Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-97xxw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-29T03:11:08.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between soil quality and crop productivity across three tillage systems in south central Honduras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Melissa A. Stine  and
Ray R. Weil
Melissa A. Stine
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, 1103 H.J. Patterson Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742–5821.
Ray R. Weil*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, 1103 H.J. Patterson Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742–5821.
*
R.R. Weil (rw17@umail.umd.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Agricultural soil quality (SQ) research has focused on the influence of individual soil properties, particularly those related to soil organic matter (SOM), on soil processes such as water movement and retention, and nutrient cycling. However, few studies have assessed the influence of these SOM-related properties on crop productivity, particularly under different management systems. Furthermore, agricultural SQ research in tropical regions is limited. The objectives of this study were, for a tropical site, to determine (1) the relationship between selected soil characteristics and resulting soil functional properties such as aggregate stability and porosity, and (2) the relationship between SQ indicators and productivity of corn under three different tillage systems. Twelve plots were randomly demarcated in three adjacent fields under different tillage systems. Profiles were described by augering and the surface soil (0–7.5 cm) was sampled just prior to crop harvest and analyzed for texture, standard soil tests (pH, available P, K, Mg and Ca) and SQ parameters including total N, total and active fraction C, porosity and aggregate stability. Corn dry grain m−2, above-ground crop dry matter m−2, and dry grain per plant was measured in each plot. Soil C parameters were highly predictive of macroaggregate stability and soil porosity across different tillage systems. Macroaggregate stability and soil C (particularly active C oxidizable by 0.025m KMnO4) were highly correlated with crop productivity across tillage systems. These findings suggest that soil C in the surface layer, especially the active C fraction, markedly affected the productivity of this tropical soil through its influence on soil structure.

Keywords

active soil carbonminimum tillageno-tillpermanganate-oxidizable carbonsoil aggregate stabilitysoil organic mattersoil porositysoil quality indicatorstropical agriculture

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 2 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Arshad, M.A., and Coen, G.M.. 1992. Characterization of soil quality: Physical and chemical criteria. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Blair, G.J., Lefroy, R.D.B., and Lisle, L.. 1995. Soil carbon fractions based on their degree of oxidation, and the development of a carbon management index for agricultural systems. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 46:1459–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Brink, R.H. Jr, Dubach, P., and Lynch, D.L.. 1960. Measurement of carbohydrates in soil hydrolyzates with anthrone. Soil Sci. 89:157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cambardella, C.A., and Elliott, E.T.. 1992. Particulate soil organic matter across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 56:777–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Coale, F.J. 1996. Descriptions of the soil test interpretive categories used by the University of Maryland Soil Testing Laboratory. SFM- 3. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
6.Erickscn, P.J., and McSweeney, K.. 2000. Fine-scale analysis of soil quality for various land uses and landforms in central Honduras. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 14:146–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Greenland, D.J., and Szabolcs, I. (eds). 1994. Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gunapala, N., and Scow, K.M.. 1998. Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and activity in conventional and organic farming systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54:187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. IGN. 1996. Mapa Geológico de Honduras. Secretária de Comunicaciónes, Obras Públicas y Transporte. Institute Geográfico Nacional. Yuscarán, Honduras.Google Scholar
11.Islam, K.R., and Weil, R.R.. 1998. A rapid microwave digestion method for colorimetric measurement of soil organic carbon. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 29:2269–2284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Islam, K.R., and Weil, R.R.. 1999. Permanganate reactive C field test for soil quality. Agron. Abstr. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI. p. 236.Google Scholar
13.Islam, K.R., and Weil, R.R.. 2000. Soil quality indicator properties in mid-Atlantic soils as influenced by conservation management. J. Soil Water Conserv. 55:69–78.Google Scholar
14.Jirón Estrada, J.R. 1997. Evaluación técnica y económica de cultivos de coberatura y barreras vivas para pequeños agricultores de laderas. Ingeniero Agrónomo Program (August). La Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, (El Zamorano) Zamorano, Honduras.Google Scholar
15.Karlen, D.L., Eash, N.S., and Unger, P.W.. 1992. Soil and crop management effects on soil quality indicators. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Kemper, W.D., and Rosenau, R.C.. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In Methods of Soil Analysis. 2nd ed. Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agron. Monogr. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 425–442.Google Scholar
17.Kennedy, A.C., and Papendick, R.I.. 1995. Microbial characteristics of soil quality. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50:243–248.Google Scholar
18.Larson, W.E., and Pierce, F.J.. 1994. The dynamics of soil quality as a measure of sustainable management. In Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., and Stewart, B.A. (eds.). Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Spec. Pub. 35. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 37–51.Google Scholar
19.Lewandowski, A., Zumwinkle, M., and Fish, A.. 1999. Assessing the Soil System: A Review of Soil Quality Literature. Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture, Energy and Sustainable Agriculture Program, St. Paul.Google Scholar
20.Lucas, R.E., Holtman, J.B., and Connor, L.J.. 1977. Soil carbon dynamics and cropping practices. In Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Agriculture and Energy. Academic Press, New York. p. 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Mielke, L.N., Doran, J.W., and Richards, K.A.. 1986. Physical environment near the surface of plowed and no-tilled soils. Soil Tillage Res. 7:355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Palm, C.A., Swift, M.J., and Woomer, P.L.. 1996. Soil biological dynamics in slash-and-burn agriculture. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 58:61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Seybold, C.A., Mausbach, M.J., Karlen, D.L., and Rogers, H.H.. 1996. Quantification of soil quality. In Soil Quality Institute (ed.). The Soil Quality Concept. US Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. p. 53–68.Google Scholar
24. SPCP. 1989. Estudio de Suelos a Semidetalle del Valle El Zamorano. Direction Ejecutíva del Catastro. Secretaria de Planificación, Coordinatión y Presupuesto, Tegucigalpa. Honduras.Google Scholar
25. SPSS. 1997. SYSTAT for Windows. Release 7.0.1, Std. Vers. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Strickling, E. 1975. Crop sequences and tillage in efficient crop production. Agron. Abstr. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 20–29.Google Scholar
27.Tisdall, J.M., and Oades, J.M.. 1982. Organic matter and waterstable aggregates in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 33:141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Vilela, L., and Ritchey, R.D.. 1985. Potassium in intensive cropping systems on highly weathered soils. In Munson, R.D. (ed.). Potassium in Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 1155–1175.Google Scholar
29.Wander, M.M., and Bollero, G.A.. 1999. Soil quality assessment of tillage impacts in Illinois. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 63:961–971.Google Scholar
30.Weil, R.R. 1992. Inside the heart of sustainable farming: An intimate look at soil life and how to keep it thriving. The New Farm 14(1):43, 45, 48. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA.Google Scholar
31.Woomer, P.L., and Swift, M.J. (eds.). 1994. The Biological Management of Tropical Soil Fertility. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
32.Woomer, P.L., Karanja, N.K., and Murage, E.W.. 2001. Estimating total system carbon in smallholder farming systems of the East African highlands. In Lal, R., Kimbie, J.M., Follett, R.F., and Stewart, B.A. (eds.). Assessment Methods for Soil Carbon. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. p 147–166.Google Scholar
33.Yates, F. 1939. The comparative advantages of systematic and randomized arrangements in the design of agricultural and biological experiments. Biometrika 30:440–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar