Mulch rates required for erosion control on steep slopes.
01 Nov 1970-Soil Science Society of America Journal (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)-Vol. 34, Iss: 6, pp 928-931
About: This article is published in Soil Science Society of America Journal.The article was published on 1970-11-01. It has received 134 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Erosion control & Mulch.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the impact of crop residue removal on soil properties, crop yields, and soil erosion across a wide range of soils and ecosystems is discussed, but the authors focus on the independent impacts of crop residues removal on the soil and environment rather than on the interrelated tillage-crop-residue management impacts.
Abstract: Crop residues are a potential source of renewable feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production because of their high cellulose content and easy availability. Indiscriminate removal as biofuel may, however, have adverse impacts on soil, environment, and crop production. This article reviews available information on the impacts of crop residue removal on soil properties, crop yields, and soil erosion across a wide range of soils and ecosystems. It explicitly synthesizes data on the independent impacts of crop residue removal on soil and environment rather than on the interrelated tillage-crop-residue management impacts. Published literature shows that residue removal adversely impacts near-surface soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Unmulched soils are prone to particle detachment, surface sealing, crusting, and compaction. Residue removal reduces input of organic binding agents essential to formation and stability of aggregates. It also closes open-ended biochannels by raindrop impacts and reduces water infiltration, saturated/unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, and air permeability, and thereby increases runoff/soil erosion and transport of non-point source pollutants (e.g., sediment and chemicals). Residue removal accelerates evaporation, increases diurnal fluctuations in soil temperature, and reduces input of organic matter needed to improve the soils' ability to retain water. It reduces macro- (e.g., K, P, N, Ca, and Mg) and micronutrient (e.g., Fe, Mn, B, Zn, and S) pools in the soil by removing nutrient-rich residue materials and by inducing losses of soil organic matter (SOM)-enriched sediments in runoff. Residue removal drastically reduces earthworm population and microbial carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) biomass. It adversely affects agronomic production by altering the dynamics of soil water and temperature regimes. The short-term (<10 yr) data show nevertheless that residue removal may not always degrade soil physical properties and decrease crop yields in the short term depending on the soil type, topography, and fluctuations in annual weather conditions. Sloping and erosion-prone soils are more rapidly and adversely affected by residue removal than those on flat terrains with heavy texture and poorly drained conditions. Sloping terrains are not only highly susceptible to water and wind erosion but also to tillage erosion. In these soils, therefore, a fraction of the total crop residue produced may be available for biofuel production and other expanded uses. Standard guidelines on when, where, and how much residues to remove need to be, however, established. Modeling rates of residue removal are presently based on the needs of soil cover to control erosion without consideration to maintaining SOM and nutrient pools, enhancing soil physical, chemical, and biological quality, and sustaining crop production. Threshold levels of residue removal must be assessed for principal soil types based on the needs to maintain or enhance soil productivity and improve environmental quality. For those soils in which some residues are removed, best management practices (e.g., cover crops, diverse crop rotations, and manure application) must be adopted to minimize adverse impacts of residue removal. Because indiscriminate harvesting of crop residues for biofuel may deteriorate soil properties, reduce crop yields, and degrade the environment, there exists an urgent research need for developing alternative sustainable renewable energy feedstocks (e.g., warm season grasses and short-rotation woody crops).
514 citations
Cites background from "Mulch rates required for erosion co..."
...Many have documented the benefits of residue mulch cover to reducing runoff and soil erosion (Adams, 1966; Meyer et al., 1970; Lal et al., 1980; Khan et al., 1988; Dabney et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2004; Doring et al., 2005)....
[...]
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: In conservation tillage, the goal is to leave enough plant residue on the soil surface at all times for water and wind erosion control, reducing energy use, and conserving soil and water as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Publisher Summary Conservation tillage systems are systems of managing crop residue on the soil surface with minimum or no tillage. The systems are frequently referred to as stubble mulching, ecofallow, limited tillage, reduced tillage, minimum tillage, no-tillage, and direct drill. The goal of these systems of plant residue management is threefold: leaving enough plant residue on the soil surface at all times for water and wind erosion control, reducing energy use, and conserving soil and water. These systems are used throughout the United States and the world and can be applied to all kinds of crop residue in many cropping systems. Because conservation tillage systems rely heavily on surface residue for erosion control and water conservation, it is imperative that the machinery is capable of operating satisfactorily when large amounts of residue are on the soil surface and that most residues are kept on the surface. Tillage systems developed within the past half century are capable of retaining most crop residue on the soil surface.
320 citations
TL;DR: Meyers as mentioned in this paper stated that conservation tillage is not a panacea, but it is one of the best ways yet found to meet our national priorities of soil and water conservation.
Abstract: “Conservation tillage is not a panacea, but it is one of the best ways yet found to meet our national priorities of soil and water conservation” (Meyers, 1983). These words by the former chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Soil Conservation Service corroborate the attitude of many persons regarding the potentials of this practice for conserving soil and water resources, not only in the United States, but also in many other countries throughout the world.
261 citations
TL;DR: However, the adaptation of ideal zero-till systems are manifold and complex, partial adoption of certain components and technologies rather than full adoption of zero-to-turn systems being the norm as discussed by the authors, and there is perhaps a divorce between the ideal, originating mainly from individual technology research on agricultural research stations, and farmers' reality.
Abstract: Two decades of extensive research and experimentation with zero‐till methods has allowed “ideal” zero‐till systems to emerge in Brazil, involving no soil turning, maintenance of a permanent vegetative cover, and rotations of both cash and cover crops. By exploiting rapid successions of suitable crops, for example, as well as through careful temporal and spatial planning, Brazilian examples show that it is possible to continuously cover soil, gradually increase soil organic matter (SOM) stocks, integrate livestock, move surface‐applied lime through the soil profile, break compact soil layers, and reduce reliance on agrochemicals in zero‐till, all under a variety of edaphic and climatic conditions, and levels of mechanization/farm sizes. Various such technologies and systems are reviewed in this chapter. However, we also note that among smallholder zero‐till farmers, for example, the adaptations of “ideal” zero‐till systems are manifold and complex, partial adoption of certain components and technologies rather than full adoption of zero‐till systems being the norm. By examining farmers' experiences and practice, we ascertain that in many cases there is perhaps a divorce between the ideal, originating mainly from individual technology research on agricultural research stations, and farmers' reality, given the complexity of socioeconomical constraints facing the latter. We conclude that although there is a wealth of valuable zero‐till experience and technologies precipitating from the Brazilian zero‐till “revolution,” numerous challenges in zero‐till research, especially in respect to resource‐poor smallholder farmers, still remain, and perhaps more holistic, participatory and adaptive on farm‐research is necessary in future. © 2006, Elsevier Inc.
258 citations