David Doll4 CommentsJune 30, 2019Horticulture, Soil

Cover crop research review: How can it help almonds?

Cynthia Crézé (1), Jeffrey Mitchell (1), Andreas Westphal (2), Danielle Lightle (3), David Doll (3), Mohammad Yaghmour (3), Neal Williams (4), Amanda Hodson(4), Houston Wilson (5), Kent Daane (6), Brad Hanson (1), Steven Haring (1), Cameron Zuber (3) & Amélie Gaudin (1) Department of Plant Sciences, University of California – Davis Department of Nematology, University of California – Riverside University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources – Cooperative Extension Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California – Davis Department of Entomology, University of California – Riverside Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California – Berkeley Although cover cropping is compatible with almond production and is often implemented in other orchard systems, this practice has never been widely implemented in California. The potential benefits are recognized by growers, especially their value for pollinator forage and soil health but operational concerns, lack of cost-benefit analyses and unclear best management practices have hampered wide adoption. As cover cropping can provide significant sustainability benefits, there is an urgent need to assess and develop feasible and beneficial cover crop systems for California almond production. Here is some insight gathered by a research team assessing the impacts of multiple cover crop management strategies on: 1) soil health, 2) water use and dynamics, 3) bee visitation and pollination, 4) weed and pest pressure (NOW) and 5) almond yields in four orchards across the Central Valley precipitation gradient. Cover crop research trial in almond: Project website: https://almondcovercrop.faculty.ucdavis.edu Design: Three commercial orchards in Corning (Tehama county, 2nd leaf), Merced (Merced county, 16th leaf) and Arvin (Kern county, 16th leaf). One experimental station: Kearney (Fresno county). Two cover crops: Soil Mix (2 legumes, 2 brassicas & 1 grass), Pollinator Mix (5 brassicas, Project Apis M – https://www.projectapism.org/pam-mustard-mix.html) Compared to resident vegetation & to bare soil. Cover

Read More
David Doll0 commentsJune 16, 2016Irrigation, Soil

Managing Water Infiltration Problems

Over the past few weeks, there have been several farm visits discussing water infiltration issues. In many of these cases, chemical sealing of the surface soil has occurred. This creates a crust that reduces the movement of the water into the soil. In subsequent irrigation, when water is applied faster than the rate of infiltration, puddling occurs, leading to an increase in evaporation as well as saturated soil conditions. This impacts water use efficiency and tree health. A season of irrigation can require between 36 and 52 inches of applied water per acre. This is often applied to a limited area of an orchard, which is defined as the wetting pattern. Each irrigation system has a different wetting pattern, with micro-sprinklers somewhere around 30-60% of the orchard area, and drip around 20%. This means that, dependent on the system, the wetted area may receive 2-5 times more water than the targeted season’s application per acre. In other words, if  four acre feet/acre were applied using a drip system that wets around 20% of the orchard floor, the soil in that wetting profile has nearly 20 acre feet of water that must pass through in order to infiltrate the soil. This is a tremendous volume of water to pass through the soil, and it can leach away beneficial elements which leads to chemical sealing and infiltration problems. When infiltration rates slow, it is important to know the causes as not all infiltration issues are the same. Taking an analysis of the water and soil is a good place to start. Unlike soil sampling conducted in the fall, soil sampling of the top 2-3″ of soil should occur to identify the chemical imbalance.  Analyzing the soil and water will give an idea of salt load, SAR, pH, as well as other elements. This will help identify

Read More
Brent Holtz2 CommentsNovember 14, 2015Horticulture, Soil

Whole Orchard Soil Re-incorporation: an Alternative Orchard Removal Strategy

Written by Brent Holtz (UCCE San Joaquin) and David Doll (UCCE Merced) You may have heard the news—co-generation plants are limiting the amount of chipped biomass they are accepting.  This is reducing the rate in which old orchards are removed, impacting the orchard redevelopment process. The soil incorporation of chipped or ground almond, peach, plum, or cherry trees during orchard removal could provide an alternative to co-generation plant or burning and could add valuable organic matter to our San Joaquin Valley soils.  Traditionally, many growers feared that wood chips or grindings would stunt tree growth by either allelopathic compounds or reduced nitrogen availability due to the high carbon to nitrogen ratio.  Interestingly enough, recent research has found this not to be true if the ground material is spread across and incorporated into the soil In 2008, University of California Farm Advisors and a USDA Plant Pathologist undertook a project at the UC Kearney Research and Extension center to compare the grinding of whole trees with burning as a means of orchard removal.  Twenty-two rows of an experimental orchard on nemaguard rootstock were used in a randomized blocked experiment with two main treatments, whole tree grinding and incorporation into the soil with ‘The Iron Wolf,’ a 50-ton rototiller, versus tree pushing and burning.  We examined second-generation orchard growth and hypothesized that soils amended with woody debris will sequester carbon at a higher rate, have higher levels of soil organic matter, increased soil fertility, and increased water retention.  Second generation almond trees (Nonpareil, Carmel, Butte) were planted in January/February 2009. The whole tree grinding did not stunt replanted tree growth.  In 2015, Greater yields were ultimately observed in the grind treatment, when compared to the burn (previous year’s yields were similar). In 2013, 2014, and 2015, soil analysis revealed  significantly more calcium,

Read More
Allan Fulton0 commentsNovember 6, 2015Soil

Understanding and Applying Information from a Soil Test, Part 4: Boron, Chloride, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, and Zinc

Allan Fulton, UC Farm Advisor, Tehama County and Roland D. Meyer, Extension Soil Specialist Emeritus This article (Part 4) discusses micronutrients and the use of soil tests to evaluate their levels in orchard soils.  Micronutrients are essential to almonds and other nut crops, yet are required in much smaller amounts than macronutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) or secondary nutrients  such as calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), or sulfur (S).  The eight micronutrients are boron (B), chloride (Cl), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn).  They fulfill important roles in the plant.  For instance, zinc is needed for plant cell expansion and it influences pollen development, flower bud differentiation, and fruit set while boron is a building block for the plant cell wall and strongly influences pollen tube germination and growth.  Flower abortion in almond and walnut has occasionally been associated with boron deficiency.  Nickel has recently been determined to be an essential nutrient and there are no known deficiencies in California. Zinc, iron and manganese deficiencies are not as commonly found in the Sacramento Valley as in the San Joaquin Valley.  Zinc deficiency is most common in almond and other nut crops.  Other micronutrient deficiencies that are occasionally seen in almond include B, Fe, and Mn.  Copper (Cu), Mo, and Ni deficiencies have not been documented in almonds; however, Cu deficiency is common in pistachios. Five of the micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Zn) largely exist in the soil as positively charged metal cations bound as minerals or adsorbed to the surfaces of colloids or soil particles.  Several factors in orchard soils may affect the solubility and availability of these metal cations to trees.  Soil pH greater than 7.5 has the major influence of reducing the tree availability of

Read More
Allan Fulton2 CommentsSeptember 21, 2015Soil

Understanding and Applying Information from a Soil Test, Part 3: Secondary Plant Nutrients: Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Sulfur (S)

Written by Allan Fulton, Farm Advisor, Tehama County and Roland D. Meyer, Extension Soils Specialist Emeritus This article (Part 3) discusses the use of soil tests to evaluate levels of the secondary nutrients calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S) in orchard soils.  It is a follow up to a series of articles on intrpretation of soil sampling results. These nutrients are considered secondary because while they are essential to crop development, seasonal crop uptake is usually lower than for the primary nutrients N, P, and K but considerably higher than the micronutrients zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), boron (B), and chloride (Cl). Calcium and Magnesium Plant uptake, cation adsorption and desorption in soil, leaching from rainfall and irrigation, and weathering of minerals all contribute to the concentration of water soluble Ca and Mg available to meet tree nutritional needs.  Water soluble cations are determined from the saturated paste extract soil test procedure while the exchangeable cations are determined with the ammonium acetate procedure.  Also important are the concentrations of exchangeable (non-water soluble) Ca and Mg which help to promote favorable soil structure.  Soil chemistry is in a constant state of change attempting to reach equilibrium between the soluble and non-soluble (exchangeable and mineral) phases.  The May 2009 newsletter discussed this dynamic process.  Calcium and magnesium share similar chemical properties in soils.  Both Ca and Mg are “double positively charged (divalent) cations in the soil-water phase and on soil cation exchange sites.  Calcium is adsorbed to soil exchange sites preferentially and more strongly than Mg.  When Ca and Mg are abundant in the soluble phase tree roots absorb these nutrients by mass flow.  If Ca and/or Mg are less abundant or limited by soil moisture, uptake occurs more slowly through diffusion. Table 1 provides ranges of exchangeable

Read More
David Doll1 CommentJuly 10, 2015Irrigation, Soil

Soil Moisture Sensors

Soil moisture sensors are great tools to aid in irrigation management. They provide feedback on the movement and depth of moisture within the soil, providing the ability to identify the proper duration of irrigation. Proper use relies on a thorough understanding of the soil characteristics of the orchard, which include soil type, water holding capacity, and salinity level. Sensors can be used to help schedule irrigation. Timing of irrigation usually occurs when moisture levels drop below certain trigger points at varying depths. These points are different for every soil and sensor type and require in-field calibration to help reduce unwanted plant stress. Calibration can occur by comparing sensors readings to plant stress responses (e.g. Pressure chamber readings) or to a “feel” test to determine how much water is still available to the plant. Several factors need to be considered when planning to install the sensors. Sensor locations should be placed to account for varying soil types of the orchard. If only a few locations are planned, the predominant soil types should be selected. If possible, sensors should be installed at varying depths to provide moisture levels in the middle, bottom edge, and below the active rootzone. A common 3 sensor installation pattern is 12-18″, 30-42″, and 48-60.” Work by the University of California has compared many soil moisture monitoring systems. Neutron probe data, dielectric, tensiometers, and electrical resistance blocks have all been found to respond to water applications similarly. Essentially, if sensors are properly installed and maintained, and time is taken to understand and interpret the data, they can provide similar information. The table below highlights some of the varying aspects of these systems. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. Please note that the sensors types are linked and when clicked will direct to further information. “Feel” Tensiometers Dielectric Sensors

Read More
David Doll6 CommentsSeptember 29, 2014Salinity, Soil

Fall soil sampling for salinity management

The harvest season is winding down, and in the next few weeks many orchards will be receiving their last irrigations. After the final irrigation of the season, growers should conduct soil sampling to determine any potential issues with sodium, chloride, or boron. These salts are “imported” onto the farm through fertilizers and soil amendments, with the largest amount coming through irrigation water. There are several videos online that go through the procedure of collecting a soil sample. Here is a link to an article containing this series. When soil sampling for salinity management, varying depths of soil must be collected to determine where the salts have accumulated. Suggested depths are in one foot increments (down to four five feet), but 18 inch increments may also be used. If dealing with soil infiltration issues, it may be of value to sample the top 6″ to determine if there is a soil imbalance.

Read More
Franz Niederholzer5 CommentsJune 22, 2013Irrigation, Soil

Gyp in June

Written by: Franz Niederholzer, UC Farm Advisor, Colusa/Sutter/Yuba Counties,  Allan Fulton, UC Farm Advisor, Tehama/Shasta/Glenn/Colusa Counties It’s June – the best time to apply gypsum to the soil surface in orchards with flood or wide coverage sprinklers.  Why now? But first, what does gypsum do and not do?  Adding gypsum to the soil can significantly increase the rate of irrigation water infiltration when using 1) very clean (usually canal/surface) irrigation water (EC < 0.5 dS/m); 2) when the soil surface sodium adsorption ration (SAR) is 5 to 10x that of the irrigation water EC; or 3) when calcium to magnesium ratios in the water are not at least 1:1.  Adding gypsum also provides additional calcium and sulfate for nutrition, if needed.  Gypsum, calcium sulfate, is a neutral salt so it affects soil pH very slowly causing it to seek neutral soil pH (7.0).  It won’t break up hard pans or soil layers with distinctly different soil textures or compaction that impede water infiltration.  Gypsum stabilizes the soil.  It reduces dispersion of larger soil aggregates when a dry soil is irrigated.  In turn this reduces the formation of soil crusts and helps maintain more soil porosity and higher water intake rates. How much gypsum is recommended to improve irrigation water infiltration for the conditions described above? Injecting 500 to 1000 lbs finely ground gypsum per acre foot of water should increase irrigation water EC by 0.15-0.3 dS/m, enough to improve infiltration of very clean water or reduce the effects of sodium and magnesium. If not using micro-irrigation, broadcast up to one ton/acre of finely ground gypsum onto the soil surface and do not till it into the soil.  It will dissolve in the water as irrigations are applied and improve the water quality.  The best time to apply gypsum on the

Read More
  • 1
  • 2