Mow-plow crop residue management influence on soil erosion in north-central Oregon

Soil loss from dryland farms on the Columbia Plateau in Oregon and Washington (USA) results primarily from rain falling on frozen, cultivated soil. Soils are most susceptible to erosion when moldboard plowed, summer-fallowed, repeatedly rod-weeded or cultivated, and fall planted to winter-wheat. The...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Soil & tillage research 2000-05, Vol.55 (1), p.71-78
Hauptverfasser: Williams, John D, Wilkins, Dale E, Douglas, Clyde L, Rickman, Ronald W
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 78
container_issue 1
container_start_page 71
container_title Soil & tillage research
container_volume 55
creator Williams, John D
Wilkins, Dale E
Douglas, Clyde L
Rickman, Ronald W
description Soil loss from dryland farms on the Columbia Plateau in Oregon and Washington (USA) results primarily from rain falling on frozen, cultivated soil. Soils are most susceptible to erosion when moldboard plowed, summer-fallowed, repeatedly rod-weeded or cultivated, and fall planted to winter-wheat. These tillage practices are used because they help control weed and disease infestations and consistently produce good crops. Unfortunately, they also destroy soil structure and lead to considerable soil loss by water erosion. Conservation-tillage-practices have not been widely accepted because of associated weed and disease problems. A new conservation system using crop residue management, the mow-plow system, has shown promise for weed control. The moldboard plow is the primary tillage tool, but standing crop residue is cut ahead of the plow and distributed onto the adjacent plowed surface. The system requires a single pass of the equipment. We evaluated runoff and erosion responses in two levels of residue application in the mow-plow (L∼23% and H∼36% cover), traditional moldboard plow, and chisel plow winter-wheat/summer-fallow systems near Pendleton, OR, USA. Following extended periods of sub-freezing air and soil temperatures, we simulated rainfall at 9, 13, and 19 mm h −1 and collected runoff to evaluate water and soil loss as the soil thawed. Runoff was not significantly different among treatments. For each of the three rainfall intensities, the chisel plow treatment provided the best protection against soil erosion at 0.11, 0.39, and 0.95 Mg ha −1 h −1, followed closely by the mow-plow (H) 0.26, 0.55, and 0.90 Mg ha −1 h −1. The moldboard plow treatment was the least effective treatment for erosion control (0.57, 1.38, and 3.76 Mg ha −1 h −1). The erosion response from the mow-plow (L) treatment was variable and not statistically different from the moldboard plow treatment (0.33, 2.49, and 1.71 Mg ha −1 h −1). These results demonstrate the importance of maintaining cover on the soil surface. The mow-plow system, where adequate straw residue is available, is superior to moldboard plow system for soil conservation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00100-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_14547386</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167198700001008</els_id><sourcerecordid>14547386</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-a49741a154758318228b399d6465e3ad158d23770b6033f4fbe8cc70d2aee9493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMoWKs_QchBRA-rk012kz2JFF9QKfg4hzQ7WyPbpCZbi__erS169DLDwDevj5BjBhcMWHn53AeZsUrJM4BzAAaQqR0yYEpWGRdC7JLBL7JPDlJ6BwDBczUgT49hlS3asKI2hgWNmFy9RDo33sxwjr6jzjftEr1FGjxNwbUUY0iuL5ynPsTuLbM9F01LJxFnwR-Svca0CY-2eUheb29eRvfZeHL3MLoeZ5aXssuMqKRghhVCFoozledqyquqLkVZIDc1K1SdcylhWgLnjWimqKyVUOcGsRIVH5LTzdxFDB9LTJ2eu2SxbY3HsEyaiX40V2UPFhuwfzGliI1eRDc38Usz0GuD-segXuvRAPrHoFZ938l2gUnWtE003rr01yxyBdX6jqsNhv2znw6jTtathdUuou10Hdw_i74BfHKEcg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>14547386</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mow-plow crop residue management influence on soil erosion in north-central Oregon</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Williams, John D ; Wilkins, Dale E ; Douglas, Clyde L ; Rickman, Ronald W</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, John D ; Wilkins, Dale E ; Douglas, Clyde L ; Rickman, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><description>Soil loss from dryland farms on the Columbia Plateau in Oregon and Washington (USA) results primarily from rain falling on frozen, cultivated soil. Soils are most susceptible to erosion when moldboard plowed, summer-fallowed, repeatedly rod-weeded or cultivated, and fall planted to winter-wheat. These tillage practices are used because they help control weed and disease infestations and consistently produce good crops. Unfortunately, they also destroy soil structure and lead to considerable soil loss by water erosion. Conservation-tillage-practices have not been widely accepted because of associated weed and disease problems. A new conservation system using crop residue management, the mow-plow system, has shown promise for weed control. The moldboard plow is the primary tillage tool, but standing crop residue is cut ahead of the plow and distributed onto the adjacent plowed surface. The system requires a single pass of the equipment. We evaluated runoff and erosion responses in two levels of residue application in the mow-plow (L∼23% and H∼36% cover), traditional moldboard plow, and chisel plow winter-wheat/summer-fallow systems near Pendleton, OR, USA. Following extended periods of sub-freezing air and soil temperatures, we simulated rainfall at 9, 13, and 19 mm h −1 and collected runoff to evaluate water and soil loss as the soil thawed. Runoff was not significantly different among treatments. For each of the three rainfall intensities, the chisel plow treatment provided the best protection against soil erosion at 0.11, 0.39, and 0.95 Mg ha −1 h −1, followed closely by the mow-plow (H) 0.26, 0.55, and 0.90 Mg ha −1 h −1. The moldboard plow treatment was the least effective treatment for erosion control (0.57, 1.38, and 3.76 Mg ha −1 h −1). The erosion response from the mow-plow (L) treatment was variable and not statistically different from the moldboard plow treatment (0.33, 2.49, and 1.71 Mg ha −1 h −1). These results demonstrate the importance of maintaining cover on the soil surface. The mow-plow system, where adequate straw residue is available, is superior to moldboard plow system for soil conservation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-1987</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3444</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00100-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; Conservation tillage ; Freeze-thaw cycles ; Frozen soil ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Infiltration ; Rainfall simulation ; Residue management ; Soil erosion ; Soil erosion, conservation, land management and development ; Soil science ; Winter-wheat/summer-fallow</subject><ispartof>Soil &amp; tillage research, 2000-05, Vol.55 (1), p.71-78</ispartof><rights>2000 Elsevier Science B.V.</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-a49741a154758318228b399d6465e3ad158d23770b6033f4fbe8cc70d2aee9493</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-a49741a154758318228b399d6465e3ad158d23770b6033f4fbe8cc70d2aee9493</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00100-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1428099$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilkins, Dale E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douglas, Clyde L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rickman, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><title>Mow-plow crop residue management influence on soil erosion in north-central Oregon</title><title>Soil &amp; tillage research</title><description>Soil loss from dryland farms on the Columbia Plateau in Oregon and Washington (USA) results primarily from rain falling on frozen, cultivated soil. Soils are most susceptible to erosion when moldboard plowed, summer-fallowed, repeatedly rod-weeded or cultivated, and fall planted to winter-wheat. These tillage practices are used because they help control weed and disease infestations and consistently produce good crops. Unfortunately, they also destroy soil structure and lead to considerable soil loss by water erosion. Conservation-tillage-practices have not been widely accepted because of associated weed and disease problems. A new conservation system using crop residue management, the mow-plow system, has shown promise for weed control. The moldboard plow is the primary tillage tool, but standing crop residue is cut ahead of the plow and distributed onto the adjacent plowed surface. The system requires a single pass of the equipment. We evaluated runoff and erosion responses in two levels of residue application in the mow-plow (L∼23% and H∼36% cover), traditional moldboard plow, and chisel plow winter-wheat/summer-fallow systems near Pendleton, OR, USA. Following extended periods of sub-freezing air and soil temperatures, we simulated rainfall at 9, 13, and 19 mm h −1 and collected runoff to evaluate water and soil loss as the soil thawed. Runoff was not significantly different among treatments. For each of the three rainfall intensities, the chisel plow treatment provided the best protection against soil erosion at 0.11, 0.39, and 0.95 Mg ha −1 h −1, followed closely by the mow-plow (H) 0.26, 0.55, and 0.90 Mg ha −1 h −1. The moldboard plow treatment was the least effective treatment for erosion control (0.57, 1.38, and 3.76 Mg ha −1 h −1). The erosion response from the mow-plow (L) treatment was variable and not statistically different from the moldboard plow treatment (0.33, 2.49, and 1.71 Mg ha −1 h −1). These results demonstrate the importance of maintaining cover on the soil surface. The mow-plow system, where adequate straw residue is available, is superior to moldboard plow system for soil conservation.</description><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Conservation tillage</subject><subject>Freeze-thaw cycles</subject><subject>Frozen soil</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Infiltration</subject><subject>Rainfall simulation</subject><subject>Residue management</subject><subject>Soil erosion</subject><subject>Soil erosion, conservation, land management and development</subject><subject>Soil science</subject><subject>Winter-wheat/summer-fallow</subject><issn>0167-1987</issn><issn>1879-3444</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEQgIMoWKs_QchBRA-rk012kz2JFF9QKfg4hzQ7WyPbpCZbi__erS169DLDwDevj5BjBhcMWHn53AeZsUrJM4BzAAaQqR0yYEpWGRdC7JLBL7JPDlJ6BwDBczUgT49hlS3asKI2hgWNmFy9RDo33sxwjr6jzjftEr1FGjxNwbUUY0iuL5ynPsTuLbM9F01LJxFnwR-Svca0CY-2eUheb29eRvfZeHL3MLoeZ5aXssuMqKRghhVCFoozledqyquqLkVZIDc1K1SdcylhWgLnjWimqKyVUOcGsRIVH5LTzdxFDB9LTJ2eu2SxbY3HsEyaiX40V2UPFhuwfzGliI1eRDc38Usz0GuD-segXuvRAPrHoFZ938l2gUnWtE003rr01yxyBdX6jqsNhv2znw6jTtathdUuou10Hdw_i74BfHKEcg</recordid><startdate>20000501</startdate><enddate>20000501</enddate><creator>Williams, John D</creator><creator>Wilkins, Dale E</creator><creator>Douglas, Clyde L</creator><creator>Rickman, Ronald W</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000501</creationdate><title>Mow-plow crop residue management influence on soil erosion in north-central Oregon</title><author>Williams, John D ; Wilkins, Dale E ; Douglas, Clyde L ; Rickman, Ronald W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-a49741a154758318228b399d6465e3ad158d23770b6033f4fbe8cc70d2aee9493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Conservation tillage</topic><topic>Freeze-thaw cycles</topic><topic>Frozen soil</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Infiltration</topic><topic>Rainfall simulation</topic><topic>Residue management</topic><topic>Soil erosion</topic><topic>Soil erosion, conservation, land management and development</topic><topic>Soil science</topic><topic>Winter-wheat/summer-fallow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilkins, Dale E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douglas, Clyde L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rickman, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Soil &amp; tillage research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, John D</au><au>Wilkins, Dale E</au><au>Douglas, Clyde L</au><au>Rickman, Ronald W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mow-plow crop residue management influence on soil erosion in north-central Oregon</atitle><jtitle>Soil &amp; tillage research</jtitle><date>2000-05-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>71</spage><epage>78</epage><pages>71-78</pages><issn>0167-1987</issn><eissn>1879-3444</eissn><abstract>Soil loss from dryland farms on the Columbia Plateau in Oregon and Washington (USA) results primarily from rain falling on frozen, cultivated soil. Soils are most susceptible to erosion when moldboard plowed, summer-fallowed, repeatedly rod-weeded or cultivated, and fall planted to winter-wheat. These tillage practices are used because they help control weed and disease infestations and consistently produce good crops. Unfortunately, they also destroy soil structure and lead to considerable soil loss by water erosion. Conservation-tillage-practices have not been widely accepted because of associated weed and disease problems. A new conservation system using crop residue management, the mow-plow system, has shown promise for weed control. The moldboard plow is the primary tillage tool, but standing crop residue is cut ahead of the plow and distributed onto the adjacent plowed surface. The system requires a single pass of the equipment. We evaluated runoff and erosion responses in two levels of residue application in the mow-plow (L∼23% and H∼36% cover), traditional moldboard plow, and chisel plow winter-wheat/summer-fallow systems near Pendleton, OR, USA. Following extended periods of sub-freezing air and soil temperatures, we simulated rainfall at 9, 13, and 19 mm h −1 and collected runoff to evaluate water and soil loss as the soil thawed. Runoff was not significantly different among treatments. For each of the three rainfall intensities, the chisel plow treatment provided the best protection against soil erosion at 0.11, 0.39, and 0.95 Mg ha −1 h −1, followed closely by the mow-plow (H) 0.26, 0.55, and 0.90 Mg ha −1 h −1. The moldboard plow treatment was the least effective treatment for erosion control (0.57, 1.38, and 3.76 Mg ha −1 h −1). The erosion response from the mow-plow (L) treatment was variable and not statistically different from the moldboard plow treatment (0.33, 2.49, and 1.71 Mg ha −1 h −1). These results demonstrate the importance of maintaining cover on the soil surface. The mow-plow system, where adequate straw residue is available, is superior to moldboard plow system for soil conservation.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00100-8</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-1987
ispartof Soil & tillage research, 2000-05, Vol.55 (1), p.71-78
issn 0167-1987
1879-3444
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_14547386
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings
subjects Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Biological and medical sciences
Conservation tillage
Freeze-thaw cycles
Frozen soil
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Infiltration
Rainfall simulation
Residue management
Soil erosion
Soil erosion, conservation, land management and development
Soil science
Winter-wheat/summer-fallow
title Mow-plow crop residue management influence on soil erosion in north-central Oregon
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T12%3A07%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mow-plow%20crop%20residue%20management%20influence%20on%20soil%20erosion%20in%20north-central%20Oregon&rft.jtitle=Soil%20&%20tillage%20research&rft.au=Williams,%20John%20D&rft.date=2000-05-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=71&rft.epage=78&rft.pages=71-78&rft.issn=0167-1987&rft.eissn=1879-3444&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00100-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E14547386%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=14547386&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0167198700001008&rfr_iscdi=true