Journals / Tarım Makinaları Bilimi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Crop Rotations and Soil Tillage Interactions for Biomass Production

Pages
1–6
Publication Date
2014-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The most efficient crops were thelow-input, non-irrigated winter mixtures of vetch / oats and triticale / peas.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The introduction of energy crops for biofuel production is expected to cause severe soildegradation as all crop material will be removed from the fields leaving the soil bare andsusceptible to soil erosion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Crop rotations were combined with: 1.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The most efficient crops were thelow-input, non-irrigated winter mixtures of vetch / oats and triticale / peas.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Crop rotations · soil tillage

Özet

The introduction of energy crops for biofuel production is expected to cause severe soildegradation as all crop material will be removed from the fields leaving the soil bare andsusceptible to soil erosion. The adoption of crop rotations to keep the soil covered by vegetation allyear round along with the application of reduced tillage or no-tillage methods can offerconsiderable soil protection. Basic criterion for an energy crop is the positive energy balance.Energy budgets for two energy crop rotations (in the first one all the plant material is removedfrom the field while in the second one the residues are left on the soil) and five tillage methodswere estimated. Crop rotations were combined with: 1. Conventional Tillage (CT), 2. Reducedtillage with heavy cultivator (HC), 3. Reduced tillage with rotary cultivator (RC), 4. Strip tillage ordisk harrow (ST/DH) and no-tillage (NT). The energy budget proved to be positive when the wholeplant material of a crop was used as an energy feedstock but turned to negative if part of it wasleft on the field and crop yield was not high enough. The first rotation presented higher net energygain as the whole plant material was utilized. Energy efficiency was higher in the ST/DH for bothrotations and all the crops. Soybean proved to be most efficient as a second crop in the year thansunflower. In sweet sorghum net energy was high due to the high biomass production but energyefficiency was low due to high energy requirements of irrigation. The most efficient crops were thelow-input, non-irrigated winter mixtures of vetch / oats and triticale / peas.

🔖

Cite This Article

CAVALARIS, C., KARAMOUTIS, C., GEMTOS, T. (2014). Crop Rotations and Soil Tillage Interactions for Biomass Production. Tarım Makinaları Bilimi Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 1–6. https://ajindex.com/articles/260394

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Cavalaris, C., C. Karamoutis, S. Fountas and T.A. Gemtos. 2008. Sunflower oil energy budget for in-farm production under four tillage systems. Eurageng 2008
  2. World Congress Crete. Fluck, C.R. 1992.
  3. Energy in Farm Production. Elsevier, Amsterdam Leys, A., Govers, G., Gillijns, K., Berckmoes, E., & Takken, I. 2010. Scale effects on runoff and erosion losses from arable land under conservation and conventional tillage: The role of residue cover. Journal of Hydrology 390: 3-4
  4. Moreno M.M., Lacasta C., Meco R. and Moreno C., 2011. Rainfed crop energy balance of different farming Crop Rotations and Soil Tillage Interactions for Biomass Production 6 systems and crop rotations in a semi-arid environment: Results of a long-term trial. Soil & Till. Res. 114: 18–27
  5. Munkholm, L. J., Heck, R. J., & Deen, B. 2013. Long-term rotation and tillage effects on soil structure and crop yield. Soil and Tillage Research, 127, 85–91.
  6. Navarro-Noya, Y. E., Gómez-Acata, S., Montoya-Ciriaco, N., Rojas-Valdez, A., Suárez-Arriaga, M. C., Valenzuela- Encinas, C. Dendooven, L. 2013. Relative impacts of tillage, residue management and crop-rotation on soil bacterial communities in a semi-arid agroecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 65, 86–95.
  7. Papathanasiou, I., C. Cavalaris, C. Karamoutis, and T.A. Gemtos 2002. Design, construction and testing of an instrumented tractor to measure forces on agricultural implements and energy consumption during field work. Proc. of the 1st Conference of Hellenic Association of ICT in Agriculture, Food and Enviroment. 144-53.
  8. Pimentel, D., 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press,
  9. Boca Raton, FL. Rathke, G.-W., Wienhold, B.J., Wilhelm, W.W., Diepenbrock, W., 2007. Tillage and rotation effect on corn–soybean energy balances in eastern Nebraska. Soil and Tillage Research 97, 60–70.
  10. Roger-Estrade, J., Anger, C., Bertrand, M., & Richard, G. 2010. Tillage and soil ecology: Partners for sustainable agriculture. Soil and Tillage Research, 111(1), 33–40. Rόdiger GraB, Florian Heusera, Reinhold Stόlpnagela, Hans- Peter Piephob, Michael Wachendorfa, 2013. Energy crop production in double-cropping systems: Results from an experiment at seven sites. Europ. Journal. Agronomy 51: 120– 129 Soane B.D., Ball B.C., Arvidsson J., Basch G., Moreno F., Roger-Estrade J. 2012. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil & Tillage Research 118: 66–87 SoCo Proje