Diversifying crop rotation improves system robustness
Agriculture requires a synergetic improvement in production profitability, long-term viability, and environmental health in the presence of abiotic (i.e., uncontrollable weather, input costs, and product prices) and biotic (i.e., weed pressure and disease infestation) stresses. A “robust” agroecosystem can enhance synergetic improvements by alleviating these stresses, but it is unknown how system robustness can be achieved in a systemic manner. Here, for the first time, we demonstrate that crop diversification can significantly enhance system robustness. An 8-year crop rotation study was conducted, in which 3-year crop sequences were repeated for two cycles, with the first cycle from 2010 to 2012 and the second from 2014 to 2016; each cycle began with a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop, and pea (Pisum sativum L.), lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.), and mustard (Brassica juncea L.) were included in the rotation, and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), a N2-fixing legume susceptible to weed pressure and the foliar disease Ascochyta blight, was the last crop in each of the two cycles. Crop diversification improved system resistance to biotic stresses, and that chickpea in the diversified lentil-wheat-chickpea system had the lowest weed biomass and foliar disease severity among rotation systems. Chickpea in the diversified pea-mustard-chickpea system recovered from severe weed pressure by the end of the second cycle in 2016. Diversified systems increased resistance and resilience from abiotic stresses and improved the constancy in crop productivity across rotation cycles, compared to the less diversified systems. Quantitative assessments show that the most diversified systems had a 14% advantage in system robustness. We conclude that diversifying crop rotation improves system robustness through enhancing crop resistance to and resilience from biotic-induc ed disturbances and increasing the constancy of crop productivity while facing disturbance.
KeywordsAbiotic stress Crop rotation Diversification System resilience Sustainability Perturbation
We thank Lee Poppy, Ray Leshures, and Limin Luan for their valuable technical assistance with the field plot management and data collection, and Yining Niu, Jianling Fan, and Chen Gu for suggestions on data interpretation and presentation.
YG initiated and designed the research; JL analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript with guidance from YG and LL; LH, JZ, and JAC contributed to the data analysis and manuscript preparation; all authors reviewed and approved the paper; and YG finalized the paper.
This study was supported by the MOE-AAFC Ph.D. Research Program (Ministry of Education, China, and Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canada) that was financed by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Rewards 31460337, 31660373, and 31761143004) and the Education Department of Gansu Province, China (Reward 2017C-12). The authors acknowledge the financial support of Saskatchwan Pulse Growers for conducting the field experiments.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Anonymous (2015) Guide to crop protection. Government of Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, pp. 554Google Scholar
- Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1(9):488–494. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:RDECAR]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fuentes M, Govaerts B, De León F, Hidalgo C, Dendooven L, Sayre KD, Etchevers J (2009) Fourteen years of applying zero and conventional tillage, crop rotation and residue management systems and its effect on physical and chemical soil quality. Eur J Agron 30(3):228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2008.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol 4:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kremen C, Miles A (2012) Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol Soc 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05035-170440
- Mondal S, Rutkoski JE, Velu G, Singh PK, Crespo-Herrera LA, Guzmán C, Bhavani S, Lan C, He X, Singh RP (2016) Harnessing diversity in wheat to enhance grain yield, climate resilience, disease and insect pest resistance and nutrition through conventional and modern breeding approaches. Front Plant Sci 7(991). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00991
- Napel Jt, Bianchi F, Bestman M (2006) Utilising intrinsic robustness in agricultural production systems: inventions for a sustainable development of agriculture. In: Inventions for a sustainable development of agriculture. Trans Forum Agro Groen, pp 32–53Google Scholar
- Olsen S, Sommers L (1982) Methods of soil analysis. Phosphorus. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, United StatesGoogle Scholar
- Reckling M, Bergkvist G, Watson CA, Stoddard FL, Zander PM, Walker RL, Pristeri A, Toncea I, Bachinger J (2016) Trade-offs between economic and environmental impacts of introducing legumes into cropping systems. Front Plant Sci 7(669). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00669
- Zhang J, Iwaasa AD, Han G, Gu C, Wang H, Jefferson PG, Kusler J (2018) Utilizing a multi-index decision analysis method to overall assess forage yield and quality of C3 grasses in the western Canadian prairies. Field Crop Res 222:12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar