Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:10:34.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Wisconsin integrated cropping systems trial: Combining agroecology with production agronomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Joshua L. Posner ,
Michael D. Casler  and
Jon O. Baldock
Joshua L. Posner
Affiliation:
Agronomists in the Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706;
Michael D. Casler
Affiliation:
Agronomists in the Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706;
Jon O. Baldock
Affiliation:
Independent agricultural and statistical consultant.
Get access

Abstract

Two large-scale (25 ha) trials were initiated in 1989 in Wisconsin to compare six alternative production systems regarding productivity, profitability, and environmental impact. The project was designed and is managed by a coalition of farmers, extension agents and research personnel. Deliberations between production-oriented and ecologically oriented team members resulted in a factorial design, with two enterprise types (cash grain and forage-livestock) and three levels of biological complexity. Statistical methods have been used to identify the most efficient plot size, plot shape, and block shape, and the optimal procedures for sampling soil characteristics. A uniformity year was allowed before initiation of the trial, and the start was staggered. We defined treatments as production strategies rather than a specific set of inputs, which led to a more flexible plot management program.

Keywords

agroecological indexhomogeneity yearlong-term researchsampling Statistics
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 98 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

References

1.Altieri, M.A. 1985. Diversification of agricultural landscapes: A vital element for pest control in sustainable agriculture. In Edens, T. C., Fridgen, C., and Battenfield, S. (eds). Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Fanning Systems. Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing, pp. 166–184.Google Scholar
2.Baldock, J.O., Higgs, R.L., Paulsen, W.H., Jakobs, J.A., and Shrader, W.D.. 1981. Legume and mineral N effects on crop yields in several crop sequences in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Agronomy J. 73:885–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Cady, F.B. 1991. Experimental design and data management of rotation experiments. Agronomy J. 83:50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Carmer, S.G., and Seif, R.D.. 1963. Calculation of orthogonal coefficients when treatments are unequally replicated and/or unequally spaced. Agronomy J. 55:387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Crookston, R.K., Kurle, J.E., Copeland, P.J., Ford, J.H., and Lueschen, W.E.. 1991. Rotational cropping sequence affects yield of corn and soybean. Agronomy J. 83:108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.de Gaubeke, J. 1969. The influence of soil variability and time of sampling on soil test results. Masters Thesis. Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
7.Dick, W.A., McCoy, E.L., Edwards, W.M., and Lal, R.. 1991. Continuous application of no-tillage to Ohio soils. Agronomy J. 83:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Doll, J., Mulder, T., and Posner, J.L.. 1993. Weed seed evolution on the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial-1992. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Second Annual Report. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
9.Frye, W.W., and Thomas, G.W.. 1991. Management of long-term field experiments. Agronomy J. 83:38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Gumz, R.G., Saupe, W.E., Klemme, R.M., and Posner, J.L.. 1994. A four year gross margins comparison of three cash grain rotations. Managing the Farm 27(4):1–9. Agric. Economics Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
11.Harwood, R. 1985. The integration efficiencies of cropping systems. In Edens, T.C., Fridgen, C., and Battenfield, S., (eds). Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems. Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing, pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
12.Hesterman, O.B., Sheaffer, C.C., Barnes, D.K., Lueschen, W.E., and Ford, J.H.. 1986. Alfalfa dry matter and nitrogen production, and fertilizer nitrogen response in legume-corn rotations. Agronomy J. 78:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Iragavarapu, T., Posner, J.L., and Schulte, E.. 1993. Soil fertility evolution on the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial-1992. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Second Annual Report. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin. Madison, pp. 60–64.Google Scholar
14.Jenkinson, D.S. 1991. The Rothamsted long-term experiments: Are they still of use? Agronomy J. 83:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Kelling, K.A., Schulte, E.E., Bundy, L.G., Combs, S.M., and Peters, J.B.. 1991. Soil test recommendations for field, vegetable and fruit crops. A2809. Univ. of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison.Google Scholar
16.Kitchen, N.R., Havlin, J.L., and Westfall, D.G.. 1990. Soil sampling under notill banded phosphorous. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1661–1665.Google Scholar
17.Meese, B.G., Carter, P.R., Oplinger, E.S., and Pendleton, J.W.. 1991. Corn/soybean rotation effect as influenced by tillage, nitrogen, and hybrid/cultivar. J. Production Agric. 4:74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Mitchell, C.C., Westerman, R.L., Brown, J.R., and Peck, T.R.. 1991. Overview of long-term agronomic research. Agronomy J. 83:24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Paine, L., and Undersander, D.. 1994. Rotational grazing of dairy heifers: A low-input dairy rotation in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Third Annual Report. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
20.Peterson, T.A., and Varvel, G.E.. 1989a. Crop yield as affected by rotation and nitrogen rate. I. Soybean. Agronomy J. 81:727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Peterson, T.A., and Varvel, G.E.. 1989b. Crop yield as affected by rotation and nitrogen rate. II. Grain sorghum. Agronomy J. 81:731–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Peterson, T.A., and Varvel, G.E.. 1989c. Crop yield as affected by rotation and nitrogen rate. III. Corn. Agronomy J. 81:735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Pimentel, D. (ed). 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
24.Sahs, W.W., and Lesoing, G.. 1985. Crop rotations and manure versus agricultural chemicals in dryland grain production. J. Soil and Water Conservation 40:511–516.Google Scholar
25.Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
26.Stevenson, G.W., and Klemme, R.M.. 1992. Advisory/oversight councils: An alternative approach to farmer/citizen participation in agenda setting at land grant universities. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:111–117.Google Scholar
27.Stuedemann, J.A., and Matches, A.G.. 1989. Measurement of animal response in grazing research. In Marten, G.C. (ed). Grazing Research: Design, Methodology, and Analysis. CSSA Spec. Publ. 16. Crop Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
28.Undersander, D.J., and Posner, J.L.. 1993. Rotational grazing results from the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial-1992. In The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial, Second Annual Report. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. pp. 48–51.Google Scholar
29.U.S. Dept. of Agric., 1981. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States. Handbook 296. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
30.U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1989. 1987 Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Part 49, Wisconsin: State and County Data. Bureau of the Census. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
31. Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial. 1993. Second Annual Report. Appendix II. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin. Madison, pp. 118–121.Google Scholar