Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:36:52.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographic screening of potential alternative crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

C. Roger Bowen  and
Steven E. Hollinger
C. Roger Bowen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA.
Steven E. Hollinger*
Affiliation:
Atmospheric Environment Section, Illinois State Water Survey, 2204 Griffith Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alternative crops, with appropriate markets and infrastructure, provide farmers the potential for diversification to offset financial stress caused by an overabundant supply of a limited number of species grown over a broad area. The objective of this work was to develop a model that would identify where soil and climate conditions are likely to be suitable for a large number of crops over a large geographic region. The model was used to screen 414 crops for suitability to Illinois conditions. The 414 crops were a subset of 968 candidate crops, for which crop soil (texture, pH, drainage) and climate (temperature, precipitation, growing season length, minimum winter temperature) requirements were identified from a literature search. The simple model was linked to geographic information system software to evaluate the suitability of the soil and climate conditions of Illinois. Two of the 414 crops were classified as highly suitable in more than 50% of the state's land area, 18 suitable in more than 90% of the state, and a total of 83 crops were rated as suitable to highly suitable in more than 90% of the state. Comparison of the suitability maps to known ranges of existing crops, and limited evaluation of 15 crops classified as suitable, moderately suitable and unsuitable for Urbana, Illinois conditions in a demonstration plot, showed this model's utility to a limited area, and suggests that the model can be applied to any region where geographically referenced soil and climate data either exist or can be developed.

Keywords

alternative cropscrop suitabilityclimate suitabilitysoil suitabilitygeographic information systems
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 141 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

1United States Department of Agriculture, US Army Corp of Engineers, United States Geological Survey 2001. VegSpec. http://ironwood.itc.nrcs.usda.gov/scripts/ndisapi.dll/vegspec21/spgPurpose.Google Scholar
2Janick, J. 2002. NewCROP: The new Crop Resource Online Program [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ (verified 10 January 2002).Google Scholar
3Nafziger, E.D. (2002) Alternative Crops. Illinois Agronomy Handbook, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. p. 60–65.Google Scholar
4Brooker, J.R. and Gray, M.D. 1990. Identification of vegetables growing in Tennessee from computer generated maps based on geographic information systems. Tennessee Farm and Home Science, Number 153, winter 1990, University of Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
5Myers, R.L. 1993. Determining amaranth and canola suitability in Missouri through geographic information system analysis. In Janick, J. and Simon, J.E. (eds). New Crops. John Wiley and Sons. New York.Google Scholar
6Young, J.A., Vance, G.F., Munn, L.C., Christensen, B.M. and Schaad, M.S. 2000. A geographic information system for identification of potential alternative crops utilizing soil and climate variables in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15: 160–170.Google Scholar
7Martin, J.H. and Leonard, W.H. 1964. Principles of Field Crop Production. The Macmillian Company, New York. p. 1176.Google Scholar
8Compton, C.C., Magness, J.R., and Markle, G.M. 1971. Food and Feed Crops of the United States [Online]. Interregional Research Project IR-4, IR Bulletin 1 (Bulletin 828 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station). Available at Web site http:// www.ncg.nrcs.usda.gov/statsgo.html (verified 11 January 2002).Google Scholar
9Ritchie, G.A. 1979. New Agricultural Crops. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
10Duke, J.A. 1981. Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance. Plenum Press. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Duke, J.A. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.newcrop.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/dukeindex.html. (verfied 11 January 2002).Google Scholar
12Chadwick, A.F., Craker, L.E. and Simon, J.E. 1984. Herbs An Indexed Bibliography. Archon Books, Hamden, Conneticut.Google Scholar
13Sauer, J.D. 1994. Historical Geography of Crop Plants: A Select Roster. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 309.Google Scholar
14Huston, M., Perlack, R.D., and Wright, L. L. 1997. Biomass Fuel From Woody Crops for Electric Power. Winrock International, Arlington, VA. Available at Web site http://www.winrock.org/REEP/Publications/bsrrpt/BSR1.html (verified 10 January 2002).Google Scholar
15Frame, J., Charlton, J.F.L. and Laidlaw, A.S. 1998. Temperate Forage Legumes CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 327.Google Scholar
16Garret, P., Petterson, S., and Simon, J.E. 1998. Guide to Herb Varieties [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/med-aro/herbguide1.html. (verfied 10 January 2002).Google Scholar
17Wiersema, J.H. and Leon, B. 1999. World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 749.Google Scholar
18Gold, M.V. and Thompson, R.S. 2001. List of Alternative Crops and Enterprises for Small Farm Diversification [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/altlist.htm (verified 10 January 2002).Google Scholar
19 Anon 2002. Alternative Field Crops Handbook. Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products, Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
20Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2000. Ecocrop [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/GBASE/Genera.htm (verified 18 January 2002).Google Scholar
21United States Department of Agriculture 2000. Regulated Noxious Weeds State List [Online]. Available at Web site http://www.aphis.usda.gov/npb/statenw.html (verified 10 January 2002).Google Scholar
22Microsoft Corporation 1999. Microsoft Access 2000. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.Google Scholar
23Bowen, C.R. and Hollinger, S.E. 2004. Model to determine suitability of a region for a large number of crops. Available at Web site http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/data/altcrops (verified 21 January 2004).Google Scholar
24Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1993. State Soil Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) Data Users Guide. Miscellaneous Publication 1492, US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
25Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 2000. ArcInfo GIS Version 8.1 for Windows. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
26Iverson, L.R., Prasad, A. and Ketzner, D.M. 1997. A summary of the Illinois flora based on the Illinois Plant Information Network. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 90: 41–64.Google Scholar
27Iverson, L.R., Ketzner, D., and Karnes, J. 1999. Illinois Plant Information Network. Database at http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/ilpin/ilpin.html. Illinois Natural History Survey and USDA Forest Service (verified 21 January 2004).Google Scholar