Direct effects of soil organic matter on productivity mirror those observed with organic amendments
- 697 Downloads
Organic amendments to arable soil build soil organic matter (SOM), which can increase crop yields. However, organic amendments can influence crop yields independently of SOM by providing nutrients directly to plants. The relative importance of native organic matter versus organic amendments is not well quantified. We experimentally manipulated both organic amendments and native SOM concentrations to quantify their relative importance to crop yields.
We created OM concentration gradients by (1) diluting an organic-rich A-horizon with a mineral base and (2) amending compost to the same mineral base, generating OM concentrations for both treatments of approximately 2, 4 and 8%. We grew buckwheat and measured plant productivity and a range of soil fertility variables.
Higher concentrations of OM, whether native or amended, were associated with higher soil water holding capacity and nutrients, and improved soil structure. Consequently, increases in both native and amended OM were associated with strong positive but saturating impacts on productivity, though amendment effects were greater.
Our results suggest that native SOM can support productivity levels comparable to those observed with organic amendments. Although our quantitative findings will likely vary for different soils and amendments, our results lend support to the idea that SOM stocks directly increase productivity.
KeywordsCrop productivity Crop yield Soil health Soil organic carbon Soil organic matter Soil quality Sustainable agriculture
Thanks to Jeremy Oldfield of the Yale Sustainable Food Program for helping to facilitate this research; and to Rachel McMonagle, Sanna O’Connor-Morberg, and Leehi Yona for lab assistance. This work was funded by a grant to EEO from the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.
- Brady NC, Weil RR (2007) The nature and properties of soils, 14th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Chapin FS, Bloom AJ, Field CB, Waring RH (1987) Plant responses to multiple environmental factors. BioScience 37(1):49–57Google Scholar
- FAO (2005) The importance of soil organic matter. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Fortuna A, Harwood RR, Paul EA (2003) The effects of compost and crop rotations on carbon turnover and the particulate organic matter fraction. Soil Sci 168:434Google Scholar
- Hirose T, Werger MJA (1987) Maximizing daily canopy photosynthesis with respect to the leaf nitrogen allocation pattern in the canopy. Oecologia 72(4):520–526Google Scholar
- Janzen HH, Campbell CA, Brandt SA et al (1992) Light-fraction organic matter in soils from long-term crop rotations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:1799–1806. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600060025x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kline RB (2012) Assumptions in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle R (ed) Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York, pp 111–125Google Scholar
- Nelson DW, Sommers LE, Sparks D, Page A, Helmke P et al (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis Part 3-chemical methods 961–1010Google Scholar
- NOAA National Centers for Environmental information, Climate at a glance: U.S. time series, precipitation, published February 2017, retrieved on March 7, 2017 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
- NRCS (2012) Farming in the 21st century: a practical approach to improve soil health. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Romig DE, Garlynd MJ, Harris RF, McSweeney K (1995) How farmers assess soil health and quality. J Soil Water Conserv 50:229–236Google Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web soil survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed October 2016
- Wander MM (2004) Soil organic matter fractions and their relevance to soil function. In: Magdoff F, Weil R (eds) Advances in agroecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 67–102Google Scholar