Crop Residue Removal Impacts on Soil Productivity and Environmental Quality

Blanco‐Canqui, Humberto; Lal, Rattan

doi:10.1080/07352680902776507

Cited by 519 publications

(294 citation statements)

References 136 publications

(209 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

276

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Burning and removal of residues not only causes a direct loss of nutrients in soils but also deprives the soil of carbon or organic matter, which is important for improving soil structure and providing life to the soil by acting as a substrate for various microbes and biota [2]. Also, the removal of crop residues from an agricultural system will increase the potential for increased soil erosion and/or negative effects on environmental quality [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Crop Residues on Soil Nitrogen Dynamics and Wheat Yield

Kamkar¹

2014

APAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Crop Residues on Soil Nitrogen Dynamics and Wheat Yield

Kamkar¹

2014

APAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While farmers tend to be conservative and sceptical about alternative farming methods, when a higher yield can be realised over a longer time frame at a lower cost or with increased benefit, there will be a gradual change in techniques (Pannell, 1999;Klerkx et al, 2010). These include: no-till farming (Montgomery, 2007;Roger-Estrade et al, 2010;Figuerola et al, 2012;Lal, 2013); cycling crop rotations to include nitrogen-fixing plants such as legumes (de Ponti et al, 2012); mixing crops to support natural pest management and integrated pest management using indigenous natural enemies (Watson et al, 2005;Boisclair & Estevez, 2006;Deguine et al, 2008;Xu et al, 2011); leaving post-harvest crop stubble residue in the soil to reinforce soil structure (Blanco-Canqui & Lal, 2009); encouraging soil organic complexity (Carter, 2004;Bronick & Lal, 2005;Barrios, 2007); leaving land to fallow to restore the chemical and biological fertility of the soil (Lal, 2011;Malezieux, 2012); mixed livestock and cropping where one compliments the other (Millar & Badgery, 2009;Fisher et al, 2012); and supporting practices of evergreen agriculture to maintain soil moisture content (Blanco-Canqui & Lal, 2009;Powlson et al, 2011). Such changes in techniques help to stabilise and increase yields and return carbon to the soil, which further increases yield (Malezieux, 2012).…”

Section: Conventional Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Characteristics of Five Food Production Systems and Their Implications for Sustainable Landscapes

Burdock¹,

Ampt²

2018

JAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a classification of agricultural production systems that we believe characterises the complex interface between agriculture and the landscapes in which they are managed. Farmers have a choice about how they will manage their land, either to exclude inherent environmental complexity or to engage with it, mindful of risks associated with their approach. Adding to this complexity is the interplay between key natural, social, human, physical and financial resources in agricultural systems, highlighting the importance of extending sustainability principles to aspects of ecology, economics and culture. Decisions about agricultural systems hinge on a balance of productive outcomes, on sensitivity to the issues of environmental complexity, on economic grounds including the access to resources, and the socio-cultural needs of the community in which the farmer participates. Further, farm managers will make a choice that both satisfies and suffices (satisfices) against production, ecological efficiencies and resilience outcomes when choosing which food production system to adopt. In this paper, these complexities are analysed against five different agricultural systems on an ecological continuum; from biologically simple industrial systems that minimise interaction with the natural environment, to ecologically complex systems that are closely engaged with their environment. Production viability is a necessary consideration to maintain farming operations but is not sufficient if operational capacity is to be achieved in the long term. This analysis finds that it is also necessary to work with ecological, economic and social complexities, satisficing against productivity, ecological efficiency and inherit system resilience. No one particular farming systems is appropriate in all cases. The farmer's choice may apply a mix of the five different agricultural systems described, allowing for the blending of these attributes in order to sustain rural landscapes.

show abstract

“…In this study, tall cereal cultivars were preferred over the medium/short ones in order to increase the quantity of straw and hence reduce the grain/ straw ratio. It is known that in an arable cropping system, systematic straw removal can cause soil quality-related issues, i.e., soil erosion and depletion of soil organic matter pool (Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2009). The extra production of straw can be alternatively left or incorporated in the soil to preserve its fertility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cereal-pea intercrops to improve sustainability in bioethanol production

Pellicanò

Romeo

Pristeri

et al. 2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental performance of secondgeneration biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass, such as crop residues, is foreseen to be superior to that of first-generation biofuels such as maize bioethanol. Moreover, using a legume as an intercrop can reduce costly N fertilizers inputs and can increase the N content of the straw mixture. Therefore, we studied cereal-legume intercrops as a source of food grain and straw bioethanol. We grew field pea and four cultivars of durum wheat, triticale, oat, and barley. Crops were grown during 2 years as a sole crop, in additive intercrop with 100 % of the sole crop density for the cereal and 50 % of sole crop density for the legume, and in replacement intercrop with 50 % of the sole crop density for each crop. Tall cereal cultivars were preferred over shorter cereals for an extra production of straw. Results show that growth resources were used up to 23-26 % more efficiently in intercrop than in sole crop for grain and straw production. Tall cereal cultivars suppressed legume yields in intercrops, thus reducing potential intercrop advantages. Pea in intercrop increased straw mixture N by 54 % the first year and by 91 % the second year, versus cereal alone.

show abstract

Crop Residue Removal Impacts on Soil Productivity and Environmental Quality

Cited by 519 publications

References 136 publications

The Effect of Crop Residues on Soil Nitrogen Dynamics and Wheat Yield

The Effect of Crop Residues on Soil Nitrogen Dynamics and Wheat Yield

The Characteristics of Five Food Production Systems and Their Implications for Sustainable Landscapes

Cereal-pea intercrops to improve sustainability in bioethanol production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About