ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
advertisementadvertisement
Field Crops Research
Volume 86, Issues 2-3, 10 March 2004, Pages 255-266
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (449 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2003.09.002    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Yield increases during the organic transition: improving soil quality or increasing experience?

Elizabeth A. Martinia, Jeffrey S. Buyerb, Dennis C. Bryanta, Timothy K. Hartzc and R. Ford DenisonCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a

a Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA c Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Received 26 February 2003; 
Revised 28 August 2003; 
accepted 29 August 2003. 
Available online 7 November 2003.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

Reported increases in crop yields over the first few years of organic farming (especially during the 3-year “transitional” period established in US law) have been attributed to gradual improvements in soil properties, such as the capacity of the soil microbial community to mineralize N or to suppress disease. To test the hypothesis that yield increases with years of organic farming are due to improvements in soil properties, we compared identically managed organic and transitional plots differing only in duration of organic management (>5 versus <1 year). Conventional plots were included for reference purposes. There was no difference in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) growth or yield between established organic and first-year transitional plots, but both outperformed the comparable conventional system. Even no-compost subplots within the transitional plots had yields similar to established organic plots, so the yield advantage relative to conventional plots was apparently due to beneficial effects of a winter legume cover crop in a wet year. Soil inorganic N did not differ between transitional and organic plots. Conventional and organic plots differed in soil microbial community composition, but transitional plots were not intermediate between conventional and organic. In the second year of the organic transition, when maize (Zea mays L.) was grown, yields were again not significantly different from the established organic system. This result is inconsistent with the hypothesis that yield-limiting differences in soil quality between organic and conventional systems take at least 3 years to develop. An alternative hypothesis, not tested directly, is that previously reported yield increases result from improved management with increasing experience, not improving soil quality.

Author Keywords: Soil quality; Organic farming; N mineralization; Tomato; Maize

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site characteristics
2.2. Treatment protocol
2.3. Crop growth and yield
2.4. Soil chemical and physical properties
2.5. Soil microbial communities
2.6. Plant sampling and analysis
2.7. Statistical analysis
3. Results
3.1. Crop growth and yield
3.2. Soil chemical and physical properties
3.3. Soil inorganic N and microbial community structure and function
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References






Field Crops Research
Volume 86, Issues 2-3, 10 March 2004, Pages 255-266
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.