Can surface residue alleviate water and heat stress?

Author(s): H. Wang, Y. Gan, K. Brandt, Y. He, X. Qin and Z. Li

Source: Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 95(2):197-200.
Published By: Canadian Science Publishing
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1139/CJPS-2014-269

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
 SHORT COMMUNICATION

Can surface residue alleviate water and heat stress?

H. Wang1, Y. Gan1, K. Brandt1, Y. He2, X. Qin2, and Z. Li3
1
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 1030, Swift Current,
Saskatchewan, Canada S9H 3X2 (e-mail: hong.wang@agr.gc.ca); 2Institute of Environment and Sustainable
Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Beijing, P.R. China; and 3College of
Ecology and Environmental Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China.
Received 21 July 2014, accepted 17 October 2014. Published on the web 29 October 2014.
Wang, H., Gan, Y., Brandt, K., He, Y., Qin, X. and Li, Z. 2015. Can surface residue alleviate water and heat stress?
Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 197200. Surface-placed residue increased the near soil surface moisture and reduced root heat stress.
The improved micro environment resulted in greater root length for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and canola (Brassica
napus) and 34, 8 and 8% higher yield, 7, 52 and 20% more straw and 7, 5, and 7.5 cm taller than the non-residue check for
wheat, canola and dry pea (Pisum sativum), respectively.

Key words: Surface residue, abiotic stress, root, no-till

Wang, H., Gan, Y., Brandt, K., He, Y., Qin, X. et Li, Z. 2015. Les résidus en surface peuvent-ils atténuer le stress hydrique
et thermique? Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 197200. Déposer des résidus en surface augmente l’humidité du sol superficiel voisin
et diminue le stress thermique que subissent les racines. L’amélioration du micro environnement entraı̂ne l’allongement des
racines du blé (Triticum aestivum L.) et du canola (Brassica napus), tout en accroissant leur rendement de 34, de 8 et de
8 %, la quantité de paille de 7, de 52 et de 20 % et la taille de 7, de 5 et de 7,5 cm comparativement aux parcelles témoins,
sans résidus, de blé, de canola et de pois (Pisum sativum), respectivement.

Mots clés: Résidus de surface, stress abiotique, racine, non-travail du sol

No-till cropping, herein referred to as a combination of
no-till and standing stubble with heavy residue cover
(HR), has been increasing on the Canadian prairies in
recent years. It is well recognized that no-till practices
with HR can benefit the environment, by reducing soil
erosion and increasing soil C sequestration and increase
yield through improved soil moisture and soil quality
and fertility (Campbell et al. 2001).
Heat stress occurs very often in the Canadian prai-
ries. The warming trend associated with climate change
could cause more frequent and more severe heat stress
(Hengeveld et al. 2005). Heat stress, especially root heat
stress, could cause lower root growth, reduction of
photosynthate partitioning to shoots, senescence accel-
eration and significant yield reduction (Guedira and
Paulsen 2002).
No-till with HR could modify the dynamics of near-
surface soil temperature compared with a conventional
tillage system with non-residue coverage (NR). The near-
surface soil temperature under no-till with HR can be
lower than that with NR, because the surface residue
can intercept and reflect the incoming solar radiation
and reduce the heat flux toward the soil profile. Surface
residue and the higher soil moisture under HR can
also buffer the extremes in daily soil temperatures, i.e.,
decreasing the maximum soil temperature and increasing
the minimum soil temperature.
Merrill et al. (1996) observed that no-till with HR re-
duced thermal and radiative stress resulting in increased
root and tiller growth in wheat when compared with
conventional tillage. Similar results as well as increased
biomass and yield were observed under a long-term no-
till practice with HR on a Thin Black Chernozemic clay
loam in central Alberta and on a Swinton silt loam in
the semiarid Brown soil zone of western Saskatchewan
(Wang et al. 2007, 2008).
We hypothesized that HR alone may play a role in
reducing water and heat stress and benefit the growth of
wheat, canola and dry pea in the dryland area of southern
Saskatchewan. This hypothesis is tested by this study.
A field experiment was conducted in 2009 on a
Swinton silt loam (Orthic Brown Chernozem) at the
Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre near Swift
Current, Saskatchewan (lat. 50816?N, long. 107844?W;
elevation 825 m with a mean annual temperature of 3.68C
and average annual precipitation of 364 mm based on
historical weather data from 1900 to 2008). A factorial,
randomized complete block design with four replications
was used in this study. The first factor was species and
the second factor was residue treatment. Canada Prairie
Spring wheat (cv. AC Vista), Canola (cv. 5440LL) and
Abbreviations: HR, heavy residue cover with standing stubble;
NR, non-residue coverage

Can. J. Plant Sci. (2015) 95: 197200 doi:10.4141/CJPS-2014-269 197

198 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
dry pea (cv. Meadow) were seeded in a wheat stubble
field with two residue treatments: no surface residue
(NR) and heavy residue (HR). Before seeding the stubble
from each plot selected for the NR treatment was cut at
ground level by a high-wheel walk-behind weed trimmer
and left lying on the ground. Then, all stubble and residue
except uncollectible chaff were collected by hand with
a leaf rake and evenly placed on the nearest plot selected
for the HR treatment. This process was carefully done
to minimize soil disturbance. Thus, the HR treatment
had about two times of the original surface residue
(9226.69882 kg ha1).
The plot size was 2 m 6 m, seeded on 2009 May 11,
with a dual chute seeding system hoe type drill on a 25-cm
row spacing. Seed and phosphate fertilizer was placed
to one side of the boot, while urea fertilizer was placed
to the other side. Canola was seeded at a rate of 11.8 kg
ha1 approximately 1.5 to 2 cm deep; wheat was seeded
at a rate of 106 kg ha1 approximately 2.5 cm deep,
and the dry pea was seeded at a rate of 160 kg ha 1
approximately 5 cm deep. Fertilizer P was applied at
a rate of 43 kg ha1 on all plots and urea was applied at
124 kg ha1 for wheat and 135 kg ha1 for the canola.
The canola plots were sprayed with 501 g a.i. ha1 of
glufosinate, the dry peas were sprayed with imazamox
and imazethapyr at a 1:1 ratio of 15.1 g a.i. ha1, and
the wheat was sprayed with tralkoxydim at 197.6 g a.i.
ha1, bromoxynil at 222.3 g a.i. ha1 and MCPA at
222.3 g a.i. ha 1. The entire trial was sprayed with
cabaryl for insect control at a rate of 1896 g a.i. ha1.
Weather data were collected from a weather station
located about 300 m from the plot area.
Right after seeding, Campbell Scientific 107-B tem-
perature and CS-616 TDR moisture sensors were placed
into two reps of the study. The thermistors were inserted
at a 10-cm soil depth and the TDR sensors were inserted
to monitor the 0- to 10-cm depth to measure soil sur-
face temperature and moisture, respectively. A CR-10X
datalogger was programmed to read the sensors every
minute and the data collected were averaged every 15 min
for final storage.
Minirhizotron tubes 90 cm in length were placed
in the plots at a 458 angle to monitor root growth.
The tubes are made of cellulose acetate butyrate, and are
5 cm inside diameter. An alignment frame capable of
achieving angles of 30, 45, 60, 75 and 908 was set at
458 and placed in the field at the point where the
tubes were to be inserted into the plot. We placed a soil
coring probe with a 5.7-cm outside diameter attached
to a slide hammer into the alignment frame and
removed a soil core to a vertical depth near 55 cm on
a 458 angle. A 458 angle was chosen so the roots from
across two rows of the plants were able to be monitored
without preferentially growing down the surface of
the tube. Root videos were collected about once a
week from emergence until physiological maturity using
a Sony camera with a Carl Zeiss lens connected to
a Hawkeye borescope. The videos were then parsed
into still images using a program called ‘‘Virtualdub’’
(http://virtualdub.sourceforge.net/). Images were ana-
lyzed using RootFly (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/ 
stb/rootfly/). Files were renamed using a program called
Métamorphose2 (http://file-folder-ren.sourceforge.net/)
to the WinRHIZOTRON standard so they could be
imported into RootFly for analysis.
At full maturity, the central two rows of plants in
each plot were cut at ground level using pruning shears.
Air-dried samples were threshed using a Winterstieger
plot combine to separate the grain from the straw
(including chaff). Grain weight and total biomass were
determined on a per-hectare basis. A subsample of grain
and straw was used for laboratory analysis of N and P.
All dependent variables were analyzed with Proc
Mixed using the REML option for each species with
SAS software. Residue treatment, species and their inter-
actions were treated as fixed effect and the rep as a ran-
dom effect. Root sampling time was treated as repeated
measures using the compound symmetry covariance
structure. Means comparisons were done by Fisher’s
protected least significant differences based on Student’s t
distribution.
The weather during the 2009 growing season was
generally normal. A total of 176 mm of precipitation
occurred during the growing season (May 01 to Aug.
31), which is close to the average over the period 1900
to 2008 (170 mm). There were four instances where the
maximum air temperature reached 308C or above (Jun.
25, Jul. 18, 22, and Aug. 11), which could cause severe
heat damage on the plants (Saini and Aspinall 1982).
The HR treatment had higher soil moisture at 010 cm
for all three crops than the NR treatment since emer-
gence (data not shown), and there was no discernable
difference in emergence and plant population between
residue treatments. On average, over the growing season,
soil moisture for HR and NR was 20 and 18.7% (vol
vol1), respectively. For soil temperature at 10 cm, mean
temperatures were 17.1 and 17.88C, maximum tempe-
ratures were 29.4 and 31.48C and minimum temperatures
were 4.8 and 4.28C for NR and HR, respectively.
The improved near-surface soil environment under
the HR treatment tended to increase root length density
compared with the NR in all depths from 0 to 50 cm
for wheat and canola, but this was not always signifi-
cant. There was no difference between the two dry pea
treatments (data not shown). Overall, the HR treatment
had greater total root length at 050 cm than the NR
treatment in most of the growing season (2886 d after
emergence) for wheat [714 cm cm 2, LSD (0.05) 
2.84, P 0.0007] and canola [1125 cm cm 2, LSD
(0.05) 4.16, P 0.03]. The HR treatment tended to
have slightly shorter total root length at 050 cm than
the NR treatment for dry pea, but not significant [LSD
(0.05) 2.24, P 0.06] (Fig. 1).
Wheat and canola had similar root diameters, which
averaged 0.16 and 0.15 mm, respectively, over the entire
soil profile, and the whole growing season. Dry pea had
 WANG ET AL. * SURFACE RESIDUE AND ABIOTIC STRESS 199

120
Wheat NR
HR
100

80

60

40

20

0
Total root length at 0–50 cm (cm cm–2)

120
Canola
100

80

60

40

20

120
Dry pea
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Days after emergence

Fig. 1. Total root length at 050 cm of wheat, canola and dry pea. Vertical bars indicate LSD (0.05).

a larger root diameter, which averaged 0.24 mm. For Table 1. Effects of surface residue on plant height, grain and straw yield
either crop, no treatment difference in root diameter was
observed [LSD (0.05) 0.01 and P 0.05 for wheat, Height Grain Straw
Crop Residuez (cm) (kg ha 1) (kg ha1)
LSD (0.05) 0.02 and P 0.52 for canola and LSD
(0.05) 0.03 and P 0.30 for dry pea], which was Wheat HR 71.5 2670.5 2688.9
consistent with reports by Muňoz-Romero et al. (2010) NR 64.5 2472.4 2236.6
Canola HR 85.0 1285.6 3691.9
and Qin et al. (2004). NR 80.0 962.9 2432.8
Because no speciesresidue treatment interaction Dry Pea HR 56.8 2279.2 2132.4
was found for plant height, grain yield or straw pro- NR 49.3 2115.0 2000.4
duction combined analyses were performed over the LSD (0.05)y 5.4 558.3 1108.5
LSD (0.10) 4.4 459.2 911.7
three species. Under the HR treatment all the crops were
taller than those under the NR treatment (Table 1). z
HR, heavy surface residue; NR, no surface residue.
Height increases by surface residue treatment were 7 cm y
LSD (0.05), least significant differences at the 0.05 probability level;
for wheat (P 0.01), 7.5 cm for dry pea (P 0.01), and LSD (0.10), least significant differences at the 0.10 probability level.
200 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE
5 cm for canola (P 0.06). The yield of the HR treat-
ment was numerically higher than NR for all species
(34% for canola, 8% for wheat and dry pea), but none
of them was statistically significant. Similarly, HR
increased straw production by 52% for canola, 7% for
wheat and 20% for dry pea, but it was only significant
for canola (P 0.03).
While the research presented here represents only 1 yr
of data, and further studies are needed, the results were
consistent with previous studies [Wang et al. (2007, 2008)
for wheat, Lafond et al. (2011) for canola and Borstlap
and Entz (1994) for field pea], showing that HR con-
ditions such as those associated with no-till practices can
improve near soil surface moisture and reduce peak
soil temperatures. The improved microclimate condi-
tions near the soil surface by retaining surface residue
may serve as a basis on which the benefits of no-till
practices on promoting root growth, increasing above-
ground biomass accumulation and enhancing crop yield
can be further explored.
Borstlap, S. and Entz, M. H. 1994. Zero-tillage influence on
canola, field pea and wheat in a dry subhumid region:
Agronomic and physiological responses. Can. J. Plant Sci.
74: 411420.
Campbell, C. A., Selles, F., Lafond, G. P. and Zentner, R. P.
2001. Adopting zero tillage management: Impact on soil C
under long-term crop rotations in a thin Black Chernozem.
Can. J. Soil Sci. 81: 139148.
Guedira, M. and Paulsen, G. M. 2002. Accumulation of starch
in wheat grain under different shoot/root temperatures during
maturation. Funct. Plant Biol. 29: 495503.
Hengeveld, H., Whitewood, B. and Fergusson, A. 2005. An
introduction to climate change. A Canadian perspective.
Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. 55 pp.
Lafond, G. P., Walley, F., May, W. E. and Holzapfel, C. B.
2011. Long term impact of no-till on soil properties and crop
productivity on the Canadian prairies. Soil Tillage Res. 117:
110123.
Merrill, S. D., Black, A. L. and Bauer, A. 1996. Conservation
tillage effects root growth of dryland spring wheat under
drought. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 575583.
Muňoz-Romero, V., Benı́tez-Vega, J., López-Bellido, L. and
López-Bellido, R. J. 2010. Monitoring wheat root develop-
ment in a rainfed vertisol: Tillage effect. Eur. J. Agron. 33:
182187.
Qin, R., Stamp, P. and Richner, W. 2004. Impact of tillage on
root systems of winter wheat. Agron. J. 96: 15231530.
Saini, H. S. and Aspinall, D. 1982. Abnormal sporogensis
in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) induced by short periods of
high temperature. Ann. Bot. Lond. 49: 83546.
Wang, H., Lemke, R., Goddard, T. and Sprout, C. 2007.
Tillage and root heat stress in wheat in Central Alberta. Can.
J. Soil Sci. 87: 310.
Wang, H., McConkey, B. G., Zentner, R. P., Campbell, C. A.,
Selles, F., Lemke, R. L. and Cutforth, H. W. 2008. Long-term
tillage effects on biomass production of wheat in a Canadian
Brown soil. Adv. Geoecol. 39: 581591.