Journal of Crop Improvement

ISSN: 1542-7528 (Print) 1542-7536 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcim20

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from Reduced

Tillage to Direct-Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping
Systems
Rmy Kulagowski & Anas Chailleux
To cite this article: Rmy Kulagowski & Anas Chailleux (2015) Short-Term Effects of Conversion
from Reduced Tillage to Direct-Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping Systems, Journal of Crop
Improvement, 29:5, 650-668, DOI: 10.1080/15427528.2015.1070390
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2015.1070390

Published online: 11 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcim20
Download by: [Rmy Kulagowski]

Date: 15 September 2015, At: 09:01

Journal of Crop Improvement, 29:650668, 2015

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1542-7528 print/1542-7536 online
DOI: 10.1080/15427528.2015.1070390

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from Reduced

Tillage to Direct-Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping
Systems
RMY KULAGOWSKI1 and ANAS CHAILLEUX2
Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Department of Crop Production, Chamber of Agriculture of Alpes de Haute Provence,

Oraison, France
2
CIRAD, UPR HortSys, Montpellier, France

Conservation tillage is one strategy whereby both sustainability and

productivity can be achieved by improving the soil quality.
Although reduced tillage (RT) is widely practiced, more conservative strategies, such as direct-seeding mulch-based cropping systems
(DMC), are less frequent. Here we assessed the effect of conversion
from RT to DMC in three commercial fields in southern France
(inland Mediterranean climate). Two fields were cropped with
maize (Zea mays L.) and one with sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.),
and monitored during 15 months. We found higher soil water
potential retention in DMC than in RT at 10, 30, and 60 cm soil
depth. Conversely, nitrogen availability was slightly higher in the
RT treatment. Crop development was not affected by the soil practices, but crop yields were higher in the DMC treatment for one
maize field and the sorghum field (plus 3.04 t/ha harvested in the
DMC treatment when compared to the RT treatment in the maize
field and plus 2.105 t/ha in the sorghum one). This study demonstrates that DMC can provide short-term benefits in farm fields in
southern France, but these benefits are not automatic and the
conditions under which they are obtained remain to be clarified.
KEYWORDS cover crop, crop development, maize, nitrogen,
sorghum, water potential

Received 3 April 2015; accepted 5 July 2015.

Address correspondence to Rmy Kulagowski, Chamber of Agriculture of Alpes de Haute
Provence, Avenue Charles Richaud, 04700 Oraison, France. E-mail: kulagowski.remy@gmail.com.
650

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

651

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

INTRODUCTION
Soil quality has been defined as the capacity of a soil to function within
ecosystem boundaries, sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental
quality, and promote plant and animal health (Doran and Parkin 1994).
Although soil quality is essential for field productivity, agricultural production
can adversely affect soil quality. Tillage, for instance, has been shown to
damage the natural soil ecosystem by increasing soil compaction, erosion,
and disrupting soil fauna communities (Pimentel et al. 1995).
In cereal cropping systems, promoting conservation-tillage practices,
such as minimum soil tillage, could reconcile crop productivity and environmental sustainability by enhancing ecological services provided by the various
soil components (Baker and Saxton 2007). Under this management practice,
the soil is never plowed, instead reduced tillage (RT), or no-tillage is preferred
and ideally residue from the previous crop is left in the field and cover crops
are grown during non-crop period. A minimum of 30% of the soil surface
should be covered with crop residue (Kassam et al. 2009). Conservation tillage
is currently practiced on 100 million ha worldwide (Derpsch et al. 2010),
predominantly in North and South America, but it is also being adopted to
an increasing extent in Australia, New Zealand, and South Asia (Hobbs, Sayre,
and Gupta 2008; Triplett and Dick 2008). From 1999 to 2009, the area
cultivated under conservation tillage increased at an average rate of 6 million
ha/year (Derpsch et al. 2010), primarily with the aim of reducing production
costs and time (Chantre and Cardona 2014), while also preventing soil erosion, improving nutrient content in soils, and retaining soil moisture.
Soil tillage impacts many soil physical properties, including the bulk
density, pore space and pore-size distribution, water-holding capacity, soilwater content, and aggregation (Spedding et al. 2004; Bronick and Lal 2005).
Moreover, mulching with crop residue or cover crops also enhances the soil
structure by affecting aeration and temperature (Khan et al. 2000), and soil
biotic parameters by improving the soil organic matter and fauna content.
Mulch coverby shielding the soil from solar radiationcan also reduce soilwater evaporation (Todd et al. 1991; Holland 2004). The magnitude of real
water gain is high, depending on local agroecosystem characteristics, because
mulch cover increases drainage and induces evaporation from surface residue
(Scopel et al. 2004). Nevertheless, the absolute balance seems to be generally
positive; hence when soil is covered with mulch, more water is likely to be
retained in the soil, where it remains potentially available for crop development, thus decreasing irrigation demand (Bussire and Cellier 1994; Khaledian
et al. 2009). On the other hand, mulch decomposition can result in soilnitrogen immobilization by microbial communities. This reduces the amount
of nitrogen available for the crop in the short term, but generates a nitrogen
source available on a long-term scale, i.e., mulch provides a favorable food

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

652

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

source for soil microorganisms, which can enhance organic matter degradation, in turn boosting nitrogen mineralization (Campbell, Ellert, and Jame
1993; Mary et al. 1996).
Many conservation tillage practices exist, with different effects on soil
quality and yield. Practices range from RT to direct seeding mulch-based
cropping systems (DMC) (Kassam et al. 2009). The DMC is a term very close
to conservation agriculture (CA) (Kassam et al. 2009). The CA is based on
three principles: 1) minimum soil disturbance, 2) soil cover, 3) crop rotation,
while, in fact, DMC gives a narrow focus on seeding and soil-cover practices:
it is defined as the combination of direct seeding and permanent soil cover
(Sguy, Bouzinac, and Husson 2006; Sguy et al. 2008). In this study, we focus
only on soil-management practices at the year scale, without considering the
rotation aspects of the cropping system; hence, the term DMC is more accurate. Although RT has been widely adopted by farmers in temperate regions of
the world, DMC is a new soil-management strategy that requires a drastic
change in farmers habits, and high management standards to implement it
well (Ingram 2010). The DMC still requires on-farm experiments guided by
agronomists to 1) be adapted to specific local conditions, and 2) increase
famers knowledge on this new system (Lithourgidis, Damalas, and Eleftherohorinos 2009; Ingram 2010). In addition, two main obstacles to DMC voluntary adoption can be noted: 1) the benefits that may be reaped from DMC are
more perceptible in the long term, but not in the short run (Bolliger et al.
2006), thus explaining why farmers are often hesitant to convert to this novel
strategy (Mueller, Klemme, and Daniel 1985), and 2) pests, mainly slugs and
weeds, are often cited as major drawbacks of DMC (Bolliger et al. 2006).
Water is the most limiting factor for crop production in southern Europe
because of the erratic annual rainfall distribution (Khaledian et al. 2011),
thus highlighting farmers interest in reduced tillage in this area (e.g., Ebrgge
and Dring 1999). The adoption of conservation tillage has, however, been
slower in Europe than in other parts of the world, and generally merely
involves conversion from plowing (inversion deep tillage) to RT (no-inversion
and more shallow tillage) (Lahmar 2010; Scopel et al. 2013). Indeed, farmers
tend to adopt innovative practices progressively following step-by-step
changes during transition (Chantre and Cardona 2014); hence RT is often
used as a transitional cropping system between plowing and DMC. Gaining
further insight into the changes that occur in farmers fields when they switch
from RT to DMC could help agricultural advisers and practitioners.
It is also essential to quantify the seasonal dynamics of soil water and
nitrogen pools in order to understand how production systems could be better
managed to sustain the long-term soil productivity (Salinas-Garcia, Hons, and
Matocha 1997), but few studies have addressed these issues. Thus, the present
study was designed to assess the short-term effects of field conversion from RT
to DMC practices on abiotic soil components, crop development, and yield.
We assessed the short-term benefits and drawbacks of DMC practices under

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

653

realistic field conditions in southern Europe, relative to 1) soil-water and

nitrogen contents and dynamics and 2) crop development and yield.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Study Site and Crop Management Conditions

The present study was conducted in three commercial fields on two different
farms that were in the same catchment basin (M1: N 43 54 35; E 5 53 36,
M2: N 43 54 50; E 5 54 9 and S: N 43 53 26; E 5 53 38, elevation 376 m
above sea level) at Oraison, France. The area is under an inland Mediterranean type climate, i.e., sunny with low humidity. It rains less than 90 days per
year, with an irregular pattern during the summer. The mean annual rainfall is
695 mm, with a mean annual temperature of 12.9C. The three fields had a
clayey loam soil, which is classified under the FAO system (Driessen et al.
2001) as a typical Fluvisol: fields M1 and M2 with 23.7% clay, 31.3% silt, 6.1%
sand, 2.2% organic matter, and pH 8.3; and field S with 24.1% clay, 31.6% silt,
5.9% sand, 2.1% organic matter, and pH 8.4.
The field trial was set up in autumn 2011 in three commercial fields that
were previously managed under reduced-tillage practices. Farmers conducted
all cultivation operations, thus the three fields differed slightly in their crop
rotation and management practices. The experiment was carried out on two
fields cropped with maize (fields M1 and M2) and on one field cropped with
sorghum (field S). The rotations are described in Table 1, and management
practices related to the soil practices applied to each field during the experiment
are given in Table 2. The three fields were irrigated using a pivot irrigation
system in M1 field, a sprinkler system in M2 field, and a hose reel irrigation
system in S field. We ensured that irrigation was similar between treatments in
each field. Monitoring was carried out during spring and summer 2012.

Experimental Design
Two soil treatments were set up in each field: 1) DMC and 2) RT (tillage to
15 cm depth and without a cover crop). Each treatment was replicated three
times (i.e., 6 plots in total) in a homogeneous area in the center of each field to
avoid edge effects. The experimental area was 150 m long and 28 m wide in
TABLE 1 Crop rotations per field
Field
M1
M2
S

Rotation
Rape or winter pea
Winter pea
Rape or winter pea

Durum wheat
Durum wheat
Durum wheat

Maize
Maize
Sorghum or sunflower

654

October 2012

August 2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

M1, M2
M1, M2
M2
M1
M2
M1

05/06/2012
21/08/2012
31/08/2012
08/10/2012
17/10/2012

M2

05/06/2012

09/04/2012

M1

M1, M2

22/03/2012

29/03/2012

M1, M2

28/02/2012

February 2012

M1, M2

M2

08/09/2011

27/10/2011

M1

Field

30/08/2011

Date

September 2011

August 2011

Month

Irrigation beginning
Irrigation end (355 mm)
Irrigation end (410 mm)
Harvest

Fertilization: 440 kg.ha1 of Coten (44% N)

Fertilization: 200 kg.ha1 of 1846 N-P

fertilizer
Maize sowing (cv. Maggi CS): 81 000
seeds.ha1 (seed treatment: Cruiser 350
[thiametoxam 350 g.L1])
Maize sowing (cv. DK 4795): 81 000
seeds.ha1 (seed treatment: Cruiser 350
[thiametoxam 350 g.L1])

Only for RT treatment: 15 cm soil loosening

Only for DMC treatment: Cover crop direct

sowing; irrigation: two times 15 mm
Only for DMC treatment: Cover crop direct
sowing
Only for RT treatment: 12 cm ploughing

Operations

Fields M1 and M2

TABLE 2 Crop management practices carried out during the experiment

04/10/2012

26/06/2012
21/08/2012

08/06/2012

11/05/2012

27/02/2012

10/11/2011

25/08/2011

Date

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Harvest

Sorghum sowing (cv. Solarius):

350 000 seeds.ha1
Fertilization: 390 kg.ha1 of
ammonitrate (33.5% N)
Irrigation beginning
Irrigation end (260 mm)

Only for RT treatment: 13 cm

ploughing
Only for RT treatment: 8 cm depth
tine harrowing

Only for DMC treatment: Cover crop

direct sowing; irrigation: 25 mm

Operations

Field S

655

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

TABLE 3 Cover crop composition in the DMC treatment for each field during the previous
winter (20112012) and characteristics at 15 December 2011
Field
M1

M2

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Composition
Field pea (10 kg.ha1), grasspea (10 kg.ha1),
lentil (5 kg.ha1), fenugreek (3 kg.ha1),
common vetch (5 kg.ha1), fava bean
(10 kg.ha1).
Field pea (20 kg.ha1), grasspea (20 kg.ha1),
lentil (5 kg.ha1), hairy vetch (5 kg.ha1),
fava bean (20 kg.ha1).
Field pea (28 kg.ha1), grasspea (28 kg.ha1),
fava bean (28 kg.ha1), lentil (9,5 kg.ha1),
soybean (16 kg.ha1), oat (14 kg.ha1),
radish (6 kg.ha1).

Dry matter Nitrogen content

(DM) (t.ha1)
(% of DM)

C/N

2.759

4.125

10.18

0.907

4.904

8.57

4.021

3.647

11.50

each field. The treatments were randomized per field, and each plot was 50 m
long and 14 m wide. The cover crops in the DMC treatments were consistent
across fields, consisting of a mixture of species, mainly legumes, having a low
C/N ratio (Table 3). Cover crops grew successfully in M1 and S and had a
biomass of around 3 t/ha at the first frost. In M2, biomass was lower, i.e.,
around 1 t/ha, probably on account of the lack of irrigation after sowing
(Table 3).
Tensiometers (Watermark) were used for measuring the soil capillary
tension. Two tensiometers were placed per plot, one at 10 cm depth and one
at 30 cm. One tensiometer was also added in one plot per treatment at 60 cm
depth. Monitoring was done weekly from seeding to harvest. Soil nitrogen
content between 020 cm was measured using a Nitracheck reflectometer
method (Roth et al. 1991; Wetselaar, Smith, and Angus 1998). One sample per
treatment (i.e., two per field), consisting of 10 sub-samples, was analyzed
every second week. Crop development was measured as the number of
leaves per plant, and was monitored weekly on one sample per plot consisting of 3 sub-samples from 1 m row transects for the two maize fields (M1 and
M2), and within a 0.25 m2 quadrat for the sorghum field (S). Finally, yield
components were measured at maturity in order to compare the productivity.
Plants from three randomly selected 2 m row transects were thus sampled in
each plot. Plant density, biomass, number of ears or panicles per plant,
thousand-kernel weight (TKW), and grain yield were determined.

Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed using R software (R Development Core
Team 2009) with the package geepack. Potential differences in tension (10 and
30 cm-depth) and crop development among treatments were analyzed

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

656

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

separately for each field using generalized estimating equations (GEE) adapted
to repeated measures across time. A GEE based on normally distributed data
with a log link function was applied for the tension measurements; the factors
tested were the soil practices and date. Poisson distribution was used to fit the
GEE for crop development and factors tested were also the soil practices and
date. For the tension at 60 cm-depth and nitrogen, a paired t-test was carried out
on the data from the three fields but separately for each date, and statistical
analyses were carried out only when results were available for all fields (from
March to September for nitrogen and for the 60 cm-depth tension). The yieldcomponent data were analyzed using an ANOVA for biomass, grain yield, and
TKW. A generalized linear model (GLM) designed for Poisson distribution data
was used for the number of ears or panicles per plant. In all equations, interactions between factors were tested up to the first order.

RESULTS
Soil water tensions (low tensions indicate high soil water potential) were
either lower in the DMC than in the RT treatment or non-significantly
different between the two treatments although within-treatment variation
was observed across time. It ranged from 0 kPa in early spring to 200 kPa in
late summer, with a marked increase after irrigation was stopped in September (Figures 1 and 2). The soil treatment effect on the 10 cm depth
tension was different in each field. For M1, the tension was significantly
affected (P = 0.032), whereas in S it was only marginally affected
(P = 0.075) and there was no significant effect in M2 (P = 0.632). The
date factor had a significant effect on this tension (M1: P = 0.001, M2:
P 0.001, S: P 0.001) (Figure 1). Tension at 30 cm depth was significantly
affected by the soil treatment only in S (S: P = 0.023), whereas it was lower
in the DMC treatment. Although not significant (M1: P = 0.561, M2:
P = 0.571), the tensions showed the same trend in the two other fields
(Figure 1). Again, the date effect was always significant (M1: P = 0.015, M2:
P = 0.004, S: P 0.001) (Figure 1). Tension at 60 cm depth was significantly
or marginally significantly lower in RT than in DMC only in early August
(August 2nd: P = 0.075; August 9th: P = 0.087; and August 16th: P = 0.031)
(Figure 2).
Differences between initial nitrogen soil content in the three fields
were observed. In March (3/15/2012), nitrogen contents were 50.7 kg.
ha1 and 22.1 kg.ha1 in M1 and 35.7 kg.ha1 and 7.8 kg.ha1 in M2 for
RT and DMC, respectively. In S, the nitrogen content measurements were
performed in May (05/29/2012) and were 81.9 kg.ha1 and 67.9 kg.ha1
for RT and DMC, respectively. Overall, nitrogen increased from March to
June and then decreased in both treatments (Figure 3). It was slightly
lower in the DMC treatment; statistical results show a marginally

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

657

FIGURE 1 Soil water tension dynamics over time for the RT and DMC treatments at 10 and
30 cm depth for each field. Mean tensions ( SEM) are shown, and rain and irrigation quantities
are indicated on the top of the graph for each field.

significant difference for April 5th (P = 0.056) and for August 23rd
(P = 0.067) (Figure 3).
Crop development was continuous throughout the season and was not
affected by the soil treatment (soil treatment, M1: P = 0.717, M2: P = 1, S:
P = 0.688), except for field S where the interaction was marginally significant
(soil treatment*date interaction, S: P = 0.099) (Figure 4). As expected, the date

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

658

FIGURE 2 Soil water tension dynamics over time for the RT and DMC treatments at 60 cm
depth for the three fields. Rain and irrigation quantities are indicated on the top of the graph for
each field.

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

659

FIGURE 3 Nitrogen dynamics over time for the RT and DMC treatments for each field.

effect was significant for the three fields (date, M1: P 0.001, M2: P 0.001, S:
P 0.001).
Yield components are presented in Table 4. The results varied depending
on the component and field. The plant density was similar between the two
treatments in all fields; aboveground biomass was significantly higher in the
DMC treatment for M1 and marginally significantly higher for S, whereas it was
significantly lower in DMC treatment for M2. The number of ears per plant
was similar between the two treatments for maize, contrary to sorghum, which
showed significantly more panicles per plant in the DMC treatment.

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

660

FIGURE 4 Crop development over time for the RT and DMC treatments for the three fields.
Mean numbers of leaves per plant ( SEM) are shown.

661

RT
DMC
df
F
P value
RT
DMC
df
F
P value
RT
DMC
df
F
P value

8.15 ( 0.28) a
7.70 ( 0.33) a
1
0.642
0.468
8.00 ( 0.41) a
8.30 ( 0.39) a
1
0.306
0.610
13.04 ( 0.87) a
11.56 ( 0.87) a
1
2.554
0.185

Plant density
(plant/m2)
9.65 ( 0.08) b
13.32 ( 1.41) a
1
10.107
0.05
8.55 ( 0.54) a
6.86 ( 0.35) b
1
11.746
0.05
4.66 ( 0.25) b
5.97 ( 0.30) a
1
7.059
0.1

Aboveground
biomass (t/ha)
1.04 ( 0.05) a
1.04 ( 0.03) a
1
0.590
0.943
0.98 ( 0.02) a
0.98 ( 0.02) a
1
0.281
0.624
1.13 ( 0.53) b
1.43 ( 0.54) a
1
4.347
0.001

Ears (or
panicles)/plant
15.80 ( 0.56) b
18.84 ( 0.94) a
1
7.310
0.05
14.14 ( 1.57) a
14.88 ( 0.82) a
1
1.013
0.371
5.45 ( 0.20) b
7.60 ( 0.32) a
1
33.039
0.001

Grain yield
(t/ha)

309.44 ( 6.31) b
332.45 ( 4.58) a
1
6.603
0.1
268.97 ( 6.97) a
270.59 ( 5.04) a
1
0.034
0.862
20.86 ( 0.60) b
23.99 ( 0.44) a
1
16.666
0.05

TKW (g)

(TKW)1000-kernel weight.
Means followed by the same letter in column are not significantly different at P 0.05, and means followed by the same italic letter in column are not significantly
different at P 0.1.

M2

M1

Field

TABLE 4 Yield components of the three fields and statistical results (GLM with adapted dispersion laws)

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

662

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

Concerning yield, grain production was significantly higher in the DMC treatment for M1 and S, and for M2, the difference was not significant although the
yield was also numerically higher in the DMC treatment. Finally, TKW was
significantly higher in the DMC treatment in S, marginally significantly higher
in M1 and only numerically higher in the M2 field (Table 4).

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

DISCUSSION
This experiment was focused on the conversion process in situations when
farmers switch from RT to DMC, in order to assess any short-term advantages and drawbacks. The experiment was carried out in three different
commercial fields and on two different crops to assess whether the
observed effects were generally applicable. The results showed either better
soil water potential in DMC than in RT or no significant difference between
the two treatments, and slightly lower nitrogen soil content in DMC. Crop
development was not affected by the soil treatmentit seems that different
advantages and drawbacks of each practice ultimately resulted in similar
crop development. In addition, grain yields were higher in the DMC treatment, despite the difference was statistically significant only in two fields
over the three studied.
The DMC treatment showed a potential to increased soil water tension
compared to RT, thus reducing water stress risks for the crop. However, in
some fields no statistically significant differences were observed, highlighting
that other factors impacted soil water content and lowered the benefits of
DMC on this parameter. When benefits were observed, it could be the consequence of 1) reduced evaporation, thanks to the cover crop residue mulch
layer on the soil surface (Holland 2004; Scopel et al. 2004), 2) soil fauna
preservation, in particular earthworms, thus improving water infiltration
(Emmerling 2001; Pelosi, Bertrand, and Roger-Estrade 2009), 3) well-structured soil, resulting in better infiltration and water retention (Bronick and Lal
2005; Pagliai, Vignozzi, and Pellegrini 2004; Thierfelder and Wall 2010), and 4)
reduced transpiration on account of potentially reduced crop growth in the
DMC treatment. However, we found higher aboveground biomass in field M1
and S where tensions were lower in DMC treatment, and a lower aboveground biomass in M2 where tensions were not statistically significantly
different; hence this last explanation is unlikely to contribute to the differences
observed in the soil water potentials. These results support the findings of
previous studies carried out in Europe (Khaledian et al. 2011, 2012) and
elsewhere (e.g., Jones, Moody, and Lillard 1969; Mulumba and Lal 2008).
Accurate control of irrigation tailored to DMC could allow potential water
savings even during the conversion period, while maintaining a sufficient
available water supply for the crop.

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

663

The soil nitrogen content was slightly lower in the DMC treatment in the
020 cm horizon. Previous studies assessing the issue of soil nitrogen contents
under different soil tillage conditions showed that nitrogen was more concentrated in the surface horizon in no-till treatments, but that the global soil
nitrogen content was relatively similar (Dick 1983; Franzluebbers and Hons
1996; Puget and Lal 2005). In our study, the nitrogen content was slightly
affected by soil practices (marginally significant differences only in two dates
over six tested). It is possible that the significance of differences was underestimated because of differences between fields. Indeed, fertilization strategies
were variable between fields and C/N ratio and biomass of the previous cover
crops were different. Previous cover crop consumes/provides more or less
nitrogen 1) during their growing period and 2) for their degradation. Indeed,
the degradation of plant residue with a high C/N ratio requires more nitrogen
than the degradation of residue with a low C/N ratio (Paul and Juma 1981;
Bengtsson et al. 2011). Slightly lower soil nitrogen content in the short run in
DMC might be due to the residue from the previous crop, i.e., durum wheat
for all fields, which negatively affected the nitrogen content of the DMC
treatment because of the high C/N ratio. Note also that, in the RT treatments,
the soil is mechanically tilled, thus causing mineralization and release of
nitrogen on a short time scale.
Soil organic matter dynamics and nutrient cycling are closely related to
the microbial driven processes of nutrient immobilization and mineralization
(Duxbury et al. 1989). We noted a nitrogen peak in May, probably because of
the warm temperatures (Srivastava 1992; Schulten and Hempfling 1992; Leinweber, Schulten, and Krschens 1994; Franzluebbers, Hons, and Zuberer
1995), and a later peak in June following fertilization treatments. The nitrogen
content then dropped as a result of plant consumption and potential leaching.
Soil practices had no impact on the crop development and had a variable
impact on the yield components investigated. The DMC seemed to have a
slight negative impact on the density and a positive impact on the aboveground biomass, except for M2, maybe owing to the lower cover crop
biomass in this field. The DMC and RT showed similar numbers of ears per
plant in maize fields, but not in sorghum fields as this crop had more panicles
in DMC than in RT, highlighting a potential difference in response between
plant species for this yield component. Nevertheless, this possible explanation
should be assessed in further experiments. The TKW and grain yield were
higher in DMC for the tree fields. Benefits of DMC over RT regarding yield
seem to be possible in the short term, as observed in two fields over the three
studied (no significant difference regarding grain yield observed in the third
one), encompassing different crops, different cover crops, and slightly different crop management strategies. In a four-year experiment in Greece, Lithourgidis, Tsatsarelis, and Dhima (2005) found no significant differences between
the number of emerged corn plants following a winter wheat in RT and in notillage. They also did not find significant differences in corn biomass and yield

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

664

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

between these two tillage systems. These differences with our results might be
due to the presence of the cover crop in our study. Moore, Gillespie, and
Swanton (1994) compared soybean growth on bare and mulched plots and
found a 35% reduction in soybean emergence under the cover crop but no
differences in yield. Comparatively, the density reduction was lower in our
experiment, i.e., 5% in M1 and 11% in S. Moore, Gillespie, and Swanton (1994)
observed that soybean plants from mulched plots produced more seeds per
plant and had a greater total seed weight than the plants grown in bare soil
plots. The number of pods per plant was, however, similar for all treatments.
The authors hypothesized that the lower density in the DMC treatment was
attributable to pest damage (seedcorn maggot) and that the final similar yield
was due to the better development of plants in the mulched plot as compared
with plants that suffered drought stress in the unmulched plots. Similarly, in
our experiment, some plants could have been destroyed by slugs, which were
numerous in the DMC treatment (Kulagowski and Chailleux 2013), and the
significantly higher yield observed in the DMC treatment could be explained
by the better soil water potential retention and lower plant density, which
could have promoted plant development.
This study highlighted the short-term impacts of conversion to DMC practices in farmers fields that had been previously managed under RT on soil water
potential and nitrogen, crop development, and yield. The results showed 1)
benefits of DMC relative to soil water potential, but slight detrimental effect on
nitrogen content, and 2) that short-term benefits of DMC on grain yield are
possible, but not automatic, under our pedoclimatic conditions. Further studies
are required to identify the conditions that lead to short-term benefits on crop
production, to be in a position to advice farmers during this critical period.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We express our thanks to the following farmers for allowing us access to the
study sites and for crop management: Guy Giraud and Robert Ristorto. We
thank Alexandra Jestin for the advices on the statistical analyses, Laura Riggi
for useful comments on the manuscript.

FUNDING
We thank the Chamber of Agriculture of Alpes de Haute Provence for funding
Rmy Kulagowski.

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

665

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

REFERENCES
Baker, C. J., K. E. Saxton, W. R. Ritchie, W. C. T. Chamen, D. C. Reicosky, M. F. S.
Ribeiro, S. E. Justice, and P. R. Hobbs. 2007. No-Tillage Seeding in Conservation
Agriculture, 2nd edition. Rome, Italy: CAB International and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Bengtsson, J., C. Janion, S. L. Chown, and H. P. Leinaas. 2011. Variation in decomposition rates in the fynbos biome, South Africa: The role of plant species and
plant stoichiometry. Oecologia 165(1):22535. doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1753-7.
Bolliger, A., J. Magid, T. J. C. Amado, F. Skora Neto, M. F. S. Ribeiro, A. Calegari, R.
Ralisch, and A. De Neergard. 2006. Taking stock of the Brazilian Zero-Till
Revolution: A review of landmark research and farmers practice. Advances in
Agronomy 91:47110.
Bronick, C. J., and R. Lal. 2005. Soil structure and management: A review. Geoderma
124(12):322. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005.
Bussire, F., and P. Cellier. 1994. Modification of the soil temperature and water
content regimes by crop residue mulch: Experiment and modelling. Agricultural
and Forest Meteorology 68(12):128. doi:10.1016/0168-1923(94)90066-3.
Campbell, C. A., B. H. Ellert, and Y. W. Jame. 1993. Nitrogen mineralization potential
in soils. In Soil sampling and methods of analysis, ed. M. R. Carter, 34149. Boca
Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Chantre, E., and A. Cardona. 2014. Trajectories of French field crop farmers moving
toward sustainable farming practices: Change, learning, and links with the advisory services. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(5):573602.
doi:10.1080/21683565.2013.876483.
Derpsch, R., T. Friedrich, A. Kassam, and H. W. Li. 2010. Current status of adoption of
no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. International Journal
Agricultural and Biological Engineering 3(1):125.
Dick, W. A. 1983. Organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations and pH
in soil profiles as affected by tillage intensity. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 47(1):10207. doi:10.2136/sssaj1983.03615995004700010021x.
Doran, J. W., and T. B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and assessing soil quality. In Defining
Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment, ed. J. W. Doran, D. F. Bezdicek,
D. C. Coleman, and B. A. Stewart, Special publication 35, 321. Madison, USA:
Soil Science Society of America.
Driessen, P., J. Deckers, O. Spaargaren, and F. Nachtergaele. 2001. Lecture notes on
the major soils of the world. In World Soil Resources Reports 2000, 94. Rome,
Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Duxbury, J. M., M. S. Smith, J. W. Doran, C. Jordan, L. Szott, and E. Vance. 1989. Soil
organic matter as a source and a sink of plant nutrients. In Dynamics of soil
organic matter in tropical ecosystems, ed. D. C. Coleman, J. M. Oades, and G.
Uehara, 3367. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Emmerling, C. 2001. Response of earthworm communities to different types of soil
tillage. Applied Soil Ecology 17(1):9196. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00132-3.
Franzluebbers, A. J., and F. M. Hons. 1996. Soil-profile distribution of primary and
secondary plant-available nutrients under conventional and no tillage. Soil and
Tillage Research 39(34):22939. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(96)01056-2.

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

666

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

Franzluebbers, A. J., F. M. Hons, and D. A. Zuberer. 1995. Tillage and crop effects on
seasonal soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 59(6):161824. doi:10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900060016x.
Hobbs, P. R., K. Sayre, and R. Gupta. 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in
sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363
(1491):54355.
Holland, J. M. 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation
tillage in Europe: Reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment 103(1):125. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.12.018.
Ingram, J. 2010. Technical and social dimensions of farmer learning: An analysis of the
emergence of reduced tillage systems in England. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34:183201. doi:10.1080/10440040903482589.
Jones, J. N., J. E. Moody, and J. H. Lillard. 1969. Effects of tillage, no tillage, and mulch
on soil water and plant growth. Agronomy Journal 61(5):71921. doi:10.2134/
agronj1969.00021962006100050020x.
Kassam, A., T. Friedrich, F. Shaxson, and J. Pretty. 2009. The spread of conservation
agriculture: Justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4):292320. doi:10.3763/ijas.2009.0477.
Khaledian, M. R., J. C. Mailhol, P. Ruelle, and I. Mubarak. 2012. Impacts of direct
seeding into mulch on the yield, water use efficiency and nitrogen dynamics of
corn, sorghum and durum wheat. Irrigation and Drainage 61(3):398409.
doi:10.1002/ird.v61.3.
Khaledian, M. R., J. C. Mailhol, P. Ruelle, I. Mubarak, and F. Maraux. 2011. Nitrogen
balance and irrigation water productivity for corn, sorghum, and durum wheat
under direct seeding into mulch when compared with conventional tillage in the
southeastern France. Irrigation Science 29(5):41322. doi:10.1007/s00271-0100250-4.
Khaledian, M. R., J. C. Mailhol, P. Ruelle, and P. Rosique. 2009. Adapting PILOTE
model for water and yield management under direct seeding system: The case of
corn and durum wheat in a Mediterranean context. Agricultural Water Management 96(5):75770. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.10.011.
Khan, A. R., D. Chandra, S. Quraishi, and R. K. Sinha. 2000. Soil aeration under
different soil surface conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185
(2):10512. doi:10.1046/j.1439-037X.2000.00417.x.
Kulagowski, R., and A. Chailleux. 2013. TCS et SCV en lice, arbitrage mas et sorgho.
Phytoma-La Dfense des vgtaux 669:4852.
Lahmar, R. 2010. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: Lessons of the
KASSA
project.
Land
Use
Policy
27(1):410.
doi:10.1016/j.
landusepol.2008.02.001.
Leinweber, P., H.-R. Schulten, and M. Krschens. 1994. Seasonal variations of soil
organic matter in a long-term agricultural experiment. Plant and Soil 160(2):225
35. doi:10.1007/BF00010148.
Lithourgidis, A. S., C. A. Damalas, and I. G. Eleftherohorinos. 2009. Conservation
tillage: A promising perspective for sustainable agriculture in Greece. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture 33(1):8595. doi:10.1080/10440040802587280.

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from RT to DMC

667

Lithourgidis, A. S., C. A. Tsatsarelis, and K. V. Dhima. 2005. Tillage effects on corn

emergence, silage yield, and labor and fuel inputs in double cropping with
wheat. Crop Science 45(6):252328. doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.0141.
Mary, B., S. Recous, D. Darwis, and D. Robin. 1996. Interactions between decomposition of plant residues and nitrogen cycling in soil. Plant and Soil 181(1):71
82. doi:10.1007/BF00011294.
Moore, M. J., T. J. Gillespie, and C. J. Swanton. 1994. Effect of cover crop mulches on
weed emergence, weed biomass, and soybean (Glycine max) development.
Weed Technology 8:512518.
Mueller, D. H., R. M. Klemme, and T. C. Daniel. 1985. Short-and long-term cost
comparisons of conventional and conservation tillage systems in corn production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40(5):46670.
Mulumba, L. N., and R. Lal. 2008. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties.
Soil and Tillage Research 98(1):10611. doi:10.1016/j.still.2007.10.011.
Pagliai, M., N. Vignozzi, and S. Pellegrini. 2004. Soil structure and the effect of
management practices. Soil and Tillage Research 79(2):13143. doi:10.1016/j.
still.2004.07.002.
Paul, E. A., and N. G. Juma. 1981. Mineralization and immobilization of soil nitrogen
by micro-organisms. In Terrestrial nitrogen cycles, Ecol. Bull., edited by F. E.
Clark and T. Rosswall, vol. 33, 17995. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Natural
Science Research Council.
Pelosi, C., M. Bertrand, and J. Roger-Estrade. 2009. Earthworm community in conventional, organic and direct seeding with living mulch cropping systems. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development 29(2):28795. doi:10.1051/agro/2008069.
Pimentel, D., C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo, K. Sinclair, D. Kurz, M. McNair, S. Crist, L.
Shpritz, L. Fitton, R. Saffouri, and R. Blair. 1995. Environmental and economic
costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267(5201):111723.
doi:10.1126/science.267.5201.1117.
Puget, P., and R. Lal. 2005. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen in a Mollisol in central
Ohio as affected by tillage and land use. Soil and Tillage Research 80(12):201
13. doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.03.018.
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Roth, G. W., D. B. Beegle, R. H. Fox, J. D. Toth, and W. P. Piekielek. 1991. Development of a quick test kit method to measure soil nitrate. Communications in Soil
Science and Plant Analysis 22(34):191200. doi:10.1080/00103629109368406.
Salinas-Garcia, J. R., F. M. Hons, and J. E. Matocha. 1997. Long-term effects of tillage
and fertilization on soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 61(1):15259. doi:10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010023x.
Schulten, H.-R., and R. Hempfling. 1992. Influence of agricultural soil management on
humus composition and dynamics: Classical and modern analytical techniques.
Plant and Soil 142(2):25971. doi:10.1007/BF00010971.
Scopel, E., F. A. M. Da Silva, M. Corbeels, F. Affholder, and F. Maraux. 2004. Modeling
crop residue mulching effects on water use and production of maize under semiarid and humid tropical conditions. Agronomie 24(67):38395. doi:10.1051/
agro:2004029.

Downloaded by [Rmy Kulagowski] at 09:01 15 September 2015

668

R. Kulagowski and A. Chailleux

Scopel, E., B. Triomphe, F. Affholder, F. A. M. Da Silva, M. Corbeels, J. H. V. Xavier, R.

Lahmar, et al. 2013. Conservation agriculture cropping systems in temperate and
tropical conditions, performances and impacts. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33(1):11330. doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0106-9.
Sguy, L., S. Bouzinac, and O. Husson. 2006. Direct-seeded tropical soil systems with
permanent soil cover: Learning from Brazilian experience. In Biological approaches
for sustainable soil systems, ed. N. Uphoff, A. Ball, E. Fernandes, H. Herren, O.
Husson, M. Laing, C. Palm, et al., 32342. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Sguy, L., D. Loyer, J.-F. Richard, and E. Miller. 2008. Sustainable soil management:
Agro-ecology in Laos and Madagascar. In No-till farming systems, Special Publication No. 3, ed. T. Goddard, M. A. Zoebisch, Y. T. Gan, W. Ellis, A. Watson,
and S. Sombatpanit, 20722. Bangkok, Thailand: World Association of Soil and
Water Conservation (WASWC).
Spedding, T. A., C. Hamel, G. R. Mehuys, and C. A. Madramootoo. 2004. Soil microbial dynamics in maize-growing soil under different tillage and residue management systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36(3):499512. doi:10.1016/j.
soilbio.2003.10.026.
Srivastava, H. S. 1992. Multiple functions and forms of higher plant nitrate reductase.
Phytochemistry 31(9):294147. doi:10.1016/0031-9422(92)83424-W.
Tebrgge, F., and R. A. Dring. 1999. Reducing tillage intensitya review of results
from a long-term study in Germany. Soil and tillage research 53(1):1528.
Thierfelder, C., and P. C. Wall. 2010. Investigating conservation agriculture (CA)
systems in Zambia and Zimbabwe to mitigate future effects of climate change.
Journal of Crop Improvement 24(2):11321. doi:10.1080/15427520903558484.
Todd, R. W., N. L. Klocke, G. W. Hergert, and A. M. Parkhurst. 1991. Evaporation from
soil influenced by crop shading, crop residue, and wetting regime. Transactions
of the ASAE (USA) 34(2):461466.
Triplett, G. B., and W. A. Dick. 2008. No-tillage crop production: A revolution in
agriculture! Agronomy Journal 100(Supplement 3):153165. doi:10.2134/
agronj2007.0005c.
Wetselaar, R., G. D. Smith, and J. F. Angus. 1998. Field measurement of soil nitrate
concentrations. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 29(56):72939. doi:10.1080/00103629809369980.