与传统或有机系统相比,自然农业通过提高土壤质量提高了印度东南部的作物产量

IF 6.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRONOMY Agronomy for Sustainable Development Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x
Sarah Duddigan, Liz J. Shaw, Tom Sizmur, Dharmendar Gogu, Zakir Hussain, Kiranmai Jirra, Hamika Kaliki, Rahul Sanka, Mohammad Sohail, Reshma Soma, Vijay Thallam, Haripriya Vattikuti, Chris D. Collins
{"title":"与传统或有机系统相比,自然农业通过提高土壤质量提高了印度东南部的作物产量","authors":"Sarah Duddigan,&nbsp;Liz J. Shaw,&nbsp;Tom Sizmur,&nbsp;Dharmendar Gogu,&nbsp;Zakir Hussain,&nbsp;Kiranmai Jirra,&nbsp;Hamika Kaliki,&nbsp;Rahul Sanka,&nbsp;Mohammad Sohail,&nbsp;Reshma Soma,&nbsp;Vijay Thallam,&nbsp;Haripriya Vattikuti,&nbsp;Chris D. Collins","doi":"10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroot agrarian movement and a state backed extension in Andhra Pradesh, and has been claimed to potentially meet the twin goals of global food security and environmental conservation. However, there is a lack of statistically evaluated data to support assertions of yield benefits of ZBNF compared to organic or conventional alternatives, or to mechanistically account for them. In order to fill this gap, controlled field experiments were established in twenty-eight farms across six districts, spanning over 800 km, over three cropping seasons. In these experiments, we compared ZBNF (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, home-made inputs comprising <i>desi</i> cow dung and urine with mulch) to conventional (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and organic (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no mulch, purchased organic inputs, e.g. farmyard manure and vermicompost) treatments, all with no tillage. Comparisons were made in terms of yield, soil pH, temperature, moisture content, nutrient content and earthworm abundance. Our data shows that yield was significantly higher in the ZBNF treatment (<i>z</i> score = 0.58 ± 0.08), than the organic (<i>z</i>= −0.34 ± 0.06) or conventional (−0.24 ± 0.07) treatment when all farm experiments were analysed together. However, the efficacy of the ZBNF treatment was context specific and varied according to district and the crop in question. The ZBNF yield benefit is likely attributed to mulching, generating a cooler soil, with a higher moisture content and a larger earthworm population. There were no significant differences between ZBNF and the conventional treatment in the majority of nutrients. This is a particularly important observation, as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmers’ finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these initial observations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7721,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Duddigan,&nbsp;Liz J. Shaw,&nbsp;Tom Sizmur,&nbsp;Dharmendar Gogu,&nbsp;Zakir Hussain,&nbsp;Kiranmai Jirra,&nbsp;Hamika Kaliki,&nbsp;Rahul Sanka,&nbsp;Mohammad Sohail,&nbsp;Reshma Soma,&nbsp;Vijay Thallam,&nbsp;Haripriya Vattikuti,&nbsp;Chris D. Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroot agrarian movement and a state backed extension in Andhra Pradesh, and has been claimed to potentially meet the twin goals of global food security and environmental conservation. However, there is a lack of statistically evaluated data to support assertions of yield benefits of ZBNF compared to organic or conventional alternatives, or to mechanistically account for them. In order to fill this gap, controlled field experiments were established in twenty-eight farms across six districts, spanning over 800 km, over three cropping seasons. In these experiments, we compared ZBNF (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, home-made inputs comprising <i>desi</i> cow dung and urine with mulch) to conventional (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and organic (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no mulch, purchased organic inputs, e.g. farmyard manure and vermicompost) treatments, all with no tillage. Comparisons were made in terms of yield, soil pH, temperature, moisture content, nutrient content and earthworm abundance. Our data shows that yield was significantly higher in the ZBNF treatment (<i>z</i> score = 0.58 ± 0.08), than the organic (<i>z</i>= −0.34 ± 0.06) or conventional (−0.24 ± 0.07) treatment when all farm experiments were analysed together. However, the efficacy of the ZBNF treatment was context specific and varied according to district and the crop in question. The ZBNF yield benefit is likely attributed to mulching, generating a cooler soil, with a higher moisture content and a larger earthworm population. There were no significant differences between ZBNF and the conventional treatment in the majority of nutrients. This is a particularly important observation, as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmers’ finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these initial observations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agronomy for Sustainable Development\",\"volume\":\"43 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agronomy for Sustainable Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

零预算自然农业(ZBNF)是一项基层农业运动,也是安得拉邦由国家支持的一项延伸,据称有可能实现全球粮食安全和环境保护的双重目标。然而,与有机或传统替代品相比,缺乏统计评估数据来支持ZBNF产量效益的断言,或从机制上解释它们。为了填补这一空白,在六个地区的28个农场进行了对照田间试验,跨越800多公里,分三个种植季节。在这些实验中,我们比较了ZBNF(无合成农药或化肥,包括有覆盖物的德西牛粪和尿液的自制投入)与传统(合成化肥和农药)和有机(无合成杀虫剂或化肥,无覆盖物,购买的有机投入,如农家肥和蚯蚓堆肥)处理,所有这些都是免耕处理。从产量、土壤pH值、温度、水分含量、养分含量和蚯蚓丰度等方面进行了比较。我们的数据显示,当所有农场实验一起分析时,ZBNF处理的产量(z分数=0.58±0.08)显著高于有机处理(z=−0.34±0.06)或传统处理(−0.24±0.07)。然而,ZBNF处理的效果是特定的,并因地区和作物而异。ZBNF的产量效益可能归因于覆盖,产生了更凉爽的土壤,具有更高的水分含量和更大的蚯蚓种群。ZBNF与常规处理在大多数营养成分上没有显著差异。这是一个特别重要的观察结果,因为大量使用合成农药和化肥会给农民的财务、人类健康、温室气体排放、生物多样性丧失和环境污染带来许多相关风险。然而,需要长期的实地和景观规模试验来证实这些初步观察结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroot agrarian movement and a state backed extension in Andhra Pradesh, and has been claimed to potentially meet the twin goals of global food security and environmental conservation. However, there is a lack of statistically evaluated data to support assertions of yield benefits of ZBNF compared to organic or conventional alternatives, or to mechanistically account for them. In order to fill this gap, controlled field experiments were established in twenty-eight farms across six districts, spanning over 800 km, over three cropping seasons. In these experiments, we compared ZBNF (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, home-made inputs comprising desi cow dung and urine with mulch) to conventional (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and organic (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no mulch, purchased organic inputs, e.g. farmyard manure and vermicompost) treatments, all with no tillage. Comparisons were made in terms of yield, soil pH, temperature, moisture content, nutrient content and earthworm abundance. Our data shows that yield was significantly higher in the ZBNF treatment (z score = 0.58 ± 0.08), than the organic (z= −0.34 ± 0.06) or conventional (−0.24 ± 0.07) treatment when all farm experiments were analysed together. However, the efficacy of the ZBNF treatment was context specific and varied according to district and the crop in question. The ZBNF yield benefit is likely attributed to mulching, generating a cooler soil, with a higher moisture content and a larger earthworm population. There were no significant differences between ZBNF and the conventional treatment in the majority of nutrients. This is a particularly important observation, as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmers’ finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these initial observations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
8.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agronomy for Sustainable Development (ASD) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of international scope, dedicated to publishing original research articles, review articles, and meta-analyses aimed at improving sustainability in agricultural and food systems. The journal serves as a bridge between agronomy, cropping, and farming system research and various other disciplines including ecology, genetics, economics, and social sciences. ASD encourages studies in agroecology, participatory research, and interdisciplinary approaches, with a focus on systems thinking applied at different scales from field to global levels. Research articles published in ASD should present significant scientific advancements compared to existing knowledge, within an international context. Review articles should critically evaluate emerging topics, and opinion papers may also be submitted as reviews. Meta-analysis articles should provide clear contributions to resolving widely debated scientific questions.
期刊最新文献
Introducing intermediate wheatgrass as a perennial grain crop into farming systems: insights into the decision-making process of pioneer farmers Enhancing ecosystem services through direct-seeded rice in middle Indo-Gangetic Plains: a comparative study of different rice establishment practices Transitions to crop residue burning have multiple antecedents in Eastern India Irrigated rice yield plateaus are caused by management factors in Argentina Beneficial soil fungi enhance tomato crop productivity and resistance to the leaf-mining pest Tuta absoluta in agronomic 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: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