Soil Physical Properties and Tomato Yield and Quality in Alternative Cropping Systems

Abstract

The Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS) Project has studied the transition to low‐input and organic alternatives in California's Sacramento Valley. This project compares a 4‐yr rotation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.), corn (Zea mays L.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) followed by double‐cropped bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the conventional system and oat (Avena sativa L.)–purple vetch (Vicia benghalensis L.) in the low‐input and organic systems. A conventional 2‐yr rotation (tomato–wheat) is also studied. In 1997 and 1998, we evaluated the transition to alternative systems on soil bulk density, water holding capacity, infiltration and storage, water use efficiency, and ‘Brigade’ tomato yield and quality. No differences in laboratory determinations of soil bulk density and water holding capacity were found; however, in situ water holding capacity was highest in the organic system, lowest in the conventional 4‐yr rotation and intermediate in the low‐input and conventional 2‐yr rotations. In 1998, infiltration during 3‐h irrigations was 0.028 m3 m−1 for the conventional, and 0.062 m3 m−1 and 0.065 m3 m−1 for the low‐input and organic systems, respectively. Similar results were observed in 1997. The alternative systems required more water per irrigation for uniform application, resulting in higher soil water content in the organic systems throughout 1998. Evapotranspiration was higher in the conventional systems in both years relative to other systems. Tomato yields did not differ among systems in either year. Fruit quality was highest in the conventional 4‐yr system.

Winter wheat straw management on subsequent processing tomato yield, quality, economics and nitrogen dynamics

“…Similarly, cereal straw management the year prior to potatoes (Zebarth et al 2009) or sugarbeet (Allison et al 1992) did not impact specific gravity or sugar content, respectively. Based on our research and other studies (Seliga and Shattuck 1995;Colla et al 2000;Warner et al 2004;Garcia and Barrett 2006;Barrett et al 2007;Mitchell et al 2008), cultivar and environment (i.e., temperature, moisture, and soil physicochemical characteristics) appear to have more of an impact on tomato quality than straw management/production practices or N fertility.…”

“…However, increasing N rates on a loam soil in Ontario had an adverse effect on tomato color (Seliga and Shattuck 1995). Colla et al (2000) attributed differences in tomato quality between production systems largely to differences in soil water content. In contrast, Mitchell et al (2008) observed no consistent trend with rotations and tomato soluble solids or pH.…”

“…Likewise, in the United States in 2008, the processing tomato gross farm value was US$982 million on 120 000 ha (United States Department of Agriculture 2010). There have been numerous studies demonstrating the benefits of crop rotation (Seliga and Shattuck 1995;Mitchell et al 2008), production systems (Colla et al 2000;Barrett et al 2007) and N fertilization (Warner et al 2004) on processing tomato yield and quality. Although processing tomato growers realize the importance of crop rotation for productivity, financial and land constraints encourage growers to shorten rotations.…”

Residual effects of fallows on selected soil hydraulic properties in a kaolinitic soil subjected to conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage (NT)

“…Soil organic matter affects infiltration rates (Young 1997), soil water-holding capacity (Colla et al 2000), as well as reduce evaporation from the soil. However conventional tillage practices were reported to result in reduction in infiltration rates (Ankeny, et al 1990;Stonehouse 1991).…”

Water sensors with cellular system eliminate tail water drainage in alfalfa irrigation

“…While the values of σ 0 range from 0.77 to 0.80 for surface irrigation hydraulics, a value of 0.80 is commonly used for level surfaces (Guardo 1988). In surface irrigation, particularly of Yolo silt loam or clayey soils, infiltration is often characterized using the Kostiakov equation, which does not include the steady state infiltration term i f (Colla et al 2000;Holzapfel et al 2004). Therefore, in the present study, if we neglect i f (i.e., c is negligible), the velocity (v) becomes constant and can be shown to be (Saha 2010):…”