Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T18:37:52.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative production systems' effects on the K-factor of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Kim L. Fleming ,
William L. Powers ,
Alice J. Jones  and
Glenn A. Helmers
Kim L. Fleming
Affiliation:
Research Technologist, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583.
William L. Powers
Affiliation:
Professors in the Agronomy Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583.
Alice J. Jones
Affiliation:
Professors in the Agronomy Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583.
Glenn A. Helmers
Affiliation:
Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583.
Get access

Abstract

The soil erodibility factor (K) of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation is currently considered a constant for all soils in the same type, regardless of production practice. To examine the effect of alternative production systems on the K-factor we compared pairs of alternatively and conventionally farmed fields on a Judson silt loam (Fine-silty, mixed, mesic Cumulic Hapludolls), a Yutan silty clay loam (Fine-silty, mixed, mesic Mollic Hapludalf), and a Wann fine sandy loam (Coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Fluvaquentic Haplustolls). Soil cores were taken from the surface 10 cm and analyzed for organic matter, permeability, structure, and texture. These data were used to estimate K-factors from a nomograph. All soils in the study had a fine granular structure. Organic matter content and permeability were significantly higher for the alternatively managed field at every location, except for no difference in permeability on the Judson soil. However, the K-factor was significantly lower for the alternative system on the Judson soil. Of all the parameters, texture has the greatest influence in determining K-factors within the nomograph, with soils higher in silt being more erodible than soils higher in sand or clay. Thus, the influences of alternative production systems affected the Judson soil to a greater degree than other textures because of its higher inherent susceptibility to erosion. This study shows that alternative production systems affect the K-factor of some soil types and can reduce soil erodibility, and therefore should be considered when developing conservation plans.

Keywords

soil erodibilityerosionalternative systems
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 55 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Aguilar, R., Kelly, E.F., and Wiel, R.D.. 1988. Effects of cultivation on soils in the Northern Great Plains Rangeland. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 52:1081–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Angers, D.A., and Mehuys, G.R.. 1988. Effects of cropping on macroaggregation of a marine clay soil. Canadian J. Soil Sci. 68:723–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bauer, A., and Black, A.L.. 1981. Soil carbon, nitrogen, and bulk density comparisons in two cropland tillage systems after 25 years and in virgin grassland. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45:1166–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Blevins, R.L., Thomas, G.W., Smith, M.S., Frye, W.W., and Cornelius, P.L.. 1983. Changes in soil properties after 10 years continuously non-tilled and conventionally tilled corn. Soil Tillage Research 3:135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Bouyoucos, G.F. 1951. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soils. Agronomy J. 43:434–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Carter, M.R. 1986. Microbial biomass as an index for tillage-induced changes in soil biological properties. Soil Tillage Research 7:29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Doran, J.W. 1987. Microbial biomass and mineralizable nitrogen distributions in no-tillage and plowed soils. Biological Fertility Soils 5:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Ehlers, W. 1975. Observations on earthworm channels and infiltration on tilled and untilled loess soil. Soil Sci. 119:242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Flannery, R.D., and Kirkham, D.. 1963. A soil core permeameter for field use. Soli Sci. 27:233–241.Google Scholar
10.Fleming, K. 1995. Alternative production system effect on the K-factor of the revised universal soil loss equation. M.S. thesis. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.Google Scholar
11.Gantzer, C.J., and Blake, G.R.. 1978. Physical characteristics of Le Sueur clay loam soil following no-till and conventional tillage. Agronomy J. 70:853–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hageman, N.R., and Shrader, W.D.. 1979. Effects of crop sequence and N fertilizer levels on soil bulk density. Agronomy J. 71:1005–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Heard, J.R., Kladivko, E.J., and Mannering, J.V.. 1988. Soil macroporosity, hydraulic conductivity and air permeability of silty soils under long-term conservation tillage in Indiana. Soil Tillage Research 11:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Klute, A. 1986. Methods of Sou Analysis, Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lindstrom, M.J., Voorhees, W.B., and Randall, G.W.. 1981. Long term tillage effects on interrow runoff and infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45:945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.McGill, W.B., Cannon, K.R., Robertson, J.A., and Cook, F.D.. 1986. Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and water soluble organic C in Breton L after 50 years of cropping to two rotations. Canadian J. Soli Sci. 66:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Peterson, A.E., and Rohweder, D.A.. 1983. Value of cropping sequences in crop production for improving yields and controlling erosion. Proc. Amer. Forage and Grassland Conference 1983. pp. 102–105.Google Scholar
18.Reganold, J.P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and conventional farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3:144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Reganold, J.P., Elliott, L.E., and Unger, Y.L.. 1987. Long term effects of organic and conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature 330:370–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.SAS Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Ver. 6, 4th ed.Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
21.Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1995. RUSLE Software, Version 1.04. Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
22.Soil Survey Staff. 1993a. National Sous Survey Handbook. Title 430–V1. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. pp. 618–623.Google Scholar
23.Soil Survey Staff. 1993b. Soil Survey Manual. Agric. Handbook No. 18. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
24.Soil Survey Staff. 1994a. Nebraska Field Office Technical Guide. Section II, Butler County, Nebraska, Soil and Site Information. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
25.Soil Survey Staff. 1994b. Nebraska Field Office Technical Guide. Section II, Douglas County, Nebraska, Soil and Site Information. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
26.Soil Survey Staff. 1994c. Nebraska Field Office Technical Guide. Section II, Saunders County, Nebraska, Soil and Site Information. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
27.Walkley, A., and Black, I.A.. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter. Soil Sci. 37:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Wischmeier, W.H., and Mannering, J.V.. 1969. Relation of soil properties to its credibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proceedings. 33:131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar