Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T05:20:27.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop diversity effects on productivity and economics: a Northern Great Plains case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

David W. Archer ,
Mark A. Liebig ,
Donald L. Tanaka  and
Krishna P. Pokharel
David W. Archer*
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 459, Mandan, ND58554-0459, USA
Mark A. Liebig
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 459, Mandan, ND58554-0459, USA
Donald L. Tanaka
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 459, Mandan, ND58554-0459, USA
Krishna P. Pokharel
Affiliation:
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 459, Mandan, ND58554-0459, USA
*
Author for correspondence: David W. Archer, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasing crop diversity has been proposed to increase the sustainability of cropping systems. If producers are to adopt these systems, they should also be economically viable. In this study conducted near Mandan, North Dakota, four no-till cropping systems with varying levels of crop diversity were evaluated over a 12-yr period to quantify system effect on crop productivity, input use, production costs, and economic risks and returns. Cropping system treatments included a small grain–fallow rotation (SG–Fallow) and a continuous spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) rotation (Cont SW) as baseline low-diversity rotations, a small grain–winter wheat (T. aestivum L.)–sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) rotation (SG–WW–Sun), a 5-yr rotation (Five Year) and a dynamic rotation (Dynamic). The SG–Fallow rotation was significantly less productive and less profitable on average than the other rotations, as measured by gross returns and net returns, respectively. However, SG–Fallow also used significantly less inputs than the other rotations. Production costs for the Cont SW and SG–WW–Sun rotations showed a significant increasing trend over time, while production costs for the Five Year rotation showed a significantly lower and slight decreasing trend over the period, with cost trends for the SG–Fallow and Dynamic rotations intermediate to these. Net returns tended to increase and relative economic risk tended to decrease as crop diversity increased from SG–Fallow and Cont SW to SG–WW–Sun, Five Year and the Dynamic system. Results from this study suggest that more diverse rotations can maintain or increase crop productivity and enhance economic viability.

Keywords

Crop diversitycrop rotationeconomicsprofitabilityriskno-till
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 69 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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.)

Footnotes

*

Retired

References

Aguilar, J, Gramig, GG, Hendrickson, JR, Archer, DW, Forcella, F and Liebig, MA (2015) Crop species diversity changes in the United States: 1978–2012. PLoS ONE 10, e0136580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, RL (2005) Improving sustainability of cropping systems in the central Great Plains. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 26, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, DW, Pikul, JL and Riedell, WE (2002) Economic risk, returns and input use under ridge and conventional tillage in the northern Corn Belt, USA. Soil and Tillage Research 67, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, PJ, Allmaras, RR, Crookston, RK and Nelson, WW (1993) Corn-soybean rotation effects on soil water depletion. Agronomy Journal 85, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookston, RK, Kurle, JE, Copeland, PJ, Ford, JH and Lueschen, WE (1991) Rotational cropping sequence affects yield of corn and soybean. Agronomy Journal 83, 108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVuyst, EA and Halvorson, AD (2004) Economics of annual cropping versus crop–fallow in the northern Great Plains as influenced by tillage and nitrogen. Agronomy Journal 96, 148–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVuyst, EA, Foissey, T and Kegode, GO (2006) An economic comparison of alternative and traditional cropping systems in the northern Great Plains, USA. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21, 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhuyvetter, KC, Thompson, CR, Norwood, CA and Halvorson, AD (1996) Economics of dryland cropping systems in the Great Plains: a review. Journal of Production Agriculture 9, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, AD, Wienhold, BJ and Black, AL (2002) Tillage, nitrogen, and cropping system effects on soil carbon sequestration. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66, 906–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, JJ, Liebig, MA, Archer, DW, West, MS and Tanaka, DL (2016) Impacts of crop sequence and tillage management on soil carbon stocks in South-Central North Dakota. Soil Science Society of America Journal 80, 1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkegaard, J, Christen, O, Krupinsky, J and Layzell, D (2008) Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crops Research 107, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemme, RM (1985) A stochastic dominance comparison of reduced tillage systems in corn and soybean production under risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupinsky, JM, Tanaka, DL, Merrill, SD, Liebig, MA and Hanson, JD (2006) Crop sequence effects of 10 crops in the northern Great Plains. Agricultural Systems 88, 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, WF (2015) Machinery Cost Estimates. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Extension.Google Scholar
Liebig, MA, Tanaka, DL, Hanson, JD, Archer, DW, Krupinsky, JM, Merrill, SD, Nichols, KA, Hendrickson, JR, Anderson, RL, Charlet, LD and Stott, DE (2008) Crop Sequence Calculator, v. 3.1. Mandan, ND, USA: USDA–Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory. Available at https://www.ars.usda.gov/plains-area/mandan-nd/ngprl/docs/crop-sequence-calculator/Google Scholar
Liebig, MA, Tanaka, DL and Wienhold, BJ (2004) Tillage and cropping effects on soil quality indicators in the northern Great Plains. Soil and Tillage Research 78, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebig, MA, Archer, DW and Tanaka, DL (2014) Crop diversity effects on near-surface soil condition under dryland agriculture. Applied and Environmental Soil Science 2014, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, MG, Carter, PR and Oplinger, ES (1993) Tillage and crop rotation affect corn, soybean, and winter wheat yields. Journal of Production Agriculture 6, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, PR, Waddington, J, McDonald, CL and Derksen, DA (2002) Cropping sequence affects wheat productivity on the semiarid northern Great Plains. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 82, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, JW and Cox, WJ (1998) Agronomics of corn production under different crop rotations in New York. Journal of Production Agriculture 11, 462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, A and Haugen, R (2015) Projected 2016 Crop Budgets: South West North Dakota, EC1552. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Extension Service.Google Scholar
Tanaka, DL, Krupinsky, JM, Liebig, MA, Merrill, SD, Ries, RE, Hendrickson, JR, Johnson, HA and Hanson, JD (2002) Dynamic cropping systems: an adaptable approach to crop production in the Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94, 957–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, DL, Krupinsky, JM, Merrill, SD, Liebig, MA and Hanson, JD (2007) Dynamic cropping systems for sustainable crop production in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 99, 904–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, DL, Lyon, DJ, Miller, PR, Merrill, SD and McConkey, BG (2010) Soil and water conservation advances in the semiarid northern Great Plains. In Zobeck, TM and Schillinger, WF (eds), Soil and Water Conservation Advances in the United States. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
Thomas, VG and Kevan, PG (1993) Basic principles of agroecology and sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA-NASS (2017) Quickstats 2.0. US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/Google Scholar
Wade, T, Claasen, R and Wallander, S (2015) Conservation-practice Adoption Rates Vary Widely by Crop and Region. EIB-147. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, December 2015.Google Scholar
West, TD, Grifith, DR, Steinhardt, GC, Kladivko, EJ and Parsons, SD (1996) Effect of tillage and rotation on agronomic performance of corn and soybean: twenty-year study on dark silty clay loam soil. Journal of Production Agriculture 9, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zentner, RP, Campbell, CA, Biederbeck, VO, Miller, PR, Selles, F and Fernandez, MR (2001) In search of a sustainable cropping system for the semiarid Canadian prairies. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 18, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zentner, RP, Wall, DD, Nagy, CN, Smith, EG, Young, DL, Miller, PR, Campbell, CA, McConkey, BG, Brandt, SA, Lafond, GP and Johnston, AM (2002 a) Economics of crop diversification and soil tillage opportunities in the Canadian prairies. Agronomy Journal 94, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zentner, RP, Lafond, GP, Derksen, DA and Campbell, CA (2002 b) Tillage method and crop diversification: effect on economic returns and riskiness of cropping systems in a Thin Black Chernozem of the Canadian Prairies. Soil and Tillage Research 67, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollinger, R, Christoffers, M, Dalley, C, Endres, G, Gramig, G, Howatt, K, Jenks, B, Lym, R, Ostlie, M, Peters, T, Robinson, A, Thostenson, A and Valenti, H (2016) 2016 North Dakota Weed Control Guide, W-253. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Extension Service.Google Scholar