1 / 35

SNOWMAN NETWORK Knowledge for sustainable soils

Soil Functional Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a Transdisciplinary Approach SUSTAIN project (2011-2014). Meeting with the Orientation Committee Paris, 26 February 2014. SNOWMAN NETWORK Knowledge for sustainable soils. Programme 9h30-11h30 : Presentation concerning SUSTAIN 

lunacrane
Download Presentation

SNOWMAN NETWORK Knowledge for sustainable soils

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Soil Functional Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a Transdisciplinary ApproachSUSTAIN project (2011-2014) Meeting with the Orientation Committee Paris, 26 February 2014 SNOWMAN NETWORK Knowledge for sustainable soils

  2. Programme 9h30-11h30: Presentation concerning SUSTAIN  - presentation of the project  and the sites - presentation of some french results - presentation of some dutch results Coffee Break - presentation of transversal actions - Life Cycle Analyis - dissemination actions : - actions addressed to several public        - brochures, technical guide - opened day for farmers11h30-12h00 : general discussion 12h00-13h30 : lunch 13h30-14H00 : European view about agroecology ? (Ciro Gardi)14h00-14h50 : PEPITE and TILLMAN projects (Josephine Péigné)            - presentation             - discussion : what are  complementary/common results and transfer to users ?14h50 - 15h40: Ranking of indicators and Ecosystem services (Michiel Rutgers)            - presentation             - discussion : how can we apply this to  SUSTAIN resultsBreak16h00-16H30 : general discussion and synthesis : what about a common future ?

  3. What about SUSTAIN project ? from october 2011 to december 2014

  4. Regional French Context : Brittany Brittany : a livestock region (Year : 2008) Farm land in use = 1 711 200 ha (6 % of national land in use) Grassland : 703 600 ha Cereals: 439 400 ha Corn silage : 332 000 ha Grain-maize : 126 000 ha Rape : 31 500 ha Vegetables : 83 200 ha Brittany’s part in total french production 26 % of veal calves 20 % of collected milk 34 % of chicken production 58 % of pig production

  5. Ploughed area : 748 439 ha Reduced tillage : 232 542 ha Annual crops : 987 014 ha  Reduced tillage/annual crops : 24 % vs 30% at national scale  Ploughed area : 76 % Brittany Context No-tillage in Brittany (2010) Motivations of the farmers • Working time saving • Energy saving • Amelioration of soil bearing capacity Questions from the farmers  The impact of these technics on the soil , on the crops, on the water quality ? Is the use of organic fertilizers compatible with the not ploughing practice ?

  6. Dutch Context Netherlands Total area of arable land 950,000 ha (+/- 25% of land area) 50% of arable land on clay (loam) soils, 50% on sandysoils Top 5 crops: 1. Corn (sandysoils, also in rotation withgrassland) 2. Potatoes 3. Cereals (mainly for crop rotation reasons 4. Sugarbeets 5. Onions

  7. Mostly « non-inversion » tillage < 1% of arable land except for southeast of the country -> erosionlegislation But interestamongfarmersisclearlygrowing DutchContext Reduced-tillage in the Netherlands

  8. SUSTAIN consortium partners French partners Michaël Corson Vincent Hallaire Safya Menasseri Thierry Morvan Guénola Pérès (coordinator) Guénola Pérès Daniel Cluzeau (coordinator) Djilali Heddadj Dutch partners PPO (Applied Plant Research) Wijnand Sukkel Gerard Korthals Mirjam Pulleman Lijbert Brussaard Steven Crittenden Ron De Goede European Center for Nature Conservation Ben Delbaere, Veronika Mikos

  9. SUSTAIN Objectives • Understand how reduced tillage systems, as compared to conventional tillage systems, impact soil functional biodiversityand soil functions • Quantify the consequences of reduced tillage systems on soil ecosystem services • Investigate the socio-economic sustainability of reduced tillage systems • Develop tools such as - Soil disturbance-indicators - Life Cycling Analysis to evaluate the environmental impact of tillage systems • Dissemination Kick-off meeting, 19-20 November 2013, Paris

  10. SUSTAIN collaborative approach • SUSTAIN is conducted in France and the Netherlands at experimental field sites andthrough regional farm networks FKT Lelystad F K A Kerguéhennec HoekscheWaard • SUSTAIN analyses new data & existing datasets è Combination allows for a boarder perspective, reflecting different time scales. FKO • SUSTAIN collaborates with - German colleaguesM.Potthoff (univ. Göettingen) & S. Schrader (vTI) • SUSTAIN collaborates with ECOSOM-Project (S. Houot, J. Faber)

  11. SUSTAIN Work plan (7 WP) WP1 : Coordination Agricultural practices (tillage, reduced tillage, no tillage) WP3 : Soil functions • Soil structure maintenance • Water regulation and filtering • OM and nutrient cycling • Pest regulation (nematode community) WP2: Soil biodiversity - Earthworms - Nematodes WP4 : Ecosystem services • Food production • GHG mitigation WP6 : Modelling • Indicator development • Environmental impact evaluation • System sustainability evaluation WP5 : Sociology and economy - Sociology • Farm economics WP7 : Dissemination

  12. SUSTAIN - France – 3 field sites Experimental station of Kerguéhennec (Morbihan dept.) of CRAB since 2000 • 2 experimental designs under conventional system FKT and FKA • 1 experimental design under organic farming (FKO) "Transfer" experiment FKT -> impact on run-off Since 2000 FKT F K A "Agronomic" experiment FKA -> impact combined with OM inputs Since 2000 FKO "Organic" experiment FKO Since 2003 (destroyed 2013) Soil derived from micaschist, Dystric Cambisol (FAO) with a loamy texture and high organic matter (4.3%)

  13. « Transfer » trial – FKT site "Transfer" experiment FKT -> impact of reduced tillage on run-off FKT 3 Treatments are compared since 2000 with the same fertilisation Crop in January 2012 Crop rotation (every 2 years) : Grain maize – wheat – rye grass

  14. N FKT site – Treatments and Trial plane 3 plots (6 m X 50 m) X 3 blocs -> 9 plots in total Conventional tillage, Moulboard ploughing 25 cm and circular spike Bloc 3 Bloc 2 Bloc 1 Ploughing Ploughing 50 m no till Superficial tillage no till Ploughing no till Superficial tillage Superficial tillage Superficial tillage 8 Harrowing at 8 cm then chisel since 2006 6 m 6 4 2 7 5 3 1 8 9 No till, Direct drilling Disc seeder (wheat, rape, phacelia) et cultivation on the row (maize)

  15. « Agronomic » trial – FKA site F K A "Agronomic" experiment FKA -> impact of reduced tillage combined with OM inputs Treatments are compared since 2000 Crop in January 2012 Crop rotation (4 years) : grain maize-wheat-rape-wheat-phacelia

  16. FKA site – treatments : reduced tillage X organic fertilisation 3 Tillage treatments 4 fertilisation treatments X With Equivalent N input Conventional tillage L Moulboard ploughing 25 cm and circular spike Superficial tillage 8 TS (S2) harrowing at 8 cm then chisel since 2006 Mineral fertilization M M Fertilisation + Cattle manure M-FB 40 t of manure every 4 years No till (Direct drilling) SD (S1) disc seeder (wheat, rape, phacelia) et cultivation on the row (maize) Pig slurry 25 m3/yearLP Poultry manure 6 t/year FV

  17. « Organic » trial - FKO site 4 treatments are compared since 2003 but will be distroyed in November 2013 !!!! Common fertilisation (guano or pig slurry or cow manure) FKO "Organic" experiment FKO -> impact of reduced tillage Crop succession : Grain-maize – triticale – buckwheat – Protein pea – triticale – alfalfa – alfalfa – triticale – grain-maize - wheat Crop in January 2012

  18. FKO site – Treatments and trial plan 4 plots (12 m X 25 m) X 3 blocs -> 12 plots in total Conventional tillage, ploughing Moulboard ploughing 25 cm and circular spike S E Bande enherbée W N Chisel 8 cm Bloc I Conventional ploughing Agronomic ploughing Chisel 15 cm Agronomic ploughing Moulboard ploughing 15 cm and circular spike Bande enherbée Conventional ploughing Agronomic ploughing Bloc II 105 m Chisel 15 cm Chisel 8 cm 15 m Bande enherbée Superficial tillage 8 Harrowing at 8 cm then chisel since 2006 Superficial tillage 15 Harrowing at 15 cm then chisel since 2006 25 m Agronomic ploughing Bloc III Chisel 15 cm Conventional ploughing Chisel 8 cm Bande enherbée 12 m

  19. French site – Parameters measured (ex: FKA) Many parameters measured every year or ponctually

  20. French site – Parameters measured (ex: FKA) Many parameters measured every year or ponctually In the case of FKT : run-off, pesticides transferts

  21. SUSTAIN - Netherlands - 2 Field sites In the 2 field sites, conventional and organic managements Lelystad (experimental farm of PPO since 2008) Hoeksche Waard (farmer fields, since 2009) Two areas reclaimed from the sea. Calcareous marine-loam soils with clay-loam texture.

  22. Lelystad – Soil parameters measured (not exhaustive) Not all data are available for all trials all years

  23. Lelystad – Soil parameters measured (not exhaustive)

  24. SUSTAIN - France & the Netherlands – Farm networks France - former analysis were been done in 2003 on previous network of reduced-tillage farms (11 pairs of farms : reduced vs conventional) • a new network willbeanalysed in 20114 (16 farms : 4 per eachdepartment, 4 treatments : direct-seeding, superficial tillage, non-inversed –tillage and conventionalploughing) •  integration of more geological and climaticcontexts Netherlands - the network already exits (4 farms) due to collaborations between - PPO and farmers - University of Wageningen and farmers

  25. Results On french experimental sites  FKO

  26. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site Site description – Organic trial 4 plots (12 m X 25 m) X 3 blocs -> 12 plots in total Conventional tillage, ploughing Moulboard ploughing 25 cm and circular spike S E Bande enherbée N Chisel 8 cm Bloc I Conventional ploughing Agronomic ploughing Chisel 15 cm Agronomic ploughing Moulboard ploughing 15 cm and circularspike Bande enherbée Conventional ploughing Agronomic ploughing Bloc II 105 m Chisel 15 cm Chisel 8 cm 15 m Bande enherbée Superficial tillage 8 Harrowing at 8 cm, chisel since 2006 Superficial tillage 15 Harrowing at 15 cm, chisel since 2006 25 m Agronomic ploughing Bloc III Chisel 15 cm Conventional ploughing Chisel 8 cm Bande enherbée 12 m

  27. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - organic Abundance, Biomass of earthworm (2013, after 7 years) 87,7 66,1 Abundance • no significant effect of reduced tillage (last ploughing 1 year ½  earthworm abundance can recover ) • low depth of ploughing is favourable to abundance, but superficial tillage is depressive Biomass • no significant effect of reduced tillage • bad effect of conventional ploughing (tendance)

  28. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - Earthworm ecological group (in 2013) epigeic anecic endogeic • Epigeic : absent (Cluzeau et al., 2012) • Endogeic : dominant (Cluzeau et al., 2012) positive impact of ploughing (LA, 15cm, p<0.01) • Anecic: positive impact of reduced tillage systems, C8 (p=0.012) (Chan, 2001) Reduced tillage 8 cm Reduced tillage 15 cm (C15) Agronomical Ploughing (LA) Conventional ploughing (CP) A. caliginosa A. chlorotica N. giardi

  29. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - organic Earthworm community Reduced tillage systmes No impact earthworm abundance endogeic abundance

  30. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - organic Earthworm community Reduced tillage systmes Positive impact No impact earthworm biomass anecic abundance earthworm abundance endogeic abundance

  31. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - organic Chemical analysis (2013, after 7 years) • negative impact of conventional tillage on C (p<0.05), N and P (tendance) (0-15 cm) • strongly related to OM • positive impact of reduced tillage, but limited to 0-5 cm

  32. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - organic Chemical analysis (2013, after 7 years) • negative impact of conventional tillage on C (p<0.05), N and P (tendance) (0-15 cm) • strongly related to OM • positive impact of reduced tillage, but limited to 0-5 cm • high stratification of OM depending on practices • decrease from top to sub-soil for reduced tillage system (reduced tillage systems) • homogeneity under ploughing system, folllowing the ploughing depth

  33. Biodiversity – soil functions (WP2 & WP3 ) – french site - organic Linking diversity to function (hydraulic conductivity) Conductivity (15 cm depth) Conductivity (5 cm depth) Conductivity (soil surface) L. rubellus positively correlated with hydraulic conductivity at soil surface and 5 cm depth  epi-anecic species creates vertical and opend burrows at soil surface Endogeic species negatively correlated with hydraulic conductivity  endogeic (Francis et al, 2001)

  34. Relation with Ecosystem service (WP4 ) – french site - organic Weeds and Yield Weeds Yield v v • Weeds : increase of weed pressure under reduced tillage system  ploughing limits the risk of weeds (Mamarot, 2004) • Yield : decrease under reduced tillage systems  presence of weeds increase the comptetion for wtaer and nutrients resource (Armal, 2010) Biological Synthesis Superficial tillage (8cm) Superficial tillage (15 cm) Agronomical chemical Agronomicalploughing (15 cm) Conventionalploughing (25 cm) Physical

  35. Results On dutch experimental sites

More Related