The effects of conservation The effects of conservation agriculture on crop performance, agriculture on crop performance, soil quality and potential c soil quality and potential c emission reduction and c emission reduction and c sequestration in contrasting sequestration in contrasting environments in Mexico environments in Mexico Bram Govaerts, Ken Sayre, Nele Verhulst, Luc Dendooven Agustin Limon-Ortega Leonardo Patiño-Zúñiga
The effects of conservation agriculture on crop performance, soil quality and potential c emission reduction and c sequestration in contrasting environments in Mexico. Bram Govaerts, Ken Sayre, Nele Verhulst, Luc Dendooven Agustin Limon-Ortega Leonardo Patiño-Zúñiga. Conservation Agriculture. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The effects of conservation agriculture on crop The effects of conservation agriculture on crop performance, soil quality and potential c emission performance, soil quality and potential c emission
reduction and c sequestration in contrasting reduction and c sequestration in contrasting environments in Mexicoenvironments in Mexico
Bram Govaerts, Ken Sayre, Nele Verhulst, Luc Dendooven
Agustin Limon-Ortega Leonardo Patiño-Zúñiga
Conservation Agriculture
Comprises three basic components Surface crop residue retention Minimal soil movement Crop rotation
Intensity of soil disturbance
Crop rotation C
onve
ntio
nal a
gric
ultu
re
Con
serv
atio
n ag
ricul
ture
Conventional MinimumTillage
Direct seeding
Sustainable agriculture
Adapted from Pereira
Surface crop retention
Conservation Agriculture is a complex technology: it involves a
complete change in the agricultural system.
Cd. Obregón39 m
Agua Fría60 m
Tlaltizapán940 m
MexicoCity
El Batán*2249 m
Toluca2640 m
Mexicali22 m
CIMMYT in Mexico
Cd. Obregón39 m
Agua Fría60 m
Tlaltizapán940 m
MexicoCity
El Batán*2249 m
Toluca2640 m
Mexicali22 m
CIMMYT in Mexico
Climate
0
50
100
150
200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Month
Prec
ipita
tion
and
pET
(mm
)
Precipitation (mm) pET (mm) pET/2 (mm)
LGP
Soil ClassificationRastra
Arado
Ap
Ap0’
A
2Bw
2C
Cumulic Phaeozem
Fine, mixed, thermic Cumulic Haplustoll
Characteristics Non-equatorial semi-arid
subtropical highlands (2240 masl)
Periodical drought
Periodical water excess
Wind and water erosion
Rain fed agriculture
Grain yield < 3 ton ha-1
DROUGHT
EROSION
Experimental Fields
Treatments
K = Keep residue on the field; R = Remove the residue ; P = Partial residue retention
W = Wheat; M = Maize; B= Beans
ZT CT PBK R P K R K P
MM MM MM MMMW MW MW MW MW MW MWWM WM WM WM WM WM WMWW WW WW WW
Cd. Obregón39 m
Agua Fría60 m
Tlaltizapán940 m
MexicoCity
El Batán*2249 m
Toluca2640 m
Mexicali22 m
CIMMYT in Mexico
27.33oN; 109.09oW 38 m asl T(max) 26.7oC; T(min) 8.7oC Wheat growing season: November-May Maize – Sorghum: June - October
Govaerts et al., 2005ZT = zero tillage, CT = conventional tillage
K = keep residue; R = remove residue
W = wheat; M = maize
Cd. Obregón39 m
Agua Fría60 m
Tlaltizapán940 m
MexicoCity
El Batán*2249 m
Toluca2640 m
Mexicali22 m
CIMMYT in Mexico
Sayre et al., 2006
6,2256,356
3,978
7,190
4,985
6,950
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
Rendimiento de grano(kg/ha)
Costos de producción(MXN)
Ingresos (despues costos)(MXN/ha)
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000M
exican pesosLSD for Rendimiento (0.05) = 563 kg/ha
Camas convencionales
Camas permanentes
Ren
dim
ient
ode
gra
no(k
g/ha
at 1
2% H
2O)
6,2256,356
3,978
7,190
4,985
6,950
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
Rendimiento de grano(kg/ha)
Costos de producción(MXN)
Ingresos (despues costos)(MXN/ha)
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000M
exican pesosLSD for Rendimiento (0.05) = 563 kg/ha
Camas convencionales
Camas permanentes
Ren
dim
ient
ode
gra
no(k
g/ha
at 1
2% H
2O)
Soil quality, not just a word but a conceptual framework
Soil quality Variety of definitions
Doran and Parkin (1994)“it is the capacity of a soil to be functional, within the limits imposed by the ecosystem and land use, to preserve the biological productivity and environmental quality, and promote plant, animal and human health”
Larson and Pierce (1994) “fitness for use”
Selection Soil Parameters Limiting factor set: comparison of optimal
conditions for land use and field conditionsIdeal conditions for land use versus real conditions
Measuring possible critical indicators linked with the limiting factors
Multivariate analysis => most explicative indicators = minimum dataset
(M)ANOVA
Chemical parameters 0-5 % C Physical parameters Time-to-pond without plants % N Time-to-pond with plantsK % Macro aggregatesMn Permanent Wilting Point Zn Cone Penetration
Chemical parameters 5-20 % C Mean Weight Diameter Na Probe DepthMn
Indicators influenced by• Residue• Tillage
Biological parameters are weak!
Selected ParametersGroup Chemical 0-5 Chemical 5-20 Physical Biological
Indicator CEC CEC Small Ring Infiltration BTWC MBB C% C % C Small Ring Infiltration IC MBB N% N % N Time-to-pond without plantspH pH Time-to-pond with plantsP P % Macro aggregatesCa Ca % Meso aggregatesMg Mg % Micro aggregatesK K Field capacity (0-5)Na Na Field capacity (5-20)Fe Fe Permanent Wilting Point (0-5)Mn Mn Permanent Wilting Point (5-20)Zn Zn Bulk densityCu Cu Mean weight diameterEc Ec Cone penetrationNH4+ NH4+ Probe depthNO3- NO3- PEN-7
PB K 18.56 A 1.97 A 19.35 A 2.10 A 13.82 A 1.70 ACB I 8.56 B 1.05 B 15.25 B 1.75 B 11.87 A 1.49 AResidue management c
PB K 18.56 A 1.87 A 19.35 A 2.09 A 13.82 A 1.70 APB P 9.83 B 1.20 B 17.11 A 1.91 A 14.29 A 1.66 APB R 8.61 B 1.29 B 16.05 A 1.86 A 14.19 A 1.72 A—————————————————————————————————————————