Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Identifying agricultural practices that enhance water cycling is critical, particularly with increased rainfall variability and greater risks of droughts and floods. Soil infiltration rates offer useful insights to water cycling in farming systems because they affect both yields (through soil water availability) and other ecosystem outcomes (such as pollution and flooding from runoff). For example, conventional agricultural practices that leave soils bare and vulnerable to degradation are believed to limit the capacity of soils to quickly absorb and retain water needed for crop growth. Further, it is widely assumed that farming methods such as no-till and cover crops can improve infiltration rates. Despite interest in the impacts of agricultural practices on infiltration rates, this effect has not been systematically quantified across a range of practices. To evaluate how conventional practices affect infiltration rates relative to select alternative practices (no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, introducing perennials, crop and livestock systems), we performed a meta-analysis that included 89 studies with field trials comparing at least one such alternative practice to conventional management. We found that introducing perennials (grasses, agroforestry, managed forestry) or cover crops led to the largest increases in infiltration rates (mean responses of 59.2 ± 20.9% and 34.8 ± 7.7%, respectively). Also, although the overall effect of no-till was non-significant (5.7 ± 9.7%), the practice led to increases in wetter climates and when combined with residue retention. The effect of crop rotation on infiltration rate was non-significant (18.5 ± 13.2%), and studies evaluating impacts of grazing on croplands indicated that this practice reduced infiltration rates (-21.3 ± 14.9%). Findings suggest that practices promoting ground cover and continuous roots, both of which improve soil structure, were most effective at increasing infiltration rates.

Effectiveness of Cover Crops to Reduce Loss of Soil Organic Matter in a Rainfed Vineyard

“…Among the distinct measures to minimize soil erosion in permanent crops, the use of ground cover plants (e.g., spontaneous vegetation, cover crops, pruning remains, straw mulch) has been proved as an effective and environmentally friendly alternative [19]. Homogeneous and mixed temporary cover crops (CCs) favor surface water infiltration [20,21] and reduce runoff generation compared with fields managed under conventional tillage (CT)-bare soil in the inter-row areas due to ploughing and/or use of herbicides [22]. The use of weeds as cover crops was found to be a good policy in citrus orchards due to the fact that they reduce the soil losses from 3.8 to 0.7 Mg ha −1 h −1 [23].…”

Evaluating the Untapped Potential of U.S. Conservation Investments to Improve Soil and Environmental Health

“…However, we argue that in most cases, conservation practices may also be viewed as having a positive impact on production. We reject the idea that practices must be an "either or" scenario and that production and profitability benefits do accrue from the outcomes-based practices outlined in this analysis, including examples such as increasing infiltration with more perenniallybased agroecosystems (Basche and DeLonge, 2019), converting unprofitable land to an alternative use with perennial crops (Brandes et al, 2016), and improving weed suppression, productivity and yield stability with diverse crop rotations (Davis et al, 2012;Monast et al, 2018;Weisberger et al, 2019;Bowles et al, 2020).…”

What Do Plants Leave after Summer on the Ground?—The Effect of Afforested Plants in Arid Environments

“…Conversely, the high θ under Willow bush in respect to Willow tree reflects capacity to fix more root biomass below 40 cm depth. This enhanced the infiltration capacity by the presence of a low plant cover with a large alive root system [73,74].…”