Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:49:44.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield, product quality and energy use in organic vegetable living mulch cropping systems: research evidence and farmers’ perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

S. Canali ,
L. Ortolani ,
G. Campanelli ,
M. Robačer ,
P. von Fragstein ,
D. D'Oppido  and
H.L. Kristensen
S. Canali*
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria. Centro per lo studio delle relazioni tra pianta e suolo, Roma, Italy.
L. Ortolani
Affiliation:
Associazione Italiana Agricoltura Biologica, Roma, Italy.
G. Campanelli
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria. Unità di ricerca per l'orticoltura. Monsampolo del Tronto (AP), Roma, Italy.
M. Robačer
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Science, University of Maribor, Slovenia.
P. von Fragstein
Affiliation:
Department of Organic Vegetable Production, University of Kassel, Germany.
D. D'Oppido
Affiliation:
Associazione Italiana Agricoltura Biologica, Roma, Italy.
H.L. Kristensen
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Aarhus University, Denmark.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of living mulch (LM) introduction and management strategies on cash crop yield, product quality and energy use were studied in a wide range of European vegetable cropping systems, climatic and soil conditions, as well as species of LM grown as agro-ecological service crops. Nine field experiments were carried out in research stations and commercial farms located in Denmark, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. Farmers’ perception of the feasibility and applicability of the LM technique was also assessed.

The results demonstrated that the LM systems with a substitutive design can be effectively implemented in vegetable production if the value of the ecological services (positive externalities) delivered by LM can counterbalance the yield loss due to the cash crop density reduction. The crop density of the system and the length of the period in which the LM and cash crop coexist are oppositely related both for competition and yield. Moreover, if an additive design is used, the LM should be sown several weeks after the cash crop planting. Overall, different cash crop genotypes (i.e., open pollinated/local cultivars in comparison with the hybrids) performed similarly. Use of human labor (HL) and fossil fuel (FF) energy slightly increased in LM systems (7%), and there was a shift in the proportion of FF and human energy consumption. The farmers’ acceptance of the LM techniques was quite high (75% of the interviewed sample), even though their critical considerations about yield quality and quantity need consideration in future research and practical implementation of LM systems.

Keywords

agro-ecological service cropsartichoke (Cynara cardunculus subsp. scolymus L.)cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis)cover cropsintercroppingleek (Allium ampeloprasum L.)local cultivaropen pollinated cultivarparticipatory researchon farm researchorganic farming
Type
Themed Content: Living Mulch
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Special Issue 3: Living Mulch , June 2017 , pp. 200 - 213
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Adamczewska-Sowińska, K., Kołota, E., and Winiarska, S. 2009. Living mulches in field cultivation of vegetables. Vegetable Crops Research Bulletin 70:19–29.Google Scholar
Båth, B., Kristensen, H.L., and Thorup-Kristensen, K. 2008. Root pruning reduces root competition and increases crop growth in a living mulch cropping system. Journal of Plant Interactions 3:211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, D.T., Kropff, M.J., and Bastiaans, L. 2000. Intercropping leeks to suppress weeds. Weed Research 40:361–376.Google Scholar
Bottenberg, H., Masiunas, J., Eastman, C., and Eastburn, D. 1997. Yield and quality constraints of cabbage planted in rye mulch. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 14:323–342.Google Scholar
Canali, S., Diacono, M., Campanelli, G., and Montemurro, F. 2015. Organic no-till with roller crimpers: Agro-ecosystem services and applications in organic Mediterranean vegetable productions. Sustainable Agriculture Research 4:p70.Google Scholar
Chase, C.A. and Mbuya, O.S. 2008. Greater interference from living mulches than weeds in organic broccoli production. Weed Technology 22:280–285.Google Scholar
Crowder, D.W. and Reganold, J.P. 2015. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:7611–7616.Google Scholar
Foddy, W.H. 1994. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. New ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Giampietro, M. and Pimentel, D. 1990. Assessment of the energetics of human labor. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 32:257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillham, B. 2008. Developing a Questionnaire. 2nd ed. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., and Paoletti, M.G. 2008. Energy and environmental issues in organic and conventional agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 27:239–254.Google Scholar
Hartwig, N.L. and Ammon, H.U. 2002. Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Science 50:688–699.Google Scholar
Hiltbrunner, J., Streit, B., and Liedgens, M. 2007. Are seeding densities an opportunity to increase grain yield of winter wheat in a living mulch of white clover? Field Crops Research 102:163–171.Google Scholar
Jackson, L.E. 1995. Root architecture in cultivated and wild lettuce (Lactuca spp.). Plant Cell Environment 18:885–894.Google Scholar
Kremen, C. and Miles, A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society 17(4): 40.Google Scholar
Lavrakas, P. 2008. Paper-and-Pencil Interviewing (PAPI). In Pau, l J. Lavrakas, (ed.). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 574–575.Google Scholar
Leary, J. and DeFrank, J. 2000. Living mulches for organic farming systems. HortTechnology 10:692–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, B. and Hara, T. 1999. On the relative yield of plants in two-species mixture. Oikos 85:170–176.Google Scholar
Lu, Y.-C., Teasdale, J.R., and Huang, W.-Y. 2003. An Economic and Environmental Tradeoff Analysis of Sustainable Agriculture Cropping Systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22:25–41.Google Scholar
Maggio, A., De Pascale, S., Paradiso, R., and Barbieri, G. 2013. Quality and nutritional value of vegetables from organic and conventional farming. Scientia Horticulturae 164:532–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiunas, J.B. 1998. Production of vegetables using cover crop and living mulches—a review. Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 4:11–31.Google Scholar
Mellenbergh, G.J. 2008. Tests and Questionnaires: Construction and Administration. Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant's Companion, Huizen, The Netherlands, Johannes van Kessel Publishing, p. 211–236.Google Scholar
Ortiz-Cañavate, J. and Hernanz, J.L. 1999. Energy analysis and saving. CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering 5:13–42.Google Scholar
Ozkan, B., Kurklu, A., and Akcaoz, H. 2004. Corrigendum to An input-output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: A case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass Bioenergy 26:403.Google Scholar
Ramírez-García, J., Carrillo, J.M., Ruiz, M., Alonso-Ayuso, M., and Quemada, M. 2015. Multicriteria decision analysis applied to cover crop species and cultivars selection. Field Crops Research 175:106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, J., Black, B., Ransom, C., Culumber, M., Lindstrom, T., Alston, D., and Tebeau, A. 2013. Developing organic stone-fruit production options for Utah and the Intermountain West United States. p. 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Nyamangara, J., and Giller, K.E. 2012. Maize-grain legume intercropping is an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique. Field Crops Research 136:12–22.Google Scholar
Shaxson, L. and Tauer, L.W. 1992. Intercropping and diversity: An economic analysis of cropping patterns on smallholder farms in Malawi. Experimental Agriculture 28:211–228.Google Scholar
Singh, A. and Partap, P.S. 2011. Effect of intercropping on various growth characteristics of cauliflower. Haryana Journal of Agronomy 27:40–43.Google Scholar
Smith, L.G., Williams, A.G., and Pearce, B.D. 2015. The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: A review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30:280–301.Google Scholar
Swenson, J.A., Walters, S.A., and Chong, S.-K. 2004. Influence of tillage and mulching systems on soil water and tomato fruit yield and quality. Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 10:81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thériault, F., Stewart, K.A., and Seguin, P. 2009. Use of perennial legumes living mulches and green manures for the fertilization of organic broccoli. International Journal of Vegetable Science 15:142–157.Google Scholar
Thorup-Kristensen, K., Dresbøll, D.B., and Kristensen, H.L. 2012. Crop yield, root growth, and nutrient dynamics in a conventional and three organic cropping systems with different levels of external inputs and N re-cycling through fertility building crops. European Journal of Agronomy 37:66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanek, S., Wien, H.C., and Rangarajan, A. 2005. Time of interseeding of Lana Vetch and winter Rye cover strips determines competitive impact on pumpkins grown using organic practices. HortScience 40:1716–1722.Google Scholar
Wezel, A., Casagrande, M., Celette, F., Vian, J.F., Ferrer, A., and Peigné, J. 2014. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy of Sustainable Development 34:1–20.Google Scholar
Willey, R.W. 1990. Resource use in intercropping systems. Irrigation in Sugarcane Association Crops 17:215–231.Google Scholar
Xie, Y. and Kristensen, H.L. 2016. Overwintering grass-clover as intercrop and moderately reduced nitrogen fertilization maintain yield and reduce the risk of nitrate leaching in an organic cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis) agroecosystem. Scientia Horticulturae 206:71–79.Google Scholar
Xu, J., Li, C., Liu, H., Zhou, P., Tao, Z., Wang, P., Meng, Q., and Zhao, M. 2015. The effects of plastic film mulching on maize growth and water use in dry and rainy years in Northeast China. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0125781.Google Scholar
Ziyomo, C., Albrecht, K.A., Baker, J.M., and Bernardo, R. 2013. Corn performance under managed drought stress and in a kura clover living mulch intercropping system. Agronomy Journal 105:579–586.Google Scholar