TOTAL AND UNALIENABLE SOIL PHYTOMASS OF THE POST-HARVEST NATURAL PHYTOCENOSIS (PNP) WITH VARIOUS CULTIVATION METHODS AND WAYS OF USING IT IN THE WESTERN CASPIAN REGION

Authors

  • A. A. Guseynov Dagestan State Agrarian University named after M.M. Dzhambulatov

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31857/S2500208225020085

Keywords:

Republic of Dagestan, stubble natural phytocenosis (PEF), inalienable phytomass, mowing, stubble crop, development phase, mowing and root residues, yield

Abstract

The work was carried out in Vympel-2002 LLC, Khasavyurt district of the Republic, on meadow-chestnut heavy loamy soil containing 2.77% humus, 32.8 K2O, 2.21 mg/100 g P2O5 and a density of 1.24 g/cm3, the lowest moisture capacity of the 0-0.6 m layer of 29.5%. The duration of the vegetation period of the post-harvest natural phytocenosis (PHP), the yield of green mass, its productivity and the proportion of the inalienable part of the phytomass were studied depending on the cultivation technique and the method of using its phytomass. During three months of PHP formation after harvesting winter wheat, two mowings of green mass in the milky ripeness phase of cereal component seeds can be obtained for 31-35 days each. The period of onset of its mowing maturity is three times less than that of the most common sown stubble crops - corn, sweet sorghum, – for which it occurs 100-110 days after sowing. The yield of aboveground and underground green mass of PEF with the optimal method of increasing productivity and the method of using phytomass is 26.9 t/ha of green mass. The share of inalienable from the soil mowing and root residues in the total mass of PEF according to the experimental variants on average over the years of research is 19.6-20.8%.

Downloads

Published

2025-05-14

Issue

Section

РАСТЕНИЕВОДСТВО И СЕЛЕКЦИЯ

How to Cite

Guseynov, A. A. (2025). TOTAL AND UNALIENABLE SOIL PHYTOMASS OF THE POST-HARVEST NATURAL PHYTOCENOSIS (PNP) WITH VARIOUS CULTIVATION METHODS AND WAYS OF USING IT IN THE WESTERN CASPIAN REGION. Vestnik of the Russian Agricultural Science, 2, 36-39. https://doi.org/10.31857/S2500208225020085