Tarping and mulching effects on crop yields, profitability, and soil nutrients in a continuous no-till organic vegetable production system

IF 2 3区 农林科学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Pub Date : 2024-01-10 DOI:10.1017/s1742170523000509
Ryan M. Maher, Anusuya Rangarajan, Brian A. Caldwell, Shuay-Tsyr Ho, Mark G. Hutton, Peyton Ginakes
{"title":"Tarping and mulching effects on crop yields, profitability, and soil nutrients in a continuous no-till organic vegetable production system","authors":"Ryan M. Maher, Anusuya Rangarajan, Brian A. Caldwell, Shuay-Tsyr Ho, Mark G. Hutton, Peyton Ginakes","doi":"10.1017/s1742170523000509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Small-scale organic vegetable farms need strategies to overcome yield, labor, and economic challenges in transitioning to reduced and no-till practices. However, the production tradeoffs associated with different scale-appropriate management practices are not well documented for these operations. We evaluated crop yields, labor, profitability, and soil nutrients over four continuous years of management in Freeville, NY. Cabbage (Y1 and Y3) and winter squash (Y2 and Y4) were managed in permanent beds under four contrasting tillage systems: conventional rototilling to 20 cm depth (CT), shallow rototilling to 10 cm (ST), no-till (NT), and no-till with tarping (NTT), in which an impermeable, black polyethylene tarp was applied to the soil surface between crops. Within each tillage treatment, we compared three mulching systems: rye mulch (RM), compost mulch (CM), and no mulch (NM), where mulches were applied annually to each crop. Crop yields did not vary by tillage, except in RM, where yields were highest in CT and reduced in ST and NT over four years. Mulch treatments were a significant driver of crop yields. When compared to NM, RM reduced crop yields in the first two years and CM increased yields after the first year. Overall, RM systems had the lowest net returns and CM returns were equivalent to NM despite greater yields. No-till consistently required the greatest pre-harvest labor investment, up to two times greater than tilled systems with NM, and the lowest net returns. Labor requirements for NTT were greater than CT but up to 41% lower than NT, and profitability was equivalent to CT. Shallow tillage performed similar to CT across yield, labor, and profitability measures, except when combined with the use of RM. Compost mulching led to dramatic changes in soil properties after four years, including a 49% increase in total soil carbon, a 31% increase in total soil nitrogen, and a 497% increase in extractable phosphorus. Small farms adopting NT practices should: 1) consider the potential tradeoffs associated with annually applied organic mulches, and 2) integrate tarping to increase the profitability of NT over consecutive production years.</p>","PeriodicalId":54495,"journal":{"name":"Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742170523000509","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Small-scale organic vegetable farms need strategies to overcome yield, labor, and economic challenges in transitioning to reduced and no-till practices. However, the production tradeoffs associated with different scale-appropriate management practices are not well documented for these operations. We evaluated crop yields, labor, profitability, and soil nutrients over four continuous years of management in Freeville, NY. Cabbage (Y1 and Y3) and winter squash (Y2 and Y4) were managed in permanent beds under four contrasting tillage systems: conventional rototilling to 20 cm depth (CT), shallow rototilling to 10 cm (ST), no-till (NT), and no-till with tarping (NTT), in which an impermeable, black polyethylene tarp was applied to the soil surface between crops. Within each tillage treatment, we compared three mulching systems: rye mulch (RM), compost mulch (CM), and no mulch (NM), where mulches were applied annually to each crop. Crop yields did not vary by tillage, except in RM, where yields were highest in CT and reduced in ST and NT over four years. Mulch treatments were a significant driver of crop yields. When compared to NM, RM reduced crop yields in the first two years and CM increased yields after the first year. Overall, RM systems had the lowest net returns and CM returns were equivalent to NM despite greater yields. No-till consistently required the greatest pre-harvest labor investment, up to two times greater than tilled systems with NM, and the lowest net returns. Labor requirements for NTT were greater than CT but up to 41% lower than NT, and profitability was equivalent to CT. Shallow tillage performed similar to CT across yield, labor, and profitability measures, except when combined with the use of RM. Compost mulching led to dramatic changes in soil properties after four years, including a 49% increase in total soil carbon, a 31% increase in total soil nitrogen, and a 497% increase in extractable phosphorus. Small farms adopting NT practices should: 1) consider the potential tradeoffs associated with annually applied organic mulches, and 2) integrate tarping to increase the profitability of NT over consecutive production years.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在连续免耕有机蔬菜生产系统中,铺设地膜和覆盖地膜对作物产量、收益和土壤养分的影响
小规模有机蔬菜农场在过渡到少耕和免耕耕作时,需要有策略来克服产量、劳动力和经济方面的挑战。然而,对于这些农场来说,与不同规模的适当管理方法相关的生产权衡还没有很好的记录。我们对纽约州弗里维尔连续四年的作物产量、劳动力、收益率和土壤养分进行了评估。卷心菜(Y1 和 Y3)和冬季南瓜(Y2 和 Y4)在四种不同的耕作制度下进行永久性畦田管理:20 厘米深的传统旋耕(CT)、10 厘米浅的旋耕(ST)、免耕(NT)和带防水布的免耕(NTT),其中在作物间隙在土壤表面铺上一层不透水的黑色聚乙烯防水布。在每种耕作处理中,我们比较了三种地膜覆盖系统:黑麦地膜覆盖 (RM)、堆肥地膜覆盖 (CM) 和无地膜覆盖 (NM),其中地膜覆盖每年施用于每种作物。除 RM 外,其他作物的产量并不因耕作方式的不同而变化,在四年中,CT 的产量最高,ST 和 NT 的产量最低。地膜覆盖处理对作物产量有显著影响。与 NM 相比,RM 在头两年减少了作物产量,而 CM 在第一年后增加了产量。总体而言,RM 系统的净收益最低,CM 系统的收益与 NM 相当,但产量更高。免耕始终需要最大的收获前劳动力投入,比非耕作系统高出两倍,净收益也最低。NTT 的劳动力需求高于 CT,但比 NT 低 41%,收益率与 CT 相当。浅耕在产量、劳动力和收益率方面的表现与 CT 相似,但结合使用 RM 时除外。堆肥覆盖使土壤性质在四年后发生了巨大变化,包括土壤总碳增加了 49%,土壤总氮增加了 31%,可提取磷增加了 497%。采用新界耕作法的小型农场应该1) 考虑与每年施用有机覆盖物相关的潜在权衡,以及 2) 在连续生产年中结合铺设柏油以提高氮化萘的盈利能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 农林科学-农业综合
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
39
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (formerly American Journal of Alternative Agriculture) is a multi-disciplinary journal which focuses on the science that underpins economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable approaches to agriculture and food production. The journal publishes original research and review articles on the economic, ecological, and environmental impacts of agriculture; the effective use of renewable resources and biodiversity in agro-ecosystems; and the technological and sociological implications of sustainable food systems. It also contains a discussion forum, which presents lively discussions on new and provocative topics.
期刊最新文献
In the search for pastoral livestock systems that improve the meat quality: An exploratory study Modern arable and diverse ley farming systems can increase soil organic matter faster than global targets Farmers’ resilience to climate change through the circular economy and sustainable agriculture: a review from developed and developing countries Understanding the potential of sustainability turn in farming: review of sociotechnical adoption factors of agri-environmental cropping practices Strategies to overcome stagnation in agricultural adoption despite awareness and interest: a case study of conservation agriculture in South Asia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1