Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability

Montgomery, David R.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0611508104

Cited by 1,591 publications

(1,109 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

971

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This required that (1) soil erosion levels were <1/2 T for each soil and (2) the combined SCI factor and SCI-organic matter (OM) subfactor were both positive, indicating that organic matter is, at a minimum, being maintained at current levels with increasing likelihood that levels will actually increase. This second, more stringent criterion was applied to address concerns that erosion levels approaching T are still significantly higher than soil formation rates [10]. The second target also represents a more conservative approach for ensuring organic matter is not being depleted.…”

Section: Determining Sustainable Removal Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, agricultural management decisions must aim to minimize wind and water erosion while maintaining ecosystem benefits provided by crop residues [10,11]. Current conventional management of corn residue uses postharvest and preplanting tillage practices such as chisel-disking and/or field cultivation to break up the residue and mix it into the soil.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reduced or no-tillage, planting of winter cover crops, and establishment of vegetative barriers are conservation practices that show great promise for reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic carbon [10,[23][24][25][26]. Described in detail by English et al [27], these three conservation practices can have significant impacts on farmer-perceived costs of residue removal, soil erosion, and ultimately their likelihood of participating in biomass supply programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modeled Impacts of Cover Crops and Vegetative Barriers on Corn Stover Availability and Soil Quality

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmentally benign, economically viable, and socially acceptable agronomic strategies are needed to launch a sustainable lignocellulosic biofuel industry. Our objective was to demonstrate a landscape planning process that can ensure adequate supplies of corn (Zea mays L.) stover feedstock while protecting and improving soil quality. The Landscape Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) was used to develop land use strategies that were then scaled up for five U.S. Corn Belt states (Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota) to illustrate the impact that could be achieved. Our results show an annual sustainable stover supply of 194 million Mg without exceeding soil erosion T values or depleting soil organic carbon [i.e., soil conditioning index (SCI)>0] when no-till, winter cover crop, and vegetative barriers were incorporated into the landscape. A second, more rigorous conservation target was set to enhance soil quality while sustainably harvesting stover. By requiring erosion to be <1/2 T and the SCI-organic matter (OM) subfactor to be >0, the annual sustainable quantity of harvestable stover dropped to148 million Mg. Examining removal rates by state and soil resource showed that soil capability class and slope generally determined the effectiveness of the three conservation practices and the resulting sustainable harvest rate. This emphasizes that sustainable biomass harvest must be based on subfield management decisions to ensure soil resources are conserved or enhanced, while providing sufficient biomass feedstock to support the economic growth of bioenergy enterprises.

show abstract

Section: Determining Sustainable Removal Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeled Impacts of Cover Crops and Vegetative Barriers on Corn Stover Availability and Soil Quality

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas a lot of research has been conducted on tolerable soil loss rates (e.g. Montgommery 2007;Verheijen et al 2009), generally less attention has been given to target and tolerance levels of catchment SY (Owens et al 2005). This partly illustrates the fact that the off site consequences of soil erosion have received relatively limited attention and are often underestimated (e.g.…”

Section: Cost Effectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment yield as a desertification risk indicator

Vanmaercke

Poesen

Maetens

et al. 2011

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil erosion is often regarded as one of the main processes of desertification. This has lead to the use of various desertification indicators that are related to soil erosion. Most of these indicators focus, however, on small spatial units, while little attention has been given to the amount of sediment exported at the catchment scale. Such a small spatial unit approach neglects the transfer of sediment through catchments as well as the scale-dependency of erosion processes. Furthermore, this approach does not consider important off-site impacts of soil erosion, such as sediment deposition in reservoirs, flooding as well as ecological impacts.This study aims to illustrate the importance of also considering catchment sediment yield (SY, t km -2 y -1 ) in desertification assessment studies. Based on recently established databases of SY and soil loss rates in Europe and examples from previous studies, we illustrate that soil erosion rates at the plot scale are not representative for catchment SY, as they are often several orders of magnitude smaller. Also, the erosion response of catchments to changes in land use or climate often differs strongly from responses to those changes at the plot scale.We further discuss several of the impacts of SY and their link with desertification: i.e. the sedimentation of reservoirs, problems related to flooding, catchment hydrology, export of nutrients and ecological implications.Using earlier established criteria we evaluate the potential for using catchment SY as a desertification indicator and conclude that this could give an important added value to desertification studies. SY, used in combination with other indicators, allows the identification of other sediment sources than those considered at the plot scale and can reflect the results of desertification processes over longer time periods than periods over which assessments at the plot scale have been made. We argue therefore, that SY is a strong complementary indicator of desertification providing valuable information on the catchment response to changes in drivers of desertification.

show abstract

“…Such rates exceed typical soil formation rates of 0.1 t ha ‐1 yr ‐1 under intensive land use (Verheijen et al ., 2009), which constitutes a net soil loss (Montgomery, 2007). In 2009, the cost of soil erosion in the UK was estimated at £45 million per annum, much of which was due to the off‐site impacts associated with sediment and nutrient pollution (DEFRA, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment and nutrient storage in a beaver engineered wetland

Puttock

Graham

Carless

et al. 2018

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beavers, primarily through the building of dams, can deliver significant geomorphic modifications and result in changes to nutrient and sediment fluxes. Research is required to understand the implications and possible benefits of widespread beaver reintroduction across Europe. This study surveyed sediment depth, extent and carbon/nitrogen content in a sequence of beaver pond and dam structures in South West England, where a pair of Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) were introduced to a controlled 1.8 ha site in 2011. Results showed that the 13 beaver ponds subsequently created hold a total of 101.53 ± 16.24 t of sediment, equating to a normalised average of 71.40 ± 39.65 kg m2. The ponds also hold 15.90 ± 2.50 t of carbon and 0.91 ± 0.15 t of nitrogen within the accumulated pond sediment.The size of beaver pond appeared to be the main control over sediment storage, with larger ponds holding a greater mass of sediment per unit area. Furthermore, position within the site appeared to play a role with the upper‐middle ponds, nearest to the intensively‐farmed headwaters of the catchment, holding a greater amount of sediment. Carbon and nitrogen concentrations in ponds showed no clear trends, but were significantly higher than in stream bed sediment upstream of the site.We estimate that >70% of sediment in the ponds is sourced from the intensively managed grassland catchment upstream, with the remainder from in situ redistribution by beaver activity. While further research is required into the long‐term storage and nutrient cycling within beaver ponds, results indicate that beaver ponds may help to mitigate the negative off‐site impacts of accelerated soil erosion and diffuse pollution from agriculturally dominated landscapes such as the intensively managed grassland in this study. © 2018 The Authors. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability

Cited by 1,591 publications

References 39 publications

Modeled Impacts of Cover Crops and Vegetative Barriers on Corn Stover Availability and Soil Quality

Modeled Impacts of Cover Crops and Vegetative Barriers on Corn Stover Availability and Soil Quality

Sediment yield as a desertification risk indicator

Sediment and nutrient storage in a beaver engineered wetland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About