Conservation soil tillage in context to soil erosion. F. Tebrügge

Transcription

1 Conservation soil tillage in context to soil erosion F. Tebrügge Finnland

2 Motivation structure of No-till EU-farmers and NB-farmers (USA) % EU-farmers NB-farmers workrate - costs trafficability - fuel - power income yield soil fertility - erosion biolog. activity earthworms water retention - nitrate leaching infiltration carbon content Technical and economical reasons Soil quality and environmental reasons

3 Factors for the enviornment Water air Soil and biodiversty Conservation soil tillage an solution for the environment?

4 W. Sturny J. Garathy F. Tebrügge G. Basch Soil erosion in europaen countrys

5 Share of agricultural land area affected by water erosion % Area assessed is greater than 85% of total agricultural land Italy Spain Portugal Turkey Germany France Moderate ( t*ha -1 *y -1 ) High and severe (>22 t*ha -1 *y -1 ) Belgium Slovak 16 t*ha-1*y-1 EU-15 16% AL Source:OECD, (2001) Research Institute of Pedology and Soil Protection, Bratislava (1999)

6 12 14 Erosión total jun06-jun08 A Escorrentía total jun06-jun08 Laboreo Cubierta A A 10 A 80 Erosión (tn/ha) Escorrentía (l/m 2 ) B B 2 20 B B 0 0 C3 C4 C5 Campos experimentales C3 C4 C5 Campos experimentales SOIL LOSS REDUCTION: 92% RUNOFF REDUCTION : 70% E. Gonzalez

7 Water run off, soil and pesticide loss by conventional (PT) and notillage (NT) (rainsimulation 63 mm/h), loamy soil, slope 12% PT NT Water run off PT NT PT NT Soil loss Herbicide Pesticide run off PT NT PT NT

8 NT MP Rainsimulation 63 mm/h Loamy soil, slope 12% Time after start of rainsimulation (min.) Water run-off by conventional- vs. no-tillage

9 NT MP Rainsimulation 63mm/h Loamy soil, slope 12% Time after start of rainsimulation (min.) Sediment loss by conventional- vs. no-tillage

10

11

12 Soil physical indicators in context to soil erosion for conservation (NT)- vs. conventional tillage (PT=0) ,5 Aggregate stability Soil sealing Sediment run-off Water run-off Water infiltration Water holding capacity % of in- or decrease

13 EU-15 arable land: million ha million ha with high risk for erosion (16%) Soil loss rate by MP, 16t ha -1 yr -1 = Mt yr -1 NT (30%) 3.91 million ha Share of tillage systems CT (40%) for soil management 5.22 million ha MP (30%) 3.91 million ha Reduction of soil erosion >90% Soil loss rate (1.44 t ha -1 yr -1 ) Reduction of soil erosion >60% Potential of soil loss reduction Soil loss rate (6.4 t ha -1 yr -1 ) Soil loss rate (16 t ha -1 yr -1 ) by conventional tillage (MP) 5.6 Mt yr Mt yr Mt yr -1 Potential of soil loss reduction in EU Mt yr -1 (49 %) Arable layer of ha yr -1 of 25cm thickness

14 Effect of tillage on Soil erosion and diffuse pollution (source: Jordan et al., 2000) Measurements Plough Non Inversion Tillage Benefit compared to ploughing Runoff (l ha ¹) 213, ,275 48% reduction Sediment loss (kg ha ¹) Total P loss (kg P ha ¹) % reduction % reduction Available P loss 3x10 ² 8x10 ³ 73% reduction TON (mg N s ¹) % reduction Soluble phosphate (µg P s ¹) % reduction Isoproturon 0.011mg s ¹ Not detected 100% reduction Comparison of herbicide and nutrition emission from 1991 to 1993 on a silty clay loam soil. Plots 12m wide were establish and sown with winter oats in 1991 followed by winter wheat and winter beans.

15 Phosphor Loss (Frede, Dabert 1998)

16 Simulation of the potential to reduse phosphor loss by different tillage intensity (Landscape Andrifft storage-lake) < 2 t/ha/a 2-4 t/ha/a 4-6 t/ha/a 6-8 t/ha/a > 8 t/ha/a konvent. konserv. Direktsaat

17 Potentially and absolutaly relative reduction of P Loss in Relation to Land Use Bezogen auf die Landwirtschaft Bezogen auf die Landwirtschaft P-Eintrag (in kg/ha/a) P-Eintrag (in %) ,7 26,6 0 0 Konventionell Konservierend Direktsaat Konventionell Konservierend Direktsaat

18 Nitrateconcentration in the soil solution by conventional (MP), conservation (CT) and no tillage (NT) in 40 cm soil depth Nov Juni 236 mm (acc. Richter) NT CT MP Date of sampling

19 Leaching of nitrate by coventional (MP) and no-tillage (NT) Tchernosem-Parabrownearth (Loess) sum of rainfall 64 mm MP NT Soil depth acc.kohl

20 Indicators for water quality in connection with soil erosion for conservation (NT) vs. conventional tillage (PT=0) % of de- or increase -200 Phosphate side movement Nitrate side movement Herbicide side movement Degradation of herbizides*) Nitrate leaching*) Inst. f. Bodenkunde Inst. f. Landeskultur Inst. f. Phytopatologie *) Qualitative estimation

21 Abschätzung der Kostenreduktion durch konservierende Bodenbearbeitung in der EU EU-15 AF : 81,55 Mio. ha D (30%) 24,5 Mio. ha 13 Mio. ha mit hohem Erosionsrisiko (16%) D (30%) 3,9 Mio. ha KB (40%) 5,2 Mio. ha KB (40%) 32,6 Mio. ha Reduktion der Dieselkosten =1,1 Mrd *a -1 Prozesskosten =3,7 Mrd. *a -1 Reduktion der on- und off site Kosten 53,5 plus 23 = 85,5 *ha -1 um 90% um 60% =303 Mio. *a -1 =268 Mio. *a -1 Reduktion der Dieselkosten =0,7 Mrd *a -1 Prozesskosten =1,6 Mrd. *a -1 Einsparungspotential durch konservierende Bodenbearbeitung 7,7 Mrd. *a *ha -1 *a -1 EU-Budget für landwirtschaftliche Forschung = 3 Mrd. Teb.

22 Impact & interactions of conservation tillage Plant residues on or near soil surface are the key factor for: energie of raindrops soil evaporation - - soil organic matter and carbon content adsorption of pesticides microbial activity aggregate stability soil sealing - earthworm population water holding capacity CO 2 emission - pore-functionality water infiltration water- and sediment run-off - soil fertility degradation of pesticides water quality air quality Soil quality Impact on environmental quality

23 Thank s for your attention!