STEEP: Impact of long-term conservation farming research and education in Pacific Northwest wheatlands

Kok, Hans; Papendick, R. I.; Saxton, K. E.

doi:10.2489/jswc.64.4.253

Cited by 43 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, farmers will continue to rely on tillage which contributes to problems such as soil erosion, degradation of soil quality, high carbon footprint and yield reduction in the long run [48][49][50][51][52].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers

Sims¹,

Corsi²,

Gbèhounou³

et al. 2018

Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land degradation and soil fertility deterioration are two of the main causes of agricultural production stagnation and decline in many parts of the world. The model of crop production based on mechanical soil tillage and exposed soils is typically accompanied by negative effects on the natural resource base of the farming environment, which can be so serious that they jeopardize agricultural productive potential in the future. This form of agriculture is destructive to soil health and accelerates the loss of soil by increasing its mineralization and erosion rates. Conservation agriculture, a system avoiding or minimizing soil mechanical disturbance (no-tillage) combined with soil cover and crop diversification, is considered a sustainable agro-ecological approach to resource-conserving agricultural production. A major objective of tillage is supposed to be weed control, and it does not require very specific knowledge because soil inversion controls (at least temporarily) most weeds mechanically (i.e., by way of burying them). However, repeated ploughing only changes the weed population, but does not control weeds in the long term. The same applies to the mechanical uprooting of weeds. While in the short term some tillage operations can control weeds on farms, tillage systems can increase and propagate weeds off-farm. The absence of tillage, under conservation agriculture, requires other measures of weed control. One of the ways in which this is realized is through herbicide application. However, environmental concerns, herbicide resistance and access to appropriate agro-chemicals on the part of resource-poor farmers, highlight the need for alternative weed control strategies that are effective and accessible for smallholders adopting conservation agriculture. Farmers in semi-arid regions contend with the additional challenge of low biomass production and, often, competition with livestock enterprises, which limit the potential weed-suppressing benefits of mulch and living cover crops. This paper reviews the applicability and efficacy of various mechanical, biological and integrated weed management strategies for the effective and sustainable management of weeds in smallholder conservation agriculture systems, including the role of appropriate equipment and prerequisites for smallholders within a sustainable intensification scenario.Keywords: smallholder farming; conservation agriculture; sustainable and ecological weed management; preventive; cultural and direct control methods of weed management

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers

Sims¹,

Corsi²,

Gbèhounou³

et al. 2018

Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These data on soil water use by WP agree closely with those reported by Miller and Holmes (2012) in Montana and Merrill et al (2004) in North Dakota. However, by late March, WP plots had only 13 mm more soil water than WW plots (Table 2) because: (i) the greater the surface residue cover, the more water will be stored in the soil (e.g., WP produces little residue compared to WW); and (ii) the drier the soil, the more overwinter precipitation will be stored in the soil (Kok et al, 2009). …”

Section: Soil Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Winter Pea: Promising New Crop for Washington's Dryland Wheat-Fallow Region

Schillinger

2017

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2-year tillage-based winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-summer fallow (WW-SF) rotation has been practiced by the vast majority of farmers in the low-precipitation (<300 mm annual) rainfed cropping region of east-central Washington and north-central Oregon for 140 years. Until recently, alternative crops (i.e., those other than WW) so far tested have not been as economically viable or stable as WW-SF. A 6-year field study was conducted near Ritzville, WA (292 mm avg. annual precipitation) to determine the yield and rotation benefits of winter pea (Pisum sativum L.) (WP). Two 3-year rotations were evaluated: WP-spring wheat (SW)-SF vs. WW-SW-SF. Winter pea yields averaged 2,443 vs. 4,878 kg/ha for WW. No fertilizer was applied to WP whereas 56 kg N and 11 kg S/ha were applied to WW. Winter pea used significantly less soil water than WW. Over the winter months, a lesser percentage of precipitation was stored in the soil following WP compared to WW because: (i) very little WP residue remained on the soil surface after harvest compared to WW, and (ii) the drier the soil, the more precipitation is stored in the soil over winter. However, soil water content in the spring was still greater following WP vs. WW. Soil residual N in the spring (7 months after the harvest of WP and WW) was greater in WP plots despite not applying fertilizer to produce WP. Spring wheat grown after both WP and WW received the identical quantity of N, P, and S fertilizer each year. Average yield of SW was 2,298 and 2,011 kg/ha following WP and WW, respectively (P < 0.01). Adjusted gross economic returns for these two rotation systems were similar. Based partially on the results of this study, numerous farmers in the dry WW-SF region have shown keen interest in WP and acreage planted WP in east-central Washington has grown exponentially since 2013. This paper provides the first report of the potential for WP in the typical WW-SF region of the inland Pacific Northwest (PNW).

show abstract

“…The projects fostered collaborations among researchers, farmers, crop advisors and agribusinesses. Significant gains in conservation farming were documented, but adoption was not universal (Kok et al, 2009). …”

Section: Datementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the iPNW, conservation tillage has reduced soil erosion and sediment loads (Kok et al, 2009;Brooks et al, 2010;Williams et al, 2014). Brown and Huggins (2012) reviewed 131 data sets from the iPNW and found that 75% of native ecosystems converted to agriculture lost at least 0.14-0.70 Mg C ha-1 year −1 and that the conversion from conventional tillage to no-till practices was predicted to increase SOC from 0.12 to 0.21 Mg C ha −1 year −1 for 75% of situations.…”

Section: Reduced Tillage and Crop Residue Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar results obtained in drier traditional iPNW wheat-fallow systems led Janosky et al (2002) to conclude that since no "short-or long-term economic sacrifice" was required to shift to a minimum tillage system when using existing onfarm equipment, a neutral-win solution to soil erosion could be achieved when reduced-till and conventional-till wheat yields were comparable. Yet, strict no-till systems required fixed-cost investments in expensive, specialized direct seeding equipment, so these systems had only been moderately adopted (Kok et al, 2009). While projects like the USDA IPM project, described above, developed integrated strategies identified as essential for protecting soil and water quality by the USDA (Batie et al, 1993) and encouraged early adopting farmers to try direct seeding, they fell short in economically motivating farmers into universal adoption of these no-till systems that required new equipment.…”

Section: The Need For Integrated Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating Historic Agronomic and Policy Lessons with New Technologies to Drive Farmer Decisions for Farm and Climate: The Case of Inland Pacific Northwestern U.S.

Pan

Schillinger

Young

et al. 2017

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate-friendly best management practices for mitigating and adapting to climate change (cfBMPs) include changes in crop rotation, soil management and resource use. Determined largely by precipitation gradients, specific agroecological systems in the inland Pacific Northwestern U.S. (iPNW) feature different practices across the region. Historically, these farming systems have been economically productive, but at the cost of high soil erosion rates and organic matter depletion, making them win-lose situations. Agronomic, sociological, political and economic drivers all influence cropping system innovations. Integrated, holistic conservation systems also need to be identified to address climate change by integrating cfBMPs that provide win-win benefits for farmer and environment. We conclude that systems featuring short-term improvements in farm economics, market diversification, resource efficiency and soil health will be most readily adopted by farmers, thereby simultaneously addressing longer term challenges including climate change. Specific "win-win scenarios" are designed for different iPNW production zones delineated by water availability. The cfBMPs include reduced tillage and residue management, organic carbon (C) recycling, precision nitrogen (N) management and crop rotation diversification and intensification. Current plant breeding technologies have provided new cultivars of canola and pea that can diversify system agronomics Pan et al.Win-Win Scenarios for Farm and Climate and markets. These agronomic improvements require associated shifts in prescriptive, precision N and weed management. The integrated cfBMP systems we describe have the potential for reducing system-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by increasing soil C storage, N use efficiency (NUE) and by production of biofuels. Novel systems, even if they are economically competitive, can come with increased financial risk to producers, necessitating government support (e.g., subsidized crop insurance) to promote adoption. Other conservation-and climate change-targeted farm policies can also improve adoption. Ultimately, farmers must meet their economic and legacy goals to assure longer-term adoption of mature cfBMP for iPNW production systems.

show abstract

STEEP: Impact of long-term conservation farming research and education in Pacific Northwest wheatlands

Cited by 43 publications

References 24 publications

Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers

Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers

Winter Pea: Promising New Crop for Washington's Dryland Wheat-Fallow Region

Integrating Historic Agronomic and Policy Lessons with New Technologies to Drive Farmer Decisions for Farm and Climate: The Case of Inland Pacific Northwestern U.S.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About