The Environmental benefits and costs of conservation tillage

Uri, Noel D.; Atwood, Jay D.; Sanabria, J.

doi:10.1007/s002540050407

Cited by 62 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These soil management practices (e.g. mulch tillage, strip tillage, no-till) can generate both agroecological and economic benefits, including mitigation of soil erosion (Jordan et al, 2000), increase in soil organic matter (West and Post, 2002;Tabaglio et al, 2008), enhancement of aggregation and aggregate stability (Madari et al, 2005), reduction of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions (West and Marland, 2002), preservation of wildlife habitat and soil biodiversity (Uri et al, 1999), and savings in labour and time (Kirkegaard, 1995). Despite these benefits, however, conservation tillage systems are used only rarely in the Mediterranean, where they are practised on approximately 2% of total cropland (FAO AQUASTAT, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation tillage in a semiarid Mediterranean environment: results of 20 years of research

Ruisi¹,

Giambalvo²,

Saia³

et al. 2014

Ital J Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation tillage techniques are becoming increasingly popular worldwide as they have the potential to generate environmental, agronomic, and economic benefits. In Mediterranean areas, studies performed on the effects of conservation tillage [in comparison with the conventional tillage technique (CT)] on grain yield of cereal crops have reported contradictory results as well as considerable year-to-year variation, demonstrating how the impact of different soil tillage techniques on crop productivity is strongly site-specific. The present paper summarises the main results from a set of experiments carried out in Sicily during the last 20 years in which we compared no tillage (NT) to CT in terms of their respective effects on the productivity and quality of durum wheat, while at the same time varying some other crop management practices (e.g. crop sequence, N fertilisation, wheat genotype, sowing time). On average, no differences were observed between the two tillage techniques; yields were 3.84 and 3.87 Mg ha -1 for CT and NT, respectively. However, NT guaranteed superior yield when water stress during the crop cycle was high, whereas CT led to higher yields when water availability was adequate. Moreover, the results suggest that the use of NT needs to be accompanied by a rational crop sequence. In fact, a cumulative detrimental effect of NT over time was found for continuous wheat. Finally, grain quality in terms of protein content was slightly higher for CT (15.1%) than NT (14.4%). Thus, when using NT, the rate of nitrogen fertiliser application should be increased to offset this difference.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation tillage in a semiarid Mediterranean environment: results of 20 years of research

Ruisi¹,

Giambalvo²,

Saia³

et al. 2014

Ital J Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Efficient arable crop production is highly influenced by water availability during the growing season and it is very important to apply a tillage system that helps maintain a favorable soil water regime for optimal crop growth and development. Conservation tillage systems attempt to disturb the soil as little as possible in order to conserve its natural structure (Weise and Bourarach 1999) and are defined as any tillage or planting system that leaves ≥ 30% of crop residues on the soil surface after planting (Uri et al 1999). Depending on the degree of disturbance by tillage systems, changes can be observed in soil water content, aeration and soil temperature, which influence the decomposition rate of residues left in the soil (Ma et al 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of tillage systems on soil water content and yield in maize and winter wheat production

Čopec¹,

Filipović²,

Husnjak³

et al. 2015

PLANT SOIL ENVIRON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The four-year trial was conducted in north-western Slavonia (main arable crop producing region in Croatia) to evaluate the effects of different tillage systems on the water content of silty loam soil (Albic Luvisol) and yields of maize (Zea mays L.) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The tillage systems compared were: conventional tillage; reduced conventional tillage; conservation tillage I; conservation tillage II (CM); no-tillage (NT). During the study period, there were one dry, two wet and one average season. Soil water content (SWC) was measured at 0-5, 15-20 and 30-35 cm depths on a monthly basis. Tillage systems had significant (P < 0.05) effects on SWC and yields. The highest average SWC in all seasons was measured under the NT system, followed by the CM system. In the second season, the highest yield was measured under the NT system while in all other seasons, it was under the CM system.

show abstract

“…Initiatives to encourage the adoption of beneficial management practices are underway in regions across Canada and are supported by various levels of government. Such programs in Canada and elsewhere have demonstrated positive benefits for wildlife habitat (Dunn et al 1993;Uri et al 1999;McMaster and Davis 2001), although perceived benefits of all agro-environmental policies should be closely scrutinized (Henningsen and Best 2005).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sedimentation and siltation of aquatic habitat (Walser and Bart 1999;Whiles et al 2000), wetland drainage (Smith 1990;Lemly et al 2000;Watmough et al 2002;DeVries et al 2003;Jenkins et al 2003), cultivation of natural grasslands (Schmutz 1987;Clayton and Schmutz 1999;Larsen and Work 2003;Davis 2004), overgrazing (Sansom 1999;Mayer 2004;Valone and Saunter 2005), loss of riparian vegetation (Cooper 1993;Stauffer et al 2000;Popotnik and Giuliano 2000) and loss and fragmentation of forest cover (Hobson and Bayne 2000;Cumming et al 2001;Bélanger and Grenier 2002;Tchir et al 2004) affect wildlife habitat and can impact biodiversity negatively. Conversely, conservation tillage (Uri et al 1999;Chan 2001;Mas and Verdu 2003), maintaining or restoring hedgerows (Trnka et al 1990;Hinsley and Bellamy 2000;Jobin et al 2001;Boutin et al 2002;Ouin and Burel 2002), managed grazing on natural grasslands (Howe 1994;Jackson 1999;McIntyre et al 2003), managing livestock in riparian areas (Tewksbury et al 2002;Asamoah et al 2003;Popp et al 2004) and buffering riparian areas (Chapman and Ribic 2002;Jobin et al 2004) can have a positive effect on biodiversity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes to wildlife habitat on agricultural land in Canada, 1981–2001

Javorek¹,

Antonowitsch²,

Callaghan³

et al. 2007

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural land in Canada comprises cultivated land, hayland and grazing land with associated riparian areas, wetlands, woodlands, and natural grasslands. Although these agro-ecosystems support many species of Canada’s native fauna, agricultural land use is dynamic, and changes in agricultural practices can have important implications for biodiversity. We report on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s National Agri-environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program’s assessment of wildlife habitat on farmland in Canada. Habitat use matrices were developed for 493 species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians associated with farm land habitat in Canada. We derived patterns of land use from Statistics Canada’s Census of Agriculture data and applied them at the soil landscape polygon scale. We developed a proportionally weighted Habitat Capacity index to relate habitat use and land use. A 5% decrease in Habitat Capacity occurred on Canada’s agricultural land from 1981 to 2001, associated with an expansion in cropland and a decline in pasture. A regional pattern of small decline in Habitat Capacity is evident in the Prairie Provinces, where dramatic declines in the use of summerfallow had a positive impact on Habitat Capacity. In eastern Canada, greater decreases in Habitat Capacity occurred, associated with an increase in agricultural intensification. Policies and programs designed to sustain biodiversity should not be developed independently of socioeconomic factors or policies favouring agricultural intensification. We recommend a holistic approach to making policy decisions relevant to environmental and economic sustainability in the Canadian agricultural landscape. Key words: Biodiversity, land use change, agroecosystems, wildlife habitat, indicators

show abstract

The Environmental benefits and costs of conservation tillage

Cited by 62 publications

References 7 publications

Conservation tillage in a semiarid Mediterranean environment: results of 20 years of research

Conservation tillage in a semiarid Mediterranean environment: results of 20 years of research

Effects of tillage systems on soil water content and yield in maize and winter wheat production

Changes to wildlife habitat on agricultural land in Canada, 1981–2001

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About