Long-Term Effects of Different Agricultural Soil Use and Management Systems on Soil Degradation in Uruguay

Garcı́a-Préchac, Fernando; Salvo, Lucía; Ernst, Oswaldo; Siri-Prieto, Guillermo; Quincke, J. Andrés; Terra, José A.

doi:10.1007/978-981-16-7916-2_7

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same happens in the case of croplands. In general terms, annual crop production would have negative impacts on 165 soil properties, particularly on SOC and pH and, consequently, on potential fertility (Berhongaray et al, 2013;Wingeyer et al, 2015;Beretta-Blanco et al, 2019;Alvarez et al, 2020;Grahmann et al, 2020;Baethgen et al, 2021;García-Préchac et al, 2022). Focusing on this well-known general pattern and ignoring the local evidence on the heterogeneous impact of the agricultural management on soil properties may generate a simplistic (and in our opinion, erroneous) perception of the environmental performance of agriculture in Uruguay.…”

Section: 2novelty Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Paruelo,

Lopez-Marsico,

Baldassini

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this article we make comments on some methodological issues and on the general approach of the paper “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” by Ina Säumel, Leonardo R. Ramírez, Sarah Tietjen, Marcos Barra, and Erick Zagal, Soil 9, 425–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-425-2023. We identified various design and methodological problems that may induce potential misinterpretations. Our concerns are of three different types. First, there are aspects of the study design and methodology that, in our opinion, introduce biases and critical errors. Secondly, the article does not put forth any novel propositions and ignores extensive local literature and aspects that are central to the interpretation of the data Finally, we are concerned about the possible interpretations of a study, generated from institutions based on developed countries with not the participation of local scientists from the Global South in the design of policies and development of non-tariff barriers for South American countries.

show abstract

Section: 2novelty Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Paruelo,

Lopez-Marsico,

Baldassini

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The same happens in the case of croplands. In general terms, annual crop production would have negative impacts on soil properties, particularly on SOC and pH and, consequently, on potential fertility (Berhongaray et al, 2013;Wingeyer et al, 2015;Beretta-Blanco et al, 2019;Alvarez et al, 2020;Grahmann et al, 2020;Baethgen et al, 2021;García-Préchac et al, 2022). Focusing on this well-known general pattern and ignoring the local evidence on the heterogeneous impact of the agricultural management on soil properties may generate a simplistic (and in our opinion, erroneous) perception of the environmental performance of agriculture in Uruguay.…”

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Paruelo,

López-Marsico,

BALDASSINI

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we make comments on some methodological issues and on the general approach of the paper “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” by Ina Säumel, Leonardo R. Ramírez, Sarah Tietjen, Marcos Barra, and Erick Zagal, Soil 9, 425–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-425-2023. We identified various design and methodological problems that may induce potential misinterpretations. Our concerns are of three different types. First, there are aspects of the study design and methodology that, in our opinion, introduce biases and critical errors. Secondly, the article does not put forth any novel propositions and ignores extensive local literature and aspects that are central to the interpretation of the data Finally, we are concerned about the possible interpretations of a study, generated from institutions based on developed countries with not the participation of local scientists from the Global South in the design of policies and development of non-tariff barriers for South Americancountries

show abstract

“…These rotations with pastures have been shown to contain higher soil organic matter level, which is related to improving water infiltration, water quality, nutrient cycling and helps to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [8], when compared to lands that have continuous cropping. Rotations with pastures of 2 or 4 years of duration contain 5% more soil organic carbon (SOC) than continuous cropping [12]. Also, pastures contribute to improving grain productivity, reducing soil erosion and degradation [13], as well as reducing input demand [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management and Productivity of Key Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems in Uruguay: The Palo a Pique Long-Term Experiment’s Third Phase

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Crop Livestock Systems (ICLSs) use productive diversification as a strategy to improve productivity and land use efficiency. Pasture Crop Rotations are a part of ICLSs and imply a pasture phase included in the sequence of crops. The main reasons to include pastures in crop systems are low productivity of natural grasslands and increased crop yield after a pasture phase. Our objective was to analyze the productivity indicators and management of four ICLSs that combine crop and livestock production, with data collected over a 3 y period (2019–2022). The experimental site was The Palo a Pique (Treinta y Tres, Uruguay) long-term experiment installed in 1995, located in the subtropical climate zone and on Oxyaquic Argiudolls soils (3% average slope). Systems evaluated were CC (continuous cropping), SR (two years idem CC, two years of pastures), LR (two years idem CC, four years of pastures) and FR (continuous pasture with Tall Fescue). Liveweight (LW) production, grain production and dry matter (DM) production were evaluated. Liveweight production was higher in CC and SR (426 and 418 kg LW/ha) than in LR (369 kg LW/ha) and FR (310 kg LW/ha). DM production was higher in FR and SR (6867 and 5763 kg DM/ha/year) than in LR (5399 kg DM/ha/year) and CC (5206 kg DM/ha/year). Grain production was 10%, 16% and 9% lower in soybean, wheat and sorghum in CC.

show abstract

Long-Term Effects of Different Agricultural Soil Use and Management Systems on Soil Degradation in Uruguay

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Management and Productivity of Key Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems in Uruguay: The Palo a Pique Long-Term Experiment’s Third Phase

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About