Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T06:19:03.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of conventional and subirrigated planters for urban agriculture: Supporting evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2014

Clare Sullivan ,
Thomas Hallaran ,
Gregory Sogorka  and
Kallie Weinkle
Clare Sullivan*
Affiliation:
Feedback Farms, New York, NY, USA. Agriculture and Food Security Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Thomas Hallaran
Affiliation:
Feedback Farms, New York, NY, USA.
Gregory Sogorka
Affiliation:
Feedback Farms, New York, NY, USA.
Kallie Weinkle
Affiliation:
Feedback Farms, New York, NY, USA.
*
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although interest in integrating agriculture into the urban landscape in the USA is increasing rapidly, there is a shortage of guidance for agricultural production in this context as well as a unique set of significant biophysical constraints. A common constraint is not being able to grow directly in the soil, making raised-bed gardening a necessity. Subirrigated planters (SIPs) are a style of raised bed with a subsoil reservoir that provides aeration and allows growers to irrigate below the soil where water is pulled up via capillary action. This bed design has vocal advocates; anecdotally, growers find them to be high yielding, water efficient and easier to maintain than standard raised beds. Given their apparent promise, there is interest in promoting SIPs and in utilizing them in larger-scale urban gardening operations but no rigorous tests compare these beds relative to standard raised beds. At one location and for one season, we compared yields for three crops: cayenne pepper (Capsicum annuum), sungold cherry tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) and lacinato kale (Brassica oleracea), crop quality and labor input for two styles of SIPs, as well as a sack garden, a variation of a SIP that does not require lightweight soil, with two conventional raised beds (one with a compost and topsoil mix and one with the soilless growing medium ideal for container gardening). Results from our first year of data indicate that both the SIP beds and the conventional beds with the soilless growing medium were more productive overall than conventional raised beds with topsoil and compost (P<0.01). Tomato production in the SIP without the root barrier was greater than both the conventional bed with the compost and topsoil mix (P<0.01) and the conventional bed with the soilless growing medium (P<0.05). The majority of the higher-cost beds had a positive revenue stream in the first summer season; given these results, investing in SIPs or in soil appropriate for raised beds appears to be worth the higher initial cost.

Keywords

raised-bed designsubirrigated plantersurban agricultureyield advantage
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 30 , Special Issue 1: Innovations and Trends in Sustainable Urban Agriculture , February 2015 , pp. 55 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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 Green Thumb; City of New York/Department of Parks & Recreation. 2012. GreenThumb Gardener's Handbook. GreenThumb, New York, NY. Available at Web site http://www.greenthumbnyc.org/pdf/gardeners_handbook.pdf (updated January 1, 2013; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
2 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Brownfields and Urban Agriculture: Interim Guidelines for Safe Gardening Practices. EPA, Chicago, IL. Available at Web site http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/urbanag/pdf/bf_urban_ag.pdf (updated June 1, 2011; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
3 Clark, H.F., Hausladen, D.M., and Brabander, D.J. 2008. Urban gardens: Lead exposure, recontamination mechanisms, and implications for remediation design. Environmental Research 107:312–319.Google Scholar
4 Lovell, S.T. 2010. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2:2499–2522.Google Scholar
5 Green Thumb; City of New York/Department of Parks & Recreation. 2013. About GreenThumb. Available at Web site http://www.greenthumbnyc.org/about.html (updated December 1, 2013; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
6 Urban Design Lab (UDL). 2011. The Potential for Urban Agriculture in New York City: Growing Capacity, Food Security, and Green Infrastructure. Columbia University, New York, NY. Available at Web site http://www.urbandesignlab.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/urban_agriculture_nyc.pdf (updated January 1, 2011; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
7 McClintock, N., Cooper, J., and Khandeshi, S. 2013. Assessing the potential contribution of vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California. Landscape and Urban Planning 111:46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Evanylo, G., Sherony, C., Spargo, J., Stamer, D., Brosius, M., and Haering, K. 2008. Soil and water environmental effects of fertilizer-, manure-, and compost-based fertility practices in an organic vegetable cropping system. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and the Environment 127:50–58.Google Scholar
9 Wortman, S. and Lovell, S. 2013. Environmental challenges threatening the growth of urban agriculture in the United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 42:1283–1294.Google Scholar
10 Pennessi, B., Clay, H., and Lewis, J. 2012. C787—Gardening in Containers. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. Available at Web site http://www.caes.uga.edu/Publications/displayPDF.cfm?pk_ID=6385 (updated January 1, 2012; cited December 5, 2013)Google Scholar
11 EarthBox®, Inc. 2013. EarthBox® gardening system. Scranton, PA.Google Scholar
12 Klock-Moore, K. and Broschat, T. 2001. Effect of four growing substrates on growth of ornamental plants in two irrigation systems. HortTechnology 11:456–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Dole, J.M., Cole, J.C., and Von Broembsen, S.L. 1994. Growth of poinsettias, nutrient leaching, and water-use efficiency respond to irrigation methods. HortScience 29:858–864.Google Scholar
14 Rouphael, Y., Cardarelli, M., Rea, E., Battistelli, A., and Colla, G. 2006. Comparison of the subirrigation and drip-irrigation systems for greenhouse zucchini squash production using saline and non-saline nutrient solution. Agricultural Water Management 82:99–117.Google Scholar
15 Incrocci, L., Malorgio, F., Della Bartola, A., and Pardossi, A. 2006. The influence of drip irrigation or subirrigation on tomato grown in closed-loop substrate culture with saline water. Scientia Horticulturae 107:365–372.Google Scholar
16 Cooper, R.L., Fausey, N.R., and Streeter, J.G. 1991. Yield potential of soybean grown under a subirrigation/drainage water management system. Agronomy Journal 83:884–887.Google Scholar
17 Wunderground. 2013. 2012 Precipitation, Zip Code 11217. Available at Web site http://www.wunderground.com/q/zmw:11217.1.99999?MR=1 (updated August 1, 2013; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
18 New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). 2006. Regulations: Chapter IV: Quality Services: Subpart 375-6: Remedial Program Soil Cleanup Objectives. Available at Web site http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/15507.html (updated December 14, 2006; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
19 Gittleman, M., Jordan, K., and Brelsford, E. 2012. Using citizen science to quantify community garden crop yields. Cities and the Environment 5: Article 4. Available at Web site http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol5/iss1/4 (accessed April 7, 2014).Google Scholar
20 De Mendiburu, F. 2013. R package: Agricola version 1.1-6. Available at Web site http://tarwi.lamolina.edu.pe/~fmendiburu (updated December 2, 2013; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
21 R Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at Web site http://www.R-project.org (updated December 2, 2013; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
22 Mutsaers, H. (ed.). 1997. A Field Guide for on-farm Experimentation. IITA, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
23 Jayaraman, K. 1999. A Statistical Manual for Forestry Research. Food and Agriculture Organization, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
24 Piepho, H., Buchse, A., and Emrich, K. 2003. A hitchhiker's guide to mixed models for randomized experiments. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189:310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012. Vegetables 2010–2012. Available at Web site http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (updated January 2, 2013; cited December 5, 2013).Google Scholar
26 University of Vermont Extension. 2013. Vegetable and Berry Crop Yield Estimates for New England. Available at Web site http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/vegetableberryyields.pdf (updated May 1, 2013; cited February 18, 2013).Google Scholar
27 Jeavons, J. 2006. How to Grow More Vegetables than You Ever Thought Possible on Less Land Than You Can Imagine. 7th ed. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
28 Dole, J., Cole, J., and von Broembsen, S. 1994. Growth of poinsettias, nutrient leaching, and water-use efficiency respond to irrigation methods. HortScience 29:854–864.Google Scholar
29 James, E. and van Iersel, M. 2001. Ebb and flow production of petunias and begonias as affected by fertilizers with different phosphorus content. HortScience 36:282–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Uva, W., Weiler, T., and Milligan, R. 1998. A survey on the planning and adoption of zero runoff subirrigation systems in greenhouse operations. HortScience 33:193–196.Google Scholar