Progress 10/01/09 to 09/30/14
Outputs
Target Audience: 1. Land managers & farmers 2. Policy makers 3. Biofuel industry 4. Carbon trading market 5. Natural resource conservation service of USDA Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The program created opportunities for training in the following categories: a) Graduate Students: Chris Eidson, OSU Josh Beniston, OSU b) Postdoctoral Researchers Vincent Obade, OSU Toru Nakajima, OSU c) Visiting Scholars Clever Briedis,Brazil Antonio Pereira Filho,Brazil A. Velmuaugan,India H. Biswas,India Surender Yadav Arun Joyti Nath,India R. Kaushal,India T. Ning,China M.L. Zhang,China How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? 1. Conference presentations 2. Journal publications 3. Weekly seminars at the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center 4. Formal field days organized by farm manager of experimental site What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Crop residues have numerous competing uses. Retained on-site, crop residues strongly impact soil structure and tilth, conserve water in the root zone by reducing losses through runoff and evaporation, moderate soil temperature, recycle plant nutrients, and buffer crop growth against variable and uncertain climate. Grain and biomass yields, however, depend on weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, frost-free period) during the growing season. Experiments initiated at 3 locations(Coshocton, South Charleston, Hoytville)in Ohio were continued through 2014. The data from Coshocton showed that the highest grain yield of 12.2 ton/ha was obtained for the 100% residue retention treatment. In comparison with the grain yield for the 100% residue retention, the grain yield declined by 11%, 10%, 13%, 21% and 13% for retention rates of 0%, 25%, 75% and 200%.The low grain yield for residue retention rate of 200%was due to poor germination and low crop stand. High amount of wet residue blocks the seed drill and causes poor crop stand. Soils at the Coshocton site, on sloping terrain and highly prone to water runoff and erosion, respond positively to residue mulch. In contrast to the well-drained soils at Coshocton, those at the Hoytville site are on a flat terrain, heavy-textured and poorly drained. These soils, formed on the lake-bed sediments, have slow internal drainage .Thus, retention of crop residue mulch lowers soil temperature during the spring, creates anaerobic conditions, retards rate of seedling growth, and can decrease grain yield. At Hoytville ,the highest grain yield of 9.6 ton/ha was obtained for 25% residue retention treatment. Reduction in grain yield, in comparison with 25% retention treatment, was 5%, 7%, 9%, 12% and 12% for 0%, 50%, 75%, 100% and 200% retention rate, respectively. Soils at South Charleston, similar to those of Coshocton, are also well -drained. These soils are prone to surface crusting and drought stress. Thus, these soils also respond positively to residue retention and mulching. At South Charleston, the highest grain yield of 12.1 ton/ha was obtained for 200% residue retention treatment. In comparison, reduction in grain yield for other treatments was 20%, 7%, 9%, 11% and 13% for 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% residue retention treatment, respectively. The data presented from 3 sites in Ohio indicate that the recommended rates of residue removal for biofuel feedstock differ among soil type and site-specific conditions. For well-drained soils of Coshocton and South Charleston, residue removal of 25% to 30% is feasible. For poorly -drained soils of Hoytville, residue removal of up to 50% is possible. However, a higher rate of residue removal implies long-term adverse impacts on soil carbon pool and nutrient reserves. While loss of nutrients can be compensated by additional application of chemical fertilizers, it is difficult to compensate the loss of biomass-carbon. Incorporation of a cover crop in the rotation cycle, rye or vetch, may ne a good strategy to increase input of biomass-C and maintain soil organic carbon pool. In the context of long-term sustainability, it s important to develop a soil guide for establishing safe rates of crop residue removal for competing uses.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Bonin, C. and Lal, R. 2014. Aboveground productivity and soil carbon storage of biofuel crops in Ohio. GCB Bioenergy. 6, 67-75. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12041.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Bordonal, R.O., Aguiar, D.A., De Figueiredo, E.B., Perillo, L.I., Admani, M., Lal, R., Rudorff, B.F.T., Scala, N. 2014. Greenhouse gas assessment of sugarcane-based Ethanol considering direct landuse change and its cultivation in Brazil. 2014 Annual Meeting. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Long Beach, California. 2-6 November 2014.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Guzman, J.G., Lal, R., Ussiri, D.A. 2014. Greenhouse gas emissions from Bioenergy Crop Production in Minesoil. 2014 Annual Meeting. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Long Beach, California. 2-6 November 2014.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Beniston, J.W., Shipitalo, M.J., Lal, R., Dayton, E.A., Hopkins, D.W., Jones, F., Joynes, A., Dungait, A.J. 2014. Carbon and macronutrient losses during accelerated erosion under different tillage and residue management. European Journal of Soil Science, DOI: 10.1111/ejss.12205
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Bonin, C.L., R. Lal, T.F. Benjamin. 2014. Evaluation of perennial warm-season grass mixtures managed for grazing or biomass production. Crop Science, 54:2373-2385.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Das, Anup, R. Lal, D. P. Patel, R.G. Idapuguganti, J Layek, S.V. Ngachan, P. K. Ghosh, J. Bordoloi and M. Kumar. 2014. Effects of tillage and biomass on soil quality and productivity in lowland rice cultivation by small scale farmers in North Eastern India. Soil and Tillage Research. 143: 50-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2014.05.012
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
de Paul Obade, Vincent, and Rattan Lal. 2014. Soil quality evaluation under different land management practices. Environ Earth Sci?DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3353-z.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Guzman, J.G., and R. Lal. 2014. Miscanthus and switchgrass feedstock potential for bioenergy and carbon sequestration on minesoils. Biofuels 5(3): 313-329.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Lal, R. 2014. Biofuels and carbon offsets. Biofuels. 5(1), 21-27.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Lal, R. 2014. Societal value of soil carbon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69: 186A-192A.
|
Progress 01/01/13 to 09/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Land managers & farmers Policy makers Biofuel industry Carbon trading market Natural resource conservation service of USDA USGS & other organizations interested in water resources and non-point source pollution and anoxia of coastal ecosystems Changes/Problems: Intensification of agroecosystems and soil carbon dynamics, with specific focus on: (i) evaluate impacts of cover crops and perennials on soil C dynamics and agronomic productivity, and (ii) assess impacts of residue removal and tillage on emission of greenhouse gases. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The program created opportunities for training in the following categories: a) Graduate Students: Josh Beniston, OSU Chris Eidson, OSU b) Postdoctoral Researchers: Vincent Obade, OSU c) Visiting Scholars Getulio de Freitas Seben, Jr., Brazil João Carlos de Moraes Sá, Brazil Asma Hassan, Pakistan Anup Das, India Sudhir Verma, India Hailin Zhang, China How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Lal, R. 2013. “Towards Sustaining Agriculture.” Institut de l’Agriculture Durable. Paris, France. 22-26 January 2013. Lal, R. 2013. “Soil Carbon Sequestration”. Soil Carbon Sequestration, for climate, food security and ecosystem services, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25-30 May 2013. Lal, R. 2013. “Soil Carbon Management for Climate Change”. IUSS GlobalSoil Carbon Conference, International Union of Soil Sciences. 2-5 June 2013. Lal, R. “Mitigating Climate Change and Achieving Food Security by Managing Soil”. Agricultural Media Summit, Buffalo New York. 5 August 2013. Lal, R. 2013. “Food Security and Climate Change”. Rothamsted, U.K. 7 October 2013. Lal, R. 2013. “Beyond Sustainable Intensification” SSSA Conference, Tampa, FL 3-6 November 2013. POSTERS Mukherjee, A., and Lal, R. 2013. Tillage-Effects on Quality of Two Contrasting Soils in Ohio. ASA, CSSA and SSSA Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida, 2-7 November 2013. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Training at in all three categories (Graduate students, Ph.D researchers, Visiting scholars) Conference presentations Journal publications New research through project modifications
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
REEport 2013, Progress Report: Corn Response to Residue Removal The necessity of developing climate-resilient agriculture is widely recognized. Thus, there is a strong emphasis on sustainable intensification. The latter implies producing more from less while restoring degraded soils and improving the environment. Among principal goals of sustainable intensification is using soil/terrestrial C sink capacity to off-set anthropogenic emissions for adaptation to and mitigation of the abrupt climate change, improve soil quality, increase use efficiency of inputs, and enhance productivity. Therefore, recycling of crop residues as mulch is a crucial component of the best management practices (BMPs). These goals have been assessed through long-term crop residue management experiment conducted in three contrasting soils and agroecological environments: Coschocton, South Charleston and Hoytville. The residue retention treatments involve 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 and 200% of the residues produced. In addition to yields of grains and stover at harvest, soil temperature (1cm at 2pm), cone index (0-2cm) and soil moisture contents were also measured at the tasseling stage. Soil temperature measured at 2pm decreased with increase in the rate of residue retention. Soil temperature, respectively for 0% and 200% retention, was 21.5 and 20.3°C for Coshocton, 25.0 vs. 23.4°C for South Charleston, and 11.6 vs. 10.1°C for Hoytville. The penetration resistance was also influenced by the residue retention treatment, and similar to temperature, it also decreased with increase in the rate of residue retention. The penetrometer resistance (MPa) at 0-2cm depth for Coshocton in experiments started in 2004 was 0.9 for 0%, 0.76 for 25%, 0.90 for 50%, 0.86 for 75%, 0.70 for 100%, and 0.62 for 200% residue retention. For new experiments started in 2011, the penetration resistance (MPa) for 0-2cm depth for 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% and 200% residue retention treatments was 0.80. 0.93, 0.68, 0.65, 0.70 and 0.54, respectively. Response of residue retention treatments to grain yields differed among sites. For the poorly drained and clayey soil at Hoytville (with wet spring and summer during 2013 compared with severe drought in 2012), grain and stover yields decreased with increase in the rate of residue retention. The yield (Mg/ha) at Hoytville for residue retention rate (%) of 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 and 200 was 9.0, 8.8, 8.6, 8.7, 8.6, and 7.8 for stover; and 11.1, 10.8, 10.8, 10.5, 9.6, and 9.2 for grains, respectively. The harvest index (%) (grain yield ÷ total biomass yield × 100) for residue retention rate (%) of 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 and 200 was 55.6, 55.5, 55.8, 55.0, 53.3, and 54.8, respectively. Grain and stover yields for Coshocton and South Charleston were the lowest for the 200% mulch rate because of the poor crop establishment and plugging of the seeder by wet stover. The ratio of the yield in 200% residue retention to that of the maximum yield was 0.82 for stover and 0.84 for grins at Coshocton for 2004 experiment compared with 0.67 for stover and 0.72 for grains for 2011 experiment. Similar response for the South Charleston site was 0.86 for stover and 0.70 for grains. Outcomes/Impacts The strategy of removal of crop residues for biofuel and other competing uses must be critically assessed in terms of the quality of soil and water and environmental issues. Over and above the effects of soil-specific factors (texture, drainage, organic matter and nutrient reserves), agronomic response to the rate of residue removal depends on the prevalent weather conditions during the critical stages of crop growth (e.g., seedling establishment, flowering and grain filling stage). Crop response at Hoytville in 2013 was contrasting to that at Coschocton in 2012 because of the differences in rainfall amount and distribution. Internal drainage, as affected by clay content and landscape position, and soil temperature regimes (especially during the spring when it can be sub-optimal) are strong determinants of crop response to residue removal. Thus, a “soil guide” must be established for developing policies towards removal of residues from cropland.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Beniston, J. et al., Carbon and macronutrient loss during accelerated erosion from different tillage and residue management systems. European J. Soil Science (In review)
This project is partly supported (logistics and training) by the NIFA-funded CS-CAP project.
|
Progress 01/01/12 to 12/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: CRIS Report 2012 Corn Yield Response to Residue Removal The trilemma of projected climate change entails: (i) procurement of crop residues as feedstock for biofuel, (ii) impact of residue removal on soil quality, and (iii) alterations in soil's resilience to extreme events (e.g., extended drought of 2012.) These scenarios are assessed through long-term experiments on residue removal rates established at 3 locations in Ohio since 2004: Hoytville, South Charleston and Coshocton. The residue retention treatments involve, 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 and 200% of the stover produced. To assess the effects of duration of residue treatments, the experiment and layout at Coshocton was duplicated in 2011. The drought of 2012 resulted in rainfall deficit during the growing season of about 200mm, and the data show the following: 1. Crop yield in the 200% residue was lower than that in 100% residue retention at most sites because of the poor stand establishment. 2. Residue retention treatments had no impact on grain yield at Hoytville (average yield of 6.75Mg/ha), for a clayey, flat and poorly-drained soil. 3. Residue retention significantly impacted corn grain yield at Coshocton. The average grain yield for the 2004-started site was 8.89 Mg/ha compared with 9.53Mg/ha for 2011-started site, a difference of 6.7% due to soil degradation. The differences in grain yield were especially high for 0% rate of residue retention: 6.3 vs. 7.8 Mg/ha or a difference of 19.2%. 4. Reduction in grain yield at Coshocton with 0% compared with 100% residue retention was 39.7% (6.3Mg/ha vs. 10.45Mg/ha) for the 2004-started site and 27.1% (7.8Mg/ha vs. 10.7 Mg/ha) for the 2011-started site. 5. Stover production at Hoytville (average of 6.42 Mg/ha) was also not affected by residue retention treatments. 6. The stover yield at South Charleston (6.85 Mg/ha) and Coshocton (6.81Mg/ha for 2004 site and 5.81 Mg/ha for 2011 site) had no consistent trends in relation to different residue retention rates. However, the minimum stover yield for Coshocton was obtained for the 0% residue retention treatments. 7. Grain yield indicates strong resilience against drought by soil under 100% residue cover at Coshocton. 8. The harvest index [grain yield / (grain + stover yields)] increased from 48% for 0% to 56% for 100% residue retention at Hoytville, and 49% for 0% to 62% for 100% residue retention at Coschocton. 9. Thus there was a higher appropriation of photosynthate to grains under drought with increasing rates of residue retention. 10. Residue retention being critical to sustainable soil management, its indiscriminate removal can degrade soil quality and reduce soil resilience to drought. References 1. Bonin, C. and R. Lal. 2012. Agronomic and ecological implications of biofuels. Adv. Agron. 117:1-50. 2. Lal, R., J.A. Delgado, J. Gulliford, D. Nielsen, C.W. Rice and R.S. Van Pelt. 2012. Adapting agriculture to drought and extreme events. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 67(6):162A-166A. 3. Kahlon, M.S., R. Lal, M. Ann Varughese. 2012. Twenty eight years of tillage and mulching impacts on soil physical characteristics and carbon sequestration in central Ohio Soil & Tillage Res. 126:151-153. PARTICIPANTS: Part of a multi-state regional project (NC-1178) In addition to The Ohio State University, other participating institutions include North Dakota State University, University of Wisconsin, University of Guam, University of Missouri, Iowa State, University Of Illinois & South Dakota State University. This cooperative project has been implemented for several years. TARGET AUDIENCES: 1. Land Managers & farmers 2. Policy makers 3. Biofuel industry 4. Carbon trading market 5. Natural resource conservation service of USDA 6. USGS & other organizations interested in water resources and non-point source pollution, and anoxia of coastal ecosytems PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Future project modifications may include comparison of crop residue removal vs. establishment of warm season grasses and short rotation woody perennials under the same agro-ecological environments.
Impacts
With increasing emphasis on cellulosic ethanol production, there is a growing demand for harvesting residues from croplands to meet the so-called "Biofuel Vision" and usher the era of "Green Economy". However, crop residue retention is also critical to cycling of carbon and nutrients while improving soil's resilience against vagaries of uncertain and changing climate (drought). The data clearly demonstrates the need of maintaining the crop residue at a critical level for protecting soil surface against runoff and erosion, reducing evaporation, conserving water in the root zone and for sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide for adapting and mitigating anthropogenic emissions. The data generated from studies conducted over diverse locations and several seasons are essential to providing guidelines on the feasibility of removing the amount of residue without jeopardizing soil quality and sustainability of managed ecosystems. Land managers and policy makers need policy guidelines towards removal of crop residues. Thus, these experiments are important towards that objective, and must be continued for a long time to generate the credible information.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 01/01/11 to 12/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Increase in energy demand and the impacts of fossil fuel combustion on atmospheric chemistry have necessitated the search for C-neutral fuel sources. It is in this context that biofuels offer an option of reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The present U.S. ethanol production of 50 billion liter in 2011 is projected to reach 64 billion liter by 2020. In addition to dedicated sustainable energy crops (e.g., warm season grasses, short rotation wood perennials), conversion of crop residues into cellulosic ethanol, co-combustion with coal, or gasification as a source of H2 are being considered as renewable energy source. However, retention of crop residues has numerous benefits towards quality of soil and water resources. Can indiscriminate removal of crop residues, as a source of biofuel feedstock and for other industrial uses, adversely impact soil organic carbon (SOC) pool, nutrient cycling, soil and water conservation, and agronomic productivity? Therefore, field experiments have been conducted at three locations in Ohio: Coshocton (40 degrees 22 minutes N, 81 degrees 47 minutes W), South Charleston (39 degrees 52 minutes N, 83 degrees 40minutes W), and Hoytville (39 degrees 01 minutes N, 82 degrees 36 minutes W). Residue retention treatments comprised of 0% (all residue removal), 25% (75% residue removal), 50% (50% residue removal), 75% (25% residue removal), 100% (no residue removal), and 200% (residue addition to make it at double the level of normal production). The data on soil properties, measured at the grain filling stage on 21st July of 2011, indicated that complete residue removal at Coshocton increased soil temperature at 5 cm depth by 0.5 to 1.5 degrees C, decreased soil moisture content form 20.4% to 8.9%, and slightly increased the penetration resistance. There were also trends of somewhat taller plants in treatments with 100% and 200% residue retention rates than under control. In general, plant height increased with increase in the rate of residue retention. The average plant height to the flag leaf was 2.12 m in 0% residue retention. 2.22 m in 50% residue retention and 2.29 m in 200% residue retention treatments. However, there were no significant differences in grain yield for 2010 at South Charleston among residue retention treatments. In contrast, the stover yield increased with increase in the rate of residue retention. At Hoytville, grain yield was somewhat higher in treatments which received any amount of residue compared with 0% retention. Similar to grain yield, the stover yield at South Charleston was also lower in control compared with other treatments. At Coshocton, crop stand was adversely affected by the residue retention due to plugging of the seed drill by wet residues. Thus, the highest crop stand and the grain yields were obtained for the control without any residue retention. PARTICIPANTS: NC-1178 Regional Committee Rattan Lal Josh Beniston TARGET AUDIENCES: research scientist land managers policy makers and energy companies PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Crop yield response has been reported. Soil properties will be reported in the next period.
Impacts
Because of these anomalies in crop stand establishment, a new experiment was established at Coshocton in 2011. The new experiment has the same treatment and is sited in the vicinity of the 6-year old experiment. The comparative analyses in soil properties and crop yields would provide a useful information on any residual or cumulative effect. For example, the yield response to residue management indicated that grain yields in 2011 at Coshocton were 9.8 Mg/ha for 100% removal compared with 12.9 Mg/ha for treatments with some amount retained, a reduction of 24%. There was a similar trend in stover yield. Complete residue removal reduced stover yield also by 33%, 13.2 Mg/ha vs. 19.2 Mg/ha. The data on grains and stover yields imply that some amount of crop residues (e.g., 25%) can be removed for other uses. However, environmental issues (e.g., nutrient cycling, runoff, erosion, SOC storage, gaseous emissions) need to be carefully assessed.
Publications
- Stavi, I., R. Lal and L.B. Owens. 2011. On-farm effects of continuous no-till versus occasional tillage on soil quality and crop yields in eastern Ohio. Agron. Sust. Dev. 31(3): 475-482.
- Stavi, I. and R. Lal. 2011. Loss of soil resources from water eroded vs. uneroded cropland sites under simulated rainfall. Soil Use & Management. 27: 69-76.
- Jung, J.Y., R. Lal, and D.A.N. Ussiri. 2011. Changes in CO2 13C abundance, inorganic nitrogen β glycosidase, and oxidative enzyme activities of soil during the decomposition of switch grass root carbon as affected by inorganic nitrogen addition. Biol. Fert. Soils. 47: 801-813. (DOI:10.1007/S0034-011-0583-Z):1-13.
|
Progress 01/01/10 to 12/31/10
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Energy Management and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 requires the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022. Meeting this target necessitates production of the second generation biofuels: cellulosic ethanol from biomass. Harvesting crop residues, especially those of corn and wheat along with other cereals, for cellulosic ethanol is being widely considered. It is in this context that the effects of crop reside removal on soil properties and crop yield were assessed during 2010 as continuation of studies initiated in 2005. The residue harvest experiments were conducted at three locations in Ohio: Coshocton, South Charleston and Hoytville. At Coshocton in 2009, grain yield of corn was 10.1 t/ha with 0% residue and 10.6 t/ha with 100% residue, a reduction of 4.7%. Reduction in grain yield by 75% retention of crop residues (10.1 t/ha vs. 11.5 t/ha) was 12.2%. Similarly, reduction in the stover yield for 0% retention (6.3 vs. 10.2 t/ha) was 38.2%. Grains and stover yields at Coshocton in 2010 were lower for 100% and 200% residue retention than other treatments because of poor and uneven crop stand. At Hoytville, corn grain yield was 3.9 t/ha for 0%, 5.5 t/ha for 25%, 5.5 t/ha for 50%, 5.7 t/ha for 75%, 5.0 t/ha for 100% and 5.3 t/ha for 200% of the residue retention. In comparison with the average grain yield of all residue retention treatments, complete removal (0% retention) reduced grain yield by 28% (3.9 t/ha vs. 5.4 t/ha) Similar to grain yield, reduction in stover yield by complete removal (0% retention) at Hoytville was 7% (5.3 t/ha vs. 5.7 t/ha). At South Charleston, mean grain yield (average of all treatments with residue retention) was 10.3 t/ha with mulch compared to 11.7 t/ha with complete residue removal. Similarly, mean stover yield was 7.2 t/ha with mulch compared with 7.0 t/ha with complete residue removal. These results are being disseminated to stake holders through presentations at professional meetings, field days, and discussions with visitors to the experimental sites. PARTICIPANTS: Martin Shipitalo, USDA Coshocton, OH Humberto Blanco-Canqui, Kansas State University David Ussiri, CMASC, The Ohio State University TARGET AUDIENCES: Research Scientists Energy Companies Farm Machinery Industry Farmers Land Managers Policy Makers Graduate Students PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Strategy is to conduct experiences on long-term basis (for 10 to 20 years) and relate crop yield to changes in soils quality with particular focus on soil carbon sequestration and other physical parameters. Ideally, these experiments should also be conducted under on-farm conditions with active participation of farmers in the decision making process of implementation of residues management treatments.
Impacts
The effects of residue removal on grain and stover yields of corn depend on two factors: (i) the rainfall amount received in spring as a determinant of the wetness of stover in the field and its impact on the seeding efficiency, seedling emergence and stand establishment, and (ii) the rainfall amount received during the growing season, and especially at the critical phonological stage of corn growth, that affect the duration and intensity of drought or inundation. Lower yields at 100% and 200% residue retention at Coshocton and South Charleston were attributed to a poor crop stand due to accumulation of wet residues in front of the seeder. This serious mechanical/engineering issue must be addressed. At Hoytville, corn grain yield in 2010 were severely reduced by drought in the treatment with 0% retention. In a strong contrast to Hoytville, there was an above average rainfall at South Charleston in 2010. Thus, the plots with residue did not suffer from drought. On the contrary, treatments with residue had lower yield probably because of a higher incidence of pests and disease. Wet residues can enhance pathogens (i.e., slugs). The data on grain and stove yields for 2008-2010 seasons for three sites in Ohio indicate that about 25% of the residue produced can be harvested for biofuel production. However, the long-term (10-20 years) effects of residue removal on soil quality, use efficiency of input, and carbon sequestration need to be determined through continuation of such experiments. The experiments of residue removal must be assessed in terms of agronomic yield and its sustainability, and the environmental concerns. Important among the environmental issues are carbon sequestration in soil, and the non-point sources pollution. Thus, a judicious management of crop residues must consider agronomic, economic and environmental issues.
Publications
- Lal, R. and B.A. Stewart (Eds.) 2010. Biofuels and Soil Quality. CRC/Taylor and Francis. Boca Raton, FL, 210 pp.
- Lal, R. 2010. Myths of cellulosic ethanol. European Soil Cons. Newsletter. 4: 3-11.
|
|