JEQ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in J Environ Qual 11:261-267 (1982)
© 1982 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Onstad, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Holt, R. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Onstad, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Holt, R. F.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Onstad, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Holt, R. F.

Maximizing Potential Residue Removal from Cropland in Iowa and Southern Minnesota1

C. A. Onstad, W. E. Larson, S. C. Gupta and R. F. Holt2

ABSTRACT

Several cropping alternatives to maximize amounts of crop residues available for alternative uses while maintaining soil losses at or below tolerable levels were investigated. The amounts of crop residues that would be available for removal from the land in Iowa and southern Minnesota were computed using various cropping, tillage, and residue-management, as well as conservation and cover-crop practices. Residue was considered available for removal when the calculated soil erosion value was less than or equal to the soil-loss tolerance. As compared with present practices, the amount of crop residues that could be removed could be approximately doubled by. (i) changing the cropping sequence or (ii) growing a winter cover crop. Leaving a part of the residues on the land and using conservation tillage or no-till on the more sloping land increased from 10 to 32% the amount of residues available for removal, depending on other practices. Average soil-loss values could be significantly decreased if the treatments we considered were adopted. For the steeper slopes, we found that to adequately control erosion, engineering-type practices, such as terracing and contouring, need to be incorporated with low-level residue management.

Key Words: energy • erosion • cropping practices • conservation


NOTES

1 Contribution of the Agricultural Research Service, USDA, St. Paul, MN 55108, and the North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267, in cooperation with the Minnesota Agric. Exp. Stn., St. Paul. J. Ser. no. 11223.

2 Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, Morris, and Assistant Professor, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul; Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, and Professor, Univ. of Minnesota; Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, and Research Associate, Univ. of Minnesota; and Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, and Professor, Univ. of Minnesota.

Received for publication July 14, 1980.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Copyright © 1982 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.