Organic cropping systems enhance soil health indicators in a Mollisol of the US Corn Belt

Sabrina J. Ruis, John L. Kovar, Ken M. Wacha, Derek B. Carney, Peter L. O'Brien, Kathleen Delate, Cynthia A. Cambardella
{"title":"Organic cropping systems enhance soil health indicators in a Mollisol of the US Corn Belt","authors":"Sabrina J. Ruis,&nbsp;John L. Kovar,&nbsp;Ken M. Wacha,&nbsp;Derek B. Carney,&nbsp;Peter L. O'Brien,&nbsp;Kathleen Delate,&nbsp;Cynthia A. Cambardella","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organic cropping systems may potentially improve soil and environmental health relative to simplified conventional systems due to the use of extended crop rotations, perennial crops, and animal manure. However, few studies have evaluated the impacts of organic row crop systems on a suite of soil health indicators relative to conventional systems across time. Thus, our objective was to assess how cropping system (conventional corn [<i>Zea mays</i> L.]–soybean [<i>Glycine max</i> L.] vs. organic corn–soybean–oat [<i>Avena sativa</i> L.]/alfalfa [<i>Medicago sativa</i> L.]–alfalfa vs. organic perennial pasture) and duration of management affect surface soil health indicators (soil biological, chemical, and physical properties) after 1–9 years of management in a Central Iowa Mollisol. Overall, the organic rotation improved six of 14 soil health indicators compared with the conventional system and the organic pasture improved eight indicators. The improved indicators included soil biological indicators, labile C and N pools, and wet-aggregate stability, but not organic C or total N concentrations. Organic systems had fewer effects on most soil chemical properties. The conventional system reduced soil C by 0.35 g kg<sup>−1</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> (<i>r</i> = −0.84, <i>n</i> = 9, <i>p </i>= 0.005), unlike the organic systems in which soil C levels were generally maintained. The changes in soil health indicators were attributed to use of perennials, reductions in tillage frequency (during perennial phases), manure, and differing plant residue amounts among the three systems. In conclusion, organic cropping systems can enhance soil biological and related indicators in the medium term, but have fewer effects on soil fertility indicators under the conditions of this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20795","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.20795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organic cropping systems may potentially improve soil and environmental health relative to simplified conventional systems due to the use of extended crop rotations, perennial crops, and animal manure. However, few studies have evaluated the impacts of organic row crop systems on a suite of soil health indicators relative to conventional systems across time. Thus, our objective was to assess how cropping system (conventional corn [Zea mays L.]–soybean [Glycine max L.] vs. organic corn–soybean–oat [Avena sativa L.]/alfalfa [Medicago sativa L.]–alfalfa vs. organic perennial pasture) and duration of management affect surface soil health indicators (soil biological, chemical, and physical properties) after 1–9 years of management in a Central Iowa Mollisol. Overall, the organic rotation improved six of 14 soil health indicators compared with the conventional system and the organic pasture improved eight indicators. The improved indicators included soil biological indicators, labile C and N pools, and wet-aggregate stability, but not organic C or total N concentrations. Organic systems had fewer effects on most soil chemical properties. The conventional system reduced soil C by 0.35 g kg−1 year−1 (r = −0.84, n = 9, p = 0.005), unlike the organic systems in which soil C levels were generally maintained. The changes in soil health indicators were attributed to use of perennials, reductions in tillage frequency (during perennial phases), manure, and differing plant residue amounts among the three systems. In conclusion, organic cropping systems can enhance soil biological and related indicators in the medium term, but have fewer effects on soil fertility indicators under the conditions of this study.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
有机种植系统提高了美国玉米带Mollisol土壤健康指标
相对于简化的传统耕作系统,有机耕作系统由于使用了延长的轮作、多年生作物和动物粪便,有可能改善土壤和环境健康。然而,很少有研究评估有机行作物系统相对于传统系统对一系列土壤健康指标的影响。因此,我们的目标是评估在爱荷华州中部Mollisol管理1-9年后,种植制度(传统玉米[Zea mays L.] -大豆[Glycine max L.] vs有机玉米-大豆-燕麦[Avena sativa L.]/苜蓿[Medicago sativa L.] -苜蓿vs有机多年生牧草)和管理时间对表层土壤健康指标(土壤生物、化学和物理特性)的影响。总体而言,与常规系统相比,有机轮作改善了14项土壤健康指标中的6项,有机牧场改善了8项指标。改善的指标包括土壤生物指标、稳定碳氮库和湿团聚体稳定性,但不包括有机碳和全氮浓度。有机系统对大多数土壤化学性质的影响较小。与有机系统不同,常规系统使土壤C含量降低0.35 g kg - 1年(r = - 0.84, n = 9, p = 0.005)。土壤健康指标的变化可归因于多年生植物的利用、耕作频率的减少(在多年生阶段)、肥料和三个系统中不同的植物残量。综上所述,在本研究条件下,有机耕作制度在中期可以提高土壤生物及相关指标,但对土壤肥力指标的影响较小。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of long-term nighttime warming on carbon storage and nitrogen retention of calcareous soil profiles in wheatland Microtopography controls organic and inorganic carbon stocks in Vertisols: Insights from a climosequence on the Texas coastal plain Impact of soil core preparation on hydraulic properties and modeled carbon cycling across texture classes Cover crop can offset negative effects of corn silage harvest on soils in a corn silage–soybean rotation Numerical analysis of slope stability in granite residual soil under rainfall conditions
×
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:604180095
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