Expanding the utilization of marginal land resources in rural areas is regarded as a significant supplement for the sustainable development of modern agriculture for its yield, economic and ecological good. Marginal a...Expanding the utilization of marginal land resources in rural areas is regarded as a significant supplement for the sustainable development of modern agriculture for its yield, economic and ecological good. Marginal areas, due to their natural limitations, are only productive for energy crops with strong resistance and tolerance. Cassava, in its longstanding cultivation practices, has marked its adaptability in tropical and subtropical regions. Farmers are allowed to improve reclaimed soils’ fertility, while plants’ canopy coverage could reduce soil erosion. Besides, cassava tubers to be produced as food or fodder can be counted as soil productivity. Breeding advanced cassava varieties on marginal land under proper intensification management and facilitating policies can indeed increase farmers’ income. Some of the projects implemented outside of China speak quite well on that. Additionally, intercropping modes for cassava bring higher incomes than monocropping mode, which simultaneously improves the ecosystem structure and soil conditions. The interspecific cooperation brought by the intercropping pattern has its buffering function and antagonistic effects to counter against plant diseases, pest attacks and weed infestations. It performs as a natural alternative for pesticides and fertilizers with minimal inputs and safe and productive outputs. Although a complete cassava industrial chain has been formed nationwide, there are still challenges like the inadequate use of marginal areas and risks triggered by unfavorable climate, changeable commodity markets, and the composition of the labor force. However, there will still be ample room for further growth of cassava, for recent years have witnessed the acceleration in the circulation of rural land management rights and the stratification of Chinese farmers, which gives an impetus to household management’s dominance as well as the improvements of rural social welfare systems for the overall agricultural efficiency.展开更多
Eleven field trials were conducted over a three-year period (2006-2008) at three locations in southwestern Ontario, Canada to evaluate the effect of various weed management strategies in glyphosate-tolerant corn on we...Eleven field trials were conducted over a three-year period (2006-2008) at three locations in southwestern Ontario, Canada to evaluate the effect of various weed management strategies in glyphosate-tolerant corn on weed control, crop injury, corn yield, environmental impact and profit margin. No visible injury resulted from the herbicide treatments evaluated. Overall, the effect of all factors assessed were location specific. By 56 days after treatment, depending on location, glyphosate applied at the 7 - 8 leaf stage (LPOST), preemergence (PRE) herbicides followed by (fb) glyphosate LPOST and sequential glyphosate applications (EPOST (3 - 4 leaf stage) followed by LPOST) provided more consistent control of annual broadleaf weeds and annual grasses compared to glyphosate applied alone EPOST. Weed control at 56 days after treatment was lower when glyphosate was applied alone LPOST compared to sequential applications of glyphosate or PRE herbicides fb glyphosate. There were no differences in corn yield among the sequential programs evaluated;however, a yield benefit was found when a sequential program was used compared to glyphosate applied alone LPOST. Among the sequential programs the lowest environmental impact was isoxaflutole/atrazine fb glyphosate. The lowest profit margins were associated with atrazine, S-metolachlor/atrazine/benoxacor, dicamba/atrazine and glyphosate LPOST treatments compared to all other treatments. Overall, profit margins tended to be somewhat higher for treatments that included glyphosate applications. Based on these results, the most efficacious and profitable weed management program in corn was a sequential application of glyphosate;however, isoxaflutole/atrazine fb glyphosate was the treatment with the lowest environmental risk while also adding glyphosate stewardship benefits.展开更多
文摘Expanding the utilization of marginal land resources in rural areas is regarded as a significant supplement for the sustainable development of modern agriculture for its yield, economic and ecological good. Marginal areas, due to their natural limitations, are only productive for energy crops with strong resistance and tolerance. Cassava, in its longstanding cultivation practices, has marked its adaptability in tropical and subtropical regions. Farmers are allowed to improve reclaimed soils’ fertility, while plants’ canopy coverage could reduce soil erosion. Besides, cassava tubers to be produced as food or fodder can be counted as soil productivity. Breeding advanced cassava varieties on marginal land under proper intensification management and facilitating policies can indeed increase farmers’ income. Some of the projects implemented outside of China speak quite well on that. Additionally, intercropping modes for cassava bring higher incomes than monocropping mode, which simultaneously improves the ecosystem structure and soil conditions. The interspecific cooperation brought by the intercropping pattern has its buffering function and antagonistic effects to counter against plant diseases, pest attacks and weed infestations. It performs as a natural alternative for pesticides and fertilizers with minimal inputs and safe and productive outputs. Although a complete cassava industrial chain has been formed nationwide, there are still challenges like the inadequate use of marginal areas and risks triggered by unfavorable climate, changeable commodity markets, and the composition of the labor force. However, there will still be ample room for further growth of cassava, for recent years have witnessed the acceleration in the circulation of rural land management rights and the stratification of Chinese farmers, which gives an impetus to household management’s dominance as well as the improvements of rural social welfare systems for the overall agricultural efficiency.
文摘Eleven field trials were conducted over a three-year period (2006-2008) at three locations in southwestern Ontario, Canada to evaluate the effect of various weed management strategies in glyphosate-tolerant corn on weed control, crop injury, corn yield, environmental impact and profit margin. No visible injury resulted from the herbicide treatments evaluated. Overall, the effect of all factors assessed were location specific. By 56 days after treatment, depending on location, glyphosate applied at the 7 - 8 leaf stage (LPOST), preemergence (PRE) herbicides followed by (fb) glyphosate LPOST and sequential glyphosate applications (EPOST (3 - 4 leaf stage) followed by LPOST) provided more consistent control of annual broadleaf weeds and annual grasses compared to glyphosate applied alone EPOST. Weed control at 56 days after treatment was lower when glyphosate was applied alone LPOST compared to sequential applications of glyphosate or PRE herbicides fb glyphosate. There were no differences in corn yield among the sequential programs evaluated;however, a yield benefit was found when a sequential program was used compared to glyphosate applied alone LPOST. Among the sequential programs the lowest environmental impact was isoxaflutole/atrazine fb glyphosate. The lowest profit margins were associated with atrazine, S-metolachlor/atrazine/benoxacor, dicamba/atrazine and glyphosate LPOST treatments compared to all other treatments. Overall, profit margins tended to be somewhat higher for treatments that included glyphosate applications. Based on these results, the most efficacious and profitable weed management program in corn was a sequential application of glyphosate;however, isoxaflutole/atrazine fb glyphosate was the treatment with the lowest environmental risk while also adding glyphosate stewardship benefits.
