Shallow tillage after harvest
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
Destroy the residues of the previous crop (superficial soil work, less than 10 cm) less than a week after harvest if the plot is weedy and/or the surface seed bank is large and the intercrop period is short. Against perennials, a deep stubble cultivation with a toothed tool is preferable. Subsequently, destroy the emerged weeds (preferably mechanically) before sowing the next crop. In the absence of weed problems, superficial stubble cultivation also helps restore soil infiltration capacity after harvest. In this way, superficial soil work after harvest is an alternative to the use of glyphosate.
Details on the technique:
If the intercrop period is long, it is possible to perform several false seedings (a single pass is not very effective). In this case, the soil work must be increasingly superficial to avoid bringing seeds to the surface.
Implementation period
During the intercrop period
Spatial scale of implementation
Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops:
Easily generalizable
All soil types:
Easily generalizable
However, false seedings are difficult on soils that are too dry or too wet. A soil that crusts quickly is better suited because weeds that have emerged under moist conditions can be better destroyed under dry conditions.
All climatic contexts:
Easily generalizable
Sufficiently moist soil is necessary for weed emergence, then dry weather to dry out the plants disturbed by the false seeding.
2. Advantages of the technique
- Destroys emerged weeds before seed set, thus preventing additional seed production
- Depletes the surface weed seed bank by stimulating their emergence through repeated superficial work
- A slight moisture after or at the time of passage is sufficient to induce weed emergence
- Also helps manage harvest residues and limit pest presence: slugs, wireworms…
- Superficial work with proper equipment adjustment reduces fuel consumption and working time
3. Disadvantages of the technique
- Risk of weed re-emergence if passes are too spaced out in time
- Limited effectiveness in very dry conditions
- Cover crops during long intercrop periods limit the possibility of multiple superficial soil passes
- Available time for repeated passes is sometimes limiting
4. Tools available for superficial work
5. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality:
Decreasing
phytosanitary emissions: DECREASE
GHG emissions: INCREASE
Effect on water quality:
Variable
N.A.: VARIABLE
pesticides: DECREASE
turbidity: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption:
Increasing
fossil energy consumption: INCREASE
Other:
No effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, phytosanitary...): Decrease
Reduction if pesticide use is reduced (depending on the molecules). This technique promotes nitrogen mineralization and it is possible that this additional mineralization generates potentially more leachable residues. However, this additional mineralization is often seen as beneficial for the crop (especially in organic farming). Reduction of soil, phosphorus, and phytosanitary residue transfers adsorbed on soil particles by reducing runoff formation.
Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, phytosanitary...): Decrease
Reduction if pesticide use is reduced (depending on the molecules).
Fossil energy consumption: Increase
Increase compared to no soil work during intercrop but superficial work requires relatively little energy (compared to ploughing), about 7 to 10 liters of fuel per hectare per pass.
GHG emissions: Increase
Increase compared to no soil work during intercrop, but superficial work consumes relatively little fuel and thus emits little CO2.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity:
No effect (neutral)
Soil fertility:
Increasing
Increase compared to no soil work during intercrop but superficial passes contribute to seedbed preparation.
Water stress:
Variable
Reduction because surface work promotes water infiltration and thus filling of the useful reserve. However, in case of early harvest (winter barley, soft wheat, etc.), stubble cultivation can promote evaporation and lead to drying of the superficial horizons at the time of sowing the next crop (oilseed rape, etc.).
Functional biodiversity:
Decreasing
Soil work strongly disturbs soil fauna (especially insects and other surface-moving organisms such as ground beetles). However, a reduction in herbicide use is potentially favorable to functional biodiversity.
"Economic" criteria
Operational costs:
Decreasing
Decrease in operational costs if herbicide use is reduced.
Mechanization costs:
Increasing
Purchase and maintenance of equipment, additional fuel consumption compared to no soil work during intercrop.
Margin:
Variable
Slight increase due to soil work passes, possible savings on herbicide passes.
"Social" criteria
Working time:
Increasing
Increase compared to no soil work during intercrop (30 minutes per hectare per pass).
Observation time:
No effect (neutral)
6. For more information
- Crop sheets from Areas
- -Coufourier N., Lecomte V., Le Goff A. (CA 76), Pivain Y. (CA 27), Ouvry J.F., Lheriteau M. (AREAS) AREAS, Technical brochure, 2016 Sheets on Maize, Pea, winter Cereals, Oilseed rape, Beet, Flax, Potato. Link to brochures
- Superficial soil work during intercrop
- -Pierre Mischler Agro-Transfert ressources et Territoires, Technical brochure, 2011
Link to brochure. Provides information on tools to use, cost, etc.
- First post-harvest stubble cultivations
- -La France Agricole Press article, 2010 link to article
- Phytosanitary product-saving crop protection strategies
- -Gran Aymerich L. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, University work, 2006
Engineering thesis. Sheet no. 3 of the thesis largely inspired this technical sheet.
7. Keywords
Bioaggressor control method:
Physical control
Mode of action:
Action on the initial stock
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use:
Redesign
Annexes
Est complémentaire des leviers
S'applique aux cultures suivantes
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
