processing: cultivation with KPS-4 (control); cultivation with KBM-4.2; processing
of the soil, application of fertilizers and sowing with APPN-2.1.
Factor C - processing with biological preparations: without preparation (control); preparation on the basis of A4 strain of Streptomyces hygroscopicus in a tillering stage in a dose 1 l/hectare (further and in the tables - A4); Pseudobakterin-2 in a tillering stage in a dose 1 l/hectare (further and in the tables - PB).
The productivity of spring barley in 2015 varied from 2.57 to 4.24 t/hectare (table 1). At surface processing the significant decrease in productivity in comparison with plowing is noted - on 0.79 t/hectare. The greatest productivity by variants is noted in variant of plowing with cultivation KPS-4.0 and introduction of PB - 4.24 t/hectare that is 0.85 t/hectare higher than control. The greatest reliable decrease in productivity in comparison with absolute control was in variant of surface processing with cultivation KBM-4.2 and introduction PB, the productivity was 2.57 t/hectare that is 1.52 t/hectare lower than absolute control - plowing with cultivation KPS-4 without introduction of preparations.
Table 1
Barley productivity, t/ha
Main processing (A) Pre-sowing processing (B) and biopreparations (C) 2015 2016 Average for 2015-2016
Ploughing with PLN-3-35 KPS-4 4.09 2.70 3.40
KBM-4,2 3.93 2.70 3.32
APPN-2,1 3.58 2.71 3.15
KPS-4 + A4 3.87 2.77 3.32
KBM-4,2 + A4 3.87 2.43 3.15
APPN-2,1 +A4 3.29 2.54 2.92
KPS-4 + PB 4.24 2.90 3.57
KBM-4,2 + PB 4.01 2.58 3.30
APPN-2,1 + PB 3.72 2.44 3.08
Surface processing with KPA-2,2 KPS-4 3.16 2.73 2.95
KBM-4,2 2.70 2.97 2.84
APPN-2,1 3.49 2.08 2.79
KPS-4 + A4 3.00 2.31 2.66
KBM-4,2 + A4 2.65 2.38 2.52
APPN-2,1 +A4 3.44 2.14 2.79
KPS-4 + PB 3.03 2.46 2.75
KBM-4,2 + PB 2.57 2.17 2.37
APPN-2,1 + PB 3.43 2.08 2.76
2015 LSDoA = 0,17, LSDO5B= F<<Fo5, LSD05C= F4><FO5 For individual distinctions LSD05=0,51 Average A 3.84; 3.05; B 3.56; 3.29; 3.49; C 3.49; 3.35; 3.50 2016 LSD05A= F<<Fo5, LSD05B= F<P<FO5, LSD05C= F<<Fo5 Average A 2.58; 2.36; B 2.56; 2.54; 2.31; C 2.65; 2.34; 2.42 Average 2015-2016 LSDoA= 0,13, LSDo5B= F$<F05, LSD05C= F<p<Fo5 Average A 3.25; 2.71; B 3.11; 2.92; 2.92; C 3.08; 2.89; 2.97
In 2016 the productivity of barley did not exceed 3 t/hectare. The studied factors had no significant effect on productivity. The greatest productivity is received on surface processing with cultivation KBM-4.2 - 2.97 t/hectare, the smallest - 2.08 t/hectare in variant of surface processing with pre-sowing processing APPN-2.1
both without introduction of preparations, and with introduction of PB.
On average for 2 years the reliable increase in productivity of spring barley on plowing in comparison with surface processing is noted - on 0.54 t/hectare.
Ways of pre-sowing processing of the soil and the studied preparations had no significant effect on productivity.
Oats in 2016 provided productivity of 3.40-4.62 t/hectare (table 2). The reliable increase was provided
by introduction of A4 - 0.44 t/hectare in comparison with variant without preparations. The greatest productivity was received in variant of plowing with pre-sow-ing processing APPN-2.1 and introduction of A4 - 4.62 t/hectare.
Table 2
Productivity of oats, t/hectare
Main processing (A) Pre-sowing processing (B) and biopreparations (C) 2016 2017 Average for 2016-2017
Ploughing with PLN-3-35 KPS-4 3.38 2.44 2.91
KBM-4,2 3.40 2.05 2.73
APPN-2,1 3.49 2.76 3.13
KPS-4 + A4 3.90 2.39 3.15
KBM-4,2 + A4 3.76 2.19 2.98
APPN-2,1 +A4 4.62 3.22 3.92
KPS-4 + PB 3.72 2.24 2.98
KBM-4,2 + PB 3.39 2.38 2.89
APPN-2,1 + PB 3.39 3.29 3.34
Surface processing with KPA-2,2 KPS-4 4.60 2.02 3.31
KBM-4,2 3.62 2.42 3.02
APPN-2,1 3.57 2.36 2.97
KPS-4 + A4 4.49 2.12 3.31
KBM-4,2 + A4 3.87 2.39 3.13
APPN-2,1 +A4 4.01 2.96 3.49
KPS-4 + PB 3.79 2.53 3.16
KBM-4,2 + PB 3.96 2.17 3.07
APPN-2,1 + PB 3.57 3.26 3.42
2016 LSDoA = F$<FO5, LSDo5B= F(p<F05, LSD05C= 0,32 Average A 3,67; 3,94; B 3,98; 3,67; 3,77; C 3,67; 4,11; 3,64 2017 LSD0sA= F$<F05, LSD05B= 0,37, LSD05C= 0,18 For individual distinctions LSD05=0,49 Average A 2.55; 2.47; B 2.29; 2.27; 2.97; C 2.34; 2.55; 2.64 Average for 2016-2017 LSD05A=F4><F05, LSD05B= F<P<FO5, LSD05C= 0,14 Average A 3.11; 3.21; B 3.14; 2.97; 3.38; C 3.01; 3.33; 3.14
In 2017 the productivity of oats was 2.02-3.29 t/hectare. The studied types of the main processing had no significant effect on this indicator. Pre-sowing processing of the soil with combined unit APPN-2.1 promoted a reliable increase in productivity on 0.68-0.70 t/hectare in comparison with cultivations KBM-4.2 and KPS-4. Processing of crops with biological products of A4 and PB increased productivity of oats by 0.21 and 0.30 t/hectare respectively.
On average for 2 years the introduction of a biological product of A4 had reliable impact on productivity of oats; the productivity increase on 0.19-0.32 t/hectare in comparison with introduction of PB and without introduction of preparations is noted here.
The analysis of productivity of a chain of a crop rotation (table 3) "barley-oats" showed that in control variant (plowing with cultivation KPS-4 without processing by biological products) yield of feed units made 10.09 thousand/hectare. On a plowing background the processing of crops with a biological product of A4 provided increase in productivity of a chain by 0.21 thousand fodder unit/hectare at cultivation KPS-4 and 0.65 thousand fodder unit/hectare at pre-sowing processing APPN-2.1. Yield of digestive protein at the same time grew by 0.16 and 0.51 c/hectare.
Table 3
Productivity of chain "spring barley - oats"__
Main processing (A) Pre-sowing processing (В) and biopreparations (С) Productivity, thousand fodder unit/hectare Yield of digestive protein, c/ha
Ploughing with PLN-3-35 KPS-4 10.09 7.12
KBM-4,2 9.69 6.83
APPN-2,1 9.99 7.06
KPS-4 + A4 10.30 7.28
KBM-4,2 + A4 9.77 6.90
APPN-2,1 +A4 10.74 7.63
KPS-4 + PB 10.49 7.40
KBM-4,2 + PB 9.89 6.98
APPN-2,1 + PB 10.17 7.20
Surface processing with KPA-2,2 KPS-4 9.91 7.01
KBM-4,2 9.29 6.57
APPN-2,1 9.13 6.46
KPS-4 + A4 9.41 6.67
KBM-4,2 + A4 8.91 6.31
APPN-2,1 +A4 9.89 7.01
KPS-4 + PB 9.34 6.62
KBM-4,2 + PB 8.56 6.07
APPN-2,1 + PB 9.74 6.91
Processing of crops with a biological product of Psevdobakterin-2 on a background of plowing provided yield of fodder units 0.08 thousand/hectare higher at use of the APPN-2.1 unit and 0.40 thousand/hectare -at cultivation KPS-4. Yield of digestive protein in these variants was 0.08 and 0.28 c/hectare higher respectively.
Thus, at cultivation of such important grain-forage crops as barley and oats, along with traditional autumn plowing and spring cultivation, use of the combined unit for pre-sowing processing of the soil, application of fertilizers and sowing, and processing of crops with biological products are effective agro-receptions.
References
1. Olenin O.A., Popov F.A., Noskova E.N. Complex efficiency of a biologization of technology of cultivation of spring-sown wheat // Perm agrarian bulletin, 2016. No. 1 (13). P. 22-29.
2. Vlasenko A.N., Sharkov I.N., Iodko L.N. Economic aspects of minimization of the main processing of the soil // Zemledelie. 2006. No. 4. P. 18-20.
3. Kulintsev V.V., Dridiger V.K., Udovychenko V.I., Chertov V.G., Kutsenko A.A. // Agriculture. 2013. No. 7. P. 9-11.
4. Recommendations on carrying out spring and field works in the Kirov region / Ed. V.A. Sysuyev. Kirov: NIISH of the Northeast, 2013. 68 p.
5. Klechkovsky Yu.E., Titova L.G., Bobro E.V. Influence of ecologically safe growth regulator of plants Guminat on development of vegetable and grain crops // Phytosanitary improvement of ecosystems: Congress materials. Volume II. SPb.: VIZR, 2005. P. 289-291.
6. Sidorenko O.D. The prospects of use of biological preparations on the basis of microorganisms // TSHA News. 2012. No. 6. P. 707-709.
7. Волкогон В.В., Заришняк А.С., Гриник I.B., Бердшков О.М., Центило Л.В. Методолопя i практика використання мжробных препарапв у техно-лопях вирощувания сшьскогосподарских культур// Методолопя i практика використання мшробных препарапв у технолопях вирощувания сшьскогосподарских культур. 2011. 156 с.
