Pdf conservation tillage

Management of agricultural land has vital implications for wildlife. Just as humans require nutritious food, clean water and adequate shelter refuge from the environment and from predators , so does wildlife. Sedimentation is a critical water-quality problem, especially for aquatic fauna and other wildlife that feed directly on them.

Conservation tillage systems reduce sedimentation in water bodies by reducing soil erosion. Conservation tillage also provides food opportunities and shelter for small mammals and birds [3] such as mice, rabbits, bobwhite or quail. This in turn provides nourishment for predators such as rattlesnakes, raccoons, great horned owls, red-tailed hawks, bobcats and coyotes.

Researchers have reported higher nest densities and nest success in conservation tillage fields as compared to conventional tillage fields [14, 18, 34]. In the Southeast, cotton fields are abundant and provide little to no cover or food source if clean tilled. Cederbaum [10] reported higher densities of breeding birds in conservation-tillage cotton fields as compared to conventional tillage, especially with conservation tillage fields using strip cropping.

Wildlife specialists recommend that areas within and around conservation tillage fields be managed to provide habitat, especially for birds and rabbits. When farms convert from conventional tillage systems to conservation tillage systems, there is potential to lower production costs and improve farm profitability. The agronomic benefits associated with conservation tillage practices, such as improved soil productivity, may improve yields, thereby increasing net returns [6, 33].

While this potential exists, profitability of the cropping enterprise depends on a number of additional factors, including effective management, soil suitability, pest pressures and climate. Cost savings with conservation tillage systems over conventional systems primarily stem from reductions in the use of labor and machinery.

This includes both short- and long-term cost savings in variable and fixed labor costs as well as fuel and machinery costs. The savings will likely differ from farm to farm due to differences in weather and farm characteristics, such as farm size, as well as management approaches [54]. Labor savings are a result of a decrease in pre-harvest activities. This includes reductions in operator labor for machinery as well as reductions in hand labor for other farming activities such as maintenance of equipment.

Reductions in fuel and machinery costs result from fewer passes over the field with less tillage and cultivation. Fewer pieces of equipment are needed, and smaller, less powerful tractors can do the work. A significant savings results from a decrease in diesel-fuel consumption. This savings increases as diesel-fuel prices go up. Labor savings and longer machinery life will allow farmers to increase the acres of land being farmed, further increasing farm profits and viability. Another factor that will lower production costs is the inclusion of high-residue winter cover crops.

Winter cover crops reduce weed pressure and improve water conservation, resulting in reduced pesticide and irrigation costs [45]. Lopez et al. Total porosity increased with depth increase between the CT and NT. Yusuf et al. But the higher value was found at that soybean grain oil and protein content were not under NT methods as Average values of fuel consumption and field Corn yield and efficiency for each tillage method are given in Table 8.

It was found to be higher in the sec- served in convential tillage whereas the lowest value ond year than in the first year in all tillage treatments. Similarly, the field efficiency was and year Protein, oil and ash content of corn the lowest 0.

Gorcia, J. Costa and L. Soil water dynamics, physical prop- method. Direct, seeding method, NT had the lowest erties and corn and wheat responses to minimum fuel consumption with maximum field efficiency. The and no-tillge systems in soutestern Pampas of Ar- conventional method requires five times more fuel gentina.

Beside this, NT methods Grossman, R. Reinsch, Bulk had six times more field efficiency comparing the con- density and linear extensibility. In: J. Dane and ventional method. From the results, it can also be con- G.

Topp, Editors, Methods of soil analysis. Part cluded that conservation tillage and direct seeding can 4. Hammad, E. Dawelbeit, Effect Acknowledgements of tillage and field condition on soil physical proper- The authors wish to express their sincerest grati- ties, cane and sugar yields in vertisols of kenana tude appreciation to Dicle University scientific reserah sugar estate, Sudan.

Hatfield, J. Allmaras, G. Rehn and B. Lowery, Ridge tillage for corn and soy- References bean production: environmental quality impacts. Anonymous, Diyarbakir meteorology bulletin Kasap, A. Effects of the conventional and di- Anonymous, SPSS statistical package for rect seeding on soil properties, operational time, con- analsis of variance sumption and yield. Asoodar, A. Khadish, A.

Hashemi and S. Herbert, Soil physi- pp. Kirisci, Comparing differ- tillage treatments. Kayisoglu, E. Gonulol, H. Yalcin 1. Sungur, Soil Logsdon, S. Karlen, Wanjura, Soil crust no- tillage. Transactions Lopez, M. Moret, R. Gracia and J. Arrue, of ASAE, 25 4 : Tillage effects on barley residue cover during Chen, Y.

Monero, D. Lobb, S. Tessier and follow in semiarid Aragon. Cavers, Effects of six tillage methods on Strip tillage for no-till row crop heavy clay soil. Transaction of ASAE, 47 4 : production. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, De Vita, P. Di Paolo, G. Fecondo, N. Fonzo Nakamato, T. Yamagishi and F. Pisante, No-tillage and conventional Effect of reduced tillage on weeds and sil organ- tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality isms in winter weat and summer maize cropping on and soil moisture content in southern Italy.

Soil and humic Andosols in central Japon. Research, Gursoy NeSmith, D. Hargrove, D. Radcliffe, of soybean under different tillage systems. Tollner and H. Arioglu, Tillage Tillage Research, Alp and R. Esgici, Insect, rodent, and pathogen pest problems may also increase with tillage reduction due to continuous plant residue on the soil surface.

In recognition of the potential for conservation tillage to contribute toward healthier farms and food systems, the UC is active in a number of ways in developing knowledge and exchanging information in the California farming community on conservation tillage production systems. The Conservation Agriculture System Innovation CASI is a workgroup of university researchers, regional farmers, agency representatives, and environmental groups who work together to develop knowledge and exchange information about conservation tillage systems within California.

CASI collaborates to host annual conferences and demonstration based workshops to further increase interest among producers to learn reduced tillage techniques. The goals of this workgroup are:. A survey conducted by CASI analyzed the trends in conservation tillage, including which methods have been more readily adopted across California.

While the conservation tillage trend appears to be gaining significant interest among growers, there are many steps towards applying conservation tillage management techniques that researchers are continuing to address. Information on the techniques that are practiced as conservation tillage methods are outlined and described in Classification of Conservation Tillage Practices. CASI also partners with a number of statewide, regional, and national organizations with shared goals of creating and exchanging knowledge on conservation tillage production systems.