Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T10:57:48.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of crop management strategies involving crop genotype and weed management practices in conventional and more diverse cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2012

Robin Gómez*
Affiliation:
University of Costa Rica, School of Agronomy, Fabio Baudrit Experimental Station, Alajuela, Costa Rica.
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
David N. Sundberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Craig A. Chase
Affiliation:
Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, 312 Westbrook Lane, Ames, IA 50014, USA.
*
*Corresponding author. Universidad de Costa Rica, Escuela de Agronomía, San José, Costa Rica. gomez.robin@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cropping systems that include forage legumes and small grains in addition to corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can achieve similar or higher crop productivity and economic return than simpler corn–soybean rotations. We hypothesized that this rotation effect occurs regardless of the crop genotype planted and the herbicide and cultivation regime selected for weed management. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a 3-year experiment that compared three cropping systems: a conventional 2-year corn–soybean rotation, a 3-year corn–soybean–oat (Avena sativa L.)/red clover (Trifolium pretense L.) rotation, and a 4-year corn–soybean–oat/alfalfa–alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) rotation. Within each cropping system, two contrasting sets of management strategies were used: (i) genetically engineered corn with resistance to insect pests (Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner and Diabrotica spp.) plus the broadcast application of pre-emergence herbicides, followed in the rotation by a genetically engineered soybean variety with resistance to the herbicide glyphosate plus the post-emergence broadcast application of glyphosate; and (ii) non-genetically engineered corn plus the banded application of post-emergence herbicides, followed in the rotation by a non-genetically engineered soybean and banded application of several post-emergence herbicides. The two management strategies were identified as ‘GE’ and ‘non-GE.’ Corn yield was higher in the 3-year (12.51Mgha−1) and 4-year (12.79Mgha−1) rotations than in the conventional 2-year (12.16Mgha−1) rotation, and was also 2% higher with the GE strategy than with the non-GE strategy. Soybean yield was similar among rotation systems in 2008, but higher in the 3- and 4-year systems than the 2-year rotation in 2009 and 2010. Soybean yield was similar between management strategies in 2008, but higher in the GE strategy in 2009, and similar between strategies in the 3- and 4-year rotations in 2010. Increases in rotation length were accompanied by 88–91% reductions in synthetic N fertilizer application, and the use of the non-GE rather than the GE strategy was accompanied by a 93% reduction in herbicide active ingredients applied. Averaged over the period of 2008–2010, net returns to land and labor were highest for the 3-year rotation managed with either the GE ($928ha−1yr−1) or non-GE ($936ha−1yr−1) strategies, least in the 2-year rotation managed with the non-GE strategy ($738ha−1yr−1), and intermediate in the other rotation×management combinations. Our results indicate that more diverse crop rotation systems can be as profitable as conventional corn–soybean systems and can provide farmers with greater flexibility in crop management options.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 
Figure 0

Table 1. Hybrid or cultivar grown, planting and harvest date, seed density, seed mass and inter-row spacing used in contrasting crop rotations.

Figure 1

Table 2. Weed management practices for each crop rotation from 2008 to 2010. Rate (kgha−1) of herbicide active ingredients shown in parentheses.

Figure 2

Table 3. Fertilization regimes for crops grown in contrasting crop rotations from 2008 to 2010.

Figure 3

Table 4. Mean monthly air temperature and precipitation determined 1km from the study site in Boone, IA.

Figure 4

Table 5. Mean herbicide and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use over 2008–2010 in the three crop rotations.

Figure 5

Table 6. Mean corn yield over the years 2008–2010.

Figure 6

Table 7. Soybean yield from 2008 to 2010 involving three rotations and two management strategies.

Figure 7

Table 8. Oat grain and alfalfa hay yield from 2008 to 2010.

Figure 8

Table 9. Weed biomass in crop rotations involving two management strategies from 2008–2010. Transformed (ln [x+1]) means are in parentheses.

Figure 9

Figure 1. Annual and mean gross revenue and net returns of crop management strategies in each rotation system.

Figure 10

Table 10. ANOVA of economic returns.

Figure 11

Figure 2. Production costs of crop management strategies in each rotation system.