This article was downloaded by: [MoskowState Univ Bibliote]On: 02 September 2013, At: 15:33Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England andWales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

JournalofSustainableAgriculturePublicationdetails,includinginstructions forauthors andsubscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

LandUse andErosionalEffects onTwo OhioAlfisols:P. Fahnestock a

, R. Lal b & G. F.Hall ba ResearchAssistant,Departmentof Agronomy,The Ohio StateUniversity,Columbus, OH,43210b Professor,School ofNaturalResources,The Ohio StateUniversity,D

ownl

oade

d by

[M

osko

w S

tate

Uni

v B

iblio

te]

at 1

5:33

02

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Columbus, OH,43210Publishedonline: 26 Oct2008.

To cite this article: P. Fahnestock , R. Lal & G. F.Hall (1996) Land Use and Erosional Effects on TwoOhio Alfisols:, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,7:2-3, 85-100, DOI: 10.1300/J064v07n02_09

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v07n02_09

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort toensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

& Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research,teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can befound at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Land Use and Erosional Effects on Two Ohio Alfisols:

11. Crop Yields P. Fahnestock

R. La1 G. F. Hall

ABSTRACT. An on-farm study was conducted to evaluate the ef- fects of landuse and past erosion on replicated slightly (S), moder- ately (M), and severely (SV) eroded phases of two Typic Hapludalfs (Miamian and Strawn soil series) and adjacent depositional (DP) areas in Central Ohio for a two year period. Effects on corn (Zea maw) and soybean (Clycine maxJ yields were evaluated on 3 sites: ( ~ j &awn s d i ~ series on 2 to 6% slope, (B) Strawn soil series on 2 to 7% slope, and (C) Miamian soil series on 2 to 6% slope. Mean corn grain yield in 1992 on site A was 10.1 Mgfha for SI 11 .O Mg/ha for M, 8.5 Mg/ha for SV, and 7.2 Mg/ha for DP phase. In comparison, mean corn grain yield for site B was 15.0 Mg/ha for S, 14.3 Mg/ha for M, 14.7 Mg/ha for SV, and 15.8 M@a for the DP. Corn grain yield for 1993 was 7.0 Mg/ha for S, 6.6 M@a for M, 5.6 Mg/ha for SV and 4.9 Mglha for the DP phase on site A, and 7.7 M@a for S, 8.9 Mg/ha for M, 4.8 Mg/ha for SV, and 9.1 Mgha for the DP phase on site B. Highest soybean grain and straw yields for site A in 1993 were obtained for the DP phase. In comparison with h e S phase, soybean grain yield was reduced by 12.1% for M and 27.3% for SV eroded phase, and increased by 64.7% for the DP phase. Relative soybean grain yield was 100.0 for S, 97.1% for M, 105.9 for SV and

P. Fahnestock was graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. Present address: 19378 Arcata Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307.

R. La1 and G. F. Hall are Professors, School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.

Address correspondence to R. Lal.

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 7(2/3) 1995 @ 1995 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights r e ~ e ~ e d . 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

86 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

164.7 for DP phases for site B in 1993 compared with 100.0 for S, 90.0 for M, 52.5 for SV and 85.0 for DP phase for site C in 1992. In comparison with S, yield reductions on SV phases of Miamian soils ranged from 15 to 47% for corn and 10 to 48% for soybeans. On Strawn soils yield reductions ranged from 6 to 33% for corn and 36 to 41% for soybeans. [Article copies a~wilable from The Hawortlt Docic- tnent Delivery Senice: 1-800-342-9678.]

INTRODUCTION

Accelerated erosion affects agricultural sustainability through its ad- verse effects on soil productivity and environmental quality. Erosion affects soil productivity in at least four major ways: (1) a reduction in plant-avail- able water (Andraski and Lowery, 1992; Rhoton, 1990) caused by a change in the water-holding characteristics of the root zone and reduction in root zone depth due to edaphologically unfavorable subsoil characteristics (e.g., such as high strength or bulk density, chemical and nutrient imbalances), (2) losses of plant nutrients (Uhland, 1949), most of which are sediment- borne and removed from the field by overland flow, (3) degradation of soil structure (Lal, 1987) due to loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) which increases susceptibility to surface sealing and crusting, and reduces seed- ling emergence and crop stand, and (4) increase in soil variability exacer- bated by soil erosion.

Several studies have been conducted since the 1980's to establish the relationship between crop yield and soil erosion particularly in the south- east and north central parts of the United States (Stone et al., 1985; Battis- ton et al., 1987; Gantzer and McCarty, 1987; Daniels et al., 1987; Frye, 1987; Hairston et al., 1988; Olson and Nizeyimana, 1988; Schertz et al., 1989; Gantzer et al., 1990; Cassel and Fryrear, 1990; Daniels and Buben- zer, 1990; Gollany et al., 1992; Molkma and Sietz, 1992; Schumacher et al., 1994). From a 10-year study in Indiana, Weesies et al., (1994) ob- served that corn (Zea n~ays) yield reduction was 18% for the Miami soil, 14% for the Morley soil and 9% for the Corwin soil when yields from severely eroded sites were compared to those of slightly eroded sites.

Due to its complexity, soil erosioncrop yield relationship is not well understood, nor is its evaluation a straightforward task. For example, evaluating the reduction in crop yield on a particular soil is difficult with- out knowledge of how erosion affects soil properties. Regardless of ero- sion, crop yield may also be affected by site characteristics such as aspect and degree of slope, landscape position, and inherent soil properties. Soil erosion-crop yield relations are further confounded when comparisons among different soils are made as erosion effects on properties vary among

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Technology 87

soils (Bryan, 1967). Soils can be highly variable even without erosion (Cassel and Fryrear, 1980).

In addition to landscape position and soil properties, crop response to erosion also depends on management and technology. Improved agricul- tural technologies have resulted in crops which are higher yielding, fertil- izers which are more cost-effective, and machinery which is more effi- cient. These advances in technology may disguise any reduction in yield due to erosion (Krauss and Allmaras, 1981). The variability in weather often plays a key role in soil erosioncrop yield relationships. There may be wide variations in weather within and among seasons and years. Impor- tant weather-related factors are those that affect plant available water reserves (Mokma and Sietz, 1992; Swan et al., 1987).

Landscape position can also influence microclimatic conditions and soil properties, and affect the soil erosion-crop yield relationship (Daniels et al., 1987,1989; Stone et al., 1985). To be comparable, sites must not only be located on the same landscape position and parent material but should share the same or similar attributes including: surface configura- tion; thickness of soil material(s) occurring in the same weathering zone; age; size and shape of the catchment area; and moisture status (Daniels and Bubenzer, 1990).

Soil erosion-crop yield relationships also depend on soil profile charac- teristics and horizonation. Soils with properties suitable for deep rooting may experience little or no change in productivity due to erosion. Soils with less favorable properties in the subsoil horizons, or which are shallow lying over some root-restricting horizon, may experience rapid losses in productivity even with a slight reduction in topsoil depth. In some buried profiles or soils with favorable subsoil, erosion may either have no effect or even increase yield (B yalyy and Azovtseva, 1964; Grosse, 1967).

Research information on soil erosion-crop yield relationship is not available for Miamian and Strawn soils in Ohio and is needed for judicious management of soil and water resources, and for developing management options for productivity restoration of degraded soils. Therefore, the ob- jective of this study was to evaluate the effects of erosion on yields of corn and soybean (Glycine ma) on two agriculturally important soils of central and western Ohio. A specific objective was to establish empirical relation- ship between crop yield and soil properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thee experimental sites were chosen on Miamian and Strawn soil series on private farms in Clark County, Ohio (Fahnestock et al., 1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

88 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

l b o sites were located on Strawn soils (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalo and one on Miamian soil (fine, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalf). Both soils are formed from Wisconsin-age, loam textured glacial-till par- ent materials.

Three replications were chosen for slightly (S), moderately (M), severe- ly (SV) eroded and depositional (DP) phases at each site. The erosion phases designation correlate closely with classes of erosion defined by the USDA's Soil Conservation Service (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). Erosion phases were identified by field survey, visual examination of texture and color, and by depth to free carbonates. Carc was taken to ensure that the erosional phase plots were located in their respective Mia- mian or Strawn map unit, and the depositional plots were located in transi- tional zones between map units. This transitional zone was located be- tween lower side slopes and foot slopes and the soil in these plots was overlain by varying amounts of sediment washed down from upslope. All replications of each erosional phase were selected as nearly as possible on the same slope and landscape position. The individual plots had an area of approximately 6 m2.

Soils of all plots at each. site were described taxonomically. For the Miamian map units, all S, M and SV phases were classified as fine, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalfs, except for one S plot which was classified as a fine, mixed, mesic Mollic Hapludalf. For the Strawn map units, all eroded phases were classifed as fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalfs. The DP plots had a range of classifications including Mollic Hapludalf, W i c Argiaquoll, Aquic Argiudoll, Typic Hapludoll, Aquic Hapludoll, and Typ- ic Udorthent. Surface textures for all soils were either silt loam, silty clay loam, or clay loam.

Corn and soybean were grown during 1992 and 1993 according to recommended practices for the region (Table I). Measurements in 1993 were made on the same plots except that an additional replication was chosen at site A which enabled a comparative evaluation between corn soybean. Therefore, the data for 1993 on site A are based on only two replications for both corn and soybean. Yield measurements were made by hand har- vesting middle rows of each plot or by harvesting two rows 5.25 m long and 75 cm apart. Grain yield was reported on 15.5% grain moisture con- tent and stover yield on oven dry basis. The harvest index was calculated as grain yield divided by grain plus stover yield expressed in percent. Plant tissue nutrient contents were evaluated on ear leaves sampled at initial silking for corn, or on trifoliates sampled at 50% flowering for soybean. Leaf samples were analyzed for major and micro-nutrients using Atomic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews, Pracrices, Policy and Technology 89

TABLE 1. Site management systems and crops grown by study year.

Crop Management Summary1

Site 1992 1993

A Corn Soybean 3-year rotation, conventional corn into plowed wheat stubble, no-till soybean into corn stubble

0 Corn Soybean 2-year rotation, no-till soybean into corn stubble, disk bean stubble prior to planting corn

C Soybean Corn 3-year rotation, no-till corn, wheat, and soybean

Fertilizer was awlled to all mrn crom at 112-335 koha of either 9-23.30 or 18-46-0. Nltrwen as anhydro~sammonla(28% N) wasappl ed toall mrn crops To soybeancrops s 'e A apphed 22Tngha Polash. slte B app ed no ler3l zer, and slle C appled 335 kglha 18-46 0 A I s,tes apphed herblade either pre-plant or as spot application when needed post-emergence

Absorption Spectrophotorneter (ASA, 1986) a1 the REAL laboratory of OARDC, Wooster, OH.

Statistical analyses of the data were performed on each site individually and included analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate erosion effect on yield, with means separation of significant treatment cffects based on least significant differences (LSD), and with orthogonal contrasts used to sepa- rate the contribution of the depositional phase to the total effect (Steel and Tortie, 1980). Relative yield losses for M and SV phases were normalized with yields of either or both the DP and S phases. Simple and multiple regression equations were developed relating crop yield and soil proper- ties using the Hamillonian Walk method (Minitab, 1981).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Rainfall

Compared with the long-term average precipitation of 1050 mm, both years received below normal precipitation by about 24.6% in 1992 and 11.3% in 1993 (Table 2). Compared with long term average for the grow- ing season (April to October) of 655.9 mm, precipitation received was 493.0 mm (25.3% less) in 1992 and 561.2 rnrn (14.4% less) in 1993. Part of the problem on site A may be attributed to topography characterized by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

90 JOURNAL OF SUSTAlNABLE AGRICULTURE

TABLE 2. Precipitation received during 1992 and 1993 compared with the long-term average.

Month 1992 1993 Lonqterm averacle

January February March April

May June July August September October November December

Total 791.4 931.5 1049.9

shallow closed basins, especially near the DP plots, and to inadequate or absence of tile drainage. The year 1993 was characterized by relatively more precipitation early in the season which delayed planting on all sites.

Crop Perfornwrrce

Despite low precipitation recorded in both study years, DP phases for site A were prone to wetness early in the growing season. Consequently, crop stand establishment on site A was poor and plant showed symptoms of waterlogging and anaerobiosis. However, DP phases of sites B and C were not affected. In addition to excessive wetness, weed infestation was also high in all DP plots.

Corn

Corn grain yields for 1992 at sites A and B were not different among erosional phases (Table 3). Mean corn grain yield was 9.2 Mg/ha for site A and 15.0 Mgha for site B with corresponding stover yields of 17.6 Mg/ha and 23.4 Mglha, respectively. The harvest index was 34.2% for site A and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews, Praclices. Polic); ond Technoiogy 91

39.2% for site B. Soils of sile B are generally more fertile and have high yield potential. Despitc the lack of statistical significance in yield with regard !n phases, grain yields were in the order of M > S > SV > DP Tor site A compared with DP > S > SV> M for site B. The relative grain yield in site A was 100:101.9:84.1:71.2 for site A and 10:95.3:98.0:100.5 for site B for S, M, SV and DP phases, respectively. Poorly drained DP phase in site A resulted in severe yield reductions compared with the S phase.

The ANOVA for Fratioofcorn grain and stover yields in 1993 for sites A and C show the following (Table 4):

(i) There was no effect of erosional phase on grain or stover yield for site A when yiclds wcre compared either among all phases or when com- partsons were ma& atnong Ulree erosional phases. However, grain yield for the DP phase was significantly lower than all other erosional phases.

TABLE 3. Mean values af yield variables for corn grown on sitss A and B in 1992.

TABLE 4. Ths analysis of variance table of F ratios for corn yleld variables evalualsd on sites A and C in 1993.

F Rams for Emslon Phases

Corn Yield Compartng DsposiPbnal vs Slight vs Moderate All Phases ali ~therr I M m d vs Severe

SiaA SiteC SiteA Site C Sit8 A Site C

Grain NS 5 53' 5.89+ NS NS 12.24'

Smver NS 5 5 8 NS NS NS 12.88'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

92 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

(ii) There were simcant differences in grain and stover yields for site C both when all ohases were comoared and when comoarisons were made only among three erosional phase's (Table 3).

The data of corn yields for 1993 for sites A and C are shown in Table 5. In contrast to 1992, there were sigmficant differences among all phases at site A in grain yield and harvest index but not in stover yield. While comparing yield among three erosional phases, grain yield reduction was 20% for SV and 6% for M compared to the S phase. Trends in stover yield and harvest index were similar to that of the grain yield. The lowest grain and stover yields at site A were obtained for the DP phase. In comparison with S phase, reduction for the DP phase was 30.0% in grain yield, 20.8% in stover yield, and 8.8% in harvest index. These results are similar to those reported by Lindstrom et al. (1986) in Minnesota.

Trends in corn yields for 1993 with regards to erosional phases differed for site C than A in two respects. Fist, in contrast to site A, the highest grain and stover yields and harvest index were obtained for the DP phase. In comparison with the S phase, increase for the DP phase was 18.2% for grain yield, 13.1% for stover yield, and 4.1% for the harvest index (Table 5). Second, the highest yield among three erosional phases was obtained for the M phase although there were no statistically significant differences

TABLE 5 . Effect of erosion phase on corn yields evaluated on sites A and C in 1993.

Erosion Phase

Yield Slight Moderate Severe Deposition LSD (.05)

SIkA Grain (Mg ha-') 7.0 6.6 5.6 4.9 1.4

Stover (Mg ha-l) 14.9 14.3 12.8 11.8 NS

Harvest Index (%) 31.8 31.5 30.2 29.0 2.0

SilkC

Grain (Mg ha-') 7.7 8.9 4.8 9.1 2.6

Stover (Mg ha-') 14.5 16.2 9.9 16.4 4.0

Harvest Index (%I 34.3 35.5 32.5 35.7 NS

NS = not significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews. Practices, Policy and Technology 93

between M and S phases (Table 5). In comparison with M phase, reduction for the SV phase was 46.1% for grain yield, 38.9% for stover yield, and 8.5% for the harvest index. Similar results were obtained by Langdale et al, (1979) in Georgia.

Comparison of the data in Tables 3 and 5 show lower yields in 1993 compared with 1992. Mean corn grain yield for site A was 9.2 Mgha in 1992 compared with 6.0 Mg/ha in 1993, a reduction of 34.8%. Yield reduction in 1993 may be attributed to two factors: (1) adverse effect of continuous corn without rotation, and (2) poor rainfall distribution and sub-optimal soil moisture content resulting in drought stress at the critical stage of growth. Leaf tissue analyses in 1992 indicated that N content was marginal in all phases and plants exhibited chlorotic symptoms of N defi- ciency in site A for DP and SV phases. Leaf tissue analyses in 1993 also revealed insufficient or marginal N content in all .erosional phases. Ad- verse effects of reduced N content were more evident in SV compared with S or M phases (Table 6).

Soybean

The ANOVA of F ratio for soybean grain and straw yields is shown in Table 7. The data from site A did not differ among erosional phases for grain or straw yield of soybeans grown in 1993. In contrast to site A, soybean data from site B in 1993 differed significantly for grain and straw yields among all phases and while comparing yield on DP with three other erosional phases. However, there were no differences at site B when soy- bean yields were compared among three erosional phases. At site C-, soy- beans were grown in 1992 only. Grain and straw yields of soybean were significantly different when comparisons were made among all phases, and when comparisons were made among three erosional phases (Table 7).

Effects of erosional phases on soybean yields obtained in 1992 and 1993 are shown in Table 8. In contrast with corn yield, the data from site A for soybean yield in 1993 showed that the highest grain and straw yields were obtained for the DP phases. In comparison with the S phase, increase for the DPphase was 27.3% in grain yield, 10.8% in straw yield, and 7.4% in the harvest index. Among the three erosional phases, soybean yields were in the order of S > M> SV. In comparison with S phase, reduction in grain yield was 12.1% forM and 27.3% for SV phase. Similar trends were observed in straw yield and harvest index. Thomas et al. (1989) in the Vuginia Piedmont obtained similar results for soybean yield in relation to erosional phases. There were similarities and differences in soybean per- formance at site B compared with site A (Table 8). In terms of similarity, the highest grain and straw yields were obtained for the DP phases. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

94 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

TABLE 6. Leaf tissue analysis of corn for N and P contents for 1992 and 1993 crops.

1992

Erosion Phase N P

LSD ( . 0 5 ) NS NS NS NS

SV 3.37 0.37

D 3.33 0.39

LSD ( .05) NS NS

comparison with the S phase, increase for the DP phase was 64.7% in grain yield, 49.3% in straw yield and 5.8% in the harvest index. In terms of differences, the highest grain and straw yields among three erosional phases were obtained for the SV phase but with no statistically significant differences among those yields.

Soybean was grown at site C during 1992, and there were subtle differ- ences in soybean performance at site C compared with sites A and B. The highest soybean grain and straw yields were obtained for the S phase. Grain and straw yields were in the order of S > M> DP > SV. In compari- son with S, reduction in yield for the DP phase was 15.0% in grain yield and 26.3% in straw yield. The harvest index did not differ among four erosional and depositional phases. While comparing yield among three erosional phases, grain yield reduction was 10.0% for M and 47.5% for SV compared with S phase. Similarly, straw yield reduction was 10.5% for M and 51.3% for SV compared with the S phase.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Tech~~ology 95

TABLE 7.The table of F ratios for soybean yield evaluated on sites A, B, and C during 1992 and 1993.

F Rat~os lor Erasian Phases I I I

Soyban 1 C J I Depositional rs I Slight r. Moderate All Others vs Severe

'denotes significance at 0.05 level 01 probab~l~ty "denotes significance at 0.10 level of probab~lity NS =nor significant

(Mgha)

Grain

Slraw

TABLE 8. Effect of erosion phase on soybean yields evauluated on sites A, B, and C in 1 992 and 1 993.

Erosion Phase

Soybean Weld Slight Moderate Severe Deposition LSD ( 05)

Site A Site B Site C (1993) (1993) (1992)

NS 9.87" 17.M"

NS 6.93' . 8.34"

m - 1 9 9 3

Grain (Mg ha-')

Straw (Mg ha-')

Harvest lndex (%)

Site 8-1993

Grain (Mg ha-')

Straw (Mg ha-')

Harvest lndex (%)

Site A Site B Site C (1993) (1993) (1992)

NS 29.24' NS

NS 20 31' NS

Site C-1994

Grain (Mg ha-')

Straw (Mg ha-')

Harvest lndex (%)

Sile A Site B Site C (1993) (1 993) (1992)

NS 0.33 53.75"

NS 0.46 25.21'

NS = not signillcant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

96 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Leaf tissue analysis of soybean trifoliate for site A in 1993 showed signiticant differences among erosional phases. Both N and P contents were the highest for S and the least for the SV phases (Table 9). Tissue analysis for 1993 indicated that leaf N and P contents were only marginal- ly sufficient.

Relationships Between Crop Yields and Soil Properties

Chemical and physical properties of 0 to 10 cm layer for the experimen- tal sites have been reported elsewhere (Fahnestock et al., 1995). Data in Table 10 show correlation coefficients of soil properties with crop yields for three sites. For site A soybean yields in 1993 were significantly nega- tively correlated with clay content and cation exchange capacity (CEC) but positively correlated with SOC and silt contents. For site B, soybean yield was significantly and positively correlated with SOC only. For site C soybean grain yield in 1992 was significantly negatively correlated with clay content, pH, and CEC but positively correlated with silt content and available water capacity (AWC). Corn grain yield on site C in 1993 was s i ~ i c a n t l y negatively correlated with clay content. Positive correlation of AWC with soybean yield highlights the importance soil moisture re- serves in determining crop yields in the S phase (Stone et al., 1985).

Multiple correlations and regression equations relating crop yield to soil properties shown in Table 11 indicated that corn yield was significant- ly correlated with silt content, mean weight diameter (MWD), SOC, AWC, and pH. Some additional soil properties significantly correlated with soybean yields were clay content, available P, and K contents.

TABLE 9. Leaf tissue analysis of soybean for N and P contents for site A.

SiteA (1992) Site B (1993L

Erosion Phase N P N P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - % - - - - - - - - - - - - - S 6.31 0.66 5.41 0.31

M 6.07 0.59 5.17 0.33

SV 5.33 0.48 5.17 0.32

D 5.83 0.62 5.77 0.35

LSD (.05) 0.39 0.16 NS NS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Technology 97

TABLE 10. Correlation coefficients of crop yield with soil properties for 0 to 10 cm layer.

Site A Site 0 - - Site C

Soil Property 1993 Soybean 1993 Soybean 1992 Soybean 1993 Corn

Clay (46) - 0.63' Sill (%) 0.69' SOC (%) 0.69'

Pb W m 3 ) - 0.47 MWD (mm) - 0.28 AWC (volumetric fractions) 0.24 pH (1 :1 in H20) - 0.38 CEC (m mol c'Kg) - 0.65' K (m mol bNg ) - 0.42 P (Kglha) 0.77

'. " denote signiftcance at 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability, respectively

TABLE 11. Multiple correlations and regression equations relating crop yield with soil properties for 0 to 10 cm layer.

C r o ~ Year R2 Rearession eaua~ionl

Corn 1992 0.673' y =44.7 - 0.53 Silt - 4.65 MWD - 2.13pH Corn 1993 0.945" y = - 15.1 - 0.19 Sill + 19.4 pb+ 5.49 AWC - 0.49 CEC Soybean 1993 0.905" y = 7.42 - 0.09 day + 1.98 SOC - 7.19 AWC - 0.35 pH + 0 03 P

Corn 1992 0.825' y = - 26.9 - 9.02 SOC + 6.50 MWD + 115.0 AWC + 2.18 pH t 0.04 P Soybean 1993 0.968" y = 6.63 + 5.39 SOC - 23.6 AWC - 0.64 pH - 0.003 P

Soybean 1992 0.944" y = 9.04 + 0.15Sill - 541 pb - 0.51 pH + 0.005 K Corn 1993 0.881" y =3.33 + 6.41 SOC - 52.5AWC - 3.40 pH + 0.03 P

'. " oenote s gn bcance at 0.05 and 0.01 probab~l ly level, respecovely. ' Var aoles si I, clay and so I organlc carbon (SOC) are in %, mean we~ghl o~amler ( W D ) IS In mm. available water capaaty (AWC) is in volumetric fraction, bulk density (pb) is in Mglm3, pH is measured in 1 :l Hz0 suspension. Bray-1 is in Kglha, available K is in Kglha,and CEC is measured in C mol c+lKg.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

98 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented show that crop yields were generally reduced by the severity of erosion regardless of climatic conditions. Yield reductions in corn grown on Miamian soils ranged from 15 to 47% on erosional phases when compared to the adjacent DP phase. In soybean, yield reductions of 10 to 48% were observed on M and SV phases. There was a corn grain yield reduction of about 30.0% for the DP phase of poorly drained site A, but an increase of 18.2% for site C. In contrast, soybean grain yield on DP phase was increased by 27.2% for site A and 64.7% for site B, but de- creased by 15.0% for site C.

Suawn soil is similar to Miamian and erosion processes are probably similar. Corn yield reductions on Strawn soils ranged from 6 to 10% on all phases as compared with 20 to 33% on M and SV phases. Yield reductions of 36 to 41% were observed for M and SV phases where soybeans were grown.

The data presented supports the following conclusions:

1. The effect of erosion on crop yield is influenced by weather and sub-soil conditions prior to and during the growing season, with the difference in effect between phases reduced in drier compared with wetter years.

2. In years with adequate moisture throughout the growing season, crop yields were in the order of SV > M > S > DP.

3. In years with wet spring and for sites with poor drainage, DP phases had drastic yield reductions, and also high incidence of weeds.

4. Because the effect of erosion on crop growth is closely related to soil moisture content, yield variability occurred on all soils but was more on SV than on S and M phases.

REFERENCES

Andraski, B.J. and B. Lowery 1992. Erosion effects on soil water storage, plant- water uptake, and corn growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1911-1919.

Battison, L.A., M.H. Miller, and I.J. Shelton, 1987. Soil erosion and corn yield in Ontario. 1. Field evaluation. Can. Soil Sci. 67:73 1-745.

Bryan, R.B., 1967. The development, use, and efficiency of indices of erodibility. Geodexma 25-26.

Byalyy, A.M. and T.V. Azovtseva, 1964. Changes in erosion processes on fields used in a soil protecting crop rotation Soviet Soil Sci. 3:298.

Cassel, D.K. and D.W. Fryrear, 1990. Evaluation of productivity changes due to accelerated erosion. In Research Issues in Soil Erosion and Soil F'roductivity. Univ. of Minnesota, S t Paul, Minn. pp. 41-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Technology 99

Daniels, R.B., and G.D. Bubemr, 1990. Landscape processes, soil erosion, and soil productivity. In Research Issues in Soil Erosion and Soil Productivity. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.

Daniels, R.B., J.W. Gilliam, D.K. Cassell, andL.A. Nelsob 1987. Quantifying the effects of past soil erosion on present soil productivity. J. Soil Water Cons. 42(3):183-187.

Daniels, R.B., J.W. Gilliam, D.K. Cassell, andL.A. Nelson, 1989. Soil erosion has limited effect on field scale crop productivity in the southern Piedmont. Soil Sci. SOC. Am. J. 53:917-920.

Fahnestock, P., R. La1 and G.E Hall, 1995. Landscape position, cultivation and erosional effects on two Ohio Alfisols: I Soil Properties. I. Sustainable Agric. (In Press)

Frye, W.W., 1987. The effects of soil erosion on crop productivity. In Agricultural Soil Loss: Processes, Policies, and Prospects. Westview Special Studies in Agric. Science and Policy.

Gantzer, C.J., S.H. Anderson, A.L. Thompson, and J.R. Brown, 1990. Estimating soil erosion after 100 years of cropping on Sanborn field. I. Soil Water Cons. 46:641-644.

Ganlzer, C.J. and T.R. McCarty, 1987. Predicting corn yield on a claypan soil using a soil productivity index. Trans. ASAE 30:1347-1352.

Gollany, H.T., T.E. Schumacher, M.J. Lindstrom, P.D. Evenson, and G.D. Lemme, 1992. Topsoil depth and desurfacing effects on properties and productivity of a Typic Argiustoll. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. J. 56:220-225.

Grosse, B., 1967. The productivity of severely eroded Parabraunerde formed from loess under moderate climatic conditions. Trans. 8th Int. Cong. Soil Sci. 164(2): 729.

Hairston, J.E., J.O. Sanford, EE. Rhoton, and J.G. Miller, 1988. Effect of soil depth and erosion on yield in the Mississippi Blacklands. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. J. 52:1458-1463.

Krauss, H.A., and R.R. Allmaras, 1981. Technology masks the effects of soil erosion on wheat yields-a case study in Whiteman County, Washington. In Determinants of Soil Loss Tolerance. American Society of Agronomy, Madi- son, Wisconsin. pp. 75-86.

Lal, R. 1987. Effects of soil erosion on crop productivity. CRC Critical Reviews in Plant Sci. 5(4):303-367.

Langdale, G.W., J.E. Box, Jr., R.A. Leonard, A.P. Barnett, and W.G. Fleming, 1979. Corn yield reduction on eroded Southern Piedmont soils. J. Soil Water Cons. 34(5):226-228.

Lidsuom, M.J., T.E. Schumacher, G.D. Lemmie, and N.M. Gollany, 1986. Soil characteristics of a Mollisol and corn Zea m a p L.) growth 20 years after topsoil removal. Soil & Tillage Res. 751-62.

Minitab 1991. Minitab reference manual, release 8. Minitab Inc., Rosemont, Penn.

Mokma, D.L. and M.A. Sietz, 1992. Effects of soil erosion on corn yields on Marlette soils in south-central Michigan. J. Soil Water Cons. 47(4):325-327.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013

100 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Olson, K.R., and E. Nizeyimana, 1988. Effects of soil erosion on corn yields of seven Illiiois soils. J. Prod. Anric. 1:13-19.

Rhoton, RE. 1990. Soybean response to various depths of erosion on a fragipan soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1073-1079.

Schurnacher, T.E., M.J. Lindstrom, D.L. Mokrna, W.W. Nellson, 1994. Corn yield: Erosion relationships of representative loess and till soils in the North Central United States. J. Soil Watercons. 49(1): 77-81.

Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993. Soil Survey Manual: USDA Handbook No. 18, USDA, Washington, D.C.

Steel, R.G., and J.H. Tome, 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Stone, J.R., J.W. Gilliarn, D.K. Cassell, R.B. Daniels, L.A. Nelson, and H.J. Kleiss, 1985. Effect of erosion and landscape position on the productivity of Piedmont soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:987-991.

Swan, J.B., M.J. Shaffer, W.H. Paulson, and A.E. Peterson, 1987. Simulating the effects of soil depth and climatic factors on corn yield. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1025-1032.

Thomas, P.J., T.W. Simpson, and J.C. Baker, 1989. Erosion effects on productivity of Cecil soils in the Virginia Piedmont. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. J. 53:928-933.

Uhland, R.E. 1949. Crop yields lowered by erosion. USDA-SCSTP-75. SCS- USDA, Washington, D.C., 27 pp.

Weesies, G.A., S.J. Livingston, W.D. Hosteter, and D.L. Schertz, 1994. Effect of soil erosion on crop yield in Indiana: Results of a 10 year study. J. Soil Water Cons. 49597-600.

RECEIVED: 02/06/95 REVISED: 06130195

ACCEPTED: 0711 1/95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

15:

33 0

2 Se

ptem

ber

2013