The crop productivity-erosion relationship: an analysis based on experimental work

Much research has been undertaken that seeks to understand the crop productivity response to soil erosion. Reported effects appear to be inconsistent with respect to both the magnitude of the response and shape of the response curve. This study was conducted to examine whether general patterns emerge when the results of experimental studies on soil loss are combined and compared. Results from a number of studies that relate crop productivity to erosion were collected and quantified. Important variables of a methodological or physical nature were identified. Both the magnitude and shape of the response curves were related to these variables. It appears that the experimental methodology has an overwhelming effect on the magnitude of the crop productivity response to soil erosion. The comparative-plot method showed an average reduction in crop productivity of 4.3% per 10 cm of soil loss, whereas the reduction averaged 10.9% for studies based on the transect method and 26.6% for desurfacing experiments. Physical variables affected the shape of the response curve: water deficit and physical root hindrance produced convex curves, whereas nutrient deficit resulted in linear to concave curves. The available data did not allow identification of any significant effect of the physical variables on the magnitude of the response, nor an effect of the research-method on the shape of the response curve. It is assumed that the desurfacing and transect methods overestimate the effect of soil erosion because (a) desurfacing experiments result in much stronger changes in soil properties than soil erosion that takes place gradually, and (b) transect methods often "include" effects of other processes that are related to topography. If this assumption is correct, then yield reductions of approximately 4% per 10 cm of soil loss should be considered realistic. Where nutrient deficits are avoided by fertilization, response curves are generally convex, implying that reductions will become increasingly severe with further erosion. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  D. Mokma,et al.  Effects of soil erosion on corn yields on Marlette soils in south-central Michigan , 1992 .

[2]  C. W. Lindwall,et al.  RESTORING PRODUCTIVITY TO AN ARTIFICIALLY ERODED DARK BROWN CHERNOZEMIC SOIL UNDER DRYLAND CONDITIONS , 1986 .

[3]  D. K. Cassel,et al.  Effect of Erosion and Landscape Position on the Productivity of Piedmont Soils , 1985 .

[4]  Martín Díaz-Zorita,et al.  Soil organic matter and wheat productivity in the semiarid Argentine pampas , 1999 .

[5]  L. Battiston,et al.  SOIL EROSION AND CORN YIELD IN ONTARIO. I. FIELD EVALUATION , 1987 .

[6]  J. C. Baker,et al.  Erosion Effects on Productivity of Cecil Soils in the Virginia Piedmont , 1989 .

[7]  C. W. Lindwall,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF MANURE AND COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER IN RESTORING PRODUCTIVITY OF AN ARTIFICIALLY ERODED DARK BROWN CHERNOZEMIC SOIL UNDER DRYLAND CONDITIONS , 1988 .

[8]  C. Kosmas,et al.  Land-use evolution and degradation in Lesvos (Greece): a historical approach. , 2000 .

[9]  F. R. Troech,et al.  Soil and Water Conservation , 1976 .

[10]  L. N. Mielke,et al.  Plant response to topsoil thickness on an eroded loess soil , 1986 .

[11]  W. E. Larson,et al.  Productivity of soils: Assessing long-term changes due to erosion , 1983 .

[12]  C. W. Lindwall,et al.  Soil erosion: crop productivity relationships for six Alberta soils , 1995 .

[13]  E. Nizeyimana,et al.  Effects of Soil Erosion on Corn Yields of Seven Illinois Soils , 1988 .

[14]  T. Scott,et al.  Effects of Desurfacing of Alfisols and Ultisols in Southern Nigeria: I. Crop Performance1 , 1984 .

[15]  D. Tanaka.  Spring Wheat Straw Production and Composition as Influenced by Topsoil Removal , 1995 .

[16]  H. Gollany,et al.  Topsoil Depth and Desurfacing Effects on Properties and Productivity of a Typic Argiustoll , 1992 .

[17]  R. F. Follett,et al.  Soil erosion and crop productivity , 1987 .

[18]  W. O. Pruitt,et al.  Crop water requirements , 1997 .

[19]  C. W. Lindwall,et al.  Early impact of topsoil removal and soil amendments on crop productivity. , 2000 .

[20]  R. Izaurralde,et al.  Influence of topsoil removal on soil fertility and barley growth , 1994 .

[21]  K. G. Renard,et al.  EPIC: A new method for assessing erosion's effect on soil productivity , 1983 .

[22]  C. J. Gantzer,et al.  Topsoil depth, fertility, water management, and weather influences on yield. , 1991 .

[23]  S. G. Carmer,et al.  Corn yield and plant population differences between eroded phases of Illinois soils. , 1990 .

[24]  Lee A. Christensen,et al.  Toward a general method of estimating productivity-soil depth response relationships , 1988 .

[25]  D. Anderson,et al.  SOIL EROSION EFFECTS ON SOIL QUALITY AND YIELD , 1990 .

[26]  C. Kosmas,et al.  The effects of tillage displaced soil on soil properties and wheat biomass , 2001 .

[27]  W. E. Larson,et al.  Effects of Soil Erosion on Soil Properties as Related to Crop Productivity and Classification , 1985 .

[28]  S. Merrill,et al.  Effects of Topsoil and Subsoil Thickness on Soil Water Content and Crop Production on a Disturbed Soil , 1981 .

[29]  D. L. Carter,et al.  The effect of furrow irrigation erosion on crop productivity , 1985 .

[30]  F. E. Rhoton,et al.  Soybean Yield Response to Various Depths of Erosion on a Fragipan Soil , 1990 .

[31]  G. Weesies,et al.  Effect of soil erosion on crop yield in Indiana: Results of a 10 year study , 1994 .

[32]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .