Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-2rqk5 Total loading time: 0.404 Render date: 2021-06-24T13:27:53.256Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Soil fertility and crop yields in long-term organic and conventional cropping systems in Eastern Nebraska

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2011

Sam E. Wortman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Plant Science Hall 279, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA.
Tomie D. Galusha
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Plant Science Hall 279, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA.
Stephen C. Mason
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Plant Science Hall 279, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA.
Charles A. Francis
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Plant Science Hall 279, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA.
Corresponding

Abstract

Organic agriculture aims to build soil quality and provide long-term benefits to people and the environment; however, organic practices may reduce crop yields. This long-term study near Mead, NE was conducted to determine differences in soil fertility and crop yields among conventional and organic cropping systems between 1996 and 2007. The conventional system (CR) consisted of corn (Zea mays L.) or sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)–soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)–sorghum or corn–soybean, whereas the diversified conventional system (DIR) consisted of corn or sorghum–sorghum or corn–soybean–winter wheat (wheat, Triticum aestivum L.). The animal manure-based organic system (OAM) consisted of soybean–corn or sorghum–soybean–wheat, while the forage-based organic system (OFG) consisted of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)–alfalfa–corn or sorghum–wheat. Averaged across sampling years, soil organic matter content (OMC), P, pH, Ca, K, Mg and Zn in the top 15 cm of soil were greatest in the OAM system. However, by 2008 OMC was not different between the two organic systems despite almost two times greater carbon inputs in the OAM system. Corn, sorghum and soybean average annual yields were greatest in either of the two conventional systems (7.65, 6.36 and 2.60 Mg ha−1, respectively), whereas wheat yields were greatest in the OAM system (3.07 Mg ha−1). Relative to the mean of the conventional systems, corn yields were reduced by 13 and 33% in the OAM and OFG systems, respectively. Similarly, sorghum yields in the OAM and OFG systems were reduced by 16 and 27%, respectively. Soybean yields were 20% greater in the conventional systems compared with the OAM system. However, wheat yields were 10% greater in the OAM system compared with the conventional DIR system and 23% greater than yield in the OFG system. Alfalfa in the OFG system yielded an average of 7.41 Mg ha−1 annually. Competitive yields of organic wheat and alfalfa along with the soil fertility benefits associated with animal manure and perennial forage suggest that aspects of the two organic systems be combined to maximize the productivity and sustainability of organic cropping systems.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.H. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science 211:540547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Porter, P.M., Huggins, D.R., Perillo, C.A., Quiring, S.R., and Crookston, R.K. 2003. Organic and other management strategies with two- and four-year crop rotations in Minnesota. Agronomy Journal 95:233244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55:573582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Kirchmann, H., Bergstrom, L., Katterer, T., Mattsson, L., and Gesslein, S. 2007. Comparison of long-term organic and conventional crop–livestock systems on a previously nutrient-depleted soil in Sweden. Agronomy Journal 99:960972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Cavigelli, M.A., Teasdale, J.R., and Conklin, A.E. 2008. Long-term agronomic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Agronomy Journal 100:785794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Posner, J.L., Baldock, J.O., and Hedtcke, J.L. 2008. Organic and conventional production systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials. I. Productivity 1990–2002. Agronomy Journal 100:253260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Lesoing, G. 1992. Alternative cropping systems for eastern Nebraska. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
8Ball, B.C., Bingham, I., Rees, R.M., Watson, C.A., and Litterick, A. 2005. The role of crop rotations in determining soil structure and crop growth conditions. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 85:557577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Gosling, P. and Shepherd, M. 2005. Long-term changes in soil fertility in organic arable farming systems in England, with particular reference to phosphorus and potassium. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105:425432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Mady Kaye, N., Mason, S.C., Jackson, D.S., and Galusha, T.D. 2007. Crop rotation and soil amendment alters sorghum grain quality. Crop Science 47:722729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Drinkwater, L.E., Letourneau, D.K., Workneh, F., Van Bruggen, A.H.C., and Sherman, C. 1995. Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecological Applications 5:10981112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P., and Sarrantonio, M. 1998. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396:262265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Stamatiadis, S., Werner, M., and Buchanan, M. 1999. Field assessment of soil quality as affected by compost and fertilizer application in a broccoli field (San Benito County, California). Applied Soil Ecology 12:217225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Marriott, E.E. and Wander, M.M. 2006. Total and labile soil organic matter in organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:950959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C., and Scow, K.M. 1998. Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-input farming practices. Agronomy Journal 90:662671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Bulluck, L.R. III, Brosius, M., Evanylo, G.K., and Ristaino, J.B. 2002. Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and conventional farms. Applied Soil Ecology 19:147160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Riley, H., Pommeresche, R., Eltun, R., Hansen, S., and Korsaeth, A. 2008. Soil structure, organic matter and earthworm activity in a comparison of cropping systems with contrasting tillage, rotations, fertilizer levels and manure use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 124:275284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Reidell, W.E., Pikul, J.L. Jr, Jaradat, A.A., and Schumacher, T.E. 2009. Crop rotation and nitrogen input effects on soil fertility, maize mineral nutrition, yield and seed composition. Agronomy Journal 101:870879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Welsh, C., Tenuta, M., Flaten, D.N., Thiessen-Martens, J.R., and Entz, M.H. 2009. High yielding organic crop management decreases plant-available but not recalcitrant soil phosphorus. Agronomy Journal 101:10271035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Drinkwater, L.E. 2002. Cropping systems research: reconsidering agricultural experimental approaches. HortTechnology 12:355361.Google Scholar
21U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009. National agricultural statistics service [Online]. Available at Web site: http://www.nass.usda.gov (verified August 14, 2010).Google Scholar
22Sulc, R.M. and Tracy, B.F. 2007. Integrated crop-livestock systems in the U.S. Corn Belt. Agronomy Journal 99:335345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Ferguson, R.B. 2006. Nutrient Management for Agronomic Crops in Nebraska. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC155. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
24Ward, R.C. 2011. Ward Guide [Online]. Ward Laboratories, Inc. Available at Web site: http://www.wardlab.com/WardInfo/WardGuide.pdf (verified March 29, 2011).Google Scholar
25Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37:2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. 1945. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59:3946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Delate, K. and Cambardella, C.A. 2004. Agroecosystem performance during transition to certified organic grain production. Agronomy Journal 96:12881298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2011. Plant Nutrient Content Database [Online]. Available at Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/nutrient/tbb1.html (verified April 10, 2011).Google Scholar
29Wortman, S.E., Lindquist, J.L., Haar, M.J., and Francis, C.A. 2010. Increased weed diversity, density and above-ground biomass in long-term organic crop rotations. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25:281295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Ekeberg, F. and Riley, H. 1995. The long-term fertilizer trials at Moystad, SF. Norway. In Christensen, B.T. and Trentemoller, V. (eds). The Askov Long-term Experiments on Animal Manure and Mineral Fertilizers. Proceedings of the 100th Anniversary Workshop. SP Report No. 29. p. 8397.Google Scholar
31Wortmann, C.S., Dobermann, A.R., Ferguson, R.B., Hergert, G.W., Shapiro, C.A., Tarkalson, D.D., and Walters, D.T. 2009. High-yielding corn response to applied phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur in Nebraska. Agronomy Journal 101:546555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Perrott, K.W., Sarathchandra, S.U., and Waller, J.E. 1990. Seasonal storage and release of phosphorus and potassium by organic matter and the microbial biomass in a high producing pastoral soil. Australian Journal of Soil Research 28:593608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Haynes, R.J. and Naidu, R. 1998. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 51:123137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Robbins, C.W. 1986. Sodic calcareous soil reclamation as affected by different amendments and crops. Agronomy Journal 78:916920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Daroub, S.H., Ellis, B.G., and Robertson, G.P. 2001. Effect of cropping and low-chemical input on soil phosphorus fractions. Soil Science 166:281291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Kucey, R.M.N. and Diab, G.E.S. 1984. Effects of lime, phosphorus, and addition of vesicular-arbuscular (VA) mycorrhizal fungi on indigenous VA fungi and on growth of alfalfa in a moderately acidic soil. New Phytologist 98:481486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Mader, P., Fliebbbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., and Niggli, R. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:16941697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Karlen, D.L., Hurley, E.G., Andrews, S.S., Cambardella, C.A., Meek, D.W., Duffy, M.D., and Mallarino, A.P. 2006. Crop rotation effects on soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agronomy Journal 98:484495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Liebig, M.A., Varvel, G.E., Doran, J.W., and Wienhold, B.J. 2002. Crop sequence and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil properties in the western Corn Belt. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:596601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Shiralipour, A., McConnell, D.B., and Smith, W.H. 1992. Physical and chemical properties of soils as affected by municipal solid waste compost application. Biomass and Bioenergy 3:261266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Van den Berghe, C.H. and Hue, N.V. 1999. Limiting potential of composts applied to an acid oxisol in Burundi. Compost Science and Utilization 7:4046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Eghball, B. 1999. Liming effects of beef cattle feedlot manure or compost. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 30:25632570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Barak, P., Jobe, B.O., Krueger, A.R., Peterson, L.A., and Laird, D.A. 1997. Effects of long-term soil acidification due to nitrogen fertilizer inputs in Wisconsin. Plant and Soil 197:6169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Eltun, R., Korsaeth, A., and Nordheim, O. 2002. A comparison of environmental, soil fertility, yield, and economical effects in six cropping systems based on an 8-year experiment in Norway. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90:155168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Breland, T.A. and Eltun, R. 1999. Soil microbial biomass and mineralization of carbon and nitrogen in ecological, integrated and conventional forage and arable cropping systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils 30:193210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Yan, F., Schubert, S., and Mengel, K. 1996. Soil pH changes during legume growth and application of plant material. Biology and Fertility of Soils 23:236242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Gregorich, E.G., Carter, M.R., Angers, D.A., Moreal, C.M., and Ellert, B.H. 1994. Towards a minimum data set to assess soil organic matter quality in agricultural soils. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 74:367385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Ellert, B.H. and Bettany, J.R. 1995. Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 75:529538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Beare, M.H., Hendrix, P.F., and Coleman, D.C. 1994. Water-stable aggregates and organic matter fractions in conventional- and no-tillage soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:777786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Eghball, B. and Power, J.F. 1999. Phosphorus- and nitrogen-based manure and compost application: Corn production and soil phosphorus. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:895901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Doran, J.W., Elliott, E.T., and Paustian, K. 1998. Soil microbial activity, nitrogen cycling, and long-term changes in organic carbon pools as related to fallow tillage management. Soil Tillage Research 49:3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52Matsi, T., Lithourgidis, A.S., and Gagianas, A.A. 2003. Effects of injected liquid cattle manure on growth and yield of winter wheat and soil characteristics. Agronomy Journal 95:592596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Stanford, G. and Smith, S.J. 1972. Nitrogen mineralization potential of soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 36:465472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Zhuang, J., McCarthy, J.F., Perfect, E., Mayer, L.M., and Jastrow, J.D. 2008. Soil water hysteresis in water-stable microaggregates as affected by organic matter. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:212220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Gutierrez-Boem, F.H. and Thomas, G.W. 1998. Phosphorus nutrition affects wheat response to water deficit. Agronomy Journal 90:166171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56Lotter, D.W., Seidel, R., and Liebhardt, W. 2003. The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:19.Google Scholar
21
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Soil fertility and crop yields in long-term organic and conventional cropping systems in Eastern Nebraska
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Soil fertility and crop yields in long-term organic and conventional cropping systems in Eastern Nebraska
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Soil fertility and crop yields in long-term organic and conventional cropping systems in Eastern Nebraska
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *