Plant Soil Environ., 2003, 49(4):163-167 | DOI: 10.17221/4108-PSE

Hop yield evaluation depending on experimental plot area under different nitrogen management

F. Bavec, B. Čeh Brežnik, M. Brežnik
1 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maribor, Slovenia
2 Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
3 Agrosaat d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia

Numerous agricultural and associated ecological effects such as mineral nitrogen fertilising influence the yield of hop (Humulus lupulus L.) cones and its quality. Using a wide spacing of plants (in our case 2.6 × 0.8 m) we want to answer a hypothetical question about an appropriate number of test plants per plot vs. experimental plot area. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different rates of mineral nitrogen, fertiliser combinations and their nitrogen split application on hop yield evaluated from different plot areas (micro trial: 30 plants per plot; macro trial: 320 plants per plot). Hop yield varied significantly between treatments, plot areas, years and interactions (year × treatment, plot area × treatment) (all at P £ 0.01). Cone yield in a micro trial was higher in all treatments in comparison with yield in a macro trial. In spite of common intensive fertilisation the appropriate fertilising combination and mineral N rate can influence the yield. Target nitrogen rate of160 kg mineral N/ha (at the level from 40.0 to62.5 kg nitrate N/ha in soil depth to0.3 m) and cheaper combination of calcium-ammonium nitrate (50 kg N/ha) at the beginning of vegetation plus urea (110 kg N/ha) for top dressing can be recommended. On plot areas of each size and each year all treatments showed similar trends of fertilising effect on yield. In spite of higher yield in the micro trial and lower coefficient of variation in comparison with the macro trial, the results proved that a risk of incorrect yield analysing in macro trials is very low for field experiments.

Keywords: Humulus lupulus L.; hop; nitrogen; experimental plot; yield

Published: April 30, 2003  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Bavec F, Čeh Brežnik B, Brežnik M. Hop yield evaluation depending on experimental plot area under different nitrogen management. Plant Soil Environ. 2003;49(4):163-167. doi: 10.17221/4108-PSE.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Anon IHP (1980–1981): Poroèilo o delu. Inst. Hop Bread. Brew., Žalec: 22–25.
    2. Biacardi E., Wagner T. (1989): Il luppolo da birra in Italia. Ann. Inst. Sper. Colt. Industr., Bologna, 11: 16–17.
    3. Friškovec I. (1999): Znaèilnosti rasti hmelja v letu 1999. Hmeljar, 68: 91–92.
    4. Kišgeci J., Mijavec A., Aaeimoviae M., Spevak P., Vuèiè N. (1984): Hmeljarstvo. Inst. Ratar. Povrtar., Novi Sad.
    5. Koriae M. (1952): Osnovi poljskih ogleda: 115–125. Go to original source...
    6. Kralj D., Žolnir M., Zupanec J., Dolinar M., Oset F. (1991): Znaèilnosti slovenskih hmeljnih kultivarjev. Inšt. Hmeljar. Pivovar., Žalec.
    7. Majer D. (1994): Dinamika dušika v tleh in rastlini ob razliènem gnojenju in vpliv na pridelek hmelja (Humulus lupulus L.) cv. aurora v Savinjski dolini. [Magistrsko delo.] Univ. Ljubljana.
    8. Majer D. (1997): Agrotehnièni ukrepi po napeljavi hmelja v maju. Hmeljar, 66: 84–85.
    9. Majer D. (1998a): Dognojevanje hmeljskih nasadov z dušikom. Hmeljar, 67: 71.
    10. Majer D. (1998b): Vpliv gnojenja hmeljskih nasadov z dušikom na kakovost hmelja. Hmeljar, 67: 42–45.
    11. Majer D. (1999): Vpliv vodnega stresa na pridelek hmelja (Humulus lupulus L.). Hmeljar. Bil., Žalec, 6: 21–30.
    12. Maátko J. (1985): Hnojaøské plány a jejich využití v zemìdìlských provozech. Chmelaøství, 11: 170–171.
    13. Neve R.A. (1991): Hops. Chapman and Hall, New York: 60–62. Go to original source...
    14. Petersen R.G. (1994): Basic principles, the field plot, agricultural field experiments. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, Basel, Hong Kong.
    15. Rossbauer G., Zwack F. (1983): N-min untersuchung. HopfenRundsch., 34: 108–109. Go to original source...
    16. Rossbauer G. et al. (1997): Phenological growth stages and BBCH-identification keys of hop (Humulus lupulus L.). In: Compendium of growth stage identification keys for monoand dycotyledonous plants, extended BBCH scale. 2nd ed. BBA, IGZ, IVA, AgrEvo, BASF, Bayer, Novartis: 91–95.
    17. Wagner T. (1986): Vpliv dušika, fosforja in kalija na pridelek in kvaliteto hmelja v zatravljenih nasadih. Hmeljar. Bil., Žalec, 1: 14–34.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content